Pay in MNPS definitely needs to be increased. As a teacher, I received a Cost-of-Living Adjustment that amounted to $3,500. Of course, my for benefits increased, so I didn't come out much ahead salary-wise. My rent has gone up $300 a month for the upcoming year., which completely wipes out any pay raise. I can never get ahead financially as a teacher. I've been teaching in MNPS for 17 years. We'll see who on the city council will advocate for teachers and if our new mayor will too. We need a real pay increase. I don't want to hear that "Nashville teachers are the highest paid in the state." It doesn't mean anything if we also have one of the highest costs of living. We need a 15-20% pay raise across the board to make living in Nashville feasible. We don't ask to be rich. We just want a modicum of financial security.
Sadly, Tennessee legislators and the people who vote them in just don't seem to care if there are enough teachers, let alone high-quality teachers. As long as there's a warm body in the classroom to provide child care, that's all that seems to matter; and now, there aren't even enough warm bodies. How can our governor and elected leaders think it's a good idea to turn down a billion dollars of government funding? The 4% raise that Nashville teachers were given this year was next to nothing and not even what other government employees were given (6%). The fact that Tennessee is in the bottom 5 of states when it comes to funding education tells you everything you need to know. Education is not a priority in Tennessee. If it were, teachers would be adequately paid.
Re "The old pay scale went from $38,000 to $72,000. The new, compressed scale, ranges from starting pay of $60,000 to maximum pay of $86,000."
Teacher pay scales are accepted but shouldn't be. Often as not it takes a teach 20 years to get from the bottom tot he top and as such are just a way to keep teacher's salaries down. The last I checked, the California Highway Patrol had a four step, four year schedule, which makes sense. There is much learning going on in the first few years and the employers are not getting full benefit from the employees work. But the difference in performance between a teachers 15th and 16th years? Really?
Thanks for providing a case study to look at, Andy. Not at all surprised to see that increased pay serves as the incentive to attract more --and better-- teachers. It works that way in every other industry; why not in education, too?
In addition to increased pay, school systems should start thinking outside the box to develop more attractive non-monetary incentives, too.
I once suggested a "year-ten sabbatical" that could potentially attract qualified teachers graduating from universities, and also compete to bring them in from other counties. In each paycheck, teachers could choose to set aside 10% of their monthly pay into an account managed by the LEA. After nine years of teaching and saving 10%, each teacher could choose to take a year-long, paid sabbatical (paid with the money they've set aside for nine years, which by this point would equal 90% of their annual salary). While teachers are on leave, LEAs could hire new teachers (who are paid less, so the school system saves money), and give prospective teachers a chance to get their foot into the proverbial doors. It also could provide new teachers a chance to try a few different positions while covering for teachers on leave, in hopes they would find the best fit for them.
I took an academic sabbatical one year and it was the best thing I've ever done to increase the quality of my teaching. I came back into the classroom mentally and physically refreshed, healthy, and also had recaptured the optimism and positive attitude I had when I first started teaching. It's not a perfect plan, I'm sure; but LEAs should start thinking of innovative ways to attract "the best and the brightest" into the profession, using both increased pay and more attractive benefits.
I’m a teacher in Washington State making well over 100k. We sure don’t have a teacher shortage here!
Pay in MNPS definitely needs to be increased. As a teacher, I received a Cost-of-Living Adjustment that amounted to $3,500. Of course, my for benefits increased, so I didn't come out much ahead salary-wise. My rent has gone up $300 a month for the upcoming year., which completely wipes out any pay raise. I can never get ahead financially as a teacher. I've been teaching in MNPS for 17 years. We'll see who on the city council will advocate for teachers and if our new mayor will too. We need a real pay increase. I don't want to hear that "Nashville teachers are the highest paid in the state." It doesn't mean anything if we also have one of the highest costs of living. We need a 15-20% pay raise across the board to make living in Nashville feasible. We don't ask to be rich. We just want a modicum of financial security.
Sadly, Tennessee legislators and the people who vote them in just don't seem to care if there are enough teachers, let alone high-quality teachers. As long as there's a warm body in the classroom to provide child care, that's all that seems to matter; and now, there aren't even enough warm bodies. How can our governor and elected leaders think it's a good idea to turn down a billion dollars of government funding? The 4% raise that Nashville teachers were given this year was next to nothing and not even what other government employees were given (6%). The fact that Tennessee is in the bottom 5 of states when it comes to funding education tells you everything you need to know. Education is not a priority in Tennessee. If it were, teachers would be adequately paid.
Re "The old pay scale went from $38,000 to $72,000. The new, compressed scale, ranges from starting pay of $60,000 to maximum pay of $86,000."
Teacher pay scales are accepted but shouldn't be. Often as not it takes a teach 20 years to get from the bottom tot he top and as such are just a way to keep teacher's salaries down. The last I checked, the California Highway Patrol had a four step, four year schedule, which makes sense. There is much learning going on in the first few years and the employers are not getting full benefit from the employees work. But the difference in performance between a teachers 15th and 16th years? Really?
Thanks for providing a case study to look at, Andy. Not at all surprised to see that increased pay serves as the incentive to attract more --and better-- teachers. It works that way in every other industry; why not in education, too?
In addition to increased pay, school systems should start thinking outside the box to develop more attractive non-monetary incentives, too.
I once suggested a "year-ten sabbatical" that could potentially attract qualified teachers graduating from universities, and also compete to bring them in from other counties. In each paycheck, teachers could choose to set aside 10% of their monthly pay into an account managed by the LEA. After nine years of teaching and saving 10%, each teacher could choose to take a year-long, paid sabbatical (paid with the money they've set aside for nine years, which by this point would equal 90% of their annual salary). While teachers are on leave, LEAs could hire new teachers (who are paid less, so the school system saves money), and give prospective teachers a chance to get their foot into the proverbial doors. It also could provide new teachers a chance to try a few different positions while covering for teachers on leave, in hopes they would find the best fit for them.
I took an academic sabbatical one year and it was the best thing I've ever done to increase the quality of my teaching. I came back into the classroom mentally and physically refreshed, healthy, and also had recaptured the optimism and positive attitude I had when I first started teaching. It's not a perfect plan, I'm sure; but LEAs should start thinking of innovative ways to attract "the best and the brightest" into the profession, using both increased pay and more attractive benefits.