* My comments in red *


Thursday, August 30, 2007 11:50 AM

Author: * Who would write something like this ? *

----------.... . . .

You get what you pay for.

This old saying carries a lot of truth, especially when it comes to education.

While it’s known that college professors receive hefty compensation, grade school and high school teachers who carry the brunt of the education burden — and who have to spend far more hours teaching — get paid far less.

A recent American Federation of Teachers (AFT) study found that full college professors make about double what an average schoolteacher takes home.

I would argue that educating children from kindergarten through grade 12 is more critical than college, as these formative years are a crucial prerequisite for those who plan to attend college. Yet across the country we are shortchanging our teachers. America needs more good teachers, but the inescapable fact is that we won’t get them if we don’t make teaching a more financially attractive profession. According to the AFT, K-12 teachers now earn $47,602 — and that’s the average. You can assume about half of teachers make significantly less than that amount.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Society is not setting teaching as a priority. As a rule, teachers don’t earn as much as most other college-trained professionals. Again, the AFT study found that teacher salaries are about half the average salary for all other professions.

What this means is that the best and brightest in America will likely shun teaching.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

One solution is for the federal government to ensure that teachers across the nation earn a minimum salary large enough to encourage more qualified college graduates to enter the field, and more teachers to remain in it.

Generally, I don’t like government programs. Indeed, the federal government’s Department of Education administers around $67 billion annually. But so little ends up on the table for teachers.

An idea well worth considering is to have Washington help pay teachers in districts where the average salaries are low.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Today China produces, by some estimates, more than 350,000 engineers each year, and India produces more than 110,000.

But our own schools report a shortage of qualified math and science teachers — one that has reached crisis proportions — and by some estimates, about a quarter of high school teachers lack even a minor in the subject they are teaching.

The American experiment has proven that our greatest resource is our people. But Americans are being shortchanged if their children are taught by substandard instructors because the best and brightest potential teachers are not interested in that profession.

We must make a determined effort to encourage, nurture, and better pay our teachers. Our future depends on it.

Our Kids Deserve Better Teachers


* While I agree with what is said, it seems strange where it's coming from.

Strange, because we're told by "progressives" that these people and this source is so, entirely worthless and without purpose. So misguided and full of lies.

Again.

The quickest and truest measure of a society is how it handles and cares for it's children.

Just another example of our societies declining values. *

Cant completely blame teachers for bad values. Some parents send their kids to school just to get them out of their face. Teachers cant parent the unparented.
This is the social issue, I guess.

__________________

Agreed.

Apparently many parents don't give a rusty bucket about the quality of the education their kids are getting either.

Yes, it all DOES tie together in many different ways.

Many of todays problems that seem completely unrelated, actually ARE related.

Why can we assume that? That actually seems like a counter-intuitive and absurd assumption as this would imply that the average is skewed by outliers - teachers making six figures or else a scenario where teachers either made 70K or else 20K with nothing in between. My guess is that the salaries of teachers, on a national average, follow a "bell curve", and we "can assume" that the vast majority make within two standard deviations of that figure. It's nitpicking to be sure, but self-serving assumptions like that, in articles, raise red flags to me about an author more concerned with sensationalism than accuracy.

This doesn't make sense to me. It seems that districts in which average teacher salary is low will also, likely, have a lower standard cost of living. So, a policy such as this overextends and encourages qualified teachers to leave their current districts in favor of one of these new "comparatively rich" ones. You're just creating a migration of existing good teachers, rather than encouraging new ones to enter the field.

Fine, but don't mistake quantity for quality. The best and brightest come here to learn and work. The rest make $3 an hour producing work via outsourcing that's of shitty quality (at least in my experience, which is becoming significant - I once had a "software engineer" from India ask me how to set the clock on the desktop in Linux and claim that he couldn't continue testing until I helped him do it).

That sounds like a feel-good cliche to me. By what metric are "our resources" measured? As to the rest, I'll agree that better teachers of math and science would yield, potentially, more future success in apt students. But as to the "crisis' claims, I'm not sure how we're measuring that, either.

My God. The sky is falling. The very future of the human race is at steak.

Again, I agree with many of the sentiments, but the sensationalist rhetoric is a bit annoying to me (though I suppose it does help sell papers or attract hits to the website).

And, the counter-argument might run something like this. Let's say that we take the 10% of most capable science/math professionals and observe what they do in the free market. I'll bet that very, very few of them would become teachers in today's society. However, let's say we raise your property taxes, income taxes, and estate taxes, so that we can double teacher's salaries. You still probably won't put much of a dent in that top 10%, who figure to make six figures for most of their adult lives. However, you might net a few. But then, you ask, is what they're doing (teaching children) more valuable than what they might otherwise be doing (curing diseases, innovating in engineering fields, working on AI projects, etc)?

I understand the argument - "children are the most important". After all, sacrificing a few of the best and brightest to produce many more of tomorrow's best and brightest sounds like a reasonable idea. However, consider that we're not debating between them being taught or not being taught. We're debating about them being taught by the "best" or being taught by "the adequate/good". Is the marginal return there worth it? If we take John Q Genius out of pathology studies and have him teach children, how many will go on to greatness that wouldn't have under a "normal" teacher? One? Two? Is it worth it?

Also, consider that the best/brightest "math/science" professionals tend to make very, very shitty teachers. I was taught, in college, by some of the most brilliant research minds in the fields of AI/Robotics/etc. And, you know what? Their method of instruction was slapping power point presentations on the overhead and reading from them. This was discouraging to many of my peers, to say nothing about how this might go over in a 6th grade classroom. Are these the sorts of minds that one would hope to "woo" to the teaching profession by upping the salary?


That is strange, because your source's article sounds like it's coming pretty far from the left - "tax everyone to raise teacher salaries, the children are our future - keep them warm and teach them well, tax the rich to give to the poor." In fact, I would expect a "conservative" to use these statements to tout the merits of privatizing education rather than suggesting that taxpayers write a blank check to cover unprovable and unknown outcomes via a giant social experiment.

Based on what? That just sounds like an empty cliche.

WFT? That was a whiplash-inducing non-sequitur. You're citing an esoteric matter of complicated economics and motivation as an example of "declining values"? I thought that line was reserved for the op-eds you post about gays and crime...

__________________
"Government big enough to supply everything you need is big enough to take everything you have... The course of history shows that as a government grows, liberty decreases."

-Thomas Jefferson

What values? Did I forget how to read and am missing something here? The article's talking about incentivizing a better level of math and science education via increased government spending on the salaries of elementary and secondary teachers. What does this have to do with "values"?

__________________
"Government big enough to supply everything you need is big enough to take everything you have... The course of history shows that as a government grows, liberty decreases."

-Thomas Jefferson

Obviously you missed what I said earlier:

Many of todays problems that seem completely unrelated, actually ARE related.

Yes, you're missing something here :-)

That's a strong argument. The 9/11 Konspiracy enthusiasts like that one too... Chemtrails and alien death rays may not seem related, but, the truth is, they are. {this is the point where one might be expected to make an actual argument - but, alas, none is forthcoming}

Hard to argue with a vague, unsubstantiated assertion that could mean pretty much anything. In fact, I think we can go ahead and lump the recent mining disasters, the cool weather in Chicago today, and the recent leaps in quantum computing under the same umbrella - declining moral values. [They] seem completely unrelated, [but] actually ARE related.

__________________
"Government big enough to supply everything you need is big enough to take everything you have... The course of history shows that as a government grows, liberty decreases."

-Thomas Jefferson

$47,602 as an average may very well be a good range (But somehow I feel the average is much higher once a teacher completes all of their certification and licensing requirements).

The U.S. is vast and much of the nation has a lower cost of living (compared to the Eastern and Western parts) in which the $47,602 may be well above average. I tried to find a source which maps out the average cost of living but couldn't find anything.

__________________
Anyone who thinks freedom comes cheap, please put the blindfold on and stand against the wall.

Many times I believe Americans will have to take back the country and start a new government.

So, you ask "Why can we assume that?" then go on and make guesses and assumptions.

Guesses and assumptions designed only to support your dismissal of what is said in the writing.

This:

It seems that districts in which average teacher salary is low will also, likely, have a lower standard cost of living.

Is another assumption of YOURS. It might be generally true. It might NOT be. It might be 100 % true. It likely isn't.

Guess work and assumptions.

Fair enough.

The sentence you're focusing on applies to every country doesn't it ? Isn't every country a kind of experiment ?

Anyways, so you agree with most of the rest, that's ok :-)

What bugged ME was:

...by some estimates, about a quarter of high school teachers lack even a minor in the subject they are teaching.

Estimates and guesswork obviously. BUT, apparently high school teachers aren't required to HAVE even a minor in the subject they're teaching.

Yes, nice filet M steak :-)

So, you see it as "sensationalist rhetoric" to mention the fact that a countries future DOES depend on and IS dependant on it's future generations ?

Well, Ok. It doesn't look like that to me.

In other words, people that decide to become teachers for K - 12, obviously aren't smart and/or educated enough to do or become anything ELSE ?

I think it's more than a tad ridiculous to beleive that this writing is suggesting that we cull specialized scientists/specialists out and away from their specialties in order to teach our K - 12 children.

We need people that are educated enough and willing to do the job of teaching our children. It isn't an easy job. It would seem worthwhile to pay them well enough to do what they're required to do.

That's all.

The kind of teachers you're mentioning are almost always in college. The hardest subject I had to take was taught by one of these fellows. Physical Chemistry. I would have loved the subject if I'd had a teacher that was able to teach the subject he KNEw.

Like I said earlier; I think it's more than a tad ridiculous to beleive that this writing is suggesting that we cull specialized scientists/specialists out and away from their specialties in order to teach our K - 12 children.

Yes, very strange :-) isn't it ? I agree that I would expect a "conservative" to use these statements to tout the merits of privatizing education rather than suggesting that taxpayers write a blank check to cover unprovable and unknown outcomes via a giant social experiment.

I find it interesting sometimes how some sources that many of us have tantrums about being "right wing" or too "christian" or this or that come out with some very seemingly left leaning writings at times.

I like to point these writings out to underscore the fact that common sense sometimes includes left AND right. It sometimes shows up in both sides. A leftist writer might say something that looks or seems right wingy and a right winger might say something that looks or seems LEFT wingy :-) New word. Wingy LOL

Ok, so some parts of reality sound "like an empty cliche" to you. That's your business.

Let me detail it better for you what I was thinking. I said:

Again.

The quickest and truest measure of a society is how it handles and cares for it's children.

Just another example of our societies declining values.

I was first thinking about how today we seem to see K - 12 educators as mostly free babysitters for us. Allowing us to be free of our kids during the day. We're not as interested (generally speaking) in how our kids are functioning and learning.

This is # 1.

# 2 would be how we don't seem to feel guilty of the fact that we are partially responsible for some of our children getting raped and murdered by perverts. Perverts that WE decided to LET OUT OF JAIL.

Sex-offender therapy is behind the times

One Strike Law

And of course # 3 is the fact that our judgement has become so clouded that many of us don't recognize homosexuality for the dangerous sexual deviance that it IS :-) We're "debating" things like "gay marriage"

We've gone astray in many different ways. Here's where you can "make fun" and say "My God. The sky is falling."

Ummm hmm.

I'm not going to connect ALL the dots for you doc :-)

Not exactly. Many things such as IQ scores, salaries for a profession, test scores, political opinion, etc, tend naturally to assume a bell curve. To assume that something fitting such a categorization would have a radically different frequency plot (i.e. what your author is doing) requires some justification - he offers none.

This is comparable to him saying, "The average weight of an adult is 150 pounds, so we can assume that almost half of all adults weight 100 pounds or less." This is technically possible, but assuming it is ridiculous without some explanation or justification.

But, as an aside, I do love that favorite tactic of yours. You tacitly acknowledge that your source is guilty of some faux pas and then try to justify it by (usually wrongly) accusing me of being guilty of the same. Remember, my friend, I'm not the one getting paid to write op-ed pieces


That seems problematic. But, I suppose it depends on the nature of the class. Some high school level courses could probably be taught by someone who had just completed the course. Others (calculus, certain science fields), seem to require a level of expertise.



No, it seems like a vacuous tautology not even worthy of mentioning.

I'm not sure where you got that. I'm talking, specifically, about the top 10% of people in math and science fields (i.e. with those degrees). How many of those people do you think are going to pass up prestigious positions and six figure salaries to teach school children (a rewarding profession, to be sure, but not one likely to stimulate their aptitude for specialized research.

Okay - but the article seems to be saying that children should be taught by "the best and brightest". Where are you going to lure those people from, with higher salaries, if not fields that currently contain the best and brightest?

Not really, IMO. The line between "left" and "right" is blurred far more often than the occupants of either side would care to admit

No argument here. It's actually kind of refreshing.

This is how society has evolved in the US. Public school is largely a babysitting service - but that goes deeper, by far, than the teachers that we hire.

You've already nailed my response to (2) and (3), so I won't bother.

__________________
"Government big enough to supply everything you need is big enough to take everything you have... The course of history shows that as a government grows, liberty decreases."

-Thomas Jefferson

You're trying to play statistics (as is he) with a group you know only generalities about. You did say, in your text (post # 4) "My guess" and "we "can assume"".

you ARE guilty of the same thing. He said in his writing:

According to the AFT, K-12 teachers now earn $47,602 — and that’s the average. You can assume about half of teachers make significantly less than that amount.

This doesn't seem like such a wild eyed stretch. It probably wouldn't be 100 % correct to assume this exactly, but neither would doing what YOUR suggesting we assume at guessing at.

Agreed. We don't need an engineer to teach home ec. afterall :-)