The Incredible Efficiency of Teacher Salaries

[Aemon Stark]

I don't know that being "underpaid" is much more than a subjective sense of not receiving sufficient compensation for your skills, training, and hours. Are teachers at private schools better paid overall (especially when benefits are taken into account)? I have my doubts.

I'm not sure what a "reasonable" salary for a teacher is, but the relevant comparisons are to other professions with comparable levels of training. (Registered) Nurses, for example, require about the same amount of education, but are probably paid better overall. They don't receive compensation related to the number of people they're responsible for either, but their hours are longer and more irregular and they work in often more stressful environments and deal with more "shit". That's not to forget that teachers end up having to manage classes with many children who pose considerable behavioural challenges (to say nothing of *normal* adolescents). It's not usually just a matter of standing up in front of the class and delivering a lesson.

And three-month vacations? I don't remember ever getting more than July and August off in the summer.

(Oh, and if we're going to discuss "underpaid", as a clinical clerk I work 50-75 hours per week and occasionally more for a stipend that works out to be about $50/week.)

[Swordfish]

Teachers don't exactly have the choice of working extra during the summer to earn an extra $10,000 or so. My understanding is that many of them do teach summer school, do continuing ed classes, etc.--don't know the statistics on how many do it or the details of compensation, but it's not like that automatically bumps it up to a decent salary. (And not everybody has a 3-month vacation.)

And?

None of that changes the fact that they make a middle class salary working nine months a year. If they wanted to get paid for working 12 months a year, they should have chosen a profession where work is available 12 months a year. It's not like the length of the school year is some big secret.

Whether they take three months vacation or not is irrelevant.

And it most certainly IS a decent compensation package. If you admit you don't know the details, i have no idea why you are drawing a conclusion about it.

There's a reason no one offers pension plans anymore, and it isn't because people don't think they are awesome benefits.

So.... Yeah, I'm not seeing the gross unfairness......

It's also important to point out that while there are enough people interested in teaching to fill the positions, we'd have better teachers if they were better paid.

Link?

[Lord of Oop North]

And three-month vacations? I don't remember ever getting more than July and August off in the summer.

I believe the three-month vacation includes Christmas, March Break, Easter, etc. A lot of school boards also have their last day of classes in mid-June, so that would make the summer break 2.5 months. From what I remember, we usually ended in late June. I want to say the third week, but I'm not positive.

[Iskaral Pust]

Drive by post:

The free market, who has been well represented by FLOW and severely (wilfully?) misunderstood by Tzanth, suggests teachers are adequately compensated because there is a constant stream of new applicants each year who are well aware of the compensation package available.

Aside from the evidence of the invisible hand, my personal opinion is that many teachers are quite underpaid in the US, most are paid reasonably well considering their ability and cost of living, and a small few are very overpaid.

Their median pay looks low compared to other college graduates but lets not kid ourselves: the unspectacular and the unmotivated have a significant tendency to hide out in teaching and other public sector jobs. There are, I am sure, many very talented, very motivated people in the teaching profession who create value through inspirational education and who could have been successful in any field they chose, and we are just fortunate that they have a vocation for education, but they are a minority and they are the ones who are under-paid and who should be paid more.

I'd be happy to increase teacher comp by 20%+ (and pay the related taxes), so long as it was based on performance standards and included booting out the incompetent and the complacent.*

I don't support the clubby self-review proposed by unions. Tenure by any other name....

For those who don't think that objective performance measurement is possible, I suggest you read the appropriate chapter in Freakonomics. I would be quite happy with a system that could identify the clearly worst 10% or so and clearly best 10% or so and allow a few years of turnover and replacement to shift the entire bell-curve significantly to the right. Once there is no longer a clearly worst 10%, I'd call that a pretty good achievement alone.

*By choosing private school for my son, I effectively do this directly. But I'd like to see it available for everyone.

[Aemon Stark]

I believe the three-month vacation includes Christmas, March Break, Easter, etc.

I'm sure teachers have no work at all to do during any of those times. And how dare they take statutory holidays!

I'd say that 6-7 weeks is a better estimate of actual real vacation time - still very nice, but not the exorbitant thing it's being made out to be.

Definitely late June, maybe a bit earlier in high school but they were marking exams in that time once we were done classes. I can remember many a sweltering June afternoon in my very-much-lacking-in-A/C elementary school.

[tzanth]

The free market, who has been well represented by FLOW and severely (wilfully?) misunderstood by Tzanth, suggests teachers are adequately compensated because there is a constant stream of new applicants each year who are well aware of the compensation package available.

Where have I said anything about the free market? My only contribution to this thread has been to disagree with FLOW's characterization of jobs in academia.

[Liadin]

And?

None of that changes the fact that they make a middle class salary working nine months a year. If they wanted to get paid for working 12 months a year, they should have chosen a profession where work is available 12 months a year. It's not like the length of the school year is some big secret.

Nobody suggested that it was some big secret. And my point is that $30,000 is not a middle-class salary when you're trying to support a family on it.

Link?

Basic economics?

[mcbigski]

What a stupid thread. Just more economic ignorance from the left. If teachers were entitled to capture the entire gain of their labor then society should be indifferent about paying them or not. And yet every just about every local jurisdiction in the US employs teachers. Teaching is important. Individual teachers aren't worth much. If teaching were actually skilled labor, you might have a better point. Or looked at from the other direction, a Masters of Education is proof that someone is capable of babysitting.

Just because a group of public employees can try to hold the public hostage doesn't make the employees themselves indispensable, however important their job might be in the long run to society.

[Lord of Oop North]

I'm sure teachers have no work at all to do during any of those times. And how dare they take statutory holidays!

But they certainly get more than just statutory holidays. In Ontario, they get ten days off for Christmas holidays. Not to mention a week for March break. Good Friday and Easter Monday (which is not a stat holiday)*. That's already more statutory holidays than the average private sector worker is entitled to take. And that's not even touching the two-month vacation for July and August.

ETA

* Good Friday is a stat holiday, but Easter Monday is not.

[Aemon Stark]

Their median pay looks low compared to other college graduates but lets not kid ourselves: the unspectacular and the unmotivated have a significant tendency to hide out in teaching and other public sector jobs.

I think this is unfair. I'd say that teaching becomes the default choice for many university graduates who aren't necessarily interested or cut out for research and don't know how to translate their degrees into something tangible in another field.

"Other public sector" jobs is kinda broad, isn't it?

[Iskaral Pust]

Where have I said anything about the free market? My only contribution to this thread has been to disagree with FLOW's characterization of jobs in academia.

You completely missed the point that he made (and I restated) and instead went of on a tangent of admirable proportion if not, unfortunately, relevance.

[Lord of Oop North]

Also, I'm sick of people who act like teachers are the only ones who bring work home, or are forced to do work beyond their regular hours. You know what? Boo fucking hoo. Welcome to the life of most of the salaried professional workforce. You're not unique in this regard.

[alguien]

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.

My father's a principal and has mixed opinions on the teacher's unions. On the one hand, it does help protect jobs. On the other, it helps protect jobs of really shitty teachers. Teachers he would have fired instantly if he could.

What he hates is that if he has to make cuts, he can't cut the terrible teachers if they have seniority.

On the other hand: Parent Boards of Education can be pretty insane. Seriously. So I understand why teacher's need some kind of union to watch their back.

ETA: that being said, teaching is one of the most stressful, hardest fucking jobs out there. Anyone who thinks its "cushy" has never been in a classroom and should probably stop talking. FFS :bang:

[Aemon Stark]

But they certainly get more than just statutory holidays. In Ontario, they get ten days off for Christmas holidays. Not to mention a week for March break. Good Friday and Easter Monday (which is not a stat holiday). That's already more statutory holidays than the average private sector worker is entitled to take. And that's not even touching the two-month vacation for July and August.

Good Friday is most certainly a statutory holiday. And I've already pointed out that being out of classes during all those times does not imply a lack of work to do at home or in the school. It's certainly more time off than people in many other professions, but they aren't paid for July and August, regardless of how their salary might be pro-rated over that time. Arguably, that "vacation" is the reason they are presumably underpaid, if at all.

[Iskaral Pust]

I think this is unfair. I'd say that teaching becomes the default choice for many university graduates who aren't necessarily interested or cut out for research and don't know how to translate their degrees into something tangible in another field.

"Other public sector" jobs is kinda broad, isn't it?

You missed the spirit of the drive-by post, which takes some of the fun out of it.

Nonetheless, I don't think I was over-reaching to suggest that most white-collar public sector employees tend to be noticeably unfit for competition in the private sector. As you say yourself, teachers tend to end up there because they are not cut out to do anything else. Should they really expect to make bank?

This applies far beyond teachers unfortunately. Have you been blessedly sheltered from exposure to the public sector? I too was once. I dare you to apply for a trivial land-use permit in an municipality in New Jersey, e.g. to install a lawn sprinkler system. Then write a massive check for taxes to pay the salaries of the ten people who passed around your paper-work unprocessed without ever doing any work apart from writing new petty regulations to justify their continued parasitic existence. Don't become cynical at the first try because you'll need to repeat it several times.

[Lord of Oop North]

Good Friday is most certainly a statutory holiday. And I've already pointed out that being out of classes during all those times does not imply a lack of work to do at home or in the school. It's certainly more time off than people in many other professions, but they aren't paid for July and August, regardless of how their salary might be pro-rated over that time. Arguably, that "vacation" is the reason they are presumably underpaid, if at all.

I meant that they get Easter Monday off, which is certainly not a stat holiday.

I've already posted my thoughts on 'work to do at home'. They're not the only ones who face this issue.

And regardless of whether or not they are 'paid' for July and August, they have a 10 month work year, and (in Canada, at least), they still have a median salary in the range of $45,000 - $52,000 (depending on province). That's certainly in line with the national median household income of this country, and the majority of those households are making their dough over 12 months, with no opportunity for extra.

[Aemon Stark]

You missed the spirit of the drive-by post, which takes some of the fun out of it.

Nonetheless, I don't think I was over-reaching to suggest that most white-collar public sector employees tend to be noticeably unfit for competition in the private sector. As you say yourself, teachers tend to end up there because they are not cut out to do anything else. Should they really expect to make bank?

It's not that they're not cut out to do anything else, but that it becomes the default choice for a lot of new grads. Much like the idea of applying to law school becomes the default idea of someone wanting to become a "professional". And, no, I don't really think they're underpaid. Teachers work hard enough and deal with enough shit that they should be paid a comfortable middle class wage, and regardless of the precise length of their vacation, they get a very respectable amount.

This applies far beyond teachers unfortunately. Have you been blessedly sheltered from exposure to the public sector? I too was once. I dare you to apply for a trivial land-use permit in an municipality in New Jersey, e.g. to install a lawn sprinkler system. Then write a massive check for taxes to pay the salaries of the ten people who passed around your paper-work unprocessed without ever doing any work apart from writing new petty regulations to justify their continued parasitic existence. Don't become cynical at the first try because you'll need to repeat it several times.

Most of my experiences with government services (passport office, vehicle registration yesterday) have been examples of exemplary efficiency, i.e. in and out in 15 minutes or less. Now, I have now worked in hospitals (certainly as public sector as it gets around here) for six months. I would say office staff are all very good, the problems come only with the lowest levels of service staff - food services (often seem not to be doing anything) and worst of all, porters. Not only do they take forever to do anything, but there's usually a couple of them in the library using one of the patient/family computers to review their Facebook news feeds and making a lot of noise in the process. I'd happily fire half of them or at least replace their managers with people who will crack the proverbial whip a bit more often. (I should say that about half the porters are helpful and the other half are lazy unmotivated young people who - admittedly - are in jobs with no career prospects whatsoever. Hospitals are fairly extreme examples of professional hierarchy too. Physicians and nurses tend to be very collegial now but that wasn't the case in the past. In the meantime, RNs have LPNs to look down on who can further look on others. And the way some nursing educators manage the activities and breaks of nursing students is hilariously over-the-top.)

[Shryke]

The best way to determine if an occupation is "underpaid" is to look at how difficult it is to fill available slots, because people aren't going to flock to jobs where the compensation isn't worth the headaches.

Not really. This ignores the effect high salary has on attracting better workers. By your measure, a job isn't underpaid even if we are only attracting the dregs of the potential field.

[Shryke]

Drive by post:

The free market, who has been well represented by FLOW and severely (wilfully?) misunderstood by Tzanth, suggests teachers are adequately compensated because there is a constant stream of new applicants each year who are well aware of the compensation package available.

Aside from the evidence of the invisible hand, my personal opinion is that many teachers are quite underpaid in the US, most are paid reasonably well considering their ability and cost of living, and a small few are very overpaid.

Their median pay looks low compared to other college graduates but lets not kid ourselves: the unspectacular and the unmotivated have a significant tendency to hide out in teaching and other public sector jobs. There are, I am sure, many very talented, very motivated people in the teaching profession who create value through inspirational education and who could have been successful in any field they chose, and we are just fortunate that they have a vocation for education, but they are a minority and they are the ones who are under-paid and who should be paid more.

I'd be happy to increase teacher comp by 20%+ (and pay the related taxes), so long as it was based on performance standards and included booting out the incompetent and the complacent.*

I don't support the clubby self-review proposed by unions. Tenure by any other name....

For those who don't think that objective performance measurement is possible, I suggest you read the appropriate chapter in Freakonomics. I would be quite happy with a system that could identify the clearly worst 10% or so and clearly best 10% or so and allow a few years of turnover and replacement to shift the entire bell-curve significantly to the right. Once there is no longer a clearly worst 10%, I'd call that a pretty good achievement alone.

*By choosing private school for my son, I effectively do this directly. But I'd like to see it available for everyone.

Your gonna have to clarify what Freakonomics apparently shows about how to effectively evaluate teacher performance.

[Shryke]

My pet theory is administrative costs. When you look at schools in other industrialized nations and then compare them to hear an insane amount of the school's budget goes to pay upper administration, more so than other places. (At least when I saw some of the data points a couple of years ago.) Upper Administration also has its own union, this is where I think the American Education System went sideways.

The other factor is that some view the schooling system as the state's method to intervene with bad parenting, or those parents who are low on income. School's attempt to provide wrap around services to deal with those social issues, which, frankly, costs a lot of money.

What's wrong with that though? Those social issues are one of the biggest impediments to both learning and future success. And therefore, some of the biggest impediments to the overall purpose of public education in the first place.