Should Math and Science Teachers Demand a Refund from the Teachers Union?

Am I the only one that finds it ironic that the Idaho Education Association is opposed to giving math and science teachers an increase in salary? I guess I was confused, I thought unions were supposed to increase wages.

Based on IEA recommendations, Idaho senators rejected a proposal 21-13 to give math and science teachers a 3.75 percent pay raise. So much for all those union dues. It seems that most Senators either don’t understand the basic laws of economics, or pretend they don’t apply to public education. ”This opens the door to warfare in the school,” cried Sen. Denton Darrington, a former social studies teacher. Darrington didn’t explain why schools were currently so peaceful given the fact that teacher salaries range from $27,500 to over $65,000 a year. What doesn’t make sense is to pay a P.E. or social studies teacher $65,000 and a physics or trigonometry teacher $27,500.

This huge differential in teacher salary has nothing to do with productivity or the relative importance of calisthenics versus calculus. Under the present salary schedule, when a teacher has a birthday, or takes a summer class, a pay raise is automatic. Only a union would design such a system. Oh, I forgot, the IEA did design the system.

Sen. John Andreason, who voted against the proposal, said, “Those who are closest to the process really know how to run the process…I'm talking about the state boards, the school boards in our local districts, the superintendents, the principals ...”
 Wait a second Senator, I thought paying math and science teachers more was the State Board’s idea?

Social studies teacher Sen. Edgar Malepeai said that teaching is a team project and individuals should not be singled out for higher pay. He didn’t mention the current $27,500 to $65,000 pay range nor did he propose one salary for all teachers regardless of years of service or subject taught. “No one person is responsible for the overall development of the student,” he said. “This bill, ladies and gentlemen, is going to cause a disruption. This is not good for the organization.” Precisely. The IEA and Senator Malepeai are deeply opposed to disrupting their monopoly with any kind of teacher accountability or pay schedules that recognize and reward highly productive teachers. If we applied Malepeai’s logic across the board, janitors would be paid the same as neurosurgeons. Marx and Mao would surely vote for Edgar’s logic. Fortunately for the workers of the world, Gorbachev ultimately realized that equality of salaries insured lowest common denominator quality. By rejecting market-based salaries, the Idaho Senate continues its relentless pursuit of mediocrity for public education.

Ask a superintendent or principal if it is as easy to find chemistry teacher as a choir teacher. It isn’t that we “value” music any less than mathematics; it’s simply supply and demand. There are always lots more people lined up to teach social studies than statistics.

Most people value water more than gasoline. So why doesn’t it cost more to fill up your tub than your tank? Would it make you feel better about how you “value” water if you paid $10.00 a gallon instead of less than one cent a gallon? The price difference is not due to value but supply and demand. The same is true for teachers, and plumbers, and engineers, and cardiovascular surgeons. We pay people a lot who are good at doing things that are really hard.

We must stop pretending that teaching algebra is as easy as teaching history.
We need to toss out the union’s rigid pay scale and give superintendents and principals the flexibility to recruit talented and productive teachers and pay them according to the market. By refusing to recognize the need to pay teachers based upon their productivity in key subject areas, the U.S. will surrender it's technological leadership to China and India.

The only way to create a truly world-class education system is to harness the power of free-market competition and parental choice. This will never happen as long as Idaho’s politicians are in collusion with the IEA to prevent choice and avoid accountability. In the mean time, math and science teachers need to ask the IEA for a refund.

When Colleges Compete – Everybody Wins

It’s too bad high school diplomas have lost so much of their value. It appears that some Idaho public high schools have been printing diplomas like North Korea has been printing $20 dollar bills. The current craze to fix problem high schools is to create community colleges. These “colleges” are designed to re-educate high school graduates that didn’t seem to learn much in high school. Maybe the State should require that high schools provide money-back guarantees on their diplomas. Given the fact that the cost to taxpayers to produce a high school graduate is $120,000, some kind of warranty should be expected.

BSU was all in favor of the idea of a new community college. More students equal more money. Fortunately for students and taxpayers, several other colleges want to get into this game as well. We strongly suspect that what BSU really wants is an exclusive monopoly. Now it has become a turf war. Both the College of Southern Idaho (CSI) and Treasure Valley Community College (TVCC) want to expand into the lucrative Boise market. In the case of TVCC, Oregon taxpayers want to subsidize the education of Idaho students. What could be better?

There are lots of choices when it comes to higher education in Boise. BSU, U of I, ISU, NNU, and Albertson College have been offering courses and degrees here for a long time. George Fox and University of Phoenix recently entered the market. There are also a number of on-line and executive education programs provide courses tailored to student needs and time schedules. Did you know that University of Phoenix was founded in 1976 and is the largest private university in the world with over 170 campuses in 33 states? How can a college grow that large and that fast if it wasn’t providing good value? The bottom line is that competition is making all of these colleges better.

The reason our public K-12 public education system is so lethargic and costly is there is no competition. Imagine what our public education system could be like if there was robust competition? The greatest obstacle to improving public education is monopoly, not competition. By granting territorial monopolies to school district bureaucracies, we have insured mediocrity and higher and higher costs.

The last thing the legislature should do is grant an exclusive monopoly to any organization to create a community college. If our legislature really wants to improve public education and lower costs, the first thing it should do is open K-12 to free markets and parental choice. A little bit of choice and competition can go along way. In the mean time, take the diploma printing press away from high schools by making them guarantee their product.