Equating Teacher Pay with Student Success

It is difficult to equate teacher pay to pay in any other business. Why? Because teachers aren't in control of the "raw materials" they receive. What does that mean? In any manufacturing business, the raw materials are sourced from suppliers that the company knows are reliable, suppliers whose raw materials are consistently good. If the supplier's goods decline, the manufacturer stops buying their supplies. In fields that deal more with abstracts -- such as advertising -- the advertising company seeks out clients whose company needs fit the strengths of the advertising firm. Employees at either type of company can be held to a standard because they are working with a consistent product -- therefore, direct comparisons between workers' achievements can be accurate, because the variables that affect productivity can be controlled (speaking in experimental terms).

This is not the case in education. By the time schools get students at the age of 5, they have been profoundly impacted by their environment, their socioeconomic background, their family -- for good or bad. To compare teachers based on a standard that does not take into account any of these factors is at the root poor experimental theory. The variable factors cannot be controlled, because there are too many of them and the full impact of these variables on the individual students cannot be quantified.

Further, in any type of company, a certain percentage of failure is tolerated. Businesses accept that no product is going to be 100% perfect; no advertising executive is going to succeed 100% of the time; no programmer will produce a perfect computer program 100% of the time (if ever). It is just not statistically possible to achieve perfection. If an employee's failure rate is too high, then the employee is justifiably let go. But the public is expecting to hold teachers accountable if 100% of their students do not pass. It's been said before -- no other professional is held to this exacting standard. Doctors are not expected to have a 100% cure rate; lawyers are not expected to have a success rate in their cases of 100%. It is implicitly understood that both professions are not in control of many of the variables that govern success or failure. However, if the failure rate in either instance is too high, then people stop using that doctor or that lawyer. In the same manner, if a school's failure rate is too high, often parents who can choose to send their children elsewhere.

That, in essence, is how a free market economy works. If a product is bad, then consumers don't purchase it. It doesn't mean that employees don't get paid at the company that makes the product -- unless the company shuts down. What tends to happen is that the company takes steps to rectify the problems that are resulting in poor products, and hopefully rebuilds its position in the market. Schools do likewise, although often they have a harder road to travel because they cannot control the product, and they often have to work within incredibly limited budgets. Businesses can borrow money in order to rectify manufacturing issues, to expand their business, etc. Schools cannot.

The root of my frustration is that so many people seem to think that education can be treated like any other business, despite the fact that it doesn't at any point operate like a regular business. It's time to stop expecting education to be a participant in the free market economy. Instead, schools should be treated as a functional stepping stone to a free market economy -- without strong schools, our students will be less able to participate in the free market economy, and we will continue this economic spiral downwards. Stop blaming the schools for their inability to pass every child, and start dealing with the factors that govern that inability. Start with funding parenting programs, programs to eradicate child poverty, incentives to get parents out of generational poverty; early childhood education programs; early school enrichment programs for struggling children; strong teacher education programs that provide economic incentives for teachers to improve their qualifications and continue to expand their methodology; behavioral programs for the students in the system whose behavior prevents them from participating in school effectively; life skills programs for those whose intellectual capacities will never rise to the standards of a true formal education. The list could go on.

An Excerpt from Diane Ravitch's The Death and Life of the Great American School System

For all of the people who have an interest and/or a stake in the education system, this is a must-read:

The fundamentals of good education are to be found in the classroom, the home, the community, and the culture, but reformers in our time continue to look for shortcuts and quick answers. Untethered to any genuine philosophy of education, our current reforms will disappoint us, as others have in the past. We will, in time, see them as distractions, wrong turns, and lost opportunities, It is time to reconsider not only the specifics of current reforms, but also our very definition of reform.

Our schools will not improve if we continually reorganize their structure and management without regard for the essential purpose. Our educational problems are a function of our lack of educational vision, not a management problem that requires the enlistment of an army of business consultants. Certainly we should mobilize expert managerial talent to make sure that school facilities are well maintained, that teachers have adequate supplies, that noninstructional services function smoothly, and that schools are using their resources wisely. But organizational changes cannot by themselves create a sound education program or raise education to the heights of excellence that we want.

The most durable way to improve schools is to improve curriculum and instruction, and to improve the conditions in which teachers work and children learn, rather than endlessly squabbling over how school systems should be organized, managed, and controlled. It is not the organization of schools that is at fault for the ignorance we deplore, but the lack of sound educational values.

Our schools will not improve if elected officials intrude into pedagogical territory and make decisions that properly should be made by professional educators. Congress and state legislatures should not tell teachers how to teach, any more than they should tell surgeons how to perform operations. Nor should the curriculum of the schools be the subject of a political negotiation among people who are neither knowledgeable about teaching nor well educated. Pedagogy -- that is, how to teach -- is rightly the professional domain of individual teachers. Curriculum -- that is, what to teach -- should be determined by professional educators and scholars, after due public deliberation, acting with the authority vested in them by schools, districts, or states.

Our schools will not improve if we continue to focus only on reading and mathematics while ignoring the other studies that are essential elements of a good education. Schools that expect nothing more of thier students than mastery of basic skills will not produce graduates who are ready for college or the modern workplace. Nor will they send forth men and women prepared to design new technologies, achieve scientific breakthroughs, or accomplish feats of engineering skill. Nor will their graduates be prepared to appreciate and add to our society's cultural achievements or to understand and strengthen its democratic heritage. Without a comprehensive liberal arts education, our students will not be prepared for the responsibilities of citizenship in a democracy, nor will they be equipped to make decisions based on knowledge, thoughtful debate, and reason.

Our schools will not improve if we value only what tests measure . . . what is tested may ultimately be less important than what is untested, such as a student's ability to seek alternative explanations, to raise questions, to pursue knowledge on his own, and to think differently. If we do not treasure our individualists, we will lose the spirit of innovation, inquiry, imagination, and dissent that has contributed powerfully to the success of our society in many different fields of endeavor.

Our schools will not improve if we rely exclusively on tests as the means of deciding the fate of students, teachers, principals, and schools.

Our schools will not improve if we continue to close neighborhood schools in the name of reform . . . closing a school should be only a last resort and an admission of failure, not by the school or its staff, but by the educational authorities who failed to provide timely assistance.

Our schools will not improve if we entrust them to the magical powers of the market. Markets have winners and losers. Choice may lead to better outcomes or to worse outcomes. Letting a thousand flowers bloom does not guarantee a garden full of flowers. If the garden is untended, unsupervised, and unregulated, it is likely to become overgrown with weeds. Our goal must be to establish school systems that foster academic excellence in every neighborhood.

Our schools will not improve if we continue to drive away experienced principals and replace them with neophytes who have taken a leadership training course but have little or no experience as teachers . . . if principals have not spent much time as teachers, they are not qualified to judge others' teaching, nor can they assist new teachers.

Our schools cannot be improved by those who say that money doesn't matter. Resources matter, and it matters whether they are spent wisely . . . if we are serious about narrowing and closing the achievement gap, then we will make sure that the schools attended by our neediest students have well educated teachers, small classes, beautiful facilities, and a curriculum rich in the arts and sciences.

Our schools cannot be improved if we ignore the disadvantages associated with poverty that affect children's ability to learn.

Our schools cannot be improved if we use them as society's all-purpose punching bag, blaming them for the ills of the economy, the burdens imposed on children by poverty, the dysfunction of families, and the erosion of civility. Schools must work with other institutions and cannot replace them.

Civility, Consideration, and Minding Yourself

It seems like common civility is a dying art these days. It seems to strain some people unduly to manage even a modicum of common courtesy toward others -- from letting people merge on the freeway in an orderly fashion to giving others the opportunity to speak their minds without ridiculing their belief system or taking offense at the fact that they might possibly disagree with you.

Whatever happened to the Golden Rule? Whatever happened to "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you?" Apparently that only counts in one direction for most people -- it's only important what other people do to them, not what they do to other people. How else can you explain the constant bickering and whinging that continues to pervade politics, with both sides launching fusillade after fusillade, meanwhile neglecting that their first order of business should be to govern the country according to the will of their constituents -- and by constituents, I mean the people, not the businesses and lobbyists that pay them the most money . . . And the Golden Rule has gone by the wayside in many interpersonal interactions these days. From poor traffic behavior to rudeness to lack of even the most basic manners that many of us were raised with -- things like getting up from your seat on the bus if someone older or appearing to be more in need of the seat (like a pregnant woman or someone carrying a number of burdens) gets on the bus, or holding the door open when there's a person coming in behind you, or allowing the person with only two items in their basket to get in line ahead of you . . . courtesies that cost you nothing, but do much to ease the way for someone else . . . whatever happened to that?

And finally, to me the biggest issue these days is the inability of others to refrain from judging and commenting on everything that anyone else does that offends their apparently frail sensibilities. I recently got involved in a conversation online about breastfeeding in public, and was astounded by the number of people who still complain about a woman nursing her child in public. The main complaint was that they were "offended" by the sight of a woman's breast. I'm sorry . . . did someone take away your ability to turn your head? To ignore something that bothers you? I don't know about you, but one of the biggest lessons I have worked (and continue to work) to teach my sons is to ignore the behaviors that they don't like in others. For the most part (except in extreme cases) I think ignoring the foibles of others is the best approach and the way to smooth social discourse . . . after all, we weren't created as cookie cutter copies of each other. Every person has a personality, quirks, habits, etc. that others might find annoying, distasteful, or somehow disturbing. But when did it become obligatory that the individual must conform to someone else's norm for every interaction? What people seem to forget when bitching about their individual rights is that -- here's a shocker -- EVERYONE has individual rights. Sometimes my individual rights and your individual rights coincide . . . and sometimes they conflict. If they coincide . . . great. If they conflict, then it is incumbent upon BOTH of us to accommodate the rights of the other as best we can or reach a compromise in order for both to retain some rights.

And when all else fails? Keep in mind that you are responsible for yourself (and perhaps your children) . . . not for the behavior of anyone else on the planet. You are not the arbiter of anyone else's behavior other than your own (and your children, perhaps). Remember to mind yourself and your own first, and be less busy in minding everyone else. Maybe then we can move forward into a new age of civility and common consideration.