4 ms·

The problems are dual, and nobody likes the solutions. On the one hand, yes, you have unions, which theoretically are sticking up for the workers but in practi

by jbooth 16y ago

The problems are dual, and nobody likes the solutions. On the one hand, yes, you have unions, which theoretically are sticking up for the workers but in practice spend a large % of their time and resources sticking up for the lousy workers who deserve to be fired anyways. On the other hand, you have about half of the country devoted to relentlessly slashing education budgets in the name of "less government". In a small-l labor dominated industry, that effectively means smaller paychecks and/or more work for the same pay. So good teachers who are frustrated by the union shenanigans don't have a lot of other alternatives - who else is gonna stick up for them? Real solutions would be a combination of big pay incentives for star teachers (not that I'd necessarily be a star, but why on earth would I teach at those rates when I can be an engineer?), coupled with a much looser structure on tenure, more dynamic general situation, etc. That would be the kind of incentive to empower the good teachers and disempower the bad ones. But you can't just blame the unions without addressing the other side of the coin.

enjo 16y ago
I would much rather you be an engineer than a teacher. Why on earth would we want to incentivize our creators and innovators to become teachers?
- comatose_kid 16y ago
  Because they could help shape the next generation of creators and innovators?
- jbooth 16y ago
  Well, 2 comments and we're 1 for 2 so I guess my 50% figure was right on. I'll respond with a couple more questions: Do you place a value on increasing future "creation and innovation" by doing a good job of educating kids? If they learn exclusively from mediocre, by-the-book personalities, do you think that helps or hurts the "creation and innovation" parts of their brains?
  - timwiseman 16y ago
    Your question seems to be implicitly assuming that most great teachers could also have been great engineers. At the risk of stereotyping, I do not think that is true. A great teacher must be dynamic, engaging, intelligent, able to connect with children so that they can teach creation and innovation. But an engineer must be intelligent, methodical, and able to master vast amounts of technical knowledge. I suspect most people who make great engineers would not make great teachers, and vice versa. There will be some that could easily be great at either though. Those, I think would better serve society by going into engineering for a few reasons. One is that the number capable of being a truly great engineer is smaller than the number capable of being a truly great teacher. Both are significant for society, but one is more rare than the other. Also, it seems that the point of education is to be able to produce great makers such as engineers who do the work that holds society together. If we always direct our best minds to enhancing the best minds of the future, we will have highly educated children but little or no actual progress for those children to enjoy.
- gehant 16y ago
  One great engineer can impact the world with one lifetime, while one great teacher can impact the world with (class size x years taught) lifetimes.
  - barry-cotter 16y ago
    One great engineers contributions last forever, assuming they become part of a product that is stable enough to be reverse engineered (so software and physical both count) and is proportionate to Contribution*product. One great teachers contribution rots due to reversion to the mean. The average teacher almost certainly has a greater marginal effect than the engineer. The 90th percentile engineer kicks the teachers ass.
teye 16y ago
Your last paragraph is exactly what the DC superintendent proposed. The teachers' unions were so threatened that they didn't even allow it to come to a vote.
- jbooth 16y ago
  It also underlies much of the Obama admin's Head Start initiative. Of course, things like that are a lot harder to mandate from the federal level. You have to get into things like measurement and (opinion here) most of the really important things about teaching are very hard to measure.
  - hugh3 16y ago
    Which is why vouchers seem to be the best idea. Let the school principals decide who are the best and worst teachers, and let them figure out for themselves what they need to pay in order to obtain the best ones and fire the worst. Maybe you could have a variable-value voucher system where the amount a school gets for having taught a kid depends on test scores at the end.
    - jbooth 16y ago
      More administrative freedom for school principals is orthogonal to vouchers. I'm all about charter schools in theory, and still am much of the time in practice, but often the way the funding is structured is ridiculous. Back when I was in local politics, a charter school opened up in our town. For every kid who enrolled, we had to pay the charter school more than we were paying to educate the kid ourselves. AND bus them there, presumably to add insult to injury. So I'm a little suspicious of vouchers and charter schools even though they instinctively sound like good ideas to me.
    - pbhjpbhj 16y ago
      >where the amount a school gets for having taught a kid depends on test scores at the end Presumably you'd be making some assessment of value added, which would be hard of scores alone. A school in an area of high illiteracy that manages to improve literacy levels of pupils could arguably have added more value than a school in a high achievement area where achievement levels are pretty constant - moving people from a fail in Maths/English to a pass might impact their lives far more than moving them from a B to an A (or A to A* as they're now called in the UK; grade inflation FTW).
yummyfajitas 16y ago
why on earth would I teach at those rates when I can be an engineer?) Because you might enjoy working reasonable hours, 2 extra months of vacation, 10 extra years of retirement, tenure and defined benefit pensions? You might (like most teachers) also not be smart enough to become an engineer? As for that half of the country trying to bring teacher pay down to market rate, why are they are problem? Why should teachers get paid above-market rates at taxpayer expense?
- jbooth 16y ago
  Market rate isn't "what yummyfajitas thinks they should be paid", and it's not "what the 80 year old nuns down the street get paid". You'll find most charters pay higher than public schools for an equivalent amount of experience (public schools have a lot of 30 year veterans on the payroll, charters not so much). Anyways, if you're looking for talent, then market rate is the rate required to lure in talent from other industries. You can probably pay a little less because people like the idea of being a teacher, but it can't be egregiously less, which is what it is right now - what would I make as a first year or fifth year math teacher?
  - yummyfajitas 16y ago
    $64k per calendar year in NYC, equivalent to a salary of $85k/year. (I'm not even touching the value of tenure and pensions.) http://schools.nyc.gov/NR/rdonlyres/72DE1FF1-EDFC-40D7-9D61-831014B39D1E/0/TeacherSalarySchedule20083.pdf http://schools.nyc.gov/NR/rdonlyres/72DE1FF1-EDFC-40D7-9D61-... That's not bad for a liberal arts grad 5 years out of college, even by NYC standards. Market rate is "how little can we pay them before we can't fill our open positions". I see no reason to believe we are anywhere near that point, Teach For America still rejects what, 2/3 of the people who apply?
    - jbooth 16y ago
      $64k/year with 5 years experience. That's up from a base of 45k just starting out. So if I wanted to switch it up to be a math teacher, I'd be cutting my pay to 45k. After sweating it out for 5 years, I'd be up to 65k, still below what entry-level engineers can make in NYC. And that's in one of the 2 most expensive housing markets in the country. Regarding "How little can we possibly pay to keep a warm body in teh room" -- this is why modern conservatives should never be taken seriously on education. The idea of quality never even enters into your thinking? I'm not trying to be histrionic here, but why provide education at all if that's how you feel about it? EDIT: More on that link. The following quote implies we're both overestimating what a 5-year veteran gets: "NOTE: If you are eligible for the 5 years longevity, please add $1000 to your annual salary Example: Jane smith had completed 5 years of full-time work for the DOE. She is currently on step 6a with the Masters Differential. Her annual salary is $56,707. Her new salary code is 6V and her new annual salary is $57,707." That seems to imply 5 years with a master's that you got over those summers and went into debt for gets you to 57k. In New York City. What do I get in finance if I'm good at math, almost triple that?

by jbooth 16y ago

enjo 16y ago

I would much rather you be an engineer than a teacher. Why on earth would we want to incentivize our creators and innovators to become teachers?

comatose_kid 16y ago
Because they could help shape the next generation of creators and innovators?
jbooth 16y ago
Well, 2 comments and we're 1 for 2 so I guess my 50% figure was right on. I'll respond with a couple more questions: Do you place a value on increasing future "creation and innovation" by doing a good job of educating kids? If they learn exclusively from mediocre, by-the-book personalities, do you think that helps or hurts the "creation and innovation" parts of their brains?
- timwiseman 16y ago
  Your question seems to be implicitly assuming that most great teachers could also have been great engineers. At the risk of stereotyping, I do not think that is true. A great teacher must be dynamic, engaging, intelligent, able to connect with children so that they can teach creation and innovation. But an engineer must be intelligent, methodical, and able to master vast amounts of technical knowledge. I suspect most people who make great engineers would not make great teachers, and vice versa. There will be some that could easily be great at either though. Those, I think would better serve society by going into engineering for a few reasons. One is that the number capable of being a truly great engineer is smaller than the number capable of being a truly great teacher. Both are significant for society, but one is more rare than the other. Also, it seems that the point of education is to be able to produce great makers such as engineers who do the work that holds society together. If we always direct our best minds to enhancing the best minds of the future, we will have highly educated children but little or no actual progress for those children to enjoy.
gehant 16y ago
One great engineer can impact the world with one lifetime, while one great teacher can impact the world with (class size x years taught) lifetimes.
- barry-cotter 16y ago
  One great engineers contributions last forever, assuming they become part of a product that is stable enough to be reverse engineered (so software and physical both count) and is proportionate to Contribution*product. One great teachers contribution rots due to reversion to the mean. The average teacher almost certainly has a greater marginal effect than the engineer. The 90th percentile engineer kicks the teachers ass.

teye 16y ago

Your last paragraph is exactly what the DC superintendent proposed. The teachers' unions were so threatened that they didn't even allow it to come to a vote.

jbooth 16y ago
It also underlies much of the Obama admin's Head Start initiative. Of course, things like that are a lot harder to mandate from the federal level. You have to get into things like measurement and (opinion here) most of the really important things about teaching are very hard to measure.
- hugh3 16y ago
  Which is why vouchers seem to be the best idea. Let the school principals decide who are the best and worst teachers, and let them figure out for themselves what they need to pay in order to obtain the best ones and fire the worst. Maybe you could have a variable-value voucher system where the amount a school gets for having taught a kid depends on test scores at the end.
  - jbooth 16y ago
    More administrative freedom for school principals is orthogonal to vouchers. I'm all about charter schools in theory, and still am much of the time in practice, but often the way the funding is structured is ridiculous. Back when I was in local politics, a charter school opened up in our town. For every kid who enrolled, we had to pay the charter school more than we were paying to educate the kid ourselves. AND bus them there, presumably to add insult to injury. So I'm a little suspicious of vouchers and charter schools even though they instinctively sound like good ideas to me.
  - pbhjpbhj 16y ago
    >where the amount a school gets for having taught a kid depends on test scores at the end Presumably you'd be making some assessment of value added, which would be hard of scores alone. A school in an area of high illiteracy that manages to improve literacy levels of pupils could arguably have added more value than a school in a high achievement area where achievement levels are pretty constant - moving people from a fail in Maths/English to a pass might impact their lives far more than moving them from a B to an A (or A to A* as they're now called in the UK; grade inflation FTW).

yummyfajitas 16y ago

why on earth would I teach at those rates when I can be an engineer?) Because you might enjoy working reasonable hours, 2 extra months of vacation, 10 extra years of retirement, tenure and defined benefit pensions? You might (like most teachers) also not be smart enough to become an engineer? As for that half of the country trying to bring teacher pay down to market rate, why are they are problem? Why should teachers get paid above-market rates at taxpayer expense?

jbooth 16y ago
Market rate isn't "what yummyfajitas thinks they should be paid", and it's not "what the 80 year old nuns down the street get paid". You'll find most charters pay higher than public schools for an equivalent amount of experience (public schools have a lot of 30 year veterans on the payroll, charters not so much). Anyways, if you're looking for talent, then market rate is the rate required to lure in talent from other industries. You can probably pay a little less because people like the idea of being a teacher, but it can't be egregiously less, which is what it is right now - what would I make as a first year or fifth year math teacher?
- yummyfajitas 16y ago
  $64k per calendar year in NYC, equivalent to a salary of $85k/year. (I'm not even touching the value of tenure and pensions.) http://schools.nyc.gov/NR/rdonlyres/72DE1FF1-EDFC-40D7-9D61-831014B39D1E/0/TeacherSalarySchedule20083.pdf http://schools.nyc.gov/NR/rdonlyres/72DE1FF1-EDFC-40D7-9D61-... That's not bad for a liberal arts grad 5 years out of college, even by NYC standards. Market rate is "how little can we pay them before we can't fill our open positions". I see no reason to believe we are anywhere near that point, Teach For America still rejects what, 2/3 of the people who apply?
  - jbooth 16y ago
    $64k/year with 5 years experience. That's up from a base of 45k just starting out. So if I wanted to switch it up to be a math teacher, I'd be cutting my pay to 45k. After sweating it out for 5 years, I'd be up to 65k, still below what entry-level engineers can make in NYC. And that's in one of the 2 most expensive housing markets in the country. Regarding "How little can we possibly pay to keep a warm body in teh room" -- this is why modern conservatives should never be taken seriously on education. The idea of quality never even enters into your thinking? I'm not trying to be histrionic here, but why provide education at all if that's how you feel about it? EDIT: More on that link. The following quote implies we're both overestimating what a 5-year veteran gets: "NOTE: If you are eligible for the 5 years longevity, please add $1000 to your annual salary Example: Jane smith had completed 5 years of full-time work for the DOE. She is currently on step 6a with the Masters Differential. Her annual salary is $56,707. Her new salary code is 6V and her new annual salary is $57,707." That seems to imply 5 years with a master's that you got over those summers and went into debt for gets you to 57k. In New York City. What do I get in finance if I'm good at math, almost triple that?