Home › Blogs › No Issues Left Behind
« Broken Schools? | Main | Now THAT's what I am talking about... »
April 06, 2006
For your consideration
From the Florida Times-Union Newspaper. Do you agree or disagree with this assesment:
---editorial---
Paying teachers competitively is key for struggling schools
by William L. Bainbridge
It has been 23 years since the publication of "A Nation At Risk, " the unprecedented report of the National Commission on Excellence in Education that launched the modern school reform movement.
Evidence, however, indicates little has been done to provide effective schools for our nations disadvantaged students.
Regrettably, our school systems are focused on traditional ways of doing business rather than providing students with the teachers they need to turn the situation around.
Dedicated, highly educated and valued teachers, recognized as such through differentiated compensation, are central to effective schools.
The Association of Employment in Education (AAEE) has documented critical shortages of qualified teachers in fields such as mathematics, physical sciences, technology education and special education.
Many students in inner city and rural schools are in classrooms with ineffective, unqualified or under-qualified teachers.
In case after case, schools our research auditing teams have visited which have large numbers of students with low test scores are proliferated with teachers who lack college training and preparation to teach subjects such as chemistry and calculus.
This grim picture is further complicated by the fact that teaching professionals are employed on the same salary schedule regardless of the market for their specialty.
Unfortunately, teacher compensation is based upon seniority and education level alone, not upon marketplace demand. Few or no opportunities for advancement are provided teachers unless they leave the classroom for administrative positions, and few or no incentives are provided for teaching excellence.
The current pay formula in most public school systems is a lock step grid through which all teachers receive the same starting salary. As additional experience and education are gained, their salaries advance through pre-set increases in uniform increments.
Although teacher unions are frequently blamed for this socialistic "salary schedule" system, in the first half of the 20th century it was school administrators and boards who adopted such schedules.
Unfortunately, all college graduates going into the teaching field are treated as if they have the same marketplace value. This practice was present before collective bargaining even entered the school workplace.
Today only a few forward-thinking teacher union leaders will even consider alternative forms of compensation for teachers such as pay for marketplace demand or performance. Most, however, hold fast to the traditional salary schedule rather than risk any qualitative criteria for salary adjustment
The idea of marketplace pay for teachers is based upon a well-known and common sense business practice that rewards individuals whose skills are in the greatest demand.
Most people understant that specialists in more demanding college majors are usually more highly compensated than generalists. People in technical fields such as chemistry, engineering and mathematics typically are paid more than history, sociology or physical education majors.
College admissions directors are keenly aware that entry-level students majoring in physical science fields, for example, have higher entry-level SAT and ACT scores than those majoring in social sciences and humanities.
Public education should be no different in terms of compensation than the modern workplace. In fact, most universities already employ a differentiated marketplace-driven salary model.
We need to pay teachers what they are worth in the marketplace to encourage dedicated people to enter and remain in our schools.
The time is right to implement "marketplace pay" for teachers.
With critical teacher shortages in most schools, we may no longer be able to afford NOT to pay teachers more for working in those fields where they are needed most.
_______
William L. Bainbridge is Distinguished Research Professor for the University of Dayton and President & Chief Executive Officer of SchoolMatch, a national educational auditing, research, and data organization.
bainbridge@schoolmatch.com
Comments
It is an interesting observation. However, we really have no proof that the cause of poor performance by inner city kids is due to "ineffective, unqualified or under-qualified teachers". Qualification is a characteristic that the education industry has defined by degrees and tests. I believe that most of the difficulties are in reaching and motivating the lower performing kids - not in failure of the teacher to know the subjects. Some teachers may be technically unqualifed and yet effective, and some are probably well qualified and uneffective.
If you take the assumption one step further, you would conclude that we could change student performance by simply rotating the teachers. Anyone think that would really work? Many private schools use different rules, use "unqualified" teachers and yet turn out fully educated students.
Maybe the problem isn't with the teachers but with the system that is trying to educate so many kids that don't seem to want to be educated. It takes both home and school to educate.
I agree. I'm not sure you can pin it on teachers. Teachers try there best with what they are given from society.
Posted by: Scott at April 6, 2006 02:15 PMGreg,
I'm glad you said it, because if I said it, they would be all over me telling me how wrong I was.
Arleigh,
Who would be all over you?
Posted by: Scott at April 6, 2006 03:29 PMIt is hard to believe that any group of, say, a half a dozen teachers who each have 12 years experience, all are equally effective. The teachers themselves know who the underperforming teachers at their own school are. Right now, a teacher who is innovative gets exactly the same money as a teacher that “reads from the book” and assigns simple work. Sooner or later the innovative teacher asks “why should I work so much harder for the same money?” If there was incentive pay, I think you would see ever improving instruction.
Greg: I applaud the fact that you continued to ask the hard questions at the school board meeting on Tuesday night. You would not accept the unresponsive answers that one administrator was giving you. Keep up the good work. Rob Collins gets the same recognition.
Programming Note: At the next board meeting on May 2nd, the board will be discussing the causes of the fact that only 20% of the SVUSD students take the right classes to meet the entrance requirements of CSU/UC. It should prove to be interesting. I’ll bet that some members of the board come up with a lot of theories, without the necessary facts to substantiate those theories. You could see that’s the direction Debbie Sandland is headed.
My solution – one school for those who plan to go to a 4-year college and another school for those who don’t. That way, each student (and their parents) could choose for themselves how rigorous the education would be. It’s difficult for one kind of school to appeal to all kinds of students. Private schools are skimming off some of the most motivated students because the can guarantee that upon graduation, the students will meet the entrance requirements of CSU/UC.
It’s interesting to note that more than six years ago, parents complained that the standards in middle school were too strict. Therefore, the Board at that time instituted a policy that said, in effect, if you can pass the state’s standardized tests you don’t have to get a passing grade in the English and math classes.
Jerre,
Thanks for these insightful comments.
Greg, your comments are always insightful and welcome. I appreciate elected officials who are willing to express an opinion.
Scott - Do you remember the far side cartoon? IT was a classic. There was one, where a man was surrounded by a group of telephones, all ringing. His name tag said "they".
Get it?
I always wondered what happened to "they"...
Tim
Posted by: Tim Keaney at April 6, 2006 06:12 PMTim, Jerre,
Remind me again about your teaching experience?
Good to hear from you Jerre:
I know I tend to disagree with you, but always like you putting out your theories and facts. Do you intend to be at the May 2nd meeting?
What do you mean when you say trustees will come up with theories without facts? Will you be presenting facts?
Isn't developing theories part of the process to figure out how to improve the 20% figure?
To me, part of an open discussion is putting things out that might not be all the way right factually, but narrowing it down to agreement with the trustees on a plan of action.
I have nothing wrong with Debbie Sandland, Greg Stratton, Rob Collins or anybody putting out ideas and theorizing to improve the 20% figure. That's what an open discussion should encourage.
Your thoughts?
Scott
Posted by: Scott at April 8, 2006 01:32 PMScott, you're right, theories ahould be presented and discussed. But then the theories need to be examined and facts are needed to prove or cast into doubt the theories. My fear is that some members of the board will merely pontificate without ever putting the time into generating the facts in support.
Posted by: Jerre Reimers at April 11, 2006 05:57 PM
Tim,
Posted by: Arleigh Kidd at April 6, 2006 10:10 AMI guess this guy did not read Jerre's op-ed piece where he claimed there was no teacher shortage.