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

[Ted Moffett]

Dale et. al.

To answer your question at the bottom of your post, I should point out I do 
not own property, so I do not directly pay property taxes, though in other 
ways I must pay for these taxes because rent and other costs get tied to 
property tax rates.

But "wise use" of taxes is a matter of opinion of course.  I think that to 
truly attract the best and brightest to the nobel profession of teaching, 
which deserves far more respect than it appears to get in some circles, a 
high salary is appropriate.

I am inclined to agree with you though that the system has problems in not 
rewarding the best teachers sufficiently based on performance.  My anecdotal 
experience in the public school system led me to conclude the system does 
allow sub-par teachers to continue teaching.

Still, as everyone knows who honestly looks at the options, the best and 
brightest at our universities who consider their financial future, do NOT 
seriously consider teaching in the K-12 public schools as a path to 
financial success.

You might address this last point if you so chose!

Ted

>From: "Dale Courtney" <dale@courtneys.us>
>To: <vision2020@moscow.com>
>Subject: RE: [Vision2020] Logical Error! Letter to the Editor: Teacher 
>salary article
>Date: Tue, 29 Jul 2003 14:54:52 -0700
>
>Ted writes:
>
> > 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.
>
>Ted,
>
>First, they teach < 180 days/year. You cannot count the entire time that
>they have off during the summer as "a wash". They *do* have the opportunity
>to do other things for more income. If they didn't, then I'd agree with 
>your
>points. But they *do* -- and when you do salary calculations, you *must*
>take opportunity costs into consideration.
>
>BTW, it's not *me* who decided this is the right way to do salary
>normalization. All economists that I know of, when looking at total cost,
>take the summer months into consideration. For instance, see this economic
>evaluation done by the "Education Next" foundation
>(http://www.educationnext.org/20033/71.html) -- they have an entire section
>dealing with "Summers Off" (and I think answer your objection).
>
>Bottom line: the Summers off cannot be ignored when you realize that
>teachers are paid $76k/9 months!
>
> > 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.
>
>Yes, but the entire incentive system is upside down -- and people *do* act
>according to the incentives given. We're giving teachers a *big* incentive
>(get more pay!) but with the easiest course (in *any* subject!).
>
>Finally, one question for you -- how do you feel about paying (from your
>property taxes) for 77% of all MSD teachers to be at the top of the salary
>grid? Does *that* seem like a wise use of taxpayers funds?
>
>Best,
>Dale
>
>_____________________________________________________
>  List services made available by First Step Internet,
>  serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.
>                http://www.fsr.net
>           mailto:Vision2020@moscow.com
>ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ

_________________________________________________________________
Add photos to your messages with MSN 8. Get 2 months FREE*.  
http://join.msn.com/?page=features/featuredemail