Next: Laurie posted this interesting link and comment the other day. I printed it, read the whole thing and really do not know what to make of it. So I'll make some comments and let's see where this goes.
EPI The Teaching Penalty
"Teacher earnings have fallen below that of the average college graduate in recent decades, losing considerable ground during the late 1990s,as earnings of college graduates grew 11% relative to the much lower 0.8% growth in teacher earnings........Trends in weekly earnings show that public school teachers in 2010 earned about 12% less than comparable workers."
My random thoughts are as follows:
- A typical employee with a business degree often starts with some lowly Buyer, Assistant Manager or Line Supervisor position. Though many will argue, often these pay less than starting Teachers. (w/o the time off benefit) However, as their experience grows, they begin to be responsible for more employees, products, projects, customers, etc. Thus their compensation goes up accordingly with their growth in responsibility and influence.
- Now a Teacher starts their career with one classroom full of students, and typically ends their career with one classroom full of students. Teacher's that choose to increase their sphere of influence and responsibility work and study their way into an Administration positions. Thus they are now an Asst Principal, Principal, District Administrator, Superintendent, Head of the MN Dept of Education, etc... Which means they are no longer a Teacher... The questions then are:
- Did the EPI data include all people with Teaching degrees (including School Administration, Union Officials, Dept of Ed, Consultants, etc) in their evaluation or did they just pick Teachers? This would skew the results terribly...
- Should the difference in income between starting and 30 yr Teachers really be 2 to 3 times? Since their responsibilities are not significantly different? (ie 1 classroom full of students...) I think starting Teachers should make somewhat more and experienced Teachers should make somewhat less, just for this reason.
- If you want to make more as an Engineer... You have to become a Consultant, Project Mgr, Spvr, Executive or a Specialist that works on ground breaking research. You don't get a lot more for just being a 30 yr experienced Engineer. In fact, as an experienced Engr you will probably only make ~60% more than an entry level engr.
- Then for the next question... What college grads should Teachers be compared to and who was in EPI's sample? People in the Arts, Bus'n, Sciences, etc?
- Finally, they use compensation per week... How does that adjust for Summer's off ?
21 comments:
As a reminder, I think MN Teachers on average are paid about right. And I realize that there are other states that unfortunately do not value their Teachers as much. G2A Teacher Compensation
Though I do think they start too low, end too high, and reward for the wrong reasons. (ie education/experience and not proficiency/results)
Based on my own personal experience I can attest to the fact that teachers are greatly underpaid :)
I did skim some of the 82 page EPI Teaching Penalty research book to find answers to your two final questions. It seems that 6 professionals were identified as comparable: accountants, reporters, registered nurses, computer programmers, clergy, and personnel officers. (p27-30)
Also, it does appear that they adjusted for summers off as best they could (p.24-25)
The one point they made quite clearly is, regardless of how the weeks worked/wage comparisons are made, the trend is that teachers have lost ground since the mid 90's in relation to other professions (the gap has grown)
About some of your other points, I kind of agree with them, that there shouldn't be such a tremendous difference in pay based on seniority. I think one part of education reform is to establish more of a career ladder for teachers with some pay raises based on added responsibility.
What did the book say about who was in their data set?
One Accountant who is now a CEO of a Fortune 100 company with 80,000 employees will certainly make more than many Teachers that are still in the classroom.
I think you have outdated notions about how highly Minnesota values its teachers and maybe how generously we fund our schools.
MN teachers are ranked 21 in average teacher salary though we are 12th in per capita GDP and have somewhat high housing and living expenses.
While researching pay and funding comparisons I got side tracked reading an interesting report about Is School Funding Fair where I learned that MN earns a "D" in effort, which is defined as a measures in state spending for education relative to state fiscal capacity.
Maybe Education MN is right that Mn schools deserve more funding and teachers deserve higher pay.
MN did score very well in one area, funding distribution, being only one of 4 states to earn an "A", but we seem poised to take a big step backwards with the educ. funding bill that GOP has passed
The argument that teacher salaries are too low doesn't include all the other perks that teachers get; tenure, defined pensions, early retirement, tons of days off, and the most powerful lobbying group in the state. In district 281 80% of the operating budget is already doing to employees in salaries and benefits. Should 90% or 95%? How much is enough? What salary would that be? Or it is the DFL mantra of "it's never enough!"
Claiming Republicans in St. Paul are cutting Education is an absolute falsehood. Here is the data on HF934 and SF1030. The per pupil amount goes from $5,124 in 2011 to $5,174 in 2012 to $5,210 in 2013 and then to $5,255 in 2014. Where is the cut? And when the "education party" was in charge in the previous legislature education spending was flat at $5,124.....those are the facts. There are NO CUTS!!!!!
Well, it's hard to argue with the fact that by its very nature teaching is teaching is teaching. And that's not going to change any time soon. So, setting that aside for a moment, I think everyone who frequents your blog agrees that high quality teachers are important, and some would say the "X" factor in creating quality schools and successful students.
And, let's say we were to implement your idea of purging the bottom 5?% of the pool. How would you suggest rewarding and fairly compensating teachers? Their job isn't easy--anyone who has spent time in the classroom can see that. The system is inherently extremely bottom heavy without room for advancement. I'm not advocating for VP pay, but I think it's smart to keep the good ones around.
From Laurie's list, I can see the most similarities between teachers and nurses, and I'd actually like to see both compensated at a higher level, so as to attract really smart, gifted rookies who stick around (clergy and reporters? Not as much.).
I happen to value their work highly, and don't want to lose the best and brightest because, for instance, when they have a kid or two it's no longer viable to pay daycare on what is a less competitive salary.
Ritka--I don't believe 80% of an organization's op budget devoted to salary and benefits is particularly high, especially in a field that doesn't have line items for things like R&D or product marketing (in the traditional sense). To turn your logic around, how low should that number be, and what's your rationale?
--Annie
According to the green and yellow lines on the graph in G2A TC. The annualized compensation of a 20 yr RAS Teacher is between $61K and $88K. Now I agree that this is not Mgr pay, but it seems pretty fair for the reasons discussed earlier. And then throw in the extremely high job security and interesting benefits. (ie leave of absences, etc)
I mean... A couple of Teachers could be earning a household income of $150+K... And if they want more, a Principal position pays $100K+...
As for purging the bottom 5% and compensating excellent Teachers. One benefit is that hopefully the kids won't have stagnant years and that will make it easier for the Teachers that get them next.
Some more practical money related ideas:
- may not need as many Teachers, this money can be split up amongst the remaining?
- Excellent Teachers would have a class + Team Mgmt & Trg responsibilities?
- Excellent Teachers would have larger classes?
- Excellent Teachers would be given most challenging students?
3 benefits: You can justify paying them more with the increased responsibility, Others can learn from them and they are continually challenged.
Here is the hard part of the sell... A bunch of the 20+ yr Teachers likely do not justify the Excellent Performer pay level they are currently getting. Thus you would need to demote and cap them out, and use the savings to reward the best. Just like we do in the real world.
The demoted / capped could then work to regain that income level like everyone else...
It used to be that teachers were paid a lot less, because it was one of the few positions in which young women could enter and "succeed." Since there were so many of them, and they were women, and parents paid out of their own pockets in many cases, pay was very low. Eventually, teaching became a "profession," other opportunities opened for women, and school districts got a direct pipeline into taxpayers' pockets, so pay increased. What happens next depends on whether we continue the Public Union Employee model, where compensation is set by politicians elected by those being compensated (corruption, IMHO) or we set salaries in the free competitive market based on reforming the education model we now have to focus on the customers rather than the employees.
In private enterprise, salaries are set by competition. If you can do something special, like catch a football while running fast, you get the Big Bucks, but burger-flippers are plentiful and don't get paid much-- less if the government didn't interfere with minimum wage. Private enterprises raise wages, though, when productivity increases, because they get more production and profit per unit of labor, at the same market cost. The problem with education is that we haven't seen a productivity increase in 150 years. It still takes one teacher 12 years to produce 20 high school graduates. And some do not do that well.
Most of the suggestions here are good-- a career ladder (as Gov. Pawlenty proposed but the DFL rejected), merit pay for teachers (Pawlenty proposed but the DFL diluted and perverted, and Republicans have brought back to a likely Dayton veto), and by all means the firing of bad teachers. We should also quit chasing the foolish notion that small class sizes accomplish something, and we could immediately, probably, give every teacher a nice raise.
In short, we should be paying teachers just enough to keep enough "good ones" at work and satisfied. A while back we heard levy supporters say that "we have to raise pay or we will lose our good teachers." I asked how many teachers left in the previous year, how many of them left for reasons of pay in other schools, how many for pay in other professions, and which of them were the "good" teachers. I got four "I don't knows" from the School Board. Obviously, they don't have any idea how much to pay a teacher, so why should we care?
Just to stir up this conversation, which always settles into the same predictable camps:
Do those of you who advocate paying the bare minimum to teachers also advocate paying a same bare minimum to solidiers? Many of the same rules could apply to the two (taxpayer funded, exceptional stability, flat expectations, even better benefits, with the addition of early retirement and exceptional pensions). We could probably get soldiers--who have rock bottom education needs and fewer prospects, many of whom aren't in combat--for less than we pay now. I happen to value our future and our freedom about equally--neither has much value without the other.
Anyone?
--Annie
In an synchronistic bit of timing, shortly after I posted that last bit about soldiers v. teachers, I ran across this really interesting opinion piece in this week's NYT. The authors say what I was thinking, but much more eloquently.
The High Cost of Low Teacher Salaries
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/01/opinion/01eggers.html?partner=rssnyt&emc=rss
--Annie
For your convenience..
NY Times High Cost of Low Teacher's Salaries
I'll read it later...
Without effective measurement of teacher performance, mediocrity is an acceptable outcome. As such, there seldom any point in agressive hiring top teacher talent. You can't identify the top teachers, not legally and with the union's blessing that is.
I wish we could reward top performers, since studies show they teach 3 times what a poor teacher does.
And let's not overlook the value of nights and weekends and summers off.
I think the article is off base... Here is why:
- We Conservatives typically criticize the system (ie Admin, Politicians & Unions) and a small group of very poor Teachers that the system protects. We support most of the Teachers. (aka soldiers)
- We are striving to find better ways to support the good Teachers. Mostly by getting rid of the poor performing systems, tools, Teachers, Administrators, steps/lanes, Tenure, etc. Just like with the military, we want to replace them with better options.
- The armed forces can discharge or punish poor performing soldiers, not so with Teachers.
- The armed forces can promote and reward the excellent performers, whereas all Teachers of the same education and experience are supposedly equal. Imagine if everyone with 20 yrs in was automatically a General. (Gen Beetle Bailey hahaha)
- As far as I understand, the Army Private isn't making much right now. (maybe I am incorrect) The advantage is that they have the opportunity to advance if they perform well.
- First year Teachers do not have that same opportunity because the Union says that only education and years served matter. Talking about a way to keep the best and brightest out of the field...
- Sorry, you are brilliant, a hard worker and gifted with children, but we can't pay you accordingly for another 20 yrs and you get that PHD... The Union says so...
- Really we're sorry, the Union says you can not Teach as well as that person with 20 yrs experience. Even though our data shows that your kids are learning more, the Parent's of your kids praise you and your peers love you... Whereas the kids Parent's and Peers of the 20 yr Teacher are always complaining. It seems confusing, but we are sure the Union knows what it is doing. They really care about the kids...
I agree with Speed if you can't grade the Teachers very critically, how would you know who to reward with the biggest paycheck...
The NYT article does a good job explaining the downside of a teaching career and some things that would make it better. I have advised my very smart niece (ACT score of 35) who aspires to be a teacher to get an English degree along with her teaching credential and keep grad school in mind as a backup plan if current trends in education continue. I haven't given up hope on the wise school reform, but it doesn't look promising.
Annie and Laurie,
Just wondering... If you don't think $61K to $88K is an adequate range for a 20 yr Teacher(current everyone is equal system) or a good to excellent Teacher (future results matter system), what do you think they should make?
Reminder: they teach one K-12 class, have no employees to Supervise, no big budgets to manage, etc. The things our culture usually pays more for.
If I was in charge of school reform I would copy some of what St. Francis schools have done
St. Francis' school-success model: teacher education and evaluation, student progress.
I'd also raise all teachers' pay by extending the school year and give the most talented and motivated teachers added responsibility for even greater pay. I would use test scores as only one of several measures of teacher effectiveness.
I think in the future there is a very real possibility of finally increasing the productivity of teachers with the greater use of technology.
It's hard for me to answer your question about what is fair pay because the salary range you mention would be a large raise for my household and hence sounds pretty good to me. If this range was increased 10-20% along with an extended school year I'd say it is fair.
From Laurie
If I was in charge of school reform I would copy some of what St. Francis schools have done
St. Francis' school-success model: teacher education and evaluation, student progress.
I'd also raise all teachers' pay by extending the school year and give the most talented and motivated teachers added responsibility for even greater pay. I would use test scores as only one of several measures of teacher effectiveness.
I think in the future there is a very real possibility of finally increasing the productivity of teachers with the greater use of technology.
It's hard for me to answer your question about what is fair pay because the salary range you mention would be a large raise for my household and hence sounds pretty good to me. If this range was increased 10-20% along with an extended school year I'd say it is fair.
John, it is possible to increase the productivity of teachers right now. All you have to do is to employ any of the hundreds of teacher productivity tools already existing in the marketplace but strongly resisted by the unions because they decrease the number of union members needed. The second thing you would do is to throw away the foolish notion that reducing class sizes improves learning and you get another big productivity improvement (and fewer teachers, of course). This would result in all the remaining teachers getting a healthy salary increase without increasing the total cost of the school to the taxpayers!
Now to be fully effective we would have to have a strong teacher evaluation system and a more effective discipline system, but we need those reforms as well, both of which, again, are opposed by the teachers unions and the politicians in their thrall. I am appalled, in fact, at the high dungeon being expressed over the Republican legislation to require evaluation of teacher performance every FIVE years rather than the current "never." Are you kidding me?
Sorry, "dungeon" s.b. "dudgeon."
Jerry,
We still disagree regarding the importance of class size, but we whole heartedly agree regarding the importance of performance evaluations and improvement plans. I was fascinated how rare and haphazard they seem to be in the Public School system... Yet if you can't do anything with poor performers, then I guess there is little reason to spend time evaluating them...
It seems only starting Teachers (ie probationary) and Tenured Teachers where the case for their attempted dismissal is being built get this kind of attention.
I guess we can have the class size debate another time, after you find some solid evidence that, above the first couple of grades, it matters significantly. In multiple regression studies, class size is barely a blip, while teacher quality (and pay, BTW) are the principle determinants of student achievement.
Post a Comment