• 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!

Should teachers be paid purely based on years of experience?

Should teachers be paid purely based on years of experience?

  • Yes, they should be paid more each year they teach.

    Votes: 3 9.4%

  • No (please explain how you think they should be paid)

    Votes: 29 90.6%
  • Total voters
    32
I am all for rewarding the good and firing the bad, BUT, we should be able to fire the kids as well.
I worked in scouting a few times over the years. If I had a bad kid, I told him to go home. If his parents complained, I told them their child was welcome, as long as a parent comes along with him to see to it that he behaves.
Teachers should be able to say that they will not accept troublemakers in their classrooms. If the kid wants to reject the education being offered, it should be documented. That way he/she can be denied welfare benefits later on....
 
UtahBill said:
Entirely on merit? How will you get good teachers to work in the bad schools?
Click to expand...

Merit isn't necessarily defined by having higher test scores than any other teacher. It should measure which teachers' students show the biggest IMPROVEMENT in their test scores from one year to the next...or even better, which teacher's students show the biggest improvement relative to what their demographics would suggest you could expect.

A teacher who increased her students' performance by 0.9 grade levels during the school year could be considered a huge success, if an average teacher could only be expected to increase the same group of students' performance by 0.4 grade levels. On the other hand, a teacher who only increased her students' performance by 0.9 grade levels would be an abject failure in a system where an average teacher raised the students' performance by 1.5 grade levels.

You'll attract good teachers to bad schools the same way you attract them to any other school: By challenging them to defy expectations, and rewarding them when they do.
 
It shouldn't even be based on experience. It should be based on performance.

What is the point of paying a crappy teacher that happens to have 15 years of crappy experience more money then a good teacher with less experience?


I read an article from the woman who was part of the "Waiting for Superman" documentary that just came out. In it she said she offered to double teacher's salaries (some would earn north of $150k a year) in her district if the teacher's union would eliminate tenure and allow job security to be based on performance rather then longevity. The union said tenure was completely off the table for any negotiations.
 
Gibberish said:
It shouldn't even be based on experience. It should be based on performance.

What is the point of paying a crappy teacher that happens to have 15 years of crappy experience more money then a good teacher with less experience?


I read an article from the woman who was part of the "Waiting for Superman" documentary that just came out. In it she said she offered to double teacher's salaries (some would earn north of $150k a year) in her district if the teacher's union would eliminate tenure and allow job security to be based on performance rather then longevity. The union said tenure was completely off the table for any negotiations.
Click to expand...

That was Michelle Rhee, the chancellor of the DC school systems. She's made a remarkable amount of progress in improving test scores in the District in the three years she's been on the job. But the teachers' union mounted a huge campaign against our mayor, Adrian Fenty, who supported Rhee and was a big proponent of education reform himself. He's now out of a job, and the presumptive mayor-elect looks set to replace Rhee, do the union's bidding, and roll back all of the progress the DC schools have made in the last few years. :(
 
Last edited:
Kandahar said:
That was Michelle Rhee, the chancellor of the DC school systems. She's made a remarkable amount of progress in improving test scores in the District in the three years she's been on the job. But the teachers' union mounted a huge campaign against our mayor, Adrian Fenty, who supported Rhee and was a big proponent of education reform himself. He's now out of a job, and the presumptive mayor-elect looks set to replace Rhee, do the union's bidding, and roll back all of the progress the DC schools have made in the last few years. :(
Click to expand...

All to support teachers scared ****less of losing their job because they know they don't have the passion to put in the dedication the children deserve.
 
Well, think of this. Most young entrepreneurial students of education likewise wouldn't find the offer attractive. If you eliminate the job security portion of an educator's job, you will receive far less incentive for educators to accept the plan. Now, a significant portion of government employees like their job in part because of the job security for which it provides. Those in the private sector typically make more money per year than a government worker, so a number of incentives are created to make it seem worthwhile. This includes a high sense of mission, government benefits, and a relatively consistent feeling of job security. So, by emphasizing more on accountability in a tough district, such as Washington D.C., while trying to tweak with some of the other characteristics of a government position, you may encounter some backlash. Bigger salaries sounds interesting, but without confidence that their hard work will pay off in measurement, why would they offer to put their neck on the line? Furthermore, what if they feel ill-at-ease with the concept that perhaps they can be let go for relatively arbitrary reasons, when the situation seems to be that they are being let go because it is cheaper to continue hiring new teachers and let them go each time their contract runs empty?

It is complicated.
 
I have no problem with paying the taxes. You're preaching to the choir. My issue is that the tenor of others right now is creating an atmosphere where the majority will vote it down.
 
Fiddytree said:
Well, think of this. Most young entrepreneurial students of education likewise wouldn't find the offer attractive. If you eliminate the job security portion of an educator's job, you will receive far less incentive for educators to accept the plan. Now, a significant portion of government employees like their job in part because of the job security for which it provides. Those in the private sector typically make more money per year than a government worker, so a number of incentives are created to make it seem worthwhile. This includes a high sense of mission, government benefits, and a relatively consistent feeling of job security. So, by emphasizing more on accountability in a tough district, such as Washington D.C., while trying to tweak with some of the other characteristics of a government position, you may encounter some backlash. Bigger salaries sounds interesting, but without confidence that their hard work will pay off in measurement, why would they offer to put their neck on the line? Furthermore, what if they feel ill-at-ease with the concept that perhaps they can be let go for relatively arbitrary reasons, when the situation seems to be that they are being let go because it is cheaper to continue hiring new teachers and let them go each time their contract runs empty?

It is complicated.
Click to expand...

Your initial premise is incorrect. Government workers make more money than their private counterparts.

Federal employees earn higher average salaries than private-sector workers in more than eight out of 10 occupations, a USA TODAY analysis of federal data finds. Accountants, nurses, chemists, surveyors, cooks, clerks and janitors are among the wide range of jobs that get paid more on average in the federal government than in the private sector.

Overall, federal workers earned an average salary of $67,691 in 2008 for occupations that exist both in government and the private sector, according to Bureau of Labor Statistics data. The average pay for the same mix of jobs in the private sector was $60,046 in 2008, the most recent data available. Federal pay ahead of private industry - USATODAY.com


CHART: Federal salaries compared to private-sector -- Federal pay ahead of private industry - USATODAY.com

These salary figures do not include the value of health, pension and other benefits, which averaged $40,785 per federal employee in 2008 vs. $9,882 per private worker, according to the Bureau of Economic Analysis.
Click to expand...

Real the bolded part. That oughta' scare everybody.
 
Fiddytree said:
Well, think of this. Most young entrepreneurial students of education likewise wouldn't find the offer attractive. If you eliminate the job security portion of an educator's job, you will receive far less incentive for educators to accept the plan. Now, a significant portion of government employees like their job in part because of the job security for which it provides. Those in the private sector typically make more money per year than a government worker, so a number of incentives are created to make it seem worthwhile. This includes a high sense of mission, government benefits, and a relatively consistent feeling of job security. So, by emphasizing more on accountability in a tough district, such as Washington D.C., while trying to tweak with some of the other characteristics of a government position, you may encounter some backlash. Bigger salaries sounds interesting, but without confidence that their hard work will pay off in measurement, why would they offer to put their neck on the line? Furthermore, what if they feel ill-at-ease with the concept that perhaps they can be let go for relatively arbitrary reasons, when the situation seems to be that they are being let go because it is cheaper to continue hiring new teachers and let them go each time their contract runs empty?

It is complicated.
Click to expand...

Michelle Rhee's proposal wasn't even mandatory. She suggested that all teachers be ALLOWED to forego tenure in exchange for (potentially higher) merit pay. If they felt uncomfortable with it, they could opt for the conventional track (tenure plus small raises each year). The union felt so threatened that they wouldn't even let their members vote on it. And ever since then, they've been on a jihad against Rhee and Fenty, which it appears that they have won.
 
Kandahar said:
Merit isn't necessarily defined by having higher test scores than any other teacher. It should measure which teachers' students show the biggest IMPROVEMENT in their test scores from one year to the next...or even better, which teacher's students show the biggest improvement relative to what their demographics would suggest you could expect.

A teacher who increased her students' performance by 0.9 grade levels during the school year could be considered a huge success, if an average teacher could only be expected to increase the same group of students' performance by 0.4 grade levels. On the other hand, a teacher who only increased her students' performance by 0.9 grade levels would be an abject failure in a system where an average teacher raised the students' performance by 1.5 grade levels.

You'll attract good teachers to bad schools the same way you attract them to any other school: By challenging them to defy expectations, and rewarding them when they do.
Click to expand...
this has not worked locally. good teachers in affluent schools have been offered up to $15,000 annually as a supplement to their salaries to move to horrendous schools
good teachers like to teach. little teaching can be accomplished in some awful schools where the students - to large degree - are not there to get an education
in my kids' former HS, there were 56 students attending, ages 19, 20 and 21, who had fewer than 10 credits. most of them had no statistical chance to earn the credits needed to receive a diploma. and this is at a nationally ranked, top ten HS. for many, school is a social activity, free breakfast and lunch, a place to market their illicit wares, and for their parents, the basis to collect a larger monthly check
being unable to get good teachers to move for the $15,000 annual premium, the system began transferring them by directed assignment. no surprise, the surrounding communities now have a large number of excellent teachers who used to work here
 
Gibberish said:
All to support teachers scared ****less of losing their job because they know they don't have the passion to put in the dedication the children deserve.
Click to expand...

I would consider that an unfair statement. Mostly because if there is anything I have learned being stuck in a college of education or being surrounded with educators or substitute teachers, is that they have a disproportionate amount of dedication towards students-or at least, in the way that they feel is dedication towards students. That isn't really the issue. It's more that there is a complicated series of social and policy discussions with how we can overall improve the education system, and dealing with the various interest groups at hand (educators, administrators, parents, students, service providers, politicians, business leaders, and so forth).
 
justabubba said:
this has not worked locally. good teachers in affluent schools have been offered up to $15,000 annually as a supplement to their salaries to move to horrendous schools
Click to expand...

That is not the same as rewarding teachers for exceeding expectations, which would be lower in failing schools. You can reward them for their students' performance whether they are in the middle of a ghetto or in a pristine suburb. The actual expectations might be different, but the same concept would apply.

justabubba said:
good teachers like to teach. little teaching can be accomplished in some awful schools where the students - to large degree - are not there to get an education
in my kids' former HS, there were 56 students attending, ages 19, 20 and 21, who had fewer than 10 credits. most of them had no statistical chance to earn the credits needed to receive a diploma. and this is at a nationally ranked, top ten HS. for many, school is a social activity, free breakfast and lunch, a place to market their illicit wares, and for their parents, the basis to collect a larger monthly check
Click to expand...

Geoffrey Canada established a group of charter schools in the heart of Harlem: New York's worst-performing school district. Not only does it get far better results than the surrounding Harlem public schools (over 90% of his students go to college), but it's among the best-performing schools in all of New York City. It's simply not true that poor students from rough neighborhoods are incapable or unwilling to learn.
 
Last edited:
I read something the other day about motivation. It was tested on engineer types so it may not be directly applicable to teachers. Basically, it said more money, beyond a certain point, does not motivate as much as expected. It was more autonomy and satisfaction of accomplishment than money. I will try to find that and post a link.
It might have been on TED.com
 
I was getting my information from a few general studies on bureaucracy over the decades and including this.
Edit: But thank you for bringing that to my attention. The scholars at AEI are disputing the commonly accepted statistics that government workers of local, state, and federal positions are receiving a significantly lower wage than private sector counterparts. Though, from a quick scan of an AEI scholar's commentary rebuttal (which referenced the USA Today Findings) it looks as though it may be limited in scope in commentary about recession years. I could be scanning that wrong, which is entirely possible...as I am supposed to be doing something productive at the moment...but am not.

NEW YORK (CNNMoney.com) -- State and local workers earn less than their private sector counterparts and the pay gap is widening, according to a report released Wednesday.

Public workers earn 11% to 12% less than workers in private companies, according to a joint study from the Center for State and Local Government Excellence and National Institute on Retirement Security.

The report, which analyzed 20 years of data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics, also found that the pay gap has generally widened over the last two decades, as private compensation moved higher while earnings for state and local workers fell.
Click to expand...
Public workers receive less pay, gap widens - Apr. 28, 2010
 
Last edited:
Kandahar said:
That is not the same as rewarding teachers for exceeding expectations, which would be lower in failing schools. You can reward them for their students' performance whether they are in the middle of a ghetto or in a pristine suburb. The actual expectations might be different, but the same concept would apply.



Geoffrey Canada established a group of charter schools in the heart of Harlem: New York's worst-performing school district. Not only does it get far better results than the surrounding Harlem public schools (over 90% of his students go to college), but it's among the best-performing schools in all of New York City. It's simply not true that poor students from rough neighborhoods are incapable or unwilling to learn.
Click to expand...

What is more interesting is the fact that they are trying to study what was it that worked for Canada and how to best duplicate the results. My best guess is that you can perhaps attain similar results, but I am less confident in them nailing it to a science.
 
UtahBill said:
I read something the other day about motivation. It was tested on engineer types so it may not be directly applicable to teachers. Basically, it said more money, beyond a certain point, does not motivate as much as expected. It was more autonomy and satisfaction of accomplishment than money. I will try to find that and post a link.
It might have been on TED.com
Click to expand...

In fact, the way I read it, I believe it was engineers who were among the first, or perhaps the first to be tested with various forms of merit pay. Something like two forms were tried. One did not work so well, another model worked far better. Then, the application of those studies into the field of education was less than successful, perhaps arguably, because of the amount of resistance it experienced.
 
Kandahar said:
That is not the same as rewarding teachers for exceeding expectations, which would be lower in failing schools. You can reward them for their students' performance whether they are in the middle of a ghetto or in a pristine suburb. The actual expectations might be different, but the same concept would apply.
Click to expand...
you misunderstood my point .... or more likely, i did not make it very clear
the teachers in the more affluent schools in this community's public school system who were already recognized to be exceptional teachers were being offered the premium pay to leave their present school assignments to take teaching positions in the more challenging schools - those with inferior performance records
those high performing teachers did not want to make the move. despite the rich premium offered. being able to teach, instead of babysit was the determinative factor
Geoffrey Canada established a group of charter schools in the heart of Harlem: New York's worst-performing school district. Not only does it get far better results than the surrounding Harlem public schools (over 90% of his students go to college), but it's among the best-performing schools in all of New York City. It's simply not true that poor students from rough neighborhoods are incapable or unwilling to learn.
Click to expand...
you make a statement as if to insinuate that i established that students from rough neighborhoods are incapable or unwilling to learn. that is not a valid position
however, with few exceptions, the performance data from public schools located in rough neighborhoods will indicate they perform at lesser levels than their more affluent counterparts

now tell us, other than better performance outcomes, what about the canada charter schools is different from the way the public schools in its community operates. that might be telling
 
Part of the issue, at least in my state (PA), is that schools are paid for mostly by means of property taxes.

Thus, if you have a prosperous area, the schools have more money.

And vice versa.

This, IMO, is a very bad system, as it prevents or limits (I think there are some grants and whatnot that someone thought might help this) monetary-based improvements in poor areas.

I would far rather that if you have public schools, school funding, at least, would follow a more socialistic theme, (the horror!) wherein all funds for public schools in an area (perhaps even state?) would be evenly divided amongst the various schools in said area.

But I’ve only halfway thought this through, so perhaps this is a bad idea.
 
The Mark said:
Part of the issue, at least in my state (PA), is that schools are paid for mostly by means of property taxes.

Thus, if you have a prosperous area, the schools have more money.

And vice versa.

This, IMO, is a very bad system, as it prevents or limits (I think there are some grants and whatnot that someone thought might help this) monetary-based improvements in poor areas.

I would far rather that if you have public schools, school funding, at least, would follow a more socialistic theme, (the horror!) wherein all funds for public schools in an area (perhaps even state?) would be evenly divided amongst the various schools in said area.

But I’ve only halfway thought this through, so perhaps this is a bad idea.
Click to expand...
There is a certain amount of equalization in some states. I am all for it. The state should collect all school related property taxes and then dole the funds back out based on actual student numbers. We can't blame the kids for their parents being poor...
 
Kandahar said:
I think this is exactly the wrong mindset, if I understood you correctly. It's still teacher-focused rather than student-focused: A teacher should get tenure simply because they have to "put up with crap," rather than because it will actually help the students. I think we need to stamp out that mindset entirely in our education system. It exists to educate students, not to provide teachers with jobs.
Click to expand...

Well, another reason why I'm against basing teacher salaries on student performance is because it's so difficult to measure. I mean how do we know that the reason why students aren't learning is because of the teachers and not because of problems at home? After all, right now a lot of children are under stress because their parents are out of work which is making them stressed. So because those children are worried about mommy and daddy are fighting all the time instead of the multiplication tables, those teachers are going to have their pay suffer for it.

Obviously, I'm not against the firing of bad teachers. I just don't think salaries should be determined by student performance.
 
Experience, continuing education (Masters, Phd.), performance reviews.
 
justabubba said:
you misunderstood my point .... or more likely, i did not make it very clear
the teachers in the more affluent schools in this community's public school system who were already recognized to be exceptional teachers were being offered the premium pay to leave their present school assignments to take teaching positions in the more challenging schools - those with inferior performance records
those high performing teachers did not want to make the move. despite the rich premium offered. being able to teach, instead of babysit was the determinative factor
Click to expand...

I think that different schools could offer different average salaries, depending on how difficult it is to attract good teachers to that district. But they could still offer merit pay. So for example, an inner city might need to pay slightly more on average per teacher. But simply by offering merit pay, they could increase the talent pool of their teachers even if they weren't getting the best of the best.

justabubba said:
you make a statement as if to insinuate that i established that students from rough neighborhoods are incapable or unwilling to learn. that is not a valid position
however, with few exceptions, the performance data from public schools located in rough neighborhoods will indicate they perform at lesser levels than their more affluent counterparts
Click to expand...

I agree, but that's mostly just a matter of the quality of those schools IMO. It may be more challenging to educate those who come from impoverished backgrounds, but I do not agree that "little teaching can be accomplished in awful schools where children are not there to get an education." It seems to me that Geoffrey Canada's example demonstrated that the awful schools are what caused the students to turn away from education, rather than the other way around. If you can put talented teachers in failing schools, you can completely change the perspectives of the students.

justabubba said:
now tell us, other than better performance outcomes, what about the canada charter schools is different from the way the public schools in its community operates. that might be telling
Click to expand...

In the New York public schools, it is literally impossible to fire a teacher for any reason (including sexual misconduct with a student), let alone something at least partially subjective like incompetence. Geoffrey Canada was able to keep the high performers and get rid of the bad teachers. Additionally, students are in school for more hours per year than the students at the nearby public schools, which are hampered by burdensome union contracts.
 
Judging by several posts in this thread, I would judge that teachers unions are part of the issue in some areas.
 
Kandahar said:
I think that different schools could offer different average salaries, depending on how difficult it is to attract good teachers to that district. But they could still offer merit pay. So for example, an inner city might need to pay slightly more on average per teacher. But simply by offering merit pay, they could increase the talent pool of their teachers even if they weren't getting the best of the best.



I agree, but that's mostly just a matter of the quality of those schools IMO. It may be more challenging to educate those who come from impoverished backgrounds, but I do not agree that "little teaching can be accomplished in awful schools where children are not there to get an education." It seems to me that Geoffrey Canada's example demonstrated that the awful schools are what caused the students to turn away from education, rather than the other way around. If you can put talented teachers in failing schools, you can completely change the perspectives of the students.



In the New York public schools, it is literally impossible to fire a teacher for any reason (including sexual misconduct with a student), let alone something at least partially subjective like incompetence. Geoffrey Canada was able to keep the high performers and get rid of the bad teachers. Additionally, students are in school for more hours per year than the students at the nearby public schools, which are hampered by burdensome union contracts.
Click to expand...
"Slightly" more pay won't do it. Nobody in their right mind looks at just the pay when they take a job.
Just like any other job, people seek to improve their lives, but they aren't likely to go to work at a school with known gang problems, or even a good school with non supportive administration. I know one teacher ready to leave a very good district to go to work as an asst. principal in a district that pays their administrators a little less but you can count on the District level administration to support the teachers and principals when parents get crazy. When a child becomes disruptive, the teacher should not have to have that child in his/her class. Send the kid home and let the parents deal with the bad behavior.
My wife taught many years, 8th grade, and in her last year she got the student from hell, with parents who insisted their child was an angel, even tho he did almost no school work, and beat up on little kids on the playground. Dealing with that little punk, she was happy to retire...
There aren't that many bad kids in most schools, it shouldn't be so hard to send them home.
 
No in any industry there are people who have been there years who are useless but its too much effort and expence to get rid of them.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom