The Incredible Efficiency of Teacher Salaries

[Guest Raids]

I do however think that the breakdown of teacher pay by seniority is a little messed up. A great first year teacher who gets great test results, great student ratings, great faculty ratings, and great peer ratings should get paid more, and a very senior teacher who gets the reverse of all those things should be paid less.

The seniority disparity between teachers is crazy - you have the same people doing the same thing and some are making $30K and others are making $115K. That's nuts. Maybe start with $30K base pay, increase at 3-5%/year, and then do the rest as yearly merit pay or a bonus. Or maybe that puts too much incentive on screwing with your stats. Maybe child performance shouldn't be a part of that. Or maybe $50K should be base pay, and the rest should be performance-based bonuses.

So, in the end, when people say teachers are paid too much or paid too little, they're both right. It just depends on who they are talking about. OTOH, a senior but excellent teacher is, IMO, worth every penny of $100K. I don't think that's too much to pay for a great teacher. I just think a brand new but excellent teacher is also worth that amount.

[Kat]

I wouldn't generalize on anything about the oversupply of teachers or barriers to entry on a nationwide basis. Then again, I just turned in an application to a teaching credential program which required the following documentation just to get into the program:

1. Application and Statement of purpose (2)

2. Transcripts from all post-high school education (2)

3. Letters of recommendation (3)

4. Proof of 45 hours of volunteering in a classroom similar to the one I'd teach in (1)

5. Proof of knowing a second language (had to track down my high school transcript) (1)

6. Negative TB test (1)

7. Fingerprint clearance (1)

8. Basic skills passing score (1)

9. Subject matter passing score (1)

I also have to go prove my knowledge of the US Constitution before I can get a credential. In any case, those are the barriers to entry just to get into the most basic post-bac credential program, and most of the documentation is necessary for one part of the credential or another. It cost hundreds of dollars to get all that documentation and required more work than any job application or college application I've filled out. (The subject and basic skills tests took around 10 hours to complete.) There are very few undergraduate programs in education in the state.

You could say that I'm stupid for going through all this when I have a B.S. and am close to having an M.S. as well. You're probably right. I'm going through it because I have loathed working in the private sector and want job security. Additionally, I'm good at teaching and enjoy doing it, and there's a shortage of teachers in my subject area. I know I'm not going to get paid loads of money, but one thing I really do not look forward to is, for the rest of my life, having to justify to people that I am not undereducated, stupid, or going into a job that is easy to get into and has no standards. I'm not going to say the standards are perfect; in my opinion, the subject tests were too easy to pass and the basic skills test was a waste of time. But the idea that, nationwide, there are no barriers to entry and that this justifies low wages is laughable when there are still areas with teacher shortages.

ETA: Tormund, shouldn't you be comparing the average national teacher salary to the average salary of someone with a college degree? Comparing to the overall average is kind of an apples-and-oranges situation. Just saying.

[Solmyr]

The average teacher's salary (nation wide) is $50,000*. $50,000/180 days = $277.77/per day/30 students=$9.25/6.5 hours = $1.42 per hour per student--a very inexpensive baby-sitter and they even EDUCATE your kids! WHAT A DEAL!

Someone must step up and defend the unjustly accused babysitters!

I'm sure if babysitters were allowed to babysit as many as 30 kids at the same time, thus getting ~$45 per hour, amounting to as much as $250 per evening, not only would they not complain, but they will star in less adult movies to make up for the little money they actually get.

Babysitting is also an evening job most of the time. Naturally, it has to pay more.

If a kid is misbehaving at school, you expel it. If it's misbehaving at your babysitting job and you can't deal with it, you need to quit.

Last but not least, most university teachers are only teaching part-time, they have other jobs or their own businesses.

[Eponine]

It's not very realistic to assess what each individual parent should pay for a babysitter and add that all together. Even a normal babysitter usually doesn't charge a family with four kids four times as much as a family with one kid. For one thing, the babysitter's time commitment doesn't decrease linearly with fewer kids. She has to be just as present for one kid as with multiple kids. Even with just one kid, the teacher would still have to make the same presentations and allocate the class time in the same way.

When I was laid off, I looked into teaching math in Denver. I saw that at both high schools and community colleges, the demand for math teachers was fairly high - there were a lot of open job positions. The high school opportunities that I looked at were designed for career changers. They offered immediate full time positions at full salary while working toward licensure. It turned out that full salary was $35,000 - 37,000.

I assume that the teachers unions or some other organization keep there from being too much variance between salaries for each subject? I remember having this conversation before, but don't remember the answer. If that's what most math-related jobs paid, the amount per student wouldn't really factor into my assessment of whether the salary was fair. What made it truly unappealing was the comparative disadvantage with other math-related jobs.

[Swordfish]

I do however think that the breakdown of teacher pay by seniority is a little messed up. A great first year teacher who gets great test results, great student ratings, great faculty ratings, and great peer ratings should get paid more, and a very senior teacher who gets the reverse of all those things should be paid less.

True.

I blame the unions for that.

[Fez]

I do however think that the breakdown of teacher pay by seniority is a little messed up. A great first year teacher who gets great test results, great student ratings, great faculty ratings, and great peer ratings should get paid more, and a very senior teacher who gets the reverse of all those things should be paid less.

The seniority disparity between teachers is crazy - you have the same people doing the same thing and some are making $30K and others are making $115K. That's nuts. Maybe start with $30K base pay, increase at 3-5%/year, and then do the rest as yearly merit pay or a bonus. Or maybe that puts too much incentive on screwing with your stats. Maybe child performance shouldn't be a part of that. Or maybe $50K should be base pay, and the rest should be performance-based bonuses.

So, in the end, when people say teachers are paid too much or paid too little, they're both right. It just depends on who they are talking about. OTOH, a senior but excellent teacher is, IMO, worth every penny of $100K. I don't think that's too much to pay for a great teacher. I just think a brand new but excellent teacher is also worth that amount.

Also the "last in, first out" policy means that bad teachers who've been around for a while get to just sit around and see their salary slowly grow while good new teachers can be the situation where they are constantly starting over at entry-level salary at district after district.

[Guest Raids]

True.

I blame the unions for that.

We all do.

Just note that while I think this is grossly unfair to teachers, who ostensibly bargain for it themselves, it appears to have little to no effect on students, who regularly do much better in countries with much stronger unions than we have, and in states, like New York, with strong unions.

[Swordfish]

We all do.

Just note that while I think this is grossly unfair to teachers, who ostensibly bargain for it themselves, it appears to have little to no effect on students, who regularly do much better in countries with much stronger unions than we have, and in states, like New York, with strong unions.

While you may be right, and are probably just summarizing for brevity which is fine, I don't think you can make that conclusion based just on those two data points.

[Guest Raids]

While you may be right, and are probably just summarizing for brevity which is fine, I don't think you can make that conclusion based just on those two data points.

Agreed.

[Swordfish]

Agreed.

Is....

Is that.....

The sound of 16 thundering hooves I hear???

;)

[Guest Raids]

I'm still making up my mind on the effects of teacher's unions on education. I was formerly of the opinion that they were one of the major sources of the poor educational system in the U.S., but I read articles that raised the points I mentioned above, amongst other points, and now I'm not sure. I posted full versions in the previous Wisconsin thread - one is in Slate and it's about Michelle Rhee.

[Liadin]

Still, I survived, and so can they.

My point is that 30k does seem harsh, but when there are other factors working in your favor it is not as bad as it seems. Nor are teachers the only ones who get the salary shaft coming out of college. They're just some of the most vocal about it.

If we were only talking about right out of college, this would be a non-issue. Someone was throwing around figures like $115k earlier, and I don't doubt that that happens in some places, for teachers with an advanced degree or two and ~30 years on the job. But not all school districts go up that high by any means, nor can you "work your way up" within 5-10 years. And keep in mind that most people start families at some point in their 20s or 30s: what worked great for you as a single person wouldn't work so well for somebody with a couple of kids, and possibly supporting a stay-at-home parent too. And then there's buying a house and all the other things most people expect to do once they get toward middle age. If you have a college degree and you're working hard, by the time you reach your 30s you expect to be able to live comfortably.

Not to say most teachers are living in poverty, because they're not. But it's a bit unfair to say "I could live well on that at age 22 as a single person with no dependents, so that's enough for anybody!" And I doubt it's a coincidence that most grade school teachers are married women whose spouses also work, either.

[Swordfish]

I'm still making up my mind on the effects of teacher's unions on education. I was formerly of the opinion that they were one of the major sources of the poor educational system in the U.S., but I read articles that raised the points I mentioned above, amongst other points, and now I'm not sure. I posted full versions in the previous Wisconsin thread - one is in Slate and it's about Michelle Rhee.

Yeah.

i am not remotely well versed enough to have an opinion one way or the other on the impact of unions on quality of student education.

i suspect that relatively speaking compensation has little effect on the quality of teachers either way (within limits), but I don't even really know how you'd begin to quantify that.

[Tormund Ukrainesbane]

They are also earning that salary for 9 months of work (blah blah, doing stuff on their own time yadda yadda, I would kill for another month and a half of paid vacation every year)

[Kat]

If we were only talking about right out of college, this would be a non-issue. Someone was throwing around figures like $115k earlier, and I don't doubt that that happens in some places, for teachers with an advanced degree or two and ~30 years on the job. But not all school districts go up that high by any means, nor can you "work your way up" within 5-10 years. And keep in mind that most people start families at some point in their 20s or 30s: what worked great for you as a single person wouldn't work so well for somebody with a couple of kids, and possibly supporting a stay-at-home parent too. And then there's buying a house and all the other things most people expect to do once they get toward middle age. If you have a college degree and you're working hard, by the time you reach your 30s you expect to be able to live comfortably.

I have heard that some charter schools in New York are experimenting with paying teachers over $100k, but in San Francisco, the pay tops out at ~$78k/year for a teacher with 20 years of service and the maximum amount of education. Incidentally, the household income required to purchase the median home in the Bay Area is $150k/year. I'm resigned to renting for the rest of my life, which I'm fine with. I don't expect to be rolling in dough, and this is an area with a high cost of living.

[S John]

If we were only talking about right out of college, this would be a non-issue. Someone was throwing around figures like $115k earlier, and I don't doubt that that happens in some places, for teachers with an advanced degree or two and ~30 years on the job. But not all school districts go up that high by any means, nor can you "work your way up" within 5-10 years. And keep in mind that most people start families at some point in their 20s or 30s: what worked great for you as a single person wouldn't work so well for somebody with a couple of kids, and possibly supporting a stay-at-home parent too. And then there's buying a house and all the other things most people expect to do once they get toward middle age. If you have a college degree and you're working hard, by the time you reach your 30s you expect to be able to live comfortably.

Not to say most teachers are living in poverty, because they're not. But it's a bit unfair to say "I could live well on that at age 22 as a single person with no dependents, so that's enough for anybody!" And I doubt it's a coincidence that most grade school teachers are married women whose spouses also work, either.

But the fact that it is a livable wage is only half of my point. Its a lifestyle choice that you make. You choose that path knowing that teaching will not make you wealthy ahead of time. The salary limitations of becoming a teacher aren't some big secret. Its not like they hand out education degrees and teaching certificates and then say, 'Aha! Gotcha!'

So knowing that ahead of time, at some point most teachers decided that pursuing their passion was more important to them than making boat-loads of money. And they aren't the only profession who makes that choice. In terms of all those professions where passion > compensation, - teachers get some of the best benefits to go along with it.

[TerraPrime]

i suspect that relatively speaking compensation has little effect on the quality of teachers either way (within limits), but I don't even really know how you'd begin to quantify that.

Therein lies the flaw of proposals to peg teacher pay to performance. A lot of what good teachers do is not just teach the subject content, but things like study skills or attitudes to a subject. Many of these things are difficult to quantify and may not even manifest immediately. When people say we should pay teachers based on performance, they usually mean based on some test results that the students produce, at that short window of time. This method of evaluating teaching efficiency is what is being fought by many teachers. However, unions have been more ready to accept peer-evaluations as a measure of teaching quality. It is much easier for someone who teaches to step into the classroom and assess the quality of teaching.

As far as the OP goes, meh. It's a rather silly piece, due to the assumption that the teacher should be paid on a per student basis, when in reality, no tutors will charge like that. It just sort of cuts off it's own legs in terms of argument.

[Liadin]

But the fact that it is a livable wage is only half of my point. Its a lifestyle choice that you make. You choose that path knowing that teaching will not make you wealthy ahead of time. The salary limitations of becoming a teacher aren't some big secret. Its not like they hand out education degrees and teaching certificates and then say, 'Aha! Gotcha!'

No one is claiming that they were fooled into it, and there's a huge range of salaries in between "wealthy" and "all right for a year or two right out of college, with no responsibilities." Nobody's complaining that they're not rolling in dough; the problem is that it's barely middle-class, unless, again, you have a spouse also working full-time.

I have heard that some charter schools in New York are experimenting with paying teachers over $100k, but in San Francisco, the pay tops out at ~$78k/year for a teacher with 20 years of service and the maximum amount of education.

That sounds more like what I was thinking.

[lokisnow]

They are also earning that salary for 9 months of work (blah blah, doing stuff on their own time yadda yadda, I would kill for another month and a half of paid vacation every year)

Wakeup call, Teachers are not getting paid vacation, typically they can opt to have their paycheck to be garnished and then prorated over 12 months, iirc, but they are only paid for the schoolyear. And being able to have it prorated gets complicated quickly if other factors come in to play like summer school (like it can disqualify you from the option depending on the district). But they're not being given paid vacation in the sense that the typical workforce understands paid vacation.

If the union busting that is currently the ferver continues I wonder how long until companies widely start to phase out sick leave, paid vacation etc.

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

Therein lies the flaw of proposals to peg teacher pay to performance. A lot of what good teachers do is not just teach the subject content, but things like study skills or attitudes to a subject. Many of these things are difficult to quantify and may not even manifest immediately. When people say we should pay teachers based on performance, they usually mean based on some test results that the students produce, at that short window of time. This method of evaluating teaching efficiency is what is being fought by many teachers. However, unions have been more ready to accept peer-evaluations as a measure of teaching quality. It is much easier for someone who teaches to step into the classroom and assess the quality of teaching.

Yeah, I think while merit pay probably has some good points, it's no panacea because some of this stuff is just too hard to measure. Teachers (and I suppose professors in terms of their teaching performance) are really difficult to evaluate because they are under no direct observation the vast majority of the time, and the product they produce isn't easy to quantify. It's going to be so subjective and open to dispute that having it in a public setting is going to be extremely difficult because of civil service rules. Everything is going to have to be documented and proven, and that's a huge headache. Someone has to objectively screw up badly before they're going to get fired, which means the consistently below average are likely to keep their jobs because they're too difficult to identify conclusively.

Not nearly as big a problem with private schools.