So many politicians bemoan the sorry state of public education in the United States today. The chief cause of this sorry condition of public education, according to some people, is the sorry teachers in the classrooms. If only we had better teachers.
Of course, teachers are expected to be highly trained (No Child Left Behind calls them “Highly Qualified”). This training is not free – I am still paying on student loans despite having graduated in 1991. After all the training and so on, teachers make an average of $54000 in the United States. I have been teaching for seventeen years and I still don’t make $54000. Even so, I make more than most teachers in my district.
So, rather than bail out financial wizards who run companies into the ground, why don’t we bail out teachers. According to this site, there are 6200000 teachers in the United States (1994). Divide $700000000000 ($700 billion) into those six million teachers and you get $112903 per teacher. Add that to the $54000 average salary and you’ve got $166903. If teachers were paid that much, don’t you think that would do something to the quality of people wanting to be teachers?
I know that the $700 billion for Wall Street et al is a one-time lump sum and teacher salaries are an ongoing cost, but it still seems to me that a drastic influx of capital just into salaries would make a HUGE difference. The best and brightest college graduates would go into the lucrative field of teaching, rather than some less rewarding field, like stock brokering.
That’s an awesome idea, we can get rid of the deadwood teachers that are clogging up our schools and hire talented people to take their place. It’s gonna REALLY suck for people who are teachers today, having to go out and find new jobs outside of teaching, but the schools will be in pretty good shape. Well, at least for the first year, then we’d have to find another $700 billion to keep these new “premium teachers” for next year.
Just curious why you would be promoting a plan that would cost you your job.
Now, now. Let’s not be hasty. An idea isn’t responsible for those who believe it. This might be just the thing, we don’t know. It needs to be tested. I hereby volunteer for the pilot program. Give me an extra $113,000 next year and I’ll report back on how much better a teacher I was. Then we can operate from data instead of conjecture.
Immune from the vagaries of the economy? Google search “teacher layoffs” and then let me know how insulated teachers are from the ecnomy. First result is story about nearly 1600 impending layoffs in Orange County CA. http://www.ocregister.com/ocregister/news/education/article_1990103.php
Teachers have a far from secure income. In most places schools are paid for out of property taxes. Here in Ohio schools constantly have to pass operating levies just to have money to operate normally. If those levies do not pass, then the schools face dramatic cutbacks. When the economy is in the tank, then teachers are just in jeopardy as anybody else.
The OP’s idea is a little foolhardy but highlights the problem with our schools. Public school teachers are expected to be better at their jobs and have a more extensive education than ever before. But, salaries and respect have not increased accordingly. Ohio basically requires a master’s degree to get a teaching license, yet starting salaries remain below 30,000 and increase very slowly.
It has become common, when discussing how to improve schools, to say that money won’t fix the problems. A realistic look at funding models and the physical condition of schools outside of wealthy suburbs will show that money would go a long way to fixing schools. Instead of bailing out wealthy banks and poorly run car companies, lets invest in retraining workers, helping those in danger of losing their homes, AND improving our schools.
You see, I’m not one of the deadwood teachers who are clogging up our schools.
A one-year bailout is, in truth, probably not a good idea. However, I do think that teachers should be paid six-figure incomes and they should be expected to work like six-figure employees. No more two months’ off in the summers. No more “home by 4:00” nonsense. Imagine the benefit to schools if teacher education were as rigorous as a legal education. Imagine if only the best and brightest were admitted to teacher education programs and they competed heavily for prestigious jobs. The only downside I see (besides the cost) is that you might end up with people in classrooms who are only looking for lucrative incomes rather than those who look to serve.
Changing to such a system would really change education in every way. Teachers would do more than teaching. Assuming that student days are not increased, those teachers have to do productive things when the students are not present. This could include community adult education during the summers. It could include specialized training or even publishing in journals. Schools would have to be reorganized around a well-paid, full-time, year-round staff of self-starters who will be motivated to work hard lest they lose their lucrative and prestigious jobs.
Yes, I am glad that I have a (relatively) secure and steady income. It is far from immune to the vagaries of the outside world, however. If property values fall in my community, the school gets less money (through property taxes) and programs will be cut. It has happened before and will happen again.
Let’s not forget to bail out the librarians - after all, Libraries are the Universities of the Poor! (Just tell me when you need me to spell my name so you can write the check.)
Actually, I think that Drum God is on to something- turn lower levels of education into university style education- get folks who are relatively experienced in the field, pay them enough to pay back their loans and have a comfortable middle class existence, and then thy’ll be more motivated, th kids will be reached more often,etc.
I’m not sure I follow you. That many teachers get six or eight weeks off in the summer is certainly not a myth. I myself get around four weeks off. Many teachers do head home at 3:45 in my district. Yes, some of them are grading papers in the evening or some other schoolwork, but they are home at 4:00. These are not myths. In order to reach higher echelons of pay, teachers should put in more hours and days. At the same time, grading papers and such should be done on company time, not personal time.
I don’t doubt that teachers “get six or eight weeks off” of teaching. However, many teachers use that time to pursue continuing education credits, re-certification courses, or other personal development opportunities, or work another job. In addition, the fact that teachers may be “home at 4:00,” as you state, does not negate the fact that they are doing work at night or on the weekends at home.
The original statements you made were made in such a way that it seemed you were attempting to perpetuate the idea that all teachers are done at 3 every day to go home to frolic in ease, and get summers off eating bonbons and sitting on the beach in Cancun, and are therefore lazy and overpaid. While I’m sure that there are SOME teachers that are lazy and overpaid (just like some six-figure executives), these attitudes are not conducive to an honest discussion of the majority of teachers.
Where do you guys teach that you only get two months or less off?
I’m not joking - that sounds very short to me. My wife teaches elementary school in Los Angeles Unified, is at a year-round school, and gets two six-week “off-track” periods during the year. (This is instead of the traditional summer vacation: One school year ends on a Friday, and the following Monday the next year starts with a new batch of kids.)
If it’s the cost of the “training” that’s the problem, wouldn’t it make more sense to subsidize training than to increase salaries?
Increasing teachers’ salaries would only improve education if at least one of the following things were true:
People who would be good teachers would enter the profession if only the pay were better.
Good teachers are leaving the profession specifically because it doesn’t pay enough.
People who are currently mediocre teachers would become better at it if they were paid more.
I’m sure these things do occur, but I’m not sure they occur often enough that increasing teachers’ salaries would have much effect compared to other things we could do instead—like improving the conditions under which teachers have to do their jobs.
Teachers, as a group, are not underpaid in any realistic market sense. Many people now employed as teachers in public schools would make significantly less in the private sector, even if they were retrained. Some truly good teachers are underpaid and could indeed be making a lot more in other fields; which makes it all the more sad when teacher’s unions fight real merit pay.
Whenever I’ve seen surveys done of people who are leaving the teaching profession, “salary” is not the number-one reason given. Far more often it has to do with issues with administration, parents and/or students. They are tired of dealing with the crap.
Pay teachers $100k a year and you’ll get people who are doing it just for the money. Is this what you want?
As is pointed out in most education threads, but never seems to penetrate: The United States spends more per-student money than most developed nations. Moreover, our worst-performing school districts are often the best-funded. Money is not the problem.
You get what you pay for. If you paid $100,000 a year, you’d get better teachers. Of course they’d be doing it in part for the money. If people didn’t want money you wouldn’t have to pay them at all.
I’d love to be a teacher. I’d be very good at it. I can’t afford to take the job.
You see, I’m not one of the deadwood teachers who are clogging up our schools.