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.
The more I think about it, the more I think that states need to somehow help schools/districts with large minority and/or low-income enrollments. I teach in a school that with notoriously challenging students. Down the hill, less than a mile away, is a school (in another district*) with a much less challenging student population but where teachers are paid roughly 10-15% more and with distinguishably better benefits. If nothing else, this situation needs to be addressed (and ideally reversed) as a way to attract a stronger candidate pool to more difficult assignments.
*FWIW, their residents aren't paying more in taxes but because of fluke of geography that district just happens to have a stronger corporate tax base.
The more I think about it, the more I think that states need to somehow help schools/districts with large minority and/or low-income enrollments. I teach in a school that with notoriously challenging students. Down the hill, less than a mile away, is a school (in another district*) with a much less challenging student population but where teachers are paid roughly 10-15% more and with distinguishably better benefits. If nothing else, this situation needs to be addressed (and ideally reversed) as a way to attract a stronger candidate pool to more difficult assignments.
*FWIW, their residents aren't paying more in taxes but because of fluke of geography that district just happens to have a stronger corporate tax base.
Even if they took in the exact same amount of taxes, they can also pay the teachers better because the kids are less expensive to educate because they need less services. But yes, they need to do something so they can pay teachers in districts with more challenging students better. Anyone who has worked in both a rough inner city school and any other kind of school will tell you that teachers in those rough schools deserve something akin to combat pay.
The more I think about it, the more I think that states need to somehow help schools/districts with large minority and/or low-income enrollments. I teach in a school that with notoriously challenging students. Down the hill, less than a mile away, is a school (in another district*) with a much less challenging student population but where teachers are paid roughly 10-15% more and with distinguishably better benefits. If nothing else, this situation needs to be addressed (and ideally reversed) as a way to attract a stronger candidate pool to more difficult assignments.
*FWIW, their residents aren't paying more in taxes but because of fluke of geography that district just happens to have a stronger corporate tax base.
In NC we have a county supplement in addition to our state pay. It varies from district to district. Some districts have made up for the fact that the state hasn't given a raise in 6 years. My district...not so much!
If I crossed into the neighboring district, I would immediately get a raise of almost $5,000. And for the most part, that is their version of "combat pay". Believe me, it wouldn't be worth it. Many of my colleagues, including myself, came from that district. We were willing to take the hit in pay to not have to deal with the problems associated with that district.
In NC we have a county supplement in addition to our state pay. It varies from district to district. Some districts have made up for the fact that the state hasn't given a raise in 6 years. My district...not so much!
If I crossed into the neighboring district, I would immediately get a raise of almost $5,000. And for the most part, that is their version of "combat pay". Believe me, it wouldn't be worth it. Many of my colleagues, including myself, came from that district. We were willing to take the hit in pay to not have to deal with the problems associated with that district.
Those who come out against raises in teachers' salaries then look at that district as an example and say, "See. Higher salaries don't equal better results" and the lower paying district can say, "We retain teachers and they aren't flocking to the higher paying district".
Those who come out against raises in teachers' salaries then look at that district as an example and say, "See. Higher salaries don't equal better results" and the lower paying district can say, "We retain teachers and they aren't flocking to the higher paying district".
Just like the test scores. I keep hoping that one day we can finally have an honest national dialog about the elephant in the room; the quality and outcomes of education are overwhelmingly dependent on one variable, the quality of the students. And the quality of the students who walk through the door are dependent on the quality of the parents who created them and are raising them.
The point isn't this is what we signed up for. It's that the different responsibilities should be acknowledged. If I'm paid the same as a math teacher shouldn't my work load be the same as a math teacher?
Not to pick on math teachers but since I teach both math and science I know math takes 1/10th the time to prep and grade.
You are missing the biggest problem with your line of reasoning.
It takes that amount of time for YOU.
I taught chemistry, was the head of the department, in a school for advanced students who did far more labs than your students, including weekly, day long experiments. Despite the fact that in our lab we run individual research projects, I still spent far less time on chemical prep and disposal than you claim. Clearly, if we take your claims at face value, it is because I was just better at it. You should not get more money because you are not efficient at something you are CHOOSING to do.
Just like the test scores. I keep hoping that one day we can finally have an honest national dialog about the elephant in the room; the quality and outcomes of education are overwhelmingly dependent on one variable, the quality of the students. And the quality of the students who walk through the door are dependent on the quality of the parents who created them and are raising them.
That discussion will never happen because the government can't fix that.
They will focus instead on all the bandaids that they have power over.
In looking over some salary schedules from various districts in my area, I notice that some sports coaching positions are paid vastly more than others. In one district, the high school basketball coach makes twice as much as the high school lacrosse coach. Does the basketball coach work that much harder than the lacrosse coach? What possible (fair) reasoning could there be for this discrepancy?!
In looking over some salary schedules from various districts in my area, I notice that some sports coaching positions are paid vastly more than others. In one district, the high school basketball coach makes twice as much as the high school lacrosse coach. Does the basketball coach work that much harder than the lacrosse coach? What possible (fair) reasoning could there be for this discrepancy?!
Maybe one brings in more money than the other?
Edit: Although Cheerleading, field hockey and girls volleyball wouldn't bring in money, so I don't know.
I was curious and looked it up.
Some of ours:
Head football coach $7,040
Head Cheerleading, Field Hockey, Volleyball $5,349
Assistant Football $5,278
Head Basketball (Boys/Girls) $4,490
Just like the test scores. I keep hoping that one day we can finally have an honest national dialog about the elephant in the room; the quality and outcomes of education are overwhelmingly dependent on one variable, the quality of the students. And the quality of the students who walk through the door are dependent on the quality of the parents who created them and are raising them.
I would consider student quality the number 1 predictor of outcomes.
My principal likes to boast that our school does as well as it does because of our staff. I disagree. It's our kids. They rock out the state tests. They come from higher SES households and many have professional parents. These kids enter school years ahead of kids on lower SES districts. The only area where I see issues is their ability to think. They are so used to following an algorithm to get an answer that they are dumbfounded if you ask them to reason something out. This, I believe, is because they've had too much done for them and they have not been allowed to make mistakes and learn from them. Many of my students are afraid of mistakes.
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.
I would consider student quality the number 1 predictor of outcomes. 
