Education Reform Now and National Parents Union make a compelling case in their new report that the profession of nursing offers a way out of teacher shortages in special education, multi-lingual learners, and STEM fields. One of the proof points is New Jersey. 

“Investing in Educators: The Imperative of Differentiated Pay for Teaching in Hard-to-Staff Assignments and Specializations” examines “chronic domain-specific teacher shortages, declining student enrollment, budget-induced layoffs, and lagging student outcomes.” How do we fill those holes as  school leaders come to terms with a shrinking revenue base and the increasing need for effective teachers, whether in posh Montclair or beleaguered Trenton? Look to the parallel field of nursing— also dominated by hard-to-staff specializations—which relies on a tool largely unused in education: differentiated pay.

In other words, instead of wringing our hands and lowering teacher certification standards, what if we adopt the model used by the medical profession: pay teachers more for working in hard-to-fill specialties and hard-to-staff schools? 

What works for nursing would work for teaching, the authors surmise. Why not use this supply/demand model to reduce shortages in specific fields, especially since the demographics and education requirements are similar? Also, one of the largest collective bargaining units for nurses is none other than the American Federation of Teachers. Why is it okay for unionized nurses to benefit from differentiated pay but not unionized teachers?

“The field of nursing, with its similarities to teaching,” write the authors, “offers a lesson on how to remediate inequities and “improve educator effectiveness: provide differentiated pay for hard-to-staff assignments and specializations to get the best teachers to where we need them most.”

One of the examples used in the report compares a hospital system and a school district in Central Jersey: New Brunswick’s Rutgers-affiliated medical campuses employ many nurses while, twelve miles away, Perth Amboy Public Schools, which employs about 1,000 teaching staff, struggles to fill vacancies: currently Perth Amboy is advertising for staff to fill more than 70 educational positions.

It’s worth noting that three out of four Perth Amboy third-graders can’t read at grade level and nine out of ten seventh-graders can’t do math in spite of an annual cost per pupil of $25,000. Wouldn’t students benefit if Perth Amboy became a more attractive place to work because NJEA agreed to bonuses for teachers willing to work in low-income districts and in hard-to-fill positions?

Just like nurses.

At Rutgers University NJ, registered nurses receive evening and overnight differentials of $3.50 per hour (10% of their lowest pay rate as of 2021) as well as a weekend differential of $2.00 per hour  (6% of their lowest pay rate). Certain hard-to-fill specialities (like anaesthesiology) command high salaries compared to easy-to-fill areas. That’s how Rutgers keeps its hospitals well-staffed.

However, write the authors, “the differentials for teachers in nearby Perth Amboy pale in comparison to those for nurses in nearby New Brunswick.” While the existing contract (recently renewed) does have codified differentials for dual language and bilingual teachers and special education teachers, there are only annual stipends of $2,500 (5% of the lowest pay rate) and $1,000 (2%), respectively.  There is no differential for teaching at a high-poverty school district that struggles to fill hard-to-staff positions.

Is it worth mentioning that the superintendent of Perth Amboy has a contract that paid him $272,120 last year; in 2028 he’ll get $312,263, as well as a monthly expenses reimbursement of $500? Why is differentiated pay good enough for(non-unionized) superintendents but not good enough for (unionized) school teachers?

Teachers deserve to make more money. Let’s start with the basic economic principle of supply and demand.