Exactly my thoughts. I know that the love of what you do should overpower your decision for career, but there is a fine line.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Shouldn't a teacher get paid more then
- Thread starter waloshin
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Exactly my thoughts. I know that the love of what you do should overpower your decision for career, but there is a fine line.
In my mind, it is difficult to judge what is the appropriate criteria to judge teacher performance/aptitude. While level of education (of the teacher) should matter, as should years teaching - they are at best general guidelines - as individual teachers can buck the trend, either positively or negatively.
As for judging a teacher (and his/her compensation) for their performance in the classroom - that can also be complicated - is it judged on test scores of students - or other more subjective criteria?
For example, I know a teacher who teaches middle school specifically for troubled/at-risk youth. His job is exceeding difficult - and judged by test scores, his performance looks dismal. He is constantly at-odds with the school administration, as test scores reflect what kind of money the school receives from the Government.
Despite this, he is not a bad teacher - but is starting from a more challenging environment - should he be compensated more? How would you judge? Would that criteria scale for teachers with easier job scenarios?
There are no easy answers. I tend to think that, as a rule, teachers are still underpaid - especially considering how their job descriptions have grown over the years to include substitute-parent, sociologist, psychologist, and police officer (to name but some). I also feel the more "hardship" postings should compensate more - due to the essential difficulty of the environment - especially if the individual is able to make even a negligible impact and remain engaged.
As for judging a teacher (and his/her compensation) for their performance in the classroom - that can also be complicated - is it judged on test scores of students - or other more subjective criteria?
For example, I know a teacher who teaches middle school specifically for troubled/at-risk youth. His job is exceeding difficult - and judged by test scores, his performance looks dismal. He is constantly at-odds with the school administration, as test scores reflect what kind of money the school receives from the Government.
Despite this, he is not a bad teacher - but is starting from a more challenging environment - should he be compensated more? How would you judge? Would that criteria scale for teachers with easier job scenarios?
There are no easy answers. I tend to think that, as a rule, teachers are still underpaid - especially considering how their job descriptions have grown over the years to include substitute-parent, sociologist, psychologist, and police officer (to name but some). I also feel the more "hardship" postings should compensate more - due to the essential difficulty of the environment - especially if the individual is able to make even a negligible impact and remain engaged.
I hope when you're talking about a PhD you're talking about becoming a professor. Becoming a teacher, which is the term generally used for levels below college, does not require a PhD, in fact most of my teachers had a bachelors and a one year credential.
There are PhDs that make over $100,000 a year as a college professor. Accounting, finance, law, medical, and some others all make close to that or more. Tenure as a professor is much harder to get than as a teacher. It can take eight years or more and revolves around publishing, performance in the classroom, and various other criteria.
I'm not talking about being a college professor. I know that you can make 6 figures as a professor, but the competition to academia is fierce. In my field, there are far fewer jobs then there are candidates. Furthermore, at most major institutions the focus is on research and less on teaching. For those of us that enjoy the teaching more and aren't hotshots from Princeton or Harvard, our only choice is to shotgun the entire nation for jobs and take the one teaching job at the very small liberal arts school in Nowhere, Montana that accepts you.
I don't want to have to make that choice. For a variety of reasons, I want to live in a major metropolitan area of my choosing. I would enjoy teaching the advanced classes at a high school.
I went to a magnet school for HS, and my physics teacher had a PhD. He made his fortune in industry and came back to be a teacher because it was his true love. He was one of my best teachers. I enjoyed physics a tremendous amount and when I went college my first major was physics. My calculus teachers, on the other hand, were dullards with no enjoyment of the subject who taught from the example problems in the book. It made me hate math until I actually took a decent class in college many years later. Based on my time teaching future teachers as a TA, I think many teachers are like this currently. They are people whose total knowledge stops at the subject they are teaching and they are teaching because they literally cannot do anything else.
People with advanced degrees are generally somewhat passionate about their subject. I want that in a teacher.
For that matter, maybe EVERYONE should work for peanuts. After all, if you're really supposed to do it only because you love it, why bother making a decent living at it, right?
Please. If teachers were better-paid, it would be easier to hold onto some of the better ones that realize that working 12 months out of the year for someone else can make you a better living.
My wife is a teacher, and she does do it because she likes it and she's good at it - so your reward for that is to pay her less because her job is "crucial to a young person's development"?
Doesn't make any sense to me.
I'm completely in favor of this. I know for a fact that some of my wife's co-workers are idiots (she and others have told me so many stories), and the district can't get rid of them, so the kids end up stuck with teachers who don't do the job as well as someone else could.
Teacher pay in her district and most others around here is based on (1) years of experience and (2) whether or not you have a Master's degree and (3) whether or not you're bilingual certified. It has nothing to do with what subject or subjects you teach, or what grade you teach, or even how good you are. I think that's unfortunate.
Some teachers, yes
Other teachers, not a chance they should be making even half that
With no teacher tenure that sucky teachers would be fired.
If you're talking about 1st grade teachers and the like, then yes, the salary would be scaled accordingly.
They wouldn't be - without tenure, you can get rid of the ones that don't perform.
Hi.
I would like to clarify my earlier gripe about college coaches earning high salaries. I realize that a quality athletic program is healthy for a school. It attracts students to all programs and adds cash and recognition to the school.
That said, I live in the Seattle area and the local NCAA school is the University of Washington. Under Don James, the football program was a regular on the national stage and pumped out NFL quarterbacks like a machine. James quit when the NCAA investigated the UW for recruiting violations that led to a blackball ban from television and bowl appearances for something like 5 years. When the program got back into the national spotlight coach Rick Neuheisal was fired for betting on games. He then sued the UW for several mil and won. So, my experience with high paid college coaches is a bit slanted. There are many wonderful men and women out there doing a wonderful job, and they earn their pay. Every cent.
Dale
I would like to clarify my earlier gripe about college coaches earning high salaries. I realize that a quality athletic program is healthy for a school. It attracts students to all programs and adds cash and recognition to the school.
That said, I live in the Seattle area and the local NCAA school is the University of Washington. Under Don James, the football program was a regular on the national stage and pumped out NFL quarterbacks like a machine. James quit when the NCAA investigated the UW for recruiting violations that led to a blackball ban from television and bowl appearances for something like 5 years. When the program got back into the national spotlight coach Rick Neuheisal was fired for betting on games. He then sued the UW for several mil and won. So, my experience with high paid college coaches is a bit slanted. There are many wonderful men and women out there doing a wonderful job, and they earn their pay. Every cent.
Dale
I have to disagree with those saying there shouldn't be tenure. Some form of job security must exist for teachers.
My fiance is an untenured teacher. Now I agree that there are some really crappy teachers, but tenure protects both the bad teachers and the great teachers. Tenure usually takes 3 years to obtain. There should be enough review and supervision to know whether a teacher has it or doesn't before the end of three years.
Parents these days do not take responsibility for their child's actions or performance these days. Therefore, bad grades or behavioral problems are blamed on the teachers, and to save face, the school usually takes sides with the parents. However, the parents should be doing more at home to teach their children, not only reinforcing school criteria, but also teaching respect and responsibility. The poor education performance in our country is not only the result of bad teachers, but more so bad parents and educational leaders.
Teachers can get fired even when they are tenured, but its is a process, but that process is a small price to pay to protect the excellent teachers from the pressure and blame that gets placed on them for the failures of others.
Getting rid of tenure is not going to get rid of crappy teachers. In my opinion, the whole system is failed. Kids are taught how to score high on tests and are not LEARNING anything. Not quite the fault of the teachers, albeit some, but not all.
EDIT: Calling for less pay for teachers ignores the impact and importance they have. Just because there are bad teachers does not mean all teachers should be paid less. Money is not the problem, well it is, but that is not for this discussion.
My fiance is an untenured teacher. Now I agree that there are some really crappy teachers, but tenure protects both the bad teachers and the great teachers. Tenure usually takes 3 years to obtain. There should be enough review and supervision to know whether a teacher has it or doesn't before the end of three years.
Parents these days do not take responsibility for their child's actions or performance these days. Therefore, bad grades or behavioral problems are blamed on the teachers, and to save face, the school usually takes sides with the parents. However, the parents should be doing more at home to teach their children, not only reinforcing school criteria, but also teaching respect and responsibility. The poor education performance in our country is not only the result of bad teachers, but more so bad parents and educational leaders.
Teachers can get fired even when they are tenured, but its is a process, but that process is a small price to pay to protect the excellent teachers from the pressure and blame that gets placed on them for the failures of others.
Getting rid of tenure is not going to get rid of crappy teachers. In my opinion, the whole system is failed. Kids are taught how to score high on tests and are not LEARNING anything. Not quite the fault of the teachers, albeit some, but not all.
EDIT: Calling for less pay for teachers ignores the impact and importance they have. Just because there are bad teachers does not mean all teachers should be paid less. Money is not the problem, well it is, but that is not for this discussion.
Might I ask why? Most other jobs lack any major form of job security like tenure. I understand tenure for university professors who often publish papers that are contrary to a schools belief or may be controversial, but for the average high school, middle school, and elementary school teacher who more than likely never publishes anything, I don't think it is very necessary.
In California, I believe it takes 2 years. That is far too little time. A university professor with a PhD, who has gone through about 8 years of schooling, doesn't earn tenure until they've completed about 8 years and numerous published papers, books, or research. Tenure in the K-12 levels is far too easy to obtain. I'd like to see it be closer to 5-8 years, but the voters in California rejected the 5 year plan.
I agree completely. I think basic foundation of our education system, provided you live in a good area, is pretty good. A lack of parenting and poor parenting is the larger problem. Everything now days is the teachers or administrators fault, its never the child's or parent's problem that the kid failed the class, got suspended, etc.
I don't really agree with this. As a recent high school graduate (within the last 3 years), I was never taught to a test. We completed the state standards in class, but we learned more as well. t wasn't at all being taught to take a test. The tests, including the high school exit exam, were all amazingly easy. The exit exam was a joke, I could have easily passed it prior to entering high school, and I wasn't a particularly studious student.
It makes sense to me. What does it matter if someone is mowing lawns just because they like the pay? It doesn't really matter that much...For that matter, maybe EVERYONE should work for peanuts. After all, if you're really supposed to do it only because you love it, why bother making a decent living at it, right?
Please. If teachers were better-paid, it would be easier to hold onto some of the better ones that realize that working 12 months out of the year for someone else can make you a better living.
My wife is a teacher, and she does do it because she likes it and she's good at it - so your reward for that is to pay her less because her job is "crucial to a young person's development"?
Doesn't make any sense to me.
What does it matter if someone is teaching just because of the pay? A whole hell of a lot.
The University of Washington athletic department is also fully self sustaining. No money that goes to any coach is coming from general academic fund money.
IMO, unions ruin the entire education system. Unions prevent bad teachers from being fired, and good teachers from being paid more. And if you don't join the union, you get paid less. The entire union power structure is a major factor contributing to our poor quality of education in America.
My mom was a teacher.
My mom was a teacher.
While I agree that's not how things seem to be working out unfortunately. W/school funding being tied to standardized test results I'm reading more and more about schools just 'teaching to the test.'
I don't think anyone is born w/in depth knowledge of color theory, how to mix paints, or how to manipulate chemicals during development to achieve a desired look in the photograph. And why can't someone sit at home and read a biology book or read about biology on the internet or just, ya know, spend hours outside observing nature?
Not everyone is born a genius that can achieve high levels of success w/little training or education.
Seriously? Welding isn't just used on mass production assembly lines. Can you point to any machines that can build a custom motorcycle or car from the ground up? I hear we can program machines to crunch numbers faster than any human possible could yet somehow accountants and mathematicians keep getting jobs...
Lethal
Not to mention the amount of welding involved when constructing buildings, fences, large boats, art, and various other products.
It's a different kind of hard. There's no right or wrong way to do art. There is a right and wrong way to do biology. For example I can make a bunch of dots and wavy lines on a canvas (hey, like Joan Miro) and call it art. I can't make a bunch of scribbles on a notepad and claim that it's a graphical representation of cellular respiration without explaining it within the context of the science we already know.
Cool, what instrument?
Do you think the natural ability required for the arts is comparable to that needed to weld something together?
That might be true, but I'm willing to bet that taxpayer dollars went into things like the facilities, the staff that maintains the facilities, etc. No athletic department and for that matter hardly any sporting organization is "fully self sustaining."
You can, but it's incredibly rare. And real science doesn't happen without experimental evidence, something you can't get from books.
No, but that's what makes it "custom." Plenty of machines can build cars and motorcycles from the ground up.
Poor examples. Theoretical mathematicians only deal with computers when they have to write their papers, and accountants are more into the interpretation and management of the data they are privy to. Machines can do neither.
Have you never seen metal used as an artistic medium?
Why should creating something new and unique through the process of metal work be discounted simply because machines can be programmed to mass produce cars on an assembly line? Machines can be programmed to pump out books, movies, photographs, music, etc., in a similar fashion yet the artists that choose to use those mediums aren't being discounted in the same fashion. Why not?
No more poor than the previously stated examples that welding is used only on mass production assembly lines.
Lethal
Just as a machine can't weld anything other than what its programmed to. What you're referring to is the human element required to do anything other than a very specific preprogrammed task. That human element is just as necessary in many welding aspects and applications as it is in many accounting aspects and applications.
Yes, what's your point? Welding is the method by which an artist creates their work. Peripheral knowledge that is a means to an end.
Again, you're not really making the distinctions you need to in order to see my point. Machines do pump out books, movies, etc. but they're not "created" in the sense that we feed an English dictionary into a computer, it randomly selects a few thousand words, and out pops Macbeth. And besides the example of metal artwork (which would fall under "art" in the first place) and custom handmade cars/motorcycles/whatever, I wouldn't call any of those things "unique."
Just some "easy" welding examples here:
http://www.modernyankeeblacksmith.com/
http://www.petesartisticwelding.com/
Welding Art
Bingo! This is pretty much the standard for most school districts. Elementary through high school are pretty much paid for their teaching certification, education, and their experience, that's it. The number of classes, the level of success, or the work load is not really factored in unless you are talking about "part time" as opposed to "full time."
The bottom line is that teachers are in the helping/social work/education area and across the board these professions do not achieve the level of monetary success that other jobs do. Some people don't want to hear this, but in this professional area teachers actually get paid better than most of their peers. Very few in the "helping professions" can make what a starting teacher makes right out of college. Heck, I have a master's degree, with professional certification and even after 10 years of work my annual salary was less than what a starting teacher in my area can make.
Amen brother, pass the offering plate!
My reasons are primarily based on my discussion that followed. Its easy for a school to make a parent happy and fire a teacher for no valid reason, or misinformed reason, and just hire a new one, for cheaper. Rinse and Repeat.
I'm not familiar with the tenure of professors. But I'd probably be correct in stating that both systems are not perfect. 2 years does seem considerably low, perhaps some type of tiered system would work? The longer you teach, the stronger your tenure. I believe tenure is important because it protects teachers from arbitrary firings, which would be rampant without tenure. I think this is less so in colleges, maybe not on the administration side of things, but there is definitely less pressure coming from parents.
I think at some point, bad parents thought that the school was responsible for raising their child. School should supplement rather than supplant home education. Its a sad state of affairs.
I agree that I may have generalized and exaggerated my point. You likely went to a good school, one that didn't have to pull itself away from embarrassing test scores. Also, when the student body is interested in learning, or at least respectful of the teachers, its amazing what a child or young adult can learn. Unfortunately, I think others may not have had similar experiences as you and I, particularly in low income schools.
Excellent point! You convinced me!
Just like any job, pay would be merit based. We pay the best doctors the best salaries... or do you suggest we should pay doctors like teachers?
Honest question, why are teachers held accountable to parents? What are administrators afraid of? Parents suing because they got an F?