The High Cost of Low Teachers' Salaries

I was sent an article from the NYT about "The high cost of low teachers' salaries" and was asked what I thought.

I have conflicting/conflicted thoughts.

I think the general tenor of the message, "the planners" are the problem, is right on the money. Administrators are the biggest, but not the sole, hindrance to quality education. As I've maintained, they don't know what rigorous, quality education entails or they lack the integrity/courage to implement and support it.

Teachers are also a major problem. I agree with the article, that more top students need to be recruited for teaching. That means those who've been through the rigors (ringer?) of quality education. As noted in many places, today's teachers are most often those who've been through a joke of education--the education schools (and there's an oxymoron if there ever was). What teacher doesn't laugh at the stupid "educatiion" courses taught by often equally stupid instructors? I had two education courses, over the course of two masters degrees in education, that were somewhat rigorous--hold on to that word, "somewhat." In one of them, other students complained to the dean of the school of education (I was told this by the instructor, now dead) about the standards to which they were being held. Now consider, these were already teachers and they complained that the instructor wouldn't accept papers that had incorrect spelling (he actually, without naming the student, pointed out the "education" was misspelled, not once, but several times and differently misspelled each time!), no ideas, etc. The class period after he returned the papers, he asked for them back to "regrade." He didn't explain why, but, since I hadn't brought my paper, I asked him why after class in his office. We had started a running conversation about a favorite author of both of ours (Chaim Potok) and several of the themes in his books. This was when he explained what the dean ordered him to do. How pathetic! But, let me continue....

I've considered teaching and education a lot. There are few, very very few, great/outstanding teachers. I had a conversation with a school person just a few weeks ago. Amazing, from a school person (and we all know they rarely, very very rarely, have anything bad to say about fellow teachers), in an entire building of maybe several dozen educators (maybe a few more), only one was labeled "outstanding." Only a couple of others were called "good." More than a few were not. Hey, if we listen to the teachers' unions, to teachers themselves, everyone is a great teacher, a master teacher. Garbage! Only a slim handful are great. And not many more are good. But, here's where I've had a change of view over the past few years--most are serviceable. That is, they are not great and perhaps not even good, but they can be effective. (Not everyone can be Roberto Clemente and, besides, the Valmy Thomases--who? that's my point--are needed, too.) Still, I think more than most people, many teachers deserve to be working elsewhere. Now, how to make them effective?

That's much more problematic. Let the "planners," that is, the administrators teach them? That's the path to continued doom. The education schools promise an equally dismal result. I have some ideas, but who will honestly recognize the "great" teachers who should be showing the way? We all remember, when I was working, who the administrators picked to give staff presentations, who were chosen as mentors, indeed, what teachers later became administrators!!!!! As one I talked to the just the other day alluded, "Why in the world wouldn't a principal take advantage of having someone like," well, a piece of mung like me? Enough said.

OK, I'll toot my horn here (and I still maintain I'm honest enough to recognize and realize when I'm pretty good and when I'm not so hot.). Teachers of history should have been required to sit in my first two classes last week. At MHS, I should have been showing the history dept (not those who were so designated) what and how to teach. Yes, I would have wanted more money, esp toward the end, while the lousy people worked (that is, tried to show how and what to teach) for free. But, as you may not know, some of my buddies and I did work for free an awful lot early on--much, much more so than some of the lame-brained, do-nothing administrators who complained about "bitching all the time." It was how I was treated by those lame-brained, do-nothing, dishonest administrators that changed my mind to demand pay for extra work. (as a footnote, Thur in class this last week was one of those "not so hot" days.)

There are some smart people out there who and and do tell how to teach, showing the way(s). Some have written a book, Teaching: What We Do, written by a dozen or so Amherst professors. The essay by my physics prof should be required reading for every teacher and every administrator regardless of discipline. Of course, it won't be.

Paying more money doesn't work. It hasn't attracted better people, but worse people. Lazy, stupid people can become teachers and make more money than elsewhere. The stats may be deceiving on commensurate pay. "Equivalent degrees?" Remember, I still maintain that most degrees in education are fake, not real. Now, of course, many other degrees are also hardly ones to brag about. Look at the lack of standards our colleges and universities have today--the mortgages of the '70s' and '80s' expansions have to be paid!--we can't be flunking students out of school and still pay the bills. And the salary numbers stun me, too. Maybe $65K isn't a lot of money, but I think it is. I seem to see a lot of school parking lots with SUVs, nice neighborhoods with residents who are teachers, teachers who take European vacations, etc. Call me a Luddite, but I don't see any inherent right to have a large-screen TV just because one is a teacher. How much money is enough and, after all aren't teachers there "for the kids?" At least that's what is repeated again and again and again.... Administrators make far too much money; there's no justification for what they make--none!

Why do all teachers make the same salaries? Why should the teachers who turn off the lights every day and show movies get the same as those who lecture, engage in seminar-type activities, assign essays, etc.? And, why should those who merely assign the questions at the ends of chapters, give the tests from the teacher hand/workbooks get paid the same as those who actually think up relevant and more individual work? Frankly, they shouldn't. And administrators who can't or won't differentiate between these types shouldn't be administrators.

I have more ideas, but nobody wants to listen to them--either they don't really care or they are afraid of facing reality, the truth about education and those who are administrators and teachers. Even politicians and the media-types who call for "reform" because they are "outraged" don't listen. That's because either they really aren't "outraged" or they are stupid or cowardly.

(Funny how teachers are expected to fail students who deserve to fail, but no one has the guts to "fail," that is, fire, teachers who aren't up to snuff. Of course, what "snuff" has become is bobbleheading, even at the stupid stuff.)

The article had some good ideas, but they really need to be parsed. A lot of teachers and administrators certainly won't like my ideas, but that's why the ideas are "lonely."

There maybe some typos and other tech errors, but my computer or the blog site won't let me do some of the things I want to do.