Should All Teachers Receive a Pay Increase?

The Short Answer: Yes, generally, but... technically, no. That's because this question was asked with the word "all." In practice this question merits a resounding yes. That's because most teachers deserve a pay raise. But, sadly, a few teachers do not merit a raise. Some, in fact, should be dismissed as soon as possible.

The vast majority of teachers deserve a raise. But some don't. As we rid our teaching ranks of poor teachers (thankfully, this percentage is very small in Johnson County) we should work to raise teacher pay without an increase in taxes.

The Medium-Length Answer: We hear all the time that teachers are underpaid. In the aggregate, they are. But taxes are already too high, and only Switzerland spends more per pupil on education than we do in the United States. So how do we raise teacher salaries without increasing taxes?

One way is to rid ourselves of our ineffective teachers. We all know they exist. We should be grateful that the economic forces that keep most Johnson Countians secure in these troubled economic times work well to keep our teacher salaries among the highest in the region. Steve will "fight like the dickens" to keep Shawnee Mission, De Soto, and Blue Valley schools among the finer public districts anywhere. But even here in Johnson County, we can find teachers who are not particularly effective.

If we "lose" one teacher out of, say, 11, then the remaining teachers get a ten percent pay increase, with not a penny of increased taxes. Of course, could most districts part with nine percent of their staff? No. But the concept of reducing staff where appropriate is important to protecting the interests of all citizens.

A more practical approach to increasing teacher pay without raising taxes is to invite educators into classrooms from various professions. Steve knows the crazy nature of teacher certification regulations; he is certified to teach in two states: Kansas and Arizona. As this is written, the Missouri Department of Elementary and Secondary Education has yet to approve his application to teach in the Show-Me State.

We need to make certain classroom instruction opportunities available to non-traditional teachers (CPAs to teach accounting, M.D.'s to teach biology, chemists to teach chemistry, etc.) and we can raise the average teacher pay if we can hire those who do not need the money to teach.

In other words, if a semi-retired professional (like Professional Engineer Steve Roberts, and a thousand other Johnson Countians) can teach a few high-level courses for little or no pay then there will be more money left over for the remaining teachers - with no increase in taxes.

There are other ways to raise teacher pay with no increase in taxes, including a greater use of Internet instruction, segregation of motivated and unmotivated students, and volunteers for assistance in early grades, such as for reading time.

The Long Answer: Teachers in our public districts are, by and large, subject to a salary pay chart that is the product of collective bargaining between the teachers' union and the management of the district. As mentioned previously, the salaries for teachers in Johnson County are among the highest in the region. This is a very good thing. We want our teachers compensated well, and this element is critical for the retention of our better teachers, especially with the plethora of platitudes and profligate, political pronouncements that teachers have to put up with.

Steve knows that ending a sentence with a proposition is crummy writing, but he writes like he speaks, and he speaks the truth.

Should all teachers get an across-the-board pay raise? No, not all; but most teachers should. One absolutely crucial piece to improving education without raising taxes is to welcome professionals into our classrooms while we cull the ineffective teachers from our schools.

The Clinton Administration (the first and only Clinton Administration, as on election day Americans will choose either Senator McCain or Senator Obama as our next president) did a pretty good job of pushing for smaller class sizes. All things being equal (they never are, but it's a theory), smaller classes are better than larger ones. This is very true. It's generally easier to teach 15 students than 20, and easier to teach 22 students than 28, and so forth.

But any discussion of class size needs to transpire after a discussion of whether the students are motivated. Steve has taught in college lecture halls with 100 seats, with most of them filled with motivated students. Great classroom instruction can take place with a great teacher and almost any number of students - if they are motivated. This is especially true for upper-level courses, and especially true for upper-level technical courses, such as the physical and life sciences, mathematics, and chemistry and biochemistry courses. Technical coursework merits professional teachers from arenas other than traditional colleges of education.

We can all agree that smaller classes are better. But if we can place our truly motivated students into a lecture hall with a great instructor, then the arguments for smaller classes wane and the savings and the efficiencies of this approach begin to prevail.

And as we invite "guest lecturers" into our rural Kansan schools via the Internet and other instantaneous mechanisms of information sharing, our savings can increase along with our efficiencies of instruction.

There are many ways to raise teacher pay without raising taxes. Steve knows many of them, and he will continue to look for ways to improve education without sacrificing the pocketbooks of our citizens.

Steve began this "long answer" with a reference to the teacher pay charts that resemble the way we pay clerks at the post office. Nothing against the post office; they move a lot of mail. Around Christmas, they move mountains of mail. But post office workers are paid as clerks to do the work of moving the mail. It makes sense to pay clerks by a salary chart.

Teachers, by the nature of the work, do some clerking. We arrange things into alphabetical order, we make lists, we score students and give them grades. Yes, teaching involves clerical work. But teaching involves so much more than clerical work that to continue to pay them as clerks makes no sense.

Admittedly, for those few teachers who function as clerks in our public-school classrooms, the pay chart might be acceptable. But for professionals, salary charts are wholly inadequate. We need to work for more professionalism in our public schools, and freeing ourselves from the shackles of a union-bolstered pay chart will be increasingly important to preservation of our public school system.