Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
If the concepts of "Supply & Demand" and "Opportunity Cost" don't really exist, then the bolded part above would make sense. However, those concepts are very real, and have a lot to do with why teachers of different subjects should be paid differently.
Sure, and I didn't say those concepts don't exist.
However, what you're saying assumes that all teachers of math/science-type subjects automatically qualify for private sector jobs in which their subject knowledge would result in highly paid positions. This is not necessarily true. If so there would never be ANY applicants for science teaching jobs. I've hired a decent number of instructors. There are always more liberal arts applicants than sciences but when you control for those ACTUALLY qualified, the numbers even out. There are a lot of people who think they can teach subjects that don't involve math. Ie: there are always a lot of retired military officers who think they can teach history and there are a lot of failed novelists that think they can teach writing. It also assumes that people currently working those highly paid technical positions in the private sector are qualified to be teachers. Similarly, this is not necessarily true. The best teachers are often NOT the best practitioners because if a subject comes naturally to someone, it can be hard to understand how or why students aren't similarly excellent.
The education track IS a career path. People who think of it as a "backup" option are wrong. In my experience those who look at it that way are almost always the worst teachers.
If we create an inequality in the system by paying extraordinarily more to certain teachers, then you'll have the teachers start resenting each other. This is unfortunately already the case with football coaches who create their little fiefdoms. It will also harm recruitment because we do need good social studies, English, art, & music teachers, etc... good prospective teachers that are currently college students won't go into those subjects & so we'll get the C students go on to be teachers. Not good. This is already a problem. The existing ones won't be incentivized to get more education in those fields. That would not be good for any school system or students. We should incentivize the system in such a way that attracts expert teachers AND content experts in EVERY subject.
Last edited by redguard57; 03-09-2017 at 11:42 AM..
First, I'm not a teacher, but I do have children and look at children as our future. Teachers are greatly underpaid for what they do! Yes, some might get paid well in some affluent school districts but the majority of teachers receive a low pay IMO. It should depend on their education level (Bachelors, Masters, etc) and what grade they teach, along with tenure. However, the overall starting pay is horrible and needs to be increased! Again, just my opinion. I was appalled when I found out my daughters 2nd grade teacher made $32K and she had already been a teacher over 10 years!
One accountant told me that he had no objection to mandatory accounting as long as it was not done for another sic years, after he retired. I find it extremely amusing that your handle is TaxPhD.
Why is it amusing?
I was simply pointing out the difference in worth/value between accounting taught in high school vs. college. In most high schools, if accounting is taught at all, it is generally not valued, and is often a "filler" course taken by students that are unlikely to pursue a college education. The compensation of those that teach it reflects this. However, at a university, the accounting faculty are among the highest (if not THE HIGHEST) paid faculty at the school.
Sure, and I didn't say those concepts don't exist.
No, you didn't. But a belief that teachers of all subjects should be paid the same requires a suspension of belief in those concepts.
Quote:
However, what you're saying assumes that all teachers of math/science-type subjects automatically qualify for private sector jobs in which their subject knowledge would result in highly paid positions.
No, I'm not saying that. But it would be very naive to believe that high school teachers of liberal arts vs. STEM subjects have equal private sector opportunities. While some may, most don't.
Quote:
This is not necessarily true. If so there would never be ANY applicants for science teaching jobs.
Not necessarily. Most people have more than just compensation included in their utility function. People go into teaching for more than just the money.
Quote:
I've hired a decent number of instructors. There are always more liberal arts applicants than sciences but when you control for those ACTUALLY qualified, the numbers even out.
My experience in hiring at universities is very different than this. When we have an opening for a tenure-track position in English or History, we may receive more than 200 applications, with well over 50% of those being fully qualified. When a tenure-track position in Accounting comes up, we may get a total of 10-15 applicants, with 2-3 being qualified.
Quote:
There are a lot of people who think they can teach subjects that don't involve math. Ie: there are always a lot of retired military officers who think they can teach history and there are a lot of failed novelists that think they can teach writing. It also assumes that people currently working those highly paid technical positions in the private sector are qualified to be teachers. Similarly, this is not necessarily true. The best teachers are often NOT the best practitioners because if a subject comes naturally to someone, it can be hard to understand how or why students aren't similarly excellent.
Agreed.
Quote:
The education track IS a career path. People who think of it as a "backup" option are wrong. In my experience those who look at it that way are almost always the worst teachers.
If we create an inequality in the system by paying extraordinarily more to certain teachers, then you'll have the teachers start resenting each other. This is unfortunately already the case with football coaches who create their little fiefdoms. It will also harm recruitment because we do need good social studies, English, art, & music teachers, etc... good prospective teachers that are currently college students won't go into those subjects & so we'll get the C students go on to be teachers. Not good. This is already a problem. The existing ones won't be incentivized to get more education in those fields. That would not be good for any school system or students. We should incentivize the system in such a way that attracts expert teachers AND content experts in EVERY subject.
I also agree, but how do you solve this? How do you incentivize people to go into the areas that are traditionally hard to find good candidates to teach those subjects, if a differential in pay doesn't exist?
For years, there has been much bashing of teachers, and some of it deserved, but only some of it.
What seems to be missing is a consensus that teachers ARE professionals, and should be treated as such, and be compensated as such.
From your perspective, what is a fair income for a teacher of 1 year experience, 5 years and 11 years and over? Why do you feel the way you do?
When teachers begin to behave as if they are professional then we can talk about treating them as professionals.
Lots do now - but way way more are not only not professional in their behavior, they're flat out loony bins and/or ignorant.
My son had a teacher in a health class tell her 16 year old charges that if they've EVER slept with anyone else, they HAVE to reveal not only that fact, but the names and details of every past lover, to their current lover.
THAT'S not a beating, or even a killing, waiting to happen. Extremely inappropriate. Professionalism doesn't even enter into it. This woman had a religious agenda that she was pushing, eg no sex before marriage even if you don't get married 'til you're 40.
Another woman professed her belief that reading Shakespeare was a total waste of time. She didn't know who Dickens was. She taught English Lit.
Another teacher came into our math lab when I was in college and could not grasp the concept of a negative number, and we spent DAYS with her trying to explain this to her. She was currently teaching math in high school.
On the other hand, a friend of mine was a teacher in my son's high school. She was turned down when she applied to a master's program at a local college because - get this - her GRE scores were TOO HIGH. She was told she was too intelligent and shouldn't be teaching at all, and that furthering her education would only intimidate her students even more. Because you know, we'uns caint have them freakish egg-haids a teachin' uv are yungins. They might could larn 'em all kines uh weird stuff, lack that they's tiny lil animacules what causes sickness, when we knows 'at is cuz uf SINNIN!
There are huge problems with public education. However the solution is NOT to trash the whole thing, and "charter schools" - eg private education paid for with public money - are often even worse. The vast majority that claim to be exceeding state norms are either lying or they're cherry picking - eg the kids with the most problems don't even get in, or they get sent back out before the door's even swung shut as they enter.
I do support standards for teachers, and a big part of the problem is the Education departments in any number of institutions. When there are special biology classes and chemistry classes for teacher-trainees, that is just a bridge too far. Teachers should take the SAME curriculum as every one else, with a few classes thrown in about child psychology and dealing with children of different ages in groups. But all the academic classes should be the same as those taken by everyone else.
If you're going to teach biology, you should have a biology degree, not an education degree. Ditto any number of other subjects. And if you already HAVE a viable college degree, it shouldn't take another 4 years to get an "education" degree before you can teach.
Get rid of the "special" teacher's degrees and then we can talk about increased salaries for "professionals".
If we create an inequality in the system by paying extraordinarily more to certain teachers, then you'll have the teachers start resenting each other..
What utter nonsense! Why not apply this to EVERY profession? So no doctor, or lawyer, or actor, or engineer can ever be paid more than any other, no matter HOW qualified and efficient they are, because the rest might "start resenting each other".
How about incentivizing people to perform, rather than just show up and fill an empty seat?
When teachers begin to behave as if they are professional then we can talk about treating them as professionals.
Lots do now - but way way more are not only not professional in their behavior, they're flat out loony bins and/or ignorant.
My son had a teacher in a health class tell her 16 year old charges that if they've EVER slept with anyone else, they HAVE to reveal not only that fact, but the names and details of every past lover, to their current lover.
THAT'S not a beating, or even a killing, waiting to happen. Extremely inappropriate. Professionalism doesn't even enter into it. This woman had a religious agenda that she was pushing, eg no sex before marriage even if you don't get married 'til you're 40.
Another woman professed her belief that reading Shakespeare was a total waste of time. She didn't know who Dickens was. She taught English Lit.
Another teacher came into our math lab when I was in college and could not grasp the concept of a negative number, and we spent DAYS with her trying to explain this to her. She was currently teaching math in high school.
On the other hand, a friend of mine was a teacher in my son's high school. She was turned down when she applied to a master's program at a local college because - get this - her GRE scores were TOO HIGH. She was told she was too intelligent and shouldn't be teaching at all, and that furthering her education would only intimidate her students even more. Because you know, we'uns caint have them freakish egg-haids a teachin' uv are yungins. They might could larn 'em all kines uh weird stuff, lack that they's tiny lil animacules what causes sickness, when we knows 'at is cuz uf SINNIN!
There are huge problems with public education. However the solution is NOT to trash the whole thing, and "charter schools" - eg private education paid for with public money - are often even worse. The vast majority that claim to be exceeding state norms are either lying or they're cherry picking - eg the kids with the most problems don't even get in, or they get sent back out before the door's even swung shut as they enter.
I do support standards for teachers, and a big part of the problem is the Education departments in any number of institutions. When there are special biology classes and chemistry classes for teacher-trainees, that is just a bridge too far. Teachers should take the SAME curriculum as every one else, with a few classes thrown in about child psychology and dealing with children of different ages in groups. But all the academic classes should be the same as those taken by everyone else.
If you're going to teach biology, you should have a biology degree, not an education degree. Ditto any number of other subjects. And if you already HAVE a viable college degree, it shouldn't take another 4 years to get an "education" degree before you can teach.
Get rid of the "special" teacher's degrees and then we can talk about increased salaries for "professionals".
Your whole post is in question because of one glaring inaccuracy. For teaching high school subjects, the vast majority of teachers have a degree in the field being taught and the equivalency of a minor in education.
What utter nonsense! Why not apply this to EVERY profession? So no doctor, or lawyer, or actor, or engineer can ever be paid more than any other, no matter HOW qualified and efficient they are, because the rest might "start resenting each other".
How about incentivizing people to perform, rather than just show up and fill an empty seat?
No, you didn't. But a belief that teachers of all subjects should be paid the same requires a suspension of belief in those concepts.
My experience in hiring at universities is very different than this. When we have an opening for a tenure-track position in English or History, we may receive more than 200 applications, with well over 50% of those being fully qualified. When a tenure-track position in Accounting comes up, we may get a total of 10-15 applicants, with 2-3 being qualified.
I've seen that too, although only pushing 200 in English when we seemingly had every MFA struggling novelist in the state apply. History got about 75 and that was in 2012.... frankly I expected more.
When I say "control" I mean people that actually fit the job description. Ie: we ask for someone who's specialty is European history and we get half of those applicants with an American history degree who say they have the ability to teach European history. Well, they probably do and technically minimally qualified so they passed the HR screen but not really what we were looking for.
While we only get 15-35 for the sciences, typically a greater number out of those meet the preferred quals.
I'm in a relatively small metro and not nearby any major universities with programs that pump graduates out; that probably hinders our applicant totals. At my institution we've seen a dramatic decline in total application numbers since 2015. When we were seeing those triple-digit applicant pools was 2008-13 when there were a lot of desperate people out there. It was sad having to cull those pools.
Quote:
I also agree, but how do you solve this? How do you incentivize people to go into the areas that are traditionally hard to find good candidates to teach those subjects, if a differential in pay doesn't exist?
It's a tough problem, but I don't think making teaching only lucrative for a minority helps. The entire field needs to look more attractive in order to attract good people across the board. School districts will never be able to pay industry salaries... if working for industry attracts people I don't think education can compete even if they tried.
We need to get rid of starting salaries in the 30s. This isn't the 1990s. That has to stop.
Starting in the low 40s to high 50s depending on COL is appropriate (or 60s-70s for those really high COL metros). What I'd try to do is reduce the workload and stress. Teachers make professional salaries that I think are usually appropriate (if they're above the 40k cut-off), but they are asked to do jobs that are just as if not more stressful than the private sector. Why work more and get paid less? I don't have a problem with the job paying less if the workload fits it.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
