• 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
Because it's true?

There is absolutely no logic-based argument as to why teachers should make 100k or even close to that amount. None whatsoever.

It all comes down to liberal "oh won't someone PLEASE think of the children" retardation.
I do not see what you're getting at. :shrug:
 
I think it could go both ways, like there are really good teachers who are underpaid, but then you have really crappy teachers who are overpaid.
 
I do not see what you're getting at. :shrug:

Yeah, it's my fault. That's why I didn't want to get into this thread. It's like a religion or abortion thread. One side will always make a claim or conclusion based on absolutely nothing remotely related to fact.

I wanted to avoid the circle-jerk of people acting like teachers are gods amongst us.
 
Higher salaries generally attract better teachers, that is largely why the best schools are the most expensive schools. However, better credentials alone do not necessarilly mean that a teacher is better. Training can bring out the best in a teacher, but some people are naturally good at it and some are bad at it despite plenty of training. It would be best if the people who shouldn't be teachers could be weeded out during the education and credential process.

Improving education will require eliminating more of the bad teachers, a process that may need to incude some subjectivity but must be handled fairly. Many teachers should be fired because they are burned out, cynical, prejudiced, disengaged and/or just don't like children or teens. Good teachers work hard, and are often exploited, which is why they deserve a right to organize. (every worker does) We need to develop a system where all working teachers will benefit from a raising of the quality standards. These standards need to be based on more than test scores, which do not portray a full picture of the quality of education received by students. If a student gets good test scores and gets to go to college, their eduction should still be considered a failure if they don't really understand what they are taught, don't know how to apply their knowledge to the real world and don't know how to learn on their own.
 
I just go by the fact that some occupations have higher salaries to attract the better minds and people. However, people who are teachers because of money tend to not be the best teachers.
 
Zariak: here is what I think of this topic. I would use a system like this or similar:

I believe that it's OK to start teachers at 100K; however, when the student has his/her evaluation--conducted through the standardized testing--the teachers' evaluation should be judged using the same criteria that the students are judged--in other words, just how many students pass that test. If you have a good number pass the test the teachers receives a passing or good evaluation, but if there are a large number of students fail the tests than the teachers should receive a point for percentage of students that failed, compared to passing, to be later reviewed by the administration. When the tests are given again and the students pass, the point is taken away.

If students keep failing the teachers should be disciplined and perhaps terminated if it continues.

The main problem with that idea is that, depending on the nature of the school district and local community, some teachers have much more challenging students than others. Currently the less experienced teachers are usually the ones who get stuck with the most difficult students. Also test scores do not fully and accurately measure the quality of the student's learning. The recent emphasis on testing is creating an education system where getting good trest scores is becoming more important than learning.
 
I'm personally disappointed with how much our educators make. IMO, they should be starting at around 100K salaries, with the due education, of course.

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

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

Me too. I seen several studies around my area that compared private and christian schools against public ones. The cost per student was about half when it came to private and christian schools. But they don't have the overhead that public schools do, the christian schools are in churches that has been expanded to take care of them. The ACT/SAT score etc. are several rungs above public schooled kids, but the students come from better homes and are more motivated to do good in school and study.

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

So I do think in private and christian schools they are trying to bring up all students to match the highest students achievements where as in public schools, it seems they are holding back students in matching the lowest. Just an observation with nothing to back it up.
 
That is not correct. All this does in increase the pay of the people who enter the profession.

It would make the field more competitive by attracting more people, a portion of which would have to be weeded out, rasing the overall quality. (if the right people are weeded out) Isn't that an example of the wisdom of the marketplace that conservatives are always on about?
 
The main problem with that idea is that, depending on the nature of the school district and local community, some teachers have much more challenging students than others. Currently the less experienced teachers are usually the ones who get stuck with the most difficult students. Also test scores do not fully and accurately measure the quality of the student's learning. The recent emphasis on testing is creating an education system where getting good trest scores is becoming more important than learning.
I never said that there wouldn't be any problems. Nonetheless one can correct as they go. ;)
 
Than in my opinion, he should take it and not pursue a job that pays less; this is what I've been discussing all along--people are not going to work for less pay when they can get a job that pays more. Now if for some reason the employer finds that person not acceptable, that employer will not keep paying a good rate of pay when the employer can try someone else. Meanwhile, the 100K brings quality applicants in to the process. :peace



If quality applicants are attracted at a much lower rate of pay, it is the responsibility of the educational system to attract them.

Throwing away our tax dollars just because they feel it might maybe do some good that they cannot quantify or define is not a good idea.

Right now, we know we are paying the absolute, by a wide margin, most in the world of for the teachers that we hire and that these teachers are producing middle of the pack results.

What's wrong with this picture?
 
It would make the field more competitive by attracting more people, a portion of which would have to be weeded out, rasing the overall quality. (if the right people are weeded out) Isn't that an example of the wisdom of the marketplace that conservatives are always on about?



The marketplace has nothing to do with this particular consideration.

Right now there are more teachers than there are positions. If we honor only marketplace considerations, the pay plummets.

What I would like to see is result that rise to match the level of the cost.

Right now the cost is the highest in the world and the outcomes are barely middle of the pack and that is a generous estimate.

If the outcomes are not changeable as you seem to be implying, then reduce the pay for our teachers to the middle of the pack levels and accept mediocrity as the new normal. I think we need to change the outcomes and the current group of teachers are not doing the things needed to accomplish this. Maybe the answer is to reduce the pay of each teacher and hire more teachers. We know from the reaction of the educational union membership that this is not an option.

Regarding the glut of teachers for the available jobs:

K-5 teacher overload: Too many trained, not enough jobs
<snip>
Public elementary schools in Cherry Hill, N.J., average 400 to 600 applicants for one full-time position; the numbers are up to 400 for work as a long-term substitute, said George Guy, the principal for A. Russell Knight Elementary School.
<snip>
 
If quality applicants are attracted at a much lower rate of pay, it is the responsibility of the educational system to attract them.
I sure would like to know how they're supposed to get quality applicants like that. The old idiom is still true: "You can catch more flies with honey than with vinegar." ;)
 
Why not start them at a very low wage rate and pay them on commission? if the students do well on the tests, they get a raise. If not, they get a cut.

If they only do average, they get to stay where they are.

Standardized multiple guess type of tests are a poor measure of student achievement. It would be much better to let parents choose the school and decide which teachers are best, just as they choose where to shop. Let the marketplace decide who is doing a good job and who is not.
 
I don't think it's directly related, in fact, I think that the students are much more responsible for the quality of education than the teachers are. The best teachers in the world could not make the worst schools significantly better. The best paid teachers in the world wouldn't perform demonstrably better than lower paid teachers. It's the students and the parents that are most responsible, just throwing more money at teachers, much of which would just go to teacher unions, is a waste of money.
 
Home schoolers know that nothing is more important than a motivated student. It is the student's job to learn and most information is in books. My best teachers were poor and motivated by caring not salaries. You really can't pay a good teacher enough money, but only about 1 in 10 or less is a good teacher.
 
Standardized multiple guess type of tests are a poor measure of student achievement. It would be much better to let parents choose the school and decide which teachers are best, just as they choose where to shop. Let the marketplace decide who is doing a good job and who is not.



That sounds good in theory, but in practice, the proximity of the home to the school is a big determiner of the school that the student attends.

I like the idea of the voucher system allowing parents to opt out of the local school for a better or more agreeable or less violent school as the situation dictates.

The current system is the result that all large government run institutions seems to always produce: Increased expense, poorer outcomes and reduced options.

Can anybody connect the dots to Obamacare?

I've said before that it's easy to see when a free market capitalist deal is completed. Everybody gets what they were after and everybody says "Thank you".

It's also easy to see when a big government transaction has been completed. One party feels screwed and the other party doesn't care.
 
That sounds good in theory, but in practice, the proximity of the home to the school is a big determiner of the school that the student attends.

I like the idea of the voucher system allowing parents to opt out of the local school for a better or more agreeable or less violent school as the situation dictates.

The current system is the result that all large government run institutions seems to always produce: Increased expense, poorer outcomes and reduced options.

Can anybody connect the dots to Obamacare?

I've said before that it's easy to see when a free market capitalist deal is completed. Everybody gets what they were after and everybody says "Thank you".

It's also easy to see when a big government transaction has been completed. One party feels screwed and the other party doesn't care.

A voucher system may or may not be the same as parental choice. Some of the systems proposed only pay a portion of the cost, leaving the rest up to the parents. Some only kick in if the school is deemed to be "failing." No, it would be better to simply pay all accredited schools the same per student, and let the local educators run them, let the parents choose which school they like t he best. This would blur the distinction between public and private schools, as any school could be accredited. They would have to teach the basics, hire qualified, credentialed teachers, and that would be about it.
 
I'm personally disappointed with how much our educators make. IMO, they should be starting at around 100K salaries, with the due education, of course.

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

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

I actually don't think so. More and more as time has gone on I've had that conclusion cemented. I think we misconstrue important job with labor skills that are rare or exceedingly difficult to acquire. Are teachers extremely important? Yes without a doubt. But are we lacking in teachers? Not really. Our country still produces an enormous amount of teachers and we rarely seem to have a available teachers to employ, rather the problem is usually affording to keep everyone on the roster. On the mean I'd hazard that we probably have mostly competent teachers, and I doubt significantly boosting their salary would draw people who weren't already considering a career in education. Problems in our education system I believe are primarily rooted in culture and economic attainment. It's the cliche answer I know but I think it is true.
 
Sorry. I don't live in the UK. I'm from the colonies, the Americas. "All this" used in that context is a common colloquialism in my area of the world.

So public school indicates a school run by the government?
 
A voucher system may or may not be the same as parental choice. Some of the systems proposed only pay a portion of the cost, leaving the rest up to the parents. Some only kick in if the school is deemed to be "failing." No, it would be better to simply pay all accredited schools the same per student, and let the local educators run them, let the parents choose which school they like t he best. This would blur the distinction between public and private schools, as any school could be accredited. They would have to teach the basics, hire qualified, credentialed teachers, and that would be about it.



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

As soon as you allow the government to extend or remove approval, you are removing the freedom from those that are required to gain the approval, even if the people allowing it are the ones who are seeking the approval benefits.
 
So public school indicates a school run by the government?



I don't know if you are being serious, so I'll assume that you are.

Yes.
 
I sure would like to know how they're supposed to get quality applicants like that. The old idiom is still true: "You can catch more flies with honey than with vinegar." ;)



And fresh crap works better than either.

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?

It seems to me that if the classroom was made into a better place to teach, the miscreants were removed and the violence and threat of injury were removed, that would attract more of the talented into the profession.
 
Standardized multiple guess type of tests are a poor measure of student achievement. It would be much better to let parents choose the school and decide which teachers are best, just as they choose where to shop. Let the marketplace decide who is doing a good job and who is not.

What are the measurables that you would select to measure the effectiveness of the teachers' efforts and how would you measure them?
 
I voted no for reasons that are more related to my circumstances. I have 3 years in teaching experience in higher education. In the recent student attitudes towards instructors measurements that were taken I was voted at the top ranks for teaching quality.

I have been looking for an online teaching job in USA for at least 2 years now. I was never invited even for an interview till now. I think it is because of the recession problems that you are going through.

But you are also complaining of qualities in education which seems inviting for my skills in teaching. So I tweaked my CV to what I think is now a very outstanding offer! I am willing to share it with you now:

I offer on my CV that I could work with the same high quality at teaching like I do here and work for the half the price compared to the rest of my colleagues there. If it is about recession as a problem then I offer to re-invest back half of my annual salary to the university that hires me!

By doing so I offer my teaching qualities, help with education in USA, help with recession, as well as help the university directly by getting logistics that it may need from half of my annual income. As an example since 100k is mentioned here, I could re-invest back at the university the 50K annually in buying educational materials or other logistics that the university may need in these times of economic recession. I could keep on doing this until the USA is out of recession hopefully one day!

Trying to tackle several problems with one stone here. Trying to help at the times of need. Trying to do you guys a favor like you did to us in 1999.

The results:

Ever since I have distributed this latest offer in my CV I still am not considered even for an interview! I do not know any longer what is going on! Specifically why is not any university in USA not taking advantage of my offer? What is going on? I have spread the offer to major universities that offer education online!

Back to the issue of this thread I answered no because see I am willing to work for half less. So teaching quality for me is not neither positively or negatively related with salary. But this statement stands up to a degree of course.
 
I don't know if you are being serious, so I'll assume that you are.

Yes.

Now, I am no expert at teachers' pay. What I have seen is partially anecdotal and in part research.

-Various, actually almost all my Friends have taken their children out of public schools and put them into private schools, where there are more teachers per child and the pay is merit driven. The kids are doing better and often very much better. They are happier and the grades have gone way up.

-Both components are pay in as much as the more children at the same pay the less you are paying per child. The research seems inconclusive for direct pay, though there is some indication that it works within a certain time frame and where the scheme is well put together. The second component proves very effective. Reducing the number of children per teacher almost always had positive effects in the studies I saw.
 
Back
Top Bottom