By Chris Tucker, KERA 90.1 Commentator
http://stream.publicbroadcasting.net/production/mp3/kera/local-kera-505402.mp3
Dallas, TX –
Every time I hear someone say, "You can't fix education by just throwing money at the schools," I think back to my teaching days and a cynical old principal who would always say: "How do we know? We never tried."
Well, the more things change... That was 20-something years ago, before no-pass/no-play, before Robin Hood, before TASS and TAKS and the bulky TAKS preparation notebook our sixth-grade daughter lugs home from school. Public schools and public money remain one big intertwined problem, but now the Texas Supreme Court has given lawmakers a homework assignment with a real deadline.
In the next few weeks we'll hear a busload of ideas about raising money for the schools and how to spend that money once it's raised. I think some of our education dollars should be spent on this Modest Proposal:
In every school district from Dallas to Dime Box, from Fort Worth to Fort Stockton, the highest paid employee should be the best teacher in that district. Whatever the superintendent makes, pay the best teacher one dollar more.
And how much would that be? According to the Texas Association of School Boards, base pay for superintendents in the 30 largest Texas districts ranges from $168,000 in Round Rock to the $300,000 earned by Fort Worth superintendent Melody Johnson and the $340,000 paid to Michael Hinojosa in Dallas.
Under the traditional structure, no teacher will ever come close to these numbers, which are four to eight times the average salary of teachers in the Dallas area. But I'm not criticizing superintendents, demeaning the valuable work they do, or trying to start class warfare on campus. Let them keep their salaries, as long as they're one dollar short of the best teacher's pay.
This reform recognizes the real mission and priorities of education. The most important job in a school, after learning, is teaching. Everyone else, from the cafeteria worker to the security guard to the superintendent-- is there to support the vital work being done by teachers and students.
Now it's easy to anticipate objections to this admittedly radical reform. How would we decide who's the best teacher? Wouldn't the selection process be flawed? Where would we get the money? Wouldn't other teachers be jealous? And isn't this just empty symbolism, since most teachers would still make much less than most administrators?
And now the answers: Most districts already choose a teacher of the year; I'd start with those criteria and add others that make sense within each district. The resulting process would be no more flawed than the process that occasionally hires a superintendent who is incompetent or dishonest. If you need to trim a few administrators' salaries in order to raise the money, so be it. And of course some other teachers would be jealous, but it just might light a fire under them. As for symbolism, yes, that teacher at the top would be a symbol, but much more than a symbol: This reform would put real meaning behind our rhetoric about valuing teachers - and it might help to draw more highly qualified people into the profession.
Paying a superintendent the top salary sends one kind of message about what a district considers most valuable. Paying a gifted teacher the top salary would send another kind of message: that the best teachers are more important to a child's success than even the greatest administrators. When I look back on my own school days, I can think of a half-dozen fine teachers who inspired me to learn and grow. But for the life of me, I can't think of a single superintendent's name. Maybe that's why the bumper sticker says that teachers - not superintendents -affect eternity.
If you have opinions or rebuttals about this commentary, call (214) 740-9338 or email us.
More government issues and election coverage from KERA's Voter's Voice