Let's pay our teachers a whole lot more
A UW economist, the author of a new book on teacher quality, makes a case for 40% overall boosts in pay, distributed according to professional achievement, and how that $90 billion will pay off for society.
Courtesy of Washington Education Association
Having good teachers is the single most important controllable factor in student achievement. This should come as no surprise to anyone who has had the privilege of learning from an exceptional teacher — or, for that matter, has suffered through a terrible one. Rigorous research shows that the difference between having consistently good teachers and just OK teachers can be enormous, resulting in an entire year’s worth of additional learning by high school graduation.
The bad news is that U.S. schools are not up to par, neither in comparison to our own expectations and history, nor to other countries. The good news is that teacher quality isn’t dependent on the forces of nature or divine intervention. It is firmly under our control. As an economist who has spent the last few years gathering the latest research and data, I offer a simple proposal in my new book, Profit of Education. We have to start treating teaching as a profession, and not as an act of sainthood.
In concrete terms, I argue that we should boost teacher pay significantly, and allocate that raise disproportionately to teachers who do the best job of increasing student achievement. This will simultaneously attract more of the best and brightest into the teaching profession, and once they are there will give them the motivation and support they need to do what’s best for their students. As I describe in detail in Profit, we can do this ways that incentivize whole schools to work together and that doesn’t disadvantage low-achieving students. My estimate is that we can increase average student achievement by the equivalent of a whole extra year of learning.
Perhaps unsurprisingly, given my background, the principles that underpin the Profit proposal are drawn from studying the broader economy. The way to build a great organization — whether private, public, or not-for-profit — is to recruit and retain great people. That means paying them a competitive wage, and expecting good work in return. The idea that we’re going to get millions of great teachers any other way is unrealistic. At best, it’s naïve; at worst, it’s disingenuous and shows that we don’t really value preparing our nations’ kids for the future when it requires us to put our money where our mouths are.
No one argues that people will work at Microsoft simply for the prestige. Players don’t sign with the Yankees because they like the fashionable pinstripes. If we want better people in the teaching profession, we need to pay them more. For a long time now, we’ve treated the labor market for teachers as if it were organized around altruism instead of pay. Teachers are terribly underpaid. They earn 30 percent less than the average college graduate, or about the same amount as a college-educated retail supervisor. This wasn’t always the case. Teacher salaries have steadily lost ground to other professions over the past 50 years, and our education system has suffered as a result.
Some try to justify teachers’ non-competitive salaries by pointing to their superior benefits packages, or the fact that they only work nine months out of the year. A hard look at the data says these explanations are way overstated. The average teacher works almost as many hours per year as other professionals, and the extra value of the benefits package is not that high, especially for a young person just entering the job market.
But the bottom line is that the proof is in the pudding: Teacher salaries as they currently stand are not getting the job done. No one wastes time arguing about what a "fair" salary would be for an aerospace engineer or a heart surgeon. In the private sector, employers understand that you get what you pay for.
That’s not meant to denigrate today’s teachers. Data on student achievement reveals that many, many teachers — not just a few superheroes — do great work. The profession attracts more than its fair share of individuals who are talented and choose to stay despite the meager financial rewards. But relying on selfless devotion is not a winning strategy for building a first-class system.
Tying pay to outcomes and offering real rewards to those who do good work, on the other hand, is a winning strategy. In the model I propose, the teacher salary pool would increase by 40 percent. Base pay for all teachers would go up, but much of the increase would go into higher pay for successful individuals or groups within a school. No longer would raises be based on seniority. Teachers’ paychecks would also be affected by how well others around them perform — a market-based way of encouraging cooperation and bringing peer pressure to bear on under-performing teachers.
A lot of education reformers want to focus on merit pay alone. That won’t work. Recent studies suggest the effects of merit pay on student achievement are likely to be small in our current environment of substandard teacher compensation. Merit pay pilot projects that have offered tiny bonuses in return for extraordinary achievement haven’t gotten far. Not surprisingly, people won’t switch careers or revamp an entire curriculum for crumbs. Merit pay will only work if the carrot is big and juicy, and treats teachers like skilled professionals.
What evidence do we have that this approach will work? Besides common sense and the experience of every market-driven company in the world, we also have data from the education world that supports this case. To select one recent example, a study of 190,000 students in 28 industrialized countries showed that higher teacher salaries were a statistically significant predictor of higher test scores. For example, U.S. teachers make about 1.14 times U.S. per capita GDP. In Finland, a world leader in educational outcomes, teachers make 1.49 times per capita GDP. Finnish students end up about two years ahead of American students.
The cost of raising the teacher salary pool by 40 percent is large: my estimate is about $90 billion annually. But we’d be getting an additional year of education achievement for every student, which raises each graduate’s earnings by about 10 percent. In the long run, spending $90 billion a year would raise GDP by $800 to $900 billion — a return of nine dollars in America’s gross domestic product for every dollar invested. Taxes generated by increased productivity would not only pay for the program, but they also would make a sizable dent in our national debt. Another way to look at this sum is that it is about two-thirds of the cost of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Any way you slice it, paying teachers more and rewarding them for success is a profitable proposition. We should do it because it’s a good investment for us as a nation, but also because it’s the right thing to do for our kids. Everyone wants to give the next generation a leg up. The trick is to find the best investment and then put our money where our mouths are. Higher — and smarter — teacher pay is the answer.
Like what you just read? Support high quality local journalism. Become a member of Crosscut today!
Twitter
Facebook
RSS Feeds
Comments:
Posted Fri, Nov 19, 7:37 a.m. Inappropriate
If the money strictly goes to improve teacher quality - by only being paid to the top teachers - that might be a worthwhile investment. But isn't the bedrock principle of the NEA & WEA that the only thing to be considered in teacher pay is seniority?
Simply paying the existing teachers all more isn't likely to change the quality of teachers enough to make a difference.
Posted Fri, Nov 19, 9:17 a.m. Inappropriate
The WEA has been a leader from the beginning on encouraging National Board Certification, which carries with it a bonus of $5000 to $10,000 for accomplished teachers. Statewide there are plenty of locals where teachers make additional money based on factors besides seniority.
It should be understood, too, that the uniform salary schedule has roots dating back to the spoils system/merit system arguments of the mid-1800s. This isn't a new argument, and until we've a better consensus of what it means to say that someone is "quality", it's not going to be a particularly interesting argument, either.
Posted Fri, Nov 19, 10:14 a.m. Inappropriate
I am against paying teachers more until people who do not have "education degrees" (which is what I understand) can teach.
That means for example that David Brewster could not teach a class in high-school in say, "modern journalism" or "English composition." Sounds absurd to me.
It seems unwise to restrict "teachers" to those with specific "education degrees."
Is there technique, method to presenting material? To didactics? Certainly.
But substance knowledge strikes me as far more important and teachers groups have restricted entry to the field to the benefit of only teachers.
Posted Fri, Nov 19, 10:53 a.m. Inappropriate
Response to David Sucher: You don't have to earn an education degree in order to teach in Washington. You are required to earn a teaching credential. A teaching credential in Washington can be earned in roughly one year. Under federal law, teachers who are "highly qualified" can teach a subject in a public school. Currently to be classified, teachers must earn a certain number of college level credits and pass an entry exam.
Posted Fri, Nov 19, 11:04 a.m. Inappropriate
I love all these great ideas on how to improve schools. So bold. So innovative.
Everything except school choice and vouchers.
That's too risky.
Posted Fri, Nov 19, 11:34 a.m. Inappropriate
$5,700,000,000 deficit projection for next biennial budget, and the recommendation is to 'SPEND MORE MONEY'?
How about 'fund the student', issue vouchers, purge the bureaucracy, and let communities control their local education?
How about making it easy to fire bad teachers?
How about eliminating tenure?
How about decertifying teachers unions? Let the teachers keep the no longer needed union dues as their pay increase.
Posted Fri, Nov 19, 12:43 p.m. Inappropriate
I would love to see teachers paid more, but only in exchange for a year-round schedule. Our kids will learn more and teachers will get more pay.
I like the idea of the school year being run on a 4 quarter schedule, and for one quarter a year teachers would be acting as support staff for the school district and the other three in the classroom. They could also use the quarter off for taking classes while working part time for the district.
Posted Fri, Nov 19, 12:56 p.m. Inappropriate
this is just nonsense....Rochester,NY started paying their teachers up to $90,000 a year about 20 yrs ago just to "prove" that it would improve education....guess what?...it didn'd do a dang thing except put NYS in near bankruptcy due to its unfunded pensions...
what are the most essential jobs out there?...the ones that we must have constantly to exist?...its not teachers....its the police..the firemen...the nurses....the doctors....we could go on and on for years without teachers...
teachers are important...but the world does not revolve around their monday thru friday bankers hours...the world would keep on going....
Education degrees are the simplest degrees as far as academic rigor....they attract the lowest achieving students...
you want to change the education system?....outlaw the teachers unions....mandate a science degree, and not just earth science...eliminate any "tenure" which is simply a passage to mediocrity...
teachers are OVERPAID and OVERBENEFITTED as it is....
Posted Fri, Nov 19, 4:16 p.m. Inappropriate
Paying more to raise the performance bar ought to help, as long as union rules don't make it impossible for principals to do what managers in the private sector get to do --- to let the low performers go. That's a dynamic that I rarely hear about in these discussions.
Ask teachers in SPS about this (some are friends of mine) and you'll hear that it can be extremely difficult, in some cases, for principals to let weak performers go. I'm not saying this to bash unions, but from what I've heard, it can be a real problem. I'd be interested to hear more about it.
Joe
Posted Fri, Nov 19, 5:51 p.m. Inappropriate
One thing the anti-teacher commenters fail to recognize is that there are a lot of us teachers who want to see the awful teachers fired. It's so frustrating getting the product from a subpar teacher the next year. Most of us have a great deal of pride in our work. The union's benefit to me is protection from evil principals (and they do exist) and the occasional issue with a problematic student situation - and they do happen even to good teachers.
Several other things the naysayers fail to recognize:
* The National Board certification is expensive and the cost is fully covered by the teacher. The state does provide a loan, but it comes out of the first bonus payment. The legislature looked at suspending the bonus in the last legislative session. My guess is the bonus won't survive given the current budget problems. This is one of my biggest complaints about the way the state treats teachers. They continually ramp up certification requirements at the expense of the teacher without any increase in compensation. They also make promises that are easily taken away. Teachers took on the grueling task of achieving board certification with the promise of receiving a nice bonus each year of the ten year lifetime of the certification. Teachers spend between 200-400 hours outside of the school day between September and March and spend an enormous amount of their own money. The assessment costs $2500 and joining a cohort to assist your preparation runs well over $500. In addition, I had to spend $300 on a video camera plus $200 on assorted items that I need to complete the process. I decided to undertake the process with the prospect of $50,000 over ten years. This bonus was originally supposed to be indexed with the CPI as teacher pay is... but both the bonus COLA and our pay COLA have been suspended with no promise of restoration to make teachers whole in the future.
* Classrooms look very different from when you were in school 20 or more years ago. Mainstreaming special ed students into the classroom means our expectations have had to dumb down to meet this new reality. The average students are getting screwed. This also affects honors courses as many students elect to take honors that shouldn't be in those courses. In turn, the honors courses get watered down too. Not every student needs a college prep course. Mainstreaming spec ed students might work well in a small class, but when you have a class of 30 or more, 5 spec ed students do influence what and how you teach. We're expected to meet these students' needs with no assistance what so ever.
* I oppose merit pay even though my test scores greatly exceed those of my district and state because principals do create classes full of low performing students. This year, I was assigned classes with huge percentages of historically low performing students. I know I will get positive results, but the results may not meet merit pay criteria they way I've seen it structured. Why should I be penalized for working with tough students? They need an education too. I'm concerned that this will create a battle among teachers for the best students creating a cherry picking situation. I can foresee teachers doing anything in their power to force out the toughest.
Overall, I'd like to compliment the author on one of the best education articles I've read in a long time. I wish Lynne Varner at the Times would put an equivalent level of thought into her editorials before publishing her drivel.
Posted Fri, Nov 19, 10:38 p.m. Inappropriate
star80: And that is the most comprehensive comment I've ever read regarding this issue.
Thank you.
Posted Fri, Nov 19, 10:46 p.m. Inappropriate
Thanks KarenLee... I really love being a teacher but I'd like to feel less trampled on
Posted Fri, Nov 19, 11:01 p.m. Inappropriate
Wilbur Wilson said-
"I would love to see the data that shows that "The average teacher works almost as many hours per year as other professionals". Is this based on teacher self-reporting or objective data. Kids are in School for 180 days a year and for 6 hours each day during which teachers get recess, lunch and 1 class off. That is a 4 hour teaching day which translates to 15-hours per week if distributed over the 48-week year most people work. One has to make the very generous assumption that each teacher is involved in 2 hours of admin/preparation for each hour in the class to get a 45 hour work week (low for many professionals). There is no way that teachers in for example elementary school are doing this much work outside the classroom."
Here is the truth -
These numbers are extremely faulty and the editor should be ashamed to pick this misinformation as an editor's pick. Actually the work day for a teacher is 7.5 hours plus the extra non-compensated hours we put in to perform our jobs. At this point of the school year, I have yet to have a complete two day weekend. I'm working 55-60 hours per week as a high school English teacher. I've had weeks with back to back 14 hour days.
My kids are in school for 7 hours per day. Under new rules passed by the legislature, the number of contact hours is increasing from 1000 to 1080 hours per academic year, without any increase in compensation. This will leave little paid preparation time. This means more of the parent meetings, correcting, club advising and filling out college recommendations I do will be on my time and my dollar. Please attempt to get your facts straight before you spread outright lies.
Posted Sat, Nov 20, 10:56 a.m. Inappropriate
Wilbur - You really need to meet some teachers and get the real scoop. If you look at the total job, there is more to a teacher's existence than the time spent in front of the students. Parent meetings, special ed. meetings, preparation and grading are done almost entirely outside of our contracted time. For example, I currently have 150 papers to grade. Each paper will take 7-10 minutes. I guarantee you my school district is not paying me a dime to grade these papers until 10 or 11 every night. I'll concede your numbers work for P.E. teachers, but for those of us in the core subjects your analysis in based on total fallacy. Friends of mine who teach elementary school frequently work comparable hours. There is a lot more to this job than you think. Try volunteering in a local school and find out what it is like. I'd love to hear your impressions then.
Posted Sat, Nov 20, 5:16 p.m. Inappropriate
Wilbur...to be a top performing elementary classroom or school in the Seattle School District (based on MAP and MSP scores) you need to examine the facts. Here is the basic teacher schedule:
Arrive: 7:30 AM
Depart: 5:30 PM
Eat Dinner
Grade Papers or Design Curriculum: 7:30 PM - 9:30 PM
Weekends: Grade papers for 4 hours.
So Wilbur, that's 12+ hours per day. To be merely a good old fashioned teacher that works hard and does her/his job well, make that number 10+ hours per day.
You can do the rest of the math...teachers work as much as you or anybody else.
Posted Sat, Nov 20, 10:06 p.m. Inappropriate
Star80.
Thanks for the specific information about teaching requirements and I think it just confirms my point:
One year to obtain a teaching credential -- for doctor, lawyer, publisher, engineer etc etc -- is absurd.
I know there is something to the techniques of teaching but once a person has the substance knowledge I am sure that learning the " how-to-teach" can be done in a month.
Posted Sun, Nov 21, 12:26 a.m. Inappropriate
David - The one year also includes the student teaching part of the training. I would agree the requirements are way too restrictive for many to earn their certification. Student teaching for me meant six months of full time work without income. That precludes a lot of adults from trying out teaching, especially when they have mortgages, families, etc. A lot of my colleagues entered teaching as a second career like I did.
There does need to be some training though. You would be surprised at the number of laws we fall under. I believe a month or five weeks like Teach for America does is too little. I'd like to see a one quarter internship combined with a solid mentorship program upon hire. Teachers really do need the student teaching experience.
Posted Tue, Nov 23, 10:57 a.m. Inappropriate
David Sucher - Does the idea of acquiring substance knowledge apply to the law too? Can you "how-to-lawyer" in one month? Would you publicly announce that a newly minted paralegal from a community college should handle an average person's will or divorce? Barnes and Noble has Nolo press do-it-yourself kits too. Don't these options make you superfluous?
Posted Wed, Nov 24, 1:29 p.m. Inappropriate
star80: You've gone a bit too far comparing teaching with law. The potential damage that could be caused by mishandling a divorce or someone's will is far more than experiencing one inept teacher in a student's 12-year school career.
As far as special ed students in mainstreamed classrooms, that began back in the 70s, and believe me, the parents of special ed kids were at least as upset as regular-classroom teachers. I hope your comment about dumbing down doesn't reflect an attitude toward those special ed students who didn't ask to be mainstreamed, or their parents. The special-ed students are being disadvantaged far more than you or your non-special-ed students are.
Login or register to add your voice to the conversation.