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

[Ted Moffett]

Dale et. al.

I was relying on the statements of a Moscow High School teacher, Don Kaag, 
who wrote in a V2020 post addressed to you, Dale, asserting in his fourth 
point in that post regarding teacher's pay: "Continuing recertification 
requirements generally require teachers to go to school every summer."

Perhaps I misunderstood what this statement means, but it sounds like a 
serious professional expectation for teachers to take summer school courses 
or will they lose certification?  What does it mean to have a 
"recertification requirement?"

But even if summer school courses are not absolutely mandatory, there is 
still a cost to taking summer vacations that eventually will lower a 
teachers pay, that involves professional expectations that are not optional 
without penalty, which still means that the annualized salary figure you are 
using would need to be adjusted to reflect the income lost when taking 
summer vacations or while taking summer courses.  There is the cost of the 
lack of advancement that will occur by not doing more academic education 
while on vacation.   And again, if they MUST take the summer school courses 
to advance, then the income from the job they could have worked during this 
time is still income lost!  Yes of course they will earn more money due to 
advancement after taking the courses, but the income lost while taking the 
courses and not working a job is still lost.

And if teachers must sometimes pay their own tuition for summer school 
courses connected to professional requirements, this also must be included 
in your estimates.  So your annualizing equation needs to be adjusted to 
reflect this fact.

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.

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.

More comments spliced in below:

>>Ted wrote:
> > I have discovered several logical errors in Dale's arguments
> > regarding teacher pay.
>
>Let's have at it!
>
> > 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.
>
>They are not *required* to attend during school during that off time. They
>can teach summer school, go on a 3 month cruise, or hand out carts at
>Wal-Mart. It's up to them.
>
>The point is -- it is an *opportunity* for them to earn extra money. Going
>to school is one way that they can increase their pay.

Yes, but you must figure into your calculations for annualizing pay the 
money not earned pushing carts at Wal-Mart (a rather unlikely summer job for 
a teacher) while they take those summer school courses which are REQUIRED 
for advancement, even if they are not required to maintain teaching 
certification (and this later point needs to be followed up on).  This is my 
point.  When you annualize the teachers pay you assume they can always work 
the full 12 month year at a certain rate of pay.  But somewhere in the 
career of a teacher they are in summer school to do more academic work, and 
this activity is required for their career as a teacher.  Any increase in 
pay they may gain via the summer school courses does not happen while they 
are in summer school.  And if they continue to take summer vacations, there 
can be a real reduction in their income do to not fulfilling academic 
requirements for advancement.  So the annualized pay figures need to be 
adjusted to reflect the income lost while not working during summer school 
courses, or the income lost because they did not advance as quickly by 
skipping the summer school courses, no matter how you look at it.

>
> > 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.
>
>No, they must *not* take classes. It is an opportunity to.

But if they do not take the courses, there is an real economic penalty 
somewhere eventually that lowers their pay.  This must be reflected in your 
annualizing equation.  Is it?

>
>Please read up on what Opportunity Costs mean in the economic sense. It's
>quite revealing: http://www.econlib.org/library/Enc/OpportunityCost.html
>
> > Read the passage below and see the link Dale supplied on
> > "opportunity costs"
> > in regards to my arguments above.
>
>You missed the boat because there is no mandatory thing that government
>teachers *must* do during their summers off. That's what makes it a real
>dream for their opportunities.
>

But still a dream that has real economic consequences.  You seem to imply a 
teacher can take summer vacations ad infinitum with no economic penalty.  
This is false.

I think in making your case regarding the overall income of teachers when 
you figure in benefits and perks and annualizing their salary, you are not 
fairly considering all variables in your equations.

Ted

_________________________________________________________________
STOP MORE SPAM with the new MSN 8 and get 2 months FREE*  
http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail