Great Education Governor

Yeah teachers deal with alot of stress at work but it is the field they chose. They don't do it for the money. They do it for the love of teaching or the hours or for some to be a sports coach.

This is absolutely true. However, that's not really Jeff's point, I don't think. The current set of teachers aren't good enough (either in number or quality). If you want to attract more and better teachers, you have to raise pay.

Why? Because the best teachers are going to be those with with the best breadth of knowledge and communication skills. With those two traits, these potential teachers will have plenty of other job possibilities -- most with substantially higher pay. As many of these people will have been raised expecting quality jobs and lifestyles, they probably won't pick teaching because of the need for financial security.

There are plenty of people who would love to teach (and are sorely needed to teach), but don't choose this route for financial reasons -- ie, they want to be able to go through life without worrying about money every day.

Teaching is a labor-market job just like any other. If you want the best talent, you have to pay competitive rates for that talent. Right now, as a country, we simply don't do that. (This is a standard trend in society and makes some sense -- government jobs pay rates don't react as quickly to the markets. For example, top lawyers can make far more in defense or corporate law than as a District Attorney, etc)


------------------
Is it any coincidence that the Cato is the only Rocket with a temperature scale named after him?

I didnt think so!!!!

 

I agree with shanna regarding teacher pay. Why does the University of Texas have better professors than Southwest Texas State? Could it be because the pay's better? (Not entirely, I know, but it's a big factor).

 

Shanna you make a good point and I don't know what the answer is, but if you make the teachers well paid then you could have the adverse effect and attract the people who don't want to be teachers but d it for less hours, and decent pay.
There are other examples of jobs that aren't well paid and granted most of them are civil servents (police, fire) but look at people who run non-profit organizations. Their pay is well below what they could make in the "real" world but they do the job becasue they love it.
Better pay in general isn't the solution. Incentives for the good teachers are a better idea, IMO. Just like in the "real" world pay the folks the best who are the best. They may be a combination of student evaluations, test scores and several other factors.
I believe just giving raises to attract better teachers will reward current teachers (both good and bad) and may attract other teachers. Granted you may lure some of the teachers who did not go for financial reasons but you may also attract the folks who don't want to teach but want the short day and decent pay.

 

Better pay in general isn't the solution. Incentives for the good teachers are a better idea, IMO. Just like in the "real" world pay the folks the best who are the best. They may be a combination of student evaluations, test scores and several other factors.

I agree completely. I've had teachers who've poured their heart and soul into teaching, and I've had others who've just done the bare minimum. The former group should be paid a hell of a lot more than the latter (who I think should be fired, if only there were more qualified teachers to replace them).

I was talking about a general pay increase, but I do believe in performance-based pay as well. First thing that needs to be done is to stand up to the teachers' unions. These groups are wholeheartedly against performance-based anything (salary, hiring, firing, etc) and need to be forced to work with schools to get beyond that. I would think a tradeoff: higher salaries overall (especially for the good teachers), but loss of jobs for others would be a starting point to come to some kind of a compromise (my personal choice would be to say "screw the teachers unions", but I don't think that would work...)

This would give those people that both love to teach and are actually capable of doing it the incentive to get into their job.

------------------
Is it any coincidence that the Cato is the only Rocket with a temperature scale named after him?

I didnt think so!!!!

 

I live on the boarder between 2 states. And while we (I live on the side that pays about $5k less) do lose some teachers to the other side because of money, a lot of teachers stay. Why? Parents.

When parents are actively involved, volunteering, donating their time and money, communicating with the teachers and their children, a teachers life becomes easier and more rewarding. I feel for the teachers that fear for their lives, have to deal with kids who are having problems at home, etc. These parents (often single) are working hard just to survive. As a general rule, they don't have extra time to spend with the school, teacher or the child. Should the teachers in those schools be punished be they are "not good teachers"? It's a tough situation and while I'm all for giving the teachers more money, it's not the magic solution. I've seen some good teachers leave and wish they hadn't.



------------------

 

OK, my fiance is a teacher. I can tell you first hand, most of the teachers I meet through her (she works in one of the highest paid districts in the state, Richardson ISD) are NOT happy with their pay, regardless of the fulfillment they get from touching the lives of our youth. Honestly, the teachers I have met and talked to (and I have probably met 2 dozen or more) are very unhappy with their position.

The fact is, every night, my fiance works 4-5 hours at home grading, averaging, filling out progress reports, making lesson plans, etc. This is after, oftentimes, a 9 hour day at school. I am not sure what other districts do, but RISD does not allow you to teach and test straight from the teacher's edition. They must have personal lesson plans prepared daily. The teacher's edition is a guide, but no more to them.

Sure, it starts out that they want to teach for the love of it. But then the grind begins to wear on them, they get tired, they deal with stress from other teachers, kids, parents, and their own principals....not to mention overcrowded classrooms, old and antiquated technology and equipment, and constant weekend and summer fnctions that put a damper on the relaxing time off that they cherish. Heck, they can't even leave the campus for lunch! Most of them eat in their respective classrooms. How relaxing is that??

People just want to be recognized and rewarded for their accomplishments. There just isn't much of that in the teaching profession. It would wear on anyone.

I have also found that a lot of the teachers that have been in the business a long time, have an ideal home situation in which the husband/wife/better half counterpart makes a great deal of money. So, in essence, the income from teaching is just gravy. I have found that those teachers are MORE able to work under those conditions for longer periods of time.

This is just my opinion from my experiences and dealings with our educators in the area.

------------------
There is a very fine line between "hobby" and "mental illness."

[This message has been edited by HOOP-T (edited December 08, 2000).]

 

No question that teachers do it for the love of it and not the money. However, those willing to do it for the love are dwindling rapidly.

As for just attracting those in it for the money and not the love, how different is that from any other job? The way you ensure quality control is the same way other companies do it - incentive programs, quarterly reports, work evaluations, etc.

It is not a requirement that all teachers love their work only that they do a good job just like any other work situation.

I agree that incentives will help, but you first have to raise their pay level to a level comenserate with other jobs that require a ton of work. If the average teacher salary went from $28,000 to $50,000, then incentives would work.

As it is now, incentives only bring them closer to getting paid what most others in the corporate world make, yet their job is 10 times more important.

------------------
Mmmmmmm. Sacrelicious.

 

Interesting discussion.

Pay vs. job satisfaction.

I really don't think it's that black and white. The fact is that both of these are going to play a role in the selection of your career. Take good old Launch Pad for example.

I like the idea of being a teacher. I don't like the idea of making $30k/year. I factor those decisions together and decide to get a Ph.D. Now, I will have the option of teaching at the college level and pulling in a potential extra $20-30k/yr as a professor of science and have students that probably will be more invested in the work than high school kids.

Now, what if high schools paid, or in the least, had incentive programs that could get old Launch Pad's pay up to $50k/year? Well, the decision on whether or not it was worth it to get a PhD or just enter the job market would have been a little tougher.

Likewise, a lot of well-qualified intelligent people are lost to other career paths, because there are plenty of fulfiling careers available where you won't have to live near, or barely above, the poverty level.

Let me end this somewhat longish post by asking a simple question:

Why do most Republican's oppose raising teacher salaries, but at the same time, hate the idea of socialized medicine, because the present financial incentive is what make our doctors the best in the world?

In other words, why does making money make doctors better, but making more money won't improve the quality of teachers?

------------------

 

Hey, I'm all for raises (even large ones - i.e. 10-20%) to teachers. I just said there is more to it than money. If you gave 5% across the board, most would be glad. But I would be inclined to give a little to the sorry ones (only because there is a shortage) and a lot more to the good ones. The problem is grading a teacher. What scale do you use. You can't use classroom SAT grades.

I think someone said, and I believe to be correct, the unions aren't helping. ps. I'm anti-union too - for those reasons previously stated. Work hard and get paid (more). Slack off and get squat (or canned).

------------------

 

Why do most Republican's oppose raising teacher salaries, but at the same time, hate the idea of socialized medicine, because the present financial incentive is what make our doctors the best in the world?

I don't believe most Republicans are against pay-raise for teachers (some of you conservatives out there, please correct me if I'm wrong). I think they primarily are more concerned with pay-raises without any accountability (which is what teachers' unions ideally favor, I believe). Raising pay across the board may have a good overall long-term effect, but pay-for-performance (and yes, performance is VERY difficult to measure) could result in good short-term benefits as well. I think the best solution is a mix like you'll find at most normal companies.

The other concern is that to raise teacher salary, you have to raise taxes since its a government-based institution, and that's not a politically popular thing to do...


------------------
Is it any coincidence that the Cato is the only Rocket with a temperature scale named after him?

I didnt think so!!!!

 

shanna,

If I did misrepresent the Republican party line, then just re-read my previous question as "why do some people . . . ."

I agree with you on a number of issues, including this one. I am a firm believer in across the board raises for teachers with extra incentive programs (though admittedly, those are hard to measure). You're right that a combination of the two would lead to excellent short and long-term effects.

As for the increase in taxation, I don't really think it is necessary. We should have sufficient funding for this just by not unnecessarily cutting taxes. We have surpluses and will continue to have surpluses in the foreseeable future, if we just don't mess with taxation at all.



------------------

 

Launch Pad -- just to clarify, I am not Republican (in case you thought I was). I'm a moderate liberal, but I try to look at things through the conservative viewpoint to see where they are coming from, and I think both parties more-or-less agree on the problem here, with two different solutions.

On the tax issue -- I agree with you that the money should be there. That's one of my biggest problems with Bush's positions...

------------------
Is it any coincidence that the Cato is the only Rocket with a temperature scale named after him?

I didnt think so!!!!

 

How many government type jobs are well paid? Police & firemen are typically not well paid, the leader of our country makes 100,000 maybe, IRS criminal investigation agents (similat to FBI agents) when I came out of school in '93 were only making 25,000 witht he though they could get killed any day. There may be some special interest jobs out there that are well paid goverenemnt jobs and I would guess there is a lot of people being comfortable (30-40K) who really don't do a thing. But working for the goverenment typically isn't the way to get rich.
My point is unless you cut school administrator jobs (principals, support staff, etc) where will the money come from? It has to come from the taxpayers. Personally I wouldn't mind giving raises to the good teachers (based on incentives) but an acrross the board raise I would be firmly against.
Let the teachers dissolve the unions then let the good ones get paid like the professionals they are and let the other ones get paid like the babysitters they are. Sorry that is harsh, but I've had too many teachers who did as little as possible.

Another point is that teachers are important but it is IMO not vital. The parents and the children themselves will determine more about how much the child will learn. Children with no respect for adults should be the responsibility of the parents, not necessarily to the teachers to change, and definetely no tth e responsibility for the school system to push them thru to get them out.
Also the determination of the child themself can overcome inadequate teaching or can undermine quality teaching.

Just me ranting, but I am for rewarding the good teachers, but not all of them.

 

4 chuckie,

Policemen, on the average, make more than school teachers, but are typically required to only complete 2 years or less of college (no degree or major required) and a few weeks of training.

Morover, policemen can boost their annual pay by doing security work or traffic work for a private employer. An officer at a restaurant I worked at during undergrad got paid $150 a day just to sit at the bar eating food and drinking coffee for 4 hrs. His presence was a deterrent to unruly guests or potential thieves.

Firefighters are paid similar salaries to school teachers, but again, are only required minimal, if any, college course work.

Teachers are required to actually get a bachelor's degree and be trained and certified.

Another thing, firefighters and policemen are an excellent comparison, because those are 2 underpaid occupations that many feel are understaffed. The only way to bring these occupations to the level of quality that we want them is to spend money.

Pay for performance plans are great for teachers now, but really won't do much to recruit new teachers in the future (starting salary is a huge factor in many people's selection of a career). Furthermore, how do you measure performance? on an indivdual basis? What will prevent teachers from cheating to get their bonuses?

If you make pay-for-perfomance measures on a whole school level (more accurate), then you will discourage good teachers from taking jobs at academically deficient schools. In short, the good schools improve, the bad schhols get worse.

I already addressed the point that we have the money now, we just don't need to irresponsibly cut taxes. Politicians sell you this idea that the surplus is "your money". Oddly, they don't try to sell you the idea that they are your schools or your national debt.

On a personal level, pretend you suddenly started bringing in serious income at your job, such that you had a bunch of extra money (budget surpluses). Unfortunately, your air conditioner doesn't work that well (education), you could use a better refrigerator (miscellaneous social program that needs improvement), and you also had obscene amounts of credit card debt (national debt). What do you do with your extra money? Fix the a/c? the refrigerator? pay off your debt? or buy that new SUV (irresponsible tax cut) that will cost you $600 more every month?

On your last point, I wholeheartedly disagree. Teachers are vital in today's society. Parents are important, but can only do so much.

First, some parents work evening jobs, or even multiple jobs leaving them little time to see their kids, much less tutor them.

Second, some parents aren't educated themselves and many can't do the work (science, math, and history aren't strong points for many people) and some can't even read.

Third, some people are just awful parents. Do you penalize the child's opportunity for a good education, just because he/she has neglectful parents?



------------------

 

Education is one of the most interesting issues that we face in our country. We like to treat schools as if they are without scrutiny, and treat change as tantamount to chaos. Across the US, we are faced with an education system that does not adequately educate, does not compensate its employees, and has inconsistent quality that is often based on parental income. We blame polititicans and inadequate funding for these problems, and rather than be creative in trying to solve problems, our politicians repeat the same rhetoric.

I've worked with the public school system extensively, both on the teacher/student end and on the administration side. The education system suffers from many flaws, first and foremost is the administration. There is enough waste tied up in regulations, bad decisions, incompetent administrators and mistaken spending to fix the system three times over. Of the money we pay in school taxes, it's lucky if 20 cents on every dollar actually makes it to the school. This is a classic case of too many people with their hands in the money.

The core problem is simple: people have become disconnected from their education system. Families are faced with either single-parents, or two working parents, both of whom don't have time to deal with their children's education in any significant sense. More and more regulations and holds are placed on schools and power over decision making is sucked up the hierarchy of power. Decisions are not made at a very local level, but rather at a higher, disconnected locales. School administration is particularly unresponsive and the "customer service" is atrocious. School board administration is typically the first springboard towards further political gain, and so many of the people in charge are there only to look good.

What we need is total systemic overhaul. Unfortunately, every politician (both republicans and democrats alike) looks for a quick fix that can gain them accolades. The solution is to give education back to the people. The public school system needs to run with the efficiency and results of a well-run business. Schools have a product -- education. They are not delivering it well at all. The public is tired of throwing money at a problem that gets worse and worse with each school bond issue. We need to eliminate wasteful spending (which is so rampant, it's practically unbelievable) and give decision-making power back to the people who should have it, rather than uninformed, disconnected parties.

This will not be a simple solution; rather, it requires tremendous work. But, it is the most permanant solution. The most popular solution (among politicians and regurgitation experts) is to spend more. This hasn't really produced results, but anyone who suggests that we spend enough money already is criticized as one who doesn't care about our children's future. However, since the system itself is fractured, feeding it more doesn't produce commensurate results. This situation is analagous to a leaking gas tank. Rather than refilling it over and over again to keep the car running, it would be far more effective to fix the gas tank. But this isn't as simple. It's time to fix our fractured education system.

Sorry about the long, bandwidth-intensive post. I'm very passionate about this subject

 

Good post Vengeance. Welcome aboard.

 

Excellent well thought out post Vengeance.

I will concede that the education system needs a major overhaul (heck, a whole lot of major governmental issues need major reworking ). Unfortunately, as you already noted, having the government fix the system is basically letting one bureaucracy try to fix another.

With that said, sorry, that's what we're stuck with. It's not going to change in the foreseeable future.

Putting education in the hands of the people sounds really utopian, but then, who pays for it? The national government? The state government? The local communities? Or will the schools charge the people like any other business?

What's to prevent "the people" from deciding to increase personal profit margins like any other normal companies? Spending may become more efficient, but suddenly we have a lot of rich school board officials.

What kind of consistency will there be across the nation? Will you learn creationism in one district, and natural selection and evolution in another? What books will be banned in each community? Will the Catcher in the Rye be fine in LA, but prohibited for bad language in the Bible belt?

You yourself note that many of the "people have become disconnected from their education system", because they "don't have time to deal with their children's education in any significant sense." How will more localized control change that problem?

The gas tank analogy is a good one for pointing out a serious flaw in the system. An unfortunate problem that I wholeheartedly agree needs to be fixed.

The problem is the "car" (the US government) also has bad brakes, a faulty carberator, 4 worn tires, and a whole slew of other problems. The only "mechanics" we can find to fix these problems aren't very good and are generally crooked to boot (read: lawmakers). For now, just to keep the car running, all we can do is put some more gas in and keep driving.

------------------

 

Launchpad-
I see the points you're making but the policemen who work special duty do dso because 10 They are needed nad 2) People are willing to pay the price for safety. That is basically the free market economy at work. I'm sure a great teacher could be paid for extra work for tutoring or other outside tasks. I'm not sure how much that is worth but apparently the market dictated safetly may be worth $50/hour and tutoring may only be worh $15/hour. Also the cops who work special duty give up prime time parts of their days (alot of special events, bars on the weekends) where probably alot of the younger cops would rather be out than working. My point is the economy dictates what the "special duty" pays.
ALso education doesn't mean as much as knowing the right people, IMO. Let me preface this by saying I have too much education (BA, MBA and have both my CPA and CMA certifications) but look at Bill Gates who never finished his education in college. Using educations as a guide he shouldn't be rich. Heck Dale Earnhardt from NASCAR never finished high school and he has more money than I will ever dream of. Education helps to open doors and in certain careers (like teaching) you do have minimal qualifications but education should not be the determinig factor of how much someone is worth.
Also I would argue the "surplus" does belong to those of us who put money in. Last thing I want to see is more special interst tax creits which reward people who don't pay much (if any) federal money in anyways. Saving SS or midicare is fine but don't give "my money" to someone who hasn't put any money into the system.
Also my point about parents is to make them accountable. I know people work more hours nowadays but having a child is the responsibility of the parents, not a responsibility of anyone else. I know the village theory that it takes everyone in the community to raise a child, but ultimately it is the parents responsibility. In the past we never had this type of problem before. Children respected their teachetrs knowing if they got into trouble at school that you would get more disci[pline at home. THis loss of respect comes from the home not from teachers not being respectable people.

 

4chuckie,

"the leader of our country makes 100,000 maybe"

First, that is wrong. Second, that is a lot of money considering he does not have to pay for anything, will get help the rest of his life, will get paid huge sums of money to give speeches for the rest of his life, etc.
Yeah, it is just like teachers.

You really are minimizing the importance of teachers, aren't you? Yes, parents are responsible for their children, but are they supposed to teach grammar, math, history, assign literature, develop philosophy, etc. in addition to providing for their children? Sorry, impossible. That is why society needs teachers. What about parents who do not know that much? If they cannot read, will their children be able to? Does this not then perpetuate the class divide even further than goes on now?

Also, why must you equate education with success? Education has nothing to do with success, if you got your degrees only to make money, then you missed the point. The idea of education is to keep language, culture, etc strong in our society, so that there is not a deterioration of said society, so that everyone is not going around speaking so poorly that others cannot understand them.

Bill Gates is an exception, not an example. That is always the argument, "see, he did not need an education." For every Gates, there are tens of thousands of kids/people who would have benefitted from a good education.

Because Dale Earnhardt is rich, he is a great, valuable person in our society? He drives a car for a living.

Anyway, this post is useless, blah blah.

------------------
EZLN