It is worth unpacking that response a bit. $32k/yr is a signal that if someone has a choice between doing teaching and something else they should pick the something else. Which accounts for why and what Vogel did. That isn't a bad thing; there is some ideal number of teachers and it isn't good for everyone to be trying to become one if there are already too many.
I'm going to take the opposite view and say paying teachers 32k is a bad thing--here's an article from an hour ago saying that 90% of Illinois schools have a teacher shortage tied directly to low pay. Clearly this salary isn't signaling that the market is saturated with teachers.
Setting aside the merits of teaching and childcare on their own, failing to fill teaching positions now in favor of other jobs is going to lead to students who are unprepared to continue to fill said jobs in the future.
>I'm going to take the opposite view and say paying teachers 32k is a bad thing--here's an article from an hour ago saying that 90% of Illinois schools have a teacher shortage tied directly to low pay. Clearly this salary isn't signaling that the market is saturated with teachers.
Actually no, the low salary may simply be lagging slightly behind market conditions. Schools can't just magically pay all teachers more because of a temporary shortage of applicants, and paying only the new hires more would be unfair. Salary increases need to be well-justified and applied uniformly, as teacher salaries are some of the most structured in the whole economy and paid for by taxes that can't be changed quickly. So eventually, the salaries might go up, but the shortage might also lessen too as more graduates appear.
Illinois is welcome to pay teachers more. However, if there is literally no-one in Illinois willing to pay teachers enough to teach the kids, then I put that it isn't reason to be embarrassed by the education system.
Either Illinois is in a state of poverty where parents can't afford to educate their kids, the people of Illinois don't value education. They are, in practice, signalling quite clearly that they think there are more important things teachers could be doing. It isn't that hard in principle to set up a private school, you need a building, some desks, a chalkboard and a teacher. Pay 'em what you like. I'm sure there are a lot of helpful regulations to comply with too that'll push the complexity up but it isn't that hard.
This is the families with children making choices.
This is not entirely true, with a two party system and competing policy positions of relative importance coupled with party line voting, there are many issues where a majority of the majority, which only amounts to about 30% of the total population, can block changes that are popular with the 70%.
This leaves the 70% in a position where it takes extreme effort to move forward. Starting a new private school system is a big effort for a position that says teachers should get 50k instead of 35k.
As far as I can tell you've identified that you have limited ability to get what you want in the public system because of an intransigent minority. The obvious response is to move into a parallel system where the minority doesn't have to participate. That is fast, fair and and pretty easy to execute all things considered - if people are serious about wanting to pay teachers more, which I don't believe they are.
> Starting a new private school system is a big effort for a position that says teachers should get 50k instead of 35k.
It really isn't. Or more accurately, if it is then that is the problem rather than the salary being paid. Teaching kids to the standards of a system that is currently paying its teachers ~$35k is pretty straightforward when you get down to it; and improving on it would not be hard. The economy is made up of people continuously taking positions on these sorts of issues.
I spent decade(s) being educated, I've got a respectable number of letters I can put after my name and all the way through the capital costs outside a couple of science labs and the actual school building were negligible. And a big chunk of the important material is available online for free. Education in real terms is a really easy field to enter and compete in. But I think if anyone tried they'd just discover that people don't actually want to pay teachers money. They want someone else to pay teachers money. Because without that little rider there is only a rather small problem here to solve.
According to The Internet, the average teacher salary in IL is $72k per year.
No doubt that number is skewed by the Chicago region. School funding is dominated by property taxes; they are high in the Chicago area and significantly less in others. It is indeed a local choice being made.
I don't have kids, I find children to be annoying at best but even I can not imagine not paying teachers so much as to make it a prestigious job that is tough to get.
From just a purely economic perspective, it seems like a trivial investment given the higher order effects.
Instead, we are going to suffer the higher order effects in the opposite direction.
Just insane but we seem to be getting really good as a society at making dumb decisions.
Public school teacher salaries do not usually adapt to market conditions on an individual basis like in other industries. If you needed to pay like $5k more to get a new hire, for example, you would have to update the pay schedule to pay potentially thousands of teachers each $5k more. That cost can be infeasible in the short term. There are also non-monetary considerations. If your city is known for terrible working conditions, teachers might refuse those jobs even if your pay scale is competitive.
There are other possibilities, for instance a disconnect between need and a willingness to pay to fill that need that is not economic in nature but political.
except the problem is the opposite, there is a shortage of teachers and student count per teacher is insanely high. (this is your brain on supply side economics)
