AP Poll: 78 Percent Say Public School Teachers Aren’t Paid Enough

[Boiler 45,517]

20% of the Colorado Education budget goes on Pensions and it is grossly underfunded.

 

Is that included?

[bcking 3,157]

Sorry I was on my phone so linking and adding pictures was hard. Here is the actual OECD data (I think I said OPEC before lol)

 

https://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/docserver/eag-2015-en.pdf?expires=1524606680&id=id&accname=guest&checksum=BB09C2AAF6DEF455F4252B7D6CA03E57 - It's 500+ pages. Have fun!

 

The Chapter on Teacher Salary begins on Page 426. Here's a chart from it -

 

 

 

 

[bcking 3,157]

28 minutes ago, Amica Nostra said:

merican teachers are underpaid.

More specifically, American teachers are underpaid when compared to teachers in the nations we compete with. Let me begin with a picture showing how we compare to Finland—everyone’s favorite educational success story and a country not noted for paying its teachers especially well. Then we’ll talk some about the right way to make international teacher salary comparisons. After that, some more data.

Even against modest-paying Finland, American teachers are underpaid. If we wanted to raise the relative salaries of American teachers to the level seen in Finland, we’d require a 10 percent raise for primary school teachers, an 18 percent raise in lower secondary, and a 28 percent raise for upper secondary school teachers.

What is the right way to make international comparisons of teacher salaries? The answer depends on why you think salaries are important. Is it because someone with a particular set of qualifications deserves a certain level of pay? Or perhaps some general level of fairness or equity? To an economist, the answer is rather different: you want to pay enough to attract really good people to become teachers in the first place and to remain in teaching rather than bailing out for a more lucrative career. That means that the right way to compare across countries is to look at how teacher pay within the country compares to pay in alternative careers that a person might consider when deciding whether to become a teacher.

The OECD has put together a set of comparisons of teacher pay to earnings of all college graduates. These are the numbers shown in the chart above, and the numbers used throughout this post. You can see in the chart that both Finland and the United States pay teachers less than they pay other college graduates, but Finland gets notably closer than we do.

 

I picked Finland for the comparison in the chart above because, well because lots of countries aspire to be Finland when it comes to education. While paying better than the U.S., Finland is pretty much an average player when it comes to teacher pay. Most of the developed countries with which we compete pay much better. Here’s the relevant picture taken directly from the OECD’s Education at a Glance 2015.

The quick lesson is that in most industrialized countries relative teacher pay is higher than in the United States. To see the gap in a different way, the next chart tells how much the U.S. would have to raise upper secondary salaries to match relative salaries in a variety of other countries. Just as we saw for the example of Finland in the opening graphic, the gaps are even larger for upper secondary than for lower secondary.

 

Related Books

• 

  Teachers for the 21st Century

  By Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development OECD

  2013
• 

  Education Governance for the Twenty-First Century

  Edited by Paul Manna and Patrick McGuinn

  2013
• 

  Strife and Progress

  By Paul T. Hill, Christine Campbell, and Betheny Gross

  2012

 

While American salaries aren’t the lowest, many other countries not only pay better, but the gap is really, really big.

The simple summary: Other countries make teaching a more financially attractive career for college graduates than we do.

 

Author

D

Teacher Pay Around the world

####### Startz

Professor of Economics - University of California, Santa Barbara

https://www.brookings.edu/blog/brown-center-chalkboard/2016/06/20/teacher-pay-around-the-world/

The facts are the facts. But allow me to predict one response to these facts: “Teachers aren’t motivated by money, they teach because they love it.” Often true. And I’ve noticed that the people who say that teachers teach for love are quite often themselves very good teachers. Indeed, it’s hard to imagine someone who teaches well who doesn’t like their students. However, it’s very easy to imagine many, many potential teachers—who would also love their students just as much—who have made the decision to forego a teaching career in order to better provide for their family.

Dollars aren’t the only thing that determines career choice. Prestige and working conditions matter too. (Finland pays a fair amount better than the U.S. The prestige attached to being a teacher is enormously higher.) My guess is that being a teacher has both more prestige and better working conditions in other industrialized countries than here at home. (How do administrators treat teachers? How do parents treat teachers? Heck even, how do students treat teachers?) No data though, so either facts or anecdotes from those who know more about teaching in other countries are in order.

Last word: Making teaching a financially more attractive career isn’t the only thing that matters for who teaches. It does matter though, and probably it matters a lot.

Editor’s Note: Updated on June 27, 2016 to replace the first chart and rectify a labeling error that used “percentage increase” rather than “percentage point increase.”

The chart you linked from the OECD paper (which I linked to as well) is misleading.

 

That chart is showing the RATIO of what a teacher gets paid compared to a "similarly educated adult" in the same country. So we pay our teachers on average around 75-80% of what someone else with a similar education makes in other careers. 

 

That chart isn't ranking countries in terms of pay for teachers (adjusted into PPP). The chart I linked to is the actual comparison. 

 

That "percentage increase" chart - I have no idea where they got that data since it doesn't fit with the actual data in the OECD PDF. Only Luxembourg, Germany and Denmark pay their teachers more than we do, when adjusted for PPP (adjusting each currency into USD based on purchasing power in the country). We look worse when you compare INTERNALLY within countries to what the average salaries are for similarly educated people. But that likely reflects that in the USD people can make more money in other countries more easily (salaries are higher). 

[Boiler 45,517]

Teachers of course get much better benefits and a lot of job security not open to others. Etc etc.

[bcking 3,157]

2 minutes ago, Boiler said:

Teachers of course get much better benefits and a lot of job security not open to others. Etc etc.

Any data to support that or provide any objective evaluation of it?

 

I'm not saying your wrong. In my basic understanding I would probably agree at least on the job security front. Not necessarily on the benefits issue though without a more objective assessment of benefits.

Edited April 24, 2018 by bcking

[Boiler 45,517]

3 minutes ago, bcking said:

Any data to support that or provide any objective evaluation of it?

 

I'm not saying your wrong. In my basic understanding I would probably agree at least on the job security front. Not necessarily on the benefits issue though without a more objective assessment of benefits.

http://thehill.com/opinion/finance/384543-colorados-proposed-pension-reform-is-a-missed-opportunity

 

Tenure

[Ban Hammer 13,342]

2 hours ago, Amica Nostra said:

Here is an option: we could just step up as a group and agree that funding public education is consistent with our values as Americans and fund teachers at a living wage.

first define a living wage.  50k is a lot more in rural arkansas than suburban new jersey.

[bcking 3,157]

18 minutes ago, Boiler said:

http://thehill.com/opinion/finance/384543-colorados-proposed-pension-reform-is-a-missed-opportunity

 

Tenure

Certainly an advantage compared to other jobs in the USA. I'd file that under job security.

 

Though I do wonder if that more reflects how poorly we protect employees in other industries, and less how well we treat teachers.

 

Don't know about other countries but according to my wife in the UK companies can't just fire someone without cause. They either need a good cause (with evidence of a disciplinary action undertaken) or make the person redundant, which requires a severance package based on time worked at the company.

 

At least in the oil and gas industry it works like that in the UK. During the downturn people lost jobs but they got payouts. Here if someone was fired they could walk away with nothing.

 

 

[Amica Nostra 4,803]

5 hours ago, bcking said:

The chart you linked from the OECD paper (which I linked to as well) is misleading.

 

That chart is showing the RATIO of what a teacher gets paid compared to a "similarly educated adult" in the same country. So we pay our teachers on average around 75-80% of what someone else with a similar education makes in other careers. 

 

That chart isn't ranking countries in terms of pay for teachers (adjusted into PPP). The chart I linked to is the actual comparison. 

 

That "percentage increase" chart - I have no idea where they got that data since it doesn't fit with the actual data in the OECD PDF. Only Luxembourg, Germany and Denmark pay their teachers more than we do, when adjusted for PPP (adjusting each currency into USD based on purchasing power in the country). We look worse when you compare INTERNALLY within countries to what the average salaries are for similarly educated people. But that likely reflects that in the USD people can make more money in other countries more easily (salaries are higher). 

I dont know if it is misleading.  If we require 5 years of education for teachers , ask for them to continue their education process so they have a masters or equivalent AND ask them to be passionate about our most important resource, shouldn't we benchmark them against science, medicine and technology jobs?

 

 

[Amica Nostra 4,803]

5 hours ago, Ban Hammer said:

first define a living wage.  50k is a lot more in rural arkansas than suburban new jersey.

the reason we are seeing strikes in Oklahoma and the like is that Teachers salaries are 44 on Average for a high school teacher.  Starting wages are abysmally low.

5 hours ago, Boiler said:

Teachers of course get much better benefits and a lot of job security not open to others. Etc etc.

Yes because no one is standing in line for their job.

[bcking 3,157]

9 hours ago, Amica Nostra said:

I dont know if it is misleading.  If we require 5 years of education for teachers , ask for them to continue their education process so they have a masters or equivalent AND ask them to be passionate about our most important resource, shouldn't we benchmark them against science, medicine and technology jobs?

 

 

It's misleading because the article you copy/pasted was using it to argue that we don't pay our teachers as much as other countries. Right after the figure their "summary" was

 

"The quick lesson is that in most industrialized countries relative teacher pay is higher than in the United States. "

 

That isn't what that particular graph was showing, and it is misleading to state that the "quick lesson" from the graph is that one bit of information. The graph shows that the RATIO of teacher salary to similarly educated people in the US is lower than the same ratio in other countries. That can either be because of 1. Teacher salary is lower or 2. Other careers pay higher

 

To get at which of those two things explains the lower ratio you have to look at the Chart D3.2 (the one I attached). When you just look at teacher's salaries compared to other countries (adjusted for PPP), we rank 4th for starting salary (maybe 8-10th at the high end of the pay scale). We aren't in the bottom.

 

That would suggest that the lower ratio seen is likely due to higher pay for other careers, rather than lower pay for teachers. 

 

EDIT: And just to reiterate again - That third graph (the one showing how much more you would have to pay teachers to match other countries) - They cite the OECD Education at a Glance as their source. I've scanned through the relevant chapters (granted not the whole thing, it's very very long) and I can't find that figure anywhere. So they didn't take it from the OECD document. It would have had a figure number like the graph that they actually took from that document. So not sure where they got that data.

Edited April 25, 2018 by bcking

[Amica Nostra 4,803]

1 hour ago, bcking said:

It's misleading because the article you copy/pasted was using it to argue that we don't pay our teachers as much as other countries. Right after the figure their "summary" was

 

"The quick lesson is that in most industrialized countries relative teacher pay is higher than in the United States. "

 

That isn't what that particular graph was showing, and it is misleading to state that the "quick lesson" from the graph is that one bit of information. The graph shows that the RATIO of teacher salary to similarly educated people in the US is lower than the same ratio in other countries. That can either be because of 1. Teacher salary is lower or 2. Other careers pay higher

 

To get at which of those two things explains the lower ratio you have to look at the Chart D3.2 (the one I attached). When you just look at teacher's salaries compared to other countries (adjusted for PPP), we rank 4th for starting salary (maybe 8-10th at the high end of the pay scale). We aren't in the bottom.

 

That would suggest that the lower ratio seen is likely due to higher pay for other careers, rather than lower pay for teachers. 

 

EDIT: And just to reiterate again - That third graph (the one showing how much more you would have to pay teachers to match other countries) - They cite the OECD Education at a Glance as their source. I've scanned through the relevant chapters (granted not the whole thing, it's very very long) and I can't find that figure anywhere. So they didn't take it from the OECD document. It would have had a figure number like the graph that they actually took from that document. So not sure where they got that data.

The discussion about ratios becomes more important when you bring it down to the community level.

 

Here is why the relative or ratio argument is important. We receive benefits to our community when our public servants can afford to live in our community. If your police are seen on a daily basis, if your fireman has a shorter commute, if your child sees her teacher when they are out shopping, all of things are lost if the folks have to commute.

 

[Boiler 45,517]

Reminds me of when I used to live near Boulder, they are very inclusive but no new teacher, cleaner etc etc could afford to live anywhere near it.

 

I would imagine Berkeley is the same.

[bcking 3,157]

13 minutes ago, Amica Nostra said:

The discussion about ratios becomes more important when you bring it down to the community level.

 

Here is why the relative or ratio argument is important. We receive benefits to our community when our public servants can afford to live in our community. If your police are seen on a daily basis, if your fireman has a shorter commute, if your child sees her teacher when they are out shopping, all of things are lost if the folks have to commute.

 

I'm not disagreeing with that data being important.

 

Insaying the Brookings institute was being misleading in the use of that figure. Likely intentionally misleading.

 

They give the figure and then "sum it up" completely incorrectly. That isn't okay. They need to talk about what the data actually means and not what they want it to mean.

[Amica Nostra 4,803]

1 minute ago, bcking said:

I'm not disagreeing with that data being important.

 

Insaying the Brookings institute was being misleading in the use of that figure. Likely intentionally misleading.

 

They give the figure and then "sum it up" completely incorrectly. That isn't okay. They need to talk about what the data actually means and not what they want it to mean.

 let me look at the article again