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

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

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

A lot of them, I don't think are. I'd be entirely fine if teachers all made the same amount of money and, either on a quarterly or once a semester term, they were eligible for raises or bonuses based on the demonstrable improvement in their classroom. I'd love to see students required to take a standardized exam at the end of every single year of school, those scores become the starting place for the next teacher and on some interval, they get a bonus (quarter or semester) or a raise (annual) for beating some objective standard. If they don't make it, they don't get the money. We just need to make sure that the teacher is actually teaching and the kids are actually learning, the teacher or the school isn't just gaming the system.
 
The better colleges pay their instructors more and get better results. There is no reason to think that the same wouldn't happen with public K-12 schools if handled correctly. Many people opt out of teaching because they can get better pay (and working conditions) elsewhere. Higher pay will generate more candidates for teaching positions, allowing schools the ability to choose only the better ones.
 
The better colleges pay their instructors more and get better results. There is no reason to think that the same wouldn't happen with public K-12 schools if handled correctly. Many people opt out of teaching because they can get better pay (and working conditions) elsewhere. Higher pay will generate more candidates for teaching positions, allowing schools the ability to choose only the better ones.

Just to point out, there is a fundamental difference between K-12 Public Education and College Education. That is 100% of the students, from a government standpoint, are there voluntarily. There is no law that requires student attendance at colleges. And if a student has disciplinary problems or does not perform academically, they can be booted.



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

I agree with the sentiment. I would go further, however, and say you can't even quantify such a thing.
 
I agree with the sentiment. I would go further, however, and say you can't even quantify such a thing.

Well yeah, there's no formula for this type of thing. I just wanted to portray that a child succeeding is about the child and not about the teacher, who is just doing his or her job. It's just something you "have" to say, like a Grammy winner thanking God, or a Super Bowl winning quarterback thanking his coach after throwing 6 touchdowns.
 
A lot of them, I don't think are. I'd be entirely fine if teachers all made the same amount of money and, either on a quarterly or once a semester term, they were eligible for raises or bonuses based on the demonstrable improvement in their classroom. I'd love to see students required to take a standardized exam at the end of every single year of school, those scores become the starting place for the next teacher and on some interval, they get a bonus (quarter or semester) or a raise (annual) for beating some objective standard. If they don't make it, they don't get the money. We just need to make sure that the teacher is actually teaching and the kids are actually learning, the teacher or the school isn't just gaming the system.

Part of the problem is the questionable nature of relying on standardized exams. I'm not speaking on a "we don't want to be measured and lose our job security" platform, but more of a skepticism in being able to demonstrably improve the quality of education through these measurements. We don't even know if we're looking at the right things or testing the students the right way. On one hand, if we do what some of the Dewyians want, we will have no real systematized knowledge base for judging our educational system. On the other hand, there's a dramatic limitation to using outcome-based assessment via state tests for pay. We're barely getting it right on basic statistics for life outcomes (not being able to reliably measure much else other than employment or educational attainment). As a result, we have almost no God damned idea how to proceed with what limited information we actually have. We're not quite there yet.
 
and when it is self serving, when will those statistics be manipulated? and the determination of progress? Standardized testing? No, I don't think so. The number one problem I see in the education of our youth today is this standardized, homogenized one size fits all pedagogy which is what precisely is the matter with our education system. We don't educate our children, we indoctrinate them. This is truth, we teach them to perform functions, that's all. Those that pass beyond that, they aren't some magical outlier, destined for greatness, the next turn of the evolutionary wheel -- No! They are simply those who happen to be receptive to the current pedagogical construct. The construct which allows for some over-achievement yes, but by far it creates class after class of mediocrity. I will concede that there are some very successful individuals who in spite of themselves --educationally speaking-- have achieved marvelous success, but again, by and large, the education system in America churns out unremarkable graduates bound for fulfilling humdrum tasks.

and that has to do with my orginal post how?:shock:
 
There are two things that hinder teachers and public education the most...

1) Restriction placed on what teachers are allowed to do, and

2) Directing resources away from gifted and above-average students to spend on below-average and underachieving students. Nothing screams average like artificially hindering those who can excel.
 
I teach on the college level, but I know many teachers in the elementary and high school level. I am not sure this is right. How did you come up with these two hindrances?
There are two things that hinder teachers and public education the most...

1) Restriction placed on what teachers are allowed to do, and

2) Directing resources away from gifted and above-average students to spend on below-average and underachieving students. Nothing screams average like artificially hindering those who can excel.
 
There are two things that hinder teachers and public education the most...

1) Restriction placed on what teachers are allowed to do, and

2) Directing resources away from gifted and above-average students to spend on below-average and underachieving students. Nothing screams average like artificially hindering those who can excel.

I agree, my stepmother retired after 27 years when discipline was removed from the classroom.
 
"Them that can do, them that can't teach". I myself know three people who went into teaching after age 40 because they failed at everything else.

I always thought that was a supremely stupid statement. There are bad lawyers, doctors, cops, teachers, etc. etc. The good teachers are those that can do, and do it well. That is teaching. Teaching is a skill that not many have. It is a balance of patience, psychology, knowledge, being able to explain things in ways that many can understand... etc. I know teachers that have come to teaching after dealing with the corruption and ineptitude of the private sector as well.
 
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.

Education is a tough one. It is difficult to "judge" teachers due to the nature of the product. A car is built and it is good or not. A doctor either cures you or does not. A lawyer either wins or loses. A teacher produces what? A kid comes in with baggage or not, has a hard home life or not, is abused or drinks or does drugs or not, is in a gan or not, has parents that don't understand or value an education or not, etc etc. And the teacher, at high school, gets a few hours a week with the kid? The kid could be motivated and willing to learn but many many many aren't. Also the teims have changed and parents spoon feed their kids more instead of making them work for it... it is difficult but I do agree that there are a lot of bad teachers.
 
I always thought that was a supremely stupid statement. There are bad lawyers, doctors, cops, teachers, etc. etc. The good teachers are those that can do, and do it well. That is teaching. Teaching is a skill that not many have. It is a balance of patience, psychology, knowledge, being able to explain things in ways that many can understand... etc. I know teachers that have come to teaching after dealing with the corruption and ineptitude of the private sector as well.
I think that saying comes from the fact that many teachers... not all, but many... have taught their entire professional lives, and have only theory to fall back on and relate to their students. It is not uncommon for the lessons of a lifelong teacher to differ from the lessons of someone who has actually put it into practice.

In my industry (civil engineering) the most common phrase you hear from new grads is, "They never taught us that in school." In my own experience, when it came to applied classes, the better instructors tended to be those who had some real-life experience to relate. In a math or history class it really didn't matter.
 
A lot of them, I don't think are. I'd be entirely fine if teachers all made the same amount of money and, either on a quarterly or once a semester term, they were eligible for raises or bonuses based on the demonstrable improvement in their classroom. I'd love to see students required to take a standardized exam at the end of every single year of school, those scores become the starting place for the next teacher and on some interval, they get a bonus (quarter or semester) or a raise (annual) for beating some objective standard. If they don't make it, they don't get the money. We just need to make sure that the teacher is actually teaching and the kids are actually learning, the teacher or the school isn't just gaming the system.

That can work in a lot of situations but the fact is that there are many kids that don't care about education... this would negatively impact some teachers that are forced to teach the lower level classes and special edcaution.
 
The better colleges pay their instructors more and get better results. There is no reason to think that the same wouldn't happen with public K-12 schools if handled correctly. Many people opt out of teaching because they can get better pay (and working conditions) elsewhere. Higher pay will generate more candidates for teaching positions, allowing schools the ability to choose only the better ones.

Wrong. Public school is filled with students that have to be there. Colleges are filled with students that want to be there. big difference.
 
I think that saying comes from the fact that many teachers... not all, but many... have taught their entire professional lives, and have only theory to fall back on and relate to their students. It is not uncommon for the lessons of a lifelong teacher to differ from the lessons of someone who has actually put it into practice.

In my industry (civil engineering) the most common phrase you hear from new grads is, "They never taught us that in school." In my own experience, when it came to applied classes, the better instructors tended to be those who had some real-life experience to relate. In a math or history class it really didn't matter.

We have accounting teachers that used to be accountants. A science teacher that was a wine maker, things like that. History you can't really have unless you get really old people to teach about past times. Agreed that the best practical teachers would be those that did instead of not.
 
I think that saying comes from the fact that many teachers... not all, but many... have taught their entire professional lives, and have only theory to fall back on and relate to their students. It is not uncommon for the lessons of a lifelong teacher to differ from the lessons of someone who has actually put it into practice.
In my industry (civil engineering) the most common phrase you hear from new grads is, "They never taught us that in school." In my own experience, when it came to applied classes, the better instructors tended to be those who had some real-life experience to relate. In a math or history class it really didn't matter.

I agree with this.

Think the movie Back To School with Rodney Dangerfield in the econimics class.

 
Well yeah, there's no formula for this type of thing. I just wanted to portray that a child succeeding is about the child and not about the teacher, who is just doing his or her job. It's just something you "have" to say, like a Grammy winner thanking God, or a Super Bowl winning quarterback thanking his coach after throwing 6 touchdowns.

As a teacher I take almost no credit to students that succeed. It is their accomplishment. I just guided them to the knowledge or gave them other ways to approach it.
 
Wrong. Public school is filled with students that have to be there. Colleges are filled with students that want to be there. big difference.

That doesn't change the fact that higher pay will attract more candidates for the job, allowing schools to be choosier about who they hire.
 
I agree with this.

Think the movie Back To School with Rodney Dangerfield in the business class.
I almost included that reference. It's a funny scene, but it's also true. That pompous instructor had no clue what happens in the real world.
 
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 agree to a point. I like to think of it like you might think of a part time job at Walmart, you're not going to do a very good job because they don't pay you enough to care. On the other hand, I don't think the teachers who only have an associates, or a bachelor's degree in something like American History teaching middle school and high school classes should be making 100k a year. I'm a software engineer (fresh out of school albeit) and I don't come close to that, yet my profession is arguably much harder and requires a far more in depth working knowledge of the subject matter.

I guess what I'm saying is, yes they should be paid more, however they shouldn't be paid more than people who have harder more technical degrees/professions (depending on the field of study). Of course, someone teaching chemistry, physics, or some kind of advanced math would merit a higher salary than an English teacher (but god knows we need a better educational standard in this field for sure).
 
That doesn't change the fact that higher pay will attract more candidates for the job, allowing schools to be choosier about who they hire.

I agree with that... just not the part I addressed.
 
A boss of mine once said, "Those who can't, teach."

Everybody "can" do something... stupid statement. Stupid boss? I don't know.
 
Back
Top Bottom