The (Partial) Myth of the Poorly Paid Public School Teacher
In the popular imagination, teachers are compensated terribly. What about in the real world?

Over the past few weeks, headlines have abounded about a national teacher shortage. Rebecca Pringle, president of the National Education Association, the country's largest teachers union, claims the country is short nearly 300,000 teachers and support staff. Gallup pollsters report that four in 10 teachers say they're "always" or "very often" burned out. Because of this, outlets like Fortune declare, "the teacher shortage is about to intensify."
Many argue that low teacher pay is a big part of the problem. Striking teachers in Seattle just delayed the start of the school year by a full week, demanding laptops for teaching assistants, higher teacher-to-student ratios in special ed and multilingual classes, and (of course) higher pay, purportedly to keep up with inflation. But the idea that teachers are poorly paid predates both the pandemic and the recent inflation surge:
- CNBC declared in 2020 that teachers "are paid less than a living wage in the U.S."
- "Think teachers aren't paid enough?" reads a Washington Post headline from 2016. "It's worse than you think."
- "Teachers make about 20% less than other professionals with similar education and experience," reported CNBC.
Such stories echo a common progressive talking point—what the Economic Policy Institute calls the "teacher pay penalty." Teachers, the institute argued in 2020, "are paid less (in wages and compensation) than other college-educated workers with similar experience and other characteristics, and this financial penalty discourages college students from entering the teaching profession and makes it difficult for school districts to keep current teachers in the classroom."
What such arguments don't mention is that the other factors that sweeten the deal for public school teachers. Depending on number of years served, and a state's specific system, they often benefit from generous pensions. They have shorter weeks and a portion of the summers off, giving them shorter overall hours than most other professions. They also have extreme job security: It is very hard to fire them, even for low or stagnant performance.
"Are teachers overpaid or underpaid?" asks Matthew Yglesias at Slow Boring, correctly arguing:
You often see the trope that American teachers are working in conditions of dire poverty. Part of the setup of "Breaking Bad" was the idea that as a high school chemistry teacher, Walter White was so poorly compensated that he worked part-time at a car wash in order to make ends meet and also couldn't afford cancer treatment. There is a lot of spatial variation in teacher compensation, and it is a documented fact that some teachers have to work second jobs, but on the whole, teachers are not mired in poverty.
The story that's harder to distill into headlines and talking points is one of extreme variation in benefits and pay by state.
Researchers at the Reason Foundation (the nonprofit that publishes this website) have found that a teacher's average salary and average pension following 30 years of service vary significantly by state. The full-time Seattle public school teacher's average annual salary is $88,897; after logging 30 years of service, employees can expect to receive $66,673 each year of retirement. (Teachers contributed 8.64 percent annually to that pension, while their employers contributed about twice that.) For teachers in New York state, the average salary is $87,738. After 30 years of service, a career employee there would receive annual payouts of $49,353. Many blue states tend to be generous with teacher pay and pensions (though it's worth noting that many teachers quit before their pensions have vested, and you have to log many years within the same state in order to qualify for full pension benefits).
In red states, it's a different story. Reason Foundation researchers found that the average salary of a full-time teacher in Texas is $57,641; a Texan teacher's pension benefits after 30 years of service would be $49,715 annually. In Mississippi (widely reported as one of the worst states for teacher pay), average salary is $47,655; pension payouts for career employees amount to about $35,741 annually. (Texas, it's worth noting, is one of the states that denies the majority of its teachers Social Security benefits, whereas all the other states listed—and 35 states total—allow public school teachers to collect both pensions and Social Security benefits in old age.)
This regional variation also explains the alleged teacher shortage you've been hearing so much about. There's actually not an across-the-board, national shortage, though there are some states (Arizona and Florida, for example) and some specialty areas (bus drivers, cafeteria workers, special ed teachers) that have indeed been struggling with understaffing. Over the last few decades, class sizes have decreased, more kids have been identified as needing special education, and more school support staffers have been hired. Problems hiring an adequate number of sufficiently qualified teachers have been going on for some time, so to frame it as a problem unique to this year misses the mark, but makes for a convenient narrative when packaged with teacher burnout statistics.
There are a lot of K-12 teaching jobs out there. Some 3 to 4 million Americans are teachers—and if you include pre-K, special ed, and college instructors, that number rises to about 6.1 million, or 2 percent of the U.S. population. Working for the public schools probably won't make you rich (aside from a few administrators). But being a schoolteacher practically guarantees that you won't be fired (and that you will be hired), and it is extremely transferable across geographic areas (though you might have to forfeit a pension). You need a bachelor's degree, but there's no fine-toothed combing through a résumé to make sure it was a good bachelor's degree, from a competitive school, or in a relevant subject area. Your workplace won't get acquired, be forced through a merger, or end up going under. You're insulated from recessions and economic downturns. You won't, sadly, get stock options (but you do have to wait for your pension to vest).
The real downside is that top performers rarely get rewarded based on merit. In public schools, pay scales operate based on formulas of educational attainment and years served, with no eye toward efficacy and competence. For top performers who take their jobs seriously, this is surely discouraging. But if want to coast, it's a pretty good deal.
So it's not that teachers are overpaid or underpaid, that their pension benefits are across-the-board generous, or that it's all such a raw deal that they're fleeing in droves. The truth is somewhere in between, and many industry-wide problems stem from severing incentives from pay and funding. School districts full of failing schools, with declining enrollment numbers, frequently manage to nab more money from government coffers; aggressive campaigns are launched to hinder rollouts of school voucher programs, the creation of charter schools, or other possible sources of competition. We'd be wise to assess the industry more candidly, even if scores of headlines suggest it's apostasy to do so.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
I look forward to when education is handled by the state, so that democracy can pay teachers what they rightly deserve, and what market failure denies them.
I see what you did there.
As I told a very dim elementary school teacher
"I would love for you to be paid what your worth, but minimum wage laws prevent that"
*you're
"Teachers make about 20% less than other professionals with similar education and experience," reported CNBC. I’d love to see that comparison. Similar education? There’s nothing close to similar to an Education degree. They’re a joke.
Yeah. This is a long-running logical issue. A Bachelor's of Education is not equivalent to a Bachelor's of Engineering for instance. Neither in work required or the average quality of student. Basically all testing bores this out.
It's kind of a distraction anyway though, since income is basically what people will agree to work for. If Arizona and Florida are having issue hiring, they will have to raise pay to teachers. Or, figure something else out. I don't know the situation well in Arizona, since I don't have kids. I notice the article for Arizona mostly talks about public schools though, and I wonder if the stat is mostly that. Florida and Arizona are the two best schools for school choice. Might be charters or other alternative schools are absorbing people.
I don't know.
A lot of teachers have a masters degree. And they're very credentialist in government jobs. Having another degree means more than actually being good at... well, anything.
Somehow they're equating a Bs in Computer science and and MBA with a teaching degree, which is kind of like equating having played beer league softball with having played AAA and been selected for the major leagues. Yeah, you both had a similar amount of post high school training, but one's way easier than the other.
^This. With the addition of 'required to have a master's degree in order to advance. The beer league softball guys make less than your average pro *and* your average pro will retire without benefits while the beer leaguers will all retire after drawing a salary for 30 yrs., on a full pension.
Karens have fucked education the way they're trying to fuck Women's (and Men's) Soccer.
Also, education majors tend to come from the bottom half of SAT scores to stary with.
And what could be the cause of that? Is teaching a profession that would inherently attract below-average college students? Or could it be the combination of below average pay, lack of growth potential in responsibility and thus earnings, and low esteem for the profession by many Americans? After all, "those who can do; those who can't teach", right?
If those SAT results are true, which I don't specifically doubt, but still would like to see the source for that claim, then I take it to be a sign that teaching is simply not an attractive enough profession to draw in above average college students. Is that a state of the teaching profession that anyone should find acceptable? Both teachers and school choice advocates seem to agree that having quality teachers is essential to student achievement. But if that is a point of agreement, then this SAT score claim should be driving people like you that throw it out there to find out why it is the case and how to fix it.
You left out "no reward for excellent work".
Seems like that would discourage top achievers from undertaking a teaching career. Or even top 50%ers.
Teaching elementary age kids requires a little training in classroom management, organization and a basic competent high school education. The teachers unions make it out to be this very difficult job when it simply is not.
Require all teachers to hold a bachelors of science degree in a field of study - history, one of the sciences, mathematics, etc., then teacher will begin to see higher wages.
They are generalists and thus have no particular extraordin
ary skill.
Teaching elementary age kids requires a little training in classroom management, organization and a basic competent high school education. The teachers unions make it out to be this very difficult job when it simply is not.
Right. An elementary teacher has no need to understand the cognitive capabilities of children at different ages. If you graduated high school, you clearly know more math than what you'd be teaching a 2nd grader, so it should be no problem, right?
Require all teachers to hold a bachelors of science degree in a field of study – history, one of the sciences, mathematics, etc., then teacher will begin to see higher wages.
Most of the science teachers that I've worked with do have degrees in the relevant disciplines. (As I do. Also, I don't think history can be a B.S. degree, but I could be wrong about that.) The few that didn't could still be effective teachers because of the other skills they brought to their jobs.
So true. I don't know about other colleges, but where I went, you needed a minimum COMBINED SAT score of 1250 to apply in my department (Anthropology). At the same college, to apply in the Dept of Education, you only needed a COMBINED SAT score of 800 for entry. I don't know of any other field that required less than a 1000 combined SAT score.
That sounds implausible. 800 would put someone in the bottom 10% of test takers. Only really low end colleges would you find many students with SAT scores that low being typical.
On the 800 + 800 = 1600 scale {no writing component} or the 3 x 800 = 2400 scale that included writing?
FoB: Yeah, this ^^^. New teacher at my high school, good kid, was going for a math degree then figured out that it would be a lot easier to get an Ed degree since what he really wanted to do was teach math. So even the students know it's easier.
And as far as low pay, I've got an Engineering degree from UWash, did other stuff for a while but been teaching for 17 years, and I'm pulling down $90k plus benefits for that short work year, plus some pension at the end of it all. Yeah it's less than I could be making as an engineer but I got tired of that and moved to this. I'm certainly not complaining.
Not only is an Ed degree worth less, even if they got an engineering degree, so what? That they chose to go into teaching says either (1) they prefer it (possibly because of all the other perks) or (2) they don't have the competence to perform well in an engineering job or (3) both. Education per se should not qualify you for higher compensation. Actual ability coupled with market demand does. There is a high demand for teachers because government mandates and subsidizes it. In a free market, there would be little demand for many of the teachers who are employed by public schools today - save for those who responded to the market and changed their ways.
"But if *they* want to coast, it's a pretty good deal."
Those of us in the dreaded private sector read this and ask ourselves "What's a pension?"
It's where you receive 105% of your salary when you stop working at age 45, at least when you're a public sector employee. You can even do it all again and receive two pensions!
It’s charity work, really.
When my job took me into a federal building and I saw these lazy-ass motherfuckers greet each other by showing on their fingers how many years until getting their pension, I think of it as people sitting on their asses getting paid to do nothing as they wait to get sit on their asses and get paid to do nothing.
Or log 26 hours of overtime per day and quadruple dip your pension!
It's where you receive 105% of your salary when you stop working at age 45, at least when you're a public sector employee. You can even do it all again and receive two pensions!
Nice hyperbole. The article notes that most states participate in Social Security as well as provide pensions for their employees, which would almost certainly mean a pension of well below 100% after 30 years. (So, no, teachers don't retire at 45 with a full pension. You're thinking cops and firemen, maybe.)
Florida, where I teach, has both SS and a pension system. But that means that I pay SS taxes as well as contribute to my pension fund. (3% of my gross pay for the pension benefit, while the employer pays the remaining 4-6%. It varies year to year based on the performance of the pension fund. Then there is the 6.2% SS tax I pay, matched by my employer.) After 30 years, I could start drawing a full pension, but it would not be 100% of my final salary, but 48%. So, retiring on that and SS isn't really an option, as it would be insufficient. And I started teaching later than a fresh, young college grad, so I would be just able to take SS early at age 62 after 30 years of teaching for a penalty.
I rarely see teachers in Florida retiring before age 65, even if they started teaching right out of college. There is just no way to save up enough to cover the gap between eligibility for the pension and eligibility for SS and Medicare.
Back to the original "105%" claim and Texas, since the article brings it up. Note that the data they cite claims average teacher salaries in Texas are around 57k, while the pension payout is about 49k. If 57k is average, then a teacher with 30+ years would be earning more than that. So that 49k pension is clearly not 100%, despite there being no SS. I find it funny that Liz Wolfe made Texas seem generous with its pension when the article she linked for the facts she uses comes to the opposite conclusion. It notes that Texas contributes far less to the pension fund than other states with no SS participation. Texas teachers are clearly expected to do their own saving in addition to their pension, or they'd be seeing a sizable drop in income upon retirement.
Jason: "There is just no way to save up enough"
Well not if you buy into our materialistic society where you have to have all the new toys. I'd say that on a teacher's salary, if you are working for 20 or 30 years and responsibly managing your money there are plenty of ways to save. Americans just don't actually try anymore. Here's an easy one for any younger readers. Put aside 10% of your take home pay. Every month, no matter what. Don't touch it for emergencies, or vacations, or that cool new truck. Pretty soon you won't even notice that your income is less because you will have adjusted to the lower number. Then run the calculations as to what 10% of your salary, compounded over 20 or 30 years adds up to. You'd be surprised. (Reference: The Wealthy Barber)
I was gonna say "JUST NO WAY to retire on less than 100% of your current income???" da fuq?
Bullsht. You have accrued no home or real estate equity in those years?? WTF do you do with your money? Go to clubs? Fashionable clothes?? International vacations??
Nah, if you can't retire, it's all on "younger you".
American teachers, on average, receive far too much total compensation based on international standards, their lackluster qualifications, and measured by the poor results they get.
But the real problem with school funding in the US is all the administrators and other expenses.
And at the root of the problem is massive public sector unions and the voting power of public sector employees. It's a self-reinforcing slide into socialism: the left hires more employees, those employees vote to support the left, and the left uses its ever increasing power to expand state employment even further.
Republicans have held all the branches of government necessary to do away with these institutions multiple times over the years, so it isn't just the left that enables this. Hopefully this current movement of the Republican base towards anti establishment will yield a roll back of the administrative state, but I'm not holding my breath. If the base all voted libertarian next presidential cycle, things would get real interesting, but instead we will probably get committees in Congress attempting to do the DOJs job and finally throw fauci a slap on the wrist for funding the research that led to millions of people dieing, and the administrative state will continue as before, slowly amassing power over generations.
Really? Teacher's unions are a direct funnel of dues to the Democrats and have massively outsized power in the political discourse and, because Republicans can't address state-run education when they have control of the Federal legislature, you're going to start your argument with a both sides statement.
You should apply for a job at Reason. They could use you. They love their bothsidesisms.
Maybe Terran is really Sullum.
Yeah. I love it when teachers trot out the "NRA contributions are warping our electorate" argument but have no qualms about any influence that public sector unions, particularly the teacher's unions might have, on election results.
So? You're saying that sliding into socialism/fascism is fine because Republicans aren't able to stop the left from doing it? Or what is your effing point?
And the reason Republicans can't stop the left is because American voters are greedy, ignorant, and entitled, across the political spectrum.
And that includes the benighted writers at Reason, whose primary concern seems to be to be able to import cheap slave labor and cheap goods made by slave labor abroad, damn the costs and consequences. Because they think that getting cheap crap because of massive debt and slavery is something libertarianism entitles them to. Almost every American has some ideological excuse for why they are entitled.
Capital flows to where labor is cheapest. Which equalizes labor worldwide.
The differences are just timing differences.
Look at auto jobs in the U.S., Japan and Germany fifty years ago compared to today and look at the new auto jobs in Korea and Mexico today.
The world goes round and round. Despite what political party is trying to flatten it.
That's because most Texas teachers don't pay Social Security taxes.
You see the same thing at the federal level: Employees who were hired under the old CSRS system (few of them left, but there's some) get bigger pensions, but don't contribute to (and thus won't collect) Social Security. FERS employees (anyone that was hired since mid-80s or was hired before then and converted) pays their Social Security taxes and will collect.
I expect other states where teachers don't collect Social Security in retirement similarly don't have them pay Social Security taxes.
And the state of Texas does not deny retired teachers SS benefits, the feds do that.
In that the SSA isn't going to pay social security to someone that never paid in to it, sure.
But it's 100% on the employer whether it's a job that pays into social security or not. Don't blame the fed for the state's choice.
My dad was in the school system in Georgia for decades. He has the option to participate in SS or not. He chose to fund his own retirement program and invested his and the employer’s portions of the normal SS contributions into what was essentially a 401k.
At retirement his “pay” went WAY up. At his death his children got the money.
By far he was better off that he would have been with SS and as a son, I was infinitely better off.
My mother in California gets Social Security. But because she never paid into it (because she paid into Cal Teachers Retirement System instead) she gets hardly anything at all.
But she's always complaining that they're taking away her Social Security. Every month like clockwork she's ranting about it. But she never paid into it expect a few summer jobs here and there. But the media has so drummed into her that it's her God Given Entitlement that she still has to parrot the talking points that Biden is taking away her Social Security. Sigh.
Interesting fact.
Agree. She should be way ahead putting her money into the Cal Teachers Retirement System. The return on that should give her a much higher benefit in retirement than what she'd likely get from social security. I haven't researched it, it's just my gut feeling. If anyone knows for sure let me know because I'm too lazy and uninterested to look into it myself.
There are two or three issues with this otherwise good article. The main one s that school districts want to hire teachers as cheaply as possible. This means fresh graduates. It's very difficult for an experienced teacher to get hired anywhere else, except perhaps if new schools are being built like mad in a boomtown, and they want some informal mentors.
Creeping credentialism means the teaching credential must be earned after the bachelor's
And often the starting salary is embarrassing low, but there is a steep ramp the first five or ten years.
That "second job/part-time work" is going to qualify them with 40 quarters of paid in, SS work.
The reduction isn't 100% either.
As someone who flirted with teaching as a career, my state of Missouri, has a problem of not paying teachers enough when they are working but giving them incredible benefits once retired. I would much rather pay them while they are working, invest in a 401k, and then be done with their employment once they retire.
Administrators also eat up so much salary, that is where the real waste is. Unions never mention them.
My recollection is that, in Missouri, you can retire after 25 or 30 years of 'service', at 85% of your base pay, averaged from your final 3 years before retirement.
A friend of mine, his dad taught high school shop for a couple decades in a small rural school district, then, a few years before retirement, moved to a larger high-paying urban district to jack up his retirement pay. Retired at age 55, gets paid about 120% of what he was making at age 50, to go hunting and fishing or watch TV, for the rest of his life.
Missouri...has a problem of not paying teachers enough when they are working but giving them incredible benefits once retired.
That is a distinction without a difference. The value of your retirement benefits is what was withheld when were productive (plus the interest). Deferred compensation exists for a lot of reasons starting with tax laws, and is designed to encourage you to hang around awhile. If you cannot understand the difference between pay and total compensation, for instance if you are a liberal, a union spokesman or in the media (but I repeat myself), you should just keep quiet on the subject.
I would much rather pay them while they are working
There's your problem. Guess who the most reliable voting block is: Retired teachers. Democracy simply stops working the moment the majority realize they can simply vote themselves more money.
I think a good deal of parents learned what it meant to with their "precious little darlings" all day everyday for 1.5 years during this pandemic. No wonder they were practically begging , then frothing at the mouth demanding, that schools reopen. Lol.
Also, what is not discussed here it the huge out of pocket costs that teachers endure to have teaching materials in their room. Teachers are subsidizing schools that can't (or won't) provide the tools they need. I have two teachers in my extended family; their circumstances sicken me and there is no way I'd put up with it, especially considering the amount of grief they get on top of it. Pay decent wages or home-school your brats yourselves.
"Pay decent wages or home-school your brats yourselves."
Tell you what, let's stop taxing people to fund public education, and let families--and teachers--trade in a free market. (You know what that is, right? Where nobody, including unhappy teachers, is required to work in a job they don't think provides enough compensation.)
Tell you what, let's stop taxing people to fund public education, and let families--and teachers--trade in a free market.
Without tax-funded education, how do you expect low-income families to afford a decent education for their children in the "free market"?
Your question assumes that children of low-income families are currently receiving a decent education. They are not. The current system has failed low-income families more than any other demographic. This is by design.
You might be making a case for need-based scholarships for the children of the poor, but not for a system of tax-supported and government-run el-hi schools that (mis)educate 90% of the yout's.
Parents who can afford it should pay with time and/or money to educate their own. We can raise funds - preferably through charitable campaigns - for scholarships to help those who can't afford tuition or homeschooling. Separate church, school press and state.
Who forced them to take those teaching jobs?
The People's Education Directorate.
(Well, not yet, but it's coming).
Teachers are subsidizing schools that can't (or won't) provide the tools they need.
Chalkboard - supplied.
Chalk - Pretty sure they get that from the school, and it's cheap if you can't.
Congratulations. You can now teach a class.
Books. Those things you read in and out of class. If you're getting all modern, book equivalents in electronic forms.
There isn't a public school anywhere in this country that doesn't provide textbooks.
You are dating yourself. Schools haven't had chalkboards in nearly 20 years. I started teaching about 20 years ago, and the schools I taught in were replacing chalkboards with whiteboards. And more recently, SMARTboards.
Congratulations. You can now teach a class.
Right. Because teaching is so easy that anyone can do it.
From what I've seen in my professional life and in the two members of my family who are teachers, yes, anyone can teach.
Your family members must be thrilled that you have so little respect for them and their chosen profession. What is your profession that it informs your opinion on what it takes to teach?
I've done guest lectures for college philosophy/political science students: explaining Libertarianism. I've also been a guest, along with a socialist, in 6th grade social studies classes. That was in a suburban publick skrool district which at least made an effort to expose kids to something other than GOP/conservatives and DEM/progressives. What I haven't tried to do is teach reading to kids who come to school from illiterate or semi-literate households where lead paint chips are on the snack menu.
https://apnews.com/article/science-health-environment-and-nature-centers-for-disease-control-and-prevention-bec63d5a6e98f952ad6d111c90e5a1b2
tinyurl.com/leadIQloss
You have a better shot teaching anybody to be a teacher than teaching a teacher to do anything else.
Sorry, but that is something only a person that's never had to teach would think.
And more recently, SMARTboards.
Which you can write on, just like a whiteboard! And the pens last longer than chalk.
Right. Because teaching is so easy that anyone can do it.
If you're a parent, you've taught. There are lots of corporate trainers out there teaching every day. Tutorials on YouTube - teaching. Driving instructors - teaching. I've taught sailors. Yes. Anyone can do it.
If you're a parent, you've taught. There are lots of corporate trainers out there teaching every day. Tutorials on YouTube - teaching. Driving instructors - teaching. I've taught sailors. Yes. Anyone can do it.
Do corporate trainers need to consider the cognitive developmental level of their trainees? A 10 year old can't learn the same math skills that a 15 year old can, even if they were at the same place in terms of knowledge. The exceptionally rare prodigy that can learn calculus before high school does not contradict the 99% of children that need more brain development before they can grasp the kind of abstract reasoning of algebra and beyond.
Do corporate trainers, people making tutorials on YouTube, and military officers and other instructors have to manage the behavior of 15-30 children in addition to teaching the subject? About the only full time teaching job in that list is the driving instructor, and that is teaching a skill to 1-3 students at a time, not a whole classroom, nearly an hour every day for 180 days.
Absolutely corporate trainers need to consider the cognitive development/stage of their trainees. Teaching adults new skills is very different and in some ways more difficult than teaching a malleable young brain. Consider that in a class of adults, you may have students with a 30 or 40 year age difference, as opposed to a class of kids +/- two years of age, then you can see how the challenges of teaching adults is quite significant.
Which you can write on, just like a whiteboard! And the pens last longer than chalk.
SMARTboards are "written on" in the same way that you "write" on a tablet. They have a lot of great capabilities that a chalkboard or whiteboard plus overhead projector don't have. But they are also far more expensive. A teacher could never afford to buy one for their own classroom. (They are thousands of dollars.)
Yeah this is a lot of gaslighting. Teachers don't get everything they WANT as far as supplies go and then they complain they have to pay out of pocket for things they NEED. And anecdotes constantly get relayed as data.
https://www.nea.org/resource-library/educator-pay-and-student-spending-how-does-your-state-rank
Here, have some non-anecdotal data.
Teachers don't get everything they WANT as far as supplies go
And you present data completely unrelated to his statement.
And while we're at it, every bit of data on that site comes from 2 places - The NEA (referring to its own "research"), and the Economic Policy Institute. Let's see if they're an unbiased source:
- In 1997, EPI was one of more than 100 leftist organizations that co-sponsored and launched the so-called “Progressive Challenge,” which worked closely with the Congressional Progressive Caucus and sought to unite their activities and talking points under a “multi-issue progressive agenda.”
I'd be OK with higher teacher wages if it was easy to fire bad ones and the intellectual requirements for being a teacher were higher. At the moment, while there are many very good teachers, it is largely a place designed for cultivating mediocrity.
Poor incentive leads to poor productivity. Most the people worth a damn leave for more lucrative fields. Only the diehards stay for the kids sake, and the lazy stay because it's easy if you do the bare minimum. Just like any job.
No, it's not just like any job. Teachers are more likely to complain about "inadequate" pay then find "more lucrative fields".
So, most of the smart tones are not teaching. A few die-hards are still teaching despite the low pay, so they must get something out of it other than money (they're voluntarily staying at a low-paying job). The rest are lazy slobs.
So tell me again why we should increase the pay for these lazy slobs? Because there's no way to fire them and hire only good teachers, and there's no way to give only the good teachers the merit pay they may deserve.
Competition. Make the pay competitive and the better people stay and compete for it. The same reason a backyard scrub doesn't get into the nfl , the money and the prestige attracts a large number of people who then compete; and only the best candidates get in and the rest get weeded out. If you waved a magic wand and reduced the pay of every nfl player to that of a teacher, they would leave in droves for more lucrative fields. And only the diehard "I really want to play in the nfl" people and those mediocre enough to stay for the low wages would end up in superbowl.
High wages = lots of people compete for it and you pick the best.
Low wages = you get what you pay for.
LB: "the huge out of pocket costs that teachers endure to have teaching materials in their room"
Given that every "study" on this subject relies on self reporting, I call BS on it. I'm a teacher, I spend a couple hundred bucks a year out of pocket, max. Mostly for stuff I think would be cool but not really necessary, and it's easier to pop down to Walmart and grab it than go through the process. My classroom would be fine if I didn't. I want a real study with real data before I will believe this.
Oh, you blaspheme!
Aren't you worried the goons from your teacher's union are going to run you down in the parking lot after school for questioning the accepted mantra? Or, at least being shunned by the other teachers you work with? Called out for being "pro administration"?
What should be brought up is that spending on k-12 has gone up waaay faster than inflation, per-pupil, any way you want to figure it.
If the teachers aren't getting a satisfactory share of that, maybe they should look to administrative costs, which have risen ever faster.
Their unions do and often put that up in their efforts to negotiate higher salaries for the teachers.
You could have doubled my salary (low $100,000s) before I retired and I wouldn't have been a teacher.
There is no way I'd put up with the way kids act out and get away with it in our new, "diverse" student body. I'd have killed some kid in the first month after they mouthed off and took a shot at me.
Some of the actual classroom video available is very telling. But of course, it isn't the kid's fault. ;-(
This article is full of something I just learned about here at reason "the will to power" if you aren't fine with the status quo Liz, then Stephanie has something to say about your indoctrination into the latest ideological trick the "natcons" have introduced into the culture war.
Care to name them? CRT is being taught in schools.
Commie-Education...
Where pay-raises are commandeered by 3rd party GUN theft.
If your going to convince your victim at the end of a gun that you need their wallet; it's not advised to admit you drive a Ferrari.. So of course commie-teacher will always dump absolutely billions of dollars in "I'm poor" propaganda. It's how they ensure their pay-rate.
And there you have it. The very problem with 'commie' systems. Instead of *EARNING* wealth by supplying *VALUE* to society. Wealth is *STOLEN* by poking Gov-Guns at people.
Seriously; What power-mad mastermind convinced society that Gov-Guns were a requirement to educate children anyways...
"Only GUNS teach children" --- sounds like a sick-in-the-head parent.
I have farmers in my family. Came from a long line of farm stock.
They've been playing the same "poor me" song for generations. And, the public sucks it up.
Today is the 37th anniversary of Farm Aid you know.
Playing "poor" has done well for many tribes seeking special dispensation. Do I dare throw the BLM leaders into this conversation? It's become the American way.
So does cost of living. Some form of normalization is required. I bet 57k goes a lot further in Texas than 88k does in Seattle.
I also thought that the article should have adjusted for cost of living.
To your specific example, however, the cost of living in Texas (according to the most recent data I could find) is 94.25% of the national average while the cost of living in Oregon is 124.02% of the national average. That means $57k in Texas normalizes to $60,477 while $88k in Oregon normalizes to $70,956. So, no, the Oregonians are still considerably better paid (+17%) even after normalizing for cost of living.
(Yes, you could normalize at the zip code level instead of just the state level but the article doesn't provide the wage detail at the level necessary to make that comparison.)
You've just demonstrated the high cost of social programs in places like Oregon.
Of course, the socialists will argue that people are just dying in the streets of Texas because they don't have the social justice the Oregon does.
Bottom line: We're all fucked!
when talking about educational backgrounds being comparable, i find it difficult to compare a bachelor's degree in "education" to anything other than a "communications degree" or a "criminology degree" (or gender studies, etc. but you get the point).
there just aren't many schoolteachers that have the education or fundamental intelligence to do anything else.
the kids aren't told that though.
In my state (California) you get a normal 4 year bachelor's degree, then a fifth year of "education". That fifth year is indeed worthless (at least from most colleges), but the four year bachelor is still the same four year bachelor that other four year bachelors get. For high school science you do need a STEM degree. So getting a credential as a "communication" major is pretty much something high school football coaches do.
This is reasonably accurate. I would note some things, as a science teacher with a B.S. and M.S. in physics (I did the education coursework required for certification separately after I started teaching. Which you can do in Florida.)
If education coursework is generally unhelpful for teaching, then how do we fix that? As others here have claimed, education majors have lower than average SAT scores, so you'd probably also expect education professors to be of lower quality than other academics. But perhaps this is a cycle brought about by low public respect and willingness to invest in K-12 education. People on the right criticize teachers and their unions, denigrate teaching as a profession, refuse to vote for higher public spending (getting that result in red states), and then use the inability to attract enough high-ability young people to the profession as justification to continue all of that.
On the contrary, blue states do not perform better than red states in education:
https://reason.com/2018/10/07/everything-you-know-about-stat/
The reason why the right will not invest with more money to the school system is because spending has not worked, and continue to criticize school teachers and administrators because they have done a bad job on what they're set out to do. Get those trenched in your mind.
The western state where I live has steadily increased education spending...and yet, year after year, the teachers point to statistics that show how underpaid they are.
Guess they don't dare to question administrative costs.
"but the four year bachelor is still the same four year bachelor that other four year bachelors get"
Not remotely true. Some majors like education make graduating students ill-prepared.
In Washington you can just get an Ed degree.
A co-worker of mine didn't decide to get certified until after getting her BA (or BS.) The local state U offered a 2-year Masters that crammed in all the Ed training required, along with the "student teaching" component. Better to take someone who has a Bachelors in History or Chemistry and teach them how to teach than have someone earn a B.Ed trying to teach high school classes without much knowledge in a particular field.
-
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bachelor_of_Education#Canada_and_the_United_States
My Dad had a Phys Ed bachelors and a Phys Ed/Recreation/Health Masters. He taught, coached and was an athletic director. He raised 9 kids on a post-war salary in New York state. Pay there in the 50s-70s was significantly better than in the South. Mom went to work part-time, then full-time once all the kids were in parochial school. Public school teachers were, at least in my student days, more likely than other parents to enroll their children in private school. {Make crack about eating one's own cooking. }
Then why have the headlines here (CA) included so many stories about non-credentialed teachers being allowed to fill in on an emergency basis due to a Covid caused shortage of qualified teachers? Particularly in STEM?
My favorite comparison about public education is public health care. Left-leaning whiners in the US always complain about our health care and funding model, and how we pay more and get mediocre results compared to European countries.
But guess what? Our public ed system also spends more and gets mediocre results. So what's the problem?
I was just reading a Quora thread about how great Canada was compared to the U.S. And, plenty of Canadians weighed in on our backwards ways, particularly in health care where they're superior. Because it's all "free" of course and available and no "obscene" profits for insurance companies.
The U.S. bashing on Quora from Europeans, U.K. and former U.K. holdings is getting ridiculous. I won't even engage. They really believe our own, hyperbole press.
> But guess what? Our public ed system also spends more and gets mediocre results. So what's the problem?
So instead of whining that we need to be more like Denmark of Sweden (neither of which are socialist), maybe the Leftists can start complaining that the private sector can be more like Public Schools!
And what's that gonna do? NOTHING.
European countries have more school choice, in many cases, than the US does.
https://www.edchoice.org/school-choice/faqs/how-does-school-choice-work-in-other-countries/
As always, population size and, homogeneity of the populations as far as race, culture, religion need to be considered.
Another metric to look at is teacher pay as a percentage of the median income in their district.
Agreed. It would give a better picture. Comparing any wage in Seattle to wages in Texas and Mississippi it going to look lopsided.
Good point.
For example, my son in law teaches high school mathematics.
He moved from an urban district to a suburban district in an upper middle class suburb for the increase in pay and benefits they were able to offer.
Yes. I thought that all schools in California received equitable amounts of funding from the state based on the size of the student body. And, they do. All in the name of "equality" of course.
But, there are few limits on additional, local contributions to the school districts. Thus, the "great" districts in places like the Silicone Valley, get a lot more in money to spend. In fact, in many, local funding is a larger percentage of funding than state.
Once again, home life and engaged parents make all the difference in educational outcomes.
"Teachers make about 20% less than other professionals with similar education and experience," reported CNBC.
If you want an engineer's (or accountant, physicist, nurse's) salary, then get their degree. Having a Bachelor's degree is not the same as "similar education".
My last engineering job didn't come with a 3-month vacation either.
Nor were the hours of operation 9A-3P...
But of course only teachers take their work home with them... /s
When I got my engineering degree in '91, jobs were hard to come by. I know a lot of people who worked contract jobs. No benefits, but they made 2-3 times what I did. And could take a 3-month vacation between jobs.
When I throw that out there teachers uniformly tell me that 1) they don't get three months off and 2) they have to use that time to gain additional education so as to stay well qualified.
Why do we shut schools down for summer vacation again? It's such a misuse of resources.
This is one of those small Big Lies that keeps popping up decade after decade. If teachers were underpaid, they'd get jobs in another field and earn what they deserved. Not happening. A few years ago, I saw the same complaint - a teacher complaining that she didn't get paid the same as workers with 'similar degrees.' By which she meant engineers with a four year degree. So in other words, she struggled through a semester of 'The Marvel Universe in Film,' and can't understand why she doesn't make the same money as the kids who took Thermodynamics.
What such arguments don't mention is that the other factors that sweeten the deal for public school teachers.
This is a significant issue with most pay discussions in media. They don't account for benefits which have gone up relative to salary a lot more over time.
Here's a good discussion of it:
https://www.heritage.org/jobs-and-labor/report/productivity-and-compensation-growing-together
We do see divergence of TC and productivity gains, but smaller than many imply. My main point though is that looking at Salary vs. TC leaves out a lot of information.
My folks, both Depression babies, used to say about Civil Service jobs: You won't get the highest salary, but the benefits are good, and there's more job security than in the private sector. The transformation of the NEA from a professional organization into a trade union, along with the parallel rise of the AFT (UFT in NYC) brought those salaries up. Mom worked for NY Telephone, then a library job that was forced into Civil Service by a union's lawsuit. She took the clerk-typist test and got another job with our county. Job security was a huge deal for their generation.
They retired t Florida in the late 70s. Dad converted his pension benefits into a private annuity, to shield himself from the era's inflation. Both my parents are deceased. They never ran out of money.
We're probably about the same age. What I often heard as a kid was: "Government jobs don't pay so well but the retirement is fantastic".
I talk to people about this constantly, but they're usually very stubborn about it. But the fact is that your average teachers are second quartile, by the end of their careers are usually top quartile, have extremely good benefits, and can retire very early (52-55 is pretty normal) fully vested.
And of course it's not a full-year, full-time job to begin with.
Teachers who want to pick up more money can teach summer school, where a district offers it. Some of my Dad's colleagues did things like sell insurance on the side.
Most discussions of teacher pay ignore the fact that many of them are in two-income families. So just looking at their salaries in isolation does not give a true picture of the economic status of people in this profession. And the above-average pensions are going to be a nice supplement to the household after retirement.
I'm in somewhat a unique position as my wife is a HS teacher, going on year 20.
First, the whole "work only 2/3 of the year" is nonsense. You can't compare "getting July and August (and some of June)" "off" to a traditional 40 hour week - or you can, but you have to be honest and admit that most teachers will put in >>40 hrs/week for those months. I ran the numbers once and they came out roughly to a wash, even accounting for vacations (which teachers get a lot of on top of their "3 months off").
Second, the article is absolutely right - the whole idea of pensions was essentially to level out compensation - in essence deferring it to ease the acute financial burden. That way, you can pay your public employees less right now, invest some of the difference, and give it to them later. Generally speaking, salary is only around 1/2 of a public employee's total compensation, while it's ~ 2/3 of a private employee's compensation. What we are seeing now is public employees demanding that their salary match or beat their private counterparts'.
If monies are invested wisely, there's no real problem with pensions, but as we all know, they're rarely invested, let alone wisely, which is where many pension systems die (that, and underestimating overall benefits levels and longevity). My wife, for example - and this is just an estimate number which I recall, will get ~ 75% of her finishing salary (well, it's an average of the top X years, but let's face it, those will be the last years) from when she retires, and since she started with her district right out of her Master's, could be as early as ~60 or so. In CT she isn't eligible for SS; she doesn't pay into it either (in fact, there are 2 line items for the pension totaling 8-9% IIRC). Several of her teacher friends actually work second jobs so that they can get SS eventually.
At that point I tell her she'd be better off retiring then getting some part time job somewhere and basically making the same money but with far more free time and infinitely less stress.
You know what? I'm not a teacher and I put in >>40 hrs/week all year long and still draw the same salary. That's not compelling to me.
Why do I do that? Primarily because I genuinely enjoy my job, take pride in my efforts, and work with several less competent people and do not want their lower-quality work to impact me or my customers. So, again, not compelling to me.
Those sorts of issues are not unique to teachers, so stop pretending that they are.
^Exactly... Well Said.
But don't you understand? Teachers are just....special.
Or, as my southern friends might say, they're "precious".
https://www.mercurynews.com/2022/09/02/milpitas-teachers-are-struggling-to-afford-housing-the-school-district-is-asking-parents-to-take-them-in/
The private sector didn't ditch pensions due to poor performance. They ditched pensions because they were created at a time where average life expectancy was 67 for men, 72 for women and it increased to almost 80 for both within the same generation.
The private sector ditched defined benefit pensions because they realized that they're actuarially impossible over the long run.
"Second, the article is absolutely right – the whole idea of pensions was essentially to level out compensation – in essence deferring it to ease the acute financial burden."
Ok, why is that a good thing? Not that you're necessarily saying that it is. The government has to pay anyway, other than pretending they're spending less and in less debt than they really are, what's the benefit?
Your comparison between Seattle (City) and New York State and compared it to Texas and Mississippi. Seattle has a very high cost of living Texas and Mississippi do not. New York State is more than likely skewed to to NYC high cost of living. It would have been better to compare teacher salaries in states to the average salary in the state.
Are teachers overpaid? Well of course they are because most of the people I have met think that the only person underpaid is themselves. Their co-workers, those who provide them services get too much and most products cost more than they are worth.
Seriously, teachers do hard work, it is a one-to-one job trying to imparting information to young people. If you think your job is hard imagine handling a room full of third graders 30 minutes before classes are dismissed for the day. How do I know, I was a third grader one and developed my clock watching skills at that time. What worse if little Billy doesn't want to learn to read it seen as your failure, not his.
The problem is not teachers it's a bloated system that expects too much from schools. When I went to school the teachers knew some students were going to college and more were going back to the farm or the factory. Today the expectation is that every student will be perfect. Well, if every student could learn to be a great speller, we would not need spell checkers. Schools have far too much administration. School do far too many sports.
Finally, regarding compensation, teachers get great benefits and part of the reason for that is that benefits often are future costs. So, municipalities give benefits in the future rather than just paying more today. I have over the years seen local and state governments try to keep cost down by promising more in the future, usually to be paid out by some future administration and not the current one
"The problem is not teachers it’s a bloated system that expects too much from schools."
Yep! Home life matters. Things took a dire turn years back as more and more women entered the work force. I lived through it. And, I don't mean it in some sexist "Leave it to Beaver way".
Somewhere in that period of time, people decided that school was a glorified baby sitter. It got worse as evidenced by today's parental demands that schools take responsibility for things outside of education. Like after school programs, free lunches, et. al.
The result is, what we have now. Hillary's "village". With government run institutions at the center.
Just go to http://www.transparentcalifornia.com and see what teachers make and their pensions. What a lifestyle!
My son in law teaches high school mathematics.
I don't know anyone else who has as much time off as he does.
He gets Paid Extra when he teaches summer school.
Plus, the union he belongs to has negotiated a 50% increase in pay and benefits over the next three years.
So please do not even try to convince me about how "underpaid" teachers are.
But, to be fair, as the article says, "it depends".
One size does not fit all.
Having said that, I'd argue that no one is underpaid. Although, it's human for us to all think we are. Because of course, we know others who make more.
Pay for work is a contractual obligation. Each side has their own self interest to protect. And, each side should be free to leave when the contractual terms have been met.
The biggest problem in public schools is the growth of administrators compared to teaches and students. From 1950 to 2009 administrators increased by 700%, teachers by 250% and students basically doubled. Probably similar to government at all levels.
https://www.aei.org/carpe-diem/chart-of-the-day-administrative-bloat-in-us-public-schools/
As the education unions grew more powerful, the cost of the schools increased several times as much as inflation - but the teachers got little of that increase. My elementary school in the 1960's had about 20 teachers and 5 administrators (Principal, Vice Principle, and 3 secretaries), or 4:1 teachers to administrators. At my grandkids' schools that ratio is nearly 1:1, and none of the administrators are "secretaries", or have such a lowly salary.
This is a complicated subject. Unfortunately the Internet is full of incorrect/misleading data. Like the comments abot Texas and SS, which made perfect sense after a poster explained how SS is collected for Texas teachers. The benefits argument is simple. Low salary is compensated by benefits. The question about what's a pension is also not explained. My father worked in a smelting refinery (a private enterprise) and received a pension. Now whether from the company, steelworkers union, SS, IRA or whatever method of saving for retirement it has to get done, because SS is not enough to live on alone. Without those other methods I listed American workers will be in desperate cirumstances upon retirement.
You're young. SS was never intended to fund a full retirement. Go back to it's origination. It was truly as we like to call things today, a "safety net". Over the years, it's been bent and twisted to the point where ignorant, entitled people see it as a "retirement" plan and an excuse to not make any provisions of their own.
In fact, the whole concept of retirement - not producing but productive benefits for the rest of one's life - is relatively new. And it has never been universally true. It may be devolving as we go along.
Productivity matters!
I knew exactly what I was going to be paid when I became a teacher. If I complain about it being unfair then I am a bitch. I have no right to complain about getting screwed when I SIGNED UP FOR THE BARGAIN. It wasn't a bait and switch. It was right on the tin, "Low pay, ungrateful customers, never get fired."
But even then the pay wasn't low. A year 1 teacher in my state earns over the state average salary. That means they earn more money than hard working people who have been at their jobs, earning experience, etc. for years. The teacher knows nothing (22 yr old squirt) and makes good money right out of the gate AND has summer off. Any teacher who works off contract time, btw, is a volunteer. If I went to Walmart and started pulling in carts I don't get to then demand that I get paid for it. No one asked so no one owes you for it. I am not being an underpaid cart puller at that point.
And at least for HS... any teacher who spends out of pocket for more than maybe a big bag of candy is nuts. Pencils and paper are not limited at schools. If they are, teacher pay is far from the pressing issue. Chalk or dry erase markers are cheap and again... very little chance a school can't provide these. The kids need expectations, consistency, and someone to give a shit about them AND their education.
Damn straight! as my Texas friend used to say. And kudos for seeing it as it is.
The kids do need all of those things. And parents not giving a shit about them AND their education, combined with mandatory school attendance, is an underlying factor in the scholastic outcomes we're whining about today.
Where I live the median income is 24k. Middle school teachers start at 32k.
It's not a myth, partial or otherwise.
So, the median income in your area is 24K, what types of jobs are earning more than 24K in your area? Is the job of teachers more like the jobs exceeding 24K or more like jobs at or below 24K? Because the median wage in your area is about $11/hour and this suggests a minimum wage economy. The starting teacher is getting about $20/hour (assume 41 work week/year) and the difference is not that great for the difference in work.
Partiality applied to area as well. Thus, it is a partial myth. Just not maybe where you live.
Teachers should be paid the average pay of the area they work in. Poverty areas shouldn't pay teachers 6 figure incomes.
The poverty areas are where the best teachers are needed. Anyone capable of earning a 4-year degree can teach middle-class kids with the support of the parents. Teaching kids who have no books in the house, with parents who cannot assist their kids in the simplest homework nor have any idea why learning is important, and with gangs and other distractions in the neighborhood, is difficult.
So the 6-figure salaries ought to be going to the poverty areas - except that the way the public schools are run, the better teachers won't get those salaries...
I disagree. Teachers should be paid at a level similar to the person with similar jobs in an area. If you are suggesting that poverty areas pay teachers poverty salaries, you can expect the kids in the area to never get a chance to improve.
The exception here would be if you had a school run by groups taking vows of poverty. My elementary school had nuns. Not many nuns left to teach.
Or here's a thought.. Teacher *VALUE* should be determined by free people and not Gov-Guns... An empire setting Gov-Gun mandated wage will never find the *real* VALUE to society because it's dictated by a dictator.
How dare you! What about equality? The environment? The children?
If schools weren't government indoctrination centers do you know what we'd have? We'd have freedom and self determination. Kaos by any other name.
Would you deal with "poverty youth" each day for even a six figure salary? How much is your life worth?
I might be biased of course. I'm in California. And, having visited a couple of high schools in the recent past that were operated more like prisons than schools because, they had to be. Lest there be even more bloodshed than they're seeing.
"...and a portion of the summers off,..."
Like three months.
Normalize the pay for working 3/4 of a year, and we can start the discussion.
I teach chemistry in high school. I have my bachelor’s and master’s degree in biochemistry. I make about 48k a year. I work 7 hours a day, rarely take work home, rarely check emails after hours, and have 10 weeks off in the summer, plus 4 weeks vacation throughout the year. Even though I take almost no work home (except grading labs occasionally) my students score above the national and state average on the AP Chem test.
I am able to do this because I live in an excellent school district, my students respect me, the advisors (usually) listen to me when I tell them which students can handle my classes, and the kids understand and even appreciate my high standards. This isn’t the case for everyone. I am completely fine with my salary, even though I could make much more money at a chemical manufacturing company with my background. I get summers off with my kids every year. Can you even put a price tag on that?
From personal experience as an active parent and with quite a few friends who are teachers (or their kids are) I would be willing to have teachers paid more. They spend significant amounts on school supplies and in, some schools, are required to participate in non-academic activities (I like their presence). Most complain about the politics and unions. They want to do their job.
No-one is stopping YOU from paying them more.
Good old commie-systems. Where people get to STEAL from others and donate other people's labors by Gov-Gun dictates.
Teachers are NOT compensated adequately in the United States for the most part. There are a variety of reasons for that, but one major factor is that the citizens of the United States continue to resist their obligation to pay the necessary taxes to sustain our society. There is nothing more vital to our society than the proper education of our children. We have an obligation to make public education available and effective for every child. That requires money. YEs, we could get some of that by reducing our bloated defense budget.
But what teachers really need right now is for the extremists to stop hijacking education in order further their outrageous agenda. Thie whole CRT thing is a farce and a lie, being used to justify not teaching our children about this country's many historical failings. It's time for them to get out of the schools and let the teachers and administrators do their job again.
"Those who cannot recall the past are destined to repeat it. "--Santayana. Unfortunately, the two southern governors who are mostly in the spotlight (which seems to be their priority) in the U.S. prefer ignorance. IF they are allowed to continue to undermine education, teachers will continue to abandon their occupation, and the United States will not survive.
Here's a photo of all the teachers dying because they are not getting a "living wage"-->
The liberals have hijacked education. The Dems are in the pockets of the powerful, competition-suppressing teachers' unions. Kids ARE being taught to judge others, and themselves, by the color of their skin.
If more money were the answer to the problems in our education system the problems would have been solved a long time ago.
Hmmmm, how does the per-student spending in the U.S. compare to spending in the many countries whose students are spanking the U.S. students on international exams?
It was the education "experts" that gave us the new math, the whole language approach to reading, and the self-esteem approach. These "progressive" approaches gave students everything but the progress...
Lefty shit-pile Midnight Mike shows up to offer worthless opinions and brain-dead assertions.
Fuck off and die, slaver.
simplified.... [WE] Gov-Gun toting mobs RULE!!! /s
Then why is anyone taking the job?
@MidnightMike.
"There is nothing more vital to our society than the proper education of our children."
And of course, that "proper" education could only come from state run, public schools.
Suggest you move to a more appropriate comment section.
Here's a comment on a recent Google article on summer vacation. I live in NJ, so I have direct experience with this argument for 60 years.
Question: Why are most American schools in the north not air conditioned?
Cost.
But for a slightly different reason that was given for another answer.
It would cost BILLIONS of dollars to either buy numerous window units or to install centralized HVAC systems in all of the schools were it would be needed. Not only doesn’t that money exist, the taxpayers who “love the children” don’t love them enough to bear the costs of increased taxes to do perform such a project.
Unfortunately for those hypocritical taxpayers, they may not have a choice in 25 years or less. Climate change is going to push up temperatures and extend summers. Children will have to attend school at times when it’s going to be hotter than it has been and they are going to be doing so for longer than they did in the past. At least some AC units will have to be installed, even if the federal government has to step in and pick up some or all of the costs.
So you mean global warming? Or is that not continuing to a degree anymore that is statistically significant so you want to call it climate change? And what really does "climate change" have to do with educational expenses? Really, air conditioning?
AC is a necessity after all. I mean, how would the children allow an un-air conditioned school to take up their play outside time in the summer?
What are you, a commie or something?
"...But for a slightly different reason that was given for another answer.
It would cost BILLIONS of dollars to either buy numerous window units or to install centralized HVAC systems in all of the schools were it would be needed. Not only doesn’t that money exist, the taxpayers who “love the children” don’t love them enough to bear the costs of increased taxes to do perform such a project..."
Asshole, we (in CA) get pretty regular ballot issues to fund this or that in the schools and two years later, we get another to fund the same thing.
In the interim, it turns out that the language of the earlier measure allowed it to be spent on more staff, and keeping incompetent teachers employed.
Stuff it up your ass, pathetic pile of lefty shit.
How do you explain all those wrong predictions, like the idea that Manhattan was going to be sunken by 2015?
Oooh!
How about "All the glaciers will be melted by 2020!"
That one came from a crackpot who had "Dr" and a long Indian name after it, so nobody even checked on his (wholly inadequate) calculations until the networks had their scare stories and politicians had their sound bites.
Yet they seem to always be able to afford to aerate the football field. They probably have an athletic director. Priorities, people.
You mean in Texas of course. Or, maybe Arkansas. Right? Friday night lights and all.
That's the most important part of a child's education. At least for those who've been reduced to the entertainment class for all of us.
As Thomas Sowell has pointed out in The Vision of the Anointed, controlling for other variables can still give misleading results. The reason so many teachers get a Master's Degree is because like an undergraduate degree in education, it's very easy. The same level of degree does not mean being equally qualified or equally productive.
Often that millionaire next door is a retired public sector worker.
I know a few retired firefighters that get 14k a month in pensions from CALPERS. The highest CALPERS pensioner is Curtis Ishii at 427k per year.
I live in California and know many firefighters. They have had a very successful powerful union. I mostly like the firefighters but in CA they get paid way too much when you consider all the benefits. If I remember correctly they make more than the police.
Police and fire unions, aided by CalPers helped push my CA city into bankruptcy. The California rule and all.
But hey, the city knuckled under and they've still got their rather generous defined benefit plans.
A public sector worker who retired FROM CALIFORNIA and cashed in his home was a multi-millionaire if they moved to Oregon (not Portland). Drove my Dad nuts "They hit a jackpot and strut around as if they contributed something to society." They called 'em "Calionaires".
But, they'll never understand that. Believe me I've tried to explain it to them when they whine about how little they actually receive (in their eyes) and what they had to do to get it.
Economics is not a strong point for most public sector employees. Even teachers. They can't or won't understand Present Value let alone actuarial calculations. That's why the annuity sales people can talk so many public sector workers into going with an annuity in addition to their public pension.
You have to consider the cost of living, too. A teacher may get paid much more in someplace like San Francisco, but be able to buy much less.
But, but, but...that wouldn't be equity now, would it? Can't have disparity like that in government jobs.
Charles Murray devotes two chapters (Ch 10 & 11) to this in his book "In Pursuit of Happiness and Good Government." Strongly recommended reading.
Excerpt (keep in mind this was written in 1988):
Many professions successfully certify their members. Physicians do it. Lawyers do it. Why not teachers?
First of all, one must consider the built-in tension that plagues any sort of certification test: The more credible it is, the more often it mistakenly rejects qualified people. This is an inevitable characteristic of testing. A test that may rightly be called "valid and reliable" by the psychometricians has a high degree of accuracy for scores at the top and the bottom. People who score near the top are almost 100 percent certain to be competent; people who score near the bottom are almost 1oo percent certain to be incompetent. In between, however, is a gray range in which a person may or may not be competent, depending on qualities that the test does not measure. This holds true for any certification test, even the best ones. One has only a choice between evils: to err on the soft side (passing people who really are incompetent) or the hard side, (refusing to certify many people who would be marginally competent).
Toward which direction may one predict that the certification process for teachers will err?
Ordinarily, we can be confident it will err on the side of weakness. If it is true that large numbers of teachers are incompetent, the last thing that large numbers of teachers will want is a tough certification test. This seems certain. Now, what happens when we map this fact onto the prevailing environment in which the reforms are to be implemented? For example, what may we expect to happen in environments where there is a strong teachers' organization, as exists in most urban school districts? Because the raison d'etre of a teachers' union is to protect the interests of its members, the people who are already teachers, one quite reasonably comes up with the hypothesized sequences of outcomes as shown in figure 8.
The chain of events is not only logical; everything we know about the behavior of teachers' unions leads us to believe that something very like this sequence will actually happen. We have numerous examples from the recent attempts (by Texas, most prominently) to administer tests for minimum qualifications of its teachers: The tests are resisted fiercely, and are finally so watered down that anyone who is barely literate can pass them. In Texas, the teacher test was not only made extremely simple, teachers who failed it the first time were given a chance to take it again.
You can see all the govt pensions in Calif at http://www.transparentcalifornia.com
My parents were both teachers. I can tell you that a teacher works about 1200 hours a year as mandatory time. The average corporate employee works 2080 hours per year. Therefore teachers earn EXECUTIVE WAGES. IN fact MOST teachers have businesses and investments as well as rather wage. They use summers to create additional income.
I don't even want to go into double dipping, having the taxpayers pay a retirement that is 80% of wage PLUS pay social security. This is INSANITY at its best.
Had I chosen to be a teacher, I would have had a contractor's license or been a real estate agent or even an insurance agent as well with literally 40% of a year without having to work for my annual pay.
Anyone who says that teachers in general are not paid well, MUST remember that no one in corporate America sees 80% of pay as lifelong retirement. No one in Corporate America has the high level insurance policies for little or no money. No one. The entire idea is very self serving and is placed into society by the National Teacher's Union and local Unions. They have been FLOODING the USA with the IDEA that teachers are not paid well. Don't get me started on police and county/city employees!
The problem with this type of analysis is that the circumstances of teachers vary widely. These variations, as noted, range from state to state, but they also come up in elementary versus secondary education, from topic to topic in secondary education, and in a whole array of work conditions that depend on the school administrators, funding levels, and the nature of the community itself (including socioeconomics, parental support, etc.)
My experience is not at all common, but I think I can provide some perspectives nonetheless. I enjoyed a 25 year long professional career that was derailed by the 2008 recession well before I was prepared to retire. No jobs appeared to be available in my field or anything related to it. I regrouped by getting a teaching certificate (alternative certification path), and I moved to a small town in Texas where I taught high school for four years. The pay was reasonable -- not extravagant, but not poverty level either. I supplemented it with a variety of extra duties (department chair, school-sponsored evening tutoring, summer school). The result was that I worked 60+ hours per week during the school year, about 25 hours a week for 6 weeks of summer school, and then had another 7 weeks of vacation along with the 2 weeks off at Christmas. Very few people can realistically find an alternate job to fill in the summer vacation times, so the salary has to be enough for the whole year. Additionally, the burn out from the heavy load during the school year made the down time in summer necessary to gear up for another run at it.
School administrators were the bane on my existence. In the guise of providing support, they continually complicated every teacher's life, creating work that was meaningless and interfering with the ability to teach effectively. Administrators' entire existence was wrapped around creating the illusion of success. Students graduated without regard to classroom performance or attendance because the administrators appeared to be successful if the graduation rate stayed high. Rigor was actively discouraged. Students knew they would graduate without regard to effort. Parents somehow could not see that their children lacked the most basic skills in reading comprehension and arithmetic (don't even dream of skills in more advanced mathematics).
I can't resist telling one story (there are countless others). In the evening tutoring sessions, teachers would rotate around room that had computers lining the walls. Students worked on credit recovery -- exceptionally simple lessons designed to convey credit for a failed class. I stopped behind a young woman who was struggling with a question -- this meant that she was feverishly flipping through the notes she had obtained from another student that would give her the answer to the question on the screen in front of her. I noticed it was a Government question, so I thought I might help her. I leaned over and read the multiple choice question: The capital of the federal government is (A) Washington, D.C. (B) New York (C) Philadelphia. I said nothing and let her continue to flip through the notes. She was 17 years old, a high school senior. A couple of months later she graduated on time and was part of a 90% graduation rate for her senior class.
After four years I left. An unexpected opportunity to move into a career related to my original field popped up, and I left without ever looking back. My new career is considered high stress. I laugh about it. It is far less stressful than teaching was.
That's because you cared. If you weren't even trying to teach the kids. you could have coasted through a full career with no effort except the "continuing education" requirements - none of which make a bad teacher better. There was one such in my home town, even in the 1950's. He was (not) teaching when I was in Junior High, he was (not) teaching when my baby sister went there 10 years later, and when my parents talked to neighbors who grew up in the same town, they learned he had been (not) teaching for at least 40 years. But the MEA protected his job and saw he was paid the same as an effective teacher of the same seniority...
"Part of the setup of "Breaking Bad" was the idea that as a high school chemistry teacher, Walter White was so poorly compensated that he worked part-time at a car wash in order to make ends meet and also couldn't afford cancer treatment."
I can't speak to salary, but I can to "cancer treatment": every state has comprehensive health insurance, both for active and retired teachers.
Don't forget, Walter Jr's therapies couldn't have been cheap.
I'd have expected WW Sr's health insurance may have bumped up against lifetime limits.
In the School District I lived in, in Northern IL the average teacher Salary in 2018 was $95K plus benefits. (All public records) Similar for most districts in the area. The Chicago Tribune did a series on this 10-15 years ago & found a Drivers Ed teacher in Lyon Township making $155k/yr. Plus teachers get to retire at 55. Who else can do that except Public Employees?
I realize in rural areas that’s not the case, but it seems all teachers want to jump on the “We’re so poorly paid!” Bandwagon.
Oh, did I mention that at least the reason that a lot of teachers have second jobs is so they can also collect on Social Security? If they have a generous State Pension like in IL, they don’t pay into Social Security. They pick up extra jobs to they’ll get even more income upon retirement.
Another deal is Administrators often leave a few years so they can take another job in a different state for yet more pension benefits.
new teachers in texas get paid near min wage...I know cuz I was one...and within 5 years, most new teachers choose another vocation, just as I did... that's how they keep the wages low... by making teaching such a hellhole that most everyone new leaves...
do you libertarians are out of touch with the real world....who could have imagined that...
Have you actually read the article or some of the comments here? Teachers are actually well paid, and get huge benefits after retirement. I suspect you are lying.
One of the quirks about Texas is that there is a state mandated minimum salary scale for teachers, and it is horrible. Districts are free to go above the state scale, and many do. Some just have a set amount above the state scale; others put together their own scale that exceeds the state scale in all possible circumstances.
I would maintain that the attrition (which is very real) is largely due to working conditions rather than salary, but there is no doubt that salary is a factor in districts that are at or close to the state scale.
I hope you weren't teaching English?
For past the 40 years the K-12 public school teacher's salaries and all in retirement and health care compensation have increased exponentially more than educational outcomes. The vast majority of taxpayers are vastly overpaying for educational outcomes. There is profound overpayment in States that have defined and guaranteed dollar pension payouts. Taxpayers are backstopping (dollar guaranteeing) the underperformance of the investments in the pension funds. This is a free option that all taxpayers are giving away and it's worth billions of dollars annually!
Defined benefit plans. You won't find many in the private sector anymore. Even in unionized environments. And, with good reason.
Almost ALL workers are underpaid.
Oh tell us, how do you think people should get paid, if you're so wise?
I stopped reading the moment I hit the point you started arguing that they do get paid enough. My wife is a teacher, and I'll tell you without hesitation that they don't get paid nearly enough for the bullshit they have to put up with, along with the hours they work over and above what they're paid for.
Choosing not to believe the truth does not change reality. Teachers are perfectly well off.
"I’ll tell you without hesitation" that one's *value* to society can only be determined by each member of society itself. If your wife's supplied *value* is more than what Gov-Guns will STEAL for her maybe it's time she offer her *value* WITHOUT Gov-Gun THEFT to support her wages.
So, why does she continue to teach? She surely has other options. And, if more money is her goal, she should focus her efforts there.
"Researchers at the Reason Foundation (the nonprofit that publishes this website) have found..."
Let's have some methodology. Do you include teachers from public colleges and universities in your calculations? If so, you may want to reconsider talking about how just a bachelors is the be all end all of salary averages. If they absolutely aren't included (and we can see that please) you're off the hook. But including public teachers salaries in your review that are not (in some states lawfully) possible without a PhD, masters, or 20+ years of experience in their field in addition to that bachelors is terribly misleading.
Stats for post-secondary education are usually kept separately. Also, life as an adjunct lecturer (non-tenure track) can be varied, depending on whether it is a second job or an attempt to make a living before getting a foot on the tenure ladder. I took Introduction to Macroeconomics from an econometrician who was employed as such by a prominent local manufacturer. I took two Intro to Programming courses from a lady who worked in the IT department of the local Bell system (POTS) company. Both struck me as excellent instructors, who incorporated real-world examples into their lectures. I bet neither had a lick of instruction from an education department.
The best "teachers" I had in my days at UC Davis were in fact not tenured professors, but lecturers. They had jobs in the real world and offered much more to us than some tenured academic more worried about whether we addressed them as "Dr." vs "professor".
They were usually teaching as way to offset the cost of higher degrees they were pursuing while working full time. And teaching at UC gave them cost effective access to UC graduate programs.
Dr. Jill Biden, EdD has a bone to pick with you.
“ You need a bachelor's degree, but there's no fine-toothed combing through a résumé to make sure it was a good bachelor's degree, from a competitive school, or in a relevant subject area.”
This isn’t necessarily true. To maintain certification in NY (required to work in public school) one must receive a Masters degree relatively early in one’s career (I believe within 5 years). Further, the schooling required for different levels of certification must show relevant coursework from appropriately accredited universities.
So like most other things cited in the article, the answer really varies by state.
Other factors to consider when evaluating teacher compensation:
- Depending on how you define it, PTO ranges from non-existent to heavily restricted; generally we are allowed 2 personal days per year plus 10 sick days… otherwise our vacation time is limited to pre-scheduled breaks
- More and more schools/districts are moving towards a 403B retirement plan
- Job protection cuts both ways; more desirable systems rarely have openings, especially those available to “outsiders”
- Job mobility may be very fluid geographically but is very limited temporally; you can’t just pickup and move in February and reasonably expect to find a job
Now, all these are pretty well known and are employment conditions teachers choose to accept. But when answering questions about how well teachers are compensated or how desirable teaching jobs are (which goes to analysis about potential shortages), it seems important to look at all factors.
If we are going to insist on public funding of education for grades K-12 the very LEAST we should do is allow parents to choose WHERE their children are educated. Vouchers permit parents to determine whether teachers who are better educators get paid more. Taking away incentive pay was ALWAYS a stupid idea.
If you work 25% fewer days, don't expect comparable salaries. Teachers work 180 days per year, most people work 240 (52 weeks minus 10 holidays minus 2 weeks vacation).
If you work 240 days for 8 hours each day, you have 1,920 hours. If you work 180 days for 11 hours each day, you have 1,980 hours. I'm sure some teachers don't work 11 hour days, but many do. I certainly did, and most that I knew did as well.
Sadly this isn't unique to the United States.
In Canada (Ontario) the media gains sympathy for teachers by saying they only make $39,000 a year.
But if you search for their pay scale from the unions web site you find the STARTING rate is $39,000 for a new teacher fresh out of college. If you have some experience you start at a higher rate than that and top level teachers are making $100,000 a year.
Are teachers underpaid? Maybe in some states, but not in CA.
In CA, the median total pay of certificated employees [public school teachers] in 2020 was $91,067 in total pay and $119,422 in total compensation. If those teachers had taken their degrees and gone to work in the private sector, they'd be paid $80,479 (median pay).
Since 2020, CA teachers have gotten substantial pay increases.
https://blog.transparentcalifornia.com/2022/08/10/how-much-are-california-k-12-employees-really-paid/
Teachers work about 190-195 days a year. A private sector employee works about 235 days a year.
As for hours, objective studies show that ON AVERAGE, teachers work slightly FEWER hours per week compared to the private sector workers with equivalent degrees:
Women Men
Teachers 41.4 44.8
Nonteachers 40.1 45.0
Average weekly hours during the school year, excluding holidays
Generally speaking, elementary school teachers work longer hours than high school teachers. And young schoolteachers work a lot more hours than experienced schoolteachers.
https://www.brookings.edu/blog/brown-center-chalkboard/2019/06/12/do-teachers-work-long-hours/
And finally, remember that CA public school teachers are essentially tenured after only two years on the job. They get paid based on their degrees and their seniority -- NOT on their job performance. In spite of the pay increases, CA student test results are still significantly below the national average.
Workers in the private sector are aware that their jobs are not secure, nor can they be assured that their employer will stay in business for 30 years. Teaching offers lifetime, stable employment.
Let me be clear: Teaching is a demanding job. It's NOT for everyone. My wife was a highly respected career high school English teacher who ended up mentoring student teachers at SDSU. I had 2 dozen teacher clients. I got to see public school education up close and personal.
The Man Called Nova???!!!!!
" If those teachers had taken their degrees and gone to work in the private sector......"
Well, as someone who spent 20 years in private sector employment and another 20 in public sector employment, I think I have some insight it how to finish that statement.
If they had gone to work in the private sector. they'd have left of been fired within a year.
Public sector employees on the whole just don't have what it takes to make it in a competitive, work hard environment in my experience. Worse, they don't even realize it. Hell, just what they wear to work and their expectations of job demands are so distorted as to be laughable.
I often thought of writing a book about my polar opposite experiences.
My wife teaches 2nd grade at a public school in Texas. The TRS retirement formula is: years of service X 2.3% X the average of your five highest years of salary.
In two years, at 62, she will be able to retire after 20 years in public schools, at $2,532.99 monthly, or $30,395.88 annually.
The 1977 Government Pension Offset and the 1983 Windfall Elimination Provision laws block my wife from receiving all Social Security money she earned as a private school teacher from 1983 to 2003.
She leaves for school every day at 6:45 a.m. and tries to leave school by 7:00 p.m. five days per week.
All of our children earned 2-year community college RN Associates degrees, work 3 12-hour shifts per week and earned more their first year than my wife does after 38 years of combined private/public school teaching and a 4-year Bachelor's degree from the University of Indiana.
Those who criticize public school teachers have never been full-time public school teachers and are woefully ignorant of teaching careers.
Supply and demand shall not be ignored.
We shouldn't even need to be having this debate. Teachers should be paid market rates. Period. Then we wouldn't need to debate anything about hours, qualifications, dedication, performance, etc.
Sometimes life just sucks. But part of being a grown up is realizing this and working on oneself to put into place what is necessary to make one's life better.
" but there's no fine-toothed combing through a résumé to make sure it was a good bachelor's degree, from a competitive school, or in a relevant subject area."
Tell me you don't care about teacher quality without telling me you don't care about teacher quality.
The big problem when discussing these subjects is the excessive spin of activists and the inappropriate set in context. For example, when discussing badly paid teachers here in Québec (I am dual citizen), activists will point to "salaries" but omit to explain the details they are talking are"entry level compensation" and every body rather believes they are discussing averages (I contacted them about this and they had the perfect bureaucratic answer to thsi: "this information is provided by a questionnaire survey managed by the Government of Canada, it is not in our liberty to question the accuracy of this information). But Education is a Provincial Authority and all teachers are employed under Union contracts, you'd believe the Government of QC could get the accurate information...But Quebec is a Matriarchal Society.. They will discuss the circumstances of part time teachers, who are effectively often financially in stressful situation because they may only work 15 to 20 hours a week, as if it represnetated aan average profile. Yet raising compensation won't fix this problem. Even the government was citing, in their montly profession compensation census compensation 30% under union garanted minimum compensation for entry level teachers. Spin from feminists have become fraud, whether discussing the economy in general, the faith of the "poor nurses thatwork harder than anyone else and take greater risks with their health than anybody elese" or even discussing scientific subjects such as climit or "pandemics".
For a single person in the USA, median income is around 27k to 29k, depending on the sources of the database (this means Median age earner). So if you earn about 25% over that, it means you are in, or close to, the top quartile of income earners, a comfortble place to be. These income levels vary quite a bit from State to State because Cost of Living varies a lot from State to State. But since females occupy almost the totality of jobs in lower education and health care, activists pretend teaching and healthcare are now among the riskiest jobs around as to claim better compensation... Another total fraud. Like the supply chain fraud.
This article is misleading concerning the collection of social security benefits and teacher pensions. Sure Texas is one but there are 15 states wherein teachers do not pay into social security and thus are ineligible to receive SS benefits. My very blue state is also one of these 15. In the other states, SS benefits are reduced if a teacher collects a pension, based on a federal law.
Many good points made here, but also lots of fuzzy thinking. Take it from a National Merit Scholar who's taught in both public and private colleges as well as K-12 schools. There are still some brilliant people drawn to teaching as a calling that engages the mind, the community, and future generations. We're willing to make less money than we could with a PhD in Statistics at an insurance company or financial firm in exchange for that pension, those summers off, and the joy of helping young people learn. The article also inaccurately claims that "no one will go through your resume with a fine-toothed comb . . . looking for relevant subject areas" and "you won't be subject to lay-offs, mergers, and acquisitions." But schools and state agencies do just these things. You can't teach calculus with an art degree, if you teach art or music you can be let go with the store of a budget ax pen, and although your contract may still be honored, if a district closes your school, you may have to drive an hour to get to another one. The US has the top graduate programs in the world, and it could be more competitive in K-12 if it added a little RESPECT toward the profession. Other countries might not pay as well, but teachers in Asia and Africa are considered government officials and looked to as de facto city council members. The other elephant in the room not mentioned yet? Public schools and public universities pay coaches who dabble in teaching more than any other educator or even government official. But these decisions eventually are the responsibilities of the electorate, which if uneducated, will continue to vote itself more bread and circuses and less rigorous homework.
The (Partial) Myth of the Poorly Paid Public Liberal Activist Indoctrination Teacher.
How about teacher start teaching the basics again?