To the best of my knowledge, no. However, US teachers in the employ of the Department of Defense (for elementary, middle, and high schools on US military bases) are, I believe.

Angeblich ist der Beamtenstatus der Lehrer eine der Ursachen für das schlechte Abschneiden Deutschlands bei PISA. Eine Begründung dafür steht aber noch aus.

No civil servants in the teacher business here. Teachers are employed by the particular school district and not by the government. Therefore us property owners get hit with ridiculous school tax bills every year. A real pain in the " you know where." :-))

yes I know, where the sun never shines. :-)

Two questions:
1) If they are employed by the school districts, why aren't they civil servants? I always though a civil servant was anyone who worked for the country, state, city or any subdivision thereof?

2) What are school tax bills? Who gets such a bill?

Three actually: Aren't there lots of private schools or schools owned by churches and whatever?

@Helmi: I'm quite sure you'd prefer not to pay taxes and still get all the benefits of living in an organized country, but why are you specially against paying for schooling?

Thanks for answering!

Dustmen are employed by the local council but are not civil servants either: the definition probably depends on the conditions of your contract rather than who you are employed by. As well as the type of job you do. Thinking about it, though, I am not 100% sure I could provide a good definition of exactly what a civil servant is ...

I believe the technical definition of a civil servant is one who is employed by the federal government. But I'm sure the real definition is much more bureaucratic than that.

Dieses Wörterbuch gibt für "civil servant" sowohl "Beamter" als auch "Angestellter". Verwirrend ...

@ # 5
1) civil servants are employed by the federal, state or local governments. School districts are different entities.
2) public schools are funded primarily by local school taxes (and some state subsidies). Those school taxes are paid annually by property owners and are levied on your assessed real estate property values. If you live in an apartment you don't pay school taxes but your landlord does.
3) Private schools are, well, private and are funded by the tuition fees for the little insects.

That school tax system was established a long time ago and is arguably outdated.
Why should people without kids and seniors whose kids have left school still pay those taxes? People want to have kids, well, then they should pay. :-))

@Helmi: Thanks for the clarification.
I'm quite sure when you live in an appartment, the landlord spreads the school tax over all his tenents and doesn't pay it out of his own pocket.

I can't really imagine how sky-high school fees must be to supply enough money to really provide a good education. I mean, how much does a teacher earn per annum? Not to talk about buildings, materials, insurences and so on.

So you do not belive that you get something out of good schooling for other people's children?

The second to last paragraph refers to private schools.

@ # 11, We have a few pretty fancy private prep schools in my neighborhood. They are boarding schools with annual tuition fees of up to 20,000 dollars. Plus the alumni parents also provide funding. Those schools have the finest sporting facilities, such as indoor pools, indoor skating rinks, track and field stadiums, football, soccer and hockey fields, tennis courts and what have you. :-))

Not impressed. You have all that in German prisons, too.

I don't think we normally call government employees civil servants unless they are employed by the federal government, just as miamibremen said. And in the US, I'm not sure we use the term very widely anyway. It makes me think of a career diplomat or bureaucrat in Washington. I personally wouldn't call a postal worker, an agriculture or food inspector, or a federal law enforcement agent a civil servant, even though they're employed by federal agencies. Those groups do generally receive relatively generous pensions and benefits by US standards, and have more job security, but I'm not sure if they can never be fired, as is often said of German teachers.

In any case, no: public-school teachers are employees of local school districts. Charter-school teachers are hired by private companies that operate schools under contract to the district, often using public school facilities. Private-school teachers are employees of the school itself; parochial-school teachers are employed by a church or religious group.

School districts are actually entities separate from the county or city government, although they're also local, on a county or city level. They are run by an elected board, who hold meetings and make policy and personnel decisions. Things like textbooks, testing, and graduation standards are usually regulated at the state level. There are no federal education standards except the law that children have to attend school (until 16 or 17, I think), and laws that mandate equal access with regard to race, gender, disability, etc.

Most public-school teachers do get paid more than private-school teachers because they belong to a union. That also gives them better job security, possibly comparable to a federal employee. Teacher salaries used to be low relative to other jobs, but they have risen somewhat in the last couple of decades; others in the forum can probably report on that at first hand, or give a link to an overview. You could also probably find statistics on average spending per student per year in different areas and types of schools.

Property taxes are usually collected by a city or county tax agency, but most of the money does go to support local schools, which explains why schools in wealthy areas tend to be better equipped and funded than those in poor areas, though supplemental state and federal funds are also available. Property taxes tend to be high, but there are exemptions for low-income seniors, and limits on how quickly tax rates can rise.

Most citizens understand the public interest we all share in educating the next generation, who will be the mainstay of the economy when we're seniors and need their help, and whom we would rather see in school than living on the street becoming criminals, who are much more costly to society than students.

@Helmi: Why should people without kids and seniors whose kids have left school still pay those taxes? That's a nonsensical answer/question, IMO. Those seniors enjoyed (presumably) free schools when they were young, so why wouldn't the idea of a general support of schools continue? Are you really that myopic? Or are you just a grouchy old geezer in general?

All of my four daughters went to private schools - which has left me completely broke every month for most of my adult life - but I still pay property tax on top of that, knowing full well that I am supporting public schools with that money, and I don't mind. I consider myself very fortunate to have been able to send my daughters to private schools, but I also understand that not everyone can do that. For the general well-being of this country, I think it is important that all children get the best possible education, because we all benefit from it in the long run. Yes, even you!

@ dude, I have nothing against a good education of our youngsters, I'm just peed off with the archaic system of funding public schools. That's one. Second, I don't believe that anyone who is a senior now has gotten a free education in the past. These people paid those taxes while their children went to school and the nonsense should stop the moment the kids graduate. Third, if you own real estate and you can afford to send your kids to a private school you get hit over the head with a double whammy. One is voluntary, the other mandatory. And finally, I'm actually a pretty happy-go-lucky old geezer who get's a little heartburn once a year when I have to submit my school taxes knowing that I'm supporting a pretty lousy system.

Th, th, th, that's all folks. :-)))

So the logical suggestion would be that parents should be taxed at a far higher rate while their children are in school, in order to allow people without school-age children to pay no taxes at all? A stiff social penalty, in other words, for having children?

Myopic is too kind a word for it. Perhaps Helmi should go live on a desert island where he doesn't have to be anyone else's keeper. We can send all the poor kids who can't afford to go to school to live with him. I'm sure they'll be happy to look after him in his old age.

@Helmi: obviously, I know very little about you and your history, but if you went to school in Germany, for instance, you most likely enjoyed the free school system over there. It also seems you've done pretty well for yourself over here in the US, congratulations. No doubt, your education has helped you achieve all that. I honestly don't understand how someone can be so small-minded as to want to enjoy all the material things he's accumulated over his lifetime because of his good education and not want to give others a similar chance. I suppose you don't have any children of your own, do you?

#12: Are you sure your information is up to date? In my area, tuition for boarders is more than double your figure.

@ # 18, No I don't have any kids. Which was a pretty wise decision IMO. So, what's the point here? I don't believe in that warm and fuzzy " equality and no privelege" concept. I came to this country with my parents in the early 50s, grew up in a bilingual household and worked my way through the system and I never looked back. However, I'm kind of relieved that I'm old enough now to sit back and relax and watch this great country going to hell.

@ # 17, don't worry about my well-being. Uncle's checks come every month and other than that I'm doing just fine, thank you. :-)) It would be a little awkward on a deserted island though with no ZIP code. :-))

Watch this great country going to hell? Ridiculous. This country is better for more people than it has ever been before, with the possible exception of the mid 90's when Bill Clinton was president.

Or perhaps you miss those great 1950s, where blacks and whites went to different schools, cancer was always fatal, and companies were allowed to tell you smoking was good for your lungs?

@Helmi: if you grew up in this country, did you go to public school or private school?

Darf ich hier mal eine Frage einwerfen? Ich habe mehrfach die Behauptung gehört, Lehrer würden in den USA immer nur für ein Schuljahr - exclusive Ferien - eingestellt und müssten sich dann wieder neu bewerben. Ist das wirklich so? Jobben amerikanische Lehrer im Sommer bei der Tankstelle oder im Supermarkt, um sich und ihre Familie finanziell über Wasser zu halten?

Klar, das amerikanische System ist bekanntlich weit weniger "sozial" als das deutsche, und angesichts der Tatsache, dass ein "normaler" Arbeitnehmer günstigstenfalls gerade mal 2-3 Wochen bezahlten Urlaub pro Jahr erhält, ist kaum anzunehmen, das Lehrer für die gesamten Ferien (die ja auch noch länger sind als in D) "freigehalten" werden. Aber werden sie wirklich auf die Straße gesetzt?

Kurz: Was machen amerikanische Lehrer während der Ferien?

@dirk - Ich weiß nicht, ob das in Amerika stimmt (kann ich mir ehrlich gesagt nicht vorstellen), aber ich weiß persönlich, daß es für Deutschland stimmt, weil ich Bekannten habe, die das durchgemacht habe. In Deutschland gibt es nämlich 2 Klassen von Lehrer: Beamte (also lebenslange Narrenfreiheit) und Angestellte (bezahlt nach BAT). Die Lehrer, die nur Angestelltenverträge haben (weil die Schule z.B. Lehrkräfte benötigt, aber keine Planstellen genehmigt bekommen haben-weil Kräfte in Mutterschutz sind, z.B.), haben Verträge die nur über das Schuljahr laufen, und sie müssen sich am Ende des Schuljahres beim AA arbeitslos melden, auch, wenn sie genau wissen,daß sie in 6 Wochen wieder an dieser Schule tätig sein werden.

Helmi erinnert mich an Walt Kowalski aus Gran Torino: ein alter Grantler mit harter Schale aber weichem Kern ...

@24: O.K., dass der Zwang zum Sparen, gepaart mit Findigkeit beim Aufspüren von Gesetzeslücken, in Einzelfällen (und ich hoffe, nur solche betrifft das in D) seltsame Blüten treiben kann, steht auf einem anderen Blatt.
Mir wurde aber versichert (von Leuten, die es nicht unbedingt wissen müssen), in den USA sei das grundsätzlich so und betreffe jeden Lehrer vom Schulleiter bis zur Aushilfskraft. Das mag ich kaum glauben ...

Hier 2 Aussagen, die ich im Internet-Foren gefunden habe. Du scheinst also Recht zu haben, wobei viele school districts sowohl 10, als auch 12-month payrolls anbieten (20-24 paychecks).

Well, yes and no. No, they aren't paid for the summer vacation days. Teacher contracts (unlike administrators) are just for the school year, but they do contain pay for certain vacation days during that time. They also have pay for sick days, personal days, etc.
But many districts allow teachers (some even require it!) to receive their salaries over a 12 month period, instead of just the 9 1/2 month school year. That means a teacher has already done all the work for, say, the 2007-2008 school year, but gets 2 more paychecks in July and August. Some teachers like this, since the mortgage still needs to be paid, and that keeps things regular. Others would rather have all the money by the June paycheck, and manage it themselves.
Source(s):
Personal experience
1 year ago

Most teachers have a ten month contract (not nine). It runs from mid August to mid June. I worked in one school system where they gave you the option of spreading the ten month salary over twelve months. Where I teach now, we don't have that option: it's automatically spread over twelve months. As far as the answer that said teacher's pay goes up when they get tenure, I've never known a school system that did that. Tenure has nothing to do with pay.
1 year ago

@23
Hier in Texas werden unsere Lehrer auch in den Sommermonaten bezahlt.
Weiterhin haben sie in einem Schuljahr 5 Krankheitstage und 5 personal days. Beide koennen angesammelt und ins nächste Schuljahr übertragen werden.
Hat ein Lehrer im Schuljahr alle Krankheitstage oder personal days ausgenutzt und wird dann doch noch krank oder was auch immer, muss er selbst den Substitute Teacher bezahlen.
Weiterhin kann ein Lehrer in unserem District bis zu 12 Wochen unbezahlten Urlaub nehmen. Meistens machen Lehrerinnen nach der Geburt eines Kindes davon Gebrauch.
Sie unterschreiben auch jährlich einen neuen Vertrag, müssen sich aber nicht neu bewerben.

Here's how it works in my district in Southern California:

We are contracted for 185 days of work between September and June. We are not paid for holidays, breaks or summer. However, my district pays reasonably well for the days of work. Pay is determined by a combination of amount of education (BA, BA+15 units of graduate credit, BA+30, BA+45, BA+60) and years of service. There is no such thing as merit pay. Some teachers make extra money by being coaches for sports, music directors, drama directors or taking on other extra-curricular duties. Some teachers teach summer school to make extra money, while others take a summer job unrelated to education. (Disneyland is a popular place for teachers to work in summer.) We get paid monthly and can choose either 10 or 12 installments. (I originally went with 12, then switched to 10 once I had figured out what I would need during the summer; this way I am able to get a higher return on my money by investing it rather than leaving it with the district.)

During the first two years, teachers are temporary or probationary employees and may be let go for any reason (or no reason). Because of the California budget crisis, all first-year teachers received notices that they would not be re-hired next fall. That may change during the summer, and some of those teachers will no doubt be asked to come back. After signing the third contract in a row, the teacher becomes a permanent employee (not "tenured") and may be dismissed only for cause. (The unions have made this extremely difficult, and an administrator must create a long and voluminous "paper trail" in order to get it done. Most districts find it easier simply to transfer a problem employee rather than fire them. It doesn't solve the problem, merely gives it to someone else. Most people forget that the primary purpose and raison d'etre for a teacher's union is not the education of children but the protection of teachers. Of course, the public face of the union makes a "for the children" pitch.)

OT: personal testimonial

I am fortunate for several reasons: I love my job (I was born to teach); I have a strong German program at a time when many German programs are being eliminated (I'm the only full-time German teacher in a district of seven high schools); I have seniority; because I am a conscientious employee and work hard to improve both my content competence and my methodological competence, administrators all the way up to the assistant superintendent at the district office know and like me; I can afford to travel during the summer (this year Munich in July and Berlin and Jena - for a conference - in August); when I am either too exhausted to teach or it is no longer enjoyable, I can afford to retire and do something else that I love. Teaching can be either a horrible or a fantastic career. I'm blessed to have a fantastic career.

Many teachers work other jobs during the summer. In states where teacher pay is low, it is quite common for teachers to seek outside jobs. In other states where the pay is better, whether individual teachers work during the summer depends on their pay (how high they are up on the scale) and their needs and preferences.

My father-in-law taught for many years and took his pay over 10 months rather than 12, since he could manage his budget effectively and, like Robert, preferred to get the money at the time he worked.

Having heard all that - rather shocking in a way - how many Americans can afford to have just one day job? Has anyone current numbers on how many people hold several jobs?

(In Germany the bank would curtail all your credit lines and you'd never be able to get a mortgage if your job was only paying 10 months out of 12.)

As to paying property taxes for school: I'd rather pay more money for quality education in order to avoid paying taxes for all of the prisons. If only they'd leverage that money better...

(No one in my family is in prison, so why do I have to pay for them?)