Free

The recent crisis involving state budget shortfalls has once again spilled over into the debate about whether government is too inefficient, or whether it is simply under-funded. As usual, schools will be asked to take the biggest cuts, and the governor has gone so far as to ask teachers to take a pay cut by working a number of days for free.
As a teacher that recently paid $40,000 in student loans to get my masters degree so that I could become a teacher, I find this suggestion outrageous. Teachers are already paid far below other professionals with similar experience and education. Some argue that this is because teachers have summers off, but in reality teachers are paid for a 180 day (or thereabouts) contract, so this is a non-issue.
The real issue is the blatant hypocrisy and myopic disregard with which education is regularly treated. Politicians know that the general public believes a good education to be a laudable goal, so they trumpet it throughout their campaigns, but as soon as they take office, education resumes its usual role: the first budgetary item to get cut, the last to get more funding. Likewise, the general public says that they want a good education for their kids, but heaven forbid they have to pay for it—and every time the teacher’s union threatens to strike or refuses to take a pay cut, they call us greedy and mock our profession. Funding for public education is the classic case of people wanting to have their cake and eat it too.
Let me make a couple of points perfectly clear: 1) the teachers union, as with most unions, exists because the nature of the relationship between employee and employer (the state) is such that the employee would be paid as little as possible (well evidenced by recent events) if it were totally under the employer’s control. This, in general, is actually a positive thing for parents and taxpayers, because a union contract ensures that teachers are well-trained, licensed professionals.
2) Many teachers, myself included, chose the profession because it is relatively stable, knowing that with low risk (job security) comes low reward (small salary). Asking teachers to sacrifice their salaries, because other people entered professions with high risk and high reward, is like penalizing the shop keeper that locked his doors because the butcher next door left his open. I’m sorry that people have lost their jobs, but to quote the rich entrepreneur in Jurassic Park, “I don’t blame people for their problems, but I do ask that they pay for them.”
3) If people want to reduce the budget for schools, how about evicting the thousands of illegal immigrants that have flooded this nation whose children we are now educating. Look, I care about all of my students, but if we are forced to make tough decisions about the cost of public education, we could drastically reduce class sizes and the need for a large number of resources by eliminating students that are not citizens of this country. Philanthropy is wonderful—if you can pay for it. I would argue that in our current crisis, we cannot. I cannot stress enough that this has nothing to do with race. It has everything to do with money.
4) Teachers already spend more time than they are paid for helping students in our system of public education. People say we’re greedy for not wanting to work for free, but if that same person pointing their finger was asked to do the same, my guess would be that his answer would be, “no.” But you know what? I will work for free. Absolutely. If Willamette University forgives my student loans; if the banks want to forgive my credit card debt; if my landlord agrees to lower my rent, the electric company lowers my rate, and I can get cable and gasoline for free. If they all agree to “stop being greedy,” then yes, of course, I will work for free. Until that day, however, I say no, I will not work for free. Not until everyone else does.