I’m fairly sure Math and Science teachers tend to be paid more than some of their less heavily demanded counterparts. It’s pretty simple supply and demand, and most people capable of teaching math and science could easily make more money doing something else. Love of teaching will only go so far; at some point there does need to be financial rewards.
Because of a fairly powerful union, teacher salaries do tend to be fairly top-heavy. On the one hand, it’s nice for teachers to know that a raise is coming as they become more experienced. However in terms of actual value, most first, second and third year teachers probably provide a lot more than their more highly paid and experienced colleagues. Private school salaries are a good example of what happens when you don’t have a union; teaching is a pretty decent job at first, but private schools do very little to reward seniority.
Finally, I have a friend who is a teacher, and “Work schedule is 7:00 to 3:00 and with numerous holidays and short days” is at best misleading. Minimally 6:30-3:30 would be more accurate. Yeah, if a teacher has the same class for a decade their prep time is reduced, but there still is grading and test prep (it’s a very lazy teacher who gives the same test year after year hoping students won’t get a copy from an older brother), and there are staff meetings.
In short, teacher pay is a complex issue without easy answers. I think most people can agree that performance has become too uncoupled from pay. It’s intuitive to say we need good, smart people teaching kids, and good pay is what lures smart people into careers. And private schools show exactly how challenging it is to provide a strong education while keeping costs down.
