Teacher appreciation starts with better pay, not gifts
The recent controversy over University of Colorado quarterback Shedeur Sanders's NFL draft slot serves as yet another disheartening illustration of our society's skewed priorities.
I find the excessive attention given to athletes during draft season distressing. While their athletic prowess and dedication are undeniable, the intense scrutiny and financial stakes surrounding their professional entry starkly contrasts with the often underappreciated and undercompensated individuals shaping the future of our children: teachers.
While teacher starting salaries will probably never match the $840,000 minimum an NFL rookie commands, prioritizing higher wages is crucial for attracting and retaining top talent.
Advertisement
Skip to end of carousel
Get Michelle's advice free in your inbox Washington Post illustration; Michelle Singletary; iStock (Washington Post illustration; Michelle Singletary; iStock)
You can't borrow your way to wealth. Learn how to save, spend mindfully and talk about money with your family and friends. Sign up for her free newsletter , which hit inboxes on Wednesdays.
End of carousel
What if we approached the recruitment of educators with even a fraction of the fervor we dedicate to the scouting of athletes? What if we had a national teacher draft?
Advertisement
Consider the ripple effect.
💰
Follow Personal finance Follow
Imagine how much better our public school systems would be if we treated teachers like elite athletes. What if we valued education enough to spend the money developing and recruiting young adults into the field, and then providing competitive training camps for them to improve their skills?
No longer would an aspiring teacher hear: 'Don't go into teaching, you won't make much money.'
An educator draft may seem fantastical, yet it underscores a fundamental financial truth: We don't invest well enough in our teachers and their support staff.
Advertisement
This week we observe National Teacher Appreciation Week, which runs until May 9. Google it and you'll find various corporate deals and discounts for educators. Teachers can enter a contest to win a free burrito; get 20 percent off a smoothie; or be treated to a $1.99 double cheeseburger.
Advertisement
Whoopee!
Think about this financial imbalance.
Even though more school districts are lifting starting wages, the national average salary for new teachers in 2023-2024 was only $46,526, according to the National Education Association's annual report on educator pay. This fact from the NEA is sobering: Just 30 percent of school districts pay new teachers a starting salary of at least $50,000.
Advertisement
If you look at the overall average salary, you might be more inclined to think the pay is adequate: The average classroom teacher salary is $72,030. However, that average is skewed by higher-paying states, ranging from highs of $101,084 in California and $95,615 in New York to lows of $53,704 in Mississippi and $54,875 in Florida.
We also need to consider the effects of inflation. The average inflation-adjusted salary of classroom teachers has decreased by an estimated 5.1 percent from 2015-2016 to 2024-2025, the report said, while the average salary for instructional staff has fallen by an estimated 5.6 percent.
Advertisement
In a deeper dive of the financial challenges teachers face, the NEA found that almost 2 in 5 educators have a second job, and a majority — 77 percent — used their own funds for student needs in the 2023-2024 academic year.
Advertisement
Skip to end of carousel
Help me report on DOGE fallout
Are you a federal worker, contractor or small business that's been financially impacted by DOGE activities at federal agencies? If you want to tell your story, contact me by email at michelle.singletary@washpost.com or @MichelleSingletary.29 on Signal, an encrypted messaging system. Read more about how to use Signal and other ways to securely contact The Post.
End of carousel
I have previously written about how my daughter, now a third-year teacher at an elementary school, spends a lot of her money buying supplies for her classroom. A reader challenged this norm, arguing: 'When teachers accept this financial responsibility, it releases school districts from adequately funding education. It creates an opportunity divide between students whose teachers are willing to pick up the tab for classroom supplies and those whose teachers can't or won't spend their limited salaries to do so.'
But this raises a critical question: What happens when adequate funding is absent?
Advertisement
Faced with this reality, educators who have the means — and those who don't — often feel compelled to prioritize the students' needs over the principle of not using personal funds.
Advertisement
The NEA report also highlights that 'low pay limits the ability to attract and retain quality educators in the profession amid a looming educator shortage and sagging educator morale.'
The pipeline problem often forces schools to fill vacancies with long-term substitute teachers because they are unable to find qualified educators. The shortage impacts current staff, emotionally and physically taxing teachers who are asked to teach more students with fewer resources.
That stress is borne out in surveys. Here's what the Pew Research Center reported in spring 2024, when it asked public K-12 teachers about their job satisfaction: 77 percent said their job is frequently stressful, and 52 percent said they would not advise a young person starting out today to become a teacher.
During one holiday season, I asked teachers what presents they would like if they were asked. Many said: Please, no more mugs.
Most said they would request needed supplies for their underfunded classrooms. One educator said she uses gift cards to restock comfort items for her students, such as tissues, snacks, sanitary napkins, lotion, hand sanitizer and other resource materials.
If I asked teachers this week what would make them feel appreciated, I expect many would share what one teacher messaged: 'I love teaching, but I do not love how our educational system is designed or how professionals are disrespected and underfunded. Our job is vital to the health and economy of the entire country, and often we are treated as an afterthought — certainly we are paid as though we are less than.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
New York Times
18 minutes ago
- New York Times
Texas Governor Will Deploy National Guard to Immigration Protests
Gov. Greg Abbott of Texas said late Tuesday that he would deploy National Guard troops across the state, making him the first governor to do so as protests against the Trump administration's immigration crackdown spread across the United States. Mr. Abbott, a Republican and a vocal supporter of President Trump's immigration agenda, said on social media that he would not tolerate violence as protests are planned in San Antonio on Wednesday. The protests that began in Los Angeles last Friday against federal immigration raids have spread to more than a dozen U.S. cities, including Dallas, Austin, Houston and San Antonio. While many of the protests have been peaceful, police have clashed with demonstrators at some of them. Mr. Trump has threatened to override governors who don't want to send National Guard troops to stop protests, like the president did in California, where he sent nearly 5,000 National Guard troops and Marines over the strong objections of state leaders. That has made California ground zero for Mr. Trump's immigration agenda, which includes ramping up deportations of undocumented immigrants with the help of local law enforcement agencies and, in a rare action, active-duty military forces. Mr. Abbott's announcement said that the Texas National Guard will 'use every tool & strategy to help law enforcement maintain order.' 'Peaceful protest is legal,' he added. 'Harming a person or property is illegal & will lead to arrest.' The announcement did not specify where and when the troops will be deployed. Mr. Abbott's office, the San Antonio Police Department, the Texas National Guard and U.S. Northern Command did not immediately respond to requests for comment. On Monday night, more than a dozen protesters were arrested in Austin during a demonstration at the Texas Capitol in Austin, Mr. Abbott had said. Law enforcement officials used tear gas and pepper ball projectiles, the Texas Department of Public Safety said.
CNN
19 minutes ago
- CNN
LAPD pull CNN crew through police line as they disperse protesters
Tensions were high in downtown Los Angeles, as authorities tried to quell a fifth day of anti-ICE protests. CNN Senior Investigative Correspondent Kyung Lah was reporting on the ground.
CNN
19 minutes ago
- CNN
Federal appeals court to hear arguments in Trump's long-shot effort to fight hush money conviction
Five months after President Donald Trump was sentenced without penalty in the New York hush money case, his attorneys will square off again with prosecutors Wednesday in one of the first major tests of the Supreme Court's landmark presidential immunity decision. Trump is relying heavily on the high court's divisive 6-3 immunity ruling from July in a long-shot bid to get his conviction reviewed – and ultimately overturned – by federal courts. After being convicted on 34 counts of falsifying business records, Trump in January became the first felon to ascend to the presidency in US history. Even after Trump was reelected and federal courts became flooded with litigation tied to his second term, the appeals in the hush money case have chugged forward in multiple courts. A three-judge panel of the 2nd US Circuit Court of Appeals – all named to the bench by Democratic presidents – will hear arguments Wednesday in one of those cases. Trump will be represented on Wednesday by Jeffrey Wall, a private lawyer and Supreme Court litigator who served as acting solicitor general during Trump's first administration. Many of the lawyers who served on Trump's defense team in the hush money case have since taken top jobs within the Justice Department. The case stems from the 2023 indictment announced by Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg, a Democrat, who accused Trump of falsely categorizing payments he said were made to quash unflattering stories during the 2016 election. Trump was accused of falsifying a payment to his former lawyer, Michael Cohen, to cover up a $130,000 payment Cohen made to adult-film star Stormy Daniels to keep her from speaking out before the 2016 election about an alleged affair with Trump. (Trump has denied the affair.) Trump was ultimately convicted last year and was sentenced without penalty in January, days before he took office. The president is now attempting to move that case to federal court, where he is betting he'll have an easier shot at arguing that the Supreme Court's immunity decision in July will help him overturn the conviction. Trump's earlier attempts to move the case to federal court have been unsuccessful. US District Judge Alvin Hellerstein, nominated by President Bill Clinton, denied the request in September – keeping Trump's case in New York courts instead. The 2nd Circuit will now hear arguments on Trump's appeal of that decision on Wednesday. 'He's lost already several times in the state courts,' said David Shapiro, a former prosecutor and now a lecturer at John Jay College of Criminal Justice. And Trump's long-running battle with New York Judge Juan Merchan, Shapiro said, has 'just simmered up through the system' in New York courts in a way that may have convinced Trump that federal courts will be more receptive. Trump, who frequently complained about Merchan, has said he wants his case heard in an 'unbiased federal forum.' Trump's argument hangs largely on a technical but hotly debated section of the Supreme Court's immunity decision last year. Broadly, that decision granted former presidents 'at least presumptive' immunity for official acts and 'absolute immunity' when presidents were exercising their constitutional powers. State prosecutors say the hush money payments were a private matter – not official acts of the president – and so they are not covered by immunity. But the Supreme Court's decision also barred prosecutors from attempting to show a jury evidence concerning a president's official acts, even if they are pursuing alleged crimes involving that president's private conduct. Without that prohibition, the Supreme Court reasoned, a prosecutor could 'eviscerate the immunity' the court recognized by allowing a jury to second-guess a president's official acts. Trump is arguing that is exactly what Bragg did when he called White House officials such as former communications director Hope Hicks and former executive assistant Madeleine Westerhout to testify at his trial. Hicks had testified that Trump felt it would 'have been bad to have that story come out before the election,' which prosecutors later described as the 'nail' in the coffin of the president's defense. Trump's attorneys are also pointing to social media posts the president sent in 2018 denying the Daniels hush money scheme as official statements that should not have been used in the trial. State prosecutors 'introduced into evidence and asked the jury to scrutinize President Trump's official presidential acts,' Trump's attorneys told the appeals court in a filing last month. 'One month after trial, the Supreme Court unequivocally recognized an immunity prohibiting the use of such acts as evidence at any trial of a former president.' A White House spokesperson did not respond to a request for comment. If Trump's case is ultimately reviewed by federal courts, that would not change his state law conviction into a federal conviction. Trump would not be able to pardon himself just because a federal court reviews the case. Bragg's office countered that it's too late for federal courts to intervene. Federal officials facing prosecution in state courts may move their cases to federal court in many circumstances under a 19th century law designed to ensure states don't attempt to prosecute them for conduct performed 'under color' of a US office or agency. A federal government worker, for instance, might seek to have a case moved to federal court if they are sued after getting into a car accident while driving on the job. But in this case, Bragg's office argued, Trump has already been convicted and sentenced. That means, prosecutors said, there's really nothing left for federal courts to do. 'Because final judgment has been entered and the state criminal action has concluded, there is nothing to remove to federal district court,' prosecutors told the 2nd Circuit in January. Even if that's not true, they said, seeking testimony from a White House adviser about purely private acts doesn't conflict with the Supreme Court's ruling in last year's immunity case. Bragg's office has pointed to a Supreme Court ruling as well: the 5-4 decision in January that allowed Trump to be sentenced in the hush money case. The president raised many of the same concerns about evidence when he attempted to halt that sentencing before the inauguration. A majority of the Supreme Court balked at that argument in a single sentence that, effectively, said Trump could raise those concerns when he appeals his conviction. That appeal remains pending in state court. 'The alleged evidentiary violations at President-elect Trump's state-court trial,' the Supreme Court wrote, 'can be addressed in the ordinary course on appeal.'
