Matt Damon's speech to teachers

[AGDee]

Originally Posted by UGAalum94

In Georgia, this isn't necessarily true. The highest funding per student will frequently be in urban areas with a high tax base and low scores, and the highest student achievement is frequently in suburban districts, who have nice per pupil funding but don't have more than the Atlanta districts. But another factor is that funding per student is pretty meaningless since districts just take their total spending and divide by the number of kids. There's a really good chance that the money isn't getting to the classroom.

However, I will agree that there are a lot of areas in which the same social conditions that drive revenues are also contributing to school performance, both on the high and low end. But you're, I think, looking at correlation not cause in terms of the funding making the kids successful.




I certainly don't want to see teachers attacked, and I've read some absolutely absurd statements anytime salaries and hours come up. But I also think that teachers should be held in high enough regard that they can be accountable and rewarded for professional performance on some level. And honestly, I think it's only that we work with kids that makes us seem more dedicated or caring. My experience is that most professionals are as dedicated and committed to their practice as most teachers.

I'll also note that the language of "similar degrees" is really tricky. What's a similar degree when you are talking about early childhood education?

I think people have a willingness to want to treat all degrees at a certain level as being equal in considering pay, but they aren't. A BA in engineering typically earns one more than a degree in English or fashion merchandising. Where should an early childhood degree or a middle grades degree be in the hierarchy?

And sure, a teacher may have to go back to graduate school to get the pay raises to make it happen, but I make more money as a teacher than the average person with "similar degrees" in my undergraduate field. And I'll tell you that there was no way that my graduate degrees in education were comparable in rigor to graduate degrees in most other disciplines, the exceptions being other fields in which holding the degree basically equals an automatic pay raise so colleges create cash cow programs to get people through.

When I'm talking about "similar degrees", I'm referring to master's degrees, primarily. An MBA and a Masters in Ed? Definitely not even close in pay. And most professions don't require that you go to grad school after you've started your job but it's a requirement to keep your certification for teachers here.

Funding here is strictly based on the number of students and a formula based on what a district was getting in 1994 when the method of paying for education was changed drastically. So some districts receive $11-12K per student while others are receiving $5K per student. It's quite skewed.

[UGAalum94]

Originally Posted by AGDee

When I'm talking about "similar degrees", I'm referring to master's degrees, primarily. An MBA and a Masters in Ed? Definitely not even close in pay. And most professions don't require that you go to grad school after you've started your job but it's a requirement to keep your certification for teachers here.

Funding here is strictly based on the number of students and a formula based on what a district was getting in 1994 when the method of paying for education was changed drastically. So some districts receive $11-12K per student while others are receiving $5K per student. It's quite skewed.

Here I think there's a base from the state that's the same per kid in a particular course, there's a local supplement based on property taxes, then there are equalization grants that should provide additional money to poorer districts, but since they kind of follow the poorer kids, can end up going to the bigger and not particularly poor districts who have a lot of poor students, even if the poor students aren't a big percentage of the overall enrollment.

It still doesn't seem to affect achievement that much.

As far as degrees, I don't think it makes much sense to claim that an MBA has historically been the equivalent of a MEd. It may be the case now that so many colleges offer MBAs because BAs mean so little that the MBA is pretty dumbed down too. I think even looking at the average GPA and GRE or GMAT percentiles (or whatever the MBA people take) for admissions would reveal that, even now, it's typically harder to even enter to the program for the MBA.

If something is relatively hard to do or scare and it has value to employers, then I think you could typically get more money for it. To me that makes sense just on a supply and demand level.

When you require every teacher to get a masters, and they aren't particularly hard to get, and studies show that they don't do much for student achievement, and they don't have too much value to the outside labor market, then I think it's hard to expect them to drive up salaries that much relative to other professions.

But I think you are on to something with the MBA because I think business schools are setting up the same problem. If the market has a ton of undergraduate BAs in business, then people want MBAs to offer a credential that sets them apart and makes them more valuable. When every institution of higher learning offers a fast track, part time MBA, and the numbers of people with MBAs gets inflated, they may end up having as little relatively value in employment as the undergraduate BA and eventually the MEd.