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

[Ted Moffett]

Dale, Don et. al.

I have discovered several logical errors in Dale's arguments regarding 
teacher pay.

Dale asserts that teachers pay should be "annualized" to truly reflect what 
they could earn over the course of a full year as if two months of extra pay 
were tacked on to their yearly salary by dividing their salary by ten and 
multiplying this figure by 2 for the extra two months.  But in fact if 
teachers are required to attend summer school during this "off" time, part 
of the requirements of their profession negates the possibility they could 
work full time during this "off" period, so in fact it is not correct to 
claim their salary must be annualized for a true estimate of their income 
compared to other professions.

Also, Dale's referencing of the concept of "opportunity costs" is in some 
cases backwards from what it appears he intends to assert via the use of 
this concept.  If a teacher must take summer school during the summer 2 
month break from the regular school year as a requirement of their 
profession, and their next best alternative would be to work a well paying 
job during this 2 month period instead, the "opportunity cost" of summer 
school is in part the loss of the income that could have been generated by 
working during summer school.

Therefore the "opportunity cost" argument, in this case of a teacher who 
must attend summer school as a requirement of their profession, leads to 
subtracting the money they might have made in the two month break from the 
regular school year, and does not support the argument that these teachers 
salaries must be annualized for accuracy in comparisons with other 
professions.  In this example, the "opportunity cost" of summer school is 
less income earned during that year for the teacher compared to what they 
could earn if they truly "worked" a full 12 months.  The teacher MUST take 
the summer school courses, and thus loses the income that might otherwise be 
generated during this time.

Of course, in the case of a teacher who can take a two month summer 
vacation, with no penalty to their career, then Dale's concept of 
"opportunity costs" would reinforce his argument, considering that the 
"opportunity cost" of the summer vacation could be income generated by a 
good paying job during this time period which is lost by going on vacation.  
In this example it might be fair to annualize the teachers pay to do a 
comparison between their pay and the pay of other professions.

Read the passage below and see the link Dale supplied on "opportunity costs" 
in regards to my arguments above.

Ted

> > 4. Continuing recertification requirements generally require
> > teachers to go to school every summer, and no, the school
> > district does NOT pay us to attend! We pay tuition like
> > everyone else. Most of us not attending college courses in
> > the summer are working on curriculum, on our own time, "off
> > the clock", for the next school year.
>
>I would double check with the district. There are reimbursements for
>teachers in continuing education.
>
>But *even* if there were not -- I don't know anyone else who gets a salary
>increase in any other field just by taking underwater basket weaving. Do
>you? My point is: the degree doesn't matter, just punching the ticket for
>the classes (*any* classes!).
>
>Also, there's no requirement that the teacher get a degree in his/her area
>of specialty. A math teacher with a BA, weary of those long nights deriving
>proofs in college, may choose to get a M.Ed. -- much easier; and, hey! The
>pay on the other end is the same! There's no incentive to get a degree in
>your specialty.
>
> > 5. If you are attending summer school most of the summer, the
> > chances of A) other employment, or B) extended vacations, are slim.
>
>But these are opportunity costs (see:
>

http://www.econlib.org/library/Enc/OpportunityCost.html).


>
>I don't know very many businessmen/women who have the opportunity to take
>the entire summer "off" if they so choose.
>
>

_________________________________________________________________
The new MSN 8: smart spam protection and 2 months FREE*  
http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail