You're right. That's the problem with paying teachers nothing: all the talent runs to the private sector, and people like me have to try and educate a generation with whoever's left.
It has much less to do with pay and much more to do with the abysmally wretched quality of education and temperament of most of those going into teaching as a profession.
As a teacher, I can tell you that the profession would be much improved if the pay was high enough to attract talented people. But no one with the right mindset, skills, and temperament wants to do this job for $50,000/year. They go to the private sector where their abilities will be properly rewarded. We're left with the dregs.
My assessment as an outside observer has always been that the school system has more than enough money available before budgeting allocations start dividing it up. The problem to me appears that the majority of that ends up in the hands of the administrative side with district superintendents making in the range of $200-500k per year while being little more than useless bureaucrats. The teachers themselves seem to be one of the lowest priorities.
This is fairly accurate, but it depends on the zip code. It's often the worst in blue states/cities (e.g. Denver, CO) where wealthy NIMBYs carve out special school districts with massive tax bases, surrounded by urban squalor. The disparity is egregious. The kids who need the most resources have the least, and unfortunately, overwhelmed systems are breeding grounds for administrative corruption and grift. This becomes a positive feedback loop, where admin increasingly captures resources that are urgently needed to fix the underlying problems.
Depends. Being a good principal is one of the hardest jobs on earth. You have to earn the trust of many competing stakeholders: students, parents, teachers, taxpayers/the community, and your administrators. You have to convince them all they're on the same team, and get them to act like it, on a daily basis. Most schools don't have good principals, and it exacerbates all the other problems tenfold.
The fact that health insurance premiums have skyrocketed and added $24k to the cost of my employment does not change the fact that teachers are under-compensated. Yes, it costs a lot to employ people. I'd still get much better compensation in the private sector. I've spoken to dozens of smart people who would make great teachers; they considered it, but pursued other career paths because teacher compensation is a joke.
There are obviously other variables at play. Improving salary would not fix the problem overnight. But it has to happen, or the profession will stay like this.
I don't think improving teacher pay would solve the problem on its own. However, it is one of several necessary steps to improving the profession. If I'm a smart, capable person, why would I choose to teach when I can earn several times more in the private sector for less exhausting, degrading work? I do it because it's important to me, but I'm not most people. Most smart, capable people go to work in the private sector, and the teacher ranks are filled with everyone else. If you don't like who's teaching, pay enough for someone respectable to do it instead.
The fact that you find this work "degrading" tells me that inadequate compensation is not the problem. Adequate compensation would just make the degradation more bearable. I think you likely are a good teacher. Why is the work degrading?
If you are a good teacher you are vanishingly rare.
You're right. That's the problem with paying teachers nothing: all the talent runs to the private sector, and people like me have to try and educate a generation with whoever's left.
It has much less to do with pay and much more to do with the abysmally wretched quality of education and temperament of most of those going into teaching as a profession.
As a teacher, I can tell you that the profession would be much improved if the pay was high enough to attract talented people. But no one with the right mindset, skills, and temperament wants to do this job for $50,000/year. They go to the private sector where their abilities will be properly rewarded. We're left with the dregs.
My assessment as an outside observer has always been that the school system has more than enough money available before budgeting allocations start dividing it up. The problem to me appears that the majority of that ends up in the hands of the administrative side with district superintendents making in the range of $200-500k per year while being little more than useless bureaucrats. The teachers themselves seem to be one of the lowest priorities.
This is fairly accurate, but it depends on the zip code. It's often the worst in blue states/cities (e.g. Denver, CO) where wealthy NIMBYs carve out special school districts with massive tax bases, surrounded by urban squalor. The disparity is egregious. The kids who need the most resources have the least, and unfortunately, overwhelmed systems are breeding grounds for administrative corruption and grift. This becomes a positive feedback loop, where admin increasingly captures resources that are urgently needed to fix the underlying problems.
Yes! Don't forget the principals, too. Compared to the teachers, they do nothing, but get paid too much for the functionary work they do.
Depends. Being a good principal is one of the hardest jobs on earth. You have to earn the trust of many competing stakeholders: students, parents, teachers, taxpayers/the community, and your administrators. You have to convince them all they're on the same team, and get them to act like it, on a daily basis. Most schools don't have good principals, and it exacerbates all the other problems tenfold.
What is the value of your contract when benefits are added to base salary?
The fact that health insurance premiums have skyrocketed and added $24k to the cost of my employment does not change the fact that teachers are under-compensated. Yes, it costs a lot to employ people. I'd still get much better compensation in the private sector. I've spoken to dozens of smart people who would make great teachers; they considered it, but pursued other career paths because teacher compensation is a joke.
There are obviously other variables at play. Improving salary would not fix the problem overnight. But it has to happen, or the profession will stay like this.
What must happen first is repairing the curricula in schools of education so the education they provide is not so attractive to morons.
Many people seem to think that more money always solves the problem.
I don't think improving teacher pay would solve the problem on its own. However, it is one of several necessary steps to improving the profession. If I'm a smart, capable person, why would I choose to teach when I can earn several times more in the private sector for less exhausting, degrading work? I do it because it's important to me, but I'm not most people. Most smart, capable people go to work in the private sector, and the teacher ranks are filled with everyone else. If you don't like who's teaching, pay enough for someone respectable to do it instead.
The fact that you find this work "degrading" tells me that inadequate compensation is not the problem. Adequate compensation would just make the degradation more bearable. I think you likely are a good teacher. Why is the work degrading?
Then perhaps you should have said "get paid for performance", but that would require a privatized system. No union would accept that.