Teachers and Taxpayers

How often has the question arisen "Are we paying teachers enough?" The answer is both yes and no. No we don't pay hard working, talented teachers enough but yes, we pay untalented, indifferent and lazy teachers way too much.

The problem arises from the fact that educators are not part of the free-market. Educators are for the most part in a union that operates in a publicly funded, state controlled, monopolized bureaucracy. Free market essentials such as hard work, self-reliance and risk, keys in the free market that both open and shut doors play no part in our public institutions of learning.

Irrelevant of effort or brilliance, within the schools you will earn a predetermined amount. Set wages, which guarantee a paycheck also cap your income. Show-up and they pay you. Set incomes and the lack of correlation of efforts and rewards, indicates that the only real commodity you have that the schools are interested in is your time. So while you may be heads and shoulders above your fellow teachers to the system your time is of no more value than any one else's. Hard-work, brilliance and talent, none of it matters. There is no economic struggle driving excellence. Schools do not cherish your work but your time. The free-market, where tax dollars and teachers incomes are generated, pays for results. The tax payers are not so keen on sharing their hard earned incomes just because educators have a lot of time invested in a student.

What the taxpayer does see are the result of the efforts of a group whose only value is time. The group is comprised of good teachers and bad teacher indistinguishable from one anther. The end product, an educated youth, is not attributed to the teacher. Teachers are not held accountable for their results. Weak and strong teachers, co-exist, their efforts mingled. The public has no way to determine who is who or reward them accordingly. The individual superiority, achievements, talents and abilities of some educators, which in the free market could demand higher incomes, are used to cover for other educators, inadequacies and/or indifferences.

When schools attempt to sell to the free-market their commodity, the educated youth, in exchange for the capital needed to run their program, they present to the taxpayer the results of the labors found in a tepid, collective pool, when the assiduous efforts of some are mingled with the slothfulness of others. The taxpayer then balks at the idea of rewarding the modest collective results.

If we could correlate the end results to an individual teacher few would complain about rewarding superiority. In addition we could sift out some of the educators on whom our money is being wasted. Consequentially, correlating teachers to results may be enough of a motive to compel average teachers to improve.

My intent is not to belittle or berate teachers, far from it. Teachers are the most valuable asset in our public schools. A good teacher can overcome a child's mental or physical disabilities, home life, attitude, etc. They can deal with the inadequacies of the facilities, can overcome a poor curriculum and make up for a poor administrator. My intent is to merely point out that teachers are seen as whole not individuals. We in the public do not see how much you put into your job. We have no way of judging whether you are a good teacher or not. All we see is the modest results of the group. As long as unproductive members of that group are allowed to remain they will drag down the entire group. As long as you are in a system that rewards time over hard-work, diligence, talent and results, then you will receive a modest income because society does not reward mediocrity.