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.

[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".

[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 !!!
.

[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.

[Ian Curtis]

Originally Posted by Chris is me

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.

Can you expand on why it is a comically flawed assumption?

Originally Posted by JesseK

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.

I don't think this is true. It takes capital to run a business and invest in R&D, and businesses don't have that kind of capital sitting around. In December 2006, the Ford Motor Company was hemorrhaging cash with no clear turnaround. They went to investment banks and mortgaged the entire company for some $23.6 billion. Ford is now profitable, and was the only one of the Big Three that didn't go to Uncle Sam to get bailed out. While they cut back big then, their recovery is remarkable, recently reaching an agreement with the UAW to bring on some additional 12,000 workers by 2012. Obviously, they need to hire engineers to design the new cars too.

When the airplanes are sold to the airlines, the airlines purchases are all financed. Airlines have notoriously slim margins, they don't keep bales of cash in the back room.

Good investment bankers move money... but they move it to places where they can make the most off of it. Banks don't like to see defaults, they like to see those interest payments.

How do you create wealth without generating economic growth? People certainly get overenthusiastic and cause bubbles, but during the dot-com bubble and the housing bubble there were plenty of people making real money from others overly-enthusiastic viewpoints.

[JesseK]

Originally Posted by Ian Curtis

I don't think this is true. It takes capital to run a business and invest in R&D, and businesses don't have that kind of capital sitting around. In December 2006, the Ford Motor Company was hemorrhaging cash with no clear turnaround. They went to investment banks and mortgaged the entire company for some $23.6 billion. Ford is now profitable, and was the only one of the Big Three that didn't go to Uncle Sam to get bailed out. While they cut back big then, their recovery is remarkable, recently reaching an agreement with the UAW to bring on some additional 12,000 workers by 2012. Obviously, they need to hire engineers to design the new cars too.

When the airplanes are sold to the airlines, the airlines purchases are all financed. Airlines have notoriously slim margins, they don't keep bales of cash in the back room.

Good investment bankers move money... but they move it to places where they can make the most off of it. Banks don't like to see defaults, they like to see those interest payments.

How do you create wealth without generating economic growth? People certainly get overenthusiastic and cause bubbles, but during the dot-com bubble and the housing bubble there were plenty of people making real money from others overly-enthusiastic viewpoints.

I-bankers net around $100k after bonuses in their first year of employment. That $100k rounds out to roughly $30/hr since 1st-year i-bankers work 90+ hours per week, yet that still pales in comparison to the roughly $40k per year at 60+ hours a week. Why? The hours get better as an i-banker, while as a teacher they do not. The compensation can get far better for an i-banker, whereas a teacher's salary is randomly frozen for whatever budget reason. On top of that, i-bankers' bonuses usually have much larger swings that correlate with the economy. I few i-banker guys I knew from college grossed $200k last year after 3 years with a firm.

I still fail to see why an investment banker, with an average salary + bonus package of $100k+ starting out has the skill to merit so much larger of a salary than a teacher, which is the context of the article. Averaged over 3 years, the best "newbie" i-bankers can net over $500k (was $750k in the bubbles, $200k in the busts), whereas the best "newbie" teachers will be lucky to net $150k. Teachers may have other means of compensation that come about later, but in too many instances those means of compensation are threatened and eliminated. Additionally, i-bankers are able to invest magnitudes more of their personal money in order to generate even more wealth: an opportunity that most teachers simply do not have due to numbers alone.

How much these two professions make is more due to the focus of their careers (generating wealth vs. generating knowledge) rather than their actual skills. That the authors argue to reduce teacher compensation further based upon skill sets is (IMO) unscrupulous.

[waialua359]

With a degree in EE, MBA, teaching certificate in Science and Math with 18 years of experience in education, here are a few "general" comments:
1. Teachers in general are underpaid for the high expectations and "miracles" they are supposed to perform day in and day out. Whether they reach it or not, is another debate.
2. Teachers are not equipped with the facilities, adequate training, and time to do a good job.
3. The support staff you often see in businesses that are "essential" to surviving, are not found in schools. Teachers are often left with the task of doing it all.
4. While some may argue that many teachers are not highly qualified or intelligent enough vs. those in industry, I personally feel it's not the most important attribute. I've seen enough people with PhD's that cant even teach a simple lesson that students will understand and apply.
Personal determination and a caring attitude goes a long way in getting kids to learn and apply themselves.

[JamesBrown]

Originally Posted by JesseK

How much these two professions make is more due to the focus of their careers (generating wealth vs. generating knowledge) rather than their actual skills. That the authors argue to reduce teacher compensation further based upon skill sets is (IMO) unscrupulous.

I think the vast majority of people in finance are drastically over paid for what they do. However, it is also important to keep in mind who is paying these salaries, public school teachers are being paid by the school department they work for through public funds, Investment bankers are paid by a private company that is making money directly off of their work, Investment bankers get paid a lot of money because they generate a lot of money for the company.

I also hate how much generalization there is in this thread about hours worked. I agree that the vast majority of good teachers work significantly longer hours than they are paid for, and I agree that these teachers are underpaid. However I also know that it is not true that every teacher (or in many schools even most teachers) are working 60+ hours a week. I know teachers here in Virginia that are at happy hour by 4 on school days, and they aren't going home after that to draw up lesson plans, I hear simmilar stories from friends who teach in NY, MA, and RI. Some teachers are teachers because they can be out of work by 3 and have school vacations and summers off. These are not the good teachers, however in nearly all school departments they recieve identical pay and benefits to the teachers putting in long days and spending their nights and weekends grading and preparing. That I believe is the fundamental flaw in the way teachers are compensated.

In nearly every other industry your salary after a couple years when your success can be viewed is based on your contribution, the better you do, the more you make. In education this is almost never the case, in almost all teachers unions it is simply the longer you teach the more you make. Teaching isn't unique in that the top workers invest significantly more time (unpaid OT) than the rest of the workers, as was stated before it is very common in engineering (and finance) as well. It is not uncommon for me to work 10 hours on a regular day, nor is it uncommon for me to work weekends, or even to spend more time at work than at home when a project is due or when a customer has a problem. 40 hour weeks are a joke in the engineering world, some people are in at 9 and out at 5 but they are the minority. The difference between all of this unpaid OT in the engineering world and in education is that I know that my contributions are being recognized and that I will be compensated for that extra work in the long run (through raises and promotions) most school systems don't offer this kind of benefit.

It is also worth noting that it is significantly easier to earn a degree in education than in most other fields. It is not however easy by any means to earn that degree and be able to effectively apply it in a real classroom. The fact that it is so much easier to earn and education degree than it is to teach is the reason that so many unqualified teachers are out there, I know that teachers often point out that teaching isn't the 8-3 180 day a year hanging out with kids all day job as many like to dedscribe it, however there are a lot of people who go into education looking for that job and many who even manage to stick around and not work much more than those hours.

(note: that I don't intend to offend any teachers, however I am sure you all know teachers who don't put in that extra effort. I know that there is no way to be an effective teacher only working the hours you get paid for, and I am willing to bet that any of the teachers crazy enough to devote the number of hours to FIRST that are necessary are likely at the table grading papers after work, not at the bar enjoying half priced appetizers)

[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.