The thing is, it is so much work to teach and to stay a teacher, that the lazy, poor performers usually wash out quickly. They have to accomplish a number of difficult tasks, from getting a college degree, to a massive license test, to peer reviews, and supervised classroom time before getting that full qualification. Most teachers do not graduate with a regular license. It takes years after college to earn one. You can't fake your way through any of those steps, so the rigorous process tends to weed out a vast majority of the bad teachers. Not all, but most.
Point #5: Conservative hypocrisy. This last bit is my current personal beef, though Jon Stewart has echoed a number of my sentiments on his program. I guess he isn't echoing me, per se, but anyway; Republicans who recently threw a royal fit when couples earning over $250K a year might have their tax cuts expire are some of the same ones now claiming that teachers make too much. They say it is tearing away freedoms if we try to regulate the financial industry or put ceilings on bonuses (in the millions of dollars), but $50K and some health care is too much when it comes to teachers. As for the argument that the public's taxes pay for teachers, but not those said financial people, after the major bailouts of the last few years, that is simply not true.
Wall Street got us into this mess, but the Republican party wants to make civil servants, like teachers, pay to get us out. What's more, teachers are willing to make sacrifices, unlike the aforementioned Wall Street workers, but GOP governors want to take away their union bargaining power anyway. It took a long time for teachers to earn a decent wage. How long will that last once they no longer can collectively bargain? The Wisconsin and Ohio fiascoes currently in progress are a total stain on our nation.
Wrap up: On a broader scale, is it democratic to limit pay, or are we just trying to transfer the wealth, stealing from the rich to give to the poor? The heads of companies now often make one hundred and eighty times what their average employee makes, versus more like forty times as much in the past. These are estimates, but ones in the ballpark with reality. I do not think it is unreasonable to expect employers to pay employees more when we are talking about those kinds of disparities.
Article comments
— go to most recent comments1 - robert
Good article
2 - Glenn Contrarian
Great article, Jerome -
1. I would have added how private schools do not compare to public schools, how public schools do so much more than private schools - particularly when it comes to special-needs kids and providing busing service for all students...and how the state provides personal caregivers and sometimes personal nurses for special-needs kids who require them. Very few private schools do that.
2. If you don't get a whole lot of argument from the BC conservatives, then that shows just how good your article is. Not that any of them will change their minds....
3 - Jerome Wetzel
Thank you! You do raise good points, Glenn. The state provides those things because they are required to. Of course private schools don't, because it's a drain on money, not 'getting your bang for your buck'. But some things are more important that money, and public schools aren't there to make money.
Also, only 17% of charter schools score better than public schools, so while there are good charter schools, they are certainly not the 'solution' to our problems.
4 - Doug Hunter
#2
There's no need to change my mind, it's the parents not the teachers that make the difference in education. Good parents pass on good genes for smarts + they ensure their children have an enriched environment, poor kids don't always get the smarts plus they get a horrible home environment. Additionally, education spending doesn't correlate with results very well either so the typical liberal 'throw other people's money at the problem till it gets better' solution isn't well supported. My idea, looking at the statistics, is that since administrative costs and non teaching personnel in my state have been growing at about 3 times the rate of classroom teachers perhaps a hard look needs to be taken at the non-classroom spending (some necessary, some not) and caps placed... say x% only on administrators/coaches/etc.
5 - Boeke
Excellent article. (Pay no attention to quixotic Doug Hunter, he wastes all his time tilting at liberal strawmen that he erects and you shouldn't allow him to waste yours, too).
I remember with great fondness the teachers I had in public schools, in science, math, social studies, English, Band, etc., and I reflect on them often. I also remember being jealous of the wonderful teachers and tools at the rich private school I lived next to, and how the students there lorded over us poor relations at public schools and freely predicted we would wash out of college, while they would go on to wondrous success (of course, it never happened).
There's a spark that a good teacher has that is not counted or measured by any test. There's a love of his subject and a regard for the students that bureaucrats cannot measure.
We should pay teachers more and financiers less. After all, teachers are responsible for a far more valuable resource than mere Wall Street moguls.
6 - Pattie D
Thank you for your support. For the record, I work 12-15 hour days and all day Saturday on Lesson plans, tests, projects,etc. Yes I have the summer off...to take courses and plan for next year. Often I will travel to a place where I can take pictures to use in my lessons.
7 - Boeke
I salute all the teachers who have the courage and enthusiasm to dare the political and bureaucratic monsters surrounding our schools and actually teach our children, the hope of our future.
8 - handyguy
It doesn't have to be either/or. We can recognize the value of Diane Ravitch's observations without throwing out everything Arne Duncan says or does. He's probably the best education secretary ever. Maybe he and Ms. Ravitch should have a nice long meeting and report back to us.
Similarly, the glee with which conservatives bash public schools and teachers is appalling; that doesn't mean there hasn't been some union pig-headedness about refusing to recognize or fire ineffective teachers.
9 - handyguy
PS Excellent article, one of the best ones on BC recently.
10 - Glenn Contrarian
Doug -
Can you show me a private school - even ONE private school - that provides the same range of service that the normal public school does i.e. accepts ALL children regardless of financial status, race, culture, primary language, physical disability, mental disability, so on and so forth? And make sure that oh-so-wonderful private school provides busing for all its students (again, regardless of physical disability)!
I'm really looking forward to your answer.
11 - Jerome Wetzel
Thank you all for the comments! I have enjoyed reading them.
Handyguy - you are right on both of your counts. There have been bad moves by the union and good moves by Duncan. I was looking at some broad strokes, but it is worth listening to the other side, too, even if you disagree with a lot of what is being said.
Glenn - No, I cannot. Admittedly, though, I haven't looked into the vast majority of private schools. But i get your point :)
12 - nycteach
I have been a nyc public high school teacher for six years. I respect all of my coworkers as some of the smartest and kindest people that I have ever met. I have friends that I have known from high school who I know that I am smarter than and who I can earn more money than, but I don't choose that lifestyle. That is not because I am lazy. I often spend 12 hours a day at school. If I am late, it's not that my boss and a couple of clients are mad...its that I have 25 kids that are waiting for me and wondering where I am, and are mad at me because they are finally at school and I am not. Most of us don't care at all about the money, its more that we want people to just understand that our job is not easy, and if they had to do it for a week, they would appreciate us and they would understand why we need breaks during the year. My favorite moments are when my own kids tell me that they could not handle being teachers because they would get so mad. They make me laugh every day, and that is better than a big paycheck.
13 - 46hand
I was struck by the correlation Ms. Ravitch drew between low test scores and low-income environs. I thought, briefly, that this was the first time I had glimpsed our nations progress (or the lack thereof) being rooted in the relentless stratification of the classes, as opposed to the failure of the educational infrastructure itself. It remains true, though, that people have been cheated of the opportunity to apprehend critical thinking. I'd like to thank Mr. Hunter for exemplifying this condition. I am sure he and his cohorts fully believe their word to be as righteous as I believe mine to be, but folks from that side of this issue tend to ignore the argument presented and make up their own, basing the power and justification for what they believe in emotional manifestations. But, just pointing it out, that's what this argument faces... undereducated masses. Irony strikes!!!
14 - Andy Marsh
I've personally never thought teachers were paid too much, but I've always thought administrators are paid too much. Not only are they paid too much, but in many cases there are way too many of them!
I've been told that wouldn't make a difference, but when there are 5 to 10 admin types making six figures in one school, that sure seems like an awful lot of wealth that could be redistributed to the underpaid teachers. The athletic director for the HS I went to back in Jersey makes $110k a year and the football team hasn't won a game in years! What's he getting paid for other than running a failed athletics program?
And for all the positives you mention about unions, in this case I think the unions are bad for the American people. Liberals always scream about how things aren't fair. Unions line the pockets of democrats and democrats then turn around and pad the contracts for that same union! That's collusion! What's fair about that?
And why should state employees have any more bargaining rights than federal employees?
I think one other thing that gets overlooked often when discussing the differences between public and private schools is the fact that private school teachers are usually paid less than public school teachers...
Teachers like to whine that their benefits are being taken away...all I can say to that is...Welcome to the real world! If you lived in the real world, you wouldn't be worried about losing your pension, because like MOST American workers, you wouldn't have one to lose!
15 - Jerome Wetzel
Andy - You are right that sometimes there are too many administrators. However, I do believe principals should be paid considerably more. The good ones work very long hours, often at schools before and after all the teachers. They have to attend numerous schools functions and events. They don't get that summer break. It is a very consuming job.
As for your arguments against unions, there is some collusion. Certainly no different, and I would argue less prevalant, than the deal big business (especially oil) and the conservatives have going on. And federal employees should have bargaining rights. Other people in other jobs should have pensions. Unions can help them get pensions. That is what I am arguing for! I don't think the solution is to take away the rights from the few groups that have them, but for the other groups to gain rights. It would help our major class divide.
16 - Andy Marsh
Jerome - I appreciate your sentiments, but anyone would have a hard time convincing me that unions would be good for everyone. I base this feeling on life experience. My father was a long haul trucker for many, many years and I remember, vividly, him coming home with bullet holes in his truck thanks to the Teamsters.
For the record, I think it's ridiculous that our govt subsidizes big oil!
Federal employees do have bargaining rights...not just as many rights as WI state employees...
17 - Clavos
Federal employees may not have bargaining rights but they have all the bennies of being union members anyway.
Try firing one...
18 - Boeke
Union members get fired and laidoff every day. All union contracts contain clauses put forward by employers and negotiated by both sides, regarding firing for cause and other matters. It would be remiss of managers if they did not negotiate these matters.
19 - Andy Marsh
But Boeke, in the case of govt unions, those negotiations aren't done fairly. It does no one any good when the people doing the negotiations are on the same side. Dems don't care about the money, it's not their money! Well, actually, that's not a fair statement, because they DO care about the money. Any money they give to the public sector unions comes right back to them in the form of political contributions! And in a lot of cases, contributions to candidates that the member, who's money is used for those contributions, doesn't even support!
20 - Jerome Wetzel
Andy - Again, republicans and oil and finance money. You can keep making that argument, but it's only legitimate if you keep in mind it applies doubly to the other side.
21 - Andy Marsh
Why Jerome - As my mother always told me...two wrongs don't make a right. In other words, saying, "They're doing it, why can't we?" is a bullshit argument. I already stated that I think big oil subsidies are bullshit. What else do you want?
22 - Baronius
I find the first two points the most interesting. I'd love to see some details about the tested students in the US versus other countries. I've been looking online, but I haven't yet tracked down anything useful.
23 - Jerome Wetzel
Andy - I agree the two wrongs don't make a right. However, big business and big oil have far more influence than unions, so presenting the argument, twice, that unions are corrupt and Democrats kowtow to them doesn't hold much water as a point. Since you brought it up twice, I felt obligated to dispute it twice, rather than let it stand. It's not a fair comparison.
24 - Andy Marsh
Well Jerome, neither is saying that because one side does it that makes it all okay.
Govt employees have an unfair advantage when it comes to democratic controlled govt.
The problem with your argument is that big business and big oil are in the pockets of both sides. Just look at political donations. Big oil and big biz give to everyone, big unions give only to dems.
25 - Jerome Wetzel
Big biz and big oil give much more to Republicans because Republican policies do much more to support them. I do not see a balance here at all. I'd like to see the figured that support both sides being in the pocket. How many Dems sit on the board at Halliburton or have family business connections to Middle East sovereigns? It is really not the same thing at all.
Plus, unions are fighting for the people. As are environmental groups and other organizations that give mainly to Dems. In a democratically elected government, the people are who are supposed to have a voice. I do not support big lobbying, but Dem causes have had to ratchet up their donations and rallying or they would have been swallowed by big business and the GOP long ago. It's a broken system, but the only way current regulations allow it to be.
I do not think government employees have an unfair advantage. Just because they work for the government does not mean they get any say in what the government does. Civil servants like teachers, police officers, and firefighters certainly don't.