Should Math and Science Teachers Get More Money?

By Tom

Last week the Seattle Times ran an editorial supporting differential pay for math and science teachers. The reasoning goes like this: college graduates who major in math or science can make more money in the private sector than in education. If we offer them a bonus to teach, we'll get more math and science teachers. More math and science teachers will lead to better math and science education.

The editorial went on to chastise WEA President Mary Lindquist for opposing this idea, pointing out that the teachers' union doesn't understand the free market system, and prefers to cling to the ideology "that everyone in the group is paid under the same rules. No favoritism." the private sector apparently embraces the free market system in which hard-to-find human resources command a premium, while dime-a-dozen people command...dimes.

I have three problems with this idea.

First of all, our state is broke and apparently getting broker. This is an odd time to support giving anyone a raise.

Secondly, it's an even odder time to borrow great ideas from the free market system. As most of us learned over the past two years (perhaps from reading The TImes) the free market's focus on exploiting everything in pursuit of profit led this country to the brink of another depression.

But my main problem with differential pay for math and science teachers concerns the logic. People who are interested in math and science tend to decide fairly early whether they want to apply their knowledge and capacity or share it. The former go on to pursue careers as engineers, doctors or actuaries. The sharers decide to teach. I may be wrong, but I doubt a $5,000 bonus will do much to encourage future engineers to become future teachers.

On the other hand, it might well encourage future English teachers or elementary teachers to become math or science teachers. And that may or may not be a good idea. Take me, for example. Because of some of the classes I took in college, I have an endorsement to teach middle school science. If a bonus were in place, I might be tempted to do just that, even though I know full well that my skill set is better suited for teaching third grade, which I've done for the last 25 years. In other words, the bonus may lead to more math and science teachers, but not necessarily better math and science education.

And here's another question. If a math/science bonus were put in place, would it be retroactive? Would a certain math teacher in Sequim get his bonus, even though he decided decades ago to become a math teacher instead of an actuary? Probably. Which doesn't make any sense at all in the free market system, since that bonus would essentially be a waste of money. It wouldn't be creating another math teacher; it would "merely" pay more money to a math teacher that the existing salary scale was already successful in creating and retaining.

Not that it matters, of course, since our state is already broke and getting broker.

Comments

[Tom]

I agree, Tracey, and I also think we should encourage quality alternative certification programs, aimed at encouraging math and science professionals to change careers and teach. I think they would bring a fresh, real-world perspective.

[Tracey]

Perhaps we should consider making the teaching profession more attractive to everyone - better pay, better conditions, and opportunities for research and professional growth. I think the fact that math and science graduates are not considering teaching because they can get a better job elsewhere is saying something. Teachers shouldn't have to make a personal sacrifice to do the job they love.

[g]

"The fact is that NO ONE goes into teaching for the money. We do it because it's challenging, fun, and constantly pushing us to be creative and to solve tricky problems."

I agree with a Kristin.

Another thought:

If money is being used to shore of a lack of math/science teachers, that same logic could be used to offer bonuses to male elementary school teachers (which are also woefully under-represented at many schools, especially if you don't count the PE teacher). I'm not sure if that's the best idea or not, considering that teaching is probably one of the few occupations in our society where women don't face heavy discrimination in lower pay than men.

[Tom]

Brian, you're a class act. And I bet your dad was, too.

[Brian]

No bonus for me, thanks. And it is a little irritating that they keep saying they want better math teachers. My dad was an electrical engineer. I could have been an engineer, but life threw me some curves, I made some choices, and here I am. I like what I do, and it's not about the money. I can teach. I'm with Taylor Mali (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RxsOVK4syxU): I make a difference. That's enough.

[Mark]

toss255: I agree (and I am a public school English teacher). I think that there are too many ineffective teachers who are allowed to remain because of either union protection or administrators who are unable to recognize ineffective instruction (or are unwilling to do the dirty work of culling the ineffective teachers). I think standards for teachers should be higher, and the first step in doing this is to establish (read: fund) an effective means of teacher assessment which is ongoing and classroom based, not test-score based or even the "I'm going to write about my practice" of NBPTS. To make it classroom based we need the time, money, and trained personnel who can sit and watch a meaningful period of time and consider those observations in conjunction with student work, test scores, etc.

Unfortunately, though this is certainly the way to go, it will be hard to administer. And if you look at education, most of what ends up happening happens not because it is best for kids but because it is easier (and cheaper) to administer. That will always be the case as long as we depend on fickle sources of revenue and being forced to bow to the unfunded whim of every policymaker who thinks they can do our job better than we can. If the people want a change, they'll need to pay for it...pure and simple.

[Debora Ortner]

As a kindergarten teacher, I teach math and science everyday - along with literacy, social studies, social skills, problem solving, etc. Does this math and science instruction not count? Shouldn't I fit into the "bonus" equation? I believe my math and science instruction is even MORE critical because it lays the foundation for future inquiry. Just because I teach other subjects as well does not lessen the fact that I AM a math and science teacher.

[tim-10-ber]

toss255 -- very well said!! thank you!

[Rena]

Students cannot begin to do well in math or science unless they learn to read and write! So why should teachers that continue a student's education be paid more? Also, just because someone is "good at" math or science doesn't mean they are good at teaching it. This is just a bad idea all the way around.

[toss255]

It would be interesting to find out how education would be transformed if people went into teaching for the money. I am actually on the side of raising standards for teachers across the board and paying people what they are worth. Right now I suspect many teachers are making more money teaching than they could doing something else.