jawlaw

@jawlaw, have you never seen someone who has the qualifications for a job and is capable of doing the job yet still does a lousy job? Cause? Lack of effort, carelessness, dishonesty, failure to adhere to work rules, etc. ad nauseum. While I bow to your teacher experience for familiarity with the profession, I was a VP of HR for a telecom company before retiring and am more than a bit familiar with personnel related issues. The fact that education is one of the only professions where merit pay, market-based pay and consistently excellent performance are all virtually absent is no accident. But yes, we disagree so let's move on.

How about for boosting teacher pay we take jawlaw's suggestion of teachers doing endorsement deals? The taxpayer does not incur any additional cost, companies have yet another venue to advertise in (to an extremely pliable audience no less) and parents can complain about indoctrination to an even larger degree. Everybody wins!

@Montalvo, if "they're ALL qualified" what cause do you speak of for termination? Rewarding superior teachers with slary differentials will accomplish nothing but degrade the system even more. Administrators are already manipulating curriculums and test scores to achieve funding; a "bonus" program for teaching performance will only further corrupt the system. And to specify that certain disciplines are worthy of higher pay begins yet another thread to the topic. You're approach to the problem appears fundamentally pragmatic but I believe the solution requires greater imagination and an admittedly idealistic shift in society's moral paradigm. I respect your opinions but we will have to disagree on this topic. Let's move on.

@jawlaw, a story by my finance prof in business school speaks to the problems incur with over-paying employees. A black man sued L.A. County in the 70's saying that he was denied a job as a firefighter based on his race. In presenting his case, he claimed that he was not hired because he didn't know how to play bridge, a card game with a decidedly white bias. The County attorney explained that public pressure ("Those brave young men, risking their lives...") prompted them to increase the salaries of firefighters to substantially more than was needed to attract qualified applicants. Even with a two-year waiting list of qualified candidates, there were still substantially more than could be accommodated. One bright fire captain observed that it was really frustrating to be without a "fourth" for bridge, hence the added "requirement". If you pay more than is needed to attract QUALIFIED candidates, how will you discriminate between those hired and those turned away? Remember...they're ALL qualified! And again, is that the best way to expend scarce education dollars? All for the purpose of "supposedly" improving their self-image and how they're viewed by the public? Let's pick the low-hanging fruit first. Deal with union blockage of termination for cause. Add salary differentials to reward superior teachers and those in competitive skill categories like science and math. Fix the credentialing system. When that's done and you find there's money to squander, yeah, give everyone a 20% pay hike.

@Montalvo, I especially agree that the credentialing system fails to ensure quality candidates. Completing the required courses to obtain a teaching certificate is not difficult. In my own experience of teaching at the college level, many students expressed to me that they were choosing teaching as a career because it was "easy" and they would get their summers off. We hear about the low number of teachers that are fired, and about inept teachers retained due to tenure; but we hear little about the number of teachers who choose to leave the profession due to low pay, lack of job satisfaction, and frustration in a flawed education system; we lose many talented teachers each year because of those reasons; and although our current economic crisis has chilled the trend, teacher turnover used to be quite high - we do not have a surplus of passionate, devoted, talented teachers AND ADMINISTRATORS!! My theory remains, notwithstanding Keynesian econmics, that the incentive of significant salary increases is ONE WAY that will initiate a growth the talent pool from which more enlightened minds will enter the teaching profession and cure its ills.

@jawlaw, if we're not attracting what YOU consider "quality" personnel at current salaries, then 1) the salaries are, in fact, too low OR 2) our recruitment is flawed OR 3) the job specifications for these positions have been set too low OR 4) we rely on a credentialing system which fails to ensure a "quality" candidate. You've chosen to lay most everything on the first of those possibilities. I tend to believe that the others are involved to a great degree as well. And if I'm right, raising salaries alone will be a huge waste of taxpayer money at a time when resources are scarce.

@Montalvo, You continue to attempt to pull me into an argument over supply and demand . . that is not my point . . think outside the box . . our current economic theories are what has caused this problem . . let's think about advancing society . . not the GDP. We are NOT attracting quality teachers OR ADMINISTRATORS at current salaries; and this is a large part of the problem. Yes, the union is a detriment to the system and I believe I have previously stated that the system needs to be overhauled. But, you are the one missing the point . . I tell ya what . . you spend the next 10 years teaching in the public school system and then perhaps we can have this conversation again.

Im a teacher!

@jawlaw, it seems you're still missing a fundamental appreciation for what "price" (in this case, "wage") represents. Yes, society tends to regard price as a measure of what we value...but that's fallacious. Let's look at an analogy. Air is something that I think you'd agree is pretty damned important to all living creature (OK, except anaerobic bacteria), including humans. What's the price of air? It's FREE! Why? Because there's virtually an unlimited supply of it...for now, at least (admittedly, that's changing!) The point is that we can attract and retain qualified teachers at the prices we currently pay. What YOU'RE complaining about is a Rodney Dangerfield issue, i.e., that teachers (and education) don't get no respect. And your implicit assumption is that the wages paid to a certain job should necessarily correspond to the importance that society places on that job. But that's not the way markets work in efficiently allocating scarce resources. If lots of people would like to be teachers because it's rewarding work, it offers job security, you have summers off, you work the same schedule as your kids who attend school, etc. ad nauseum, then the SUPPLY of teachers ends up high compared to the DEMAND for teachers and the price that schools have to pay is thereby necessarily lowered. And that's GOOD, because it means that society can get a bargain price on qualified teachers, leaving more resources for computers, facilities, etc. But when unions force districts to retain UNqualified teachers, to pay differentials for coursework rather than quality of performance and to block payment of higher wages to those whose skills are valued higher in the marketplace (e.g., science and math teachers), then the system breaks down. We won't fix education by forcing government to spend more for teachers than the market requires. That would clearly make TEACHERS (and their unions) happy but it would ultimately make things much worse.

Apology accepted. I understand your economic analysis. But, my argument is that notwithstanding the economics, and obvious problems in the systems of our public schools, the bigger picture is that as a society our value system is completely distorted. We complain about poor education but we still pay the ticket and beer prices at the sports arena to support atheletes who (in my humble opinion) are grotesquely overpaid. I could elaborate on that topic adnauseam; but I believe you can understand my point - Our economic vote seldom genuinely reflects our ideals. Until society's moral compass (and NOT in a religious sense) is sincerely directed to the advancement of humanity (and I believe that education is the cornerstone of such advancement) we will continue to struggle with these issues. Economic theory is a powerful tool for the speculation of market indices and hind-sight analysis; but its practical application should also be tempered with the goal of guiding a civilization towards a desired outcome. If the nightly news reported that Montalvo signed with the Wherever School District as their new math instructor for $12.5 million over the next three school seasons, a million dollar signing bonus, and an estimated $20 million in endorsements - think about how different life would be. What's the worst that could happen in my scenerio . . an over-supply of well educated citizens seeking a high paying career that promotes well educated generations? Those side-effects seem easier to calibrate than our current situation.

@jawlaw, my apology for any slight of YOU; I was taking a shot at our educational system. I have to confess that I never fully grasped economics myself until pursuing an MBA in finance...and that's a sad commentary itself. But if you understand market pricing, you must recognize that increasing the price of a commodity is a waste of resources and leads to an inefficient over-supply (along with a slew of other negative unintended consequences such as incompetent teachers who will fight termination tooth and nail, knowing they'll never find comparable compensation elsewhere.) I'm well-aware that there are many fine teachers, my best friend being one of them. But even he is dismayed by administrators' inability to appropriately reward the best teachers and remove those who are clearly inept (he was a principal but returned to the classroom because of his love of teaching.) Now if you think that a market wage for teachers doesn't make sense, despite the fact that it's the basis for setting the pay of highly competent personnel at every successful private enterprise operation in the world, I'd be very interested in hearing your arguments. (BTW, I'm a retired VP of human resources for a telecom company...FWIW.)

First, as a former teacher I am well aware of the flaws with our public schools and agree that major changes are needed to repair the system. However, not all teachers are incompetent. Moreover, I assure you that my education in economics is quite sound and I certainly do not appreciate your insulting tone; thus I have no desire to spend the time to enlighten you as to the folly of your economic theory.

Apparently, your teachers didn't do such a great job of teaching you economics. Scarce resources such as teachers are allocated in the marketplace by price (wages). Paying more than what supply and demand would dictate yields an excess supply and wastes scarce educational resources. If you want to know why we have lousy teachers, look at the loony rules imposed on school districts by teachers' unions, e.g., a dedicated building in Manhattan housing inept teachers who cannot be fired by were removed from the classroom because they were SO bad they simply couldn't be tolerated. Our public education system is a disgrace and throwing more money at incompetent teachers, all of whom are "credentialed" (AKA "qualified") is clearly NOT the answer. Some major house-cleaning is in order...but the unions won't allow it.