COMMENTARY | Teacher salaries have recently been a major source of contention for both public employees and the public at large. Though not a groundbreaking revelation, the New York Times explains this week how a recent U.S. Department of Education study revealed teachers in poorer schools are paid lower salaries.
Education Nation explains the department's findings that many school systems unfairly distribute money within their districts, favoring higher-income schools and providing less money for teacher salaries in low-income schools. These poorer students are then subjected to underpaid, novice teachers who move onto higher-paying positions once they gain experience. This leaves low-income schools with perpetually "new, " or, as they would have us believe, "bad" teachers.
Admittedly, the unequal distribution of funds is a major problem, but this beckons: Are students hurt by low-paid teachers? As a teacher, I strongly believe the answer is no.
There is a widespread myth that high salaries bring in good teachers. Tales describe "genius college students" warned not to go into education because the pay is low; thus, schools never have smart teachers. But if the salary was higher, scientists would be lining up to teach.
Truthfully, being smart does not equal being a good teacher. With standardized tests, classroom management, special needs instruction, constant documentation, required development, apathetic students, government regulations, budget cuts and greater responsibilities, a teacher must be many things other than knowledgeable in their subject.
Personally, I graduated from my university Magna Cum Laude and with honors -- and I still went into education. After graduating, I landed my first teaching job at a school where my salary was $17,000. Veteran teachers who had been at this school for 20 years were making less than $25,000.
But were students hurt by these low-paid teachers? Not at all. I worked alongside the best and brightest teachers I'd known, committed teachers who considered this job their mission, and who really cared about their students. These teachers stayed before and after school to tutor students or give lessons, attended every after-school event and did dozens of other unpaid tasks that public school teachers would scoff at. Students thrived under these low-paid teachers, with our school achieving a 100 percent pass rate on the state-mandated standardized tests in recent years.
So it's hard for me to accept the idea that low-paid teachers hurt students.
The Times article retells the old education myth that new, novice teachers are substandard. Yes, new, fresh-out-of-college teachers may be green, but they are also skilled in new technologies, full of ideas, and bring new energy to the classroom.
Vice versa, just because a veteran teacher has worked for 30 years, doesn't guarantee they are an efficient teacher. Working in a school, one can pinpoint the teachers that are counting the days until retirement, the ones that don't care anymore.
Ultimately, I think there are a lot of problems in our educational system, including funding reform. But the idea that students are hurt by low-paid teachers just isn't one of them.
24 comments