It's Time to Get Serious About Teacher Compensation
By Dr. Gerald Wheeler
Forty-five years ago this fall—not long after the Soviets launched Sputnik—I started teaching high school chemistry and physics in Connecticut. In the early 1960s, the nation was galvanized by the threat of Soviet domination in science; Congress had passed the $1 billion National Defense Education Act; and a whole lot of science and math teachers were in classrooms nationwide.
Ah, the “good ol’ days!”
Notwithstanding all the recent national reports on science and math education today, many groups, including NSTA, are eagerly hoping for another nationwide “kick-in-the-pants” moment, similar to Sputnik that would focus the country’s attention on science education.
Why? We are losing ground to our international competitors, and science education is the basis for future science discoveries and innovation. Teachers play a key role in student achievement, and in today’s competitive marketplace, we absolutely must attract our share of the best and brightest to science teaching. But two things must happen. First, when we discuss reform, we have to stop ignoring the large green elephant in the room holding the sign “TEACHER PAY.” Second, we need to talk about paying science teachers salaries that are comparable to those of science professionals in the private sector.
Consider this:
Let’s do the math. A student with a degree in science or engineering can land a job in the science-related industries with a starting salary of more than $50,000 and look forward to an annual salary of about $68,000 later on. Her college roommate—also armed with a degree in science, but headed for the high school classroom—can expect a starting salary of about $32,000 as a teacher and (if he stays out of the Dakotas) can anticipate earning around $49,000 a year down the road.
This is ludicrous. Teaching is a respected profession and should not be considered “community service.” If your child were interested in pursuing a career in the science, technology, engineering, or math fields (STEM), which career path would you suggest? Science teachers must be paid a competitive salary so that more talented STEM students will commit to teaching in our nation’s classrooms.
The best and the brightest are always in demand, and they can do the math, too. It’s no secret that this wage gap affects the ability of schools and districts to recruit and retain quality teachers of science. That’s why NSTA leaders at the National Congress on Science Education passed a resolution encouraging states, districts, and schools to explore differential pay systems that would encourage more qualified individuals to enter the science education profession.
Other powerful national organizations have joined with the NSTA to address the disparity in teacher pay. In the 2006 report America’s Pressing Challenge, Building a Stronger Foundation, the National Science Board (NSB), the oversight board for the National Science Foundation (NSF), maintains that “to attract and retain precollege science and mathematics teachers, resources must be provided to compensate teachers of mathematics, science, and technology comparably to similarly trained S&E professionals in other economic sectors.”
In its 2007 action plan to improve STEM education, the NSB again recommended the country ensure students are taught by well-qualified and highly effective STEM teachers by “developing strategies for compensating STEM teachers at market rates.”
The AFT also concluded that it is time to examine the current teacher pay system. Several years ago, the teachers union approved a landmark resolution stating that it believes “it is time to explore viable, fair, and educationally sound teacher compensation options that will raise salaries while contributing to efforts already under way to assure high-quality, well-prepared teachers for all students." AFT did not recommend abandoning the traditional salary schedule, but it encouraged local chapters to explore various teacher compensation systems based on local conditions.
Senator Barack Obama apparently also believes the teacher compensation system is due for a makeover. He has introduced legislation (S. 114) that would provide grants to school districts to implement systemic reforms in the areas of teaching, assessment, school leadership, and administration. Grants could be used to recruit and retain highly-effective teachers by using “incentives, including differential pay, to reward high-performing teachers, teachers who choose to work in the most challenging schools within a local educational agency, and teachers with expertise in needed subject areas, such as mathematics, science, and special education.”
Other federal incentives can persuade students to become science and math teachers. NSF’s Robert Noyce Scholarship Program offers scholarships of $10,000 annually, for two years, to students majoring in math- and science- related fields. Teachers with federal loans can take advantage of up to $17,500 in loan forgiveness under the U.S. Department of Education’s Teacher Loan Forgiveness Program. And many school districts and colleges are paying bonuses to mid-career professionals interested in becoming trained as teachers in high-need schools, with grants available through the federal Transition to Teaching program. All great programs, but they don’t go far enough to seriously address the teacher shortage issues so many schools are facing.
Our Sputnik moment has arrived, and we need to decide just what our future science education workforce will look like.
A February, 2007 Congressional Research Service Report for Congress estimates that approximately 44.7% of the high school students in biology/life science, 61.1% of the students in chemistry, and 66.5% of the students in physics are being taught by teachers with no major and certification in the respective field. Last year, the Business and Higher Education Forum estimated that the United States would need about 280,000 new teachers in science and math by 2015.
If we want the best and brightest students with degrees in STEM to teach science, then states and local districts must consider a plan that provides reasonable, marketplace compensation to highly qualified science teachers. If not, I think we can expect student achievement in the sciences to remain stagnant for another dozen years, regardless of the other reforms already in place. It’s time we return to the “good ol’ days,” and soon.
Education Week—May 14, 2008 issue