What are Math Teachers Worth?

Of course, as a high school mathematics teacher myself, I found this CSMonitor article particularly interesting. The article is an opinion piece written by Louis V. Gerstner, Jr., former chairman and CEO of IBM and founder of The Teaching Commission. His argument is that although we have a significant shortage of highly-qualified mathematics public school teachers, we are doing very little to alter the methods we use to recruit, train, and keep highly skilled mathematicians in the classrooms of the country.

Last week, a new comparative study showed that U.S. 15-year olds are well below the worldwide average for basic math skills, and a new TIMSS study to be released this week will discuss the skills of fourth- and eighth-graders. Certainly, educators know it is true that students with particularly gifted teachers perform better on average than students with less-than-adequate teachers. When 15% of high school mathematics teachers nationwide have neither a major or minor in mathematics, there is something terribly wrong with the system.

Speaking to you, however, as a very good mathematics instructor, I can state plainly that the problem tends to be one of motivation rather than one of instruction. It is a great deal easier for a knowledgeable math teacher to motivate students than for one who has difficulty with the subject himself/herself; however, we also need teachers who bring personal experiences with the use of mathematics into the classroom.

The most interesting thing I find about programs to recruit highly qualified mathematicians into education is that these programs typically only apply to new recruits. I have been a highly successful mathematics teacher for ten years, but most of the 'innovative' programs I have heard about would not give me any additional pay or similar incentives. I would most likely have to change jobs (either by district or state) to qualify for many of the incentives. Does this seem like a fair way to handle experienced educators? Certainly not.

If we are serious about altering the ways in which we pay teachers, then we should consider the fact that at the secondary level core area teachers (English, History, Science, and Mathematics) receive the same pay as any other teacher who is at the same level of experience (Physical Education, Family Life and Consumer Sciences, or Keyboarding). All of these teachers are essential parts of the school, and the school could not function properly without each of them; however, if we are saying that pay scales should be changed, then should we not start with this distinction. People cite the need to identify 'high-needs' areas--where there are shortages of teachers--such as mathematics, science, and special education--as the starting point for distinguishing a new pay scale. If we make these distinctions, then how do we justify the important role of music teachers, art teachers, technical or skills teachers, or foreign language teachers to the students. How do we say to a group of teachers that "you are not as important to our children as this other group of teachers"? or do we say instead that "the core area teachers are more important to the future of our society than other teachers"? If we say these things, are any of them true?