Ed Policy - Teacher Pay Forum Post

"The problem with teacher benefits is that they are greatly beneficial to those who stay in teaching their whole career"  Many of you have touted the benefits of teacher experience. Indeed, research has shown that teachers improve over the first three to five years of their careers. Additionally, some of you have argued that schools in challenging neighborhoods would benefit from a stable teaching corps-one that has low faculty turnover from year to year. What do you think of the argument that teacher benefits, as they are currently structured, incentivize longevity, which is a good thing?

I think that teacher benefits should incentivize teacher effectiveness and results for the students - which to clarify does not only mean test score increases.  As we've noted before, there is improvement in the first few years and so I do think that benefits should increase as teachers prove themselves to be effective over those first 3-5 years.  However, highly incentivizing after 20 years doesn't make much sense as there don't seem to be clear additional results for the students that happen at that point in time.  As I've talked about in previous forum posts, this seems to be another incentive for stability in the teaching profession.  Some stability in schools is certainly good, as having lower turnover (while keeping effective teachers) can help improve student achievement and help to build a sense of community.  But do we really want teachers staying in the profession for benefits in the future if they are not the best teachers?  As Thomas Kane from HGSE mentions in this post (http://tntp.org/blog/post/policy-thinkers-on-teacher-evaluation1), by keeping a long-term teacher in a position, we're turning down many new possible teachers.  Of course some of them would be worse than the long-term teacher, and perhaps many of them would be worse in the first year or two.  But how many of them would be better after the three year mark, or even at the first year mark?  How can we change the incentives so that they incentivize growth and better effectiveness, not just longevity?  Perhaps by moving away from the lane-and-step pay schedule, and making retirement benefits kick in sooner for effective teachers.

Not on the forum question asked, but related to the teacher pay readings...
I found it very hard to continue following Michael Podgursky's point of view after he claimed that teachers work fewer hours per day than other professionals.  To me, making that claim shows a deep misunderstanding of the teaching profession and of what teachers actually do.  I can maybe go along with the claim of a shorter workyear because while many teachers are preparing during the summer, it certainly doesn't take up all of their time and some do get other summer jobs.  But to say that they work shorter hours seems very wrong (at least on average - of course, different teachers are different, and will work different hours and schedules).  Most teachers in the US do not have adequate prep time scheduled into their 'work day' so they are preparing lessons at home as well as grading work and giving feedback.  Yes, other professionals bring work home, but I would argue not with the same regularity as teachers do.  The other big issue that I don't think many people realize is that when teachers are in their 'work day', they're working the whole time.  There's very little hanging out at the water cooler or surfing Facebook - when you have 20+ 3rd graders demanding your attention.  Most other professionals may have to be at the office longer hours, but how much of that time is actually focused work time?  You could maybe say that teachers have more flexibility in that they get off at 3-4pm, rather than 5-6pm - but how many professionals go out for lunch, and take non-work meetings during the day?  I don't have statistics, but my guess is many.  Teachers have one type of flexibility, while other professionals have another type of flexibility.  Michael Podgursky also claims later that if teachers were to shift to other professions, they may make more money but they would also have "greater responsibility (and stress)".  They would certainly have different types of responsibility, but to choose between managing a team of salespeople versus managing a classroom of kindergarteners, I would say that the teacher probably has more responsibility and more stress.  Some of Michael Podgursky's later points about fringe benefits are actually valid and should be considered in comparing teacher pay, but by starting off with the claim that teachers work fewer hours per day, the article put a sour taste in my mouth that was hard to get rid of.  ('m basing much of this paragraph off of anecdotal evidence, so I would certainly welcome actual statistics to prove me wrong and show that teachers do work fewer hours, but just citing the unions' agreements on number of hours at the school doesn't mean much for actual hours worked.)