Last week I posted this article about the need to raise teacher salaries. While I am aware that this issue enjoys something less than Mom and apple pie levels of support, I felt like the article was so matter of fact and common sensical that even if it didn’t rally the Facebook troops to march in the streets, it was unlikely to be controversial. So I was surprised to see a couple of my friends express some objections (moderately and politely) to the article. It’s been a busy week, so I’m just getting around to responding.
Paid 86% of the average salary for 75% of the work year. More than fair.
We are paid for the time we work. Certainly our work schedule has value and can be considered part of our total compensation, but the economic value of teachers’ non-working days varies a lot from among localities and even from person to person. It is not reasonable to simply assume the per day value of our non-working days is the same as our daily salary. Person-hours are not infinitely fungible.
Money is not enough to attract bright people to teach to regimented standards and/or deal with discipline w/out backup from the school. It wouldn’t hurt, of course.
Many jobs have difficult working conditions, though of course “difficult” is always to some extent in the eye of the beholder (I’d burn down the call center the first day if I had to work in telemarketing). That offering a higher salary will increase the number of people willing to do a job in spite of its difficulties is economics 101. There is no reason to believe that this is less true in the teaching profession than in any other. In fact, the article cites survey data supporting the supposition that higher salaries for teachers would make more talented graduates consider the profession.
I don’t have any insight into the work life of teachers, but as an outsider it seems that teachers have a pretty decent deal. Maybe not super optimal, but you could do worse. Fixed benefit retirement, tons of paid leave, guaranteed lifetime employment are all highly desirable.
33.5% of new teachers in SC leave the profession within five years. Empirically, it seems like a lot of people in the profession decide pretty quickly that it is not such a decent deal.
I’m certainly far from a disinterested observer here, and I’d expect to be included if teacher salaries were raised. But the thing is, Eggers and Calegari aren’t really talking about me or my colleagues. They’re talking about attracting the next generation of teachers. The incentives currently in place for teachers (modest salary, reasonable job security, summers off) have attracted many good people to the profession, but not enough of the best people.
I’d rather not dissect these points back and forth endlessly, so let me try to bottom line my position. I believe that the skills required to be a good teacher are specialized and in relatively low supply in the workforce. I believe a first-rate education is a commodity that should be in great demand, not just for the individual student but for society he/she is a part of. Therefore, I believe the economic value of good teachers is substantial, and that that value should be reflected in substantially greater salaries for teachers. If you’re not convinced of the aptitude required to be a good teacher or of the value of a good education, I guess you’ll disagree, but then let’s not waste time debating when our premises are so at odds.
Finally, a little clip from SNL that makes my point, and yours:
