Both of my parents were teachers while I was growing up. They always complained about how underpaid they were and that's why we never had any money, etc. I remember them going on strike all the time (this was not Virginia). When I was younger and didn't know any better, I was totally on board with this argument. Now that I'm older, and have been working in the private sector for a few years, I realize that my parents' complaints were a load of crap fed to them by their teacher's union. Unfortunately for nearly everyone (except teachers who are lazy - more on that below), these unions are pretty powerful and good at controlling the media and selling their schtick to the general public. However, just look at the numbers:
Fairfax teachers work on average about 200 days out of the year. Assuming that they work 8 hours a day (which is more than required!), this means they work 1600 hours per year. 40 hours x 40 weeks (i.e. 200 days) = 1,600 hours per year. The very lowest entry level salary for a full-time teacher is $44,000/year; I imagine most are making more than this. Here's the FCPS pay scale:
http://www.fcps.edu/DHR/salary/scalepdfs/fy11/FY11-194-day_teacher.pdf
$44,000 per year / 1,680 hours = $27.50/hr for an entry level teacher.
And I'd note that this is just raw salary, and does not even incorporate the health care, retirement benefits, and a pension (which is based upon the average of the employee’s 60 highest consecutive months of creditable compensation). Or the fact that they get a lovely, long summer vacation, which is, quite honestly, a fantastic benefit for one's mental health and personal life if nothing else.
Now, what other profession can you make $27.50/hr + fantastic benefits (and a pension!!) right out of college with a B.A. degree? Unless you went to an Ivy League school and are connected, that job does not exist in the private sector. This should be a red flag that something is off here.
To give you some perspective on this hourly rate: I'm a lawyer. I did well in undergrad and graduated from law school with a respectable GPA. For the sake of argument, we'll assume that I work 45 hours a week, although in reality it's more like 50. My job is very stressful; I rarely leave work before 8pm. I don't get summers off. I get six paid holidays (New Years, Christmas, Thanksgiving, 4th of July, Memorial Day, Labor Day) and three weeks total paid leave a year, which is both my vacation and sick leave. If I actually use that time, I suffer when I get back; my workload doesn't stop just because I'm not there. I have a 401k with no matching. I pay for part of my health insurance. My entry level salary was about $31/hr not including benefits, which are quite frankly, not great benefits at that.
So to recap - a teacher fresh out of a four-year degree program with no work experience makes $27.50/hr with pension, amazing benefits and 2+ months off in the summer vs. a lawyer with a four year degree, and three years getting a law degree makes $31/hr with crappy benefits and maybe three weeks off (assuming I don't get sick). So the difference between an entry level attorney and an entry level teacher is a measly $3.50/hr. Respectfully, I don't think that's fair.
To add another perspective, a private day care provider makes about $18/hr.
In light of this, I have an extremely difficult time buying the argument that teachers are underpaid. When you consider all of the benefits that a teacher gets that I do not, our total compensation package has got to be about equal. Now, I know exactly how hard teachers work - I grew up with them; my parents' friends were all teachers. I'm selfishly glad my parents made that money, since I undoubtedly am a beneficiary of it, but do I think that they are paid a fair and reasonable salary for the amount of work they do? Absolutely not.
The other problem with the current system is that ALL teachers, no matter how good or bad they are, are making about the same salary. I will concede that some teachers do deserve a good salary. Their job is important from a social perspective and the good teachers I had growing up undoubtedly had a positive influence on me and I see no reason why they should not be financially rewarded for their dedication. However, I also had some absolutely awful teachers who did not care about their students and were just plain lazy. It blows my mind that a crappy teacher who works the bare minimum is making the same amount as a hard-working teacher who actually cares; this also seems incredibly unfair. I also can't imagine why the good teachers who work hard are still on board with the union party line - they should be demanding incentive-based compensation, so that they make more than their lazy colleagues. Unfortunately, those teachers are probably working so hard at teaching they can't be bothered to take the time to get involved in the union politics, etc., so the whole system is run by the people who aren't good teachers and want the most money they can for the least amount of work. And really, there is no financial incentive for a teacher to work hard or be a better teacher, so why try? If quality is not rewarded, the natural response is to say "why bother?" Luckily for everyone, there are still teachers who take pride in their work regardless of the incentives - but the fact that this happens in spite of the lack of monetary compensation seems to support an argument that no matter what teachers are paid, it will still attract some quality people because of the non-financial rewards involved (e.g. knowing that you're making a difference, helping people, changing lives for the better, etc.). There are a lot of non-monetary rewards that come with teaching, and I am of the opinion that this is the REAL reason there are good teachers out there, it has very little to do with the money.