

Still Doing the Math, But for 100K A Year - ojbyrne
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/01/fashion/01generationb.html

======
dkarl
What a farce. It's disgusting that they pay new teachers so little, and very
few of the older teachers are worth $100k. This is nothing but two things.

First, senior teachers control the unions and take care of themselves at the
expense of younger teachers -- it's disgusting. A salary spread of $50k to
$100k is too much for the same job, and I never noticed older teachers being
much more effective than teachers with five years of experience.

Second, the unions have convinced teachers that any measurement of quality
will be inaccurate, arbitrary, and a front for administrators' political and
personal animosity. Hey, welcome to the real world! Most professionals work in
jobs where performance is subjective and difficult to measure. It isn't as bad
as you imagine, except when it is, and then you get a different job. It
wouldn't ruin education any more than it has ruined law, medicine,
engineering, or any other profession where objective measurements of
performance are problematic.

~~~
rms
>Second, the unions have convinced teachers that any measurement of quality
will be inaccurate, arbitrary, and a front for administrators' political and
personal animosity.

But this is true. How do you suggest measuring performance? Standardized
testing is not an acceptable answer.

~~~
dkarl
The same as in any other job: we rely on the honesty, skill, and self-interest
of their bosses and peers. Honest and accurate evalution of performance is the
signal, stupidity and bias is the noise. Somehow, though it's pretty frickin'
amazing when you think about it, people who are chosen, guided, and evaluated
by biased, flawed, mostly stupid human beings manage to treat disease, build
bridges, publish newspapers, maintain sewage systems, and do everything else
required to keep society going.

I mean, I work in a vast and faceless corporate bureaucracy driven by the most
idiotic politics imaginable, but when I think back to my favorite teachers
from high school, they got a raw deal compared to me. Even though I got laid
off my first job because of the dot-com bust. Even though I left my last job
because of an abusive boss. Even though my review process is cookie-cutter and
somewhat divorced from reality. It would have been better than having no
opportunity to differentiate themselves from the stupid, lazy, coasting
teachers who climbed right up the pay scale with them. Heroic, good, average,
bad, and sleepwalking, they all have the same job title and same pay all the
way to retirement -- it's no wonder teaching isn't respected as a profession.

------
sak84
100K for 30 years, is not as much as you would think. The problem with
teaching right now, is that there is not a concrete way to have really great
teachers shine.

In enterprise, employees that would perform really well would be accordingly
compensated (theoretically) with a higher salary/bonus. This doesn't happen
with teachers though. You could be a terrible teachers, with terrible results,
but have tenure and still reach that 100,000k mark without a hitch.

I believe unions are important to ensure some job security and fair practice,
but not at the expense of our children's education. There should be
competitive practices in public education, that allow teachers to earn way
more than 100,000k, but also does not guarantee that a teacher will rise on a
pay scale when they just babysit in a classroom.

I speak from experience as I was formerly a teacher in NYC, where I
encountered many teachers that were not competent to teach, but yet continued
to exist in their role. There are schools that are trying experimental means
to increase the quality of teaching -
[http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/07/nyregion/07charter.html?ex...](http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/07/nyregion/07charter.html?ex=1362632400&en=c61f5ddd3e93fa42&ei=5124)
\- but ultimately we need to think of a new system of rewarding the best
teachers and getting rid of the worst.

~~~
byrneseyeview
It would of course be protested as outrageous, and would also be hard to
implement, _but_ I bet if you allowed someone to pay for their education
partly by selling a stake in their future income (capped at a certain point,
or possibly with a buyback clause of some kind). This would actually lead
great teachers to seek out great students, too -- instead of retiring on their
teaching pension, they'd retire on .1% of the incomes of each of a few hundred
students; if those students are making six figures...

~~~
ibsulon
So, no great teacher would choose to work in poor school districts. We already
have to give incentives to experienced teachers to work there.

Good teachers would concentrate in wealthy districts, because the best
teachers would have an amplification effect, and those kids are going to end
up in college and most will end up in good jobs because of their family
connections.

~~~
byrneseyeview
That doesn't seem to apply here at all. If education can really make a
difference, teachers would be able to raise money from VCs in order to educate
inner city kids for no upfront fee and a large cut of their future pay. If
they didn't behave that way, you might have to suspect that since spending
billions of dollars on improving those schools and improving those students
hasn't had any significant effect on their ability to learn, the problem is
not with how hard we're trying, but with what we think we can accomplish.

~~~
ibsulon
Education certainly can make a difference. However, let's consider the
problems that you have in lower income school districts.

* Increased child abuse * Poorer nutrition. * Lower chance of a safety net. My parents helped me out with college expenses and I stayed at home, so I only had to work every other semester, taking challenging semesters off. I contrast that to friends who were working full time jobs making very little and taking as many hours as they could. It was a lot easier path for me, and it was still easier for families who sent their children off to school fully paid with spending money.

Great people will overcome these barriers, but there's a reason that middle
class parents raise middle class children. Let's say that a series of median
teachers would pass on students that make 1.2 million over their lifetimes,
graduating high school on average. * Let's say that median teacher in a
wealthy school district passes on students that averages college degrees
because their parents have them, and those who don't are balanced out by those
who get doctorates or MBAs or are handed their parents' businesses. As such,
their studends make 2.1 million dollars in their lifetimes on average.

That's 75% more for being an average teacher.

Now, let's say that you are able to increase the average student's lifetime
salary by 40% by being a great teacher. You've raised the lower income up to
1.68 million in their lifetimes, but you've raised that student from wealthier
parents to nearly 3 million dollars! You have to actively decide not to pursue
money in this system, even if that 40% means a world more to the lower income
student than the higher income student.

* [http://www.earnmydegree.com/online-education/learning-center...](http://www.earnmydegree.com/online-education/learning-center/education-value.html)

~~~
gravitycop
_Let's say that [...] students that averages college degrees [...] make 2.1
million dollars in their lifetimes on average._

Does having a college degree increase earning power/potential? Do you have a
source for that?

~~~
ibsulon
That was what the star was for. Look at the end of my comment for the link.
That's one of many that I could have chosen.

~~~
gravitycop
Your link says, "a college degree correlates [...] to [...] salary". It is
well-known that education level correlates to income. A claim that weak does
not need a reference. Correlation is not causation. My question was: "Does
having a college degree increase earning power/potential?" Do you know of any
education/income studies that control for IQ?

------
larryfreeman
In my view, a good teacher is still underpaid at 100K per year.

In the ideal world, the best teachers would be celebrities and their
lectures/lessons would be high demand items.

Wait... Maybe it's coming... with YouTube, HubPages, and Google's 10^100
contest. Who knows.

~~~
dantheman
I completely disagree. The best teachers should be compensated, but there is
no reason to spend 100k on high elementary school & high school teachers...
Hell you could have a grad student teaching the course -- the material isn't
hard. The trick is getting the kids to work and be motivated, and that's
primarily caused by setting high standards and having parents emphasize the
importance of education.

~~~
pchristensen
Bill Gates disagrees.

"It is amazing how big a difference a great teacher makes versus an
ineffective one. If you want your child to get the best education possible, it
is actually more important to get him assigned to a great teacher than to a
great school." Bill Gates

[http://2mm.typepad.com/usa/2009/01/it-is-amazing-how-big-
a-d...](http://2mm.typepad.com/usa/2009/01/it-is-amazing-how-big-a-difference-
a-great-teacher-makes-versus-an-ineffective-one.html)

~~~
arockwell
While I believe its true, I still don't think good teachers are worth
100k/year. That's way too high. That's higher than any other basic profession
except doctor/lawyer, and there are certainly some doctors and lawyers that
don't make that much, e.g., public defenders.

~~~
pchristensen
But you're comparing exceptional teachers to average doctors/lawyers. The
people that could be great teachers have a lot of good alternatives, so if you
want good teachers to teach, you need to reduce their opportunity cost by
paying more.

~~~
dantheman
Then you have to ask yourself should these great teachers be teaching average
students, or should they only be teaching the best? Or should they be
incentivised into going into science or engineering? These are tough
questions, I honestly think the best scenario would be for top engineers and
scientists (practicing) to mentor students, and help them see the big
picture/inspire them while their teachers train them in the skills necessary.

~~~
Retric
You just described a top Collage like MIT.

------
tokenadult
In a system in which learners could shop for the most suitable schools, the
best teachers would make much more than $100K, while other current teachers
would change careers, all to the good of learners.

<http://learninfreedom.org/school_state.html>

~~~
litewulf
I worry that the criteria for successful teachers will instead be teachers
that are easy or social instead of effective teachers.

I have definitely taken languages classes where I hated the teachers (the
class was hard!) but I learned a great deal and actually have pretty good
recall years later. If I had been able to bail out and go join my friends in
the class taught by the easy teacher I would have, but I certainly would not
have learned anything.

In fact, now that I think about it, I think such a system would probably
encourage a trend toward treating schooling as a sort of nationalized
childcare program, as the money and rewards would go to teachers (and schools)
where students are allowed to float through. You can argue all you want about
how much _you_ enjoy learning, but I imagine that the vast majority of the
people in my high school could have cared less. (There are similar arguments
for why private schools do better than public schools: private schools are
primarily composed of the kids/families that actually care about what said
student is learning.)

~~~
tokenadult
_trend toward treating schooling as a sort of nationalized childcare program_

You don't think that trend is already here? The parents I know who are
shopping for more academics in their children's school programs have very
limited scope of choice to look for something better, as something better has
little incentive currently even to be offered.

------
jacobscott
FTA: you get $100k/yr as a teacher after working at the same job for ~30
years. A sweet pension is also possible -- although who knows whether this is
still the case or will last.

~~~
patio11
This isn't terribly uncommon, particularly for senior teachers in well-to-do
suburban school districts. The "teachers are one step away from starvation"
meme is, well, suffice it to say it was never universal and that we have
excellent PR in a lot of ways.

As to whether this will last or not: well, that pension has been available for
thirty of the last thirty years. One of the two political parties in the
United States would rather scrape out its belly with a rusty fork before
seriously taking a whack at teachers unions, and the other is the
Democrats[1]. I'm not predicting rapid change with respect to the employment
market for teachers in the US.

Do you want to be the political candidate cutting education funding and then
facing, quite literally, a NEA warchest and a small army of very popular
people in your district who you just made enemies of for life? Who will
mention, in a totally non-partisan and objectively true manner, that you are
cutting funding for the school Little Davey attends? To Little Davey's dotting
parents?

[1]: Edited to add -- in deference to readers from outside the US, I should
add the common knowledge that makes the joke work (at the expense of killing
the funny): there are two major political parties in the United States,
Republicans and Democrats. Organized labor and, in particular, the national
teachers unions are inseparable from the Democratic Party.

------
jpcx01
I wouldnt be surprised if there's a few kids at that very same school making
100k a year. I was hacking for 30/hr in my spare time in high school (10 years
ago), and these days, all a kid needs is a bit of motivation to learn all the
web development stack and start consulting.

~~~
cellis
Downmodded because 100k is quite a stretch. 30$/hr in your spare time != 100k.
And most _college graduates_ aren't even making that much.

