How do you think the nation’s school system would change if the starting salary for teachers was increased to $60,000 as Arne Duncan recently proposed. Secretary of Education Duncan proposed the following:
Teachers should be paid a starting salary of $60,000, Duncan said, with the opportunity to make up to $150,000 a year. That's higher than the salaries of most high school principals, who are generally paid much more than teachers.
The median salary among all middle school teachers, for example, not just those starting out in the profession, is around $52,000, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics.
Would paying teachers 2 to 3 times more money mean that students would learn more? We don't know. But smaller raises of 20 percent or less have been ineffective, and one New York City school that embraced much higher pay has so far underperformed on state tests.
Why do you feel the way you do? Is money the only reason that one enters the teaching profession? Does money equate to better teachers and better prepared students?
Being that we are all about to embark upon the teaching world, and being that everyone would appreciate to start our careers with a higher salary, I am in favor of such a proposal, who would not be?
ReplyDeleteHowever I do not necessarily feel that higher pay leads to higher achievement from students. The only thing that higher salaries guarantee is that teachers will have higher salaries.
I look at this scenario as such;
Being an athlete and a coach myself I come from the sports world as far as my opinions regarding money. I give the example of the athlete who is in a contract year. For those who are unfamiliar with this term, an athlete in a contract year is a player who's contract expires at the end of the season and therefore, often, performs at their highest level in order to demand an increase in salary for the next contract. With this we see athletes who have already signed a contract lack in performance. This is theorized as occurring because the athlete has nothing to aspire to, they have nothing to motivate them to play up to the best of their ability. This is what concerns me with the starting teachers off at higher salaries from jump. The New York teachers example may be a glimpse at proof that this analogy holds water.
What I would like to see is a boost in salary to start, simply to get a furthered interest in the field. The low salaries would no longer scare off potentially great teachers into a higher paying field. However with this I would rather see salary boosts and/or bonuses for more teachers who exhibit the skill sets, class room results, student results and overall qualities that a great teacher should possess. Therefore in this system, a teacher would have the potential to make a great salary, but it is all performance and incentive, sports world again, based.
I agree that being paid more money would encourage others to join the occupation, but I do not think you can equate higher pay to studetns attaining better results.
ReplyDeleteI like what you have said. Mary
ReplyDeleteTeachers are grossly underpaid, the funding structure for salaries needs an overhaul. However, I don't think higher salaries would help students attain better results. I think there is a bigger correlation between parental involvement in a student's success.
ReplyDeleteI don't believe there is a need to "entice" - monetarily or otherwise - people to enter the teaching profession. DId I miss something...a shortage of teachers? I don't think so. Last month I resigned from my much-loved job as an instructional aide in a kindergarten classroom...32 1/2 hrs per week, no benefit, lots of hugs. The Bd of Ed filled my position with a young, eager, certified teacher who said she would take anything that was available just to get her foot in the door. Even if they are paying her more money than they paid me after my six year "tenure," I can tell you it is nowhere near $60,000.
ReplyDelete