About a new OECD study, Timothy Taylor writes,
The quick bottom line: the average U.S. teacher faces a similar student/teacher compared to the average for teachers in other countries, but the relative pay of US teachers compared to the average wage is lower than the similar ratio in many countries, and the number of hours worked by US teachers is higher than in other countries.
It is possible that this shows that U.S. teachers are underpaid. However, I would be interested in the ratio of non-teaching staff to teaching staff in the U.S. vs. elsewhere. When I looked into Montgomery County, Maryland a few years ago, it seemed that the ratio of students to classroom teachers was more than double the ratio of students to employees. Suppose that the ratio of non-teaching staff to teachers is much higher in the U.S., which is what I suspect is the case. Perhaps those non-teachers help make life easier for teachers, in which case perhaps our teachers are not underpaid. Or perhaps those non-teachers do not help (they may even add work).
In any case, if you raise salaries in U.S. public school education, a huge amount of that money will go for non-teaching staff. I think we ought to know more about what those non-teaching staff contribute before we throw more money at them.
Other random issues to toss into the mix:
1. In at least some non-U.S. countries, teachers come from a higher part of the IQ distribution. In theory, we could get more able teachers by paying more money, but we also might have to change the role of unions.
2. There is very little reliable evidence linking education inputs to outcomes.
I would prefer to see parents spending their own money on education. If they believe that paying for schools with high teacher salaries is a good idea, then we will arrive at an equilibrium with high teacher salaries. If not, then we won’t. I am comfortable with what emerges, especially considering (2).
Very good points on how this information (ratio comparison) may not indicate the result the pro public school advocates want it to indicate. But I think teacher pay is a red herring. Their reasoning runs:
1. Teaching is valuable.
2. Teachers seem to be underpaid.
3. We generally expect to get what you pay for in our society.
Therefore, pay teachers more and public schools will be better.
I agree with points 1 and 3. I’m not sure about 2, but I’m willing to grant it but as an indictment against public schools. The solution to the teacher pay “problem” is more likely to be found in a free market than a government market.
I think the problem is that it’s difficult to discern what makes a good teacher in the first place, and there’s a very good chance the current credentialing process misses the mark more often than not.
If that’s the case then increasing teacher pay would probably make things worse since it would only cement the labor market miscalculation that’s already in place.
The graph of “number of teaching hours” is not the same as “number of hours teachers work”. This is very important, and in fact suggests part of the problem. US teachers spend too high a fraction of their time delivering (canned) lessons and too little time preparing them. Take a look at where Japan falls on the graph where teachers are known to work long hours but spend a high fraction of their time planning.
Considering independent schools as well, where teachers are typically paid less than in public schools, I think it is clear that teachers are not underpaid generally. Certainly the pay is too “flat” and too heavily based on seniority and credentials, and that takes us back to unions.