• 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
Layla_Z said:
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.
Click to expand...

That's what remedial classes are for.

Layla_Z said:
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.
Click to expand...

We can compare students to their own performance from the previous year.

Layla_Z said:
The variables are just too great to evaluate teachers solely on test scores.
Click to expand...

If you have other metrics that you think are useful measurements of student performance, I'm certainly willing to consider them. I think it would be useful to have other data points to consider, if it can be shown that they are an accurate barometer of a student's ability. My main objection is the idea that because test scores are not perfect, we should just throw up our hands and not bother to objectively measure student progress at all. But I agree that there may be other ways to measure their progress...and if those ways can be identified, by all means let's use them too.
 
Last edited:
Harry Guerrilla said:
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 drawn much higher retirement incomes, than that.
Click to expand...
that would be 2.5%....who in their right mind buys an annuity that pays that little? Most teacher retirement accounts are managed by states, and they invest the contributions carefully. Odd thing about Arizona, teachers were not allowed to join the insurance plans that state employees have, which were better and cheaper. This whole medical insurance thing is sometimes a scam. Why would a very large school district charge more for medical insurance than a major utility (where I worked) that has fewer employees? Answer is, the utility is a for profit employer. Schools are not, and are subject to the whims of the voters.
Teachers are professionals, not public servants, but so many people can't see that....
 
UtahBill said:
that would be 2.5%....who in their right mind buys an annuity that pays that little? Most teacher retirement accounts are managed by states, and they invest the contributions carefully. Odd thing about Arizona, teachers were not allowed to join the insurance plans that state employees have, which were better and cheaper. This whole medical insurance thing is sometimes a scam. Why would a very large school district charge more for medical insurance than a major utility (where I worked) that has fewer employees? Answer is, the utility is a for profit employer. Schools are not, and are subject to the whims of the voters.
Teachers are professionals, not public servants, but so many people can't see that....
Click to expand...

That was using rough numbers of course.

I see that but I don't think teachers should be unionized because they receive funding from the state.
Lobbying for more/better/stable benefits means a tax increase but not necessarily providing a better service.
 
Kandahar said:
Those variables can all be controlled for, when evaluating the teachers based on their results.
Click to expand...

How about you volunteer at a school one day a week....I suggest 8th grade, in a community with gang problems....
These are children we are talking about, not kitchen appliances...
 
Kandahar said:
Those variables can all be controlled for, when evaluating the teachers based on their results.
Click to expand...

How do you control for bad parenting, disturbed children, disruptive children, and insane additional duties that have nothing to do with educating a child?
 
UtahBill said:
Teachers are professionals, not public servants, but so many people can't see that....
Click to expand...

I'm all for making teaching more prestigious if it will help attract higher performers, but ultimately they ARE public servants. Their mission is to educate children, and it really doesn't matter how many master's degrees or how many professional certifications they have. In my mind it doesn't really matter if they're "professionals." I'd be open to hiring teachers who never even finished college if they're capable of producing student achievement.
 
Harry Guerrilla said:
That was using rough numbers of course.

I see that but I don't think teachers should be unionized because they receive funding from the state.
Lobbying for more/better/stable benefits means a tax increase but not necessarily providing a better service.
Click to expand...

So many people think of teachers as pubic servants, with emphasis on servant. Is your primary concern here the expense involved with educating kids, or the results, or both? Educating kids now is far cheaper than incarcerating them later on.
 
Layla_Z said:
How do you control for bad parenting, disturbed children, disruptive children, and insane additional duties that have nothing to do with educating a child?
Click to expand...

Like this:

Kandahar said:
I think some people in this thread have misconceptions about how merit pay could work.

Bad: "Mr. Smith's 4th grade class class reads at an average 5.0 grade level, and Mrs. Jones' 4th grade class reads at an average 3.5 grade level. Therefore Mr. Smith is a better teacher than Mrs. Jones."

Better: "Mr. Smith's class reads at an average 5.0 grade level, but those same students read at a 4.5 grade level last year. Mrs. Jones' class reads at an average 3.5 grade level, compared to only a 2.5 grade level last year. Therefore Mrs. Jones is a better teacher than Mr. Smith."

Even better: "Mrs. Jones' class is 60% African-American, 20% Hispanic, and 20% White. 82% of her students are eligible for free lunches, and 15% speak English as a second language. The families in the district earn an average income of $20,000. For an average teacher of this particular remedial reading class, it is appropriate to expect the students to improve by 0.692 grade levels per year on average. Mrs. Jones' class improved by 1.0 grade levels, making her a phenomenal teacher."
Click to expand...
 
MaggieD said:
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.
Click to expand...

Each state different. Nothing that you describe is true where I teach. What is true is that it is extrememly difficult to support a family on a teacher's salary. What is also true is that I have been teaching 16 years and I don't make over $40K. I work in one of the states with the lowest pay but the highest test scores.
 
Kandahar said:
I'm all for making teaching more prestigious if it will help attract higher performers, but ultimately they ARE public servants. Their mission is to educate children, and it really doesn't matter how many master's degrees or how many professional certifications they have. In my mind it doesn't really matter if they're "professionals." I'd be open to hiring teachers who never even finished college if they're capable of producing student achievement.
Click to expand...

You are being inconsistent. Teaching will never be considered a prestigious profession if you insist on labeling them public servants.
Now, politicians can be labeled that, but they aren't, and too many of them are not in it for the salary paid, but for what they can steal....
 
UtahBill said:
How about you volunteer at a school one day a week....I suggest 8th grade, in a community with gang problems....
Click to expand...

Relevance?

UtahBill said:
These are children we are talking about, not kitchen appliances...
Click to expand...

...which makes your refusal to consider a statistical, evidence-based approach to teaching all the more appalling. If you adopted that approach when buying your kitchen appliances, all that would happen is that you'd overpay for shoddy merchandise, rather than perpetuate failing schools that produce more dropouts and criminals.
 
UtahBill said:
So many people think of teachers as pubic servants, with emphasis on servant. Is your primary concern here the expense involved with educating kids, or the results, or both? Educating kids now is far cheaper than incarcerating them later on.
Click to expand...

Both but it isn't an all or nothing game.

The average spent on education from all levels of government is approximately $10k a year.
Now that is an average and some schools spend much more, while others spend much less.
Still though, when I have kids knocking on my door hawking stuff to "support our schools" I get somewhat suspicious and critical of how the money is being spent, when it is adequate already.
 
UtahBill said:
You are being inconsistent. Teaching will never be considered a prestigious profession if you insist on labeling them public servants.
Click to expand...

It really doesn't matter what you label them. My point is that good teachers are good teachers, regardless of how many professional degrees they hold. You can find PhD's who are horrible teachers, and people who never finished college who are great teachers.
 
Kandahar said:
That's what remedial classes are for.



We can compare students to their own performance from the previous year.



If you have other metrics that you think are useful measurements of student performance, I'm certainly willing to consider them. I think it would be useful to have other data points to consider, if it can be shown that they are an accurate barometer of a student's ability. My main objection is the idea that because test scores are not perfect, we should just throw up our hands and not bother to objectively measure student progress at all. But I agree that there may be other ways to measure their progress...and if those ways can be identified, by all means let's use them too.
Click to expand...

What do you do with child who needs remedial classes but the parents refuse. Also, those remedial students still take the standarized tests. This is part of why we compare so poorly with other nations. They don't test everyone, we do.

I think that the salary should be determined by experience and education. Good teachers take on extra duties and good schools find ways to pay them for these duties such as tutoring. Imagine judging a dentist on the number of cavities his patients have. But, the dentist can't control how well the patients brush or if they brush. He can't control what they eat. All he can do is clean their teeth and educate them on dental care they best he can. That is the situation a teacher is in.
 
Kandahar said:
I'm all for making teaching more prestigious if it will help attract higher performers, but ultimately they ARE public servants. Their mission is to educate children, and it really doesn't matter how many master's degrees or how many professional certifications they have. In my mind it doesn't really matter if they're "professionals." I'd be open to hiring teachers who never even finished college if they're capable of producing student achievement.
Click to expand...

Teaching is not a job anyone can do. It takes training, experience, and education. Your last statement is insulting to all teachers. Teaching is a profession that requires at least a 4-year degree. Many teachers have even more education. This is education that they paid for, often attending classes at night while working full time during the day. It is insulting to imply that any monkey can teach.
 
Layla_Z said:
Teaching is not a job anyone can do. It takes training, experience, and education. Your last statement is insulting to all teachers. Teaching is a profession that requires at least a 4-year degree. Many teachers have even more education. This is education that they paid for, often attending classes at night while working full time during the day. It is insulting to imply that any monkey can teach.
Click to expand...

Except that history shows that before the advent of government indoctrination centers parents taught their kids or sent them to private school. We did turn out pretty well with that system.

BTW, I vote no because government indoctrination centers should be closed.
 
Those who can't do, teach.
Those who can't do, or teach, bitch about those who do.....
All this jealousy about teacher pay and benefits is silly. If you think it is such a good deal, become a teacher!!!!

Here is a suggestion....
Try running for a school board position on a platform based on some of the crap posted here, and the parents will NOT vote for you.
That means that your opinions are not supported by the majority. All you can do is take YOUR children out of the system and put them in a school that meets your demands, if you can find one...
 
Layla_Z said:
What do you do with child who needs remedial classes but the parents refuse.
Click to expand...

Why should the parent be given the option to refuse? If the kid needs remedial classes, put him in remedial classes. And if the parent hates the idea that much, they should be able to choose a different school.

Layla_Z said:
Also, those remedial students still take the standarized tests. This is part of why we compare so poorly with other nations. They don't test everyone, we do.
Click to expand...

The innate abilities of a teacher's class can be controlled for, when determining how effective the teacher is. The teacher of a remedial class would not be expected to produce the same quality students as the teacher of an advanced class.

Layla_Z said:
I think that the salary should be determined by experience and education.
Click to expand...

Why? Do those things affect student outcomes?

Layla_Z said:
Good teachers take on extra duties and good schools find ways to pay them for these duties such as tutoring. Imagine judging a dentist on the number of cavities his patients have. But, the dentist can't control how well the patients brush or if they brush. He can't control what they eat. All he can do is clean their teeth and educate them on dental care they best he can. That is the situation a teacher is in.
Click to expand...

A better analogy is judging the dentist on how effectively he fills the cavities that his patients *DO* have. But let's examine your analogy a little more closely: If you have two dentists at the same facility with roughly the same demographic of patients, why SHOULDN'T you be able to judge them on this? If they're both educating their patients on dental care, but one dentist's patients are doing a better job, it sounds to me like he's doing something right. Maybe the other dentist should learn from him and adopt his techniques, instead of just throwing up his hands and saying that his patients are a lost cause.
 
Kandahar said:
Like this:
Click to expand...

That is better than some plans I have read. I fear that since your "bad" scenario would be easiest it would be the norm.
 
UtahBill said:
Those who can't do, teach.
Those who can't do, or teach, bitch about those who do.....
All this jealousy about teacher pay and benefits is silly. If you think it is such a good deal, become a teacher!!!!
Click to expand...

I don't want to be a teacher, in that sense.
I have other dreams for myself, it doesn't mean that I can't criticize how my tax dollars are being spent.

I home school my kids, I don't get the benefit of the taxes, I'm required to pay, so it's in my best interest to reduce the taxes, so I can use that money for my child's schooling needs.


UtahBill said:
Here is a suggestion....
Try running for a school board position on a platform based on some of the crap posted here, and the parents will NOT vote for you.
That means that your opinions are not supported by the majority. All you can do is take YOUR children out of the system and put them in a school that meets your demands, if you can find one...
Click to expand...

Majority rule ≠ correct course of action.
 
Layla_Z said:
Teaching is not a job anyone can do. It takes training, experience, and education. Your last statement is insulting to all teachers. Teaching is a profession that requires at least a 4-year degree. Many teachers have even more education. This is education that they paid for, often attending classes at night while working full time during the day. It is insulting to imply that any monkey can teach.
Click to expand...

I didn't say that any monkey could teach; I certainly wouldn't know where to begin. (What *is* insulting, is your implication that people without 4-year degrees are monkeys, though.)

That doesn't change the fact that there are plenty of people who are great with kids, who would make great teachers even without formal education. And if they're capable of producing demonstrable achievement amongst their students, I don't see any reason they shouldn't be given the opportunity just because they don't have a piece of paper from a university saying that they sat through some classes when they were 21.

If there is any proven correlation between student achievement, and a teacher having lots of pieces of paper with university seals on them, I've never seen it.
 
Last edited:
The_Patriot said:
Except that history shows that before the advent of government indoctrination centers parents taught their kids or sent them to private school. We did turn out pretty well with that system.

BTW, I vote no because government indoctrination centers should be closed.
Click to expand...

When this was true reading, writing, and arithmitic were all a child needed. Most parents do not have the knowledge necessary to prepare their child for college. Additionally, much more is known about how to teach. Teachers are trained in how to teach kids according to how they learn best. Would you like to go back to the medical practices of the time you describe? Me either.
 
The_Patriot said:
Except that history shows that before the advent of government indoctrination centers parents taught their kids or sent them to private school. We did turn out pretty well with that system.

BTW, I vote no because government indoctrination centers should be closed.
Click to expand...

Let's see here, Patriot, very conservative, calls schools indoctrination centers....
and you have a slanted view on history....
How could parents teach their kids when most of them, the parents, couldn't read? IT would work well for the rich. To keep educating only the rich and let the poor remain ignorant might suit the business world of the 18th century, but it won't work now.
 
UtahBill said:
Let's see here, Patriot, very conservative, calls schools indoctrination centers....
and you have a slanted view on history....
How could parents teach their kids when most of them, the parents, couldn't read? IT would work well for the rich. To keep educating only the rich and let the poor remain ignorant might suit the business world of the 18th century, but it won't work now.
Click to expand...

To be fair, the literacy rate in the mid to late 1800s went from around 70% to 80 or 90%, can't remember off the top of my head.
That was for whites, for blacks it was much lower but still increasing.
 
Kandahar said:
Why should the parent be given the option to refuse? If the kid needs remedial classes, put him in remedial classes. And if the parent hates the idea that much, they should be able to choose a different school.



The innate abilities of a teacher's class can be controlled for, when determining how effective the teacher is. The teacher of a remedial class would not be expected to produce the same quality students as the teacher of an advanced class.



Why? Do those things affect student outcomes?



A better analogy is judging the dentist on how effectively he fills the cavities that his patients *DO* have. But let's examine your analogy a little more closely: If you have two dentists at the same facility with roughly the same demographic of patients, why SHOULDN'T you be able to judge them on this? If they're both educating their patients on dental care, but one dentist's patients are doing a better job, it sounds to me like he's doing something right. Maybe the other dentist should learn from him and adopt his techniques, instead of just throwing up his hands and saying that his patients are a lost cause.
Click to expand...

I agree that parents shouldn't be able to refuse, but they can.

First, I never said anyone was a lost cause. You need to remember that we are talking about people not some raw material that is consistent. If school adminstrators would take the time to analyze data the way you've described I might agree to using that data to help determine salary along with experience and education. However, I don't think that is what would happen.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom