Pennsylvania / Pittsburgh teacher salaries (insurance, countertops, buy)

[pinetar10]

who says there's little turnover in teaching? 44% of teachers get out of the field within 5 years based on a study by the NEA. I realize this is nationally, and not just in the area, but teaching does have high turnover

[right-here-i-say]

Originally Posted by pinetar10

who says there's little turnover in teaching? 44% of teachers get out of the field within 5 years based on a study by the NEA. I realize this is nationally, and not just in the area, but teaching does have high turnover

I say there is little turnover in teaching IN PENNSYLVANIA. That is the point of the whole thread.

[right-here-i-say]

Originally Posted by BrianTH

right-here-I-say,

Well, with all due respect, I am the one noting things like that when charter schools are freed to provide teacher compensation as they see fit, they have ended up structuring it a bit differently, but not actually cutting overall compensation. In contrast, you are the one imagining a radical new approach to teacher compensation that would end up dramatically cutting costs, without any indication in the real world that your purely hypothetical approach would be successful. So, I am not sure why you are the one in this conversation who is being more "reality based".

Reality/Real World = the taxes we pay. You have tried to justify this with different math calculations, and comparing the salaries of lawyers and doctors, while staying away from questions like "Why not school year round? Why should they be able to strike? Does a teacher making $88K teach better than one making $40K? Does their pension have to be better than the jobs in the free market?"

I don't mean any disrespect. I just think that your justifications are not real world. We have half the teachers making double what the others are making, other countries teaching year round while we have 3 months off a year, and pensions that are so much higher than anyone in the free market. It is broken.

My approach would be more successful than what we have now, because we would teach year round, teachers would max out on salaries (except for bonuses on performance), and massive amounts of tax dollars would be saved by giving them 401ks, instead of guaranteed pensions. Not only that, but every citizen in P.A. could have a couple extra grand in their pockets, which would skyrocket home values and help the business environment. This is an economic fact.

As for your charter school quote, the charter school system has issues because all of the teachers in a charter school will want to move to an opening in the "public school cash grab" once one becomes available. This is why it will not work in P.A.

[BrianTH]

Originally Posted by right-here-i-say

Reality/Real World = the taxes we pay. You have tried to justify this with different math calculations, and comparing the salaries of lawyers and doctors, while staying away from questions like "Why not school year round?"

As an aside, I haven't been addressing all of your questions because I don't think some of them are really relevant to the issue of overall teacher compensation or how it is structured. But since we have gone through those issues in a lot of detail now, I am happy to address these other issues.

To start, I would support a different annual schedule, although I actually don't think there need to be a lot more instruction days. Rather, what I would like to see is the current instruction days spread more evenly through the year. Of course, none of this is directly relevant to overall teacher compensation--it is more a pedagogical issue.

Why should they be able to strike?

Striking should be a last resort, of course, but in any collective bargaining situation it is likely going to have to be an option. Otherwise, the employer ultimately lacks the necessary incentives to negotiate in good faith.

Does a teacher making $88K teach better than one making $40K?

As an aside, I don't know what examples you are using for your high and low end, so I am not sure this is really an apples-to-apples comparison. For example, when I looked just at people teaching in the same district in the same position with the same degrees, I found less of a differential.

But anyway, sure, sometimes a teacher is being paid more because it is likely they are a better teacher. For example, a higher-paid teacher may have more education and experience. In a system with merit pay, a higher-paid teacher may also have demonstrated their ability to achieve better results.

But of course it doesn't need to be the case that all additional pay is based on teaching ability. For example, as I have been pointing out, seniority-based pay serves the independent purpose of rewarding loyalty and reducing churn. Also, extra pay for harder-to-fill positions just makes basic economic sense.

Does their pension have to be better than the jobs in the free market?

It depends. You can structure compensation in a lot of different ways, and the different possible structures have different incentive effects and different financial implications for the employer. For example, you can pay people higher salaries and have them self-finance their pensions, or you can pay them lower salaries and provide a pension. Either system, or a blend of both, may make sense given the nature of the industry--it all depends on a host of complex factors and considerations.

My approach would be more successful than what we have now, because we would teach year round, teachers would max out on salaries (except for bonuses on performance), and massive amounts of tax dollars would be saved by giving them 401ks, instead of guaranteed pensions.

Again, it is far from clear that restructuring teacher pay in any of these ways would save money in the end. Indeed, that is what is so relevant about charter schools: they are free to experiment with teacher compensation, and in the end they actually spend more on teacher compensation than traditional public schools.

As for your charter school quote, the charter school system has issues because all of the teachers in a charter school will want to move to an opening in the "public school cash grab" once one becomes available. This is why it will not work in P.A.

First, charter schools are already working in PA.

Second, as I explained above, if traditional public school teacher compensation is truly a much better deal than what a free market would provide, then charter school teachers are going to face enormous competition in getting any public school slots that become available. Hence, collectively charter school teachers will have very little leverage with their current employers, since they can't all credibly threaten to leave for the traditional public schools.

As I also explained above, generally the problem with your analysis is that you are ignoring the fact that teachers are not isolated from the rest of the labor market. Specifically, they can also take jobs outside of teaching, and indeed the supply of trained teachers is going to be responsive to the current teaching market. So, charter schools aren't just facing the threat of their teachers leaving for traditional public schools, but are also facing the need to attract people away from other professions, and to retain those people over time. And it is those threats that can plausibly explain why charter schools are not saving on total teacher compensation versus traditional public schools

Finally, I would again suggest that I am being a lot more "real world" oriented than you. With all due respect, I think you are grossly oversimplifying some very complex issues, and it simply is not possible to just look at some salary numbers and know whether or not there is an economic justification for what you are seeing. To really do that in a "real world" fashion, you have to get into the complex details of the industry.

Of course, that doesn't mean that in the end you will find out that everything is working the way it should, and as I have noted many times now, there are several reforms of public school teacher compensation that I would support. Again, my point is just that you can't really get an answer to these very complex questions without a lot more information and analysis than you are allowing.

[Katarina Witt]

Originally Posted by right-here-i-say

Reality/Real World = the taxes we pay. You have tried to justify this with different math calculations, and comparing the salaries of lawyers and doctors, while staying away from questions like "Why not school year round? Why should they be able to strike? Does a teacher making $88K teach better than one making $40K? Does their pension have to be better than the jobs in the free market?"

I tried a google search to find school years in europe, but couldn't come up with much information. Then I googled "education in Germany" (as that is one country in Europe I have been to) and learned the following:

School usually starts between 7.30 a.m. and 8:15 a.m. and can finish as early as 12; instruction at lower classes almost always ends before lunch.

The school year starts after the summer break (different from state to state, usually end/mid of August) and is divided into two semesters. There are typically 12 weeks of holidays, in addition to public holidays.

Education in Germany - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

So the school day is shorter; the school year a little bit longer. Here in our district, students get 11 wks in the summer, two weeks at Christmas, a week at Thanksgiving and a week of spring break. Total instructional hours are probably similar. You could google any other country and find out this information. My educated guess (no pun intended) is that it is similar in most countries.

[right-here-i-say]

I give up. If you think teachers should be able to strike (and hold our kids hostage), there is no changing your mind.

Guaranteed pensions went away years ago when companies couldn't pay out what they promised. We pay higher salaries AND obscene pensions (not like your example of either or)

At least we agree on year round schooling. Too bad it won't happen here because the teachers would go on strike.

On another note, You seem to be the kind of person that would argue that salaries in Major League Baseball don't matter. (by giving stats that would make it look to be fact)

[BrianTH]

Originally Posted by right-here-i-say

On another note, You seem to be the kind of person that would argue that salaries in Major League Baseball don't matter. (by giving stats that would make it look to be fact)

More accurately, I am the kind of person who would analyze MLB as a business, and try to explain player salaries not just in terms of stats, but also in terms of actual revenues generated.

[PeaceAb]

Just curious where in that link did you find 88K per year for the K-teacher? Also, keep in mind this is not AVERAGE pay for a teacher. If a teacher would happen to make that much money they would have to have been in the field for 30+ years.

People don't seem to have any problem with the fact that actors get paid millions of dollars to simply endorse a product (smile in a commerial) but get upset when those men and women that educate the children of our future get paid the money they rightfully deserve. Their jobs are not easy.

[PeterRabbit]

^ I think it was $78k per year and 27 years experience for the K teacher. For only 9 months work. They are overpaid and the quality of education steadily drops. If their job isn't easy enough for them they can do something else.

[right-here-i-say]

Originally Posted by BrianTH

More accurately, I am the kind of person who would analyze MLB as a business, and try to explain player salaries not just in terms of stats, but also in terms of actual revenues generated.

But the reality is teams with higher payrolls win more games, but I've had lawyers try to say the payrolls don't matter, because of a few teams here and there that go against the grain and win (and then have to unload all of their players)