• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Do you think there is a correlation between teacher pay and quality of education?

Do you think there is a correlation between teacher pay and quality of education?

  • Yes

    Votes: 28 45.2%
  • No

    Votes: 34 54.8%

  • Total voters
    62
But, there's always the nagging thought in my head that tells me there might not even be any correlation between education quality and teacher pay.

I don't know if there is a direct correlation, but I'm quite sure there is a substantial amount of causation. In any capitalist society, performance is to some great extent predicated upon compensation, just as compensation is predicated upon performance. When Teachers are poorly compensated, especially as compared with other professions, I'd say that their performance is definitely hindered by their pay.

I think we can all agree that our education system needs fixing. What do you think?

Remove the whole burden of massive administration costs from education.

A school is a school, when I was deployed over to SE Asia we spent a lot of time helping out local schools. It was cool to see the kids there learning the same things that my kids were learning back in the U.S., but I noticed one stark difference.

There wasn't any huge and unnecessary front office in any of the schools.
 
Last edited:
Teaching is already a saturated profession with pay as it is. You would not improve the quality by increasing the salary.

If anything, salaries need to be decreased as to weed people out.


I work in Human Resources for a school system. If you are limiting your remarks to "Elementary Classroom" teacher, ya you are pretty much correct. However there are multiple areas where the profession is not saturated and it can be pretty tough to find qualified candidates including Math, Hard Science (Physics, Chemistry, Biology, etc.), and certain types of Special Education teachers.



>>>>
 
I'm personally disappointed with how much our educators make. IMO, they should be starting at around 100K salaries, with the due education, of course.

But, there's always the nagging thought in my head that tells me there might not even be any correlation between education quality and teacher pay.

I think we can all agree that our education system needs fixing. What do you think?
If a teacher should make $100k, then I should make $200k.
 
Me too. I seen several studies around my area that compared private and christian schools against public ones. The cost per student was about half when it came to private and christian schools. But they don't have the overhead that public schools do, the christian schools are in churches that has been expanded to take care of them. The ACT/SAT score etc. are several rungs above public schooled kids, but the students come from better homes and are more motivated to do good in school and study.

For private and christian schools, they can get rid of bad teachers in a heart beat, where as in public schools it seems to take an act of god. So comparing the cost between these two types of schools may be comparing apples to oranges. What worries me is the dumbing down of the curriculum in schools today. A lot of the stuff I learned in Jr. High and High School is no longer taught, a student has to go to college to learn what I learned in High School. That bothers me. I first seen that with my youngest daughter and then in some of the grandkids.

So I do think in private and christian schools they are trying to bring up all students to match the highest students achievements where as in public schools, it seems they are holding back students in matching the lowest. Just an observation with nothing to back it up.


I acknowledge and respect your opinion and you point to one of the basic reasons that the average cost per student is lower for Private/Parochial schools. That is overhead.

A couple of things (and I'm not saying these are good or bad, just pointing out why):

#1 - It's easier to lower you costs when you can just not accept students and/or kick them out when they cause problems and perform poorly academically. Don't take them or kick them out and let the public school system deal with the problems.

#2 - A major portion of our budget is transportation (buses, maintenance on the buses, bus drivers, mechanics, and all the support necessary to manage the pickup and delivery of each and every child from the correct location and deliverer them to the correct school). Most pubic schools don't take any responsibility for transportation and it's up to the parents to deliver and pick up their child(ren).

#3 - Similar to #1, it's easier to show hirer SAT/ACT scores when you can just not accept students and/or kick them out when they cause problems and perform poorly academically. Don't take them or kick them out and let the public school system deal with the problems. Skim the cream of the crop and you have better average test scores.

#4 - Private and parochial schools are not required to take special education students and therefore don't have that whole cost infrastructure.

#5 - When you compare one type of organization (private/parochial) that can hand pick their students vs. public schools that are required by law (usually the State Constitution) to accept and be responsible for the education of ALL students (including those rejected by private/parochial) then you have an apples to oranges comparison.​



Take away some of the costs required for Public Schools that private schools don't have (transportation, Spec-Ed, and often extensive sports programs), then determine then compare (a) the cost factor of only top students (to match private school screening), and (b) SAT/ACT scores (to match private schools being able to get rid of poor academic performers which pads their scores) and you have a closer apples to apples comparison.



>>>>
 
I dont think raising money will make a difference in the quality of education. I do think they need to be payed more but i dont think that will make our education quality increase.
 
A voucher system may or may not be the same as parental choice. Some of the systems proposed only pay a portion of the cost, leaving the rest up to the parents. Some only kick in if the school is deemed to be "failing." No, it would be better to simply pay all accredited schools the same per student, and let the local educators run them, let the parents choose which school they like t he best. This would blur the distinction between public and private schools, as any school could be accredited. They would have to teach the basics, hire qualified, credentialed teachers, and that would be about it.

Just as part of the discussion:

#1 - You say "let the parents choose which school they like the best". Schools have a certain number of seats. Let's say 500 for an Elementary School. 1000 families choose to put their children in the same school. Must that school accept all students? Who is responsibile for the additional transportation requirements?

#2 - I'm a responsible parent, I research the area and buy a house across the street from the school I want my children to attend, do I get first shot at my neighborhood school or do I have to now compete for a slot?


>>>>
 
Teacher pay has to be competitive, or the best minds will go elsewhere.

Sounds right, but competitive with what? A good teacher is not just knowledgeable in his or her field (our shallow curricula do not require all that much knowledge, really) - he or she is charismatic, "good with people", flexible, and absolutely relentless.

Sounds like a profile of successful entrepreneur, doesn't it?

Well, there's absolutely no way teachers' pay can compete with the potential rewards of a future Elon Musk or Sergey Brin.

Quite simply, people who love to teach should be teaching - and they would do it for a modest compensation, as they always did throughout history.

Now, is there enough of them? Maybe there's, we are just looking for them in wrong places: we keep thinking about young people becoming and staying professional "pedagogues". Maybe, instead, we should try hard to induce the retired or retiring folks to consider a second career in teaching. They would come with real-life experiences, superior knowledge in their former areas of expertise - and with lesser dependence on the paycheck, as a rule.
 
Now, is there enough of them? Maybe there's, we are just looking for them in wrong places: we keep thinking about young people becoming and staying professional "pedagogues". Maybe, instead, we should try hard to induce the retired or retiring folks to consider a second career in teaching. They would come with real-life experiences, superior knowledge in their former areas of expertise - and with lesser dependence on the paycheck, as a rule.


We already do with programs such as "Troops to Teachers" and "Career Switcher" programs that provide alternative paths to certification. Our office hires 150-200 teachers a year, these programs (while providing some excellent candidates) don't come close in terms of numbers required for normal turnover.


>>>>
 
I'm personally disappointed with how much our educators make. IMO, they should be starting at around 100K salaries, with the due education, of course.

But, there's always the nagging thought in my head that tells me there might not even be any correlation between education quality and teacher pay.

I think we can all agree that our education system needs fixing. What do you think?

You must not care about teachers or the children's future. Teachers should be starting out at $300,000 per year.

vasuderatorrent
 
Do you think the anti Christian zealots would campaign to proscribe any mention of God in parochial schools?

As soon as you allow the government to extend or remove approval, you are removing the freedom from those that are required to gain the approval, even if the people allowing it are the ones who are seeking the approval benefits.

No doubt religion would have to be taught separately and funded by the church, much like kids who go to Catechism or seminary do currently.

We had a charter school closed in this area as they were teaching Islam in a publicly funded school. That sort of thing is still a violation of the First Amendment, but all they have to do is have one more period before or after regular classes, and pay for it from the church funds and it's all legal.
 
Just as part of the discussion:

#1 - You say "let the parents choose which school they like the best". Schools have a certain number of seats. Let's say 500 for an Elementary School. 1000 families choose to put their children in the same school. Must that school accept all students? Who is responsibile for the additional transportation requirements?

#2 - I'm a responsible parent, I research the area and buy a house across the street from the school I want my children to attend, do I get first shot at my neighborhood school or do I have to now compete for a slot?


>>>>

1. No, the schools would not have to accept every student who applies. For one thing, they would have to meet the standards set by the school. For another, if the school were to be full (your example), then the students who apply subsequently would be on a waiting list.

2. No, no attendance boundaries means exactly that. There should be no need to buy a half million dollar house in the right part of town in order to get your kids into a decent school.
 
I'm personally disappointed with how much our educators make. IMO, they should be starting at around 100K salaries, with the due education, of course.

But, there's always the nagging thought in my head that tells me there might not even be any correlation between education quality and teacher pay.

I think we can all agree that our education system needs fixing. What do you think?

The ones who suck at their jobs make pretty much the same as the ones who are great at their jobs, so no. I don't think there is a correlation between teacher pay and quality.
 
Sounds right, but competitive with what? A good teacher is not just knowledgeable in his or her field (our shallow curricula do not require all that much knowledge, really) - he or she is charismatic, "good with people", flexible, and absolutely relentless.

Sounds like a profile of successful entrepreneur, doesn't it?

Well, there's absolutely no way teachers' pay can compete with the potential rewards of a future Elon Musk or Sergey Brin.

Quite simply, people who love to teach should be teaching - and they would do it for a modest compensation, as they always did throughout history.

Now, is there enough of them? Maybe there's, we are just looking for them in wrong places: we keep thinking about young people becoming and staying professional "pedagogues". Maybe, instead, we should try hard to induce the retired or retiring folks to consider a second career in teaching. They would come with real-life experiences, superior knowledge in their former areas of expertise - and with lesser dependence on the paycheck, as a rule.

Good point. Some of the best teachers I've met have been those who raised a family, then decided to go into teaching. Somehow, the experience of raising your own seems to help. Kids just out of college tend to be just that: kids, and they lack life experience.
 
If the brighter mind is also comes with the techniques and personality necessary to connect with the classes they are going to teach. I've had teachers with very bright minds that were very poor teachers.

With one exception, the smartest teachers I had were the worst.
 
Than in my opinion, he should take it and not pursue a job that pays less; this is what I've been discussing all along--people are not going to work for less pay when they can get a job that pays more. Now if for some reason the employer finds that person not acceptable, that employer will not keep paying a good rate of pay when the employer can try someone else. Meanwhile, the 100K brings quality applicants in to the process. :peace

That's not true at all. I know plenty of people who keep the jobs they have rather than going out to look for something that pays better. In fact, that describes most people I know.
 
I acknowledge and respect your opinion and you point to one of the basic reasons that the average cost per student is lower for Private/Parochial schools. That is overhead.

A couple of things (and I'm not saying these are good or bad, just pointing out why):

#1 - It's easier to lower you costs when you can just not accept students and/or kick them out when they cause problems and perform poorly academically. Don't take them or kick them out and let the public school system deal with the problems.

#2 - A major portion of our budget is transportation (buses, maintenance on the buses, bus drivers, mechanics, and all the support necessary to manage the pickup and delivery of each and every child from the correct location and deliverer them to the correct school). Most pubic schools don't take any responsibility for transportation and it's up to the parents to deliver and pick up their child(ren).

#3 - Similar to #1, it's easier to show hirer SAT/ACT scores when you can just not accept students and/or kick them out when they cause problems and perform poorly academically. Don't take them or kick them out and let the public school system deal with the problems. Skim the cream of the crop and you have better average test scores.

#4 - Private and parochial schools are not required to take special education students and therefore don't have that whole cost infrastructure.

#5 - When you compare one type of organization (private/parochial) that can hand pick their students vs. public schools that are required by law (usually the State Constitution) to accept and be responsible for the education of ALL students (including those rejected by private/parochial) then you have an apples to oranges comparison.​



Take away some of the costs required for Public Schools that private schools don't have (transportation, Spec-Ed, and often extensive sports programs), then determine then compare (a) the cost factor of only top students (to match private school screening), and (b) SAT/ACT scores (to match private schools being able to get rid of poor academic performers which pads their scores) and you have a closer apples to apples comparison.



>>>>

I agree, there are huge differences and it was those differences that I was trying to weigh in my mind. I hear all the time people comparing private/christian schools and their costs to that of public education. It seems the comparison is more apples to oranges than peaches to peaches.
 
1. No, the schools would not have to accept every student who applies. For one thing, they would have to meet the standards set by the school. For another, if the school were to be full (your example), then the students who apply subsequently would be on a waiting list.

You didn't say there are no attendance boundaries, you said parents get to choose. Functionally those are very different things.

What do you mean "they have to meet the standards set by the school" you said the parents get to decide not the schools. If the schools are setting standards, then that's not the parents deciding.

2. No, no attendance boundaries means exactly that. There should be no need to buy a half million dollar house in the right part of town in order to get your kids into a decent school.

Schools receive the majority of funding through local property taxes, so I pay taxes to send my kids to the school I want them to go to and now you are saying that I can't send my kids to the school I live across the street from? That sucks.



BTW - Just so I know are you doing away with school bus transportation or will parents be responsible to ensure their children are delivered to school and picked up from school at the proper time? If parents are going to be responsible for transportation, that is a significant cost savings to the schools because they can do away with the whole transportation department and the expensive school buses, bus drivers, scheduling staff, mechanics, etc.. On the other hand if the Public Schools are going to be responsible you can expect a significant increase in transportation costs because now instead of having school boundaries where transportation can pick-up students in a given neighborhood and deliver them to an individual school, you'd then have students sourced to schools from over the whole division. Your transportation expenses in that case would go through the roof.



>>>>
 
I agree, there are huge differences and it was those differences that I was trying to weigh in my mind. I hear all the time people comparing private/christian schools and their costs to that of public education. It seems the comparison is more apples to oranges than peaches to peaches.


Exactly.

Don't get me wrong, I don't have anything against private/parochial schools. They fill a need in the community and there is no denying they get good results (in general, there are exceptions). But when you compare results between institutions where one has to accept ALL students from various socioeconomic backgrounds, those with behavior and discipline problems, those who (for one reason or another) are not strong academic performers, and students with special needs (both physical, emotional, and developmental) and then compare outcomes to an organization that can skim the cream of the crop.

One wouldn't expect the same outcomes.



My wife and I seriously considered private school. I relocated after retiring from the military and we opted instead to buy a house in a good neighborhood with some excellent elementary, middle, and high schools. Instead of spending that money on private schools we invested in college savings plans, our children got a good education and we were able to help out with college to the point where one graduated with $0 debt and the other with only $20,000 in debt (she opted to live in an apartment, so that cost was on her) unlike many graduates facing $50,000, $75,000 or $100,000 in crushing college debt. (BTW - college wasn't a free ride for either, both worked and paid about 1/2 of their normal expenses.)



>>>>
 
You didn't say there are no attendance boundaries, you said parents get to choose. Functionally those are very different things.

What do you mean "they have to meet the standards set by the school" you said the parents get to decide not the schools. If the schools are setting standards, then that's not the parents deciding.



Schools receive the majority of funding through local property taxes, so I pay taxes to send my kids to the school I want them to go to and now you are saying that I can't send my kids to the school I live across the street from? That sucks.



BTW - Just so I know are you doing away with school bus transportation or will parents be responsible to ensure their children are delivered to school and picked up from school at the proper time? If parents are going to be responsible for transportation, that is a significant cost savings to the schools because they can do away with the whole transportation department and the expensive school buses, bus drivers, scheduling staff, mechanics, etc.. On the other hand if the Public Schools are going to be responsible you can expect a significant increase in transportation costs because now instead of having school boundaries where transportation can pick-up students in a given neighborhood and deliver them to an individual school, you'd then have students sourced to schools from over the whole division. Your transportation expenses in that case would go through the roof.



>>>>

Actually, I did say, dissolve all attendance boundaries and let the parents choose the school they want to sends their kids to. Of course, the parents don't hold all of the cards, as the schools have the obligation to set standards for student achievement and behavior and insist that the students live up to them. So, no, the parents can't choose just any school, but only the ones that their kids can qualify for, much as they can choose the college that their kids can get into right now.

Schools being funded by local property taxes is reality in many states. It is not so in California, not for quite some time. Schools need to be funded state wide in order for the no attendance boundaries to work well, otherwise parents would be confined to the local school district.

As for buses, if the parents wanted their children to be bused to school, then they would choose a school that offered that service. If other things were more important, then they would see to their own transportation. It would be a matter of choice.
 
Wow, three people. Really, that splains it then. :roll: I make about 3 times in the clinical setting I do in Education. If you teach in my profession it is just because you feel a duty to, most of us have families to support and bills to pay, so yea, sometimes only the losers end up there. I teach but it sure aint for the money, nor would I be able to unless I had a real (clinical) job.
"Them that can do, them that can't teach". I myself know three people who went into teaching after age 40 because they failed at everything else.
 
Exactly.

Don't get me wrong, I don't have anything against private/parochial schools. They fill a need in the community and there is no denying they get good results (in general, there are exceptions). But when you compare results between institutions where one has to accept ALL students from various socioeconomic backgrounds, those with behavior and discipline problems, those who (for one reason or another) are not strong academic performers, and students with special needs (both physical, emotional, and developmental) and then compare outcomes to an organization that can skim the cream of the crop.

One wouldn't expect the same outcomes.



My wife and I seriously considered private school. I relocated after retiring from the military and we opted instead to buy a house in a good neighborhood with some excellent elementary, middle, and high schools. Instead of spending that money on private schools we invested in college savings plans, our children got a good education and we were able to help out with college to the point where one graduated with $0 debt and the other with only $20,000 in debt (she opted to live in an apartment, so that cost was on her) unlike many graduates facing $50,000, $75,000 or $100,000 in crushing college debt. (BTW - college wasn't a free ride for either, both worked and paid about 1/2 of their normal expenses.)



>>>>

Good for you, when did you retire? I retired in 1986 which seems like eon's ago.
 
I work in Human Resources for a school system. If you are limiting your remarks to "Elementary Classroom" teacher, ya you are pretty much correct. However there are multiple areas where the profession is not saturated and it can be pretty tough to find qualified candidates including Math, Hard Science (Physics, Chemistry, Biology, etc.), and certain types of Special Education teachers.



>>>>

I hear you, and I agree. I've always made exceptions to those 3 fields: math, science, and sped. Those do have shortages, and I'm more than willing to raise salaries of teachers for these subjects.

As to whether the union would allow it, I have no idea. A union is the most anti-meritocratic organization possible.
 
I'm personally disappointed with how much our educators make. IMO, they should be starting at around 100K salaries, with the due education, of course.

But, there's always the nagging thought in my head that tells me there might not even be any correlation between education quality and teacher pay.

I think we can all agree that our education system needs fixing. What do you think?

I think the biggest hindrances to having the highest qualities of education are:

- The dysfunctional homes many kids come from.

- An effective government operated monopoly on primary and secondary education. Imagine the quality of grocery stores, housing developments, clothing stores, the consumer electronics industry or anything if it was delivered to the public via a government run monopoly. People accept it because "the way its always been" typically trumps "the best it can be" if that's the only thing they're ever known.

- Cultural influences that make it easy for kids to veg out watching TV of listening to the latest hip-hop music than educational enrichment. I wish more energy was used coming up with creative ways to make learning fun and more entertainers doing what people like Malaak Rock and Will Smith do, rewarding kids who do well in school with life changing adventures.

I suppose more money would help too. I'd like to see every student in America with a tablet, e-reader or laptop to replace text books. I'd like to see more students taking some online classes as part of their overall assignments. I'd love to see more virtual classes where some classrooms are replaced with webcam interaction; even allowing every American student to take some classes as foreign exchange students from their own living rooms.
 
Wow, 17 to 17. So if teachers were paid $5.00 per hour for the days they work the quality of teachers would be the same as paying them a salary of $40,000, about $40 per hour, you would get the same quality teachers. Half of us say so. Hummm.
 
No doubt religion would have to be taught separately and funded by the church, much like kids who go to Catechism or seminary do currently.

We had a charter school closed in this area as they were teaching Islam in a publicly funded school. That sort of thing is still a violation of the First Amendment, but all they have to do is have one more period before or after regular classes, and pay for it from the church funds and it's all legal.



That would be interesting to see how this separation would impact Benedictine Nuns or Franciscan Priests teaching classes.
 
Back
Top Bottom