Wanted: Teacher. Starting Salary $125,000 (Plus Bonus)
D.A. Ridgely on Mar 7th 2008
Have I got your attention? Zeke M. Vanderhoek hopes he has. He’s making that offer to attract teachers for a start-up New York City charter school the New York Times today describes as follows:
The school will open with seven teachers and 120 students, most of them from low-income Hispanic families. At full capacity, it will have 28 teachers and 480 students. It will have no assistant principals, and only one or two social workers. Its classes will have 30 students. In an inversion of the traditional school hierarchy that is raising eyebrows among school administrators, the principal will start off earning just $90,000. In place of a menu of electives to round out the core curriculum, all students will take music and Latin. Period.
Vanderhoek isn’t, by the way, cherry picking students. The school’s “students will be selected through a lottery weighted toward underperforming children and those who live nearby.”
Before Stand And Deliver there was To Sir, With Love and, before that, Goodbye, Mr. Chips and who knows how many other movies and novels about remarkable, inspiring teachers. For that matter, most of us whose education took place somewhere less glamorously awful than an inner city high school or an elite prep school can recall an excellent teacher or two along the way. Few of us, however — maybe some of those of you who did go to St. Grottlesex – remember an entire school filled with great teachers. Is all it takes more money?
Probably not. And there are, of course, ‘educational professionals’ who are already critical of the experiment. But however many prospective great teachers there may be for whom salary is not all that important, there are almost certainly many more for whom it is.
Once upon a time nearly eighty years ago something happened that, for as long as it lasted, was perhaps the greatest single boon to public education since the Morrill Land Grant Act. I speak, of course, of the Great Depression. Say what you will about an economy so bad that one in four job seekers can’t find employment, but it was great for a pre-professionalized public school system that could hire engineers and other bright college graduates who couldn’t find work elsewhere. (This is, by the way, the back story in To Sir, With Love and Stand And Deliver, too.)
But both before and after the Great Depression America’s public schools benefited greatly from yet another socioeconomic disaster; namely, the de facto exclusion of women from other career fields. The simple fact is that a gender neutral, robust economy will attract many, many women who in earlier generations would have been attracted to teaching as one of the few learned professions viably open to them.
Market conditions being what they currently are, I therefore expect Vanderhoek’s experiment to succeed. That said, it doesn’t follow that even if it is a success it will prove much of a viable pattern for school systems elsewhere. What I fear, in fact, is that all the wrong lessons, e.g., that merely paying bad teachers more money will improve performance, will be argued to support even more bloated public school budgets.
Still, between those two extremes there is the potential for real gain here, especially for those students who are fortunate enough to benefit from the experiment before it is ruthlessly destroyed by the powerful, vested and utterly self-serving interests of public education.
Besides, mandatory “music and Latin. Period”? You gotta love it.
Filed in The Basement, The Boardroom, The Bookshelf, The Bureau
D.A., or should I say CV, you forgot Dangerous Minds… hahaha, oh that one was too funny to pass up…
But seriously, it should be an interesting experiment. I’m not sure I see why great teachers shouldn’t think of salary as important, if not only to allow themselves to be better teachers. I know my mom has always schilled out a good portion of her salary for things that her district wouldn’t cover, and believe me her district covers a lot more than your average inner-city district. In today’s economy it is almost impossible to get a top-quality math or science teacher, unless you’re willing/able to pay a much higher wage, but of course the NEA and AFT aren’t fans of differentiated pay.
I must also suggest that “music and Latin. Period.” is not a mandate, as unlike the public school that would be the only other choice for most of these children they don’t HAVE to go to this school, nor do their parents HAVE to pay to fund it if they choose not to go. (Further, I’d wager to guess that the public school doesn’t offer any real form of music, or Latin instruction, nor any real “menu of electives to round out the core curriculum.”)
Sorry, Greyson, but I was trying to mention only those movies that didn’t actually suck. This is why there was no mention of Mona Lisa Smile, either. (smile) As for music and Latin, I was just quoting the article. As a longstanding liberal arts snob, I approve of the required teaching of such ‘useless’ subjects, especially because I also think they help develop math and language skills as well.
Constant Viewer, by the way, is off later today to see The Bank Job. CV still doesn’t understand why Jason Statham hasn’t broken out yet as the next action hero superstar.
What I fear, in fact, is that all the wrong lessons, e.g., that merely paying bad teachers more money will improve performance, will be argued to support even more bloated public school budgets.
The real lesson is that different methods are going to work well for different kids in different situations. So people need the freedom to try a lot of different things to figure out what works in their own particular circumstances.
You certainly got my attention…You are right, Vanderhoek’s experiment will succeed but it won’t “prove much of a viable pattern for school systems elsewhere.”
You know, if I were offered $150,000 to teach in a charter school, I’d start to have second thoughts about the Cato Institute. Much as I love the place.
One of the most interesting aspects of this proposal is that the principal makes only $90,000. I’ve long thought that we signal our priorities when entry level jobs include actual day-to-day engagement with children, and promotion away teachings earns one a raise.
I note too that there are some tradeoffs, which I think is a good thing. The teachers will have to take on tasks assigned to assistants at other schools. And “only” two social workers.
The salary should be attractive. The signal it sends about the importance of excellent teachers may be just as attractive. Money can say, “I want to buy you,” and it can say, “I value you.”
I agree with the comments. We can tell teachers we value them all we want. But, when we pay teachers less than we should, give them fewer benefits than they deserve, and put them in classrooms lacking the resources necessary to provide students with a quality education, the teachers just don’t believe us. Should we be surprised fewer talented people are chosing to go into education? Vanderhoek’s idea is a perfect use of a Charter School. I wish I’d thought of it! The results should prove profound. Better pay is the future for educators, as a shortage is coming.