Are Teachers Really Underpaid?
The answer is more complicated than you might think.

Teachers are underpaid, right? It's a near-universally repeated maxim. Kamala Harris thinks so. So does Betsy DeVos. However, the reality is a bit more complicated.
For the 2023–24 school year, the average public school teacher salary was just under $70,000—well over the average for bachelor's degree graduates ages 25 to 34 (though many teachers have master's degrees).
West Virginia paid teachers the least, at around $52,000 per year, while California paid them the most, with an average salary of over $95,000. According to the National Education Association, teacher salaries top out at over $100,000 in 16.6 percent of districts. However, salaries have generally stagnated. From 2002 to 2020, inflation-adjusted teacher salaries declined by 0.6 percent while as per-pupil spending increased.
The reality is that teacher salaries vary widely between states and districts, especially when looking at pay adjusted for the cost of living, making it difficult to make generalizations. Adding to the murkiness, pay doesn't seem to motivate teachers as much as many people think.
According to a December 2023 report from the National Center for Education Statistics, when public school teachers were asked why they decided to leave the profession, only 9.2 percent said it was because they needed higher pay.
A study from earlier this year also concluded that, among teachers who choose to leave their jobs, most don't earn more in their new position. "The median employed leaver makes less than before they left teaching and their earnings do not recover nearly a decade after exit," reads the study by University of Chicago and University of California, Irvine researchers. "These broad trends…suggest that factors other than earnings may have contributed to exit decisions for the average leaver."
"In other words, the economic argument around the teacher pay gap has some holes," wrote education reporter Chad Aldeman last week in an analysis of this and other studies looking at teacher compensation. "Ironically, the political and media attention focused on teacher wage gaps may also be contributing to a sense that teachers are paid less than they actually are. People tend to underestimate how much teachers actually earn, and that could discourage would-be educators from considering the profession in the first place."
But if politicians still really want to increase teacher pay, the typical measures—hiking taxes and increasing per-pupil spending—don't seem to get the job done. While school spending has markedly increased over the past 20 years, teacher salaries have barely budged. This extra spending has primarily gone to hiring more administrative staff—and it hasn't exactly resulted in better student results.
"It appears that the biggest driver is school districts hiring more people, but not primarily new classroom teachers," Neal McCluskey, director of the Center for Educational Freedom at the Cato Institute, tells Reason. "The biggest relative growth has been in 'instructional aids' who assist teachers in the classroom. While teachers were 53.4 percent of all public school system employees in 1990, they were only 47.5 percent in 2022. Aides rose from 8.8 percent of employees to 13.3 percent. It's not clear why this occurred, but it could be teachers asking for help, regulations requiring more services for kids, or lots of other possible factors."
Whether teachers are underpaid isn't an easily answered question. But if you want to know why your local public school teachers aren't getting paid more, the answer might just lie in the influx of nonteachers on the district payroll.
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
"Are Teachers Really Underpaid? The answer is more complicated than you might think."
Get real.
In some states, starting teachers make more than those starting out in the private sector.
Plus, thanks to the teachers' unions and an apathetic voter base, they get generous raises, envious benefits, less responsibility and accountability.
All that just to produce functional illiterates at the taxpayers' expense.
The answer is "it depends."
Teachers in Texas making $65k are not underpaid.
Teachers in Michigan making $30k are underpaid.
Where are teachers in Michigan paid $30K? Why so little?
When I lived in NJ 10 years ago, the school district I lived in had first-year teachers paid above the state median HOUSEHOLD income, and STILL the teachers complained, because no one actually knew what teachers were paid.
I have no clue why Michigan pays teachers so little. But cursory google searches seemed to confirm it.
People get confused when arguing about Texas because the statutory minimum is very low, but every district from Houston San Antonio to Dallas (And in between) starts at $60k.
You can find some pedantic asshole who will quote the one horse town, 3 hours outside Midland, with 3 teachers in a shed that pays $35k.
The big districts in Texas pay quite a bit more than suburban and rural districts, mostly because teachers in the big districts are basically security at a juvenile facility. Seriously, the general thuggery labeled as "misbehaving students" is a huge problem.
Teachers in New York City making $65k are underpaid. That is the starting salary for a new teacher with a bachelors degree. Unless you want just any warm body in front of kids, you need to be able to compete with the private sector for the best graduates. Conservatives do not understand that labor markets apply to the government, too.
That first-year teacher making $65K has ZERO experience, this is their first job out of college.
Here's the NYC salary table from their union contract:
https://www.uft.org/salary-schedules/2024-01-18
They are not under-paid, they are fairly compensated for their work - they have (typically) a BA in the liberal arts, not a hard science degree, and aside from spending some time in front of a classroom during their senior year, they have no experience.
(The example I shared in NJ did not have NYC level cost of living expenses.)
Which colleges are teachers the best candidates? Here many of our charter schools use professionals who turn to teaching. Charter schools out perform on student test scores than education majors at public schools.
Why oh why would first graders need " the best graduates"? There's no evidence that super intelligent people can teach reading better than average people.
Teachers should be emotionally stable first of all.
True. Not hiring blue haired 250 lb. lesbians with a dozen plus piercings and tattoos is a good step in that direction.
Graduate Architects typical starting salary in NYC averages around $65k.
Teacher starting salary is totally reasonable (if not a little inflated considering the other benefits they receive that other workers don’t.)
The biggest complaint that I can agree with is that teachers start pretty well in pay, but it plateaus very quickly if you don't pad your resume with bullshit online degrees to check some boxes.
So I can see how I might be irritable if after 20 years the new hires are making the same as I am.
On the other hand, after 20 years my job should be pretty "easy" for me.
That’s because you democrats make everything expensive and inefficient.
get rid of public schools entirely. problem solved.
Emma, no mention of how many months are in most teacher contracts? If we assume around 9 months then a $70k annual contract is equivalent to an annual salary of $93k.
And whether or not individual teachers take on summer jobs or run their own business, as many do, the time off has serious cash value. Just ask anyone who works 12 months every year.
Plus, retirement after 25 years or so, at 80% of your average last 3 years pay.
I think in most states teachers need to work more than 25 years to get full pension.
Correct, most require 30. Here in New York City you also need to be 63 years old to get the full pension. And the pension is only 55% of the average of the last five years salaries after 30 years service. Pension benefits are nowhere near what they once were.
What does a teacher with 30 years service make their last 5 years? I somehow suspect that getting 55% of your last five year salary for not going into work AND free medical for life is a pretty decent payout.
It looks like a teacher with 'only' a BA makes $120K/year, so if we take that as 'average', 55% of that is almost $70K/year, for life, with free healthcare coverage.
https://www.uft.org/salary-schedules/2024-01-18
It may have been better before, but it's not too shabby now...
Compare that to military pensions.
Teachers whine and cry about how awful they have it, but it’s a pretty easy gig for the most part.
BLS surveys also show even when working they average 32 hours a week.
No, you can't invent additional hours and inflate their pay.
Teachers work the hours we ask them to work, they accept the pay we offer them, that's the deal.
Every hour spent after class grading papers, working on coursework, etc is compensated for with time off in the summer.
Go ask a teacher, any teacher, if they're willing to get rid of all the after-school hours in exchange for an 8 - 4 workday, M-F, year-round, less 2 weeks vacation and school holidays for the same pay - they won't do it.
If they spent less time working on setting up their Pride displays and festooning their classrooms with rainbows, they probably wouldn't need to spend as much time after class "grading papers, working on coursework."
I saw a congressional candidate (Democrat) complain that kids aren't being taught civics anymore (I agree), and he complained that we needed to put that back in our classrooms (I agree), but what he failed to mention was the fact that class time has remained constant, the school day has not shrunk, so why isn't civics being taught anymore? Because teachers squeezed it out of the curriculum by doing things like "Drag Queen Story Hour" and discussing the vast multitudes of genders available to students, and the ever popular "current events" discussions that veer off into topics that have nothing to do with the subject the class was organized to teach...
To add civics back in, what will he be willing to take out?
(This was on Bill Maher's HBO show last weekend)
Civics/government was a separate class when I was in high school.
This is why I mentioned BLS labor surveys.
Fun story. Worked at a bat in college. Near a few public. Schools. From 3 to 6 pm majority of customers were teachers.
I know teachers cry about their long hours a lot, but when they do hour by hour labor surveys it consistently shows them working under 40 hours. Especially now that you can buy/reuse lesson plans.
Most teacher contracts now include free periods to do the work you are crying about.
I don't understand why we ask teachers to develop their own lesson plans.
Why isn't there a standard lesson plan developed by the State/District/High School?
Teachers tell me about the hell of picking up a new course and having to develop a lesson plan. WTF. I don't ask my new hires to reinvent their jobs.
Uh, sure. Do you think teachers are the only "professionals" that work nights and weekends?
And nobody is inventing hours. Most of us who work year-round would face a 25% pay cut if we demanded summers off (if we were not fired). What teachers choose to do June through August is up to them (and like it or not, is a chance to earn more money).
Most public school teachers work about ten months. They have a week or so after the kids get out and come back a week or so before classes start.
With a prep week and course planning it is more like 10 months give or take. The tradeoff is that many teachers work more than 40 hours a week. It can be quite intense during peak school weeks.
Another point: the concept of "underpaid" only makes sense if you think there is some abstract "correct" pay.
In the free world employers and employees agree to engage for a mutually acceptable amount of pay. Just because people might want more, or others get paid more, does not mean they are underpaid.
^BINGO..............
"Are Teachers Really Underpaid?"
No. They're Over-paid because people who use 'Guns' (Gov-Guns) to STEAL from others do so because they don't want to actually *EARN* their pay.
Don't call the police when someone burglarizes your house. They are paid for with stolen money.
Paying for police to protect you from criminals burglarizing =/= getting burglarized by criminals.
In-fact to anyone but a polluted leftard criminal-mind those two are complete opposites.
Let’s be fair. Charlie is pretty retarded. So his pervasive idiocy is to be expected.
In the states I've checked (except Michigan, WTF) the starting salary for a teacher is at or near the household median income.
That seems objectively "fair."
Minus Fair being an actual trade agreement between customer and service provider.
One of the biggest problems of 'Gov-Guns' doing business (service) is nobody knows what 'fair' is anymore; there's no co-operation in the process just 'Gun' threats.
"Aides rose from 8.8 percent of employees to 13.3 percent. It's not clear why this occurred, but it could be teachers asking for help, regulations requiring more services for kids, or lots of other possible factors.""
Between 1990 and today, Teachers and their Unions have turned the profession into one requiring a professional degree. 30 years ago, your math teachers had math degrees and your chemistry teacher had a science PHD. Now, pretty much every elementary school teacher had a teaching degree, and IF your high school teacher has a Science degree, their Masters/PHD are likely in some sort of pedagogy.
This means there are a lot of "teachers" who are still working on their teaching masters or other degree. And to earn that degree, they have to go work in a school as an assistant for a year or two.
That change started in the 1950's - not 1990 or so.
I’m pretty sure that not many high school math or science teachers had MA/MS degrees and virtually none had PhDs. Doctorates were something that only University lecturers/professors had.
Teachers get advanced degrees at obscure colleges and universities (typically at school district expense) to get a salary bump year-after year.
Dr Jill has a PhD in education and she teaches reading on the 3rd grade? Is that really something that requires a PhD?
No, Dr. Jill Biden teaches at a community college. I actually taught at the same campus four decades ago.
I stand corrected - doesn't she teach reading though?
From Wikipedia ;so you know it's true ;^):
"She taught English and reading in high schools for thirteen years and instructed adolescents with emotional disabilities at a psychiatric hospital. Following this, she was an English and writing instructor for fifteen years at Delaware Technical & Community College."
So she was a reading teacher for 13 years at psych hospital, then took a job as English teacher at community college.
My point, she's extremely educated for those jobs, and that's great, but if we were to do a cost-benefit analysis, maybe she didn't need to borrow all that money for four degrees to wind up teaching in community college?
No, Dr Jilly has some sort of education doctorate which (having perused her dissertation I confidently state) has no value outside the education pay-scale consideration. It's demonstrably crap.
You beat me to it. Doctor Jill has a doctorate of education EdD, not a PhD in education. The EdD does not carry the same level of "prestige" that the PhD does. That's why it's sad how she insists people call her Dr. Jill Biden.
Exactly, she’s hardly a real doctor. Her doctorate is a bunch of nonsense and of zero practical value. I have infinitely more respect for a CPA with bachelor’s degree from a crappy college.
At least the CPA is useful.
As I note below, exactly. I'm sorry I didn't notice your comment before I made mine.
As are all degrees (progressively feeling less useful as you ascend the post graduate ladder) outside of the hard sciences.
No, Jill Biden has a Doctor of Education (Ed.D.) a completely different thing from a PhD.
"Biden later returned to school for her doctoral degree, studying under her birth name, Jill Jacobs.[39] In January 2007, at age 55, she received a Doctor of Education (Ed.D.) in educational leadership from the University of Delaware.[2][48][50][51] Her dissertation, Student Retention at the Community College: Meeting Students' Needs, was published under the name Jill Jacobs-Biden." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jill_Biden
I find it hard to believe that anyone but someone on the left believes they are underpaid.
If there are, it's the very new people. Because once they get in, their salary just goes up every year.
Growing up I had a senile Math teacher, basically like Biden, and he was pulling down something like $130,000 back in the late 80s, simply because he had been there so long. No one learned anything, but no one cared
The real comparison that should be made is between public school teachers and median income in their districts.
True. They do fairly well where I live.
Minus their 3-months vacation and 6-hour work day.
But if politicians still really want to increase teacher pay, the typical measures—hiking taxes and increasing per-pupil spending—don’t seem to get the job done. While school spending has markedly increased over the past 20 years, teacher salaries have barely budged. This extra spending has primarily gone to hiring more administrative staff—and it hasn’t exactly resulted in better student results.
This is exactly what should have been expected, long-term, when school governance changed from individual schools to districts. With individual schools, it ain’t politicians who can even advocate about teacher pay – it’s a local school board full of local neighbors/parents/etc. Power – spending AND taxing – is in their hands so why would they give a shit what a pol says.
And once all decisions are made by ‘professionals’ at the district level (because at the district level K, and elementary and high school are all managed by the same people - so that takes parents out of the mix), then they will find all sort of district level busywork that needs to take place. Which means more administrators instead of more teachers. Even more so when that district level busywork gets moved up to a higher level (which includes ‘school choice’ administration as well as federal and state level)
We went from 120,000 school governance entities around the end of WW2 – to 15,000 or so today. That was not ‘efficiency’. It was lack of accountability.
+10000000 Well said.
"Lack of accountability" always festers where Gov-Guns STEAL.
Most school boards are elected by voters.
But district boards don't have the ability to tax - or the independent ability to spend - and they thus have to depend more on the state level. And they still are managing both elementary and high school which takes parents out of the knowledge/engagement loop unless they appeal to voters as ideological partisans. That's very different to the governance that existed before even though they were elected before as well.
Before WW2, districts mainly existed in Jim Crow South (can't have 'separate but equal' unless managing multiple) and big cities (where the tax catchment area for elementary was too small pre-computers).
School boards were consolidated into districts mostly because of population move to suburbs. Those required new schools - hence school bonds - hence the state had to take over some financing responsibility (esp pre-computers).
Just looking at Denver – everyone on the board for at least the last few elections has ‘represented’ some special interest group – from teacher unions to charter schools – and all but a couple have been school employees/professionals. Those ‘races’ cost $2 million per cycle (for half the seats each time – four) – and that spending is separate from the candidates themselves. Technically board members receive no compensation. So - why $2 million in election spending?
This is a perfect example of how elections themselves lead to oligarchy and control by special interests. The only reason elections worked on older school boards was because there were so many board seats to fill that ‘serving on school board’ became something that almost everyone had to do at some point. So – more like jury duty or sortition than ‘election’.
Don’t you mean ‘free-loaders’ who can’t be bothered with raising their own kids nor justly *earning* the cost themselves.
Don’t kid yourself; the foundation of the whole scam is to prevent *real* justice from being ensured and to shovel one’s own responsibility off onto the ‘general public’.
Perfectly described as, “Lack of accountability”
I come from a family of teachers. mother, father, grandmother, and even myself for short while. And I have numerous teacher friends. Teachers are NOT underpaid. They may not be rich, they may not be wealthy, but they are above average in income. And the public sector benefits that come along with being a teacher are pretty sweet.
Nevertheless, one of my teacher friends is a solid unionist who constantly complains that she and all teachers are underpaid. Bullshit.
Now of course, teachers in San Francisco and New York have a terrible time of it, but then again, so does the rest of the middle class in those hyper-expensive cities. Meanwhile I can drive through a small rural agricultural town and point out where every teacher and school administrator lives, because their homes are so much nicer than their neighbors.
Not filthy rich, but at the same time not destitute. Teachers are solidly middle class.
"Now of course, teachers in San Francisco and New York have a terrible time of it,..."
Where is Ilya to point out that teachers in these areas can vote with their feet. Teaching is a portable skill. If the wage/cost-of-living is better elsewhere, then move to elsewhere.
They're literally choosing to live in one of the most desirable locations (at least from a purely supply/demand perspective) areas in the world.
Yeah, your standard of living is going to have to take a hit if you prioritize the location. Welcome to real life.
The answer is "no" and it's not complicated.
Correct answer.
I used to tutor in college. Many education majors. Some of the dumbest people I ever had to tutor.
One example. Math 302a/b was their hardest math class. It was theory of counting. Their finals consisted of Roman numerals and converting to binary and her. Around 30% failed their first attempt.
Education majors have near the bottom for college entry GPA but leave with near the highest GPAs due to how easy the major is.
The best teachers, at high school level anyway, were always the ones who had done something besides teaching first and never education majors.
When I was going to college for my Engineering degree I always liked taking evening classes. Evening classes were usually taught by someone who worked in the field and taught part time. You learned more in those classes. We had a daytime class about "Manufacturing Processes" that was taught by someone who just taught. We were going over the components of a metal lathe. The instructor misidentified a control and one of the students called her on it. She said "I have a degree in this. Who knows more, me or you?" The student replied "You might want to get a refund on that degree. I ran one of these for ten years."
That's largely the teacher pool charter schools in Arizona use.
Their coursework is easy. They always have lots of time on their hands. Much more than I did majoring in accounting and finance.
Whether teachers are underpaid isn't an easily answered question
Especially if you ignore a bunch of relevant elements of their compensation:
A strong defined benefit plan
A strong group health plan
A generous sick time policy
A high degree of job security
An extremely easy education requirement
The biggest problem with pay in most school systems is the worst teachers are paid the same as the best teachers. A meritocracy with competition and choice could do a lot to change that. The teachers unions makes sure that won't happen.
Neither the pensions nor the health insurance are as good as the best plans by private employers today.
I call bullshit on that. Unless you're looking at private personal
provisions by business owners for tax purposes.
So what? EVERY teacher is entitled to the same pension and benefits packages that people that are the best in their fields get?
The requirements for getting a teaching job are minimal - secure a 4 year college degree and get a teacher certification - in many states they have 'provisional' certs that first-time teachers can earn while teaching in the classroom their first year...
Look buddy, if you want that level of compensation then let’s make teaching a meritocracy and remove tenure, let give merit-based pay, and implement bonuses for exceptional performance.
(If we got rid of tenure, a great percentage of teachers would lose their job, for example, the ‘teachers’ in NYC’s infamous ‘rubber room’, collecting paychecks, earning time towards their pension, but kept away from the classroom because of their behavior or performance.)
Why aren’t they ‘private’ employees???????????????????????????
By all angles of a free nation (Individual Liberty) they should be.
Neither the pensions nor the health insurance are as good as the best plans by private employers today.
You have no fucking clue what you are talking about. On top of being wrong, your bloviation has nothing to do with anything. In both public and private employment it is part of your compensation.
Are Teachers Really Underpaid?
No.
The answer is more complicated than you might think.
Also no.
when public school teachers were asked why they decided to leave the profession, only 9.2 percent said it was because they needed higher pay. A study from earlier this year also concluded that, among teachers who choose to leave their jobs, most don't earn more in their new position.
Nothing happens in a vacuum. "Are you paid enough" or "underpaid" is a function of what you have to put up with in the job. They would have to pay me about 200k to put up with the little shits and their shitty parents who pass for the public school population these days. So teachers leave because the job isn't that great, and the pay isn't enough to make it great. Multifactorial.
This observation has a catch-phrase employed in 10,000 movies and TV shows, not just about teachers, but any job, "they don't pay me enough for this shit." The "shit" being the downsides of the job.
Something missing from this analysis, previously reported by Reason:
"To be sure, noninstructional staff, including administrators, have been hired at faster rates than teachers in recent decades. Census data confirm this: from 2002 to 2019, support-services expenditures grew from $3,782 to $4,701 per pupil. Of that increase, $155 per pupil went to administration." Nov 29, 2021
Similar to what has happened in higher education, where admin staff in some cases now outnumber teachers; costs more with no measurable results
Those Support Staff numbers no doubt reflect in large part the ever-increasing needs the districts have for several reasons:
- the expansion of the Autism Spectrum to include more than half of all students (it seems)
- the IEPs those students require, forcing teachers to have assistants in the classroom to ensure all the kids special needs are met
- the reality that teachers don't do anything for free (paid extra $ to write curriculums, paid to help out with school bus loading/unloading/car lines, paid to oversee after-school activities, paid to coach sport teams, etc
Etc
who sets the standard on Over / Unger?
The [WE] mob of ‘democratic’ [Na]tional So[zi]alist ?Justice? Warriors packing Gov-Guns? /s
Ya know; The same one’s that ruled Nazi-Germany for a while.
problems foreseen.
"For the 2023–24 school year, the average public school teacher salary was just under $70,000—well over the average for bachelor's degree graduates ages 25 to 34 (though many teachers have master's degrees). "
Many teachers get advanced degrees from third-tier schools (with tuition reimbursement) in order to get an annual bump in their pay check - check the teacher union contract...
I call bullshit on that. Unless you're looking at private personal
provisions by business owners for tax purposes.
According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics full-time teachers work 5.6 hours per day. Surveyed Teachers on the other hand, say they work 50+ hours per week.
Somebody is lying.
Also most of us with a 9-5 don't get three months a year off, so the "yearly" teacher salary averages aren't really equivalent or accurate are they?
I know a number of teachers. When I dig into the specifics of their day, they usually work around seven hours, unless they’re coaching, or some similar activity. For which they get paid extra.
They have it pretty easy.
the teachers I've talked to have left due to uncontrollable kids and new teaching methods requiring the bad and retarded kids to be with the average kids making it difficult to teach properly. in the past the bad kids were sent to a different school and the retards had special classes.
Well, *you asked for equity, you now have equity. It's just that it's a lot easier to bring the top students down to the bottom than it is to raise the bad students up to the top.
See also the great Rush song, "The Trees." It's not about schooling, but the point still stands.
*a rhetorical "you," as I don't think you were demanding equity or any of the other fundamentals of DEI.
Based on the results (standard tests, all we have), they are grossly overpaid.
Since it is impossible to get rid of the unions that keep the bad apples on the tree, we have to dump the 'public school' model.
Way over paid. At least the union ones.
The answer is more complicated than you might think.
Any time you see someone say this, you can be 100% certain that they're about to torture the ever-loving heck out of some facts and logic.
OK, let's go read the LoL JoUrNaLiSm article.
OK, so I'm just going to re-write this article completely.
"Teachers are underpaid, right? It's a near-universally repeated maxim. Kamala Harris thinks so. So does Betsy DeVos. However, the reality is a bit more complicated.
For the 2023–24 school year, the average public school teacher salary was just under $70,000—well over the average for bachelor's degree graduates ages 25 to 34 (though many teachers have master's degrees).
So, no. The market value of that job simply is inflated. Short of those in private tuition-funded elite academies, teachers - particularly public school teachers - are actually grossly overpaid and we should cut their salaries to be more consistent with supply/demand and cost/benefit market considerations."
I suppose if you wanted to fill the article out a little more, we could explain how the market is flooded with teachers (thus driving down their market value), the demand for them is compromised by schools that seem more interested in hiring administrative positions than educator ones, and the harsh-but-true reality that A) any retard can be a teacher; and B) it's not like they're churning out a valuable product at the end of the day. If the math scores and literacy rates were through the roof, they'd increase their market value - but they're not.
So, why pay someone anything more than peanuts in a field that's flooded with applicants, for schools that would rather over-pack classrooms than hire more teachers, for a job that requires little-to-no specialized skillset, and whose track record has consistently been putting out an inferior product over the last few decades?
We think of schoolteachers as professionals, yes? Unlike many other professionals, teachers have limited or no control over their salaries. One might wonder how well off the psychologists, psychiatrists, and pediatricians who treat schoolkids when they start freaking out about something and seriously considering suicide. Or start expressing violent fantasies involving guns. We need teachers who have been professionally trained to identify kids who are unraveling before such extreme behaviors become likely.
We think of schoolteachers as professionals, yes?
lol, no. They're blue collar.
In his book "In Pursuit of Happiness and Good Government" Charles Murray devotes two full chapters to the question of teacher's pay. Fascinating perspectives, thought experiments, and historical references not to mention how big government screws everything up includ9ing teacher's pay.
CBS News:
Slackers wanting to earn the country's easiest college major, should major in education.
It's easy to get "A's" if you're an education major. Maybe that's why one out of 10 college graduates major in education.
Research over the years has indicated that education majors, who enter college with the lowest average SAT scores, leave with the highest grades. Some of academic evidence documenting easy A's for future teachers goes back more than 50 years!
The latest damning report on the ease of majoring in education comes from research at the University of Missouri, my alma mater. The study, conducted by economist Cory Koedel shows that education majors receive "substantially higher" grades than students in every other department.
Why should we care if education majors, who must survive classes like "kiddie lit," coast through school?
For starters, easy grading can prompt students to slack off. If you can earn an "A" with little effort why exert yourself? What's more, if most students are getting A's then how can employers distinguish the future teaching stars from the academic slugs?
Koedel also suggests that the low academic standards required of education majors can extend to low expectation of teachers after they leave college.
Low grading standards in education departments may contribute to the culture of low evaluation standards in education more generally. Although the existence of such a link is merely speculative at this point, there is a striking similarity between the favorable grades awarded to prospective teachers during university training and the favorable evaluations that teachers receive in K-12 schools.
It sounds like the only ones who are flunking these days are the education professors, who are handing out all these easy A's. These profs should spend time with teachers in departments like chemistry and economics to see how real grading works.
https://www.thefiscaltimes.com/Articles/2013/07/08/The-Alarming-Truth-About-Education-Majors
At many large universities with an undergraduate college of education, the education school is regarded by students and faculty alike as the weak link, sometimes something of an embarrassment. None of the top dozen or so universities in rankings compiled by magazines like US News or Forbes typically even has an undergraduate ed school, in contrast to lots of institutions among the lowest ranked universities that were originally “normal schools” that even now have large education colleges. Could, however, this merely reflect prejudicial and snobbish attitudes against those interested in pedagogy and the promotion of high quality “lower” education?
Not so. An important new study of literally thousands of teacher prep programs from the National Council on Teacher Quality (NCTQ) suggests the campus indictments of education schools are very justified. The NCTQ was established over a decade ago by reformers and scholars dissatisfied with the pathetic oversight of education schools done by establishment accrediting agencies like the National Council on Accreditation of Teacher Education (NCATE). NCTQ is financed by a bevy of heavyweight philanthropic groups such as the Gates and Arnold foundations. A few of the study’s conclusions:
“In countries where students outperform the U.S., teacher prep schools recruit candidates from the top-third of the college-going population….only one in four U.S. programs restricts admissions to even the top half of the college-going population;”
“In mathematics training of elementary teacher candidates, few programs emulate the practices of higher performing nations such as Singapore or South Korea. Only 19 percent of programs demonstrate similar expectations of their teachers;”
“Almost all programs (93 percent) fail to ensure a high quality student teaching experience, where candidates are assigned only to highly skilled teachers and must receive frequent concrete feedback”
“Only 11 percent of elementary programs and 47 percent of secondary programs are providing adequate content preparation in the subjects they will teach.”
That comports with what I have observed. The students majoring in education are below average academically, with relatively low test scores and high school rank. They often have so-so preparation in the subject matter they are going to teach. The most critical part of preparation -student teaching–is often done in a slapdash fashion with students working with mediocre teachers, not the very best.
But above all, I observe very little rigor and no incentives to excel academically. National data show grade inflation is a serious problem throughout higher education, with a typical college student class grade now being a “B”, compared with a “C+” a half century or so ago. But in education schools it is far worse.
Whereas students average close to “B-” grades in courses in economics and physics at my university, those in the education school average “A-” and grades below “B” are virtually nonexistent except for the rare “F” for a registrant who is a complete no show. Yet the students in the education school are far less competent academically (based on SAT scores or high school grades) than the physicists or economists. Relatively weak students are given a non-rigorous course of study but earn very high grades.
Why are the education schools attracting mediocre scholars in the first place? Part of it relates to the changing role of women in the labor force (many bright females who previously went into teaching now are becoming doctors and lawyers), part may relate to the bureaucratic, anti-meritorious nature of our public schools arising out of very bad labor union contracts, but part of it, I suspect, arises from the fact that the best and brightest students simply don’t want to study the mush taught in the education schools.
This has been a perrennially mis-reported situation. Overall, teachers are paid fine. Yes, some districts in some states pay poorly, but that's the exception. They also typically get defined benefit pensions and good healthcare. They also have family friendly schedules, at least once their children reach school-age. They get most big holidays off which is something restaurant workers and many other laborers cannot say. A couple of months off in the summer is nice too.
What is not talked about his how every teacher gets on the same salary schedule regardless of how tough their scedules are. Some teachers have found a way to be out of the door at 3PM and have very little to grade and prep for. Then you have English teachers up at night grading papers.
There are also ways to pad paychecks. Coaching brings in more money. You can grade AP tests in the summer for extra cash or even have a summer job. Even with these side jobs they may still only work the same number of hours year-long as other professions.
There is also the nice perk that with salary schedules teachers can map out future finances decades in advance. They may start at a modest salary but by ten years in or so and with an added Master's degree that isn't all that challenging or necessary they get pay bumps. There is the tendency to get laid off in your first few years but once you get seniority your pretty secure until you retire. And then you can come back and sub for extra money on top of your pension. Subbing is easy in good districts. And for a veteran teacher subbing is a piece of cake.
If you like a good solid middle-class existence it is a good profession. There are districts that are very stressful to work at, but we have to be honest that it is the stress of dealing with kids and their issues and not the pay that drives teachers out.
Totally left out of the article and discussion: Unionized public education resists change, thus fossilizing inefficient classroom structure that a teacher from the 1800s would recognize.
While all manner of private enterprise offices, factories and farms have leveraged new technologies to serve more people with less labor, our unionized, government-owned schools brag about how *few* students they serve with each masters degree.
If/when we privatize, innovation in K-12 education will not only reduce costs but afford higher salaries for top-drawer degrees and experience. The trick is that we just won't need as many of those top-earners after their expertise has been properly leveraged.
Unions won't like it, but most of the labor needed in classrooms is just baby-sitting, and that can be provided by hordes of cheap, unskilled labor drawn from the entry-level and semi-retired ends of the labor force.
For the 2023–24 school year, the average public school teacher salary was just under $70,000—well over the average for bachelor's degree graduates ages 25 to 34 (though many teachers have master's degrees).
Talk about mixing apples and oranges. Since they started with the average salary of all public school teachers, then stick to averages of all college graduates. Also, if many teachers have graduate degrees, then just comparing them to those with bachelor's degrees is not going to be a valid comparison.
A study from earlier this year also concluded that, among teachers who choose to leave their jobs, most don't earn more in their new position.
This isn't the only way to look at whether teachers earn enough. More importantly, you need to look at how many people want to become teachers in the first place.
Medulla Oblongata above spends a lot of time looking at the academic rigor and achievement of students majoring in education. But he comes to the wrong conclusion.
Why are the education schools attracting mediocre scholars in the first place? Part of it relates to the changing role of women in the labor force (many bright females who previously went into teaching now are becoming doctors and lawyers), part may relate to the bureaucratic, anti-meritorious nature of our public schools arising out of very bad labor union contracts, but part of it, I suspect, arises from the fact that the best and brightest students simply don’t want to study the mush taught in the education schools.
The first error is in the sexism of viewing teaching as 'women's' work' that few men want to do, (At least not "real" men) and now fewer women want to do it, particularly the brighter and more driven ones. The second error is in thinking that unions are also a big challenge, when red states generally have really weak teacher unions and a few don't allow collective bargaining at all. The biggest error, though, is in thinking that the quality of the education programs in universities is a problem and completely ignoring the most likely reason: teaching is just not attractive as a profession in the U.S. to the "best and brightest students" enrolling in college.
Some of that will be pay, naturally. But there are other reasons. One is that teaching in a classroom is what the vast majority of teachers would do for their whole career. There is no advancement for them. Being more experienced will often mean they would be better teachers, and they might get more choice in what courses to teach (such as AP classes in high school), but being department chair is just signing up for more work, not any extra authority or intellectual challenge. Going into administration means not working with students in your subject, so that isn't attractive to those that are passionate about what they teach or working directly with children. There are some roles in mentoring or coaching other teachers, but that is typically a few positions out of every 100 classroom teachers to do it full time. Otherwise, they are again just signing up for more work without a proportionate increase in compensation or prestige.
Another large reason why students entering college are less likely to seek to be teachers is that they have direct observational experience fresh in their mind of how teachers are treated by the administrators, politicians, parents, and the larger society. They see that teachers can't call them "Jack" during the first week of school when the roster says "John" because a law was passed preventing them from using anything other than their registered name without parental permission. They notice when books they want to read aren't in the library because some Moms for Liberty activist was one of half a dozen people that objected to a list over well over a hundred books and got them removed from one of the largest school districts in the country. They see it when politicians say that teachers are "grooming" them to become gay or trans or to have sex or whatever. They see how little respect their peers give to their teachers and how little administrators and especially parents do about it. They notice when the general attitude towards teachers is one of "Those that can, do. Those that can't, teach."
How can anyone in Florida be surprised that there were 5000 open teaching positions at the start of the year last month? And that this has been the standard starting point of each of the last several years. And that there won't be that many of those openings filled by an experienced teacher by the end of the year?
The author of this piece is right that it isn't just about pay, and that pay is itself highly variable between states and a complicated question even within a state. But there is a lot going on in this question that really comes down to what we want teachers to do and to be in the U.S., and will we be able to find smart, talented, and driven young people to want to take on that role?
Personally, I don't think the problem is with teacher pay. The problem is that public schools have no ability to expel students who cannot behave at broadly age-appropriate levels.
My daughter, a 7th grade math teacher at the time in a small town school (paid far less than she is getting this year at better district a bit farther away), had a male student come up to her in class and expose himself.
Tell me again why teachers should have to endure ANY of this. The problem is pay only if you're trying to find some reason to entice people into staying in (or entering) a field where this is the sort of thing they'll be dealing with on a regular basis.