I have not enjoyed getting teachers who make $60k explain to me why I need to subsidize them (haven't hit $60k in my entire life).
They feel like they are doing a net good for society by basically donating their free time and their money to our public education system.
EDIT: This was 5 years ago. I doubt teachers are making thousands of dollars more these days. My point is, the argument "teachers make so much money! What are they complaining about" is at best misinformed.
If you're hurting for money, try substitute teaching for 1 or 2 days and see what the difference is between a teacher's workday and your own. You'll probably take your less than $60k job over their most-likely-also-less-than-$60k-more-like-$30k-job
That said, there are plenty of grant programs within schools. At least two of the districts in the city in which I live now have foundations set aside for things like this.
(Neither have most teachers.)
1. $60k is pretty much a ceiling for earning potential for many if not most teachers. It can take a long, long time to get there with no hope of going beyond.
2. My teacher friends universally make under 40k.
3. They often have to spend their own money on supplies to subsidize the lack of funds in the system.
4. Many if not most teachers work more than 70 hours a week during the school year when factoring in grading, meetings, correspondence, athletics, extra-curriculars, and other events.
5. Many teachers clean up urine and vomit, are verbally assaulted by students as well as parents, are in a vacuum absent any meaningful feedback on the quality of their work, and deal with customers who almost never fully appreciate the service until ten or twenty years later.
I could go on, but I'm not sure I understand how $60k as an typical top-end for a difficult and essentially important profession is inordinate and even less so how one can fail to see the need for supplemental funds in many cases to allow the teacher to fully do his or her job.
$60k may be a ceiling for wage potential in many areas. It's not remotely close to their compensation potential, since teachers get quite a bit of their comp in the form of gold plated pensions rather than pay. In NYC, the starting compensation of a teacher is $60k/9.5 months work ($45k pay, $15k worth of pension). I'll cite a previous discussion where I did the math:
http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1673230
4. Many if not most teachers work more than 70 hours a week during the school year when factoring in grading, meetings, correspondence, athletics, extra-curriculars, and other events.
No. The average is about 39 hours/week during the school year.
http://www.bls.gov/opub/mlr/2008/03/art4full.pdf
Do you have evidence for point 3?
In many trades, e.g., auto mechanic, it's standard practice for the worker to provide his own tools. That can easily come to a few thousand dollars.
Even as a software engineer (where my main development environment is provided by my employer), I spend a not-inconsiderable sum on additional tools that allow me to work more efficiently.
So if it's true that sometimes teachers need to kick in a bit, that's far from an aberration across the universe of employment.
ADDED:
5. Many teachers ... are in a vacuum absent any meaningful feedback on the quality of their work
Isn't this their own doing, at least as much as the teachers' unions are working to prevent any merit-based compensation system?
Do you pay for the stapler you use at work?
As for the vacuum comment, you are speaking to the collective. I'm talking about individual teachers, many of the best of which are harmed by the teachers' unions.
4. Many teachers work over 70 hours a week. Your data includes preschool and middle school teachers. It includes P.E. teachers. It includes awful teachers.
I can promise you that there are many excellent teachers easily passing that number on a regular basis. My two closest teacher friends arrive at school before 7:30am and often don't leave until 6pm. They work through lunch. They often have days where they don't get home until 10pm due to athletics or arts activities they are involved in. They each make less than 40k a year.
I have seen it first hand. It's common knowledge among those who are close to teachers.
For every teacher working 70 hours/week, there must be 7.75 teachers working only 35 hours/week (or 15.5 teachers working 37 hours/week, or some similar combination). To see this, observe that the BLS data I cited is capped below at 35 [1] and do some basic arithmetic. So at best, for every teacher working 70 hours/week, there are 7.75 teachers working 35 hour weeks.
This may be a regional thing, but here in NJ that's not even close to true.
For example: The [Tea Neck] district's Median Teacher Salary of $66,900 is ranked 92nd in the state in its grouping https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Teaneck%2C_Ne...
Also: (http://teacherportal.com/salary/New-Jersey-teacher-salary )
How do salaries grow in New Jersey?
Starting Salary: $38,408
Average Salary: $58,156
This chart (http://www.payscale.com/research/US/Job=High_School_Teacher/... ) Shows that nationally, a high school teacher with 20 years' experience is probably making $50K-$70K