J. Scott Moody and Brandon Dutcher write at NewsOK that there is a very important part of the discussion being ignored in regards to the Oklahoma teacher pay discussion.
What must be considered in this and any conversation about income is that same area’s cost of living. Sure, Oklahoma’s teacher pay ranks low (40th in the U.S in 2007), but so does our cost of living.
According to the ACCRA cost-of-living index, Oklahoma’s cost of living ranges from 8.5 percent (Lawton) to 17.6 percent (Pryor Creek) below the national average.
Overall, of the 12 areas surveyed in Oklahoma, the average cost of living was more than 13 percent below the national average. That means Oklahoma teachers can buy more goods and services with their income.
And, on top of that, not only is teacher pay at the bottom of the list (in actual dollars), so are most other professions:
So it’s not just our state’s teachers who rank near the bottom (48th, according to the latest data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics). So do our accountants (46th) and our pharmacists (41st) and our CEOs (46th).
Indeed, nearly all of the most common occupations (based on total employment) in the state rank near the bottom: general and operations managers (48th); secretaries (47th); general office clerks (41st); janitors and cleaners (45th); cashiers (47th); bookkeeping, accounting and auditing clerks (46th); truck drivers (45th); registered nurses (49th); waiters and waitresses (43rd); nursing aides and orderlies (47th); maintenance repairers (41st); and licensed practical nurses (46th).
The hard truth is, most Oklahomans are paid less than their counterparts in other states. Few of our occupations are near the top in 50-state rankings.
If teacher pay is too low (and I don’t believe it is), it is not due to a lack of trying on our parts:
Oklahoma ranks 26th among the 50 states in state and local education spending as a percentage of personal income.
The kicker to the whole conversation is this:
…former public school teacher Terry Stoops, now a public policy researcher in North Carolina, discovered in 2007 that when adjusted for cost of living, pension contribution and experience, teacher compensation in Oklahoma ranks an impressive 14th in the nation. (emphasis mine)
Long story short (I know, too late): most of us in Oklahoma are paid less than our counterparts elsewhere in America, but it costs us less to live here, and we’re all doing more than our fair share at rewarding teachers for their service. Don’t buy into the hype about low teacher pay, especially here. If I want to make more money for doing the same job, I have the option of moving to where my profession is better rewarded (and not trying to pass a law that requires the state legislature give me a raise). Of course, I run the very real risk that it will cost me more to live there. It’s a choice everyone has to make.
7 comments
Comment by Bowden McElroy on November 20, 2008 at 8:51 AM
I’ve always maintained that starting salaries for Oklahoma teachers, particularly when benefits are added in, are more than adequate. I still have two complaints:
1) A teacher can spend 20+ years in the same school district, earn a Ph.D. in their field along the way, and not be making much more than when they started. That’s one of the main reasons I didn’t pursue teaching after earning a degree in education. I saw that I could do okay for 5 to 10 years and then be hopelessly behind where I would need to be.
2) My wife is in her classroom from 8 to 5 M-F and then spends most of the evening preparing for the next day. What she gets paid per hour – even taking into account holidays and summers off – is ridiculously low for a professional. I have no idea if she is the norm or the exception; I only know I wouldn’t work for that little amount of money. For her, though, teaching is a calling and she doesn’t have to provide for a family (somehow, what’s mine is hers and what’s hers is hers… not sure how that happened!)
Comment by Tyson Wynn on November 20, 2008 at 9:22 AM
Bowden,
I have absolutely no problem with a system that would allow with greater rewards for those who excel, IF it allowed for punishment for those who do not. Unfortunately, the teachers’ unions often do not differentiate in good and bad teachers.
I used to work for a state university. We all got the same raise per year regardless of performance. Didn’t much motivate me to excel when the goober who ran his business from the back room got the same raises as me. It’s similar with teachers. I had some great ones, and I’d have no problem with them being better rewarded. I’ve also had some bad ones who really needed to find another profession.
I also wonder how a free market and dreaded vouchers might help this issue. If a bit of competition were allowed into the system, it might create the means by which excellence could be adequately rewarded.
But in the end, excellence is its own reward in many ways.
Comment by RSU Prof on November 20, 2008 at 11:05 AM
Tyson,you are right that cost of living is a factor in the value of teacher’s salaries, but so are proximate markets. Part of the problem is that teacher pay is so much higher in neighboring states that many Oklahomans “defect” to Texas and Colorado rather than accept the lower wage/lower cost of living calculus.
Teacher’s unions do protect bad teachers, and that is a problem. Part of the challenge of introducing market principles into public education is that education is not a typical commodity that would be traded in a market; rather, education is a common good to which every American child should have access in order for them to compete in the job market. Vouchers are more likely to be an pathway to undermining support for public education. That is why most educators are suspicious of vouchers: they view it as a covert assault on the provision of public education.
I share your frustration with collective raises; however, merit pay has its own share of problems as well. Faculty resentment and back-biting tend to spike when staff and faculty view raises as a zero-sum game of winners and losers.
Reform of public education is necessary, and any meaningful reform will require compromise among liberals and conservatives. Higher pay could be traded for getting the unions to stop shielding incompetent teachers, for example.
I will conclude by pointing out that Oklahoma pay and cost of living are where they are because we are a relatively poor state. Poverty does have certain advantages (e.g. lower cost of living), but that is no reason for complacency: we should all be fighting like heck to improve the state of our economy, so we can pay higher taxes, have better schools, and generally enjoy and contend with the kinds of advantages and problems of wealthier states.
Comment by Tyson Wynn on November 20, 2008 at 2:56 PM
RSUProf,
Regardless of our view of teacher pay, the HOPE petition is the wrong way to do it. If we want to compete with neighboring states, it can be done without this new law that will hamstring the legislature. Education is very important, but it is not – gasp! – the MOST important function of state government.
Frankly, I never minded being resented or back-bitten for being better at my job, but that may just be me.
I have no problem with true compromise, but the liberal definition of compromise is usually that they get everything they want and conservatives shut up about it. You may not necessarily be advocating that, but that’s usually how it works out. If anyone doubts it, we’ll begin to see liberal-led bipartisanship emanate out of Washington very soon.
In conclusion, I will never fight to pay higher taxes, and they certainly will not lead to improving the economy. Further, more money does not necessarily indicate improved education. You know as well as I that certain areas of the country spend vastly more money on public education than we do with vastly worse results.
I do also take issue with the notion that the government is the only means of providing educational opportunities to every student in the nation. Should we sacrifice quality for universal access? Don’t most private schools produce educated graduates?
Comment by RSU Prof on November 21, 2008 at 9:08 AM
None of us “fight to pay higher taxes,” but generally states with better performing economies have higher rates of taxation. That is typically because taxpayers in those states agree to invest in the things that help improve that state’s economy: education, health care, public services, etc. But beyond that, tax payers in states like Wisconsin invest in the social capital that faciliates the building and maintenance of public parks and related public spaces that enhance the quality of life in small communities. Higher taxes can often yield a better standard of living, although I doubt that higher taxes constitute a “sine qua non” (without which, not) condition for higher living standards.
I agree that the government is not the only vehicle for providing educational opportunities; unfortunately, it is the only vehicle for getting education into economically depressed areas. Liberals typically focus on impoverished urban areas, but here in Oklahoma the education problem also has a rural component.
Certainly, private schools do a great job of educating the children of the wealthy, and there are a few private concerns that attempt to educate middle- and working-class communities, but there is not enough incentive to get education to the poor, which I would hope we can all agree have a right to accessible eduation for their children. I have never advocated a federal solution to the education problem, but I am forced to conclude that the federal government must make a commitment to filling in the gaps that emerge because of the funding methodologies of the states (e.g. predominant reliance on property taxes to pay for schools).
So do I think that the federal government is the solution to the education problem? No, but I do think the federal government can help poorer states get the right resources to areas that otherwise wouldn’t be able to adequately service poor communities.
Clearly, as an educator, you and I are likely to disagree on where to rank education on the government’s “to do” list. Likewise, I find it ironic how similar are liberal and conservative descriptions of the other side’s view of compromise. I am hopeful that President-elect Obama has a more open and inclusive approach to policy making, and that some of the harder issues will yield to post-partisan compromise.
We shall see.
Comment by Tyson Wynn on November 21, 2008 at 9:12 AM
I think we’ve both about said our piece here, but I wanted you to know you make an excellent case for vouchers:
And I’m sure you, even as an educator, view public safety, etc., higher up the priority list than education. Frankly, my concern here is that it shouldn’t take a law to require legislators to do their jobs. I’m hopeful that my party will do better with its majority here in Oklahoma. Priorities should be identified and funded first…without a law to require it.
And it would also be good if we quit pinning our hopes for education money on horse racing and slot machines.
Comment by SpanishTeacher on May 20, 2009 at 4:41 PM
I was just hired as a first year teacher after graduating magna cum laude from one of the big two universities with an education degree. After I deduct my insurance for my wife and my child, I will make approximately 1,000 dollars a month. I would like to see how a person could live with any sort of comfort making this kind of money. If it weren’t for some earlier investments I had made in the stock market (which are currently at risk), I would have to borrow money to survive. The point is this: regardless of cost of living rankings, teachers simply do not make enough money if they are actually good teachers. Being a good teacher requires time, making this wage makes it easy for a teacher to just show up. In order for our economy to improve, our education system must improve, and this will not happen unless we have good teachers, that are compensated. Poor compensation = Poor teaching practices.