9/21/2007
A teacher. Priceless?
A notebook. $1.19. A geometry text, $63.86. A classroom, $110 per square foot. A teacher?
Priceless.
The Madison School Board earlier this year contemplated a referendum for extra annual operating dollars. A Board member commented that a referendum must be part of a “10-year strategic plan, and such a plan must address the structural deficit created by state revenue limits” (emphasis is mine).
I would argue that school districts (and yes, school boards and their communities) have created their own budget problems and “structural deficits” by settling union contracts for greater increases than what is required by law – and indeed, in a strictly merit-pay situation, greater than what would be required by true market forces.
Much has been written about a very detailed Manhattan Institute (MI) report released in January, 2007 that presents 2005 hourly pay data for public school teachers in 66 metropolitan areas, as collected by the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS).
Key comparisons of the report include:- The average public school teacher in the U.S. earned $34.06 per hour.
- The average “professional specialty and technical” worker in the U.S. earned $30.66 per hour.
- The average public school teacher in Milwaukee earned $33.86 per hour.
- The average “professional specialty and technical” worker in Milwaukee earned $29.07 per hour.
- Full-time public school teachers work on average 36.5 hours per week during weeks they are working.
Obviously, the report's methodology is important and is detailed here. And it’s certainly an understatement to say that teacher pay is an emotional issue for many - and that we're touching here on a third rail of local government. The MI report says it this way: In any discussion of this issue, one is typically confronted with emotional testimony about personal experiences of long hours and meager pay for critically important work.
To be sure, there is some truth in these teacher responses. Many teachers undoubtedly do devote long hours, for what may seem far too little pay….
Yet the personal testimony of a number of teachers as to their poor compensation is no substitute for systematic data. If we want to have a productive policy discussion about the appropriate level of public school teacher pay, we have to start with high-quality and systematic data – not emotionally compelling personal stories.
One argument used by some to explain teacher wages higher than comparable private sector jobs, is essentially that a “bottom line” drives private sector wage and benefit costs – and no such limiting bottom line exists for public sector employees.
I would argue that absent a bottom line, another measure of the adequacy of teacher pay is the number of applicants for each job opening. With no vacancies open to outside applicants, the Appleton Area School District this spring had ample applications on file: - 269 elementary applications on the Wisconsin Education Career Access Network (WECAN) website and 66 in paper files, a total of 335 applicants.
- 179 middle level applications on the website, 41 in paper files, a total of 220 applicants.
- 738 secondary applicants on the website, 90 in paper files, a total of 828 applicants.
These numbers of course, don’t illustrate important individual differences – for example high demand for scarce special education teachers. But on the whole, they say by gum, that current wages, benefits and working conditions are quite acceptable to a large number of potential employees.
A teacher? Yes, absolutely priceless. And… yes, comparatively well paid.
COMMENTS
Jo,
1. Your numbers are a bit suspect since so many teachers are on the top of the salary schedule. A teacher on top of the salary schedule makes about $50 an hour.
2. If a teacher is putting in so much extra time is it possible that they have problems with time management?
3. You also did not compare the "average" benefit packages----of which we know the teachers would be much higher than others.
I spoke to the benefit package in yesterday's commentary, referencing the recent WISTAX report that says that benefits for public sector employees (including teachers) cost a full 50% more than benefits in the private sector. Concerning top-of-the-scale wages and determination of hours worked, I think you would find the study's assumptions and methodology interesting - think about perusing it. JE
David (Fri Sep 21 07:40:09)
Boy, does this one hit home. My wife being a teacher, I see the behind the scenes work that most don't. While I can say that some teachers aren't earning their keep, I do believe that the majority are worth at least what they are getting. My wife has a Masters and is compensated well when you take her benefits into consideration, but still no better than what a Masters could earn on the open market.
I like the idea of a merit pay system (pay the best teachers more), but it is very hard to quantify. You can't base it simply on test scores as some classrooms have a higher percentage of learning disabled children, or children with emotional disabilities that make teaching them very difficult. Most days, teachers in these classrooms have all they can handle just keeping these kids under control.In the end, teachers teach because it is what they love to do. I don't believe that there are many that do it just for the benefits or the summers off. I also don't believe that there is a more important profession than that of the folks that hold the quality of our childrens education in the palm of their hands.
Thanks for the personal insight Jim. Once our system has quality, objective information, taxpayers, parents and employers in the community then and only then should we determine the value we place on teachers. I.e., let's not do it on emotion, and let's not do it based on negotiated increases.
Here's a question I have. To what level should average salaries reach before teachers consider lower wage and benefits when the other choice is larger class sizes or fewer resources for our kids? JE
Jim Steineke (Fri Sep 21 09:34:51 2007)
I'm just not sure those are the only two choices - lower wages or benefits, or bigger class sizes and fewer resources. Not that I'm arguing for higher wages...but why aren't we looking at combining school districts and eliminating massive layers of administrative costs? It's particularly inefficient in relatively contiguous metro areas to have individual administrations in every burg.
It seems to me there's research out there that suggests the most efficient school district size. Will have to look that up - the research has been done. Ok, consolidation is a choice, to a certain extent. Eliminating administrators only goes so far. Of course, igher taxes is also a choice. JE
Jim Steineke (Fri Sep 21 10:02:47 2007)
It would be helpful to see how the per hour wage rate was calculated. Some teachers by virtue of their discipline must spend extensive time on nights and weekends in class preparation and other mandatory but uncompensated activities, e.g. parent contacts, college recommendations, curriculum committees, etc. In addition they must complete continuing education coursework at their own expense to maintain their licenses. Also they often purchase educational materials (occasionally as basic as paper, pens and pencils!)for use in the classroom due to limited school budgets.
Dennis, this is exactly why I mentioned the importance of the report's methodology and provided the link to the report - so readers could check it out themselves. It's very straightforward as to how hours are calculated.
It's important as well, not to confuse emotion and caring with intelligence..... JE
(Having worked as a professional in a large corporation, I never had to pay out-of-pocket for mandatory continuing education or needed work supplies and materials.)
Don't confuse data with intelligence. I suspect the comparisons implied in this article are overly simplistic and questionable.
Dennis Clauss (Fri Sep 21 10:07:27 2007)
The requirement people pay out of their own pocket for their jobs is not unheard of. Out of college I spent time working in a machine shop and we were expected to purchase our own tool sets, items such as micrometers, drill bits (at least a basic set), taps and dyes (again a basic set), etc.
Mark A Framness (Fri Sep 21 11:22:25 2007)
"Some may fear that the extra time that teachers spend grading, preparing for class, and assisting extracurricular activities is not included in the BLS figures, but the BLS appears to include all these activities in its work-hour calculations: “Virtually all teachers worked from 30 to 40 hours per week, which included paid lunch and rest periods, as well as preparation and grading time if such activities were considered by the school to be a part of the teacher’s workday.Additional hours for extracurricular activities were included only if considered part of the regular work schedule.”[7] The inclusion of lunch and rest periods in work-hour calculations is more common for teachers: “[T]eachers, more than the other groups, were the most likely to have paid lunch as well as paid rest periods.”[8]
Teachers also report taking work home at high rates: “Schoolteachers and instructors (excluding college) especially were likely to take work home, with 2.8 million—or about half of all teachers—reporting such activity in the May 2004 survey.”[9] But other professionals also appear to take work home at high rates: “Almost 30 percent of workers in management, professional, and related occupations reported working at home in May 2004.”[10] If any of this work at home, either by teachers or other professionals, is considered by the employer to be part of the actual hours worked, it is included in the BLS figures. It is possible that teachers, as well as other professionals, put in some hours at home that are not captured in these numbers, but those hours would not be considered required for their jobs and thus are not part of their paid employment."
I find this methodology flawed -- administrators, perhaps non-teachers, are deciding what is "actual" teaching work, what is actually "required," etc.
I do like the inclusion of others who work at home -- as I did, too, with billable hours. I know a lot of teachers, and if they started turning in billable hours, it would be a lot more costly than keeping them on salary.
As for the comment above that teachers don't go into the job for so-called summer "vacations" -- of course not. Nor are they vacations in the terms of other professionals, as they are unpaid.
Every time I see or hear someone say that's why my family and friends are teachers, I know to not listen to anything else said. It reflects a lack of knowledge, at the least, and must come from someone who doesn't know any teachers. Or only bad teachers? And that says something about the company they keep!
Thank you for summarizing the information as you have. It's helpful. Given all the above, is reducing salary & benefit packages one possible solution to tight district budgets? JE
Anon (Fri Sep 21 20:07:31 2007)
Rereading over your sentence, I found it -- introductory to what I quoted, so somewhat oversimplified, and the amplification I quoted is more useful.
Perhaps most useful here, though, is this sentence: "The highest reported workweek can be found in metro Milwaukee . . . where public school teachers work 40.0 hours per week."
So this study is not sufficient to answer your narrower question about our area, but this study says we're getting our money's worth. Teachers here are working more hours than teachers elsewhere and more hours than the average for other careers in their category.
Anon (Sat Sep 22 00:08:03 2007)
Clarification: This is not "summarizing information I have."
This is word-for-word information from your link about the methodology -- that the hours "appear" (the study doesn't even know) to be correct, but that they're determined by administrators. So they aren't there, in the teachers' homes, to see the work done there.
That flawed methodology fatally flaws the results, which divide pay by hours, and flaws the results irredeemably.
I appreciated your selecting key sentences from the report and sharing them; this is what I apparently too casually referred to as "summarizing." Whatever the process was, you omitted a critical sentence that appears in both the MI and the BLS reports. “Because salaried workers, exempt from overtime provisions, often work beyond the assigned work schedule, their typical number of hours actually worked was collected."
I'll ask my question of you once again - Given the numbers and the methodology used in the study, is reducing salary & benefit packages one possible solution to tight district budgets? JE
Anon (Fri Sep 21 20:53:27 2007)
As a layperson, I wonder of the given teacher salary is supposed to be compensatory as annual income for with those who work more than 9 months a year. Is it a matter of status to have a wage level equal to that of a professional in the private workplace?
A migrant worker doesn't make more money because he works fewer weeks. He earns what he earns in the time given.
So the compensatory nature of the wage of $39-$40 seems extravagant. No mention was made of the numerous days off for which substitute teachers are called upon and thus doubling the per hour expense of a given institution for a significant number of days of the year or the other perquisites of the education industry: children's vacation periods and other holidays which are totally arbitrary for example. Interesting point of view. And yes - days off and the need for substitutes - some of whom advance the course content adquately and some who don't. That's something we should be looking more carefully at. JE
Lon Ponschock (Sun Sep 23 17:49:13 2007)
You continue to press the question, "Is reducing salary & benefit packages one possible solution to tight district budgets?" How can one not answer yes to such a question? Logic dictates it is a feasible proposition.
But there really is another agenda as you state, "I would argue that school districts (and yes, school boards and their communities) have created their own budget problems and “structural deficits” by settling union contracts for greater increases than what is required by law – and indeed, in a strictly merit-pay situation, greater than what would be required by true market forces."
Inherent in this statement, a value construct is set forth as to what is fair, appropriate and desirable. The implication of this construct being that teacher compensation is unfair, inappropriate and therefore responsible for school budget malaise and undesirable for communities.
Having reviewed the data in the cited studies, I fail to see "apples and apples" comparisons. I spent eight years reviewing hundreds of jobs on a corporate work equity evaluation committee. Ultimately a degree of subjectivity comes into any attempt at comparing jobs.
The underlying question of every job including teachers is that of relative value. "What is a teacher worth to our community?"
As a fixed-income taxpayer I am deeply concerned about my tax bite. I want to keep taxes down and get high value for the tax dollars that are levied.
Having observed the questionable decisions and lack of accountability for huge fiscal miscues by public officials, I agree that there needs to be better oversight with all expenditures including school budget levies. This being said, I think there are more flagrant areas of attention than teacher compensation.
Moreover, there is a resounding chorus of voices in business and government saying, "Employees (people) are our most valuable asset." Well, these employees come to the world of work through schools. How can we advocate cutting back on support for the instruments that develop our most valuable societal assets?
If the issue is poor value for our dollar, i.e. bad or ineffective teachers, then attack that problem. But to attack teacher compensation because it is deemed to be unfair, inappropriate or undesirable by some arbitrary value construct avoids the necessary public debate.
To my thinking, the fundamental problem is not that teachers are "over compensated," but rather they are "under compensated." When we pay more, we will demand more and perhaps then get the value our tax dollars should reap.
P.S. I challenge you to "shadow" a teacher for a week -- 24/7 -- and then decide if you still retain your perspective. P.P.S. If it's not "arbitrary," how else is it that a union contract places a value on teachers? How have you determined they are undercompensated, unless by emotion? Have you read an "apples to apples" comparison that you find acceptable and helpful? JE
Dennis Clauss (Mon Sep 24 00:08:55 2007)
One thing for sure is missing from this discussion of teacher compensation. Since you seem to think "emotional stories" are not real evidence of value, then quantify this:
RISK.
Most CEOs, bankers, board members, of banks and other companies, doctors, etc. charge extra in the market place when they assume risk. The bigger the risk, the more they charge.
Teachers assume risk just by entering the building. If child falls and gets hurt in their classroom, they can be sued - personally. If a small child ingests something they shouldn't, the teacher can be sued. If one child hits, punchyes, or hurts another child in any way, they can be sued.
Going into a high school today is like going to a war zone. You have to be afraid that one kid, on one day at one time will pull out a gun or some other weapon.
Or that someone other than a student (an outsider) will come into school and start shooting.
I was a substitute teacher in the Madison school district for about 5 years. In that time, I had my tires slashed; I was spit on.. and with AIDS and other diseases, who knows what's in the saliva; I had kids try everything in the book in class, yet I cannot lay a hand on them or even refrain them, for fear of being sued. I could go on and on, but ... oh yea... you don't want "stories."
Teachers and principals would ask for me by name when they called the Bd Bldg for a sub. I was one of the most requested subs in the district. I subbed in every subject area and grade level. One day I was teaching Algebra 2 and trigonometry at LaFollette, and the next day, I was teaching kindergarten in the bi-lingual class at Allis Elementary.
I was especially called to work with the autistic kids-- not because I have ANY training in it, but because I had a rapport with them. They responded to me.
(I am sure it is because I grew up with an older sister who had been brain-damaged at birth. So, I had a level of patience that others don't have. ... but, oh yea, that's not something you can quantify.)
One day I was called to sub at Schenk Elementary School. It was to sub for an "aide" who worked one on one with an autistic boy (2nd grade). The teacher of the class was very nervous and scared that this boy would have a terrible day, because autistic children cannot adjust to change easily. She asked me if I was a teacher. I said yes. She said: well, you teach the class then, and I'll work one-on-one with this autistic boy. He is non-verbal and often throws fits and acts out. I said, no, let me try it with this boy, and if it doesn't work, we'll switch positions.
By 10 a.m. that boy was talking to me - out loud. The teacher heard him and thought it was a miracle. I assured her it wasn't; I just reached him, by some internal connection that he and others pick up on.
At the end of the day, I said to her, "Well, we had a pretty good day, I'd say."
She responded: ARE YOU KIDDING?! This was a GREAT day! This kid has never had such a good day - all day.
Same kind of thing happened at Chavez Elementary and Glen Stevens Elementary and Whitehorse Middle School and Memorial High School.
That's why they wanted ME. But I knew that on any given day, one of those kids could swallow glue or bang their head against the wall and hurt it (their head, not the wall) etc. And I would be held responsible personally and financially.
When you talk about value and worth in the market, you better consider assumed risk.
When you consider the value of teachers... there are some things you really can't put a price on.
I don't sub any more. I took Marketing Communications job that pays a lot better.
Betty D. (Fri Sep 28 16:25:08 2007)
|
