Teachers are paid like mid-level administrators and given a job for skilled
professionals. They raise our children every weekday. For other equivalently
important jobs, we offer high salaries to attract the most qualified. Salaries
are important both for the money and for the status that comes along with
it.
It is difficult to recruit the best to a difficult job with low pay and
status. In many places we simply can't find enough qualified teachers, let
alone enough good ones. The solution to this problem is obvious, and has been
proposed by many other than myself: pay our teachers more. So let's imagine a
new kind of school where teachers were paid as professionals on par with
doctors, lawyers, or engineers.
Starting salary at these new schools will be $100,000, compared to a current
national average of $30,719. Public schools spent an average of $8,287
per child in 2004. That means each teacher must teach about 12 students to
cover their salary. It's a general rule of thumb that overhead (work space,
shared support staff, basic supplies, benefits) is at least 1/3 of salary;
let's say it's 1/2, giving 18 students/teacher. Allowing for pay raises similar
to the current system (teacher salaries reach an average of $46,597) brings
that number to 27. We will ruthlessly cut anything else from our budget,
because there simply won't be sufficient funds. A much lower teacher/student
ratio requires structural changes to the way schools are organized.
The main consequence of this lower teacher/student ratio is a large
reduction in the number of class hours available per week to each student. It
simply won't be possible to fill schedules with 6 classes every day of the
week. Instead, the school would therefore have to be structured much more like
a college than a traditional high school. Students would take fewer classes
concurrently, and classes would commonly meet only 2-3 times per week instead
of every day. It also means more serious work required out of class, both by
the students and the teachers responsible for them.
The low ratio also requires us to keep the schools as small as possible, so
that natural social effects can help control disciplinary problems. Smaller schools require fewer
support staff and less specialized equipment as well, which is good because
we're not going to have a lot of extra money.
The smaller number of teachers means that each teacher is much more
individually important. All other highly paid professionals have an
apprenticeship style training program, and teachers would benefit from the
same. Luckily, the smaller number of teachers also means that we don't have to
hire as many new teachers per year, which should make it easier to provide
quality training.
An incomplete list of other consequences which require thought:
- Small schools have limited facilities and social opportunities by nature,
so perhaps a coalition would be required
- Vouchers? Charter schools? Reform of current public schools?
- What does the distribution of teachers of subjects look like?
- Who decides when and with what staff to create one of these schools? How is
money allocated?
(Thanks to Steve for the conversation that sparked this idea and
feedback)