[Vision2020] Logical Error! Letter to the Editor: Teacher salary article

[Dale Courtney]

Ted writes: 

> Let' get to the heart of this argument:
> In annualizing teachers pay the point is to show what they 
> really could make if they worked a full 12 months compared to 
> other professions that must work
> 12 months out of the year for their income.  But there are 
> many jobs where you can advance your career and income 
> without being forced to take time off to take courses.  This 
> is where your annualizing of teacher pay from 10 to 12 months 
> to compare their profession with other professions who must 
> work 12 months breaks down.  In effect when you annualize 
> teachers pay, you are assuming they always could work 12 
> months at a certain rate of pay.   But the 2 months off are 
> not always in 
> reality a time when they could be working a job earning 
> income:  to consider summer school course work as an income 
> earning "job" is not accurate.  I will state again, many 
> other professions offer advancement and pay increases without 
> a period of "off time" with no pay that is mandatory for 
> advancement in that profession.  So your annualizing of 
> teachers pay leads you to inflate their income, and make a 
> misleading comparison of their profession with many others.

Ted, 

First, they teach < 180 days/year. You cannot count the entire time that
they have off during the summer as "a wash". They *do* have the opportunity
to do other things for more income. If they didn't, then I'd agree with your
points. But they *do* -- and when you do salary calculations, you *must*
take opportunity costs into consideration. 

BTW, it's not *me* who decided this is the right way to do salary
normalization. All economists that I know of, when looking at total cost,
take the summer months into consideration. For instance, see this economic
evaluation done by the "Education Next" foundation
(http://www.educationnext.org/20033/71.html) -- they have an entire section
dealing with "Summers Off" (and I think answer your objection). 

Bottom line: the Summers off cannot be ignored when you realize that
teachers are paid $76k/9 months!

> I understand you have pointed out that teachers can take 
> course work that has nothing to do with their specialty to 
> satisfy requirements for advancement, which seems the wrong 
> approach to maximizing teacher performance in their 
> specialty.  But they still must take courses of some sort to advance.

Yes, but the entire incentive system is upside down -- and people *do* act
according to the incentives given. We're giving teachers a *big* incentive
(get more pay!) but with the easiest course (in *any* subject!). 

Finally, one question for you -- how do you feel about paying (from your
property taxes) for 77% of all MSD teachers to be at the top of the salary
grid? Does *that* seem like a wise use of taxpayers funds? 

Best,
Dale