• 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
Populist? If anything, my opinions are anti-populist.

Go up to any average Joe and say the word "teacher". They'll give you a look that suggests you said "warm apple pie".

Ask about quality of education, Add the word union to "teacher," and then you'll really get what average Joe thinks.
 
I do think there is some inertia with employment. Persoanally I have always needed change, but I know many people who get comfortable in a job and never try to improve their lot in life.
Really? I don't know anyone like that. :shrug:
 
And fresh crap works better than either.
I'm sorry but it wouldn't work for me.

Are you seriously saying that the a person who wants to be a teacher and is a good teacher will be created if the pay is increased?
No. That's what you're apparently suggesting. What I'm suggesting is when you offer more pay to a profession like teaching you will see more higher qualified applicants that will apply to your area. Not saying that just anybody won't apply, but then that's where you check through the resumes and evaluate the proper person.
 
Ask about quality of education, Add the word union to "teacher," and then you'll really get what average Joe thinks.

I'm not convinced that any of the uneducated populace will cringe the way they should when you say "union". Many still think (for some strange reason) that unions are good.
 
I do think there is some inertia with employment. Persoanally I have always needed change, but I know many people who get comfortable in a job and never try to improve their lot in life.
mak: I know some folks like that, but the vast majority of people--I've seen at least--go for better pay and benefits--especially if they're raising kids.
 
Oh yea, you are right.
mak: I know some folks like that, but the vast majority of people--I've seen at least--go for better pay and benefits--especially if they're raising kids.
 
I voted yes, but the question is a little simple for the nuance needed to explain. Obviously the calibre of educators that populate the top 50 Prep schools would command a higher salary than say someone who is a public school teacher in PoDunk, Nebraska. Now if the question is in the context that pay should be attached to performance of the student, than I must emphatically say NO!!!!

Should a person who has a generic degree in Education (BA) from a half way decent school make the same as person who has a specific, subject related degree, (e.g. History, Math, English) from another comparable mediocre school? No, I don't believe they should. You're education should be in direct relation to the specific subject you are teaching. This would limit elementary school teachers, whose task is to give a foundational perhaps, but not necessarily, there are other measures which can reveal the quality of an educators work that doesn't have to be connected to the success of the student.

This is all relevant only if we continue with the same pedagogical framework. I personally believe we need a great reformation regarding the way and means in which we educate our children. The pedagogy is the problem first and foremost and that i what needs to be addressed, not what a teacher should and should be making and certainly it shouldn't be predicated on the external circumstances that aren't in their complete control.
 
Last edited:
I didn't vote because the correlation between pay and quality exists on a scale depending on a number of other factors. COL in the community, cost of other benefits, skillset of the teachers involved, etc. Depending upon the school district and education, training, benefits offered, a teacher can make a very good living.
 
I'm sorry but it wouldn't work for me.

No. That's what you're apparently suggesting. What I'm suggesting is when you offer more pay to a profession like teaching you will see more higher qualified applicants that will apply to your area. Not saying that just anybody won't apply, but then that's where you check through the resumes and evaluate the proper person.

It's possible that you're not a fly.
 
I voted yes, but the question is a little simple for the nuance needed to explain. Obviously the calibre of educators that populate the top 50 Prep schools would command a higher salary than say someone who is a public school teacher in PoDunk, Nebraska. Now if the question is in the context that pay should be attached to performance of the student, than I must emphatically say NO!!!!

Should a person who has a generic degree in Education (BA) from a half way decent school make the same as person who has a specific, subject related degree, (e.g. History, Math, English) from another comparable mediocre school? No, I don't believe they should. You're education should be in direct relation to he specific subject you are teaching. This would limit elementary school teachers, whose task is to give a foundational perhaps, but not necessarily, there are other measures which can reveal the quality of an educators work that doesn't have to be connected to the success of the student.

This is all relevant only if we continue with the same pedagogical framework. I personally believe we need a great reformation regarding the way and means in which we educate our children. The pedagogy is the problem first and foremost and that i what needs to be addressed, not what a teacher should and should be making and certainly it shouldn't be predicated on the external circumstances that aren't in their complete control.

The teachers who should be paid the most are the ones who can actually make a difference in the inner city schools where the deck is stacked against them and against their students. There aren't many, but the few heroes who can actually teach kids who come from a background of welfare, drugs, and gangs should be well paid for their contributions to society. Of course, we can't afford to pay them what they're really worth, but then, we can' afford to pay fire fighters what it's worth to rescue people from burning buildings either.
 
The teachers who should be paid the most are the ones who can actually make a difference in the inner city schools where the deck is stacked against them and against their students. There aren't many, but the few heroes who can actually teach kids who come from a background of welfare, drugs, and gangs should be well paid for their contributions to society. Of course, we can't afford to pay them what they're really worth, but then, we can' afford to pay fire fighters what it's worth to rescue people from burning buildings either.

I have that thought from time to time, then I see some youtube clip of one of those teachers who apparently thinks "axe" is now a replacement for "ask" and that Obama is god himself, and I change my mind. :mrgreen:

That said, the same goes for teachers in poor rural areas.
 
The teachers who should be paid the most are the ones who can actually make a difference in the inner city schools where the deck is stacked against them and against their students. There aren't many, but the few heroes who can actually teach kids who come from a background of welfare, drugs, and gangs should be well paid for their contributions to society. Of course, we can't afford to pay them what they're really worth, but then, we can' afford to pay fire fighters what it's worth to rescue people from burning buildings either.

What's your definition of "worth"? Is there some economic basis for it, or are you just making a bunch of dreams and wishes?
 
The teachers who should be paid the most are the ones who can actually make a difference in the inner city schools where the deck is stacked against them and against their students. There aren't many, but the few heroes who can actually teach kids who come from a background of welfare, drugs, and gangs should be well paid for their contributions to society. Of course, we can't afford to pay them what they're really worth, but then, we can' afford to pay fire fighters what it's worth to rescue people from burning buildings either.

But then that goes back to the child, his or her aptitude and drive, not simply a matter of a teacher's ability.

I'll give an example. 2 Students. 1 white, the other black. both poor. Both raised by a single mother and both having siblings. Both went to same sub par schools K-12. Same teachers for the most part, same classes. same cultural influences. Both caddied. 1 today is a truck driver(white) and the other a very prominent doctor(black).

(Affirmative Action had nothing to do with it, and I'm not knocking on truckers only making a true life comparison)

Did the teacher do this or did the student? Was it's the students drive for success, or the qualifications of the teachers?
 
I have that thought from time to time, then I see some youtube clip of one of those teachers who apparently thinks "axe" is now a replacement for "ask" and that Obama is god himself, and I change my mind. :mrgreen:

That said, the same goes for teachers in poor rural areas.

Yes, it does, and no, the teachers who can't say "ask" aren't the ones I've been talking about.
 
What's your definition of "worth"? Is there some economic basis for it, or are you just making a bunch of dreams and wishes?

I'm talking about human worth as well as economic. If a teacher can steer ten students away from welfare dependence and toward productive lives, how much does that save in economic terms? A teacher who does that year in and year out is producing far more than we can afford to pay them.

and that's not even factoring in the richer fuller lives that those students will lead.
 
But then that goes back to the child, his or her aptitude and drive, not simply a matter of a teacher's ability.

I'll give an example. 2 Students. 1 white, the other black. both poor. Both raised by a single mother and both having siblings. Both went to same sub par schools K-12. Same teachers for the most part, same classes. same cultural influences. Both caddied. 1 today is a truck driver(white) and the other a very prominent doctor(black).

(Affirmative Action had nothing to do with it, and I'm not knocking on truckers only making a true life comparison)

Did the teacher do this or did the student? Was it's the students drive for success, or the qualifications of the teachers?

So both of those students are gainfully employed and contributing to society? Neither one is dependent on welfare? They aren't in prison?

If a teacher can save some of the students born into such a nightmare, then he/she is contributing to society in the hundreds of thousands of dollars every year.
 
I'm talking about human worth as well as economic. If a teacher can steer ten students away from welfare dependence and toward productive lives, how much does that save in economic terms? A teacher who does that year in and year out is producing far more than we can afford to pay them.

and that's not even factoring in the richer fuller lives that those students will lead.

You trivialize the child that way. If he succeeds, it's 90% him and 10% the teacher.

Also, you think an extra 20K for all teachers offsets the slim chance that you'll get that one teacher out there who would've had the power to sculpt young lives but chose to be an architect instead?

Last I checked, you can't buy passion or desire. Even teachers will tell you that those of their ilk who do it for the money will almost assuredly burn out.
 
Please explain how the student's aptitude for learning and/or his or her desire to learn has anything to do with and thereby should be considered the predicate for, compensation of the teacher?

there can be a measured curve for any group kids especially when the group remains constant (for the most part) for grades 1-12.

We understand people that don't want to be measured completely.
 
So both of those students are gainfully employed and contributing to society? Neither one is dependent on welfare? They aren't in prison?

If a teacher can save some of the students born into such a nightmare, then he/she is contributing to society in the hundreds of thousands of dollars every year.

I agree whole-heartedly, the pay for a teacher is dismal in comparison to some of those whose societal contribution is much less. I simply disagree that the teacher's compensation should be tied to student performance.
 
You trivialize the child that way. If he succeeds, it's 90% him and 10% the teacher.

Also, you think an extra 20K for all teachers offsets the slim chance that you'll get that one teacher out there who would've had the power to sculpt young lives but chose to be an architect instead?

Last I checked, you can't buy passion or desire. Even teachers will tell you that those of their ilk who do it for the money will almost assuredly burn out.

When it comes to children of poverty, i think it is more than 10% the teacher, but even if that's so, that's 3 students out of the normal class of 30 every year. That's a lot of productive citizens who won't be collecting welfare or burning up the tax money sitting in prison.

But, you do have a point: They can't do it just for the money. It has to be a calling, something beyond just pay.

Which is not to say that they shouldn't be paid more than they are, as they are contributing far more than they are costing.
 
So both of those students are gainfully employed and contributing to society? Neither one is dependent on welfare? They aren't in prison?

If a teacher can save some of the students born into such a nightmare, then he/she is contributing to society in the hundreds of thousands of dollars every year.

Agreed, but that's near impossible to quantify, especially when we're talking about elementary school students. And it's rarely one teacher, or person that influences those contributions.
 
When it comes to children of poverty, i think it is more than 10% the teacher, but even if that's so, that's 3 students out of the normal class of 30 every year. That's a lot of productive citizens who won't be collecting welfare or burning up the tax money sitting in prison.

But, you do have a point: They can't do it just for the money. It has to be a calling, something beyond just pay.

Which is not to say that they shouldn't be paid more than they are, as they are contributing far more than they are costing.

No, I'm not saying that 10% of children will get "touched". I'm saying that if the child succeeds, the teacher should get about 10% of the credit, whereas the child itself should get 90%.
 
No, I'm not saying that 10% of children will get "touched". I'm saying that if the child succeeds, the teacher should get about 10% of the credit, whereas the child itself should get 90%.

Plus there's the assist factor. Perhaps the teacher only succeeded with this student because someone else in the community loosened the jar first.
 
Plus there's the assist factor. Perhaps the teacher only succeeded with this student because someone else in the community loosened the jar first.

That's quite possible. Also, as you suggested, every individual teacher only gets a small window with that specific child. Maybe there are teachers out there that children can say "that's the man who changed my life" of them, but damned if I ever had one. My success is mine; it was not theirs in even the slightest. They were nothing but people who did their jobs as they were supposed to.

I just get weary of the whole "the children are our future" crap as an excuse to think that every teacher is a living saint. It's really hard to have conversations or debate with them.

That's why I said I almost didn't come into this thread. I was going to discuss the economics of teaching, involving supply and demand, saturation, duties, requirements...and, of course, I run head-on into the "oh won't somebody PLEASE think of the children!!!!" crowd. It's like trying to debate a religious nut.
 
there can be a measured curve for any group kids especially when the group remains constant (for the most part) for grades 1-12.

We understand people that don't want to be measured completely.

and when it is self serving, when will those statistics be manipulated? and the determination of progress? Standardized testing? No, I don't think so. The number one problem I see in the education of our youth today is this standardized, homogenized one size fits all pedagogy which is what precisely is the matter with our education system. We don't educate our children, we indoctrinate them. This is truth, we teach them to perform functions, that's all. Those that pass beyond that, they aren't some magical outlier, destined for greatness, the next turn of the evolutionary wheel -- No! They are simply those who happen to be receptive to the current pedagogical construct. The construct which allows for some over-achievement yes, but by far it creates class after class of mediocrity. I will concede that there are some very successful individuals who in spite of themselves --educationally speaking-- have achieved marvelous success, but again, by and large, the education system in America churns out unremarkable graduates bound for fulfilling humdrum tasks.
 
Back
Top Bottom