Public School Teachers Aren't Underpaid (WSJ)

[Ian Curtis]

Wall Street Journal Article

This is a thought provoking recent article from the Wall Street Journal. CD has a relatively high proportion of teachers and people that care deeply about education, so I thought it would be worth sharing.

[EDIT]Of course I made a typo in the title...[/EDIT]

[Travis Hoffman]

"The compensation premium is especially relevant today, as states and localities struggle with budget deficits. Restraining the growth of teacher compensation—in particular, pension and retiree health benefits that outstrip what comparable private-sector workers receive—could help balance budgets and perhaps restore school resources lost to rising labor costs. Broader pay reform should give school administrators greater flexibility to reward the best or most-needed teachers with high salaries and benefits, while encouraging the least effective ones to improve or to leave the profession."

[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.

[Basel A]

My primary dissent to the article's argument is that while public school teachers appear to be overpaid (compared to similarly educated private-sector jobs), this straightforward comparison ignores the idea that public school teaching or even teaching in general should be incentivised to attract better-qualified candidates.

If nothing else, I mainly get the idea that public school teachers should be better educated, even if it's suggested that they should receive lower wages.

Both of the above stem from my view that education is a priority. I would find it hardly believable that anyone who sees FIRST's mission as important would disagree.

P.S. I love the hocus-pocus reasoning. "If we compare teachers and non-teachers with similar AFQT scores, the teacher salary penalty disappears." First, I'd like to get a source for that data. Second, who said the AFQT is a good measure of education and why? Who said it should be used to determine salary and why?

[Alpha Beta]

One important caveat: Our research is in terms of averages. The best public school teachers—especially those teaching difficult subjects such as math and science—may well be underpaid compared to counterparts in the private sector.

Surely those who invest their time in FIRST represent some of the "best", and definitely include those with math and science skills that translate into the private sector. I've seen more than one FRC coach consider a change in profession after working side by side with other engineers.

[sanddrag]

As an FRC student-turned-engineer-turned-teacher I'll go ahead and chime in on this one. There probably is not a huge number of folks with a degree in engineering who went on to teach full time, so I think my view point may be somewhat unique.

First, many people think teaching is easy. For those people, I say go try it and you may have a different opinion. Contrary to popular belief, it's not something just anyone can do.

In terms of pay, it's all public information so I have no problem discussing it. I'll be honest: As a teacher, day for day, I am considerably better off than a friend of mine who graduated at the same time, same degree (Mechanical Engineering), was ranked second in the graduating class, and is now an automation engineer at a medical technology company. I know that must sound rather surprising. He makes about $7k per year more than me, but he works about 256 days per year where I work about 184 (in theory).

Additionally, I have about the best benefits you could ask for. My employer basically spends about $14,000 per year on my benefits and retirement system contributions (8% of salary). My engineer friend has to pay out of pocket for certain things, whereas I do not. Additionally, many private sector jobs are now "at will" contracts. You may go to work one day and find yourself out of a job without much rhyme or reason.

The problem for teachers is that when you calculate pay hour for hour, it ends up being a significantly lower rate. When doing the job well, most teachers do not finish the work within the paid work hours. There is a lot of extra time required. Furthermore, over my first two years of teaching, I'll be out of pocket nearly $2,000 just in classes, tests, certifications, fees, etc that I need in order to keep my job. I know of no other profession in which a newly hired employee must PAY so much out of pocket in order to simply maintain their employment status. That's backward.

Additionally, salaries for teachers are flat-lined for 5 years. Even if you have a Masters degree, the pay is the same starting out, and the increase does not kick in right away. Also, the advancement curve is rather gradual. Where's the incentive to get better at what you do? When you enter the profession, you immediately know that you will not make a dime more for half a decade (unless there is a new contract reached, but with the state of school funding any changes in salary are typically negative). In fact, you will technically be making less over time due to inflation, and furlough days that are now being imposed in many school districts.

While I may have my engineer friend beat for now, in 5 years he will likely be making what would take me 20 years and a Masters to earn in the teaching profession.

However, so far I like my job. I value my time a lot, and having every holiday in existence and breaks off is worth A LOT and not found in too many other professions. It takes many years to perfect, but once a teacher has it figured out where he or she can finish the work within the work day, it can be an attractive career (at the right school).

On the topic of different pay for different subjects, I'm not sure how to comment on that one. Each teacher teaches his or her own specialty. It would be rather arrogant of me to say Engineering is worth more than English. Perhaps my degree was more difficult to earn, but it does not qualify me to teach in English class. From what I've seen so far, effective teaching may have more to do with methods than content, in which case the teacher's degree is somewhat insignificant, so long as the teacher has sufficient knowledge of or desire to learn the content.

EDIT: Additionally, many teachers (especially in technical fields) often end up paying a few hundred dollars per year out of pocket for classroom supplies, and all teachers pay about $1100 per year in teachers association dues.

[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 !!!
.

[RogerR]

Originally Posted by Basel A

My primary dissent to the article's argument is that while public school teachers appear to be overpaid (compared to similarly educated private-sector jobs), this straightforward comparison ignores the idea that public school teaching or even teaching in general should be incentivised to attract better-qualified candidates.

If nothing else, I mainly get the idea that public school teachers should be better educated, even if it's suggested that they should receive lower wages.

Both of the above stem from my view that education is a priority. I would find it hardly believable that anyone who sees FIRST's mission as important would disagree.

P.S. I love the hocus-pocus reasoning. "If we compare teachers and non-teachers with similar AFQT scores, the teacher salary penalty disappears." First, I'd like to get a source for that data. Second, who said the AFQT is a good measure of education and why? Who said it should be used to determine salary and why?

This

While the article begins with admission that teachers make 20% less than similarly educated peers, it goes on to argue that this is apparently deserved because teachers are dumber than everybody else.

If we start with the assumption that teaching is a profession worthy only of the mediocre, and pay as much, what sort of candidates will you attract? A better comparison might be between teacher pay of the countries ahead of us in education...


I'm in the same situation as sandrag; I have a BS in engineering, and am getting my Masters in Ed. Including salary and benefits, even with my masters, I will never make more in education than I did in engineering. On top of this, I have weeks (months?) of unpaid overtime, that is never acknowledged. I also spend significant amounts of my own money to supply my classroom, as the classroom budget is meager enough to begin with. Finally, as sandrag mentioned, there is little in the way of support for earning masters; while a private company may pay for you to further your education, no such opportunity exists (that I know of) in education.

Pay aside, teaching is a much more difficult job than engineering (to me at least). I don't know any teachers who came into the field looking for easy money. We do what we do for the students, and often in spite of the long hours, frequent political scapegoating, and overwhelming level of paperwork. We don't do our jobs because of our mediocre pay. We do our jobs in spite of it.

[JesseK]

In the article they state that good teachers are valuable to a strong economy -- yet also present several pieces of evidence that support their perspective that we are overvaluing our teachers. This implies that they want to disconnect the value of a profession from the value it provides in an economy, which is wierd because they cited several instances (test scores, for example) where more skills should generate more value in the economy. When combined with their argument of compensation versus skillset, transitivity should hold and we get the argument that more value to an economy should net more compensation. Yet they conveniently failed to provide any corollary arguments to support their claims in that higher-compensated positions generate any sort of value in an economy. For example, investment bankers create no organic economic growth (they shift money around ... that's all they do ...), therefore aren't 'skilled' at anything but generating their own (or clients') wealth. They are paid magnitudes more than teachers, who plant the seeds of future organic economic growth. What an oxymoron.

While some of the evidence they present may warrant more investigation and thought with respect to teacher compensation, their bias is obvious. Original paper here.

Here's some more evidence that they're completely biased since they're quoting (in the paper) something that assumes association without proving causation for the basis:

The Journal of Higher Education reported in 1960 that 32 percent of students in education courses received “A” grades, compared to just 16 percent in business courses.

Take your pick for how to pick this one apart:
1.) Just because less people understood Business than understood Education back in 1960 does not mean teachers teachers today are lacking in their skill set compared to their compensation.
2.) Just because more business majors than education majors were lazy in 1960 than teacher doesn't mean teachers today are lacking in their skill set compared to their compensation.
3.) Just because business professors, coming off of the economic boom in the 50's, were harder on their students in 1960 than education professors were, doesn't mean teachers today are lacking in their skill set compared to their compensation.
4.) Even if educational curricula in college were easier in 1960, the authors fail to present evidence that such is the case now, more than 50 years (~2 generations) later.

Final thoughts: they're painting a broad stroke across all teachers by apply the same [often incorrect] assumptions to each discipline, situation, and local economy. WSJ is also a bit late to the game with this one since a very similar article was presented back in April by a different source, yet the WSJ article shows a disturbing trend with these writers. These two guys are incorrect in applying their basic paper of overpaid public workers to every public works profession because the fundamental assumptions they make (regarding privatization of the positions they write about) has historically proven to not be in the best interest of the American economy.

So Chris, they are trying to push their message that "the free market works".

[Jared Russell]

Originally Posted by sanddrag

The problem for teachers is that when you calculate pay hour for hour, it ends up being a significantly lower rate. When doing the job well, most teachers do not finish the work within the paid work hours. There is a lot of extra time required.

Not to nitpick as your post was very informative, but this is currently common among many (private sector) engineering jobs as well.

[RogerR]

Originally Posted by Jared341

Not to nitpick as your post was very informative, but this is currently common among many (private sector) engineering jobs as well.

Most teachers stay past their scheduled time every day. There's simply not enough time within the scheduled 8-hour day (including a planning period) to finish everything that needs to be done. When I worked as an engineer, I stayed frequently (I'd estimate once a week on average), but not everyday.

*I say "most" because I don't like absolutes, though the above statement has held true for every teacher I've known

[Basel A]

Originally Posted by ebarker

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.

I definitely agree with you on this; even as a student it's something about which I've heard. There is a fine line between more education and better education, where many teachers tend toward the former. In my last post I tried to stick with "better-educated." It's really just a more general term, referring to either more education or improving the current education for teachers.

A recent CNN special on Education (you can read about it and, I believe, watch it here) noted the high valuation, both societally and monetarily, of teachers in countries with high-achieving students such as Finland and South Korea. This valuation is justified to those adhering to the OP's article in that their schools of education are very selective; I imagine this allows those schools to have a more rigorous and therefore more effective curriculum (I'm not entirely sure that follows; comments?).

The end-result: teachers who are not more educated but are better-educated, with likely benefits for public schooling. Does that mean more selective schools of education in America would improve schooling? Not necessarily, but probably!

Originally Posted by JesseK

For example, investment bankers create no organic economic growth (they shift money around ... that's all they do ...)

This isn't related to education, but I have an issue with this statement. You seem to suggest that investment bankers are valueless, which is untrue. While they do not create growth, they position money where it will create the most growth. The difference will sometimes be minute, but with large sums of money invested, even small differences are substantial.

[EricVanWyk]

I met someone who told me they started voting to reduce the budget for local education the moment their youngest child graduated high school, because it wasn't their problem anymore.

I am not going to suggest that I know a way to fix the problems that mind-set generates, but in Eric's Perfect World (TM) there are fewer levels of indirection between education policy and those receiving education.

[Chris Fultz]

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.

Why do you say this?

[Chris is me]

Originally Posted by Chris Fultz

Why do you say this?

Mainly, because it's the most common, and I've read it many times. I understand the argument enough that I wanted a fresh challenge of my personal beliefs.