Just saw this last night in SF courtesy of the Commonwealth Club. Highly recommended.
You're shown that getting results is straightforward: get rid of poor teachers and reward good ones. One stat that was particularly interesting, from a Stanford researcher whose name I forget, was that replacing the worst 6-10% of teachers would put us on the same proficiency level as Finland.
Unfortunately, the system makes that very difficult. Many teachers are granted tenure, making them impossible to fire, and educators' compensation isn't designed to allow for performance incentives. Contracts demanded by unions are partially to blame.
Also, our education system was built for previous generations' economies. Professionals, scientists, technical workers, factory workers, and laborers were needed in different proportions than they are today. Now we have more highly skilled jobs without enough highly educated Americans to fill them. SV and schools in Redwood City and Woodside are mentioned specifically.
It examines the costs of poor education, like the staggering number of dropouts who end up in prison. Their incarceration cost could put them through private school with money left over for college.
Saying the film demonizes Weingarten is exaggerating. She doesn't look great, but there are clearly a lot of factors at work.
Waiting for Superman makes clear that the way forward is good teachers.
The problems are dual, and nobody likes the solutions.
On the one hand, yes, you have unions, which theoretically are sticking up for the workers but in practice spend a large % of their time and resources sticking up for the lousy workers who deserve to be fired anyways.
On the other hand, you have about half of the country devoted to relentlessly slashing education budgets in the name of "less government". In a small-l labor dominated industry, that effectively means smaller paychecks and/or more work for the same pay. So good teachers who are frustrated by the union shenanigans don't have a lot of other alternatives - who else is gonna stick up for them?
Real solutions would be a combination of big pay incentives for star teachers (not that I'd necessarily be a star, but why on earth would I teach at those rates when I can be an engineer?), coupled with a much looser structure on tenure, more dynamic general situation, etc. That would be the kind of incentive to empower the good teachers and disempower the bad ones. But you can't just blame the unions without addressing the other side of the coin.
why on earth would I teach at those rates when I can be an engineer?)
Because you might enjoy working reasonable hours, 2 extra months of vacation, 10 extra years of retirement, tenure and defined benefit pensions? You might (like most teachers) also not be smart enough to become an engineer?
As for that half of the country trying to bring teacher pay down to market rate, why are they are problem? Why should teachers get paid above-market rates at taxpayer expense?
Market rate isn't "what yummyfajitas thinks they should be paid", and it's not "what the 80 year old nuns down the street get paid". You'll find most charters pay higher than public schools for an equivalent amount of experience (public schools have a lot of 30 year veterans on the payroll, charters not so much).
Anyways, if you're looking for talent, then market rate is the rate required to lure in talent from other industries. You can probably pay a little less because people like the idea of being a teacher, but it can't be egregiously less, which is what it is right now - what would I make as a first year or fifth year math teacher?
That's not bad for a liberal arts grad 5 years out of college, even by NYC standards.
Market rate is "how little can we pay them before we can't fill our open positions". I see no reason to believe we are anywhere near that point, Teach For America still rejects what, 2/3 of the people who apply?
$64k/year with 5 years experience. That's up from a base of 45k just starting out.
So if I wanted to switch it up to be a math teacher, I'd be cutting my pay to 45k. After sweating it out for 5 years, I'd be up to 65k, still below what entry-level engineers can make in NYC.
And that's in one of the 2 most expensive housing markets in the country.
Regarding "How little can we possibly pay to keep a warm body in teh room" -- this is why modern conservatives should never be taken seriously on education. The idea of quality never even enters into your thinking? I'm not trying to be histrionic here, but why provide education at all if that's how you feel about it?
EDIT: More on that link. The following quote implies we're both overestimating what a 5-year veteran gets:
"NOTE: If you are eligible for the 5 years longevity, please add $1000 to your annual salary
Example: Jane smith had completed 5 years of full-time work for the DOE. She is currently on step 6a
with the Masters Differential. Her annual salary is $56,707. Her new salary code is 6V and her new
annual salary is $57,707."
That seems to imply 5 years with a master's that you got over those summers and went into debt for gets you to 57k. In New York City. What do I get in finance if I'm good at math, almost triple that?
You'd be cutting your pay to $45k ($60k annualized), working less, getting an extra couple months of vacation, and great pension benefits.
I also forgot that for teaching 5 years, you've just earned a pension of 6% of your "Final Average Salary" (average of your last 3 years). So for teaching 5 years, you've just earned a pension of $2900/year (inflation adjusted) starting at age 55 (assuming the 5 year pay is $50,000, not sure I understand the table I posted). Assuming you live to be 80, that's worth another $15k per 9 months of work.
So teachers total comp is $60k per 9 months, just starting out (equivalent to $80k/year). That's really not bad for entry level.
In finance, you are working far more hours than the teacher, and you can also be fired whenever you under perform. You also seem to be assuming that GS or JPM will give a job to just any idiot with a math degree.
"How little can we possibly pay to keep a warm body in teh room"
Not what I said at all. I said "fill our open positions" - in general, to fill a position, you must find qualified people. I'm a strong proponent of measuring performance, firing the warm bodies who don't perform, and offering rewards to those who perform well.
> So teachers total comp is $60k per 9 months, just starting out (equivalent to $80k/year).
On one hand, I understand this statement - afterall, you're getting those summer vacation months. On the other hand though... if I'm used to a salary of 80k/year, it's going to be quite a cut to go to 60k. I would have to spend the summer working somewhere else to make up the missing 20k, or else get used to a different standard of living. Maybe I can find a summer job that combines my ideas of vacation with earning some money (probably less than 20k with those goals), but the whole prospect is not that appealing yet.
People are willing to take paycuts for increased benefits, but here what we're saying is you're simply taking your 80k job and deciding not to work for three months. Sure, the annual salary is the same, but 60k is a lot less attractive than 80k. And of course it's not 60k today either, it's 45k with 15 in the future.
Anyhow, what I'm trying to say is that while the number manipulation makes things look better, 45k/y + summer vacation + 15k/y in pension does not sound like enough compensation to forgo that 80k/y engineering job yet. Especially if I need to deal with the hassle of finding alternate income for the summer months. Also, I would imagine that similarly to SF, NYC offers >80k for starting engineers (if only because of living costs).
If you want money, trade time for money. If you want time, don't make that trade. You can't have your cake and eat it too.
Incidentally, the median starting salary for students at NYU/Poly (NYU's new engineering school) is only $62k/year. So it looks like teachers are getting paid the same for 9 months of work that engineers get paid for 12 months of work.
Sure, but I'm saying I want money. And given that I want money, a teaching position is a worse proposition for me than an engineering position (whether due to the annoyance of finding a high-paying summer job every year, running a second job in the extra time I have, or simply because the salary is less regardless). If this holds for other people as well, the only people a teacher's salary would attract are people who want time. Which means the salary is not high enough to attract smart people out of industry whose goal is also to make money.
Well, the nickel-and-diming attitude seems to have a strong prejudice against qualified people, even if you say "least amount for a qualified person". Engineering departments managed with that philosophy tend to be filled with mediocre hacks.
As far as teachers working less.. do you know any young teachers? We're both on Hacker News right now. Teachers have been at work since 7AM teaching in front of a classroom, and are currently doing grading and lesson planning.
Regarding the pensions, I agree it's an area for reform, and a case in point of union dysfunction. But as long as people like you come across as borderline hostile to the idea of teachers being paid well for a job well done, they're going to close ranks behind the union, and I would too.
EDIT: I don't care what some report says about hours in the aggregate, especially one that presumably intermingles running-out-the-clock 64yos with young teachers. I don't know how it was compiled but I'm sure I could find one saying the exact opposite if I cared to. I'm assuming you don't know many teachers, otherwise you would get what I'm saying here.
I don't care what some report says about hours in the aggregate, especially one that presumably intermingles running-out-the-clock 64yos with young teachers.
Please correct me if I am misunderstanding, but this seems to be flatly stating that Yummyfajitas was right in saying you do not care about the facts?
I'm assuming you don't know many teachers, otherwise you would get what I'm saying here.
I have an aunt and uncle that are teachers and a wife that is going to school to become a teacher right now, but I largely agree with yummyfajitas and he is carefully supporting his arguments with facts and links.
If he and I are wrong about it, would you mind pointing out exactly how rather than saying we just don't understand?
To start with, the fact that it's comparing some self-reported statistics between teachers and "other professionals"? And mushing them together into some total minutes worked figure?
They're estimating the hours worked by a teacher at less than 40. I've never met a teacher who put in less than 40 hours.
Then, as I said upthread, the fact that it's mashing young teachers (the topic at hand) together with running-the-clock 64yo teachers really brings it all together. Maybe this explains the sub-40 hour workweek. Unfortunately, a 5-page PDF report with 4 graphs doesn't summarize the be-all of teaching.
Also, if you bothered to read my source as far as page 2, you'd realize that it does provide breakdowns based on teacher age. Apparently it's young teachers who work less, and older (50+) teachers who work more (5.1 hours). See table 2 on page 2.
On that graph:
"NOTE: The calculations of hours worked are based on data collected about how survey
respondents spent “yesterday.” Thus, average weekly work hours are an extrapolation
based on the activity for 1 day."
I mean how much confidence do you have in this thing? And you're repeating it like it's the bible?
Let me ask you a question, do you consider all hours of work equal? What if you compared office work to, say, mining, if they worked an hour fewer, would you say you work harder?
My original point was that if you want better teachers, you need to pay them commensurate with the value they create. The private sector will generally reward professionals if their service is needed and valuable. If you grant that education is a public good, then it makes sense to pay for good workers. That means taking care of your people while disempowering the union. If you're hostile to the workers they're going to rally around that union, no matter what. You can accomplish more with effective management than with a blanket opposition to teachers being taken care of.
Your last paragraph is exactly what the DC superintendent proposed. The teachers' unions were so threatened that they didn't even allow it to come to a vote.
It also underlies much of the Obama admin's Head Start initiative.
Of course, things like that are a lot harder to mandate from the federal level. You have to get into things like measurement and (opinion here) most of the really important things about teaching are very hard to measure.
Which is why vouchers seem to be the best idea. Let the school principals decide who are the best and worst teachers, and let them figure out for themselves what they need to pay in order to obtain the best ones and fire the worst.
Maybe you could have a variable-value voucher system where the amount a school gets for having taught a kid depends on test scores at the end.
More administrative freedom for school principals is orthogonal to vouchers.
I'm all about charter schools in theory, and still am much of the time in practice, but often the way the funding is structured is ridiculous.
Back when I was in local politics, a charter school opened up in our town. For every kid who enrolled, we had to pay the charter school more than we were paying to educate the kid ourselves. AND bus them there, presumably to add insult to injury. So I'm a little suspicious of vouchers and charter schools even though they instinctively sound like good ideas to me.
>where the amount a school gets for having taught a kid depends on test scores at the end
Presumably you'd be making some assessment of value added, which would be hard of scores alone. A school in an area of high illiteracy that manages to improve literacy levels of pupils could arguably have added more value than a school in a high achievement area where achievement levels are pretty constant - moving people from a fail in Maths/English to a pass might impact their lives far more than moving them from a B to an A (or A to A* as they're now called in the UK; grade inflation FTW).
Actually I think you could just do it on absolute test scores, thus making the smart children more valuable. Schools would compete to bring in the best students, not just to fill their classrooms, otherwise there's no particular incentive to offer the best educational programs. The best schools get the best students and get the most money, the worst schools get stuck with the dumbest students.
Could lead to increased stratification. On the other hand, is it worth spending a lot of money to educate a student who is dumb as a doornail anwyay?
Well, 2 comments and we're 1 for 2 so I guess my 50% figure was right on.
I'll respond with a couple more questions: Do you place a value on increasing future "creation and innovation" by doing a good job of educating kids? If they learn exclusively from mediocre, by-the-book personalities, do you think that helps or hurts the "creation and innovation" parts of their brains?
Your question seems to be implicitly assuming that most great teachers could also have been great engineers. At the risk of stereotyping, I do not think that is true.
A great teacher must be dynamic, engaging, intelligent, able to connect with children so that they can teach creation and innovation. But an engineer must be intelligent, methodical, and able to master vast amounts of technical knowledge.
I suspect most people who make great engineers would not make great teachers, and vice versa. There will be some that could easily be great at either though.
Those, I think would better serve society by going into engineering for a few reasons. One is that the number capable of being a truly great engineer is smaller than the number capable of being a truly great teacher.
Both are significant for society, but one is more rare than the other. Also, it seems that the point of education is to be able to produce great makers such as engineers who do the work that holds society together. If we always direct our best minds to enhancing the best minds of the future, we will have highly educated children but little or no actual progress for those children to enjoy.
One great engineers contributions last forever, assuming they become part of a product that is stable enough to be reverse engineered (so software and physical both count) and is proportionate to Contribution*product. One great teachers contribution rots due to reversion to the mean.
The average teacher almost certainly has a greater marginal effect than the engineer. The 90th percentile engineer kicks the teachers ass.
"One stat that was particularly interesting, from a Stanford researcher whose name I forget, was that replacing the worst 6-10% of teachers would put us on the same proficiency level as Finland."
Us = "the teachers" or "the US school system"? If the latter, are we allowed to import the Finnish parents?
Bad teachers hang on for reasons other than union contracts. The private schools and the charters typically don't pay as well. Maybe it isn't so easy to replace a French/chemistry/history teacher, or maybe you have to do so in the last three weeks before school starts. If you get a stinker then, perhaps in a private school you can fix this after a year, but then you'll have shot a dozen or more kids' introduction to French or chemistry.
You're shown that getting results is straightforward: get rid of poor teachers and reward good ones. One stat that was particularly interesting, from a Stanford researcher whose name I forget, was that replacing the worst 6-10% of teachers would put us on the same proficiency level as Finland.
Unfortunately, the system makes that very difficult. Many teachers are granted tenure, making them impossible to fire, and educators' compensation isn't designed to allow for performance incentives. Contracts demanded by unions are partially to blame.
Also, our education system was built for previous generations' economies. Professionals, scientists, technical workers, factory workers, and laborers were needed in different proportions than they are today. Now we have more highly skilled jobs without enough highly educated Americans to fill them. SV and schools in Redwood City and Woodside are mentioned specifically.
It examines the costs of poor education, like the staggering number of dropouts who end up in prison. Their incarceration cost could put them through private school with money left over for college.
Saying the film demonizes Weingarten is exaggerating. She doesn't look great, but there are clearly a lot of factors at work.
Waiting for Superman makes clear that the way forward is good teachers.