Cost of a teacher?

[FinanceDude]

Quote:

Originally Posted by BTravlin 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. On the other hand, the biggest predictor of student success is the degree of parental involvement. If only those people who have kids are required to fund the public school system then maybe everyone with a stake will place more value on an education and not waste it as many do today. It's like everything else in this world, you have to earn it to truly appreciate it.

First of all, just because she teaches that to kids DOES NOT mean they all are going to be uber-successful. A lot of kids take advanced math and never use it later, or become uber-successful. Teachers don't do it for the money, or so they say. Of course, what do I know BOTH my parents taught in public schools..........

[ERD50]

Quote:

Originally Posted by BTravlin 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. ....

Well, we are back to where this started. Hah - so you want to measure things on their 'worth' then? Let's go - me first.

OK, so I worked with people who worked on communications systems that go into ambulances and into police vehicles. So, do we measure their 'worth' based on the number of lives that were saved because those police and EMT people had communication? And then multiply that times the number of lives that LEO saved over their career because they weren't killed in their first year because their police radio worked when they called for back up? It gets crazy.

And wouldn't the assembly line worker who soldered the microphone wires be just as 'valuable' as the PhD electrical engineer who calculated the optimal algorithms for maximizing transmissions over a limited bandwidth allocation, so that the call got through?

But in the real world, we can hire assembly line workers for far less than people who can optimize complex systems. So we do. And if we can hire excellent educators for less (or need to spend more), it is the fiscal responsibility of the School Board to do so.

OK, your turn.

Quote:

Originally Posted by landonew You can't make a "market" based argument that someone is underpaid, when the "market" continues to drive their compensation down despite resistance from non-market forces (i.e. teacher's unions).

You can 'make the argument', but it's bogus.

While I was typing...

Quote:

You can when it's a government subsidized market. Government involvement always distorts the market. Mix government and unions together and you have majors distortions.

Agreed. Lets get rid of the distortions - how about a voucher system so people can freely choose where to invest their education dollars (this is also the system I support for health care - funny how common problems have common solutions?)?

-ERD50

[ERD50]

Quote:

Originally Posted by FinanceDude First of all, just because she teaches that to kids DOES NOT mean they all are going to be uber-successful.

Isn't it funny (in that sad kind of way) how teachers want to claim responsibility for successful students, but sure would object if we tried to 'blame' them for the ones that ended up in prison (must be the parent's fault)? Can we charge them for that?

What's the old line - "Success has many Fathers, failure is an orphan"? Yes, that's it:

success has many fathers, failure is an orphan - Wiktionary

-ERD50

[ERD50]

Quote:

Originally Posted by BTravlin 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 ....

You've got me on a roll. So OK, a little anecdotal evidence here (as I always say, for illumination, not 'proof').

I have a daughter who is an absolute math wiz. Forget about top 10%, we are probably talking top 0.1%. She works at it, but it comes relatively easy to her.

She made almost zero demand on her math teachers in high school. They assigned the work, she did it, got an A+. Every single advanced course that was offered. She didn't need any help. Those math teachers could have been robots, she could have learned all she needed from an on-line course.

But you say the teacher is 'responsible' for her success? Hah!

My other daughter struggles with math. She needs help from her teachers. Some of her teachers were totally incompetent (and this is not my opinion, they did not understand some of the fundamental math concepts that they were supposed to be teaching - that is a fact) and they were unable/unwilling to help, so I spent many, many hours tutoring her. Yet, I don't think you want to assign any 'blame' to the teacher. Must be bad parenting? Thanks.

-ERD50

[BTravlin]

Quote:

Originally Posted by FinanceDude First of all, just because she teaches that to kids DOES NOT mean they all are going to be uber-successful. A lot of kids take advanced math and never use it later, or become uber-successful. Teachers don't do it for the money, or so they say. Of course, what do I know BOTH my parents taught in public schools..........

Quote:

Originally Posted by ERD50 Well, we are back to where this started. Hah - so you want to measure things on their 'worth' then? Let's go - me first. OK, so I worked with people who worked on communications systems that go into ambulances and into police vehicles. So, do we measure their 'worth' based on the number of lives that were saved because those police and EMT people had communication? And then multiply that times the number of lives that LEO saved over their career because they weren't killed in their first year because their police radio worked when they called for back up? It gets crazy. And wouldn't the assembly line worker who soldered the microphone wires be just as 'valuable' as the PhD electrical engineer who calculated the optimal algorithms for maximizing transmissions over a limited bandwidth allocation, so that the call got through? But in the real world, we can hire assembly line workers for far less than people who can optimize complex systems. So we do. And if we can hire excellent educators for less (or need to spend more), it is the fiscal responsibility of the School Board to do so. OK, your turn. You can 'make the argument', but it's bogus. While I was typing... Agreed. Lets get rid of the distortions - how about a voucher system so people can freely choose where to invest their education dollars (this is also the system I support for health care - funny how common problems have common solutions?)? -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 or that I'm defending the education system in general when I'm not.

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 believe that my DW and many other highly qualified and motivated teachers are underpaid in such a system. Are there many teachers who are overpaid or who are not qualified and should be fired? Certainly, just as you will find such workers in any industry.

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

[lets-retire]

Quote:

Originally Posted by BTravlin 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]

Quote:

Originally Posted by BTravlin 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]

Quote:

Originally Posted by 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.

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]

Quote:

Originally Posted by BTravlin 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.

Quote:

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.

Quote:

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...

Quote:

Most private schools pay even less than the public schools

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

Quote:

Originally Posted by BTravlin 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]

Quote:

Quote: Originally Posted by BTravlin I think she's underpaid because I believe society places too low a value on the contribution good teachers make. Quote: Originally Posted by ERD50 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':

Quote:

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....

Quote:

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':

Quote:

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]

Quote:

Originally Posted by 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.

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]

Quote:

Originally Posted by ronocnikral 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]

Quote:

Originally Posted by 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.

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

[ERD50]

Quote:

Originally Posted by samclem 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]

Quote:

Originally Posted by ERD50 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]

Quote:

Originally Posted by ronocnikral 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]

Quote:

Originally Posted by jayc 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.