AS OF LATE, the debate over teacher pay has seemed only to escalate further as educators and non-educators weigh in on what is, or should be, an appropriate pay level for public school teachers. As many of you already know, school teachers are among the lowest paid professionals based on the level of education, preparation and training, required to perform their job. In fact, more than 57 percent of teachers in Clark County have a Master's Degree or above.

Locally, teachers earn anywhere from a starting pay of just over $30-thousand dollars to upwards of $50-thousand dollars plus for a teacher at the top of the pay scale. Up until somewhere in the 1960s, teachers were paid on a nine-month basis, consistent with the length of the school year.

Which meant that for three months during the summer months when school was not in session, they received no district pay, unless they performed supplemental duties, such as teaching summer school. During that period, teachers who didn't work during the summer often lagged behind in installment payments which placed them in personal financial jeopardy. Faced with such a dilemma, the school district intensified its efforts at the bargaining table to change the way teachers were paid. This resulted in the terms of the negotiated teachers' agreement being revised to state that teacher pay would be pro-rated over a twelve month period for work performed during the nine months when school is in session. Thus the current arrangement resulted for teachers to be paid for a 184-day contract spread out in payments over 12 months.

I have always argued that teacher pay would be less of an issue if teachers were given an option to work 12 months of the year and receive a 25 percent boost in pay. Even so, I surmise some residents might still argue that teachers are underpaid, and I wouldn't necessarily disagree with that premise. But get this! Each one percent pay raise granted to teachers costs the district $9 million dollars. On that basis, a 10 percent teacher pay raise would cost $90 million dollars. The questions is, where would the money come from to fund such a substantial teacher pay increase? The short answer, is from taxpayers like you and I. It would be highly unlikely that one-shot monies or a state surplus in any given year would be a reliable source for a significant increase in teacher pay. Why? Because these sources of funding are temporary. You would need a reliable, sustainable source to ensure the continuation of teacher raises once they are enacted.

The question remains, whether the current level of teacher pay is sufficient to continue to attract persons to the teaching field to replenish the dwindling supply of instructors in district classrooms. What we do know is that current teacher recruitment efforts are falling far short of being able to secure enough candidates to staff our schools adequately. With the cost of living, and especially housing ever rising, it is nearly impossible for a teacher to move here from another part of the country and afford to live, without the benefit of a second job or other help.

What appears clear to me is that teacher pay will remain a hot topic for public debate an discussion until or unless the next, or a future session of the Nevada Legislature addresses the problem head-on and finally decides to enact a lasting solution into law.