Back in 1999-2000, the Waukesha School District implemented changes in its pay structure for teachers. Instead of simply rewarding teachers for showing up at their desk year after year, it moved towards a system that provided financial incentives for teachers to pursue additional coursework and training beyond the minimum required.
Now, how many times have we heard conservatives say that school districts should do more to reward merit among public school teachers? Pretty much constantly, right? So Waukesha does just that and now who's bitching? Oh, that's right. The conservatives.
Says shrieking conservative banshee and vanquished Assembly candidate Chris Lufter, "If you're increasing their salary by $25,000 over five years instead of over the course of 17 years, yes, you're making a huge difference, and you're having to cut programs because of it."
Conservatives always complain that the traditional pay structure of the K-12 system discourages competent, intelligent young people from teaching because teachers start at such low salaries and can generally get raises only by obtaining a master's degree or through accumulating years upon years of experience.
I know lots of people who would've been great teachers but who would never have considered beginning in a field where starting salaries are routinely pegged around $25-27K a year, and where longevity is the only way to really ring the register. Four or five years of college to barely outearn the guy who works full-time at Culver's? Is it any wonder why education majors at public universities routinely have among the lowest GPA's and standardized test scores of all majors?
So Waukesha gives the conservatives what they want - a pay structure that likely makes Waukesha one of the most desirable districts in which to teach. A structure that heightens competition for jobs in the district, rewards teachers for accomplishments and not age, and promotes a high level of retention.
A bunch of well-educated teachers who aren't constantly shopping around for other jobs that pay better, like so many of their counterparts do every spring? Gee, many people would suggest that kind of continuity and stability is desirable. Teachers get to know their students, their parents, and the neighborhoods in which they work.
But not folks like Chris Lufter, who apparently preferred the old system where people just got paid to grow old and die. She's one of those people, like those Fighting Bob Fest morons, who is clearly only content if she's pissed off about something. Don't do it her way, she's pissed. Do it her way, she'll find something else to be pissed off about.
Now, how many times have we heard conservatives say that school districts should do more to reward merit among public school teachers? Pretty much constantly, right? So Waukesha does just that and now who's bitching? Oh, that's right. The conservatives.
Says shrieking conservative banshee and vanquished Assembly candidate Chris Lufter, "If you're increasing their salary by $25,000 over five years instead of over the course of 17 years, yes, you're making a huge difference, and you're having to cut programs because of it."
Conservatives always complain that the traditional pay structure of the K-12 system discourages competent, intelligent young people from teaching because teachers start at such low salaries and can generally get raises only by obtaining a master's degree or through accumulating years upon years of experience.
I know lots of people who would've been great teachers but who would never have considered beginning in a field where starting salaries are routinely pegged around $25-27K a year, and where longevity is the only way to really ring the register. Four or five years of college to barely outearn the guy who works full-time at Culver's? Is it any wonder why education majors at public universities routinely have among the lowest GPA's and standardized test scores of all majors?
So Waukesha gives the conservatives what they want - a pay structure that likely makes Waukesha one of the most desirable districts in which to teach. A structure that heightens competition for jobs in the district, rewards teachers for accomplishments and not age, and promotes a high level of retention.
A bunch of well-educated teachers who aren't constantly shopping around for other jobs that pay better, like so many of their counterparts do every spring? Gee, many people would suggest that kind of continuity and stability is desirable. Teachers get to know their students, their parents, and the neighborhoods in which they work.
But not folks like Chris Lufter, who apparently preferred the old system where people just got paid to grow old and die. She's one of those people, like those Fighting Bob Fest morons, who is clearly only content if she's pissed off about something. Don't do it her way, she's pissed. Do it her way, she'll find something else to be pissed off about.
4 comments:
The pay may start a little low (whose doesn't right out of college?), but keep in mind the average teacher makes $49,000, which is well above the average Wisconsin worker. Not to mention the awesome health and retirement benefits and they only work 9 months out of the year (meaning a part-time job during the summer can supplement the income).
Good points. I do think that starting salary, however, is an enormous deterrent when it comes to recruiting people into K-12 education, which in my opinion, is problematic.
It used to be that, two or three generations ago, teachers were among the best-paid professionals in a typical community. That's not really the case anymore, largely because so many other more lucrative fields have emerged, especially in math and science.
Surely we want qualified educators, and my fear is that we're doing a terrible job getting those people initially because the base salary just isn't competitive.
If I'm talented at math and good with people, it's a heck of a lot more attractive to become an engineer and start at $50K than it is to become a teacher and start at $27K, knowing that my opportunities for advancement in teaching are limited, as is my opportunity to improve my salary through anything other than longevity.
I'm not suggesting by any means that Waukesha has the perfect concept, but they are on the right track. Im willing to bet the average teacher 50 years ago was smarter relative to his peer cohort than the average teacher is today.
There are many reasons why American students continue to underachieve academically when compared their peers around the world. And while there are of course many factors, and while many teachers are very talented, I think it's only natural to wonder if a big part of the problem isn't the academic capabilities of those we're putting in the front of the room.
Thanks for sharing.
Also good points. Conservatives like to point out how our educational system is lagging, but then is it any wonder if the pay is not competitive? Some of that could be solved if rising health care costs didn't each up so much of the resources/pay every year.
Liberals on the other hand like to pretend that the system is just fine and dandy and of the utmost quality, applauding our great teachers and students.
I think we all know people who became teachers. They're never the smartest kid in the class. The ones I know can barely spell and live in bubble.
But if you pay Taco Bell wages you get Taco Bell quality.
Conservatives don't want to pay for quality, and liberals are in denial that there are quality issues to begin with. Well said.
Although I do like Taco Bell, especially late at night and usually after alcohol. Perhaps we can agree to leave Taco Bell out of this. :-)
Post a Comment