Is the U.S. behind in the sciences?

[Alan Shutko]

I hate this "low pay means dedicated teachers" argument with a passion. It's a circular argument that takes advantage of teachers' best quality, dedication.

Unfortunately, you support the argument every day you teach. You are paid poorly yet continue to teach. Either you're dedicated to your job, or you can't find any other job. Either way, there's no economic incentive to pay you more.

Sadly, the most effective way to increase teacher salaries would be for all the dedicated teachers to quit and find other jobs.

 

[Umbran]

I have a right to a decent wage, my children have a right to be provided for.

Well, technically, no. It would be nice if the world was more fair, and that folks earned salaries commeasureate with how much they aid society. But the inalienable right is to pursuit of happiness, not the actual happiness itself. Sorry, but it is possible to make choices that end you up in bad places.

Because teaching is a government job and society requires a lot of them, average teacher salaries are going to be the minimum level that produces a sufficient number of teachers

That's both theoretical, and oversimplified. We live instead in the practical and complex world.

In the real world, "sufficient number of teachers" is not a simple given. The number of teachers you need varies depending upon their quality, and upon what educational goals you set. You can try to meet a given goal with a large number of lesser teachers, or a smaller number of exemplary teachers, and so on. And, it isn't as if anyone really knows what number is sufficient until after the process is done. Administrators have to guess at how many people they need, and even an educated guess can be incorrect.

The idea that the system will, as a certainty, provide enough funds is purely theoretical. It depends upon the populace being enlightened and well-informed about the facts, and that no other agendas or market forces interfere. But in the real world, the populace doesn't grasp the economic theory, is poorly informed, and tend to be short-sighted. Economic realities can prevent even a willing populace from being able to pay monies sufficient to cover any particular educational goal.

 

[Umbran]

Either way, there's no economic incentive to pay you more.

Oh, there is an economic incentive to pay more, but it requires a rather broad and long-sighted frame of mind to see it. In short - higher pay means better teaching, better teaching means better educated students. That means more wealth for your community and natnion in the long run.

For a given level of dedication, a teacher who is paid well will in general do a better job than a teacher who is paid poorly. Higher pay generally means reduced stress, and that means less burnout. And that's important, because burned out teachers frequently don't leave the system. They generally stay in their burned out state, doing a lousy job.

And better pay would free up more of a dedicated teacher's summer time to make themselves better teachers, either through R&R or continuing education or planning. The guy who needs to spend his summer selling hot-dogs to make ends meet will not do as good a job as the guy who can take classes or design innovative lesson plans in the summer instead.

 

[drothgery]

In the real world, "sufficient number of teachers" is not a simple given. The number of teachers you need varies depending upon their quality, and upon what educational goals you set. You can try to meet a given goal with a large number of lesser teachers, or a smaller number of exemplary teachers, and so on. And, it isn't as if anyone really knows what number is sufficient until after the process is done. Administrators have to guess at how many people they need, and even an educated guess can be incorrect.

Okay, more accurately, governments are going to try to minimize costs, and though they rarely succeed and often make very poor decisions in pursuit of minimizing costs, that's what they're aiming for. And they have to; K-12 education is the single biggest component of most state and local budgets. Many states have mandates on the maximum number of students per teacher, so districts can't use fewer, better-paid teachers with larger classes even if they wanted to.

 

[Umbran]

Okay, more accurately, governments are going to try to minimize costs, and though they rarely succeed and often make very poor decisions in pursuit of minimizing costs, that's what they're aiming for. And they have to;

It is, in part, a good elected official's job to keep your tax burden as low as possible. On the other hand, it is also his duty to help provide proper public services. Those two goals are in conflict, and no one clearly takes precedence over the other all the time. Thus, there's no "have to". Sometimes it makes sense to keep education spending down. Sometimes it does not.

I submit that when you cease being able to keep your education standards up, it is illogical to hold education spending down. If you think education is expensive, you should think about the costs of ignorance.

Many states have mandates on the maximum number of students per teacher, so districts can't use fewer, better-paid teachers with larger classes even if they wanted to.

I'm in no way a booster for large class sizes, but mandates are not set in stone, never to be altered. Every single legal document we have is subject to change, right on up to the Constitution. Economic reality may limit teacher salary or govern class sizes, but legal mandate is not a barrier in the long term.