Last week I showed that, by one measure at least, teachers in non-collective bargaining districts actually earn more than their union-protected peers?$64,500 on average versus $57,500. These numbers are for teachers with just bachelor's degrees who have reached the last step on the salary schedule.
Matt Di Carlo of the Shanker Institute responded in the comments section with an important analysis of his own:
Why are you using the maximum BA salary as a measure of what teachers ?actually earn?? ?It would seem to me that this is the least appropriate choice for two reasons. First, unlike the starting and fifth year salaries available in the TQ3 database, the maximum salary doesn't ?control? for experience?the schedules vary as to how many years it takes to get to the top. Second, and more importantly, most career teachers (i.e., those who might get to the top of their schedules) get a master's degree (and are required to do so in some states), so very few teachers are actually located at the top BA step. It's probably the least appropriate choice as a measure of what the typical teacher earns.
I quickly replicated your analysis. My figures for the maximum BA salary are slightly different from yours, but close enough for the purposes of a comment.
Starting BA -- Non-CB: $41,314; CB: $38,696
BA 5th year -- ?Non-CB: $43,630; CB: $43,640
Maximum BA -- Non-CB: $63,731; CB: 57,628
Starting MA -- Non-CB: $43,960; CB: $41,771
MA 5th year --
Educator pension systems are becoming increasingly expensive and, in a number of states, plagued by severe problems of underfunding. Given concerns about cost and long-term sustainability, several states have cut benefits, usually for new teachers, and many more are considering doing so. However, in making these changes, policymakers should carefully consider their labor-market effects. Some of the proposed cuts reproduce?and even exacerbate?undesirable features of current systems.
That's because they violate the paramount principle upon which pension systems should be built: Benefits should be tied to contributions. In other words, benefits paid to any teacher should be tied to the lifetime contributions made by or for that teacher. If $300,000 has been contributed on behalf of a teacher (including accumulated returns) then the cash value of an annuity provided to this teacher should also be $300,000.
This principle is routinely violated in current defined-benefit pension systems. Our analysis, Reforming K-12 Educator Pensions: A Labor Market Perspective, shows that the current systems result in very large implicit transfers from young teachers working short teaching spells to ?long termers? who spend entire careers in the same system. In our view, a teacher who works ten years or thirty years should accrue pension wealth roughly equivalent to total pension contributions (with accumulated returns). [quote]
Illinois is a cautionary example of how not to reform teacher pensions. The Land of Lincoln recently implemented a two-tiered plan, with teachers hired after January 1, 2011 in the second tier.
One of the most striking arguments made against Republican governors' efforts to curtail the bargaining rights of teachers is that it's an "attack on the middle class." I'm more sympathetic to that line of reasoning than you might think; for all their evils, unions have been successful in giving millions of people a path to prosperity. And, as I was reminded at my grandmother's (a.k.a. "Nonnie's") funeral this past weekend, many of my second and third-generation Italian-American family members benefited from employment in public-sector, union-protected jobs. [quote]
But is it true, for teachers at least, that unions are necessary to ensure good wages? That when collective bargaining is disallowed, teacher pay plummets? I was curious, so I dug into data collected by the National Council on Teacher Quality. The group collects information on teacher pay, benefits, and much more in its tr3 database for more than 100 of the largest districts from each of the 50 states. I broke out the districts in non-collective bargaining states (those where the practice is illegal--namely, Georgia, North Carolina, South Carolina, Texas, and Virginia)--and compared them to the rest. And I looked at the maximum salary a teacher with a bachelor's degree could earn. (See the data here.)
The surprising finding? Teachers in non-collective bargaining districts actually earn more than their union-protected peers--$64,500 on average versus $57,500. (See the chart below.)
I know it's an article of faith in the school-reform community that we should "differentiate" among teachers and pay them "differentially" too. Highly effective teachers should get paid more than mediocre ones; individuals willing to work in poor schools should get bigger paychecks than those serving the well-to-do; those in high-demand fields (like math and science) should get more than their peers. I get all of that, and generally agree.
I also understand that the "single-salary schedule" is seen as the nemesis to smart teacher policy. And that's also true. But what makes the single schedule so pernicious isn't just its uniformity; it's its growth curve. Twenty-five years veterans are paid a lot more than five-year veterans even though, on average, they are equally effective. Changing that curve is at least as important as introducing more differentiation in pay.
This isn't my idea, or a new idea. Two years ago, Duke economist Jacob Vigdor published an excellent article in Education Next, "Scrap the Sacrosanct Salary Schedule." His analysis can be summed up in the graphic below.
In all professions, new hires get paid significantly less at the start. But in fields like medicine and law, pay rises rapidly--as soon as employees boost their effectiveness and productivity from on-the-job experience. In education, on the other hand, pay rises slowly, even though teachers' effectiveness plateaus after as little as two (and no more than
About the Editor
Michael J. Petrilli
Executive Vice President
Mike Petrilli is one of the nation's foremost education analysts. As executive vice president of the Thomas B. Fordham Institute, he oversees the organization's research projects and publications and contributes to the Flypaper blog and weekly Education Gadfly newsletter.
Sign Up for updates from the Thomas B. Fordham Institute
- Core Knowledge Blog
- Daniel Willingham: Science and Education Blog
- Education Next Blog
- Getting Smart
- Gotham Schools
- Jay P. Greene
- Joanne Jacobs
- NACSA's Chartering Quality
- National Journal Education Blog
- NCTQ Pretty Darn Quick
- NCTQ Teacher Quality Bulletin
- Ohio Education Gadfly
- Politics K-12
- Quick and the Ed
- Rick Hess Straight Up
- The Corner
- The Hechinger Report
- Top Performers