Public School Teachers Aren't Underpaid (WSJ)

[ebarker]

Originally Posted by Chris is me

Honestly, I'm just glad they steered clear of the all too common but comically flawed argument that "a free market sets the right price!", seeing as public school jobs are not a free market.

With hesitation I step into this discussion.....

Public school jobs are part of the marketplace. It isn't comical nor flawed. It is economics - economics being the physics of money.

To illustrate my point, a couple of years ago our team was at a bill signing with our state governor. It was a bill related to teacher pay.

One of the things that was pointed out was the disparity between supply and demand for different job slots as a teacher. The universities in this state produce roughly 1,000 times more 'soft' teachers then chemistry teachers. 1000:1

The world just doesn't need but so many elementary school teachers. Elsewhere on 'CD' is a thread about why students leave STEM majors. And about 'flipped classrooms'. Chemistry teachers are harder go get into college, harder to get out, and harder to keep.

The hot button issue in teacher compensation is how it is calculated.

Should there be a differential for the subject taught ? Education doesn't live in a vacuum but has to compete in the market place for talent. Should the chemistry major get more money ? The physics of incentive provides the answer. 1000:1

Years ago the Federal Government recognized that they had to pay engineers based on the market place. It used to be that the 'GS' pay scales was much like the education pay scales, based on education and years experience without regard to discipline. I know at one time the engineer scale was 1/2 that in industry.

Schools do not well support FIRST and other STEM after school activities with stipends, nor a STEM pay differential inside the classroom.

The 'credentialing' machine. Should pay be based on their sheepskin? Does having a PhD in education really help a third grade classroom when a BA brings the exact same experience to the 3rd grade art room. Something of a minor arms race in education credentialing exists in providing advanced degrees and other merits so that teachers can earn more money. In many districts the central district office is a whole bunch of educators that have advance through this credentialing process to become senior managers racing toward a juicy retirement. Drive by a district office and count the luxury cars. Do any of them have outside perspectives from business or non-profits ? Do any of them have outside experience in leadership and organizational effectiveness ?

Obviously some teachers benefit from the experience and bring that benefit to the classroom. I'm a long way from convinced that the aggregate activity is worth the total societal cost.

Just to put a really raw face on this thing - let's go with this. Let's say I go into a restaurant and order a meal.

I do not care if the chef went to Cordon Bleu and has a doctorate, or the 'CIA' Culinary Institute of America, or Kell High School cooking class.

The only thing I care about is the perceived value of that meal relative to the money I put on the table. Period.

If I want a better experience MAYBE I might need to spend more for the cook, or the raw ingredients, or maybe we need different raw ingredients, that could cost more or less. And so on.

I'm comfortable in saying some teachers are underpaid, and others are overpaid. The devil is in the details.

On a related tangent I hear someone complaining about the price of gasoline. My immediate reaction is " what is the correct price ? ". Some think is should be MUCH cheaper, some MUCH higher. Petroleum markets are fungible.

Chemistry teacher markets are fungible. Cash is fungible.

Just a little fuel for the fury !!!
.