8 ms·

I have tons of respect and sympathy for teachers, but the argument I often hear for raising their pay ("they work really hard, they're super important, it's a d

by patmcc 13y ago

I have tons of respect and sympathy for teachers, but the argument I often hear for raising their pay ("they work really hard, they're super important, it's a difficult job") misses the central point. It seems like we have enough teachers at the wages we currently pay. Teachers are willing to go into the profession despite the low wages, probably because they want a satisfying job with good benefits. If we didn't have enough teachers...we'd have to raise wages. Supply and demand.

Nursie 13y ago
And like many other situations which can be summed up as supply and demand, a race to the bottom is an obvious outcome. Maybe we'd get better teachers if we paid more?
- patmcc 13y ago
  We'd get better teachers if we paid more to good teachers. The problem is no one can seem to agree on how to measure what makes a good teacher - one side is busy arguing seniority should be the primary measure, the other side argues test scores, and neither one seems to want to spend any time or money figuring out an actually successful way to measure teacher skill.
  - mindslight 13y ago
    You could ask the kids. They certainly know which classes are engaging, and which are time-biding garbage. And ultimately, assuming a teacher isn't running a movie theatre, student interest is the most important metric. You'd of course have to keep the actual weighting process a bit fluid to avoid the inmates gaining control of the asylum, but it should be quite straightforward to pick out the extreme bad and extreme good teachers. It would also be a good introduction to the rationale behind secret ballots, and when it is actually appropriate to lie.
    - ameister14 13y ago
      Look at ratemyprofessor and see how well an incredibly difficult professor that is also engaging and interesting does; now imagine that in a situation where the people in his/her class are forced to be there.
      - mindslight 13y ago
        I took a quick look through that site, paging through my alma mater of a decade ago. I do see pathologies in the ratings/comments that remind me of complaints I would hear about professors from fellow students that were stressed, not getting the material, or used to a more structured environment. And if these ratings held weight with the university, I can definitely see professors dumbing down their lessons to avoid bad reviews. So I do see what you're getting at with it going terribly wrong. Still, I think there's several key differences: 1. Every school student would be rating their teachers, rather than just those that loved a professor, had an axe to grind, or were encouraged to by an entertaining personality. 2. The context would be "closed", with each teacher relative to their school, rather than open cross-institution competition with a front page of featured "rockstar" professors that make the rest seem inadequate. 3. The high schools officially sanctioning ratings with real results would give kids the feeling that they really do have a stake in the process, rather than simply being its victims. 4. High school is a more structured environment where the process details matter a lot more. So a teacher eg giving out an incomplete homework problem is actually a valid indictment rather than the stressed out nitpicking of a culture shocked freshman. 5. In college, there's a certain level of appreciation for the material that everyone should have but doesn't necessarily, causing them to get frustrated at a professor with a dry personality. Whereas with high school, the idea is that everybody should be learning a cursory understanding of all subjects. 6. In college, there's a huge variation in the level of courses. One specific professor I had for a seminar where it was basically his PhD research group and me, an undergrad who'd just started on a simultaneous master's. I learned a lot in that class, and really appreciated him. I then ended up in a grad-level "intro" course with him (which I knew was an utter waste going in, but it was the only thing that fit my schedule). Most of the students were rote-memorization paying-for-credential types, but his style certainly did them no favors either, and I can definitely see my recollection echoed in a few of his current reviews. I'd say that he's still a teaching asset, but not for intro lectures where most students aren't already committed to the subject. Really, there just needs to be some extrinsic motivation/reward for teachers that are truly making a difference versus simply clock-punching, and that's not more top-down testing edicts that further shackle them. And sure, the immediate reaction shouldn't be to fire the lowest-reviewed, but neither should we pretend that they deserve similar compensation to the exceptional ones.
- humanrebar 13y ago
  The incentives have to be at a higher level. Schools and school districts need more motivation to hire and promote good teachers and fire bad ones. That's not to say that the people running schools and school districts don't want better teachers or to fire bad ones, but they (whether appointed or elected) aren't losing their jobs when that doesn't happen. And schools and districts aren't dissolved when that doesn't happen. Worst case scenario, they get rescued by the court system, which would be considered a bailout if it happened to a bank.
EliRivers 13y ago
Pay peanuts, get monkeys.
jedberg 13y ago
If you cut programmers salaries in 1/2 today, you'd still have enough programmers. Just not very many good ones.
mildtrepidation 13y ago
We also have enough fast food workers. That doesn't mean they're doing the job because they want "a satisfying job with good benefits." That's definitely not a good assumption about any profession. If you treat teaching as a lowest-bidder-wins "supply and demand" field, you may get passionate teachers who don't mind the pay, teachers who don't need to earn more for whatever reasons, probably some teachers who do find the benefits attractive, and all sorts of other people. But distilling this all to "people do it, so the wages are fine" misses just about all of the central points. Consider that teaching isn't working in a bookstore or packing shipments for Amazon. It's not just a lot of work; it's a vitally important role in our world's future. I for one would not call "supply and demand" at the lowest possible rate a good way to treat such a profession.
- patmcc 13y ago
  >>>We also have enough fast food workers. That doesn't mean they're doing the job because they want "a satisfying job with good benefits." That's definitely not a good assumption about any profession. Teaching (in US/Canada at least) requires at least a bachelor's degree and some specific teaching training. It's reasonable to think people aren't forced into it due to inexperience/low skill the same way fast food workers are. They must have some reason for choosing to be teachers - and you're right, I was making an assumption based on the people I know personally, which may not extend to the whole population. But for whatever reason, lots and lots of people, armed with the knowledge of what the wage is, are choosing to be teachers. Indeed, in some areas in my province we have a glut of teachers applying for a few openings. >>>it's a vitally important role in our world's future. I for one would not call "supply and demand" at the lowest possible rate a good way to treat such a profession. What is the appropriate way to decide pay? We have a spectrum of possible wages we could set, from the lowest amount possible to ensure enough adequate teachers to the highest amount we could possibly afford (assuming teachers are public employees, this is related to how much we're willing to pay in taxes). Where should we land on that scale and why?
streptomycin 13y ago
Some people say we need to raise wages because our teachers are so great and hard-working and they deserve it. Others say we need to raise wages because our teachers aren't good enough and we need higher pay to attract better teachers. It's kind of an interesting example of how two groups with basically opposite viewpoints can end up supporting the same policies.
- philwelch 13y ago
  Except the teachers unions want higher pay and less accountability, so that bad incumbent teachers don't have to give way to better ones.
  - humanrebar 13y ago
    Well, by definition there are more below average teachers than exceptional ones, so it doesn't benefit unions to favor excellent or even promising teachers over terrible ones.

by patmcc 13y ago

Nursie 13y ago

And like many other situations which can be summed up as supply and demand, a race to the bottom is an obvious outcome. Maybe we'd get better teachers if we paid more?

patmcc 13y ago
We'd get better teachers if we paid more to good teachers. The problem is no one can seem to agree on how to measure what makes a good teacher - one side is busy arguing seniority should be the primary measure, the other side argues test scores, and neither one seems to want to spend any time or money figuring out an actually successful way to measure teacher skill.
- mindslight 13y ago
  You could ask the kids. They certainly know which classes are engaging, and which are time-biding garbage. And ultimately, assuming a teacher isn't running a movie theatre, student interest is the most important metric. You'd of course have to keep the actual weighting process a bit fluid to avoid the inmates gaining control of the asylum, but it should be quite straightforward to pick out the extreme bad and extreme good teachers. It would also be a good introduction to the rationale behind secret ballots, and when it is actually appropriate to lie.
  - ameister14 13y ago
    Look at ratemyprofessor and see how well an incredibly difficult professor that is also engaging and interesting does; now imagine that in a situation where the people in his/her class are forced to be there.
    - mindslight 13y ago
      I took a quick look through that site, paging through my alma mater of a decade ago. I do see pathologies in the ratings/comments that remind me of complaints I would hear about professors from fellow students that were stressed, not getting the material, or used to a more structured environment. And if these ratings held weight with the university, I can definitely see professors dumbing down their lessons to avoid bad reviews. So I do see what you're getting at with it going terribly wrong. Still, I think there's several key differences: 1. Every school student would be rating their teachers, rather than just those that loved a professor, had an axe to grind, or were encouraged to by an entertaining personality. 2. The context would be "closed", with each teacher relative to their school, rather than open cross-institution competition with a front page of featured "rockstar" professors that make the rest seem inadequate. 3. The high schools officially sanctioning ratings with real results would give kids the feeling that they really do have a stake in the process, rather than simply being its victims. 4. High school is a more structured environment where the process details matter a lot more. So a teacher eg giving out an incomplete homework problem is actually a valid indictment rather than the stressed out nitpicking of a culture shocked freshman. 5. In college, there's a certain level of appreciation for the material that everyone should have but doesn't necessarily, causing them to get frustrated at a professor with a dry personality. Whereas with high school, the idea is that everybody should be learning a cursory understanding of all subjects. 6. In college, there's a huge variation in the level of courses. One specific professor I had for a seminar where it was basically his PhD research group and me, an undergrad who'd just started on a simultaneous master's. I learned a lot in that class, and really appreciated him. I then ended up in a grad-level "intro" course with him (which I knew was an utter waste going in, but it was the only thing that fit my schedule). Most of the students were rote-memorization paying-for-credential types, but his style certainly did them no favors either, and I can definitely see my recollection echoed in a few of his current reviews. I'd say that he's still a teaching asset, but not for intro lectures where most students aren't already committed to the subject. Really, there just needs to be some extrinsic motivation/reward for teachers that are truly making a difference versus simply clock-punching, and that's not more top-down testing edicts that further shackle them. And sure, the immediate reaction shouldn't be to fire the lowest-reviewed, but neither should we pretend that they deserve similar compensation to the exceptional ones.
humanrebar 13y ago
The incentives have to be at a higher level. Schools and school districts need more motivation to hire and promote good teachers and fire bad ones. That's not to say that the people running schools and school districts don't want better teachers or to fire bad ones, but they (whether appointed or elected) aren't losing their jobs when that doesn't happen. And schools and districts aren't dissolved when that doesn't happen. Worst case scenario, they get rescued by the court system, which would be considered a bailout if it happened to a bank.

EliRivers 13y ago

Pay peanuts, get monkeys.

jedberg 13y ago

If you cut programmers salaries in 1/2 today, you'd still have enough programmers. Just not very many good ones.

mildtrepidation 13y ago

We also have enough fast food workers. That doesn't mean they're doing the job because they want "a satisfying job with good benefits." That's definitely not a good assumption about any profession. If you treat teaching as a lowest-bidder-wins "supply and demand" field, you may get passionate teachers who don't mind the pay, teachers who don't need to earn more for whatever reasons, probably some teachers who do find the benefits attractive, and all sorts of other people. But distilling this all to "people do it, so the wages are fine" misses just about all of the central points. Consider that teaching isn't working in a bookstore or packing shipments for Amazon. It's not just a lot of work; it's a vitally important role in our world's future. I for one would not call "supply and demand" at the lowest possible rate a good way to treat such a profession.

patmcc 13y ago
>>>We also have enough fast food workers. That doesn't mean they're doing the job because they want "a satisfying job with good benefits." That's definitely not a good assumption about any profession. Teaching (in US/Canada at least) requires at least a bachelor's degree and some specific teaching training. It's reasonable to think people aren't forced into it due to inexperience/low skill the same way fast food workers are. They must have some reason for choosing to be teachers - and you're right, I was making an assumption based on the people I know personally, which may not extend to the whole population. But for whatever reason, lots and lots of people, armed with the knowledge of what the wage is, are choosing to be teachers. Indeed, in some areas in my province we have a glut of teachers applying for a few openings. >>>it's a vitally important role in our world's future. I for one would not call "supply and demand" at the lowest possible rate a good way to treat such a profession. What is the appropriate way to decide pay? We have a spectrum of possible wages we could set, from the lowest amount possible to ensure enough adequate teachers to the highest amount we could possibly afford (assuming teachers are public employees, this is related to how much we're willing to pay in taxes). Where should we land on that scale and why?

streptomycin 13y ago

Some people say we need to raise wages because our teachers are so great and hard-working and they deserve it. Others say we need to raise wages because our teachers aren't good enough and we need higher pay to attract better teachers. It's kind of an interesting example of how two groups with basically opposite viewpoints can end up supporting the same policies.

philwelch 13y ago
Except the teachers unions want higher pay and less accountability, so that bad incumbent teachers don't have to give way to better ones.
- humanrebar 13y ago
  Well, by definition there are more below average teachers than exceptional ones, so it doesn't benefit unions to favor excellent or even promising teachers over terrible ones.