A recent report that teachers in some English non-public schools received salaries above GBP 100,000 (USD 140,000) provoked some outrage. Whether real or a posture, the response and the stated reason for it are concerning and should be challenged in their own right.
The first response is of course, "so much!", "too much" or something similar. The number 100,000 is symbolic, and may not be as large as it appears. We know from the New York charter school incident which paid its teachers $125,000, such a salary might be equivalent to $62,500 in the midwest.
The two considerations when considerign compensation are of course the real value the worker provides and the market value s/he provides. The real value is hard to calculate. Teacher advocates love to list the skills, competencies and contributions to society teachers provide and to attach dollar values to those. For example, a teacher and an attorney both present evidence and arguments. Teachers and CEOs both manage human resources and produce outputs in terms of human resourxes. Teachers and doctors are both responsible for the health and wellbeing of their charges.
On the other hand, Jeff Bezos, Bill Gates and Mark Zuckerberg.
What really matters is the market value, or how important the market sees that job. I think here we see two factors at play. The first is the ease of entry and the ease of replacement and this is a problem for teaching. In general terms, almost anyone can become a teacher. While most US states require a Bachelors degree, there are ways around this and unfortunately, a generic US BA / BEd / BS is not much more than equivalent to a High School diploma from many of our competitor nations. With more than a third of the US population having a degree, and commentators generally ranking an education degree as amongst the easiest, this is hardly a barrier to entry. Only recently has screening been implemented, and this is typically related only to child-protection and only considers past behavior, aka as the shutting the stable door approach.
Finland has been seen as the "best" in the world for its K - 12 programs, and the Finns themselves credit (a) requiring a Master's degree and (b) rigorous selection to become a teacher as the secret to their success.
The second factor, and this is what is troubling, is the status or prestige attached to the post. Teaching is generally seen as a low-status occupation. The reasons are troubling, not the least of which is government (national, state and local) attitudes and pronouncements. Whatever the reason, if people see teachers as being low-status, they value them accordingly and then attach an "appropriate" salary level. This explains the reaction to the symbolic 100,000 figure. One hundred thousand looks like a lot, and if you think teachers are not worth a lot, you will react accordingly.
I saw yesterday an advertisement for a teacher from a school I used to lead. The current board chair is someone who was then a parent, a professor at the local university and mediocre as far as I can tell with few publications, no listed citations, a low score on "rate my professor" and is absent from any community boards etc. When I knew her, she had a very and over-inflated view of her value and position as a professor and within minutes of meeting her, would let you know. According to published scales for that faculty at that university, she is remunerated in the $135,000 - 205,000 range and yet feels it appropriate to offer $35,000 for the teaching position.
One final comment. In the original UK report, the salaries quoted referred to independent school teachers. The reaction was, "they should be paid like (ie, as little as) public school teachers". Commentators were not suggesting that public school teachers should earn more.
**Comments and questions below. Please leave your email address in the box to the right for new post alerts.**
Further reading
No comments :
Post a Comment