Note the rhetorical sleight of hand in this op-ed piece. The op-ed piece, and the advocacy group sources it cites to back up its claims, take care to write about "teachers’ salaries" rather than write about "compensation packages for teachers." The rhetorical reason for this is to divert attention from how expensive it actually is to taxpayers to provide the total compensation package for a typical schoolteacher, including subsidies for "professional development" (which most professionals pay for out of their own pocket), family health care benefits, and defined-benefit pensions. And that's not even to mention the issue of schoolteacher job security
But to begin to get United States schools on track to meet the standards met in other countries, policy analysts in the United States have to be honest about what the overall framework of regulation now is, and just exactly what teachers are accountable to do, for what level of compensation, under current contracts in most school districts.
P.S. I should make clear that an effective teacher is worth the teacher's weight in gold, and currently the best teachers in the United States are mostly substantially underpaid. But they are underpaid, in large part, because they haven't mobilized their own political participation to unshackle their pay from the lockstep pay scales that also are granted to ineffective teachers. That's why I do my teaching on a contract basis with public school districts or through my own nonprofit organization, so that I can deliver quality lessons without bureaucratic interference and gain professional recognition for the results of my teaching.
Most people do not talk about total compensation in the U.S. when discussing salaries. My total compensation is around $65,000. It is much less than anyone I know in the private sector with comparable education and experience. And this while comparing my total compensation with just their salary.
Most professionals do get health coverage and some sort of pension coverage (usually 401K matching funds). I don't think it's fair to include these things when talking about teacher pay unless one does this for non-teachers as well. As a society we usually don't include these things when talking about non-teacher pay. Heck, most people think that they only pay half of FICA and that the employer pays the other half.
Given the hours worked, emotional stress, and grief that many teachers experience I think teachers are underpaid. Very much underpaid. I'm a teacher and have an obvious bias. At my school our contracts are being negotiated right now. It's clear we are going to take a pay cut. I haven't had a pay raise in 2 years and will be taking a pay cut over the the next two years.
The job is becoming less and less desirable. I strongly encourage anyone who will listen to me to not go into teaching. It's a bad career choice in my opinion.
Actually it is. There is an easy way to compare them from an actuary point of view. Both types of systems have a present day value and both are calculable expenses to the employer. Some 401Ks are much nicer than my pension. Some are much worse. But they are comparable.
Yes. All pensions invest in the stock market. Well run ones invest in government bonds too and other safe instruments. Right now my pension is around 80% funded as a result of the market crash.
I believe that statement is untrue. Regardless, let me rephrase my question: are you guaranteed a certain retirement benefit regardless of market performance?
It is my understanding that pension programs typically guarantee some percentage of your highest salary, with a multiplier for length of service.
I like to know of an example of a pension system in the U.S. that does not invest in the stock market. I'm in a defined benefit pension system and regardless of how the stock market does my benefit is guaranteed by the state. Of course, the actuaries who set up the pension devised it so that it the guaranteed benefit would very likely be able to be met by the contributions I make to it.
There is a push by some politicians to get states to declare bankruptcy so that they will be able to renege on their guarantee.
I like to know of an example of a pension system in the U.S. that does not invest in the stock market
Social Security, as mentioned in the Wikipedia link. Additionally, there is no reason a private pension couldn't be directly funded.
I'm in a defined benefit pension system and regardless of how the stock market does my benefit is guaranteed by the state
Which is what I meant when I asked about being invested in the stock market. While your pension may be funded via stock market investments, for all intents and purposes, your pension is unrelated to the market. With my 401k, I am very much at the whim of the market. If I hit 65 and my anticipated returns don't materialize, there's nobody for me to sue. Thus, pensions are not directly comparable to 401ks.
There is a push ... guarantee.
Given the unrealistic contracts that were agreed to, in light of our near-term economic realities, bankruptcy or mass firings and re-hirings are literally the only way this problem can be addressed.
I think your assertion about the "rhetorical sleight of hand" is pretty far off-base, and is an (admittedly subtle) strawman. The main points of the article, from my perspective were 1. The issues with education in the US are complex, and blanket vilification of teachers is neither warranted nor productive. 2. The pool of high-quality new teaching candidates seems limited (and quite possibly shrinking); current compensation levels for teachers, relative to other job opportunities, is almost certainly a contributing factor.
Your argument is effectively responding to the idea that "we don't find that pay package attractive enough to make us want to be teachers" by saying "but you're using the wrong word- you should look at compensation." Okay, then "we don't find that compensation package attractive enough."
I certainly don't think that just paying teachers more is going to fix anything. But the vilification of the profession, which the article laments and you effectively condone, is in my opinion a big distraction. I agree that tenure is not a perfect system, but neither is it entirely without its benefits. Until more progress is made on a more comprehensive response to education reform, attacking the teachers for not giving up their long-held rights seems a bit unrealistic.
But the policy point is that what happens now is that people are attracted into teaching who value job security far more than most start-up-founding hackers value job security, and who value being accountable for demonstrable results far less than most other people in professional occupations. What you call "their long-held rights" (tenure and other job protections granted by state statute) is precisely what makes the occupation of teaching so different from most other occupations.
That is a reasonable possibility, and I think we probably agree on many aspects of the problem. The general observation still holds though, that the current compensation reality does not attract a broad enough pool.
The challenges of professional recognition, accountability and performance measurement which you aptly highlight are very real. I may be interpreting you incorrectly, but you seem to blame teachers for those issues. My thought is that teachers recognize that the broad challenges facing the industry, and recognize that a comprehensive solution will probably require some significant reforms. But I imagine they also believe that just giving up some of their current rights will not be a sufficient solution without more comprehensive reform. So in the meantime their better off with the status quo.
> including subsidies for "professional development" (which most professionals pay for out of their own pocket)
To be fair, they're required to take such classes by law. At least, when my mother was alive, she needed to take so many credits per year to retain her teaching certification.
> including subsidies for "professional development" (which most professionals pay for out of their own pocket)
Is that true in tech circles (or among professionals in general)? In the circles I move around in (acoustical/civil/mechanical/environmental engineers) professional development costs are pretty much always covered by the employer, especially in cases where CEUs are required to maintain certifications.
Certainly not true in tech circles as far as I know, though some particularly ambitious individuals (me for one) probably do do things on their own dime over and above company-funded courses.
Agreed on all points. I am sympathetic to the author's thesis, but found plenty of annoying rhetoric in the article:
Blaming soldiers vs. teachers:
Soldier quality is more difficult to assess (all of us have gone through school; few through the military), soldiers have significantly less autonomy in decisions, and soldiers (like police & firefights) get some slack because they risk their lives on the line.
"Teachers make 14 percent less than professionals in other occupations that require similar levels of education"
As parent noted, tenure issues are huge. Professors also don't make much, but tenure (once they get it) really makes up for it. Also, 14% isn't bad given that many teachers have 2 months off.
School administrations try (and fail) to determine "teacher quality" by looking at standardized test scores.
Quality of teaching is easy to assess however: you just have a few experienced teachers pop in and observe a class or two, and it's obvious to them if the teacher is good or not.
> Also, 14% isn't bad given that many teachers have 2 months off.
It's not 2 months off, it's 2 months unemployed.
When they hire you as a teacher, they ask you ahead of time if you want them to reduce your paycheck amount so that you can receive checks during those 2 months.
So, if there's a salaried teaching position for 50k, said teacher actually gets paid 41.6k (50k * 10/12)? Unless a stated salary is quietly reduced by 1/6, then it most certainly is two months off.
Teachers don't have a "yearly salary" per se ... instead, they have a number written on the contract that indicates what they'll be paid for the school year.
When someone says, "teacher $X makes $Y per year", it means that $Y is that number written on the contract for the school year.
Note, given that
* most teachers spend a couple of weeks after the school year ends tying up loose ends from the year and organizing themselves for next year,
* and then simply need time to decompress from dealing with a large number of kids every day for so long,
* and also that they spend the weeks before school begins prepping for the new year and doing professional development,
there's not really much time in between to get another full-time temporary job to supplement their income.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/education/2008-05-06-teachers-t...
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/41956922/ns/nightly_news/
http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Education/2011/0414/Why-N.J.-te...
which exceeds the job security of almost all other forms of employment in the United States
http://www.nytimes.com/1994/06/28/nyregion/teachers-and-tenu...
http://www.schoolmatch.com/audit/jacksonville/articles/teach...
whether or not the teachers are able to teach the subjects they are hired to teach.
http://www.ams.org/notices/200502/fea-kenschaft.pdf
http://www.nctq.org/p/
http://educationnext.org/evaluating-teacher-effectiveness/
Education reform is not a simple issue, and much basic research still needs to be done and assimilated to bring about improvements.
http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,2066577,00.ht...
But to begin to get United States schools on track to meet the standards met in other countries, policy analysts in the United States have to be honest about what the overall framework of regulation now is, and just exactly what teachers are accountable to do, for what level of compensation, under current contracts in most school districts.
P.S. I should make clear that an effective teacher is worth the teacher's weight in gold, and currently the best teachers in the United States are mostly substantially underpaid. But they are underpaid, in large part, because they haven't mobilized their own political participation to unshackle their pay from the lockstep pay scales that also are granted to ineffective teachers. That's why I do my teaching on a contract basis with public school districts or through my own nonprofit organization, so that I can deliver quality lessons without bureaucratic interference and gain professional recognition for the results of my teaching.