Public v. Private Compensation

Do public sector workers make more in salary and benefits than other workers? Yes, for the most part, according to USA Today:

Wisconsin is one of 41 states where public employees earn higher average pay and benefits than private workers in the same state, a USA TODAY analysis finds. Still, the compensation of Wisconsin's government workers ranks below the national average for non-federal public employees and has increased only slightly since 2000…

The analysis of government data found that public employees' compensation has grown faster than the earnings of private workers since 2000. Primary cause: the rising value of benefits.

That brute fact, that in four out of five states, public employees make more than the workers who actually make, service and grow things, may have political consequences if it becomes common knowledge. That may be true regardless of reasonable attempts to evaluate the fact.

More embarrassing is the rate at which public compensation has grown in some states.

Key state-by-state findings:

•California. Public employee compensation rose 28% above the inflation rate from 2000 to 2009 to an average of $71,385 in 2009.

•Nevada. Government employees earned an average of $17,815 more — or 35% — than private workers, the nation's biggest pay gap. The state's low-paying private jobs in tourism were the cause, says Bob Potts of the Center for Business and Economic Research at University of Nevada, Las Vegas.

A 28% growth above cost of living in public employee compensation in California is damning, as is the 35% pay advantage for government employees in Nevada.

Critics of these comparisons are quick to point out that public employees have, on average, more education and training than private sector workers in general. That's true enough, but it is also irrelevant.

The function of compensation rates in any rational economy is to balance demand (how much you have to offer potential employees to get the good ones) with value (how much each employee benefits his or her employer). Does anyone imagine that every administrator in every school system is actually worth his keep?

Ignore the vast army of administrators for a moment and consider teachers, who are at ground zero in Wisconsin. Who should we compare the compensation of public school teachers against? Perhaps private school teachers? Reason TV has a nice video with a great soundtrack. I notice this nugget of information.

The average national salary of public school teachers (2006-2007) was $53,230. The average salary of private school teachers was $39,690. I think it very unlikely that private school teachers are in any meaningful way less qualified on average than their public counterparts. It is clear that they do not deliver an inferior product. Private schools in general make do with a lot less and deliver a lot more than public schools.

It is hard to evaluate the contribution of the larger education industry, but we might consider this nugget from the Reason video: in 1980-81 public spending per pupil in the U.S. was $5,639. In 2006-07 it was $10,041.

Those are constant dollars. Can any rational person really believe that we are getting almost twice the value out of public education today than we got in 1980? No. Just to look at the most reliable indicator, the National Assessment of Educational Progress test scores for reading and math are pretty much the same as they were in the early 1970's.

That doubling of per pupil dollars in twenty five years didn't go to the pupils but went somewhere. It went to build up the public sector. Therein lies the problem. As long as the economy was growing steadily, California could afford to enrich its public employees beyond any rational expectation. We are now at the point where public expenditures are growing faster than any plausible rate of general economic growth. It isn't a matter of what pubic workers deserve. It's a matter of what we can afford.

Comments

[BillW]

Ken,

Some of the difference between public and private school teacher salaries is due to often higher qualifications required for public school teachers. I don’t know about everywhere, but in Arizona a teacher can go to work for a charter school with a Bachelor’s degree and without a teaching certificate, while public schools generally require a Master’s degree and a state certificate. That doesn’t necessarily translate into better results, but there is a price to pay for mandating higher qualifications.

The problem with your comparison – and it is the real problem with the unions – is lumping everyone into a big blob called “teachers”. My daughter is an economics and history teacher three years into her teaching career. Her classes have posted the highest test scores in the subject area in the district for three years running, and have shown the greatest year to year improvement, yet she is the lowest paid teacher in those subjects in the district. Pay is based on seniority, rather than results. As far as she is concerned, the $70 a month that comes out of her salary for union dues is state sanctioned theft, since the union does absolutely nothing for her. Only years on the job will improve her compensation – not anything the union is doing - and it is her job performance that is most likely to assure her continued employment..

When the issue of teacher pay comes up, the teacher’s union wants to put bright-eyed, eager teachers like my daughter in front of the public and say she is under paid and they are right. Parents, however, are often looking at teachers who have been at it for 20+ years and have basically retired on the job, hauling out the same lesson plan year after year, putting in minimal effort, and getting dismal results. Unions, however, are all about assuring there are no distinctions between good and bad teachers. They force them into a big lump, and the public often rates them based on the lowest denominator as a result.

The big issue with the cost of education is not teachers at all though. I would bet that a study of the money in the Aberdeen schools would show that less than 60%of the money spent goes into classrooms, including teacher pay. The remaining 40% goes to administration and other non-educational expenses. In many schools districts, especially in bigger cities, the split is more like 50-50. Most people have no problem with paying teachers well, but are not willing to have their taxes going to subsidize more curriculum coordinators, diversity trainers, and assistant superintendents for whom there is little or no accountability and no clear description of how they are contributing to better education.

[Donald Pay]

The USA Today study did not control for education level, years of employment, rating of skills required to complete essential tasks of the position, etc. It's conclusions are meaningless.

The assumption in all the discussions of pay for teachers is that private school teachers are paid based on results. What results are you talking about? Can you provide any evidence for your statements?

You state, "It is clear that [private schools] do not deliver an inferior product. Private schools in general make do with a lot less and deliver a lot more than public schools." It is far from clear. In fact a study on this very issue found quite different results.

http://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/pdf/studies/2006461.pdf

Some private schools do pay less for teaching staff. Many of those teachers take employment in private schools until they can gain experience to qualify for public school employment.

The problem with your argument is that it ignores all reality. In most states private schools have been exempted from requirements to test students and from any and all state standards.

[George Mason]

On a day by day or hour by hour comparison public school teachers make more than their peers of equivalent age and education. As KB points out the largest part of the problem is the ever expanding administration. I have a friend who has taught in private and public schools. A public school of equal size will have 3-4 times the administrators as a private school (producing the same amount of data since private schools have to meet the same state standards). What this amounts to is featherbedding (quite common in bureaucracy). My friend preferred the private school (at less pay) because the administration was interested in education not just numbers, and they had discipline, through enforced disciplinary policies.
As to the public unions, Chris Christie provided an important quote the other day. He said he wasn't against collective bargaining provided there was someone at the table to represent the tax payers. The problem in California is that the democrats have controlled the legislature for so long and they eat out of the same trough as the unions. Every time the unions get a pay increase the dem's get a boost in campaign funds. It is the productive people who end up paying for this and it is why the states population of productive people has been in decline.

[BillW]

George,

" A public school of equal size will have 3-4 times the administrators as a private school"

No doubt there is a great deal of featherbedding as you pointed out. It also results from a blizzard of federal mandates requiring massive record keeping and paperwork. The bloated DOE justifies its existance in large part by creating rules and policies for schools.

[Reader]

Education is about money and self-interest. The unions are not the only self-interested actors involved. The unions insist that all teachers be paid the same starting wage. This makes it difficult to attract people who can do math and science. They can make more more in healthcare, engineering, finance, etc. Teacher wages go up based on seniority and accumulating credits and degrees -- a good source of revenue for colleges and universities offering education courses and programs.

No business or medical practice or law firm would restrict itself to customers living its school district. The lines are arbitrary and make no economic sense. There are too many districts. They provide jobs (and health insurance). They cannot provide an internationally competitive curriculum. Teachers, coaches and administrators want to continue these districts to maintain the number positions -- fewer districts districts means fewer jobs for teachers, coaches, administrators, superintendents.

And just as business people support wasteful federal spending when they benefit (farm subsidies, unneeded military bases), they want to retain "local" schools that spend taxes on too many teachers and administrators who buy groceries, gasoline, clothes, homes, cars, etc. The unions are only part of the situation. There is little likelihood things will improve soon.

[duggersd]

I remember several years ago (over a decade)there was a controversy in NYC about the Catholic schools teaching their students and having better results than the NYC public schools. The public school officials pointed out the Catholics could kick students out of their system and the public schools had to take them. They also pointed out that public schools have to teach all students and the Catholic schools could "cherry pick" their students. Then the Catholic school system offered to take a number of NYC students, any students they chose and bring those students into the NY Catholic system at no charge. The NYC public schools refused to do this. The Catholics answered the challenge and the public school backed down presumably because they did not want to see the Catholic schools do what the NYC schools could not.

[larry kurtz]

1) middle schools should be eliminated.
2) high schools should insist on business casual except on Fridays.
3) women and men in high school should be instructed in separate classrooms.
4) school boards should have an elected representative from the high school student population
5) teachers must be union members
6) districts should have the flexibility to experiment with curricula, including year-round sessions
7) American Indian languages should be part of the foreign language requirement

[larry kurtz]

Ben Levin,a professor of Education Leadership in Canada refutes the myth that unions are to blame:

"But here’s an interesting observation. Virtually all the top performing countries on international education measures have strong teacher unions, including Finland, Korea, Japan, Canada, Australia and others. Of course such a relationship does not imply causation, but it does suggest that there is no necessary conflict between strong teacher unions and good outcomes. Moreover, some countries or sub-national units that took steps to weaken the influence of their unions did not demonstrate any subsequent improvements and in some cases, such as England, later had to take many measures to improve the situation of teachers to get an adequate supply and thus to improve student results."

http://home.oise.utoronto.ca/~blevin/index.htm

[John]

--Long time reader, first time commenter--

I think its hard for most to wrap their minds around the figure of an avg teacher salary of $53,000. Follow this link to find the salaries of the Aberdeen School district and you'll find award winning teachers w/35 years of experience making less than the avg listed in this post.

http://www.aberdeennews.com/news/aan-aberdeen-school-district-salaries,0,7715388.htmlstory

Its a shame that private school teachers are compensated less (they should get a union), but from my limited experience the pay difference makes sense due to the type of atmosphere they work in.

The private schools I've dealt with are small community like places where everyone knows everybody and are mostly made up of motivated students with parents with high expectations who offer encouragement to succeed and have financial means to aid this. Now don't me wrong public schools have these same type of students as well, but they also have a much larger student population so they get all other kinds of students (unmotivated, special needs, low SES).

I agree that Reason TV's video had a nice soundtrack but I don't think it had very useful facts. Of course parents of private school students are going to like their school more, they picked it and are paying a premium for it. What will they tell me next, that people like watching TV more when they control the remote...stop the presses!

OK, OK, thats enough from me, I'll go back to lurking now.

[larry kurtz]

How odd that Ken and the Polish Wolf are having this conversation simultaneously. Do you guys know each other? After all, you're both on US12 just a few hundred miles apart. http://intelligentdiscontent.com/2011/03/05/why-public-schools-are-failing-pt-1/

[Donald Pay]

Let's look at the differences between the early 1980's schools and today's that might account for the increase in teaching staff, administrators and other costs. First, many children who had been warehoused in state institutions were freed into a community-based approach that utilized the schools as a delivery system for special education. This required attending to these children's social, psychological and health needs as well. Costs that had been previously accounted in state human services budgets were now accounted for at the local level. Second, reduction in class sizes in elementary school were found to improve reading and mathematics. Most states and districts instituted incentives for local districts to reduce class sizes, which meant hiring more staff. Third, a vast increase in technology required new infrastructure costs and staffing. Technology staff are not cheap, nor is the wiring, hardware and software.

Teachers' salaries just one component of the increase in per pupil costs, but the data seem to indicate that teacher costs in constant dollar terms are not as significant as you have stated.

http://nces.ed.gov/pubs2001/proj01/chapter6.asp

[BillW]

Donald,

Your comment about incorporating special needs kids in regular public schools is valid, and should be part of the national discussion. Requiring an IEP (Individual Education Plan) for each child with a disability is indeed very burdensome - especially on smaller, rural school districts without eh resources to give very many kids dedicated one-on-one attention...and especially when we are continually lowering the bar in our classification of what constitutes a disability. "Oppositional Defiant Disorder", for instance, sounds a lot like the affliction of a kid who could stand a brief time machine journey back to the days when defiance was quickly cured with a well designed paddle. IEP's and the associated costs should be spent on kids with legitimate disabilities - too often scarce resources are spent as compensation for lousy parenting.

Smaller class sizes, however, while increasing overall education costs, should not drive higer administrative costs. It should require more teachers per kid, but not more administrators. If anything, it should help the ratio of classroom expenses to non-classroom expenses.

The technology issue is sticky. Technology in classrooms is normally included in the classroom costs I cited that typically constitute <60% of overall costs. Certainly there is a need for tech support that would be administrative, but no school district should be spending a dollar of technology support for every dollar actually invested in classroom technology. Another valid discussion is the value of quite a bit of the classroom technology. Simply putting computers with Internet access into classrooms is useful, but should be neither expensive nor high maintenance in this day and age. I have noticed that in many classrooms a lot of technology is there - things like electronic white boards, and unique computer software - that was not asked for and is seldom used. A lot of technology is there because of bureaucratic push ( some staff expert has determined it is good), rather than teach pull (teachers are requesting technology they believe will help them be more effective). If teachers and students(parents) aren't asking for it, a school district should be wary about investing in technology that is unlikely to be appreciated or used.

[larry kurtz]

Reservations and states draw from separate pools to determine how education and health care is distributed. Arizona is on the front line in determining how to respond to the rights of tribes to manage their own needs. South Dakota should pay attention.

http://www.eastvalleytribune.com/arizona/article_ecec39f0-3611-11e0-a467-001cc4c002e0.html

[BillW]

Not sure what the link has todo with teahcer's salaries, Larry, but neither South Dakota nor Arizona has much to learn from each other in terms of paying teachers.

http://teacherportal.com/teacher-salaries-by-state

[larry kurtz]

My point is that states and reservations, whose teachers are federal employees, determine salaries independently of one another, Bill. The link is an example of how "separate but equal" is still being litigated.

[Reader]

Technology is a major issue for schools. Administrative techies are half of the problem, because instead of doing train the trainer, they prefer to breed dependence upon themselves. Introducing technology should be a priority, but it will only work when it becomes part of the curriculum and testing. Robotics is a great example, it has proven successful in many schools as a way to make math, engineering, art, design and many other subjects "real" for students. Many teachers simply didn't get into the profession for this, but I'm here to say the day is coming FAST where they will need to jump in or drown (probably yesterday!). We are going to be left behind while we fumble around with rhetoric, unions and politics!!!

[Dave]

For every 8 McDonalds grunts there is maybe one educated, reasonably competent (we hope) state worker... WTF's your point?

[Ken Blanchard]

I like Dave's comment! Public workers deserve better pay because the private sector is full of "grunts". If true, then our most productive workers are in the least productive sector of society. No wonder we're in trouble.

[BillW]

Actually, howver, it is not one government employed wizard for every 8 private sector dolts. 1 in 4 Americans are now employed by the government in one way or another.

Whether the dubious assertion that the paper-pusher in the DVM branch is smarter than the rest of us is true or not, your point is valid, KB. One fourth of us are in the "least productive sector of society".

[Israel]

I'm really going to have to take issue with some of the conclusions of this article.

1) Private schools can totally exspell the kids that cause disruptions and fail to perform well on tests. Public schools must take and educate everybody.
2) Private schools generally have involved, educated parents who are involved to the point that they actually go out and do the footwork to get their kids into a private school....these parents usually are educated and provide a much better home environment for their children...you know things like love, nutrition and not viewing their children as a welfare paycheck.
3) With all of the benefits private charter schools have over their public school counterparts, private charter schools don't do any better than public schools when you compare similar student populations.

Do your research dude and quit being an adovcate for bad data.

[Recai]

Hey!We are giving away pzeris from our comps, free food and drinks all arvo All the activities are FREE too! Pretty Sweet!THE VALLEY YOUTH

[Whiskey]

leslie bNovember 9, 2011I consider mselyf to be a professional in this field, and I never use this kind of approach. It is intimidating and controlling and is not effective. If a child is not responding to me in an appropriate manner, I find it much more effective to gently but firmly remove them from the problem situation, make sure my face is at their level but not in their personal space, and ask them quietly if they understand why I removed them. The answer will probably be no. At that point, I will explain what the problem is and what the consequences are. Consequences may be simply that the child needs to choose a new activity, or they may need to return to the situation and correct the problem. For the adult to lose their composure is unprofessional and accomplishes nothing. A teachable moment is lost, and that's the biggest problem I see with that approach. Make sure that your own behavior in these situations is under control and effective and don't worry about how others are behaving. Perhaps they will see that your approach is much more helpful and the children respond better.

[Mona]

Before I started hoeonchomlisg my son there was a 3rd/4th grade teacher at his school who was always shrieking about something. I swore to myself that my child would never be in her class. She was very high strung and every student in the class would be disciplined by losing recess or other fun for a couple kids being disruptive. And, a friend of mine's son who had her as for 2 years never improved in her class. She realized this year that she could not handle it and she quit. She's in her early 30s so she has time to find out what age level if any she would be better at. Thanks for sharing and I'm stopping by from vB!

[Kisako]

shipwreckNovember 9, 2011Maybe they can ask the child a question like why do you think I don't want you to do that? Then if the child unneastrdds they can respond and if they don't know you could explain. Like if you have a rule about sticking your tongue out at another person and catch a child ask them why it is wrong. Then if they don't know explain it is rude because it makes the other child feel bad. The child will probably be upset that they disappointed you and may be open to the notion of apologizing for what they did wrong. Most young kids love their teachers and want to do the right things.