4 ms·

Teacher recruiting wouldn't be so hard if pay weren't lockstep, as it is in so many places. Unions demand this, and it keeps some potentially-effective teachers

Teacher recruiting wouldn't be so hard if pay weren't lockstep, as it is in so many places. Unions demand this, and it keeps some potentially-effective teachers out of the profession (and keeps old lousy ones in, unfortunately).

analog31 2mo ago
Maybe we could use college teaching as a model. College teachers are for the most part non-unionized. Disclosure: I was one of those teachers for a semester, many years ago. Also, teacher pay is not as rigid as it seems. In my state, the good teachers advance by moving to better paying districts. Very few teachers stay in rural districts for more than a year or two.
- apparent 2mo ago
  I thought the same thing regarding professors not being unionized. However, in top universities they are paid as much based on research (or outside offers based on research) as they are on teaching capability. One thing that is truly bonkers about K12 education is that they can get tenure in just a few years. This is much faster (and easier) than a professor getting tenure. But they both result in the near-inability to be fired.
  - analog31 2mo ago
    The majority of teaching is done by "adjuncts" who are not professors, are ineligible for tenure, and don't do research. They have to re-apply for their job every semester. People rarely do it long-term, though it sometimes employs academic spouses and people who are using it for health benefits while pursuing a side business. It's certainly not a career. My mom was a public high school teacher. When I described the conditions of working as an adjunct, her knee jerk reaction was: "That's why teachers have a union."
- Auracle 2mo ago
  That’s funny, at least in my neck of the woods a lot of teachers prefer the rural jobs. I’m not sure if the pay increase of moving the city balances out anyways with the increase in housing costs.
bonsai_spool 2mo ago
> Teacher recruiting wouldn't be so hard if pay weren't lockstep, as it is in so many places. Unions demand this, and it keeps some potentially-effective teachers out of the profession (and keeps old lousy ones in, unfortunately). This is an unhelpful, anti-union sentiment with no actual relevance to the problem of teacher recruiting. How would it be easier to recruit new, potentially-effective teachers if we had incentive pay based on meritocratic pay scales? There is no rational way to credit someone from a different area for their ability to run a classroom effectively until there's evidence on how that person runs a classroom.
- apparent 2mo ago
  Why do you think it is not relevant to the problem of teacher recruiting? I would be more likely to go into teaching if I thought it could be a good place to work and I would be paid fairly. My impression, from seeing my kids go through public schools, is that the lockstep pay (which can be bumped by getting mostly-useless online degrees) creates bad incentives. There is no way to move up quickly by being an awesome teacher, and mediocre teachers are impossible to get rid of. This hurts morale and drains districts of resources that could be used to pay better-performing teachers.
  - deleted 2mo ago
    [deleted]
  - beepbooptheory 2mo ago
    I too would be more likely to be a public school teacher if it paid more.
  - bonsai_spool 2mo ago
    > Why do you think it is not relevant to the problem of teacher recruiting? First, the issue with teacher pay is that it is low. OP and you would instead say that the issue is that it's not low enough for some low performers, and that such a correction would lead new teachers to enter the market. Is there an economics study that shows a similar phenomenon occurring? > I would be more likely to go into teaching if I thought it could be a good place to work and I would be paid fairly. I doubt this, because if you cared you would get enough of the mostly-useless degrees in order to get to a pay level that makes sense for you. Anyway, there are private institutions you could go teach for; instead I hear you saying that you could do better than these unionized public school teachers if your assured brilliance were recognized monetarily.

analog31 2mo ago

Maybe we could use college teaching as a model. College teachers are for the most part non-unionized. Disclosure: I was one of those teachers for a semester, many years ago. Also, teacher pay is not as rigid as it seems. In my state, the good teachers advance by moving to better paying districts. Very few teachers stay in rural districts for more than a year or two.

apparent 2mo ago
I thought the same thing regarding professors not being unionized. However, in top universities they are paid as much based on research (or outside offers based on research) as they are on teaching capability. One thing that is truly bonkers about K12 education is that they can get tenure in just a few years. This is much faster (and easier) than a professor getting tenure. But they both result in the near-inability to be fired.
- analog31 2mo ago
  The majority of teaching is done by "adjuncts" who are not professors, are ineligible for tenure, and don't do research. They have to re-apply for their job every semester. People rarely do it long-term, though it sometimes employs academic spouses and people who are using it for health benefits while pursuing a side business. It's certainly not a career. My mom was a public high school teacher. When I described the conditions of working as an adjunct, her knee jerk reaction was: "That's why teachers have a union."
Auracle 2mo ago
That’s funny, at least in my neck of the woods a lot of teachers prefer the rural jobs. I’m not sure if the pay increase of moving the city balances out anyways with the increase in housing costs.

bonsai_spool 2mo ago

> Teacher recruiting wouldn't be so hard if pay weren't lockstep, as it is in so many places. Unions demand this, and it keeps some potentially-effective teachers out of the profession (and keeps old lousy ones in, unfortunately). This is an unhelpful, anti-union sentiment with no actual relevance to the problem of teacher recruiting. How would it be easier to recruit new, potentially-effective teachers if we had incentive pay based on meritocratic pay scales? There is no rational way to credit someone from a different area for their ability to run a classroom effectively until there's evidence on how that person runs a classroom.

apparent 2mo ago
Why do you think it is not relevant to the problem of teacher recruiting? I would be more likely to go into teaching if I thought it could be a good place to work and I would be paid fairly. My impression, from seeing my kids go through public schools, is that the lockstep pay (which can be bumped by getting mostly-useless online degrees) creates bad incentives. There is no way to move up quickly by being an awesome teacher, and mediocre teachers are impossible to get rid of. This hurts morale and drains districts of resources that could be used to pay better-performing teachers.
- deleted 2mo ago
  [deleted]
- beepbooptheory 2mo ago
  I too would be more likely to be a public school teacher if it paid more.
- bonsai_spool 2mo ago
  > Why do you think it is not relevant to the problem of teacher recruiting? First, the issue with teacher pay is that it is low. OP and you would instead say that the issue is that it's not low enough for some low performers, and that such a correction would lead new teachers to enter the market. Is there an economics study that shows a similar phenomenon occurring? > I would be more likely to go into teaching if I thought it could be a good place to work and I would be paid fairly. I doubt this, because if you cared you would get enough of the mostly-useless degrees in order to get to a pay level that makes sense for you. Anyway, there are private institutions you could go teach for; instead I hear you saying that you could do better than these unionized public school teachers if your assured brilliance were recognized monetarily.