Teacher Pay and per Student Spending(nea.org)
nea.org
Teacher Pay and per Student Spending
https://www.nea.org/resource-library/educator-pay-and-student-spending-how-does-your-state-rank/teacher
115 comments
I think it would be more useful to compare to other professions that require a degree, rather than all Americans.
[deleted]
Not all degrees are created equal. My understanding is that education degrees are particularly easy to get.
Lots of teachers have masters or PHD's. Those are generally not that easy to get.
Yes there has been a lowering of standards to get a teaching certificate in many states, but that's because they are desperate to do anything possible to get more teachers in classrooms without having to raise pay. Not because it's a good idea. Many teaching certificates are handed out "provisionally", and give you a few years to earn whatever is actually required, while still allowing you to actively teach in a classroom.
Yes there has been a lowering of standards to get a teaching certificate in many states, but that's because they are desperate to do anything possible to get more teachers in classrooms without having to raise pay. Not because it's a good idea. Many teaching certificates are handed out "provisionally", and give you a few years to earn whatever is actually required, while still allowing you to actively teach in a classroom.
A decent number of teachers have doctorates, but I’ve never met one with a PhD. Teachers are often paid more for having a doctorate, and so they get EdDs, which are significantly easier to get.
> so they get EdDs, which are significantly easier to get.
That was also my understanding.
I have read lots of complaints from seemingly smart teachers about having to waste their time on getting one of those (but none of them worried about being able to do the work and get the degree).
I have also read lots of entitled stuff from seemingly very dumb teachers with said degree who thought they were smarter than other teachers because of it -- and smarter than pretty much everybody out there without a "doctorate" as well.
And I've read research that shows that the degrees (bachelors/masters/"doctorate"/phd) actually doesn't matter much for people's teaching abilities...
That was also my understanding.
I have read lots of complaints from seemingly smart teachers about having to waste their time on getting one of those (but none of them worried about being able to do the work and get the degree).
I have also read lots of entitled stuff from seemingly very dumb teachers with said degree who thought they were smarter than other teachers because of it -- and smarter than pretty much everybody out there without a "doctorate" as well.
And I've read research that shows that the degrees (bachelors/masters/"doctorate"/phd) actually doesn't matter much for people's teaching abilities...
More useful still to compare to other professions that require a graduate degree, as most teacher positions require this.
I checked 2 states, CA and NJ just require a bachelor's with a 3.0 GPA. Where are you getting the idea that most require advance degrees?
How recent is that? In my country, you had to study for 7 years before being a teacher, and pass an exam (master degree plus two years learning from another teacher).
Then, due to shortages (caused by low pay), they removed 2 years around 2010, so now its only 5 years - a master degree. They made the passing grade at the exam so low for some teachers (math and physics teachers) that you can treat it like it doesn't exist, and while the current government won't do anything next year because they have interest in makebelieve the past 4 years the education recruitment process hasn't been a disaster, you have talks about diminishing the requirements to a bachelor degree (they will wait until after the european elections to start pushing the idea imho).
So most active teachers in place today had to study 7 years before working with kids. But when i will check the requirement in two-three years, i'll be able to say "they're pretty well paid for people with bachelor's degree!" too, event id it wouldn't be the reality for most teachers.
Then, due to shortages (caused by low pay), they removed 2 years around 2010, so now its only 5 years - a master degree. They made the passing grade at the exam so low for some teachers (math and physics teachers) that you can treat it like it doesn't exist, and while the current government won't do anything next year because they have interest in makebelieve the past 4 years the education recruitment process hasn't been a disaster, you have talks about diminishing the requirements to a bachelor degree (they will wait until after the european elections to start pushing the idea imho).
So most active teachers in place today had to study 7 years before working with kids. But when i will check the requirement in two-three years, i'll be able to say "they're pretty well paid for people with bachelor's degree!" too, event id it wouldn't be the reality for most teachers.
I don't know about those states, but in the US a graduate degree is not typically required to start teaching. There may be a requirement to earn a graduate degree within a certain period, but often not a hard requirement, more a soft "get this if you want a promotion" requirement. Instead they have to get (and maintain) certifications to keep their job. They can be hired without the certifications on a provisional basis.
https://www.gadoe.org/Finance-and-Business-Operations/Budget...
Going with the state whose schools I'm most familiar with. In GA those are the base salaries. Districts can increase the pay if they have the funding. Sometimes for specific fields only, math teachers in one county were getting paid almost 50% extra for a while due to a severe shortage a decade or so back.
If you don't get a graduate degree most teachers will cap out at T-4 or T-5, which this year maxes at $58k and $66k with 21+ years of experience. If you earn through an EdD [0] you'll be at the T-7 level which is $81k. $23k or 15k difference
[0] Doctorate of education, often a non-dissertation degree with a large practicum component, tedious to earn more than hard to earn.
https://www.gadoe.org/Finance-and-Business-Operations/Budget...
Going with the state whose schools I'm most familiar with. In GA those are the base salaries. Districts can increase the pay if they have the funding. Sometimes for specific fields only, math teachers in one county were getting paid almost 50% extra for a while due to a severe shortage a decade or so back.
If you don't get a graduate degree most teachers will cap out at T-4 or T-5, which this year maxes at $58k and $66k with 21+ years of experience. If you earn through an EdD [0] you'll be at the T-7 level which is $81k. $23k or 15k difference
[0] Doctorate of education, often a non-dissertation degree with a large practicum component, tedious to earn more than hard to earn.
Some states do require it, and in others it’s practically required if you plan to teach more than five or so years, because your comp will quickly plateau at a not very high even by teacher standards level if you don’t.
Next go look at their provisional teaching requirements. California has a BSR test, that you have to pass, showing you can read, write and do math slightly above the grade level you will be teaching. Then you can get a provisional license and eventually meet the actual teaching requirements.
That's actually my bad - I know a number of high school teachers with graduate degrees, but I assume you're right.
> Teachers make on average 5% less than 10 years ago, and 9% less than the peak in 2009-10, adjusted for inflation.
Yes, that sucks, but regardless with the numbers as presented, it is hard to say teachers are scandalously underpaid.
I highly encourage you to go do the job and see if you still think that's true. :)
Why do so many people continuously make this mistake? How hard a job allegedly is is irrelevant. What matters is how hard it is to fill the positions. Given that we can require so many to hve masters and doctorates and still get average salary where it is tells you its easy to fill, therefore these guys are overpaid, if it was hard to fill we would hace a higher percentage as just bachelors and comp would be higher.
States have been dropping teaching certificate requirements for a long time. Some states go so far as to give pretty much anyone that can pass the background check a provisional certificate, giving them years to meet the actual requirements.
Staffing of teachers is a hard job, some districts have full time staff just trying to fill the classrooms.
Staffing of teachers is a hard job, some districts have full time staff just trying to fill the classrooms.
Well, after getting paid insane amounts of money to write software, pretty much any job I could realistically get will appear underpaid to me. Having said that, I'm sure there are investors at hedge funds that would commit suicide if they only earned what I earn in a year.
A lot of people are in the same boat there, not just teachers. Although as typical "graduate jobs", teaching will have less of a premium then it used to with the glut of graduates.
This is probably true for nearly all employees who have held their same job during that time, since raises rarely exceed inflation, especially recently.
Being a teacher also requires a degree in many places, some require a masters for full license.
Average bachelor's degree is ~$30k for in-state public universities, not accounting for interest. Master's in education will be ~$40k.
Starting salary with a Master's in most states is ~$45k
Average bachelor's degree is ~$30k for in-state public universities, not accounting for interest. Master's in education will be ~$40k.
Starting salary with a Master's in most states is ~$45k
> new teachers are getting paid a pittance?
New teachers can more easily move to where there is better pay/demand for teachers. So I think they tend to balance out a bit.
In our district, starting teacher salary is $59k and so we see a lot of young teachers.
New teachers can more easily move to where there is better pay/demand for teachers. So I think they tend to balance out a bit.
In our district, starting teacher salary is $59k and so we see a lot of young teachers.
Well:
>3,500 school districts (28.6%), employing nearly 300,000 teachers still offer a starting salary below $40,000.
>They also say "23.2% of school districts pay beginning teachers a salary of at least $50,000. These districts employ nearly 1.3 million (42%) teachers."
That is, it's not just long-time versus new teachers, it's district to district: not all districts are the same size and some big districts pay better.
Average salary also seems to correspond pretty well to blue-state-ness in the top 10, with the exception of Alaska, for obvious reasons.
>3,500 school districts (28.6%), employing nearly 300,000 teachers still offer a starting salary below $40,000.
>They also say "23.2% of school districts pay beginning teachers a salary of at least $50,000. These districts employ nearly 1.3 million (42%) teachers."
That is, it's not just long-time versus new teachers, it's district to district: not all districts are the same size and some big districts pay better.
Average salary also seems to correspond pretty well to blue-state-ness in the top 10, with the exception of Alaska, for obvious reasons.
If the goal is to determine how well-paid teachers are, the analysis should be standardized against typical wages for all workers in each area.
There is a huge difference in salaries between elementary and high school education, probably based on the traditional gender difference between the two fields. My wife has taught for 10 years as an elementary teacher and earns below the average teacher salary for our state.
A tenured university professor in argentina barely earns 20k...
They have tenure, at least.
I believe average teacher turnover is < 5 years, which would mean that the field is not dominated by old timers.
Lets say we look at two class rooms. One turns over every year and one has a ~40 year veteran. The average salary at any given year is half new and half veteran. If we look at turnover over 10 years, the average is less than 5, no?
Why would we look at it over 10 years, instead of asking how long the teachers were teaching for? That artificially misrepresents the 40 year tenure as 10.
If you only look at a single year, then it paints the picture that half of teachers quit after a year but in this scenario 10/11 do.
My point is that different studies can have different methodologies, still be valid, and without digging deeper can be misleading. You'll need more than "I believe the average is" to really know what's going on.
My point is that different studies can have different methodologies, still be valid, and without digging deeper can be misleading. You'll need more than "I believe the average is" to really know what's going on.
Not to mention they all qualify for a pension after 20 years.
Depends on the state. In New York, teachers are doing OK (and, frankly, some of my daughter's teachers are awesome).
In West Virginia things are more bleak.
In West Virginia things are more bleak.
Not to mention, most Americans work 245 days a year, but teachers 181 days a year.
> Well, these numbers certainly don't seem like teachers are being drastically underpaid like I commonly hear.
I think you've expressing an underlying bias here that "average" is a fine pay for teachers.
You should at the very least be comparing to the median salary of professions with similar educational requirements.
I think you've expressing an underlying bias here that "average" is a fine pay for teachers.
You should at the very least be comparing to the median salary of professions with similar educational requirements.
Government employees (teachers) get pensions after a certain period so it's not a good comparison as they make far more money in the long run.
Source that all federal, state, county, and local employees employed by any government in the diverse country that is the US all magically get the same retirement structure?
I never stated such a thing, nor mentioned magic. The discussion is around statistics and averages and I was writing generally. It's disingenuous to assume the same thing applies in absolute terms.
Not necessarily. Lots of governments and unions have negotiated reduced defined benefit pensions for newer (re:younger) workers.
> 73% of individuals in America earn less than the average teacher's salary of $69k.
And around 95% of degree holding individuals do less work than the average teacher, and almost all of that 73% are less qualified and probably in less debt from degree courses.
My son is currently choosing what he's going to move on to after he finishes school, and I'm honestly recommending military service over teaching.
It's a hard job, with working hours that are beyond ridiculous, and you end up spending some of your salary on school supplies for your classroom and for your kids. Not to mention keeping your desk drawer stocked with snacks for the kids that don't have food.
We need to wake up. If we want our children to be babysat, then keep things as they are. If we want our children to be educated, then we need to attract the best to the profession. "If you can't do, teach" needs to be reversed.
And around 95% of degree holding individuals do less work than the average teacher, and almost all of that 73% are less qualified and probably in less debt from degree courses.
My son is currently choosing what he's going to move on to after he finishes school, and I'm honestly recommending military service over teaching.
It's a hard job, with working hours that are beyond ridiculous, and you end up spending some of your salary on school supplies for your classroom and for your kids. Not to mention keeping your desk drawer stocked with snacks for the kids that don't have food.
We need to wake up. If we want our children to be babysat, then keep things as they are. If we want our children to be educated, then we need to attract the best to the profession. "If you can't do, teach" needs to be reversed.
> Per wikipedia[1], 73% of individuals in America earn income less than the average teacher salary of $69k.
This is irrelevant to determining whether or not a given occupation is underpaid (or overpaid).
Supply and demand determine the appropriate price, and if you think there are insufficient teachers of insufficient quality, then the price is too low. Similarly, if you had a too many well qualified people clamoring to be teachers, then the price would be too high.
However, given what we know about what teachers have to deal with on a day in and day out basis, plus having to forego vacations during the school year and having an extremely rigid schedule, I would assume people with options (proxy for high quality) to forego teaching if the pay was only “average”.
And that “average” is for professions requiring similar levels of time/stress/injury risk/time off/flexibility/upward potential/etc, so a simple mean or median average of all US working adults’ pay is meaningless.
This is irrelevant to determining whether or not a given occupation is underpaid (or overpaid).
Supply and demand determine the appropriate price, and if you think there are insufficient teachers of insufficient quality, then the price is too low. Similarly, if you had a too many well qualified people clamoring to be teachers, then the price would be too high.
However, given what we know about what teachers have to deal with on a day in and day out basis, plus having to forego vacations during the school year and having an extremely rigid schedule, I would assume people with options (proxy for high quality) to forego teaching if the pay was only “average”.
And that “average” is for professions requiring similar levels of time/stress/injury risk/time off/flexibility/upward potential/etc, so a simple mean or median average of all US working adults’ pay is meaningless.
Sure, and that is an economic problem for the state/county or whoever sets the paybands to figure out. My usage of "underpaid" is more about individuals self reporting on being underpaid. Teachers are probably the #1 group of workers I hear frequently complaining about being underpaid. I would have guessed they were getting paid like $40k on average based on the complaints.
Your anecdotal data about who complains more seems like a meaningless distinction. You don’t think hotel maids and strawberry pickers and retail workers and food prep workers complain about being underpaid?
The only relevant question is are the people who are teachers now of sufficient inherent quality and of sufficient motivation? If not, then there is likely a problem with the prices (since it seems evident across many, many jurisdictions and management levels).
Also does not help that violent and disruptive students are somehow not automatically kicked out of school.
The only relevant question is are the people who are teachers now of sufficient inherent quality and of sufficient motivation? If not, then there is likely a problem with the prices (since it seems evident across many, many jurisdictions and management levels).
Also does not help that violent and disruptive students are somehow not automatically kicked out of school.
No, it is not a meaningless distinction. You are using underpaid as a take on supply/demand problem, whereas I am using underpaid as a person's personal take on their salary. If the supply/demand curve showed that teachers should be getting paid around $20k/yr, they would almost universally claim to be underpaid, despite being able to fill the open positions. Saying "Well, you're not actually underpaid" means nothing if people feel like they are underpaid.
> what teachers have to deal with on a day in and day out basis
Yes, this is bad
> plus having to forego vacations during the school year
? Teachers don't typically work during christmas, spring break, etc, do they? Plus they get the entire summer off? Whatever the arguments around sufficient salary, worker protection etc, I can hardly see vacation time being a factor. I'd absolutely kill to have summers off.
Yes, this is bad
> plus having to forego vacations during the school year
? Teachers don't typically work during christmas, spring break, etc, do they? Plus they get the entire summer off? Whatever the arguments around sufficient salary, worker protection etc, I can hardly see vacation time being a factor. I'd absolutely kill to have summers off.
It is a pro and a con. The teachers I know have ~6 weeks off in the summer, and the other non school days, they have training and whatnot.
And those summer weeks are often the business travel days. I much prefer traveling on off peak days, and would hate being restricted to travel during the busiest times of everything.
As for other holidays, the teachers I know seem to work a lot of hours at home, so not necessarily a “holiday”. And the same problem exists, only being able to do things at busy times. Which isn’t bad, but it would suck if that was the case for 40 straight years.
And those summer weeks are often the business travel days. I much prefer traveling on off peak days, and would hate being restricted to travel during the busiest times of everything.
As for other holidays, the teachers I know seem to work a lot of hours at home, so not necessarily a “holiday”. And the same problem exists, only being able to do things at busy times. Which isn’t bad, but it would suck if that was the case for 40 straight years.
Everyone is focused on teacher salary, but the national average expenditure per student was $16,281. In New York it was $30,876. This seems insane.
A handful of student's expenditure covers a teacher's salary. Where does the expenditure for the other 25 kids in the class go?
A handful of student's expenditure covers a teacher's salary. Where does the expenditure for the other 25 kids in the class go?
School districts spend most of their money on humans.
There is a LOT of infrastructure. The schools have to be built, they have to be staffed(there is a fair bit of support staff, to keep the teachers in classrooms teaching).
From cafeteria workers and janitors to IT people and payroll, back office and grant people. High Schools might have a few thousand students that congregate there every single day, that's a small town. Our local high school's have a dedicated full-time HVAC person for instance, just to keep the insane temperatures outside from getting into the classrooms.
There is a LOT of infrastructure. The schools have to be built, they have to be staffed(there is a fair bit of support staff, to keep the teachers in classrooms teaching).
From cafeteria workers and janitors to IT people and payroll, back office and grant people. High Schools might have a few thousand students that congregate there every single day, that's a small town. Our local high school's have a dedicated full-time HVAC person for instance, just to keep the insane temperatures outside from getting into the classrooms.
I was able to find a breakdown from a few years ago per student:
https://www.nycenet.edu/offices/d_chanc_oper/budget/dbor/sbe...
https://www.nycenet.edu/offices/d_chanc_oper/budget/dbor/sbe...
It doesn't say how much is for normal instruction of normal kids, how much is zoo keeping of unruly kids, how much is remedial teaching of the slow kids (or sometimes the ones who had other reasons for being behind), how much is AP teaching (or better) for the smart kids.
It just says:
It just says:
Pct of Per
Pct of Public Student
Total Exp. School Amount
i. Teachers $10,124,379 32.1% 37.7% $9,914
1) buildings, air conditioning, buses and bus drivers, lunches, “resource officers”, the second(!) assistant superintendent’s second(!) secretary (true story, not a big district either) et c.
2) Some kids with certain needs require one entire staff member with them at all times. There may be a few of these in a given school.
3) Somewhat more require something like 1/5-1/10 of one or (more often) two staff members’ time (think “special ed” rooms)
4) These figures may include serious outliers. Selective public schools often have very high per-pupil spending, and schools attached to correctional institutions sometimes register six figures of spending per student, to pick a couple examples.
TL;DR if we could suss out what’s actually spent on a “normal” student at a “normal” school, it would be way lower.
2) Some kids with certain needs require one entire staff member with them at all times. There may be a few of these in a given school.
3) Somewhat more require something like 1/5-1/10 of one or (more often) two staff members’ time (think “special ed” rooms)
4) These figures may include serious outliers. Selective public schools often have very high per-pupil spending, and schools attached to correctional institutions sometimes register six figures of spending per student, to pick a couple examples.
TL;DR if we could suss out what’s actually spent on a “normal” student at a “normal” school, it would be way lower.
> the second(!) assistant superintendent’s second(!) secretary (true story, not a big district either)
I bet if you go ask what those secretaries actually do during their day, you will find they are very busy doing lots of stuff that has nothing to do with the traditional "secretary" role. It was probably the only way to get it stuffed into the budget, so the actual work they do can get done.
Certainly some Administrators have actual secretaries that do traditional secretary duties, but they are few and far between in my experience. Most of the ones I've met do lots and lots of other things totally un-related.
As for multiple Asst Superintendents, that's totally normal, usually one is in charge of "back office" payroll, HR, the business end of things and another is in charge of education type things. At larger districts you might have 1/2 a dozen of them, all specializing in a particular area.
I bet if you go ask what those secretaries actually do during their day, you will find they are very busy doing lots of stuff that has nothing to do with the traditional "secretary" role. It was probably the only way to get it stuffed into the budget, so the actual work they do can get done.
Certainly some Administrators have actual secretaries that do traditional secretary duties, but they are few and far between in my experience. Most of the ones I've met do lots and lots of other things totally un-related.
As for multiple Asst Superintendents, that's totally normal, usually one is in charge of "back office" payroll, HR, the business end of things and another is in charge of education type things. At larger districts you might have 1/2 a dozen of them, all specializing in a particular area.
One thing this report fails to include is the total compensation package of teachers.
It varies state to state and district to district, but in general teachers get very good healthcare plans and a pension. When I compared notes with my teacher friend, I found that his benefits package would be worth about $15k a year (assuming the pension plan is well run). And let's not forget they only work 180 days a year.
While inflation has not been kind to their salary gains, it has been very kind to the pension gains. So the total compensation package has probably not changed much.
It varies state to state and district to district, but in general teachers get very good healthcare plans and a pension. When I compared notes with my teacher friend, I found that his benefits package would be worth about $15k a year (assuming the pension plan is well run). And let's not forget they only work 180 days a year.
While inflation has not been kind to their salary gains, it has been very kind to the pension gains. So the total compensation package has probably not changed much.
> And let's not forget they only work 180 days a year.
That's just for the academic year.
Then they work during the summer in preparation for the next school year, teaching summer school, attending their own continuing education courses or graduate courses, or working a second job to make enough money to make ends meet.
And most professionals do work more, but not hugely more. I'm in a middling org and get 50 days off a year between holidays, PTO, and sick leave (not always used, rolls over though). If I used all my sick leave I'd only work 210 days, just 30 more days than a teacher who manages to take the entire summer off. At a middling org.
That's just for the academic year.
Then they work during the summer in preparation for the next school year, teaching summer school, attending their own continuing education courses or graduate courses, or working a second job to make enough money to make ends meet.
And most professionals do work more, but not hugely more. I'm in a middling org and get 50 days off a year between holidays, PTO, and sick leave (not always used, rolls over though). If I used all my sick leave I'd only work 210 days, just 30 more days than a teacher who manages to take the entire summer off. At a middling org.
Just looked up my local California district, it's 185 contracted days. The districts near me seem to range from low 180s to 190. They also get 5 days they can call out for personal reasons(I don't think they roll over), and a handful of sick days that do roll over. If they work summer school, they get paid extra. 30 extra work days is 6 weeks, which most people would say is significantly more and love to have off.
https://www.rand.org/pubs/research_reports/RRA1108-9.html
Days are a poor measure here. Hours matter as well and teachers are salaried. They don't earn OT, but they often work more than their contracted hours without compensation. In that study the average was 12 uncompensated hours per week, assuming an 8 hour day over the 36 weeks of a school year that's more than 50 uncompensated days of labor.
I object to the claim (in my quoted section above) that teachers only work 180 days a year. They work more than that, either in the excess hours beyond their contracted hours, in the time they take without direct compensation to maintain certifications or earn graduate degrees, or the time they spend working a second job or summer school or running a club just to make ends meet.
Days are a poor measure here. Hours matter as well and teachers are salaried. They don't earn OT, but they often work more than their contracted hours without compensation. In that study the average was 12 uncompensated hours per week, assuming an 8 hour day over the 36 weeks of a school year that's more than 50 uncompensated days of labor.
I object to the claim (in my quoted section above) that teachers only work 180 days a year. They work more than that, either in the excess hours beyond their contracted hours, in the time they take without direct compensation to maintain certifications or earn graduate degrees, or the time they spend working a second job or summer school or running a club just to make ends meet.
At our district summer prep is maximum of two weeks. Which is made up by the two weeks of paid leave most districts are required to give out a year - so it still ends up as 180 days.
Most summer prep is done by admins who are employed 11 months a year, and teachers get paid extra if they choose to teach summer school.
Most summer prep is done by admins who are employed 11 months a year, and teachers get paid extra if they choose to teach summer school.
Summer classroom days are not the only summer prep.
Lots of teachers also work summer jobs so they can be not-poor. Super common. (“But their wages aren’t actually that bad” 1 - in many places, yes, they are, and 2 - add a couple kids and a divorce and it’s extremely bad)
It’s also why so many end up doing MLMs.
Lots of teachers also work summer jobs so they can be not-poor. Super common. (“But their wages aren’t actually that bad” 1 - in many places, yes, they are, and 2 - add a couple kids and a divorce and it’s extremely bad)
It’s also why so many end up doing MLMs.
You're commenting on an article that puts the average wage for a teacher at 69k. That isn't a poor person unless you're redefining poor to be more than half the country. Are some paid lower, certainly. But on average, their wages aren't actually that bad.
Average, yes. That includes a lot earning $36k-$48k.
[deleted]
So instead of using 2000 hours per year to calculate your wage you use 1440 hours
It's tempting to view defined benefit plans as something very valuable, but they are not an unalloyed good for whoever receives them. It's common for participation in such a plan to require a teacher (or firefighter, policeman, etc.) to forgo collecting some, or all, of the social security benefits they would otherwise be eligible for thanks to provisions in federal law like Windfall Elimination Provision (WEP) and the Government Pension Offset (GPO). Rolling these back to some extent (the argument is that they were well intentioned, but went too far) is the subject of active political lobbying, and has been for some time. [0] [1]
There are a few particularly broken things about the current system. A worker's potential ineligibility to receive their spouse's social security survivor's benefits is a big one. It is not uncommon for the WEP to kick in and prevent a person with a defined benefit pension from receiving any of their spouse's survivor benefits, whereas if they had never worked a day in their life, they would receive it.
[0] https://www.aft.org/news/educators-fight-keep-their-social-s... [1] https://www.nea.org/advocating-for-change/new-from-nea/how-w...
There are a few particularly broken things about the current system. A worker's potential ineligibility to receive their spouse's social security survivor's benefits is a big one. It is not uncommon for the WEP to kick in and prevent a person with a defined benefit pension from receiving any of their spouse's survivor benefits, whereas if they had never worked a day in their life, they would receive it.
[0] https://www.aft.org/news/educators-fight-keep-their-social-s... [1] https://www.nea.org/advocating-for-change/new-from-nea/how-w...
They also don’t pay into social security. For someone of my age (early 40s), this is a plus because it’s unlikely I’ll ever be able to receive payments from the system (and certainly not at the levels that people currently pull out, due to means-based limitations that will need to be put in place). I’d much rather be paying into a separate system.
> They also don’t pay into social security.
That's not really the area of friction. The problem is that very few people pay only into a defined benefit plan in their lifetime. The point of contention is the calculations involved when a person has paid into both social security and defined benefit plans. (or how much of the survivor benefit a spouse should receive)
That's not really the area of friction. The problem is that very few people pay only into a defined benefit plan in their lifetime. The point of contention is the calculations involved when a person has paid into both social security and defined benefit plans. (or how much of the survivor benefit a spouse should receive)
Note that spousal benefits are also reduced by one’s own SS benefits, so it’s no surprise that this same logic applies to other pensions.
Indeed. In general the problem people have with WEP and GPO isn't that the reductions exist, it's where the lines are drawn. We're still using the first pass of a system that was cooked up four decades ago. (the larger point to my OP was that defined benefit pensions are not necessarily the amazing thing people assume they are - I'm happy to avoid them)
Teacher pay discussions are woefully incomplete if they don’t include pension contribution.
In tech we talk about “total compensation” as opposed to “salary”. The same should be true for other jobs as well. Especially those with a defined benefits pension plan!
In tech we talk about “total compensation” as opposed to “salary”. The same should be true for other jobs as well. Especially those with a defined benefits pension plan!
These are very insecure in a lot of states. Even the ones with stable teacher retirement systems are under constant threat of having those systems destabilized by the political winds.
While I agree Total Compensation should be what is talked about, in general pension plans for government employees is self-funded by them. Some states are as high as 10-15% of your salary going into your pension and the employer picking up the same or higher rate. Pennsylvania for instance has an employer contribution rate of 34.94% plus an employee rate of around 7.56%. - https://www.psers.pa.gov/About/PFR/Documents/ECR%20fact%20sh...
Arizona is at 12.29% each for employee and employer for a combined rate of almost 25%. https://www.azasrs.gov/content/contribution-rates
Arizona is at 12.29% each for employee and employer for a combined rate of almost 25%. https://www.azasrs.gov/content/contribution-rates
If someone has a defined benefit, they still pay into it. That's not to say defined benefit programs aren't a great deal for the employee -- they are, and most of us would love to have one. It's just to point out that you can't factor in pension payouts as 'free money' because it's more akin to an outsized market return or something.
Basically, you'd need to figure out the excess ROI based on what they get out vs what they put in, relative to the market (or something).
Basically, you'd need to figure out the excess ROI based on what they get out vs what they put in, relative to the market (or something).
> That's not to say defined benefit programs aren't a great deal for the employee -- they are, and most of us would love to have one.
I would much prefer a big SEP-IRA, or a 401k with a company match beyond the standard safe harbor 4% or whatever it is.
Government defined benefit pensions come with their own problems.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40538070
I would much prefer a big SEP-IRA, or a 401k with a company match beyond the standard safe harbor 4% or whatever it is.
Government defined benefit pensions come with their own problems.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40538070
Id like to see a comparison between unionized and non-union teachers.
My hunch would be that some unions did well and others didnt, but it would still be difficult to understand the data without comparing to the tax base regions for the school.
My hunch would be that some unions did well and others didnt, but it would still be difficult to understand the data without comparing to the tax base regions for the school.
They have that comparison in the compensation view. Unionized teachers make a lot more money.
They actually don't state this directly - it's states with collective bargaining vs. no collective bargaining. You can be a unionized teacher in a state without bargaining rights.
Which just muddies the waters because if collective bargaining is banned then the unions are toothless. The correct comparison is collective bargaining legal vs illegal.
In my state the "teacher's union" is basically liability insurance for stuff that happens in the classroom, they have no real collective bargaining power.
>Teachers earn 26% more on average in states with collective bargaining
guys, high teacher salary is a failure measure, not a success measure. It means your district failed to contain costs (obviously this needs to be benchmarked against normalized student performance, but even in that form higher pay is a failure measure).
Are the rankings COL adjusted? Having trouble reconciling the $25k difference between Ohio and New York lifting New York to #1.
[deleted]
I’d love to see more linkage between teacher pay and student success. Unfortunately there aren’t any public schools in my area that factor performance into pay, presumably because the unions are very strong here (CA). Instead, we have a mix of teachers, including some who throw things and yell at students, but can’t be fired.
It would be a perverse incentive to get struggling kids out of your class and off your record. Same flawed logic behind No Child Left Behind. Underfunding problem areas is not a recipe for success.
Sure, you’d want to use students’ incoming skills and trajectory to make sure you’re not penalizing teachers who have lots of low-performing kids.
that doesn't solve the stated problem
There isn’t an incentive to get rid of a student who is low-performing if that aspect is taken into account when calculating the teachers’ impact on student success.
a student who is low-performing is not necessarily a student whose grades are low. they could also be a student who struggles to improve. and let's not forget the other perverse incentive here: if growth is all that's taken into account what happens to the students whose grades are already good?
It wouldn’t just be looking at grades, of course. If you have a 5th grader getting A’s that turns into a 6th grader getting A’s, no one would assume they haven’t learned anything. You could look at scores on the many standardized tests that kids already take, in combination with grades.
I'd imagine you'd end up under paying in poorer areas where performance is generally lower and needs are higher. AFAIK performance is generally more tied to parents (involvement, class, etc) than to teachers. Interesting anecdote on teachers throwing things at students, here in Oregon its usually the opposite case we hear people complaining about.
It would be much more appropriate to implement the system at a local level to avoid the issues you describe. That way you’re not comparing teachers in wildly disparate environments.
if you leave the specifics to be implemented at local level then you're just going to create perverse incentives in a variable manner based on how competent local administrators are.
the whole idea is poor. there's little benefit in putting pressure on teachers like this. all you're doing is unnaturally dragging their motivations away from helping kids grow into well-rounded individuals for the sake of them and society to earning more money based on some arbitrary goal dreamed up by a local bureaucrat
the whole idea is poor. there's little benefit in putting pressure on teachers like this. all you're doing is unnaturally dragging their motivations away from helping kids grow into well-rounded individuals for the sake of them and society to earning more money based on some arbitrary goal dreamed up by a local bureaucrat
Funny, it works great at the districts I’m aware of that use it. You seem to be assuming that teachers whose pay is tied only to seniority care more about kids growing into well-rounded individuals. Why would you assume that?
does it? based on what metric? data please
why would I assume that? because their motivations are not being skewed by an additional perverse financial incentive?
why would I assume that? because their motivations are not being skewed by an additional perverse financial incentive?
I’ve talked with educators who moved states to be able to work in such an environment. They love it, and it attracts families that prefer to avoid pay systems that just focus on seniority.
It’s interesting that you refer to this as a “perverse financial incentive” when we use performance-based metrics in pretty much every industry.
It’s interesting that you refer to this as a “perverse financial incentive” when we use performance-based metrics in pretty much every industry.
and therein lies the problem. treating education like an industry is entirely missing the point of what education is
That sounds like a great bumper sticker. Not much of an argument though. I work in the education field, and this doesn’t resonate with what I’ve seen at all.
and this is? your argument boils down to "despite all logic to the contrary, I believe in what I'm saying, therefore it's correct".
The notion that incentives help shape behavior, and if aligned with organizational goals, they can be useful, is not opposed to “all logic to the contrary.” You seem dead set against innovation in educator compensation, so I’ll just leave you be. Have a good one!
I think that's simply hard to do. What is student success? Test scores? Teachers will teach to the test or even help students cheat on standardized tests if their pay is at stake.
If the evaluation is known ahead of time, we'll just see Goodhart's Law in action ("When a measure becomes a target, it ceases to be a good measure" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goodhart's_law).
Not only that, but a huge part of "student success" isn't based on the teacher's performance. For example, if you give me a class of wealthy students whose parents have graduate degrees, it'll be a lot easier to teach them than a classroom of low-income students without access to resources who aren't set up for success.
In fact, school administrators could tip the scales toward teachers they like and retaliate against those they don't like even with "objective" measures. Let's say that we have a perfect test of student advancement - a perfect measure, can't be taught to, and can't be cheated on. I dislike you as a teacher and load up your class with all the known disruptive students. You spend your time on classroom management (controlling student outbursts, keeping students in their seats, etc) rather than teaching. This perfect, objective measure comes around and it turns out you're a terrible teacher! Your students aren't doing better than before your class. Except the fault of that is mine - I manufactured a classroom that was doomed from the start.
That's not to say these things don't happen in industry as well. I've seen managers give people they didn't like projects they knew would fail or gave them a team of under-performers to drag them down. However, it's kinda worse when kid's futures are in the balance.
Yes, there are certainly better and worse teachers, but it can be hard to determine who is doing well.
If the evaluation is known ahead of time, we'll just see Goodhart's Law in action ("When a measure becomes a target, it ceases to be a good measure" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goodhart's_law).
Not only that, but a huge part of "student success" isn't based on the teacher's performance. For example, if you give me a class of wealthy students whose parents have graduate degrees, it'll be a lot easier to teach them than a classroom of low-income students without access to resources who aren't set up for success.
In fact, school administrators could tip the scales toward teachers they like and retaliate against those they don't like even with "objective" measures. Let's say that we have a perfect test of student advancement - a perfect measure, can't be taught to, and can't be cheated on. I dislike you as a teacher and load up your class with all the known disruptive students. You spend your time on classroom management (controlling student outbursts, keeping students in their seats, etc) rather than teaching. This perfect, objective measure comes around and it turns out you're a terrible teacher! Your students aren't doing better than before your class. Except the fault of that is mine - I manufactured a classroom that was doomed from the start.
That's not to say these things don't happen in industry as well. I've seen managers give people they didn't like projects they knew would fail or gave them a team of under-performers to drag them down. However, it's kinda worse when kid's futures are in the balance.
Yes, there are certainly better and worse teachers, but it can be hard to determine who is doing well.
> However, it's kinda worse when kid's futures are in the balance.
Considering the alternative is paying people simply based on how many years based on seniority alone, we should endeavor to use a system that at least attempts to take performance into account.
Considering the alternative is paying people simply based on how many years based on seniority alone, we should endeavor to use a system that at least attempts to take performance into account.
That would be a terrible idea for multiple reasons, mostly because of Goodhart's law https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goodhart%27s_law
So is it a bad idea to have metrics for promotion and pay in other industries, where they are very common? The unique aspect about teaching is that the people who could evaluate them subjectively are children, and we wouldn’t want to put too much weight on their opinions. Seems like there should be some objective measures, instead of just throwing up our hands and paying based on seniority (which creates other bad incentives).
Pretty sure every teacher would simply move to wealthy area where they didn't have to teach anything and they would still get amazing successful students.
Not if they’re measured against the other teachers at that school! We see too much of what you describe in our public school, which takes credit for all the student achievement, even though they effectively ignore 30% of students for all academic purposes.
It could be an "umbrellas cause rain" though, they may well increase spending in areas with poorly-performing students.
factoring performance into pay will simply create perverse incentives that will damage students in other ways. it's obvious that paying teachers better will result in greater student success because of supply and demand in the labour market.
These numbers are just averages though - are long-time teachers dominating the pay scale and new teachers are getting paid a pittance?