This comes as a shock?

Perry specifically made the call for the *tax* plan, not for *school finance.*

This singular focus was in the news (or maybe just the quorum report) - bu not trumpeted very loudly.

Yeah, we know. We're just SAYIN' is all.

(sigh). Why is more money always the answer? Does more money to Halliburton mean better-fed soldiers? Does more money to Exxon mean better gasoline? More money does not necessarily mean better teachers or better-educated students.

Wellllll, one has to wonder when TX comes 48th in education and the TX teacher salary is 6% *below* the national average. As I understand it they don't spend as much as other states per student.

Yeah, in this case... *more money* is going to help.

How many times have we heard that mantra of yours? Seriously.

I hate that canard so much. Yes, when compared to states like New York and California, teacher pay is lower. However, it also costs a heckuva lot more to live there.

You have to consider the cost of living. When that adjustment is made, we're dead in the middle. So it's not average teacher pay--it's other issues. Other issues that may very well require more money--but choose other troughs for your governmental largesse.

Oh come on, you really ought to get paid a lot to live in a shithole like Midland. Seriously.

Bubba - In both instances more money would result in more profits. That's the way for-profit enterprises work.

If you have some time I'd be happy to go over it with you. I have charts and a great powerpoint I think you'd love.

Bubba--the number one reason for teachers leaving the profession is pay. How dio I know this? Because there was a representative survey done of teachers who had quit and the number one response was pay. Virtually ALL research shows this to be the case. Additional research--mine included--also shows that the teachers with the highest scholastic ability are the most likely to leave the profession. So, low pay attracts fewer well-qualified teachers and also tends to force out the well-qualified teachers who do go into the profession.

So, in a nutshell, teacher pay DOES increase quality and, therefore, student achievement.

And yet the teaching schools are full. Where is the correlation between seniority and the quality of the teacher? Has there been a single study indicating how a teacher pay raise increased student performance?

I'd like to add that my company makes no distinction between myself and colleagues in CA, despite the cost of living differential. We all get paid the same amount. So, I really don't get that argument, Bubba.

Bubba--actually, we don't produce enough teachers to fill the vacancies each year, so I don't know if full is the adequate adjective.

More pay = more qualified teachers through less attrition = increased achievement

Connect the dots.

original TREY--they cost of living in Texas is lower than California. Consequently, you have more disposable income than the folks earning the same amount of money in LA. I'd recommend that you not spend a lot of time making sure that they know that.

UT_guy--You can give them a 6% pay raise. You can give them a 10% pay raise. Teachers will still be paid less than others with comparable education and experience. If pay is a primary motivating factor for teachers to leave, they will still leave, because you can make more money doing just about anything else. What? You want teachers to earn the same as software developers? Better hope there isn't any rope or a tall tree around when the taxpayers get ahold of you.

Furthermore, you still haven't given a single piece of evidence that the lucky teachers in other states that have proportionately higher salaries perform better in any way than those that are lower paid. Beyond that, there are a variety of studies that indicate that a simple pay raise doesn't motivate ANYONE to work harder or perform better.

No. A teacher pay raise sounds good. It makes everyone feel good. But it doesn't do anything, other than give teachers more money.

Er, some teachers are overpaid relative to their market value--elementary teachers, for example. Some are underpaid--high school math and science, for example. Guess what--you can hire the first group until the cows come home while having a great deal of difficulty with the second.

A FLAT PAY RAISES FOR TEACHERS IS A BAD IDEA.

Which brings me to the second point:

"Additional research--mine included--also shows that the teachers with the highest scholastic ability are the most likely to leave the profession. So, low pay attracts fewer well-qualified teachers and also tends to force out the well-qualified teachers who do go into the profession."

And an increase in pay that doesn't take into account the skill of the teacher addresses this, how? Again,

A FLAT PAY RAISES FOR TEACHERS IS A BAD IDEA.

Finally, original TREY, if you don't think that local cost of living has a big effect on salaries, you're delusional. And if you don't take into account the different populations of states when examining education outcomes, you're being dishonest. On appropriate measures, Texas teachers are paid, in aggregate, appropriately...and our students, on a subgroup-to-subgroup basis, compare well to other states,

Blue, I'm not delusional... I know it has an effect on salaries, when it's used a justification. I'm not saying 'pay teachers as much as teachers living in CA' but if you're going to use that analysis then you STILL have to pay them more than current. The point is that we still aren't comparable even with the COL balanced.

Further, Teachers like most professionals, have transportable skills so in many ways making less because you live in another region of the country and the COL is less doesn't wash as well as it once did. If my company tried that we'd all bolt (which is exactly what many teachers are doing).

The bottom line is that all beneficiaries of public schools in Texas are not paying enough in taxes to cover the increase in student populations that the public schools have had. In fact, my joking with Wonk aside, one group has been squeezed to death to try to keep the system hobbling along while many pay nothing.

Of course, most of you R's don't think public education isn't important at all. Why don't you ask someone with Toyota USA about their experiences training new hires in AL. They had to use picture books. Needless to say, they aren't planning to open up anything else there.

Bubba -

click on my name for the URL for the study you want. It's carol - shrill - names that did it, but it's as good a study as you can get.

you're an idiot. i looooove you. :)

Hey, Bubba Galt (Where is Bubba Galt, anyway?)

Would you agree that spending more on defense doesn't make the US more secure. I've got an article here that shows the US spending more money on defense than the rest of the world put together.

Why do the people who decry throwing money at education tend to wholeheartedly support throwing money at national defense? If, you know, throwing money at shit don't fix shit, I mean.

(Say, maybe the military should take over our schools. A little service to the country never hurt anyone.)

Alright, TREY-- Set aside the debate about whether giving teachers a pay increase would really accomplish anything. (I still assert that it will not.) Say the Lege gave teachers an across-the-board pay increase to bring them slightly above average pay in the nation. Would that be enough? So long as that position was maintained, would teachers stop bitching and start voting R?

Quite simply, no. It will never EVER be enough. Teachers, like every other "wage slave" will always be "underpaid" and "underappreciated." So why give them anything at all?

Bubba -

Again - click on the link that's my name.

/You heard it here first - Bubba says don't pay teachers!

I'm not an R. I'm just looking at the economics of it: if you have some teachers in greater demand and some teachers with better skills, you ought to direct additional resources to those teachers. Across-the-board raises do not address the real issue.

Thanks for the article, the wizard. You might note that "teacher pay" is 12th out of 12 categories that teachers list as a reason they leave. And that's WITH Strayhorn doing everything she can get the teachers' unions to back her. Color me unconvinced.

j--When the schools get all the money they need and the Air Force has to hold a bake sale to buy a bomber... I'll be living in some other country. Furthermore, you simply illustrate my point. More money does NOT necessarily mean better quality. (See my original freakin' post.)

Blue that aspect makes great deal of sense, but they still need an increase across the board. Then we focus on paying to attract the skills we need.

Bubba - Teachers already ARE voting R. I told them they were 'tards but they just laughed and did it anyway. The ironic thing about all this is that the R leadership screwed over a very solid and loyal constituency.

Now I don't think there is a single teacher in the state who wouldn't tear Perry a new one.

Actually, anon - it's reason number 4, 9, 11, and 12.

See, now, I was hoping you'd say that, wiz. Because the three other issues are clearly associated with non-salary-related issues--primarily stress. And that stress is associated with a large variety of stimuli. Meanwhile, the one justification that clearly dealt with SALARY? Last.

Now, you could say that these teachers didn't really understand the survey, or perhaps didn't understand their motivations. But then, it's also been said that we're losing our best and our brightest due to (ahem), salary.

If those are our best and brightest teachers, our school system is such an abysmal failure that it should be scrapped and privatized immediately. I hope you can agree.

Salary is the deciding factor when attracting and retaining quality candidates to work in schools. No research study is needed to support the mere fact that people gotta eat and have a roof over their heads. The last thing a parent should worry about is if their student's teacher is tired from working at Chili's the night before in order to pay off his/her student loans. If you need further proof, Connecticut tops the list for teacher salary and by all accounts has the most satisfied and well educated K-12 teacher work force in the nation. Texas isn't commonly referred to in those terms....ever.

Many people fear that the leg is going to mandate a teacher pay raise and then legislate their way out of paying for it leaving it up to the isd's to carve out yet another expenditure.

Really? Studies and scholarship aren't necessary? Political decisions can just be decided on "what feels right" and "stands to reason?" Awesome! I feel very liberated. Thanks, Hickorette.

Ouch. Looks like I hit a nerve. $24, 820.00 for a first year teacher (http://www.tea.state.tx.us/school.finance/salary/sal06exp.html).....now that was a GREAT political decision based on ethical and moral underpinings. Ok....here's one for the quant/qual fans: http://epaa.asu.edu/epaa/v11n50/

Oh, so you want to pay more for teachers who have skills that are in higher demand? Awesome. Then we can talk. How about we allow schools to act as real employers--paying teachers what they're worth--and eliminate the seniority ladder? Then we could attract LOTS of science and math teachers. How about we base their pay raise on the actual quality of the instruction they provide, too? I'd be willing to put a bunch of money behind that--because it feels right and stands to reason.

what i like is when GOoPers want to apply free-market principles to analyze government EXCEPT WHEN IT'S NOT CONVENIENT.

you cannot attract quality, skilled labor without offering commensurate compensation.

money doesn't solve everything, but the simple fact is that a quality education is not cheap. just ask Dr. Leininger.

Right on brother Bubba, I am with you about paying people for the quality of their work. No doubt about it. The devil is always found in the details....who gets to decide what is "quality?" The mayor's brother who happens to be the superintendent who is also the cheerleading coach? Some pol elected by dirty money with an agenda directly opposed to the mainstream? Methinks tenure exists for a reason whether I like it or not.

Let's just fucking ditch public schools. Let private enterprise step into the breach, eh?

Gimme a V! Gimme an O! Gimme a U-C-H-E-R-S!

VOUCHERS! VOUCHERS! VOUCHERS!

(Oh - wait - that's still "government funding" for schools, ain't it? Fuck that! I, for one, do not want my goddamn tax dollars going to pay to warehouse other people's children. Am I right?)

So, the teacher's unions can get a statewide pay raise passed, but they can't defend a teacher from a crooked superintendant? It sounds to me that teachers and their unions have some pretty messed-up priorities.

Regardless, politicians abusing their offices is something that exists regardless of the compensation framework.

Furthermore, tenure simply provides teachers and professors with an opportunity to abuse their own public position.

Teachers are not allowed to unionize in Texas. Those organizations are gussied up advocacy groups with absolutely no bargaining power when compared to states with real teacher unions.

Vouchers, give me a break. So Jesus' Amazing Grace Academy can teach religion, english language arts, and math all while doing physical education in the church parking lot? Sheesh. That'll fix up the system licketysplit.

I recognize that coordinated strikes, statewide contracts, and the like aren't opitions. But, legal represenation? Police and fire unions have numerous restrictions, but they still are able to question when employees get the shaft. My god, I thought that was one of the things they did, other than be useless road bumps in education debates. What a waste of dues.

Vouchers can be very restrictive with regard to how those funds are spent. People keep forgetting that the State can demand a standard curriculum, as well as ban religious teaching with voucher dollars.

J-damn skippy! I'm tired of my tax dollars going to support the irresponsible lifestyles of those damn heteros indiscriminately pooping out babies.

Bubba "Where is John" Galt sez: "People keep forgetting that the State can demand a standard curriculum, as well as ban religious teaching with voucher dollars."

The state CAN do that. That doesn't mean the state WILL do that.

Also: SCOTUS has ruled that vouchers can be used to send students to religious schools.

Orig. Trey:

They don't call us "breeders" for nothin, eh wot? 'Course, without us breeders, who's gonna provide the next generation of tax payers? And without a solid K-12 edumacation, how're those potential taxpayers going to get into college so they can get a degree so they can get a better job so they can...pay more taxes?

On the other hand, WTF do we need taxes for, anyway? All we need are tolls and user fees.

I say to improve education we need: better facilities, modernization, varied curriculums (not everyone is college material), smaller classroom size, better teachers and a commitment from the state to fund things like new textbooks, computers, and give up this stupid no child left behind bullshit. If a kid cannot appreciate the FREE education they are getting, fuck them. BUT...that education should actually be an education and be worth something whether it be a skill, preparation for college or the ability to ring up my goddamn order right at Taco Cabana.

Amen, PD. Amen.

J - The South Koreans... it's all about cloning now!

The South Koreans have a ration of 50 to 1 in their classrooms from elementary to high school where every single subject is taught by one teacher. Try telling a teacher in the good ole' US of A that they can handle 50 to 1. Why there and not here? Because that's South Korea. The country that learned to how to beat their dominators by outsmarting them about 1,000 years ago.....wish we could clone that....oh that's right they are locating in Austin very soon.....

Hick - your right about the class size, but there's rarely written work and one teacher does NOT teach every subject for the class. Typically, kids stay in groups of 50 and the teachers change during the day.

Without grading homework and tests themselves, I'm sure American teachers could get used to that. Oh, and relative to the Korean economy, Korean teachers are paid well to teach a completely set curriculum.

I have to say that I do think Progressives need to start holding parents accountable for the support they do or don't give their kids.

Too many parents just send their kid off to school, and expect teachers to do it all.

Parents need to step up and take some responsibility for their kids education, too. I bet South Korean parents do. There are segments among our population who don't.

That's something that can't be legislated - but it can be talked about from the bully pulpit.

Fuck.

The bully pulpit.

When was the last time we had a president, or governor, who used the power of the bully pulpit to speak truth to, uh, the powerless, I spose?

They're all weasels, and weak.