Well, the notion that all existing teachers are no good is not true, so that rationale doesn't really hold up. College graduation stats for teachers doesn't tell the whole story of how teachers perform in their jobs and school districts. It is true that higher pay would attract more people to teaching, but there are a lot of factors that go into why teachers aren't paid more in the first place.
> Well, the notion that all existing teachers are no good is not true, so that rationale doesn't really hold up.
There's two basic facts:
1) Teachers, in the U.S., are generally drawn from the bottom half of college graduates.
2) Generally, teachers get paid about as much as the average non-STEM college graduate.
If the existing teachers we have are as "good as we need" then there is no reason to pay teachers more. There's no shortage of teachers at existing pay levels and teacher pay is consistent with the market pay for other college graduates of similar qualifications.
Thus, those who lobby for higher teacher pay argue that it will attract more qualified people to teaching. They point to countries like Finland, where it is common for teachers to have been in the top 10% of their college classes. They note that STEM majors, who make more than non-STEM majors, take a major pay cut to go into teaching. But under that rationale, it makes no sense to pay more to existing teachers, who don't have those qualifications.
> Teachers, in the U.S., are generally drawn from the bottom half of college graduates.
[citation needed]
> There's no shortage of teachers at existing pay levels.
The fact that a number of districts are forced to waive generally-applicable requirements (e.g., issue "emergency credentials", etc.) to get teachers and/or rely on series of long-term substitutes to assure that there is actually a teacher in the classroom suggests that this is not true
So its a weakened modification (from "bottom third" to "bottom half") to a claim that, even in the weaker form, has only fairly weak justification depending on the particular time-based slice of the teacher workforce you look at, and relies on ranking college graduates not by any kind of college performance, but by college entrance exams?
> The appendix to the report confirms that the “top-“ and “bottom” third figures are also based on SAT/ACT scores, specifically those of 1999 graduates whose first job (at least by 2001) was teaching. The breakdown for these graduates is as follows: 23 percent came from the “top third;” 47 percent from the “bottom third;” and 29 percent from the “middle third.”
Comparing performance on entrance exams is more consistent with how private sector employers evaluate non-STEM college graduates. Those 47% of teachers scoring in the bottom third of the SAT/ACT aren't going to be in the running for very high-paying jobs almost regardless of their college performance.
> Comparing performance on entrance exams is more consistent with how private sector employers evaluate non-STEM college graduates.
How exactly is that? I've not heard of an employer asking for SAT/ACT scores for college grads. I've heard of reporting GPA and talking about internship/club roles, but never standardized test scores taken before college.
> Those 47% of teachers scoring in the bottom third of the SAT/ACT aren't going to be in the running for very high-paying jobs almost regardless of their college performance.
Seriously? You could score in the middle or poorly on a standardized test and go on to do extremely well in college and the workforce. Further, scoring high on SAT/ACT tests doesn't indicate you will do well in college or the workforce. Employers are almost always looking for a couple of factors for potential hires, not just one, and we would expect teacher hires to be no different in that regard.
I'm necessarily talking about aggregates here. Bottom 1/3 on the SAT is around 900/1600 on the SAT scale used between 1995 and 2005. Generally people who score in that range go to a college that does not offer a great prospect of making more than your average college graduate, even with a very good (but not extraordinary) performance in college.
Starting salary for a teacher in Chicago with just a BA is almost $50k/year with very good benefits. There are jobs for non-STEM majors that pay that or substantially higher, but the college options available with that kind of SAT score put you at a great handicap for those jobs.
Again, we're talking about aggregates here, not individuals. Lots of people do poorly on the SAT and end up wealthy. But if we're talking about a group where 47% perform in the bottom 1/3 of the SAT, I don't think it's unreasonable to say that this group's expected salary outside of teaching is substantially lower than for the average college graduate, regardless of the fact that individuals may outperform their entrance exams.
> I'm necessarily talking about aggregates here. Bottom 1/3 on the SAT is around 900/1600 on the SAT scale used between 1995 and 2005. Generally people who score in that range go to a college that does not offer a great prospect of making more than your average college graduate, even with a very good (but not extraordinary) performance in college.
Its true that earning such a score may be more limiting in what colleges you can attend, but the reality is that ivy league and highly competitive schools are not within the range of most people for a variety of reasons. However, those graduates are skilled and make excellent employees and we as a society depend on a college system that is accessible to have a better skilled workforce. In terms of how this relates to quality of teachers, that some scored low on SAT/ACT and went to different kinds of colleges doesn't mean they are not qualified or successful as teachers.
> Starting salary for a teacher in Chicago with just a BA is almost $50k/year with very good benefits. There are jobs for non-STEM majors that pay that or substantially higher, but the college options available with that kind of SAT score put you at a great handicap for those jobs.
Of course, its not just the college you attend that opens up those higher paying non-STEM jobs to you, it also highly depends on what field you went into, current economic conditions when you start looking for employment, overall availability of positions, etc. Over the last 4 years we have seen that even attending a more competitive school or highly esteemed school isn't enough to get over some of the external difficulties in finding a job in some fields.
> Again, we're talking about aggregates here, not individuals. Lots of people do poorly on the SAT and end up wealthy. But if we're talking about a group where 47% perform in the bottom 1/3 of the SAT, I don't think it's unreasonable to say that this group's expected salary outside of teaching is substantially lower than for the average college graduate, regardless of the fact that individuals may outperform their entrance exams.
We aren't talking about those that become wealthy, we are talking about low SAT/ACT scorers who go on to get a college degree at an accredited institution. It is unreasonable to say that low scorers are going to earn less than high scorers that attend the same class of institution or that the low scorers are less qualified from the high scorers in the same field that attended the same class of institution.
Fundamentally, degree snobbery isn't helpful here. We require a large body of qualified teacher and an environment where those teachers can succeed. Like any profession, there are bad teachers, but calling all teachers bad because they didn't achieve an academically-defined test score that doesn't necessarily have a present bearing on their ability to be a teaching professional is silly.
> Comparing performance on entrance exams is more consistent with how private sector employers evaluate non-STEM college graduates.
"Everyone does it" doesn't mean its a meaningful measure, even if its true (and, AFAICT, its not.)
The number of potential employers that have ever cared -- or even asked -- about my college entrance exams is...0. Several have asked for college grade transcripts, though, though most have just asked about degrees and institutions.
I mean, I'd love it if the fact that my entrance exam scores were in the top 0.1% mattered...but generally they don't seem to.
How many people do you know that went to a school where you can get in with a bottom third SAT, in the lat five years, and what do you know about their job situation?
I graduated during the boom, and knew people who went to Georgia State and the like, which require top half SAT scores, and finding a $35k/year job outside STEM was a great result. Bottom third is pushing your luck for places like Valdosta State, and even the STEM people I knew there had trouble landing real engineering jobs. Not uncommon to see a Mech E working as an HVAC technician.
This is not snobbery. I'd never hold the school someone went to against them. But if we're projecting expected outcomes of a large group of people, it's totally relevant.
