Cost of a teacher?

[lets-retire]

DW is no fan of unions and would be happy to work in a more truly market based system.

I'm not arguing, just curious. If she wants to work in a more market based system why doesn't she get a job at a private school?

 

[BTravlin]

Most private schools pay even less than the public schools and often have a religious component which she doesn't subscribe to as an integral part of their system.

 

[ziggy29]

Strictly from a *market-based* perspective, DW teaches Algebra II & AP Calculus and she earns her meager compensation many times over through helping shape the top 10% of students who go on to become scientists, engineers, astronomers, physicists, architects, economists, doctors, etc. who in turn generate the productivity that fuels the growth of the economy and thereby helps fund the growth of your portfolio and, in a way, helps fund your retirement. But she's just one of many good teachers who do this work and do it well. Underpaid? Based upon the value of her contribution to society? Yeah, I think so.

The labor market is based on supply and demand. If there wasn't a sufficient supply of properly qualified people willing to teach at their current salaries, the pay would have to increase. That there isn't (in general) a lack of qualified applicants for teaching positions at current salaries tells me they aren't underpaid from a market supply and demand perspective. (In some cases that may be true of math and science teachers, though, because of the public sector tendency to treat all degrees as equally valuable.)

That's not the same thing as saying it isn't valuable work -- just that job satisfaction is part of the overall "compensation." There's surely some value to liking your job and feeling good about what you are doing. Again, no matter how important the work is, no matter how much added value the work produced or how skilled/educated you have to be for it, you don't have to pay high salaries for work many people *want* to do.

That's not only teachers but *any* occupation that claims it's underpaid. If you could put a help wanted sign out and get more than enough qualified applicants for the position at its current pay, it's not underpaid.

 

[BTravlin]

I understand what you're saying and largely agree. Most of what I've said here relates to my DW specifically. I think she's underpaid because I believe society places too low a value on the contribution good teachers make. And, yes, she could go elsewhere and make more but, along the lines of what you've said, she's good at what she does, she enjoys it and she finds it rewarding.

 

[samclem]

Most private schools pay even less than the public schools and often have a religious component which she doesn't subscribe to as an integral part of their system.

As I understand it, the private schools need to pay less (and they still get very good teachers) because the teachers have to put up with much less BS within the school administration and because schools (and the parents of the other kids) simply won't put up with disruptive students. So, there we have even more of the non-monetary issues that contribute to the overall work environment/compensation package decision.

Which brings up another issue: How much less would be need to pay public school teachers (and maintain teacher quality) if public schools reduced the administrivia and backed teachers up regarding the handling of disruptive students? Conversely--Do teachers' unions benefit when schools are filed with disruptive students and byzantine administrative requirements, as these tend to keep the work environment crappy and therefore they support higher required teacher pay (and union dues)?

 

[ERD50]

ERD, you might want to go back and reread what I've posted here since you're responding as if I'm arguing that all teachers are underpaid...

I normally start out any discussion of what anything is 'worth',or is an individual 'over-paid' or 'under-paid', by saying the market determines that, so there is no such thing as 'over' or 'under' paid.

However, in cases where the market is distorted, that doesn't hold, and the more I study this subject, the more evidence I see that teachers (in general) are over-paid.

I'll follow up with some stats.

Our so called education system has many problems and one of the biggest is the relative value of education held by a large percentage of the main stockholders involved in the system. On the one hand you have many students, or customers in the market, who don't want the service at all and only participate because they are forced to while on the other hand there are many, many adults with no children who are compelled to pay for a service they don't use. This is where education differs with your communications systems analogy.

I'm not following this at all. I don't think the public 'values', or let alone understands in the slightest what the PhD EE had to do to develop the complex algorithms and devices that make up these communication systems. But that PhD EE is paid based on what the market will bear for his/her skills. How is that any different from a carpenter, teacher, rock star, or athlete? You seem to want to keep assigning some 'value' to their work, and turn that into salary justifications. The world just doesn't (and couldn't) work that way.

I believe that my DW and many other highly qualified and motivated teachers are underpaid in such a system.

Believe it if you want. I won't believe it until they get out from under their protectionist union and are able to get a higher salary on the open market. And your comment...

Most private schools pay even less than the public schools

does not support that she is 'under-paid'.

I think she's underpaid because I believe society places too low a value on the contribution good teachers make.

Again, this 'worth/value/contribution' thing. It's a senseless, unworkable argument. Bandages at WalMart should be selling for thousands of dollars then, as they can save someone's life. So we need to calculate the future value of the contributions to society for that life that was saved, and price the product accordingly. What if a serial killer bought the bandage to save his own miserable life? It's silly, isn't it? But that is the argument you make. The bandage is a piece of sterile packaged cotton, and it is priced based on supply and demand for sterile packed cotton, not its 'value'. Based on your unworkable approach, we would need to interview people at the check-out counter, to find out if they are buying a gallon of drinking water to save the life of a dehydrated infant, or to rinse their underwear, and charge according to its 'contribution' to their lives. Silly, silly, silly. We pay what the market will bear. Period.

-ERD50

 

[ERD50]

I think she's underpaid because I believe society places too low a value on the contribution good teachers make.

However, in cases where the market is distorted, that doesn't hold, and the more I study this subject, the more evidence I see that teachers (in general) are over-paid.

I'll follow up with some stats.
-ERD50

OK, so here is the follow up, a link I found when looking for the BLS numbers. Since we are unlikely to see a free market anytime soon to 'settle' this issue, I thought this was a reasonably well done (not perfect) analysis. The writer is from my state, so some of the examples are Illinois-centric:

Champion News

When Average Salary Is Not Average – How Teachers Total Compensation Dwarfs Other White Collar Workers

a few 'highlights':

In the comparison of teachers vs. other white collar workers there is another calculation that must be taken into account. The "average" teacher is 2.5 years younger than the "average" white collar worker because "average" teachers retire 5 years earlier than "average" white collar workers - age 58 vs. age 63. ...

The other unusual benefit accruing to teachers that is nowhere to be found in the private sector is the concept of "tenure". ... This means for the average teacher the last 30 years or so of employment is guaranteed by contract. And, in the vast majority of school districts, that means 30 years of salary increase.


Compare this with Motorola which has cut 84,000 employees since 2000 including thousands of white collar engineers and executives. Although the value of tenure is difficult to calculate it certainly has a value greater than zero otherwise why won't teachers give it up? I think if you asked a Motorola employee how much he would be willing to pay to guarantee his employment for the next 30 years (with a raise each and every year) he would say at least 10% of salary so that is the number we will use although a reasonable person could argue for a higher or lower amount.

....

Teachers Work Fewer Days Per Year - this calculation is easy: 182 days for teachers compared to 240 days for private sector workers means the teachers daily/hourly rate of pay is 31% greater than private sector workers with the same salary.

And when you roll it all up....

On that basis the average Illinois teacher's daily total compensation is 53% higher than the average Mechanical Engineer.

If you take the average teacher salary of $89,000 at District 211 in Palatine and do the calculations above you come out with an average compensation for all 900 teachers of a whopping $163,000/yr or $895/day. That would dwarf the average MD's (Family Practitioner) total compensation of about $150,000/yr or $625/day not counting the MD's weekends, nights and holiday work.

There's more discussion on additional factors (average commute times), and some more subjective measures (such as the 'stress' that teachers face), but I thought the above factors sum it up pretty well.

Here's a note on that 'stress':

And if you really want stress try being an unemployed Motorola engineer looking for a job at exactly the same time 100's of other laid-off people with the same skills are looking for one also.

-ERD50

 

[samclem]

I understand what you're saying and largely agree. Most of what I've said here relates to my DW specifically. I think she's underpaid because I believe society places too low a value on the contribution good teachers make. And, yes, she could go elsewhere and make more but, along the lines of what you've said, she's good at what she does, she enjoys it and she finds it rewarding.

You believe she's underpaid, but she apparently believes she's being fairly compensated (when she includes all factors: pay, vacation, health care, retirement, security, and the intangibles of believing she's helping people, helping society, etc). Obviously, it's the total compensation that people use when they evaluate their worth, and their ability to get higher total compensation (to include those intangible things) elsewhere.

The fact that she keeps working there is the bottom line and tells the entire story--she thinks it's the very best she can get from a total compensation perspective (or at least, the trouble, "friction," and uncertainty of finding something better make doing so unrewarding), so she's staying put. That's probably best for everyone, including her lucky students.

While society gained when we broke down gender stereotypes and women began working in many areas previously closed to them, the US K-12 education system lost a lot. In former times, there were fewer fields open to talented women, and so we got exceptionally well qualified female elementary school teachers at a big discount. Entire generations of Americans benefited from the talents and efforts of these women. On balance I surely don't think it's worth "going back" to that way of thinking (if for no other reason than their talents are being put to better use, according to the market, these days), but it's one of those rare cases where discrimination of a type we now view as odious and illegal had a silver lining of sorts.

The bigger question: is society (and the market) good at assigning value to all things, or are there areas where it falls short? For starters, I'd argue that markets, voters, and individuals don't do a great job at making early investments for later rewards (and this includes investments in education). I don't have a better replacement system than the markets, but I suspect the answer lies in somehow accelerating the anticipated effects of future market forces so buyers, voters, etc react to them earlier (when costs are lower). An idea we've discussed here earlier along these lines is ERD50's slowly escalating gasoline tax--we know oil is going to get more scarce in the future, so maybe accelerating the price rises now (and using the $$ to offset other taxes) will help us make prudent investments and changes earlier. Of course, this idea would open the door all kinds of shenanigans and "social engineering", so maybe the cure is worse than the disease.

 

[jayc]

you should read our school district's housing market analysis they handed the appraisal district to use. the short and sweet of it was they said my house value increased 7% over the 8 months i owned it last year. someone didn't get the memo that we're in a recession.

Our money squandering school board in Oxford, Ohio has actually (and can) protested reduced appraisal requests for commercial propety. This is on top of a 1% income tax. It is the teachers that want the new building, not the kids. They could care less. Education works because of the parent, teacher, kid triangle.

 

[jayc]

Most private schools pay even less than the public schools and often have a religious component which she doesn't subscribe to as an integral part of their system.

Is it because there is no union or because that is what the market pays?

 

[ERD50]

The bigger question: is society (and the market) good at assigning value to all things, or are there areas where it falls short?

For starters, I'd argue that markets, voters, and individuals don't do a great job at making early investments for later rewards (and this includes investments in education). I don't have a better replacement system than the markets, but I suspect the answer lies in somehow accelerating the anticipated effects of future market forces so buyers, voters, etc react to them earlier (when costs are lower).

Very good question. I'd agree that the market sometimes does not do a good job of valuing some things like this. But I think the key is education and information - and if we decide to accelerate the effect through policy, at least provide the education and info along with that, so it is understood.

An example of a good, useful idea (but relatively poor implementation) of this is the Energy Star information with refrigerators. Mine informs me that it will use $49/year at average rates. OK, but even better would be to provide a little calculator to show the payback for various models. Is it 'worth it' to spend an extra $100 to save $5 in energy a year? Probably not. $20 more? Probably so. But if the average consumer can't recognize the value of improved efficiency, they won't pay for it, or might 'over-pay' for it.

Now, just so BTravelin does not misconstrue this - it doesn't mean we should pay teachers above supply/demand rates if we can recognize a future value (those refrigerators will be sold at market bearing prices). But it might well mean that the market hasn't fully recognized the value of an exceptional teacher over an average or poor one. But the Union they support does not want to go down that path either - it's one size fits all. And it's possible that the 'true' market value of an exceptional teacher might still be less than what the protectionist system is paying them now. We won't know that until it hits the free market.

-ERD50

 

[BTravlin]

Now, just so BTravelin does not misconstrue this - it doesn't mean we should pay teachers above supply/demand rates if we can recognize a future value (those refrigerators will be sold at market bearing prices). But it might well mean that the market hasn't fully recognized the value of an exceptional teacher over an average or poor one. But the Union they support does not want to go down that path either - it's one size fits all. And it's possible that the 'true' market value of an exceptional teacher might still be less than what the protectionist system is paying them now. We won't know that until it hits the free market.

-ERD50

I'm largely in agreement with this. I really didn't intend to come into this thread and stand up for our education system or teacher pay in general as there are many, many problems that need fixing.

But I still believe that my DW is underpaid. I live with her, I know her, I know the level of commitment she has, see how much work she puts into teaching. In MY OPINION she's underpaid and that's not likely to change. And there are probably other similar teachers out there who I would say are also underpaid. But that's just my opinion so feel free to differ.

 

[ronocnikral]

every teacher i have met feels they are underpaid. they hide behind this veil of doing some "great" and "socially important work." a good teacher is maybe 20% of a kid's education (imho). the rest comes from the home.

 

[ziggy29]

this veil of doing some "great" and "socially important work."

"Socially important work" should pay less in a "free" job market because people want to do it and would accept less money for doing it *because* of the satisfaction they derive from "doing good works."

Going back to what I said before, this feeling adds to the desire to teach among many people and increases the supply of people willing to do it for less money.

If Job A and Job B have similar duties and qualification requirements but Job A is a corporate back-office job while Job B makes people feel like they are doing rewarding, "socially important" work -- which job do you think most people would prefer to do, all else being equal? And wouldn't that mean Job B *should* be paying less as the supply of people who want to do it is greater than the supply of people wanting to do Job A?

 

[samclem]

Education works because of the parent, teacher, kid triangle.

It's a rhombus, and the other vertex is the child's peers. As the child gets older, the peers have a greater and greater impact (in general). There are things one can (and should) do as a parent to affect the environment the child is in, but there are limits.

 

[ronocnikral]

"Socially important work" should pay less in a "free" job market because people want to do it and would accept less money for doing it *because* of the satisfaction they derive from "doing good works."

Going back to what I said before, this feeling adds to the desire to teach among many people and increases the supply of people willing to do it for less money.

If Job A and Job B have similar duties and qualification requirements but Job A is a corporate back-office job while Job B makes people feel like they are doing rewarding, "socially important" work -- which job do you think most people would prefer to do, all else being equal? And wouldn't that mean Job B *should* be paying less as the supply of people who want to do it is greater than the supply of people wanting to do Job A?

agree. and that's part of the reason why i hope teaching is a part of my ESR plans.

 

[FinanceDude]

every teacher i have met feels they are underpaid. they hide behind this veil of doing some "great" and "socially important work." a good teacher is maybe 20% of a kid's education (imho). the rest comes from the home.

My dad says it best: "Underpaid for 30 years, overpaid for the rest of your life"..............

 

[samclem]

"Socially important work" should pay less in a "free" job market because people want to do it and would accept less money for doing it *because* of the satisfaction they derive from "doing good works."?

And the reverse is why crime does pay (at least in money)--because it has to. Being a crook isn't very socially rewarding (in most circles) so people demand more $$ to engage in it. Plus, the risk of getting shot, put in jail, etc all drive up the price for "crook labor."

 

[BigNick]

It's a rhombus, and the other vertex are the child's peers. As the child gets older, the peers have a greater and greater impact (in general).

At which point, it becomes an arbitrary quadrilateral.

 

[ERD50]

But I still believe that my DW is underpaid. ... In MY OPINION she's underpaid and that's not likely to change. ... But that's just my opinion so feel free to differ.

Well of course you are entitled to your opinion, and it's pointless for me or anyone to 'argue' or 'debate' your opinion or feeling.

But I will add that the times I felt I was underpaid, I started brushing up my resume', started evaluating how I could advance my pay in my present situation, considered going back to school, etc. If one isn't actually acting on it, it doesn't strike me that the 'feeling' is very strong, or well supported. In my opinion, it sounds more like 'whining' (sorry if that comes across as snarky, it is not meant that way it is meant to be descriptive, it captures how I feel. And it seems like 'fair game', since it is in your sig).

Despite your protests that this is just limited to your DW, that is not what you are conveying. Phrases like this infer that you think it is more wide-spread:

On one hand you say...

you're responding as if I'm arguing that all teachers are underpaid.... and ...

Most of what I've said here relates to my DW specifically.

But then we have...

there are probably other similar teachers out there who I would say are also underpaid.

I believe society places too low a value on the contribution good teachers make.

I believe that my DW and many other highly qualified and motivated teachers are underpaid in such a system

But she's just one of many good teachers who do this work and do it well. Underpaid? ... Yeah, I think so.

So yes, I get the impression that you think many teachers are underpaid - unless you are also saying that 'good teachers' are a distinct minority?

-ERD50

 

[ziggy29]

Having thought on it more, I'd put it this way.

Show me someone who does work they feel good about and find extremely fulfilling but also feels underpaid, and I'll show you someone who's probably undervaluing job satisfaction.

 

[samclem]

At which point, it becomes an arbitrary quadrilateral.

Oh, it's arbitrary alright. I'd argue for the "out-of-control, I-can't-believe-this-is-happening, has-she-forgotten-everything-she-ever-knew?" kind of arbitrary.

 

[BTravlin]

Despite your protests that this is just limited to your DW, that is not what you are conveying. Phrases like this infer that you think it is more wide-spread:

On one hand you say...



But then we have...


So yes, I get the impression that you think many teachers are underpaid - unless you are also saying that 'good teachers' are a distinct minority?

-ERD50

I'm not sure how many "good teachers" there are that would fit my description as underpaid but I'm guessing, based on personal experience alone, that, yes, the really good ones would be in the minority.

I understand all the arguments you're making about relative value and intangibles but I still think society's priorities are out of whack in some areas. I know this will elicit a groan but take professional baseball players for example. Society and the market for athletics/entertainment obviously place a very high value on their skills and the entertainment value derived from watching them play but I think many are overpaid. I'd like to see professional athletes paid somewhat less and good teachers paid somewhat more. Likely to happen anytime soon? Not hardly because that's just my opinion and the market as a whole obviously sees it differently.

If that comes across as whiny well so be it, I'm not perfect.

 

[ERD50]

... I still think society's priorities are out of whack in some areas. I know this will elicit a groan but take professional baseball players for example. ...

No groan from me, I wholeheartedly agree with this.

What I don't agree with however, is that there is any system that I would prefer to see over the free market to set these salaries. You and I may agree that some salary seems out of whack - but somebody else would feel the opposite. So who gets to decide? Do you want someone else arbitrarily deciding your salary?

Hey, I know, we could all get a vote! And since we are talking about money here, we could each buy a vote for $1, and we can buy as many votes as we choose. That should work pretty well. ... Wait a minute - isn't that how the free market works?

-ERD50

 

[FinanceDude]

All I relate is what I heard from my teacher parents and what I observed during their 30+ years of teaching. I think MOST teachers KNOW they are not going to be paid as much as those in the private sector. They WILLINGLY go into the profession to "make a difference"..........at least that's what my parents did. My dad took a pay cut from being the chief pharmacist at the largest nursing home facility in our area to start teaching. Teaching is all my mom ever did.

What I know they liked:

Making a difference
Job security
Summers off
Great healthcare for the family
Retirement security (pension)

What they did not like:

Union meetings
Administration red tape and badgering
Being told how to teach by the DPI
Aloof parents
Apathetic kids

My dad retired 10 years ago, his last year's gross pay was $68,000. He had a master's degree in cognitive learning, and 30 years expeience. Shortly after retirement,
he was offered a job as consultant for Walgreens for $150 an hour plus expenses paid. He turned it down. He is not sorry he was a teacher..........