Mitt Romney wants higher starting salaries for teachers

Return To Article
Add a comment
  • worf Mcallen, TX
    Oct. 1, 2012 1:09 p.m.

    Because of socialism, fewer entitlements, and poverty,- people in other countries feel greater urgency for education then people here.

    They don't have the safety net, therefore education is important for survival..

  • FT salt lake city, UT
    Oct. 1, 2012 12:20 p.m.

    Oh Mitt this election cannot get over fast enough. Outside of your old ward and the state of Utah will you have any credibilty left?

  • Fred44 Salt Lake City, Utah
    Oct. 1, 2012 5:58 a.m.


    The first thing I am unable to verify your numbers for South Korea high schools, but for the sake of argument lets say you are right. The big difference in Korea is that students are tested at age 15 and then moved either into academic tracks or vocational tracks. Those attending academic track schools will then be tested again before they are allowed to enter into college. In other words it is very competitive. You can put 100 students in a classroom if they are motivated and their parents are motivated and you can teach them. Put 10 kids who aren't motivated and who have no parental support in class and that class will be much more difficult to teach than the one with 100 motivated students.

    And by the way South Korean parents and students have almost no choice in terms of where their students will be placed. So if the South Korea model is what we want great lets adopt it, but that does away with charter schools, and vouchers.

  • RedShirt USS Enterprise, UT
    Sept. 28, 2012 8:35 a.m.

    To "eagle" prove it. Once the current average is 40 to 50, there is no justification for giving teachers more. Right now the average class size is 22.2 students in each highschool class. If class size was such a key ingredient in success, then why is it that in Korea they have 40 to 50 students in a class and are able to get better outcomes?

  • eagle Provo, UT
    Sept. 27, 2012 7:30 p.m.


    Hundreds, perhaps thousands of secondary Utah teachers already have 40-50 kids in their classrooms. They just aren't getting the better pay and are losing benefits on top of that.

  • lost in DC West Jordan, UT
    Sept. 27, 2012 4:48 p.m.

    LDS Lib,
    I don't recall seeing anywhere in the article where Romney says the feds should pay for the increase. nice twist and obfuscation on your part.

    You say someone thinks voters are stupid? BO's level of support of proof that they are

  • LDS Liberal Farmington, UT
    Sept. 27, 2012 4:13 p.m.

    Please explain HOW "President" Romney at the Federal Level,
    is going to increase Salaries and such for Teachers....

    When all that is decided and paid for by the STATES?

    He should know that as a former Governor.

    Me thinks, He thinks Voters are stupid and will believe anything he says...

  • lost in DC West Jordan, UT
    Sept. 27, 2012 1:35 p.m.

    There you go again,
    Nice twist and obfuscation!
    A common truism stated by conservative is the unions care only about the teachers and not education, which is quite different from what you said.

    paying teachers is NOT the responsibility of the federal government - it belongs with the states. (10th amnedment to the constitution) But since when did the constitution matter to dems?

  • RedShirt USS Enterprise, UT
    Sept. 27, 2012 1:01 p.m.

    To "LDS Liberal" the socialism has nothing to do with the performance of the schools in those countries. It is all due to culture. Singapore and Korea have cultures that demand the kids do well. In Finland, only the college bound kids are in school past age 16.

    If we are going to copy those countries, and pay teacher more, lets do it. We just have to get the teachers on board with having 40 to 50 kids in their Highschool classes. Wound't it be easier to pay teachers more if there were more students per teacher?

    If teachers want to raise the starting wages, they need to limit the supply of teachers. If becoming a teacher was like becoming an MD, that would drive the supply of teachers down, and force the starting salaries up.

  • JMHO Southern, UT
    Sept. 27, 2012 12:39 p.m.

    Romney is right. Higher starting salaries would help. Romney is also right. The Federal Government has nothing to do with the first point. The Federal Government's role in public education is through the IDEA not the basic funding. Basic education funding (including teacher's salaries) come from the states. It is possible to do both things he said.

  • louie Cottonwood Heights, UT
    Sept. 27, 2012 8:47 a.m.

    Another "etch-a-sketch" moment for Romney. What would he really say if he were to be elected it.

  • Fred44 Salt Lake City, Utah
    Sept. 27, 2012 7:41 a.m.

    Only took 7 comments before teachers unions were mentioned as the problem of education, that could be a record for an article mentioning public education. The one consistent about thing about Mr. Romney he will say anything at anytime to try to get a vote even if it completely contradicts what he said 10 minutes ago.

  • TeaGuy Seattle, WA
    Sept. 26, 2012 11:16 p.m.

    So he knows how to fix it (public schools and higher pay for teachers) and will do the exact opposite (cut funding for education and privatize it with charter schools that have been proven not to work)

    Yahhh that sounds like Romney. (Today). When he gets flack for that idiocy, I am sure he will "evolve" again....

  • worf Mcallen, TX
    Sept. 26, 2012 9:07 p.m.

    Let's just stay with Obama. No one can match his greatness.

    After his November victory, let's all get together and pay for his vacations, and golf games.

  • Tolstoy salt lake, UT
    Sept. 26, 2012 9:05 p.m.

    why the nay sayers? maybe because the Romney alternatives of vouchers and charter schools have already proven a failure

  • There You Go Again Saint George, UT
    Sept. 26, 2012 7:09 p.m.

    Today, romney wants higher starting salaries for teachers.

    Yesterday, romney told voters teachers only care about unions.

    Tomorrow, romney...

    Who knows?

  • SoCal Andy Thousand Oaks, CA
    Sept. 26, 2012 6:19 p.m.

    What's with the naysayers. The current system obviously doesn't work. Are kids are falling farther behind the rest of the world and some (mostly current, union teachers, I presume) don't want to look at meaningful reform. It's no wonder we are falling behind.

  • Donny Orem, UT
    Sept. 26, 2012 5:24 p.m.

    Mitt, I hope you are elected President, but you're nothing more than a politician!

  • LDS Liberal Farmington, UT
    Sept. 26, 2012 5:05 p.m.

    The report identifies Finland, Singapore and South Korea as countries with top-performing education systems.


    The report should also make note Finland, Singapore and South Korea are all Socialist countries as well.

    Along with Sweden, Norway, Germany, and Japan.

    One truism with Capitalism -- you get what you pay for.

  • I M LDS 2 Provo, UT
    Sept. 26, 2012 5:03 p.m.

    Mitt honestly believes all he has to do is move into the White House and his mere presence will magically fix everything, including increasing teachers' salaries.

    Is this guy for real?

  • Jonathan Eddy Payson, UT
    Sept. 26, 2012 4:59 p.m.

    'Mitt Romney wants higher starting salaries for teachers'

    Good! Mr. Future President, go read the Constitution (Amendment #10) and then get out of our way.

  • Happy Valley Heretic Orem, UT
    Sept. 26, 2012 4:56 p.m.

    Romney specifically cited increasing starting salaries as a way to improve U.S. school systems, but he said if he were elected president, he would not increase federal education spending or attempt to address teacher salaries or recruitment at the federal level. Instead, his further comments focused on voucher programs and charter schools, despite evidence charter schools fail to outperform public schools on national tests.

    So what he really meant was after he dismantles the public education system, and hands it over to for-profit schools, THEY will pay the teachers more.


    What is with "Vouchers" and the republicans?

  • worf Mcallen, TX
    Sept. 26, 2012 4:52 p.m.

    How about higher pay for those who are retired?

    Not fair! My starting salary as a teacher was $11,000.