Slashdot Mirror
Paying for Better Math and Science Teachers
Coryoth writes "While California is suffering from critical shortage of mathematics and science teachers, Kentucky is considering two bills that would give explicit financial incentives to math and science students and teachers. The first bill would provide cash incentives to schools to run AP math and science classes, and cash scholarships to students who did well on AP math and science exams. The second bill provides salary bumps for any teachers with degrees in math or science, or who score well in teacher-certification tests in math, chemistry and physics. Is such differentiated pay the right way to attract science graduates who can make much more in industry, or is it simply going to breed discontent among teachers?"
The teachers union mandates certain pay levels at certain years of experience. You can't take less money just to get hired, even if you wanted to.
This may be seen as a union problem, but I see it more as a school budget problem. Schools don't have enough money, and they don't allocate enough of the money they do have to teacher salaries.
Good teachers are in high demand and short supply, which in a normal business would result in higher pay. However, with teaching there's some sort of nonsense myth that teachers should be doing the work purely because they love molding young minds, and shouldn't care at all about the money. Many of the best teachers probably do think that way, but that doesn't mean they don't deserve to be paid what they're worth. However, voters constantly vote against taxes for education, and keep voting in school boards that will spend millions of dollars on the latest technology while freezing teacher pay.
The union contract required them to pay her based on all of her experience; there was no option of coming in at a lower step on the pay scale.
"All the evidence I need to know that English teachers have zero command of the language."
Um, your English skills might be up to snuff, but you need to take a remedial logic class.
Why yes, I AM a rocket scientist!
Isn't that worth more than a pittance?
According to salary.com, the median income for a "high school teacher" in the United States is currently either $49839 or $69120 if you include benefits. The Census Bureau reports that in 2005, the median household income (which includes more or less the same set of benefits quoted by salary.com) was $46,326. Do we pay teachers enough? I don't know the answer to that question ... but the median teacher is clearly not earning a "pittance" for their time. Perhaps it is a pittance compared to what they might be earning in the private sector, but I don't have enough information to make a decision either way....
In my undergraduate university, education majors were required to declare a secondary major. While it was true in general that the math/ed majors were less adept with mathematics than the pure math majors, they certainly had the passion, conviction, and skill required to teach mathematics in secondary education. I believe that they were required to take the same mathematics curriculum and they had to pass the Math Praxis before they could teach. These people were not "one lesson ahead" of grade school, but skilled in calculus, linear algebra, number theory, topology, and modern algebra - in other words, I can see some of them making excellent teaching professors at the university level (though none had the passion for research that characterized the pure math majors) if they weren't so focused on teaching in primary and secondary education.
The fact that the two groups tended to be segregated suggests that raising the pay may not necessarily attract different people to the profession (perhaps some potential professors who are more interested in teaching than research would choose K-12 instead with higher pay), but it should certainly increase motivation and perhaps encourage more dedication and creativity as a result.
I think teachers on all levels should be paid more. I don't look forward to getting my Ph. D. and becoming a professor for less than I could have made with only a BS myself (I'm a Ph. D. student in CS).
The highest educated populations in the western world are the Scandinavian countries. There, motherhood, childcare, and educational professions are looked upon as great callings that have a huge influence on the future prosperity of the country. Therefore, it's easy to justify paying them well.
Eh. I live here. In Denmark. Teacher's base pay is a little above unskilled worker's, though it raises slightly more quickly. Childcare, less so. Motherhood? These are the countries of equal opportunity. At best, motherhood is regarded as a nice hobby if you don't overindulge. (Fatherhood, I'm pleased to say, is getting increased respect these days --- at this rate, it might approach the mother ditto in 30 or 40 years).
However, there is no shortage of teachers or childcarers in most regions, the exception being areas where housing prices are too high for them to live (unless they marry someone better paid, of course). But math teachers are in high demand, as is male teachers and especially child care professionals. The pay is the same, though :p
Not that I complain much about my education. Oh, it went too slowly much of the time, but that is just the way it is, I suppose.
Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by rulers as useful.
You need to keep in mind that teachers do not work 40+ hours/week and they get the summers off. Pay rate would be better expressed in dollars per hour. My wife is an English teacher (a damn good one too!) and I'm a sofware engineer. My yearly salary is more than twice hers, but if you count the hours (counting 50hrs/week for me) she gets better pay per hour. Your right, teachers don't work 40 hours per week. On a typical day, I am at school from 7 am to 3 pm (8 hours x 5). Every Tuesday there is a staff meeting, lasting about an hour. I also have students stay after school until around 4 at least once a week, especially if we have a test the following day. Then I get to go home and spend time grading, writing lesson plans, creating assignments, etc., all of which work out to about 6 hours per week. So that brings me pretty close to your 50 hours per week.
As for summers off, keep in mind that most (good) teachers use that time to further their own education, whether its working towards the Master's degree that you are required to obtain within 5 years, or taking addition subject courses to enhance the students' experiences and expand the number of courses the teacher can teach.
What people not in the education field also do not take into account is the sheer exhaustion that comes from teaching. Imagine having to give a 45 minutes presentation to 25 co-workers every day. Now imagine doing it 4-5 times per day. And keep in mind, it has to be a DIFFERENT presentation every day. And it damn well better be entertaining...and interactive...and inquiry-based.
In conclusion, this comment is not the ranting of a disgruntled teacher who feels the world owes him a big "thank you". I love teaching and, at least right now, can't think of anything else I'd rather do for a career. I just want to try to set the record straight on how much work goes into "getting summers off".
...teachers do not work 40+ hours/weekFalse. My wife (8th grade teacher) gets to work at 7:25 and leaves usually at 4:00. She usually spends an average of 1 hour every night doing extra work. Her lunch hour is about 40 minutes. That adds up to 50 hours a week when you include the extra weekend work.
...and they get the summers offTrue. Almost three months is a LOT of vacation. I'd say she gets 14 weeks off over the course of a year. That translates to 560 hours of a 40 hour week.
Now, consider that 50 hours a week times the 38 weeks of working = 1900 hours. That brings up a net difference of 100 hours of extra work I do over the course of a year (assuming standard 2000 hour year). The ratio of her total hours to my total hours (0.95) compared to the ratio of her salary to my salary (software developer) (0.65) is not encouraging.
- Industry. Lots of money, but that isn't everything. In my field, just having a B.S. really limits ones upward mobility.
- Getting the PhD. This leaves me free to go back to option 1 later, but with even bigger money and all the room to grow I could want. Plus, they pay you to be a TA in grad school. For chemists, grad school pays a living wage.
- Teach. This would mean making the world a better place. Hooray! But it would also mean things like making nearly the same amount of money that I now make in grad school. That is pathetic. Add to that little chance for significant improvement in wages or conditions. Ridiculous bureaucracy to insure that no child is ever left behind. All sorts of certification to deal with. Filthy children and no room for discipline.
So I am in grad school now. And, honestly, who would ever choose to go with option 3? This is why I think most talented chemists will rarely choose to go teach (I admit I know nothing about math or physics people).Whether average salaries are $49839 or $69120, neither of those salaries buys you even a closet in California. Now, I suppose you can live in the mountains somewhere and commute 2.5 hrs each way, but few people love teaching THAT much.
A physics degree will require as much math as a math degree.
Incorrect. 5 math classes are required for a physics degree and 14 for a math degree. I have more than necessary for a physics degree.
Learn to love Alaska