Teachers are Paid Too Much!!!

I meant to report on this study at the time, but was just reminded of it going through my email today. According to the conservative Heritage Foundation and American Enterprise Institute, teachers are actually paid too much: Yahoo News. Well that's good news -- we don't have to increase funding for education! Or do we? Let's take a look at the study:

“The idea that teachers are constantly tempted by the promised pay in the private sector and that its very difficult for them to remain as teachers,” said Jason Richwine, co-author from The Heritage Foundation, “that is true for some teachers, but for average teacher it’s not true.”

Hmm, is that really the problem? Actually, they have reversed the usual argument, which is that we must pay teachers more if we are to attract quality people from the private sector into teaching. The study, in fact, confirms the arguments of many that we need better quality individuals as teachers. I'm not saying I agree with the findings, but that would actually be the natural response if it were accurate. It is this sort of tautology that passes for policy recommendation that is really insulting to the American public.  

Now to the numbers. The study is based on the fact that those who go into teaching make approximately 9% more than they did before they became teachers and those who leave the profession make 3% less. However, even if this were true, it is not really a good gauge of teacher quality. Those who leave might actually be bad teachers (thus the wage cut) and those who enter are generally young and thus not making much money at the time. 

On top of this is the much more obvious way of measuring this: look at the level of education and how much people make with college degrees (and in most cases, post-graduate degrees). In this case, we would find a group that is under- not overpaid. Yet they address this argument, by arguing they are using the much more "objective" measure of cognitive ability. There is no objective measure of cognitive ability (including IQ tests, which have been proven to be biased along racial lines) and one wonders where in the world they are getting their proxy for intelligence. It is also important to note studies from Bowles and Gintis (in the 70s and then again in 2001) that show that cognitive ability actually has little to do with future earnings (SES and educational level of parents are much better predictors of future earnings). The study also found the rather obvious fact that private school teachers make less than public school teachers (this is based predominantly on less labor power).

Finally, the study argues that "The teaching profession is crucial to America's society and economy, but public-school teachers should receive compensation that is neither higher nor lower than market rates." (AEI) Is this true? First is a common mistake among conservatives (though purposeful in most cases), arguing that public goods are the same as private goods. Actually public goods have large positive externalities that might, in fact, warrant higher compensation. Second is the reality that many do avoid teaching not only because of compensation but because the profession has a negative connotation in America (assisted by studies like this). To argue that the current crop of teachers is overpaid actually does little to address the underlying problem. What it does do is trash teachers yet again and provide cover for conservatives that want to continue cutting funding for public education along the path to ultimately destroying it. With a different ethical standard, I believe we could argue that recent conservative orthodoxy is not only irresponsible but criminal (in it's abject disregard for the future of most members of the planet earth). An expected follow-up study will show CEOs and think tank analysts are paid too little.