Matthew Miller makes me sick. This National Public Radio host wrote in the Wall Street Journal “Obama Doesn’t Have to Run as a Liberal.” Miller’s reasoning is that Obama should realize Science and Math teachers deserve more money that Grade Teachers, English Teachers, or Social Studies Teachers. This is just another case of those on the right displaying their ignorance. Those on the Right are wrong.
The hardest job in teaching is teaching the earliest grades. It’s also the most important job. Think of how long it took archeologists to decipher ancient Egyptian languages. Yet somehow Matthew Miller and those on the right think teaching reading is easy. It’s no easier and no harder than it was for the archeologists to decipher a foreign language because that’s what English is to young children, especially children whose first language is not English.
Why do those on the right think they know more than teachers do?
Early grade teachers make four –six lesson plans a day while specialists in Math and Science have 2-3 Lesson Plans for day. And if early grade teachers don’t have success, what chance do these specialists have of teaching their subject material? Early grade teachers work harder than subject specialists and they perform the most critical task: teaching reading. How dare we pay them less!?
Many on the right believe we should let the market dictate and pay Science and Math teachers more because of their scarcity. So what happens when the majority of new teachers want to teach Science or Math and then we have a shortage of English and Social Studies teachers? Do Social Studies and English Teachers then get raises above the Science and Math teachers because they are now in scarcity? Hey Matt can you spell Yo Yo? If so, thank an early grade teacher.
P.S. I teach Science
July 13, 2008 at 11:45 pm |
If scarcity were how we paid, technology teachers would get a whale of a raise. I’m the only teacher in my district certified in my tech area. Two others are working on it, but haven’t passed the test yet. Oh, yeah – science is a big part of my area too. When do I get that raise?
July 14, 2008 at 10:51 am |
Miller is right. Teachers will not automatically switch to the sciences teaching areas. Some may try but will not be successful because of the difficulty of content. We need to take our heads out of the sand and realize that teachers with science degrees are being diverted by the business world which can offer a real paycheck based on skills. Why not give this a try? Where is the fear? Many states are already offering a “signing bonus” for math, science, and special education teachers. Offering more pay for these types of skills ensures that we have the best teachers for our children. What argument could be given to a parent that asks why the math teacher is underqualified?
July 14, 2008 at 11:17 am |
Hi Bill:
Under Miller’s sliding scale what would an art or music teacher be worth?
Most importantly Miller’s invisable hand approach does not recognize the most important job in education is teaching reading in the primary grades. If we want this critical task done well shouldn’t we recruit the best and the brightest for this position by paying them more than anyone else?
Which subject is most important? Science where we solve real problems, math so we can do science, Social studies where we learn what it means to be an American Citizena nd participate in our democracy and recognize what the real problems are, or English, the Language we speak and which entertains us with the written word or the visual word such as in Hollywood? If we are to teach a well rounded education all our teachers must be qualified. But if all subject are equal in importance to a well rounded education then all teachers should be paid the same.
July 14, 2008 at 12:06 pm |
Ever notice that the biggest noises come from people who haven’t “been there”?
My mind boggles at the number of people who think teaching is play and story time, or ‘overpaid babysitting”. When was the last time they spent a day in a public school?
Subject areas that may be especially challenging for some folks to teach, may be the gifting of others. Who has the right to say one is more worthwhile? Grade, subject area, or “specialists” have their own giftings, or ‘calling’. We must be “highly qualified’, whatever we do. Maybe some can re-work lesson plans from year to year-as long as the plans are enjoyable and creative, well, good for them.
Please know that ESL teachers have to change their lessons each year because the students change–number of newcomers, languages, levels, etc. We can’t “can” what we do. Yes, we teach reading–to kids who have to learn it all over again. They need to learn how to verbalize to get basic needs met while they are not at home with their native langauge. Plus, they need to learn what their English-speaking counterparts are learning, because of state and federal-mandated testing. That’s an argument for another day.
I have issues with politicians and commentators who have no real experience in the areas they address. They haven’t a clue, and the fact they get print space or air time (and get paid ) is ridiculous!
Roz
July 14, 2008 at 6:47 pm |
Good afternoon, one cannot quantify the importance or difficulty in teaching a particular discipline. What we can quantify is the lack of qualified teachers in the sciences. At any university the number of prospective elementary teachers is much greater than any other types of teachers. The number of applicants for elementary jobs are numerous whereas a search for math teachers only yields one oe two. Why is this discrepancy true? Simple economics leads me to believe that math and science teachers can earn a better wage outside of education. Conversely, the abundance of elementary school teacher leads one to the fact that they are almost unemployable with their degree outside of education. I am certain that the quality of elementary school teachers will not decrease with higher pay for math and science teachers. I am also certain that better quality applicants will be found for those math and science positions if they are offered an attractive wage. Of course all teachers should be paid more.
July 14, 2008 at 8:54 pm |
I agree all teachers should be paid more. In Philadelphia 44% of all teachers leave the profession within 5 years. Nationwide I believe the figures are nearly the same I can’t swear to it, but I believe the majority of those that leave are grade teachers. I will try and do some research on this and post back shortly.
I also agree we cannot quantify the importance or difficulty in teaching a particular discipline, but raising the pay for teachers of one subject over another, is quantifying one subject over another.
I think there is much we can do to improve the quality of teaching ion the elementary grades. Anyone can experience success teaching the prepared child or the mentally gifted child. But what about those with Learning Disabilities or from a literature impoverished home? By diagnosing learning disabilities earlier and using the medical model to overcome these disabilities we can improve our reading rates. This will require reading specialists in the earlier grades and they will be worth easily as much money as a science or math teacher.
Regards
Keith
July 15, 2008 at 6:47 am |
http://www.ncsu.edu/mentorjunction/text_files/teacher_retentionsymposium.pdf
The above link provides comprehensive information on teachers leaving the field. It is unclear however in what grade teachers leave the most. It is well documented from many sources 50% of teachers leave the field within five years but the information above, while noting the critical shortage of math and science teachers points to a 20% quit rate amongst math and science teachers.
July 15, 2008 at 10:42 am |
I agree with you Keith regarding SPED teachers, they should be paid more than other teachers also! Again, it is not about reward for how hard the job is. The reason that I want to pay math, science, and SPED teachers more is that there is a shortage of qualified teachers in these areas. More pay is equal to more quality applicants on the most basic economic level. Keep focusing on the supply/demand model and the argument for equal pay falls off. Think of the converse, quality math, science, and SPED teachers are not available because all teachers must be paid the same. Thus in order to keep pay equal, we will forgo attracting the best teachers since they can be paid more to use their skills outside of education.
July 15, 2008 at 9:52 pm |
The United States used to have an education system that was the envy of the world. In the early twentieth century we opened a new high school every day. We taught millions of immigrants and their children to be American Citizens. We had the highest literacy rate in the world.
Business began to complain we were spending too much on education, we needed to worry about Return On Investment. Big Factory Schools replaced small neighborhood schools. Job training took on more importance than citizen training. The results speak for themselves.
Education is not an economic commodity to which the theories of economics apply. Look at colleges today. They have to compete for students so they have chosen to adopt a policy of grade inflation rather than give honest grades. Has competition helped colleges? Has it helped produce higher achieving students? The answer is no in both cases. If anything this intense competition has corrupted colleges and universities.
Yes businesses can pay a scientist more than schools can. If your suggesting schools compete with business and pay competitive salaries that’s great: But schools are funded by taxes and a teachers fiduciary duty is to her/his students. Business is funded by profits and an empoyees fiduciary duty is to her/his share holders. Competition in schools and adopting business practice for schools continues to ruin education in this country.
July 15, 2008 at 10:53 pm |
Hopefully we can all be better paid by a government that values education as much as big business. We can agree on that!
July 15, 2008 at 11:24 pm |
I believe we have seen that privately-owned schools, run by corporate businesspeople have not produced a higher-achieving group of students. The results to date run to the contrary, in fact. So perhaps business doesn’t value education as much as they claim. If students are their “product”, then having higher quality ingredients (consistently progressive books and computers, for instance)may make a difference. The teachers have already been “highly-qualified” and credentialed. Hmm–what does this all say about the students themselves? Can the “business” or the government “fix “their issues by spending money somewhere else?
July 16, 2008 at 2:32 pm |
I agree with both Bill and Roz. Even a business knows the quality of a finished product cannot exceed the quality of the raw materials. We must therefore spend our limited resources on early childhood education and if you want to attract great teachers to this area, these, the hardest working most critical teachers in a school are the ones who deserve more pay.
Regards To All.
I’ll be off for about a week.
July 28, 2008 at 9:45 pm |
Upper Darby School District had a merit pay system several years ago. What resulted was an unfair mess where the teachers of the higher-level kids ( honor roll students, and Advanced Placement) students received the additional remunerations. Teachers of the lower-level (unmotivated Level 3, special ed, ELLs) students, or teachers with “too many” failing grades were consistently passed over for these bonuses. “Favorites” and cronies of the principal got raises. “Pretty” people got raises, the older, veteran “getting closer to retirement” teachers got ‘unsatisfactory’ ratings so they would ‘go away’, and not expect merit pay.
This could not last forever, the majority of teachers united in protest, and the system has since been eliminated.