Sylvia A. Allegretto, Sean P. Corcoran and Lawrence Mishel Economic Policy Institute 2004
The argument that teachers are underpaid has never lacked vocal supporters, and this new report from EPI adds to the clamor. Predictably, EPI concludes that, compared to other similar jobs, "teachers earned $116 less per week in 2002, a wage differential of 12.2 percent. Because teachers worked more hours per week, the hourly wage differential was an even larger 14.1 percent." But what is actually interesting is their attempt to be scientific in choosing comparable jobs. According to "skill level" data in the Bureau of Labor Statistics National Compensation Survey (NCS), teaching is most similar to a list that consists primarily of accounting, nursing, computer programming, personnel specialists, and the clergy. Much of this report is a direct response to the salary analyses of Michael Podgursky, who has called for reasonable comparison jobs and an analysis factoring in the benefits of teaching (click here to read more). EPI scores on the former point but fails on the latter, ignoring the fact that teachers might like working with children, being near their own school-age kids, having their summers off, etc. (Also central to EPI's report is the less exciting contention that their data are better, as they rely on the Current Population Survey while Podgursky favors the NCS; readers interested in that technical dispute will find much detail in the report.) This debate will doubtless rage on, but perhaps there is another way to frame it. Put aside the fact that unions ensure teachers will be paid more than the laws of supply and demand would otherwise dictate. The argument here is that teachers deserve to be paid on par with accountants and nurses. But the markets for talent vary from profession to profession. Computer programmers are in high demand, and paid accordingly, so direct comparisons are misleading. The real logic in favor of higher teacher salaries is that current salaries might not be sufficient to recruit and retain a quality workforce. But in truth, the unattractiveness of teaching to talented workers has roots deeper than just dollars and cents. It's also about the stifling nature of school bureaucracies, the absence of meritocracy, the many and pointless barriers to entry, and the dominant perception (right or wrong) that teaching just doesn't pay - a perception fueled by studies such as this one. To read for yourself, click here.
