Reactions to my Education Column

I wrote a column on education for the Echo Press a few weeks ago, and some interesting comments have sprung up. Since I don't want to write a response column (especially considering such back and forths are not possible in the MSM and their precious gatekeepers) I figured I do so here.

The first is a commenter with the handle "Sciguy." The guy is most likely a teacher (and in fact, I have a guess as to who he is) who first promotes paying teachers more, which was not the subject of the column:

It would mean more pay for teachers, who are currently paid according to so many days....about 185 or so depending on the district. Hey...this means that they don't get paid vacation! So those "summers off" everyone talks about is the same as another profession laying you off for 2-3 months without pay or unemployment. Hey...and they don't get 2 weeks or more) of paid vacation that they can take any time they want. And they aren't paid for the time off in December for winter break, either. Maybe lengthening the school year would actually allow us to pay teachers at a level equal to professions with the same education requirements, responsibilities, and knowledge??? Let's see, current average teacher salary is $45,000, divided by 185 days, times 52-5-day work weeks = about $63,000 average. Hmmm...we could pay teachers a starting salary of about $43,500 and a top salary of about $99,000 per year. Sounds fair....but of course, some people would not want their taxes to increase in order to do this....sorry, teachers!

Sorry Sciguy, but teachers get paid full time ($43,000 a year according to his numbers) for 9 months of work. Sure, they are not working 3 months out of the year, but many of the teachers I had also worked PT in the summer. One, a waitress in the summer, was able to double her annual income (an impressive feat for sure) with her other job. I can't imagine any reason why teachers would be unwilling to work in summers if they are that strapped for cash (they may believe that such work is beneath them, fine, just don't complain about it either).

Sciguy continues:

Bigcat...Most teachers in Alexandria have a masters degree. Do you? Median income for people with master's degrees is almost $70,000 nation wide. Sure, paying someone more does not guarantee that they will be better teachers, but wouldn't more people enter the profession if we paid them more, resulting in more to choose from?

I like how liberals pick and choose what parts of the principles of economics they choose to believe in. First off, most teachers in Alexandria, MN have Master's degrees. However, most got those degrees after they were hired. This fits into what I commented on (the commenter with the handle "bigcat56308"), when people get jobs, they get the education necessary for their work. This runs contrary to the other idea of giving people an education for "the job market of the future." The market helps dictate how much of what education people recieve. This flexibility is what makes an economy strong, not anything else.

I should also mention that most teachers across the United States (not just in individual school districts) don't have Master's degrees. In fact, I found in Louisiana teachers with higher degrees get paid less than those with lower degrees, at least until they get 30 years or more of experience under their belt. I believe this proves my point that more experience in a job is more important than education.

As for the "pay more get better teachers" argument, it is based on the presumption that most teachers (masters degrees and all) aren't the best, but in fact are the mediocre college degree holders. (Thomas Sowell talks about the average person recieving an education degree have the lowest test scores of all degree recipients). This is true, according to ETS(the people who give the GRE test), education degree seekers have the lowest for GRE test scores.

I think that full privatization of public schools is untenable and unwise, but private vouchers would encourage the type of competition (and other market forces) that would attract better people to become teachers. Not only would parents have more options, but talented teachers would be more likely to get motivated students in their classrooms, and I refer Capatain Capitalism as to why this is important. Needless to say, paying teachers more might get better teachers, but you'd have to fire a bunch of teachers already employed, and that would lead to a confrontation with the NEA. The NEA has always resisted upholding teachers to vigorous standards. Only by either breaking up the NEA or allowing parents choice in education will we truly get better teachers in a human (rather than geologic) timescale.

Sciguy then tells us what this really is about:

Also, I think most teachers would agree that they could improve their teaching if they were given more planning time, more money for supplies, and smaller classes. All which cost money. We, instead, have chosen to cut taxes to the wealthy rather than invest in education.

Tax the rich. This is the true reason, the rich, class warfare. It's all nonsense. Spending more money on education is not correlated to higher test scores or better income for students. (Numerous people have done research on this, T. Sowell is the most prominent, but Captain Capitalism has some excellent research on the subject too)

It is so frustrating trying to work through the myths and lies of the education crazies. Research shows it is the family, not the school, that predicts success. Research shows IQ can't be raised. Research shows the teachers have mediocre test scores. Students deserve better than the talking points of the NEA. I'm reminded of one of my friends at the U of M. He went to one of the worst high schools in Minneapolis. He got his diploma and is a philosophy and religous studies major (part time while he works full time). I'm pretty sure his employer is helping him pay for his education as well (I'm not certain though). It has been better for him to get into the workforce rather than continue to be a full time student and miss out on valuable work experience.

Also, I do know that most of the places I applied for jobs after I got my degree offered assistance in getting more education (including business degees). Heck, working for UPS part time gives students up to 5000 dollars per semester to get their bachelors degree in whatever program they wanted. Many people I know went back to school (tech especially) later in life. The market, when it needs education, gets education. It is more important to the economy to not overtax than to spend billions on an education system. Plain and simple, economics works every time it is tried.

(Some of the other commenters asked me why I don't get a teaching job, I could try, the easiest route would be for me to get a teaching job through teach4america. I could also get the requirements to teach in Minnesota, but I just don't want to. I'm happy working in for non-profits at a lower pay until I either make a living in radio or I have to try something else in life. I'd like to get an post-grad degree, but I'm also sick of the BS one has to deal with in the Universities. I'm young yet and will have plenty of chances to pursue the career I decide upon.)