Research shows that many talented students shy away from a career in education due to salary concerns. As a result, increasing teacher salaries is often pitched as a potential solution for teacher shortages. But a recent paper from the Annenberg Institute at Brown University challenges the assumption that salary increases are the best method for investing in the teacher workforce by examining an alternative set of benefits and estimating how attractive teachers found them in comparison to salary bumps.
To determine teacher preferences, the researchers used an online survey that was emailed to teachers between November 2020 and January 2021. The final sample included a total of 1,030 teachers. Similar to the national teacher workforce, the sample was 75 percent female, 81 percent white, and contained a roughly equal share of primary and secondary teachers. Unlike the national workforce, however, the sample skewed slightly less experienced, and under-represented teachers from rural areas.
The survey presented teachers with pairs of hypothetical teaching jobs and asked them to identify which school they preferred. The researchers defined each school according to seven features: salary, childcare benefits, class size, and four key support roles—school counselors, nurses, special education specialists (paraprofessionals and co-teachers), and instructional coaches. The values were randomly assigned, and teachers were asked to hold constant all unstated features of the schools via the following prompt: If two schools were otherwise identical in every way—same building, same principal, same teaching assignment, same students—which school would you prefer?
Results reveal that teachers valued working in a school that provided a full-time nurse, full-time counselor, full-time special education paraprofessional, and a full-time special education co-teacher as much or more than a 10 percent increase in salary. On the other hand, teachers valued a three-student reduction in class size and one hour of instructional coaching per month less than they valued a 10 percent salary increase. Unsurprisingly, preferences for childcare benefits depended on the size of the benefit and whether the teacher currently had children.
The researchers classified a benefit as cost effective if the amount teachers were willing to sacrifice in additional salary to receive the benefit exceeded the per-teacher cost of offering it. Assuming an average teacher salary of $60,000 and an average of thirty-three teachers per school (both of which were, indeed, the national averages at the time of the survey), the researchers estimate that investments in nurses and counselors are highly cost effective. The average teacher is willing to forego a 13 percent salary increase ($7,800) to work in a school with a nurse, which is more than five times the per-teacher cost of employing one. Findings regarding school counselors were similar. The researchers estimate that working in a school with one full-time counselor is worth $7,487 in salary equivalents to teachers, while working at a school that employs two full-time counselors is worth $9,952. These equivalents are, respectively, worth more than four times and almost three times the per-teacher cost of employing one or two full-time counselors.
Teachers were most willing to sacrifice a pay raise for special education staffing, which isn’t surprising in light of recent research showing that the percentage of students with disabilities in teachers’ classes was associated with an increase in the odds of turnover. Survey results indicate that the average teacher would be willing to forego a 12.5 percent salary increase for full-time support from a paraprofessional, and a 16.6 percent increase for full-time support from a co-teacher. Unfortunately, the costs of offering this one-on-one support are much higher than estimates indicating what teachers are willing to pay. Based on the benefit to teachers alone, it’s difficult to justify the expense of adding special education support to every classroom. But like nurses and counselors, these support staff also benefit students and families, who aren’t included in this study and may make the cost more palatable for school leaders.
Teachers were least willing to pay for smaller class sizes. The offer of instructional coaching did not appear to strongly influence teacher preferences, either, though estimates indicate that coaches are worth roughly $2,500 in salary equivalents, which is more than double the approximate per teacher cost. As for childcare benefits, eligible teachers valued a 10 percent salary increase and a $3,000 per-child subsidy (with a $6,000 annual cap) similarly, but preferred the 10 percent increase over a benefit of only $1,500 per child. Interestingly, the researchers observed that teachers who didn’t have children still seemed to find a hypothetical school that offered childcare benefits more attractive than a school that didn’t.
Overall, these findings indicate that many teachers prefer investments in support staff rather than increases in salary, class-size reductions, or more instructional coaching. The paper offers several plausible explanations as to why. First, support staff such as counselors, nurses, and special education specialists provide services to students that are necessary and help ensure they’re ready to learn. Teachers recognize these needs and understand the importance of meeting them, but they may feel ill-prepared or unable to do so. Second, surrounding teachers with student-based support professionals frees up time so they can focus on core instructional duties. Allowing teachers to focus on teaching can in turn lead to academic gains for students. Third, sharing the responsibility for students’ well-being among a variety of professionals can reduce teacher stress and prevent burnout, which is crucial for retention.
The big takeaway here for policymakers and district leaders is that while salary matters, it shouldn’t be the exclusive focus when it comes to recruitment and retention efforts. Teacher preferences also matter immensely, as research indicates that working conditions have a strong influence over teachers’ employment decisions. To effectively invest in the teacher workforce, leaders should focus on a broad set of benefits, and that includes offering teachers what they say they want.
Source: Virginia S. Lovison and Cecilia H. Mo, “Investing in the Teacher Workforce: Experimental Evidence on Teachers’ Preferences” Annenberg Institute at Brown University (February 2022).
