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.
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.
ShareThis
What a horrible idea. How about spending that bonus on math and science teachers who do their job well?
There are already bonuses in place for math and science teachers. In my building last year, a history teacher with seven years of experience was fired. A language arts teacher with five years of experience was fired. None of the math or science teachers were fired, even those with two years under their belts. Their jobs were safe.
As well, had my husband chosen to be a math teacher instead of an elementary teacher, his graduate education would have been paid for. He weighed the options and chose to teach what interested him.
If I chose to go back to school, I could get my education paid for in order to become a math or science teacher, but for a number of reasons I don't want to do that.
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.
You're right. A bonus won't create more math teachers. Perhaps a practical, logical, meaningful math curriculum and set of state standards would?