• 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
Kandahar said:
Not necessarily, as class size doesn't actually have very much correlation to student performance, despite the conventional wisdom. But I digress. My point is that data analytics is not particularly expensive for a school, since there really isn't that much data to analyze. IBM could do it all in a single day. Even a failing school should be able to find enough money for something that will actually help students. And if not, raise taxes to pay for it. More educational spending would be well worth it, if it actually improved student performance as this would. The problem is that schools waste too much money on crap that doesn't actually benefit students.
Click to expand...

Well, it also doesn't help that education keeps getting politicized by stuff that should have nothing to do it with it. Take, for example, the controversies over Intelligent Design, or how the Texas School Board is holding textbooks all over the U.S. hostage. All too often politicians from both sides want to use public education for leverage with issues that shouldn't have nothing to do with public education. That doesn't help things either.
 
OscarB63 said:
yep, best teacher can't teach any kid much of anything when they have to spend 80% of the class period keeping thugs and criminals under control.
Click to expand...

unfortunately, you are both right

and notice, in neither instance is the problem found to be the incompetence of the teacher
 
On a related note, anyone who hasn't seen "Waiting For Superman" needs to go see it. Right now. It's a documentary about the sorry state of our schools and how they can be reformed. It features interviews with reformists like Geoffrey Canada, Michelle Rhee, and Bill Gates. With your movie ticket, you also get a $15 charity gift to give to a classroom of your choice. I gave mine to a 2nd grade teacher at a poor school in DC who needed some books for her kids.
 
OscarB63 said:
I guess my concern is that it really doesn't address what I consider to be the root problem. the root problem isn't the existance of a small % of crappy teachers. the root problem is the % of crappy students that won't respond to even the best of teachers.
Click to expand...

I disagree. I think that the example of the Harlem Children's Zone shows that even students from one of the worst neighborhoods in New York City could excel, if they are given the opportunity, if someone takes an interest in them personally (which they may not get at home), and if they are placed in a school full of talented teachers. Over 90% of the students at HCZ go to college...and they aren't the handpicked best of the best students, they're just random students from Harlem who happened to win the lottery allowing them to go there. While there may be occasional exceptions, "crappy students that won't respond to even the best of teachers" are not an immutable fact of life...they are a PRODUCT of no one caring about them, at home or at school.

OscarB63 said:
everyone is so concerned about getting rid of bad teachers. maybe we need to look into a method of getting rid of bad students.
Click to expand...

Ultimately there is only so much you can do about the students: Expel them if they're truly awful, or send them to a special school. But otherwise, there is very little that public policy can do to change the innate abilities of their students or to make the parents take a more active role. On the other hand, it should be very easy to change the innate abilities of the teachers: Fire the bad ones and hire good ones.

Geoffrey Canada claims (and I haven't seen his evidence so I have no idea if he's right) that if we just fired the worst 10% of our teachers and replaced them with average teachers, our schools would be as good as Finland's: the best in the world.
 
Last edited:
Kandahar said:
I disagree. I think that the example of the Harlem Children's Zone shows that even students from one of the worst neighborhoods in New York City could excel, if they are given the opportunity, if someone takes an interest in them personally (which they may not get at home), and if they are placed in a school full of talented teachers. Over 90% of the students at HCZ go to college...and they aren't the handpicked best of the best students, they're just random students from Harlem who happened to win the lottery allowing them to go there. While there may be occasional exceptions, "crappy students that won't respond to even the best of teachers" are not an immutable fact of life...they are a PRODUCT of no one caring about them, at home or at school.



Ultimately there is only so much you can do about the students: Expel them if they're truly awful, or send them to a special school. But otherwise, there is very little that public policy can do to change the innate abilities of their students or to make the parents take a more active role. On the other hand, it should be very easy to change the innate abilities of the teachers: Fire the bad ones and hire good ones.
Click to expand...
i have not seen the superman movie
but my understanding is that the students are randomly selected in a lottery
however, those who are entered into the lottery are NOT there randomly. they are those who seek an education and/or the opportunities a good education can provide
those traits are atypical of the typical harlem student i would submit, making the lottery selection not indicative of the typical student one would expect to find in public school

Geoffrey Canada claims (and I haven't seen his evidence so I have no idea if he's right) that if we just fired the worst 10% of our teachers and replaced them with average teachers, our schools would be as good as Finland's: the best in the world.
Click to expand...
if canada said this, then he is not someone who could be found credible
the average student in finland is more like the average motivated asian or jewish student here rather that the average student
smart American students are as abundant and smart as they have ever been
however, where the mass of students were average a couple of generations ago, the majority of today's USA students are ignorant and unmotivated
improving the teaching abilities of 10% of the nation's teacher cadre will not change that reality
 
Kandahar said:
On a related note, anyone who hasn't seen "Waiting For Superman" needs to go see it. Right now. It's a documentary about the sorry state of our schools and how they can be reformed. It features interviews with reformists like Geoffrey Canada, Michelle Rhee, and Bill Gates. With your movie ticket, you also get a $15 charity gift to give to a classroom of your choice. I gave mine to a 2nd grade teacher at a poor school in DC who needed some books for her kids.
Click to expand...

I will watch it, however, like almost all documentaries out there, remind yourselves that they typically go for the most impacting narrative they can pick. Beware of oversimplifications, because it will be in the documentarian's best interests to have it "stick with you" rather than presenting something "boring, professorial, and bogged down with details."

It is incredibly difficult to find a smart documentary.
 
Mellie said:
Simple question. Maybe a simple answer.

Should teachers be paid purely based on years of experience?

If so, why?
If not, how would you revamp the salary schedules if you were in charge?
Click to expand...

Paid purely based on years of experience. HELL NO!

1st bust the unions.
Second have the schools negotiate contracts with the teachers one-on-one.
Third; give parents vouchers to shop their kids schools.

Nothing like competition to bring out the best in anyone.

Of course, the free market is a wholly foreign concept to most teachers.

PS. My best paid teacher might just be the one who fails the most kids. Quite possible.

.
 
Last edited:
zimmer said:
Paid purely based on years of experience. HELL NO!

1st bust the unions.
Click to expand...
why? the states which have unions tend to have student performance scores that best those states which do not recognize teacher unions
if the better educated students are from unionized states, it makes no sense to abolish union activity ... unless you want those students to be as stupid as the ones taught in the non-unionized states
Second have the schools negotiate contracts with the teachers one-on-one.
Click to expand...
and this will accomplish what, other than requiring considerable time at a cost of objectivity?
Third; give parents vouchers to shop their kids schools.
Click to expand...
so, you want to subsidize the expense of those who send their kids to private schools
vouchers would be abused overnite by charlatans who offered to operate schools at a discount so the sorry parents, those interested only in how the vouchers could benefit them rather than their kids, would get a kickback of their voucher balance. we can only imagine how (in)effective those private schools would operate
Nothing like competition to bring out the best in anyone.
Click to expand...
tell us exactly how that competition would improve outcomes and why

Of course, the free market is a wholly foreign concept to most teachers.
Click to expand...
teachers do not live in our capitalist economy. that is stunning news [/sarcasm]

PS. My best paid teacher might just be the one who fails the most kids. Quite possible.

.
Click to expand...
now there is an effective approach [/sarcasm]
why teach kids when we can fail them instead, to be found to be a superior teacher
 
justabubba said:
why? the states which have unions tend to have student performance scores that best those states which do not recognize teacher unions. if the better educated students are from unionized states, it makes no sense to abolish union activity ... unless you want those students to be as stupid as the ones taught in the non-unionized states.

and this will accomplish what, other than requiring considerable time at a cost of objectivity?

so, you want to subsidize the expense of those who send their kids to private schools
vouchers would be abused overnite by charlatans who offered to operate schools at a discount so the sorry parents, those interested only in how the vouchers could benefit them rather than their kids, would get a kickback of their voucher balance. we can only imagine how (in)effective those private schools would operate

tell us exactly how that competition would improve outcomes and why


teachers do not live in our capitalist economy. that is stunning news [/sarcasm]


now there is an effective approach [/sarcasm]
why teach kids when we can fail them instead, to be found to be a superior teacher
Click to expand...

A link that proves unionized teachers are better teachers or that their students test out better. Please?

No public sector should be unionized. Period. When the private sector is unionized, negotiation takes place between the "profit maker" and the "worker." If there's not enough profit, union demands cannot be met. In the public sector, cronies give away the store and expect taxpayers to make up the difference.

As to vouchers and competition, please link to one example where competition doesn't improve results. Especially in poor performing inner-city schools, parents should have the means to remove their kids from these destructive environments and put them in schools whose primary focus in on education rather than gang-babysitting.

American schools are failing because they are organized according to a bureaucratic, monopolistic model.
Click to expand...
What Would A School Voucher Buy The Real Cost Of Private Schools

In fact, Education Department figures show that the average private elementary school tuition in America is less than $2,500. The average tuition for all private schools, elementary and secondary, is $3,116, or less than half of the cost per pupil in the average public school, $6,857. A survey of private schools in Indianapolis, Jersey City, San Francisco, and Atlanta shows that there are many options available to families with $3,000 to spend on a child's education. Even more options would no doubt appear if all parents were armed with $3,000 vouchers.
Click to expand...
Same link.
 
justabubba said:
why? the states which have unions tend to have student performance scores that best those states which do not recognize teacher unions
if the better educated students are from unionized states, it makes no sense to abolish union activity ... unless you want those students to be as stupid as the ones taught in the non-unionized states
Click to expand...

There is very little correlation at the state level. Some of the states with the highest dropout rates - California and DC come to mind - have very strong teachers' unions. Some of the states with the lowest dropout rates - the Dakotas, Wyoming, Montana - have comparatively weak teachers' unions. But regardless, the problem is at the LOCAL level. Every state has good schools and bad schools. The question is how they actually address that discrepancy. And agonizing over how unfair it is to the teachers to fire incompetents in failing schools misses the entire point of the education system: to educate.

justabubba said:
and this will accomplish what, other than requiring considerable time at a cost of objectivity?
Click to expand...

Merit pay is objective. If your numbers are good, you get a bonus. If they are consistently bad year after year, you get the axe.

justabubba said:
so, you want to subsidize the expense of those who send their kids to private schools
vouchers would be abused overnite by charlatans who offered to operate schools at a discount so the sorry parents, those interested only in how the vouchers could benefit them rather than their kids, would get a kickback of their voucher balance. we can only imagine how (in)effective those private schools would operate
Click to expand...

Private schools would still have to be accredited by the government in order to qualify for vouchers, much like students at accredited private universities are eligible for federal Stafford loans.

justabubba said:
tell us exactly how that competition would improve outcomes and why
Click to expand...

Because the schools would have to improve to show that they are better than the school next door. And if they don't, all the students (and funding) will leave.
 
Last edited:
zimmer said:
Paid purely based on years of experience. HELL NO!

1st bust the unions.
Second have the schools negotiate contracts with the teachers one-on-one.
Third; give parents vouchers to shop their kids schools.

Nothing like competition to bring out the best in anyone.

Of course, the free market is a wholly foreign concept to most teachers.

PS. My best paid teacher might just be the one who fails the most kids. Quite possible.

.
Click to expand...

Education is not your standard product, competition among schools and teachers won't work near as well as competition among students. If you can't get them to care about their own future, there is no hope.
 
UtahBill said:
Education is not your standard product, competition among schools and teachers won't work near as well as competition among students. If you can't get them to care about their own future, there is no hope.
Click to expand...

bravo, quote of the day
 
I don't suppose there is any way to get violent and disruptive kids (due to the school being, say, in or near a gang neighborhood) sent to a different school designed around teaching that type?

Nah...

Regarding the issue of parents not doing enough - I personally think that can be remedied to an extent by a good teacher.

But by no means totally.

Still, if you could get a generation or so of kids who, while not learning certain ideas from their parents, have acquired them in school, then perhaps when THEY are the parents…

It would seem to follow that the public school system is partly to blame for the problems with parents…

Maybe it’s a circular thing?

Meh.
 
The Mark said:
I don't suppose there is any way to get violent and disruptive kids (due to the school being, say, in or near a gang neighborhood) sent to a different school designed around teaching that type?

Nah...

Regarding the issue of parents not doing enough - I personally think that can be remedied to an extent by a good teacher.

But by no means totally.

Still, if you could get a generation or so of kids who, while not learning certain ideas from their parents, have acquired them in school, then perhaps when THEY are the parents…

It would seem to follow that the public school system is partly to blame for the problems with parents…

Maybe it’s a circular thing?

Meh.
Click to expand...
Teachers train to teach, not modify bad behavior, which BTW is not easy to do. If the parents cannot prepare their kids to behave in a classroom environment, they should teach them at home, at their own expense..
 
UtahBill said:
Teachers train to teach, not modify bad behavior, which BTW is not easy to do. If the parents cannot prepare their kids to behave in a classroom environment, they should teach them at home, at their own expense..
Click to expand...
You know damn well that if they cannot care enough to prepare for and support their kids in school, they sure as HELL couldn't be bothered to homeschool em'.

Edit: And, really, that was my point - teachers are not (usually) well trained in working against bad-behaving students - thus the separate school or something, with teachers trained to handle such.
 
Last edited:
The Mark said:
You know damn well that if they cannot care enough to prepare for and support their kids in school, they sure as HELL couldn't be bothered to homeschool em'.

Edit: And, really, that was my point - teachers are not (usually) well trained in working against bad-behaving students - thus the separate school or something, with teachers trained to handle such.
Click to expand...

Yes, I do know .... I have seen close up, too close, right next door, a family where both parents should have been sterilized at age 12, but instead they found each other and had half a dozen babies that they feed, clothe, and otherwise ignore.
Then when the kids start school and can't behave, somehow it is teacher's problem.
After such parents have had 5 or 6 years to ruin a child, it takes a lot of teachers, shrinks, counselors, and a lot of years to fix the problem. Why should the taxpayer foot that bill? I will answer my own question, because if we don't, we will likely have to deal with the child later on as an adult on welfare, or in prison. I feel sorry for the kids in question. They would be better off in orphanages than to stay with such parents.
 
The Giant Noodle said:
Teachers in Illinois are FAR overpaid. WAAAAAY overpaid. NO pension! And they should be paid per MONTH. To me their yearly pay based on 9 months of service should be no more than $40K. PLUS they should pay for their health insurance like the rest of America. 20% of their pay should go to health insurance. These people dont do it because they LOVE it (for the most part). They do it because of the AWESOME pay, pension, benefits and 3 months off. And its a fairly EASY JOB!!!!!!
Click to expand...

Wow, what teacher picked on you in school?

Since when does all of America pay their own insurance? Don't most professionals have at least partially paid insurance? Also, not all teachers have paid insurance.
Most teachers I know do teach because the want to. The pay is not awesome compared to others with similar education. Three months off is a myth. Much of that time is spent taking classes, attending workshops, and preparing for the next year. For many teachers the time "off" helps balance the crazy hours they work during the school year.

Finally, only someone who hasn't taught would say teaching is easy. People are so quick to advocate for merit pay and in some ways it does sound good on paper. If you were a factory worker you could be paid according to the quantity and quality of your work. However, imagine that same factory worker who has no control over the quality of the base materials. Maybe once in awhile someone comes in tears up what he's done during the day. Maybe the boss keeps adding duties that have nothing to do with making the product. Don't forget that sometimes the product just refuses to be put together and the supplier of the product encourages this.
 
Layla_Z said:
Wow, what teacher picked on you in school?

Since when does all of America pay their own insurance? Don't most professionals have at least partially paid insurance? Also, not all teachers have paid insurance.
Most teachers I know do teach because the want to. The pay is not awesome compared to others with similar education. Three months off is a myth. Much of that time is spent taking classes, attending workshops, and preparing for the next year. For many teachers the time "off" helps balance the crazy hours they work during the school year.

Finally, only someone who hasn't taught would say teaching is easy. People are so quick to advocate for merit pay and in some ways it does sound good on paper. If you were a factory worker you could be paid according to the quantity and quality of your work. However, imagine that same factory worker who has no control over the quality of the base materials. Maybe once in awhile someone comes in tears up what he's done during the day. Maybe the boss keeps adding duties that have nothing to do with making the product. Don't forget that sometimes the product just refuses to be put together and the supplier of the product encourages this.
Click to expand...

Teachers have ridiculously awesome retirement programs.
It's a bit much if you ask me.
 
Kandahar said:
The average teacher has at least 25 students (even more in the upper grade levels). The circumstances of individual students even out in the aggregate, and would not affect the teacher's overall performance. Besides, the risk of something like that happening to lower a teacher's performance review occasionally is simply not as important as making sure that children have decent educations.
Click to expand...

Sadly, one child can change the dynamic of a classroom. Even with a great teacher more time is spent on troubled children and less on everyone else. Additionally, classes vary a great deal from year to year. One of the problems with standarized tests is that it compares this year's 5th grade to last year's 5th grade. A super bright group can go through the school and make everyone else look bad by comparison. There is nothing the teacher can do about this.

The variables are just too great to evaluate teachers solely on test scores.
 
Why should teachers not have good retirement programs. We pay into them.
 
Harry Guerrilla said:
Teachers have ridiculously awesome retirement programs.
It's a bit much if you ask me.
Click to expand...
If it is so awesome, people should be flocking to the profession, especially now.
My son has been teaching 10 years or so, and has to DJ and coach to make enough money to live in the area where he teaches.
IMO, the starting pay is too low, and could be bumped up by lowering the step raises given each year. They earn the same amount over the years, but it is less "end loaded". Pay charts I have seen range from $35K to $85K, based on years and education.
Perhaps a starting pay of $50K and an ending pay of $75K would help attract better teachers.
 
Layla_Z said:
Why should teachers not have good retirement programs. We pay into them.
Click to expand...

The retirement income generated does not equal the contributions put forward.

Using rough numbers, getting $25k a year in dividends, in a totally self funded account, requires somewhere in the area of $1 million and teachers typically draw much higher retirement incomes, than that.
 
Last edited:
Layla_Z said:
Why should teachers not have good retirement programs. We pay into them.
Click to expand...

My wife paid into her retirement account out of her pay. Our son does the same. Not all schools are the same.
The district paid HER medical insurance, but not for me or the kids. Good thing I had a job that did...if she put us on the districts medical plan, it would have been very expensive. Who here is willing to pay for HMO insurance at the rate of $10,000 per year?
Our son gets his family coverage from an outside company for about half what the district would charge.
As for the 9 month thing, typically teachers show up at least a week ahead of the students at the start of the year. Then there are the continuing education requirements, often done during summer.
 
Layla_Z said:
Finally, only someone who hasn't taught would say teaching is easy. People are so quick to advocate for merit pay and in some ways it does sound good on paper. If you were a factory worker you could be paid according to the quantity and quality of your work. However, imagine that same factory worker who has no control over the quality of the base materials. Maybe once in awhile someone comes in tears up what he's done during the day. Maybe the boss keeps adding duties that have nothing to do with making the product. Don't forget that sometimes the product just refuses to be put together and the supplier of the product encourages this.
Click to expand...

Those variables can all be controlled for, when evaluating the teachers based on their results.
 
Layla_Z said:
Why should teachers not have good retirement programs. We pay into them.
Click to expand...

I can't speak for your state, but in Illinois, teachers have a defined BENEFIT plan. Public employees are just about the ONLY employees that get defined benefit pension plans. All the rest of us get 401K's or the like. In Illinois, teachers' retirement benefits are far enough ahead of the curve as to be bankrupting their own system and bankrupting Illinois. It is not unusual at all for a teacher (a TEACHER, not an administrator) in Illinois to retire with $75,000 or more in annual pension benefits.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom