As millions of Americans search for work, and millions more scrape by to make ends meet, researchers affiliated with two Washington think tanks -- the American Enterprise Institute and the Heritage Foundation -- have recently announced a "finding" that defies common-sense: America's teachers are overpaid by more than 50 percent.
The new paper from Jason Richwine and Andrew Biggs fails on several levels. First, it asks the wrong question. Second, it ignores facts that conflict with its conclusions. Lastly, it insults teachers and demeans the profession.
Instead of asking whether teachers are overpaid, Richwine and Biggs should have asked what it would take to recruit and retain highly effective teachers for all students. Surveys show that many talented and committed young people are reluctant to enter teaching for the long haul because they think the profession is low-paying and not prestigious enough.
McKinsey & Co. did a study (PDF) last year comparing the U.S. to other countries and found that America's average current teacher salaries -- starting around $35,000 and topping out at an average of $65,000 -- were set far too low to attract and retain top talent.
The McKinsey report found that starting teacher salaries have not kept pace with other fields. In 1970, beginning New York City lawyers earned $2,000 more than first-year teachers. Today, a starting lawyer there can earn three or four times as much as a beginning teacher.
Money is not the reason that people enter teaching. But it is a reason why some talented people avoid teaching--or quit the profession when starting a family or buying a home. Other high-performing nations recruit teachers from the top third of college graduates. That must be our goal as well, and compensation is one critical factor. To encourage more top-caliber students to choose teaching, teachers should be paid a lot more, with starting salaries more in the range of $60,000 and potential earnings of as much as $150,000.
Great teachers stand at the summit of one of the hardest, most challenging, and most consequential professions for our children and the country's future economic prosperity. They deserve our respect and should be well-remunerated. Nevertheless, through tortured analysis, and in some instances a disregard of their own data, the authors of this new study reach a predictably contrary conclusion.
Traditionally, economists have analyzed teacher pay the same way they analyze pay in other professions--they have compared the pay of teachers to workers with similar education and work experience. Like many before them, Richwine and Biggs found that teachers did indeed receive lower pay than similarly educated workers -- almost 20 percent lower.
I agree that educational credentials are not the best measures of teacher effectiveness -- but the researchers go on to assert that teachers should not be compared to workers with similar educational credentials because teachers do not score as well on the Armed Forces Qualifications Test. Setting aside the fact that the AFQT does not measure teacher effectiveness, it is insulting and demeaning to argue that teachers are not smart enough to receive market compensation comparable to their peers based on the results of a test that most of them took as teenagers.
The researchers also ignored a chart in their own paper showing that teachers have similar overall benefit packages to private employees. Unhappy with those findings, they then exaggerated the value of teacher compensation by comparing the retirement benefits of the small minority of teachers who stay in the classroom for 30 years, rather than comparing the pension benefits for the typical teacher to their peers in other professions.
Finally, they appeared to create out of thin air an 8.6 percent "job security" salary premium for teachers -- despite the fact that hundreds of thousands of education jobs were lost in the recession and teachers continue to face layoffs.
By the end of this decade, more than half of America's 3.2 million teachers are expected to retire. That demographic shift presents a stiff challenge and a special opportunity. States, districts, and schools have a once-in-a-lifetime chance to modernize the teaching profession and expand the talent pool. But doing so will require dramatic change in the way we recruit, train, support, evaluate, and compensate teachers.
I agree with Richwine and Biggs on one point. If teachers are to be recognized and compensated as professionals, states and school districts must shift away from a blue-collar assembly line model of compensation--and do more to reward effectiveness and performance in the classroom. A performance-based compensation model will enable great teachers to earn more, justify higher salaries, and raise the stature of the profession.
Americans need and deserve an honest, open debate about the teaching profession, framed by evidence, not ideologically-tilted studies like this one. The debate in Washington today should be about how to judiciously invest in education. How can we best modernize schools with crumbling infrastructure so they can teach 21st century skills? How can we keep teachers in classrooms, instead of on unemployment lines? And yes--even when budgets are tight--how can we make teaching a more attractive career and elevate the profession?
The answer to these questions cannot be to cut teacher pay and put tens of thousands of teachers out of work. Even in a time of fiscal austerity, education is more than just an expense. It's an investment in the future.
Arne Duncan is the U.S. Secretary of Education
This post was updated on November 10, to more accurately reflect the authors of the study.
Follow Sec. Arne Duncan on Twitter: www.twitter.com/ArneDuncan
Matthew Butcher: Calling Time on Low Pay
Jason Richwine, Andrew G. Biggs and Lindsey Burke: What Happened to Data-Driven Education Reform?
Are teachers overpaid? - The Week
Are Teachers Paid Too Much? How 4 Studies Answered 1 Big ...
RealClearScience - Are Teachers Overpaid or Underpaid?
Most teachers are lib arts majors because they are not focused or inspired by anything else other than getting a BA or MRS degree.
Most go into teaching to supplement household income or to escape boredom at home.
Some go into teaching because they are inspired to do so but lack the talent to be a "teacher".
There are those who ARE UNDERPAID (because of the failings of the other 2 groups), who possess both the desire and the skill to be effective AND inspirational.
This explains the great outcry (from most) when threatened with competency tests.
All our education system needs is MORE GOOD TEACHERS and far LESS emphasis on compliance and a strictly regimented curriculum.
The true measure of a TEACHER is the person who can get the INTEREST of their students and when the talking is over, the students have LEARNED something because they were engaged and have been LED to an UNDERSTANDING of the content.
"Beu ler.........Bue ler.....Bueler.....?".
Not only are our schools failing us, our politicians are the products of that failed system and therefor lack the education and/or the intelligence to deal effectivly with these problems and their own inconsistancy.
The hoops are too numerous and low to the ground.
1) Equity Project charter schools pay their teachers 125,000 dollars per year and they can be fired any time but only 31% of the students at this school pass the new york standardizÂÂÂÂÂÂed tests, why if this school is supposed to get the best teachers money can buy?
Link: http://proÂÂÂjects.nyÂtÂiÂmes.coÂm/ÂneÂw-yoÂrk-ÂschÂooÂls-tÂest-ÂÂscoreÂs/coÂuÂntieÂs/nÂew-ÂyorÂk/ÂdistrÂicÂtÂs/new-yÂoÂÂrk-city-dÂÂÂistrict-6Â/ÂÂschoolsÂ/tÂhÂe-equÂityÂ-pÂrojÂect-ÂchaÂrÂter-sÂchooÂÂl
2) Why KIPP and SUCCESS charter schools suspend almost half it's students?, if they hire the good teachers and fire the bad ones suspensionÂÂÂÂÂÂs are not supposed to happen in charter schools, period!
Link: http://wwwÂÂÂÂÂÂ.examÂiÂnÂeÂrÂ.ÂÂcoÂm/ÂchÂaÂrÂtÂeÂrÂ-sÂcÂhoÂoÂlsÂÂ-ÂinÂÂ-wasÂÂÂhingÂÂÂtÂon-ÂdÂcÂ/kÂiÂpÂpÂ-aÂdÂÂmitÂs-ÂtÂÂÂo-hÂigÂhÂÂÂ-stuÂdeÂnÂÂÂÂt-attriÂÂtÂÂÂÂion-ÂratÂes
http://artÂÂÂÂÂÂiclesÂ.ÂbÂaÂlÂtÂÂimÂorÂesÂuÂnÂ.ÂcÂoÂm/Â2Â01Â1Â-0ÂÂ3Â-3ÂÂ1/neÂÂÂws/bÂÂÂsÂ-mdÂ-ÂkÂipÂpÂ-ÂsÂtuÂdÂÂy-2Â01Â1ÂÂÂ033Â1_Â1ÂÂÂ_kipÂp-ÂsÂÂÂÂchools-ÂÂkÂÂÂÂipp-ÂujiÂmaÂÂÂÂÂ-vilÂlagÂeÂ-ÂaÂÂÂcadeÂÂmy-ÂwÂeÂsÂÂtÂern-ÂÂmÂicÂhÂiÂgÂaÂnÂ-repÂÂoÂÂrt
3) If good teachers are supposed to being capable of teaching any kind of students and charters schools are center of educationaÂÂÂÂÂÂl innovation , why they reject special education students?
Link http://wwwÂÂÂÂÂÂ.nytiÂmÂeÂsÂ.ÂcÂÂomÂ/2Â01Â1Â/Â0Â7Â/Â11Â/ÂnyÂrÂegÂÂiÂonÂÂ/chaÂÂÂrterÂÂÂ-ÂschÂoÂoÂl-ÂsÂeÂnÂdsÂ-ÂÂmesÂsaÂgÂÂÂe-tÂhrÂiÂÂÂve-oÂr-ÂtÂÂÂÂransferÂÂ.ÂÂÂÂhtmlÂ?paÂgeÂÂÂÂÂwantÂed=ÂaÂlÂl
4) If politicianÂÂÂÂÂÂs complain that bad teachers hurt students, why they do not complain when special education students are rejected by charter schools?
Link: http://wwwÂÂÂÂÂÂ.splcÂeÂnÂtÂeÂrÂÂ.oÂrgÂ/gÂeÂtÂ-ÂiÂnÂfoÂrÂmeÂdÂ/nÂÂeÂwsÂÂ/splÂÂÂc-coÂÂÂmÂplaÂiÂnÂt-ÂcÂhÂiÂldÂrÂÂen-ÂwiÂtÂÂÂh-dÂisÂaÂÂÂbiliÂtiÂeÂÂÂÂs-face-ÂÂdÂÂÂÂiscrÂimiÂnaÂÂÂÂÂtionÂ-inÂ-ÂnÂeÂÂÂw-orÂÂleaÂnÂsÂ-ÂÂsÂchooÂÂl
I retired from the private sector last August, age 63, after 20 years in private industry.
Pension:$10,689/month ($128,268/year).
401k: $300k+,
Fully paid lifetime benefits for two and SS in 3 years, ($2k/month) as well.
Private sector work: Much easier and less time consuming than teaching. Weekends off....and far less stress.
She will get 75% + benes for the rest of her life should I die first.
As a teacher, after 40 years I would be making $75,828 in salary and now a pension of $60,006. Medicare but no SS.
To those who think teachers are overpaid or that their pay is comparable or even higher than private sector jobs requiring similar schooling and training and credentials, I say
"Ptui !!!!!
I have been fortunate but I am not an exception. 50% of teachers leave teaching for the private sector within the first 5 years.
When my eldest graduated in 1993, he wanted to become a teacher. He would have been a great teacher. I encouraged him.
However, he took a corporate job at $32k, intending to get his teaching credential at night. But he rose steadily through the management ranks and at the age of 41 he makes more than $340,000. No Master's, no MBA.
We lost a good teacher because we could not compete with the private sector.
So, are teacher salaries comparable to or higher than private sector salaries? Nein, nein, nein!
NEXT: salary perspectives
I wrote a couple of days ago that I was not a teacher or a retired teacher.
What I left out was that I WAS a teacher for 20 years.
I started teaching in 1972 in California. My salary: $6,800 3 coaching stipends.
Benefits: Medical only. For me. I had to pay for my wife and two children to be covered.
I worked 28 hours a week in a liquor store in downtown Oakland. Full time summers..
I left teaching in 1992. Salary: after 20 years, $38,700.
I found a private sector job starting at $75,000. Nearly 2x my highest teacher salary. I loved every minute of teaching but I had one child in college and two very close. I wanted to help them.
To be continued…..
The mission of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) is to promote policies that will improve the economic and social well-being of people around the world.
The OECD provides a forum in which governments can work together to share experiences and seek solutions to common problems. We work with governments to understand what drives economic, social and environmental change.
The Study: (2010) A little international perspective. This year, the OECD released a long report on ways to improve education worldwide. Part of it looked at teacher pay across different countries.
The Conclusions: Worldwide, teachers tend to make less than other college graduates. According to the OECD's findings, we pay our teachers about 60% of what their educational peers earn. That's way less akin to developed countries like Germany and Australia, where pay is closer to 90% less, and more in line with Italy, Poland, and Slovenia.
Just an idea: The granting of any four-year degree should require teaching time within the public k-12 structure. Kids would get more attention, college degree would have more meaning, graduates would have a shared experience of being in the trenches, of first-hand knowledge of the system in need of "change". Pay portions of their loans back based on teaching time. The authentic teachers may even stay.
You are fanned for an original idea. However, you will find, as I have, that teachers, at least those who blog on this site are absolutely, and adamently opposed to any changes in the structure of the public schools.
They have "flamed" me for suggesting that all elementary school provide free breatfast and lunch to all their students. Too much work. Too much change.
They have only three suggestions, which they repeat over and over again. Two are very fundamental. More Pay, No Accountability, and the third is less work.
I think the real changes need to be made in how teachers are trained beyond going into the school as you suggest. I have a degree in English and Political science, I graduated Cum Laud. There is so much I don't know English, about literature, grammar, literary analysis, etc. I find that I am often forced to google answers. I have taken it into my own hands to educate myself in areas I feel I lack proficiency in, however, many of my classmates are not doing the same and I know they struggle in the same way I do. The education program should be addressing these issues.
You are speaking as an educated person. You are aware education in a field does not teach you everything, or even mostly everything in the subject.
It merely educates you as how to find the answer to a question to which you do not know the answer.
But you are speaking as an educated person. not a public school teacher. I suspect, horrors of horrors, that you are actually an intellectual!
The problem is not the teachers. The system is totally disfunctional, and is, objectively a failure.
There are so many families, and children in thos families that are FUBAR [Google the term], that a complete overhaul is required.
Close down 80% of the public day schools, and replace them with full service, neighborhood, voluntary boarding schools.
An idea totally unacceptable the educational industry. Therefore, any caring parent with think long and hard before putting their children in a public school.
Michelle and Barak Obama made the correct decision for their children.
Fanned for original thinking
Too bad you don't have access to the internet. Or is it just that your wife doesn't believe in using the internet?
This is the problem, isn't it? I mean, how are we supposed to have an educated populace if we do not value the ones teaching them? Oh...right. the current GOP and their rulers don't want an educated populace...makes us harder to fool.
It's so simple.
That being the case, what sense does it make to amputate and alienate the "next generation" of teaching prospects, all at the expense of the current tenured teacher's income? Budget are slashed. The corrective measure should NOT be to hack off the next generation, who will be KEY if the above statistic rings true (3.2 million retirements), so that current tenured teachers can keep the discretionary part of their salaries. We should be doing what we can to INCLUDE the young teachers, not only for future, but for the quality of education! Tenured teachers and their yearly family Disneyworld vacation fund be damned.
We should actively seek out good teachers to employ and grow. We shouldn't have a system in place that basically disallows schools from even considering good candidates, simply because they haven't a certain seniority level. How utterly stupid is that?
For the record, I'm not in favor of dumping (senior) teachers based on age, or salary level. But to blindly employ everyone of a certain seniority level, just because they managed to make it that far... while totally ignoring the quality of their work, or the quality/potential of any new candidates... is the definition of futility.
This is the system that teachers support, BTW... take that as you will.
What they actually want will result in an America which is firmly ensconced in the third world but they believe that won't happen because the poor will presumably go without food and shelter in order to pay for the education of their children. It's the usual right-wingnut survival-of-the-fittest regime which entirely rejects the concept that a successful society is one in which there is opportunity for everyone...one in which everyone has a stake and isn't just kicked to the curb because they aren't wealthy.