Teacher pay at least keeps some of us from considering the profession: can't buy a home or pay many bills on $31k. I used to think I would be good at something like that (other folks tried to encourage me in that direction too, by the way), but there is no chance that I could make ends meet on so little, especially with student loans likely outstanding. I can't imagine what someone with a family would have to sacrifice to survive.

It would also seem to me that setting the salary bar so low intends to restrict the profession to 1st career folks. If I can't afford to go there, how are we going to lure the best and the brightest from other (well paying) successes to pass their skills and passions on?

It seems a shame that we can't pay enough to encourage folks with strong life experience and good aptitude to consider caring for our future... our youth.

I'm a former teacher with the Teach for America program. I taught 7th grade in south Texas, on the Mexican border and I agree with the above comment. While it is true that no one becomes a teacher in hopes of making lots of money, I think that we do lose people who would have considered the job if the pay wasn't so horrendous. If you started teachers at the same salary as a starting engineer for example, far more undergrads would consider the career path. I also think that many teachers would be willing to work more - ie for a month or so of the summer doing planning and professional development if they were paid for it.

I think 'merit' pay for teachers is a somewhat good idea, but not if it's black and white (figure of speech). If teacher's are paid solely off of their classroom's test scores, obviously this puts teachers in impoverished areas at a disadvantage. These areas with traditionally low scores need teachers the most, yet they will scare teachers away from accepting positions there because of the 'merit' pay attached to them. I believe that when a teacher is hired, they should take the last years scores as a base from which to work from. The more the class improves, the more the teacher gets paid. This would somewhat solve the issue, but not completely. There should be some type of alternate method to the 'merit' pay as well, such as community involvement. Let's face it, some schools are going to perform low no matter how great the teachers are, there are just too many factors outside the classroom that will override the in-class experience. When you live in a crime ridden, drug inhabited, impoverished area, it doesn't matter what even the best teacher tells you, you are still going to fall behind in a majority of the cases.

"Community involvement"? Is it not enough that teachers spend hours outside the classroom and on their weekends grading, preparing new lessons and meeting with parents, counselors and students without additional pay? Is it not enough that Portland teachers worked 10 days for free in 2002 in order to keep Portland's schools open? What exactly does this look like?

Can you recommend a way to hold teachers accountable? Almost half of my teachers in high school did as little as possible in regards to helping students. They only did what was mandatory and didn't go above and beyond the mandatory expectations. As far as spending hours outside the classroom, grading on the weekends, preparing new lessons and meeting with parents, counselors, and students, there should be no additional pay, as that is what is required in the job. When you become a teacher, that is all part of the package. If you think you should be paid extra for doing the job you are expected to do, that is ridiculous in my opinion. When you become a pastor should you be paid extra for counseling your congregation? No. You signed on for the job knowing what it will entail. I knew I didn't want to be a teacher, as early as grade school, for the simple fact that you have to do so much work outside of the classroom. If I could see that at the age of 8, I think it should be well aware to any college student majoring in education that it's not a high paying job, and in most cases, a poor paying job that you do more for the love then for the dollar.

This is a fundamental problem - because we all went to public school, we all feel we are experts on edcuation. This is akin to someone saying, "I've been to the doctor's office and was born in a hospital, therefore I am an expert in medicine."

Teachers have bills to pay - we have worked for free, but to expect that we continue to do so is ludicrious. Teaching is a job, like anything else. Administrators - trained education professionals and the supervisors of teachers are the ones responsible for holding teachers accountable. I wouldn't dream of telling a surgeon how to do their job, nor would I expect someone who is not a legal expert to tell an attorney how to do their job. Why do you think it is acceptable for non-education experts to tell teaches how to do theirs? Or what "community involvement" is that warrants extra pay?

It's not akin to saying "I've been to the doctor's office and was born in a hospital, therefore I am an expert in medicine." That's akin to "I drop my kids off at a school, and went inside once to see what the principal had to say, now I'm an expert." I (and most other people) spend 12 years in public school, 8 hours a day, 5 days a week (except holidays and breaks), that's quite a bit more then going to the doctor every once in awhile and being born and 1 week old and saying you're an expert. I don't tell teachers how to do their job, however if they complain about their job, I certainly recommend that since they have at least a bachelor's degree, get a different job if you feel you are not being compensated enough. As far as community involvement, that's an arguement FOR teachers. IF we must go to merit pay, which is a trend I guarantee will happen eventually, there needs to be more then just test scores to base that merit on. Community involvement could be leading fundraisers for the school (outside of class), it could be organizing parents clubs to enhance children education outside the home, or other school/community involvment activities. If merit is implemented, teachers will still get their base pay. They will just get bonuses for going above and beyond. I am arguing that tests should not be the only way to measure merit, just to clarify.

Teachers shouldn't be responsible for students test scores (especially high school students who are old enough to ask questions and seek additional help). There are always students who are not going to do well, not because the teachers aren't teaching but because the students either don't want to do the work or from other outside factors.

At the college level, the teacher teaches however they choose and if the student doesn't do the work it's considered their fault for not seeking additional help. Parents don't go and complain to college professors that their adult child is doing poorly (and if they do it is in poor taste). Why can't we hold high school students to the same standards? If we are not giving them responsibility over their own grades, how are they suppose to be responsible for themselves in the future?

In rural areas it is becoming increasing difficult to recruit and retain teachers. Along with the National Data on teachers who leave the profession, rural areas have a unique problem in attracting staff in the first place. Recently our school staff had a presentation on technical careers that we have available for graduating students in our local area. These careers starting pay were usual double what teachers were being paid after several years of service. Although teaching is not just about the compensation that one receives on a paycheck, it is difficult to explain to a young educator who is struggling to purchase a home, raise a family, pay off student loans, etc. to stay in a profession that is compensated at the current rate most Oregon schools pay. Pilot projects such as the one being funded by Chalkboard are needed in Oregon to create new ways to attract, reward and compensate educators.

As usual, Mr. Sizemore's initiative is attacking a simple component, and not the issue. The issue is teacher quality. The Step system isn't the problem, but it needs to be enhanced with a carrot and a stick. The CLASS project is a good carrot. Professional Development dollars are another good one.

As for the stick: a district or principal has to be able to fire a bad teacher. And not based on test scores, but on profession proficiency. In short, teachers need to be treated like, and held to the standards of professionals, not assembly line workers.

And you have to make it easier for people who are unhappy teaching to access their accrued benefits, so they can make a career change. Unenthusiastic teachers will stay, just to keep their retirement benefits. Non-portable benefits are at the heart of the union's power. These few uncommitted teachers at the top of the scale are a factor in younger teachers leaving.

Most private schools pay less than public, and without public employee benefits, but they have great teachers waiting in line to teach because 1) they are around kids and families committed to learning and 2) they are not burdened by the child services responsibilities that government puts on public schools.

Just for clarification, it isn't the unions that oppose portable benefits - Congress has blocked that for years.

The problem with the Chalkboard approach is that, once again, as is the case with administration, it pays teachers more to get out of teaching. Just because someone is an excellent musician does not mean that person will be good at mentoring other musicians or collaborating with them. The same applies to mentoring and teaching kids. Let's encourage good teachers to keep teaching full time.

Because kids come to class with all sorts of different backgrounds and abilities, the Sizemore approach of paying for validated performance would require a huge increase in administration just to find out who is really performing. His approach would also make teaching to the test the be-all and end-all of education. This is a poor goal for a comprehensive education.

Standards and expectations for public education have been greatly raised while at the same time resources to teach kids have been sharply cut. Class sizes are much higher and the needs of students are much higher as family life has deteriorated. I have seen good new teachers leave the profession because as much as they liked teaching the prospect of a relatively low paying job with high stress wasn't worth it. The best way to improve education is to fund it better so kids have smaller classes and teachers can afford to stay in teaching.

I am a teacher - most of my career has been spent teaching children from lowe SES in inner north and northeast Portland - where the "achievement gap" is greatest. If people are serious about education, paying teachers more is not the answer; in fact, I take offense at "pay for performance" as it gives the impression that we are not working as hard as we can to educate these kids, and that financial rewards will motivate us to do so.

The answer is simple - the state legislature and the citizens of Oregon need to properly and fully fund our schools. Oregon education has been cut and cut for years. Don't throw money at the teachers - invest it in smaller classes and extra-curriculars.

I'm afraid I have to disagree with your assertion that Bill Sizemore wants to "raise teacher pay" with his ballot measure.

As you may be aware, Mr. Sizemore earns his living promoting a wide array of ballot measures. The current measure involving education is poorly crafted and, as one poster has already pointed out, does not solve the problem. This measure is not designed to help teachers - it is designed to provide him with a revenue stream while diverting the resources of the teacher's association, which will be forced to spend money protecting teachers against a measure that forces test-based raises which will do nothing to make Oregon's educational system better.

That's not education reform - that's politics at its most cynical.

It's good to have a discussion about how to retain, train and incentify the next generation of teachers, but Sizemore's ballot measure has nothing to do with that discussion so I hope the guests today will not let themselves get too distracted by it.

While the following is humorous, it points to something that has some truth in it...

Subject: Saving Tax Dollars?
ARE YOU SICK OF THOSE HIGH PAID TEACHERS?

I, for one, am sick and tired of those high paid teachers. Their hefty salaries are driving up
taxes and they only work nine or ten months a year! It's time we put things in perspective and pay
them for what they do...baby-sit!

We can get that for less than minimum wage. That's right...I would give them $3.00 dollars an hour
per kid and only the hours they worked, not any of that silly planning time.

That would be 15 dollars a day. Each parent should pay 15 dollars a day for these teachers to
baby-sit their children.

Now, how many do they teach in a day.... maybe 30? Then that's 15 X 30 = $450 a day. But remember
they only work 180 days a year! I'm not going to pay them for any vacations.
\Let's see...that's $450 x180 = $81,000.00. (Hold on, my calculator must need new
batteries!)....for a new teacher, hmmmm.

What about those special teachers or all the ones with the required master's degrees?
Well, we could pay them minimum wage, just to be fair. Let's round it off to $6.00 an hour. That
would be $6 times 5 hours times 30 children times 180 days = $162,000.00 per year.
Wait a minute, there is something wrong here!!!

**********************

On a serious note, I live in Corvallis. Before I moved here I taught middle school science, and I would have loved to continue on that path. But, even with a masters degree, the starting wage that I could expect here is about half what I can make in industry. Unfortunately, my wife doesn't make enough for us to rely on her income as primary. Thus, though I love teaching and I have been told that I'm a natural teacher, the door is closed to me for financial reasons, at least if we don't want to lose our house.

It would be nice if teachers could help in developing a system to measure student success, if not testing than how? I am a parent who has had both great and not so great teachers...how would teachers suggest we on the outside judge job performance? and then act on poor teachers?

Merit pay including that based on test improvement results should be just one component of teacher compensation, it is disingenuous of the teachers union to oppose this idea. There are well articulated draw backs to this approach, but the end result is worth it.

The principal of a school is in the best position to set up the particular incentive system for the their teachers, so principals should be given the power and responsibility of setting up a system that works for their area and staff. This means the union and the state would have less power for setting compensation.

I think that comparing teacher compensation to private sector professionals is entirely appropriate. Teachers have to be compensated in line with the private sector, however this in different that saying that current teachers with their current training deserve this higher pay. The teachers that get this higher pay might be different people or the same people with more training. Price fixing salaries is a clumsy way to achieve this, but it is likely better than nothing.

Oregon has experienced a gradual decline of investment in public education when compared to other states. The 2007 session was the first time in almost a decade that significant additional resources were provided to education. This funds were targeted specifically to school improvement efforts. Therefore, teacher salaries have dropped below the national average. In addition to recognizing the contributions provided by teachers in the more comprehensive manner discribed by the Chalkboard Project, we should also be aware that overall investment in both K-12 and Higher Education is losing ground in Oregon.

How do other professions get raises? Are they given tests? No. Are they evaluated by just their supervisor? No. Most people get performance evaluations based on both measurable success and performance evaluations from their supervisors and (hopefully) their coworkers.

That being said, $31k is ridiculous for people who work such long hours and put so much energy into their work.

My mother is a teacher and has been for years. She is a single mom (my dad passed away) and definitely doesn't get paid enough for the amount of hours she puts in. She is working all the time, from 6:30 in the morning to 5 or 6 at night and she will often come home with papers to grade. She is unhappy in her job because she works very hard (and she does a really good job- kids love her class) and feels like she does not get due respect and appreciation she deserves. She also feels that the union does not support the teachers as they should and are allowing the district to make budget cuts. She doesn't have time to have a social life and is always exhausted for family events. She can't afford to leave teaching without taking a pay cut, but she is burned out and underpaid for her work. It is really frustrating for me to see happen to her. I don't think teachers are adequately represented and given a voice. I am glad this conversation is happening.

Student achievement is cummulative, not isolated. The measurement of reading, for example, in a 5th grade classroom includes both the work of the current teacher and the accumulated contributions of not only other reading teachers, but also the contributions of principals, counselors, PE teachers, art teachers, etc. An alternative way of thinking about this is to look at the performance of the school with the same group of students over a period of time. This is a statistically more valid way of using student performance. The building as a team contributes to the overall success of students. The role of the administrator is to keep the academic focus and to work with teachers who are not contributing.
Pat Burk, Oregon Department of Education

How pathetic is it that no one on the show knows how to fire a bad teacher? I think that demonstrates EXACTLY what is wrong. It is staring them right in the face. Every profession has bad actors in it, and every profession, except teaching, has a means to get rid of the bad actors.

Outrageous.

Teacher tenure law went away in 1997. Teachers that are not successful in the classroom must receive appropriate evaluation from their administrator, and then opportunities to improve. There is a very specific process for teacher evaluation in every school district personnel handbook and collective bargaining agreeement. Good administrators know how to work with teachers that are unsuccessful and counsel them out of the profession, well before it is necessary to engage in a disciplinary process.

There are clearly defined steps in each contract and by state law how to remove a teacher from the classroom. You are correct - education is a microcosm of societ so there will be a few teachers who should not be in the classroom.

However, the focus of the program was on teacher pay, not discipline.