This NPR (National Propaganda Radio), podcast suggests ways to "quantify" how much a teacher is worth. The podcast was based on this research. A few points:
What are the flaws in their approach?
What is the Austrian response to "how much is a teacher worth"?
How would a teacher find their worth in a free market?
I believe it would be the market that would determine the value of the teachers services..
If everyone in school over the next few years strived to be teachers, we'd have too many shortly after. Higher supply means lower wages. Low wages would push a some out, creating an (ever adapting) equilibrium (the market rate) for the 'teacher-market'
Think I got that right...
Personally, I want to know where these ballin' ass teachers who contribute 400 grand to the economy are.
I think you got the market part right too.
Also, even if we took the numbers at face value, assuming 30 kids to a classroom at 5 classes a day for 150 students. That is only $2666.66 per student that a teacher contributes.
It costs $5 to download a pdf of the research paper, so I don't know how they got these numbers. With that being said, one cannot use this: "a good teacher's contribution to the economy could be as much as a half a million dollars per year" to make claims like this: "replacing the bottom 5-8 percent of teachers with average teachers could move the U.S. near the top of international math and science rankings with a present value of $100 trillion."
they said we would have an unfair fun advantage
being a teacher at a title I government school...I will say this:
you must first try and imagine how people would use their money to learn things if there were no government schools.
it will take quite an imagination. would there even be a need for schools? would there be a need for grades? what would you want your child to learn?
what do you think you'd be willing to pay? or afford? per month?
individually? or with a group? or community?
What If Public Schools Were Abolished?
limitgov: "what do you think you'd be willing to pay? or afford? per month?"
"Perhaps the emotional argument from the other side of the spectrum would be, "what about the kids/parents that can't afford to go to school?""
now you are going into another topic....stay focused...stay on topic for a second....first imagine what free market education would be like....
"what about the kids/parents that can't afford to go to school?"
What about the parents who can't afford filet minon? Should the state provide public steakhouses, or is steak not a "human right?"
Some people still haven't heard of the water-diamond paradox.
limitgov: "now you are going into another topic....stay focused...stay on topic for a second"
LOL. My response "what about the kids/parents that can't afford to go to school?" is what I usually get when talking about a free market in education.
mikascusetts: What about the parents who can't afford filet minon? Should the state provide public steakhouses, or is steak not a "human right?"
I appreciate the filet mignon example. The challenge in getting through the logic of this topic is that folks appear to heavily invested in the "free" public educational system, and see no other way of "fairly" educating people.
liberty student: "What If Public Schools Were Abolished?"
Great article. And great Rothbard source.
By any chance, does anyone know of any other (more contemporary) studies similar the one Rockwell cited as private schools costing less than public schools:
http://www.mackinac.org/archives/1997/s1997-04.pdf
"LOL. My response "what about the kids/parents that can't afford to go to school?" is what I usually get when talking about a free market in education."
the only way to build a government school for them is to steal money from others. and honestly, working at a Title I school, I see some students who would not have the means, and hate coming to school and disrupt classes. But the state forces me to keep them in my class to disrupt it.
I also see alot of students pick up their free lunches only to throw them in the trash, but keep the drink. In other words, they literally have to get a lunch they don't want, throw it in the trash, just to get a free drink. That is how inefficient the government is at providing education.
If we did to restaurants what we do to education it would go something like this:
All restaurants are controlled by the government. You are only allowed to goto the restaurant closest to your house. You can only pick up food from these restaurants at certain days and certain times. Everyone has to go pick up the food at the same time, so there will always be huge lines of parents in cars waiting to pick up the food. People have to stay in the restaurant for a certain amount of time and leave at the exact time. So there is a huge line of people trying to leave the restaurant as well.
leave all that nonsense behind, stay on topic and imagine how free markets would respond to people's desire to learn....what would you do with your money to help teach your child?
I'd say the first flaw is that it assumes the legitimacy of compulsory schooling. The whole argument hinges on this being a valid premise.
"I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it" - Thomas Jefferson.
They are only looking at one side of it. How much does a state-financed teacher cost society in present value in the same amount of time? Probably more than $400.000. The resources that are used to overpay teachers can't be used to build factories and make society richer. Since the economy grows exponentially, the marginal loss compounds over time. We are talking about the amount of time a student would produce earnings, so the losses would be a lot.
Secondly, they are assuming that no education would take place without state schooling. The reality is that compulsory schooling keeps people from learning and crowds out open source education. State teachers are probably a loss to society, even if they were free.
During the Middle Ages the greatest and most famous European universities (Bologna, Salerno, Salamanca etc) were very "market oriented" as far as teachers were concerned. Students paid the teacher's salary and, at the end of the accademic year, decided the teacher's fate. A poor teacher was sure to lose his job while a university managing to obtain the services of a great scholar was sure to see students flock to it. We may be led to believe students were wont to choose teachers that would "go easy" on them but this was not the case. Students chose skilled teachers that could give them better skills. Even a great scholar with poor teaching skills was much better off seeking the patronage of the Church or of the Crown: he may have known everything about the Fathers of the Church but what good he was if he could not pass his knowledge on to his students?
Morale: a teacher is, like any other worker, worth as much as the market says.
"leave all that nonsense behind, stay on topic and imagine how free markets would respond to people's desire to learn."
To play devil's advocate, how would a free market respond to people's desire to learn that can't afford to go to school? Or to phrase the question another way, take the viewpoint of an entrepreneur. What entrepreneurial feats would you understake that meets the needs of the market of "affordable" education, whilst making a profit?
"(Bologna, Salerno, Salamanca etc)"
Salerno is not just an Austrian Scholar from NY? TIL that Salerno is also a University.
"Students paid the teacher's salary and, at the end of the accademic year, decided the teacher's fate."
What other governmental and/or legal factors are contributing towards keeping poor teachers? The first that comes to mind are the Unions. Others?
the same way poor people get into universities: apply for scholarships, get involved in programs, private charities etc. Private church schools even offer aid in return for volunteer work for the church. Military schools offer finiancial aid for the poor students. Some prep schools offer free admission for an outstanding essay or an individual's willingness to learn
My Blog: http://www.anarchico.net/
Production is 'anarchistic' - Ludwig von Mises
"The reality is that compulsory schooling keeps people from learning and crowds out open source education."
Agreed.
I found the paper:
http://www.caldercenter.org/upload/CALDERWorkPaper_56.pdf
Haven't read it yet.
"To play devil's advocate, how would a free market respond to people's desire to learn that can't afford to go to school? Or to phrase the question another way, take the viewpoint of an entrepreneur. What entrepreneurial feats would you understake that meets the needs of the market of "affordable" education, whilst making a profit? "
Like anything else, they would have to look at the opportunity cost of education. What else could they spend their money on instead of education and decide if its worth giving that up. Also, look to your community and church to help you out (voluntarily, not by force like government does).
Of course, nowadays, you could not do that, but if we had a free society that is my guess on how it would function.
Private tutorials, karate class, etc...many kid's parents cannot afford these educational costs. Should the government steal from others to pay for it?
If you want to live in a free society, the answer is obvious.
Speaking of opportunity costs...I work at a title I school (99% on free and reduced lunch...and free breakfasts (throughout summer))...most of my students have smartphones and many have the latest Jordans.
who's more willing to learn math:
a kid in class who is given a Ti-85 by the teach to solve some worksheet and just smiles in a smartass way back at her, or
the same kid who goes to 10 of his neighbor's houses and one of them finally gives him a piece of sh** calculator?
I, for one, learned a great deal more outside of school than I did in school. I learned heaps just reading and from my parents, followed by my 6 years at a private christian primary school, then followed rather distantly by the rest of my years in schooling/university.
If I thought I could make it financially viable, I would start up my own educational institution when I have children around 10/11. I think that would probably be one of the best free market methods of education: home school your own children, and bring in a few more kids (perhaps to a total of about 10?), of a similar intelligence/education, to bring in a little bit of cash.
It disgusts me to think how much better I could do with the approx. 10k NZD* per student the Government spends my my country on schooling.. I could do twice the job, and make off with twice the wage of the highest paid public school teachers :s
a good teacher's contribution to the economy could be as much as a half a million dollars per year.
Even assuming the validity of such a preposterous calculation, how much of that $500k/yr "contribution" is also due to: the good janitor keeping the school bathrooms clean thus avoiding deadly productivity-killing infections; the good school bus driver driving the kids safely to/from school; the good school bus mechanic who made sure the bus brakes are always in top shape; the good school builder building a nice and safe school; the good grocery shop owner keeping the students, the good teacher, the good janitor, the good school bus driver, and the good school bus mechanic fed; the good farmer growing the crops to make the food sold by the good grocery shop owner; etc.?
Wow, how about we all just took everything we have and used that to pay ourselves for all the "contributions" we're all making? Proportionally, of course.
Z.
That figure flies in the face that with a high school diploma the most you can hope for is a minimum wage job if you have no other skills- as long as you can read/write english you can work any job a high school graduate can. Why would I pay somebody money so I can flip burgers at McDs? You could find someone to teach you that for free.
Even as a day care the school is valueless. I can't pick my kid up when I want? They get out 2 hours before the traditional 5 o'clock in which many get off work?
The only value of going through the traditional 12 year school system is to enter college- that's it. Anyone that can read and write and do basic math can go through a freshman year perfeclty fine (something a family member ought to do or a tutor could teach you for cheap)- 12 years of schooling is not something that would appear in a free market. Paths to developing skills (mainly college) are regulated so as to require that 12 years of schooling- would a college in a free market put such onerous requirements to sell you their service? Laughable.
It is also keeps professional positions- engineers, M.Ds, lawyers, etc- are given protection from the market. This is an artificial value bestowed to universities by licenscing requirements and the like. In a free market, college would not have the value that it does have.
According to John Taylor Gatto, this system of exclusivity gives a little insight which reveals the true purpose of schooling: to ensure only those who pass through the state's gauntlet (and are therefore obedient little drones to be scientifically managed) will ever be put into positions of responsibility and I'm inclined to agree.
Thanks everyone for the discussion on this.
Hey folks: As a teacher in a public high school, I have an interest in justifying my salary. I tend to think it is higher than a free market would allow, but I wonder if the very low private school teacher salary is a realistic indicator of a free market situation, or if the real going rate would would be somewhere in between.
To simplify, let's assume there would be the same number of teachers needed if public schooling were abolished. It is not clear whether the resources available to pay them would fall, because although the tax-based resources would disappear, the parents of students would now be faced with a new reality in which education becomes a visable portion of their budget, as it is in many countries of the world. It is not clear whether spending on education would fall or rise.
In fact, it seems to me it is not the compulsory nature of education, or even it's method of funding, but it's unionization and regulation in the form of teacher certification requirements, that drives up teacher salaries, just as it does the salaries of auto workers, engineers, and even doctors and lawyers. If education were entirely privatized and yet these factors remain, teachers' salaries may well remain the same.
It is, after all, certification that makes the difference in wages between the public and private schools. I worked at a private school for one year before seeking my certifciation, which increased my salary by a third. I would not have made the same decision today (I was a statist then), and yet it is clear what happened. Not everyone is able to get certified. They lack either the time, eductaion, or capital to do so.
Whether it is states, towns, schools or unions that require certification does not matter. If certification requirements were abolished, then we must assume all certification requirements in all fields are abolished, in which case teacher salaries would certainly fall, but so would salaries competing professions, and so would prices, so real wages may well stay the same.
If it is the unions that drive up teachers wages, then we must assume likewise.
I guess we should decry the inflated wages of state-liscensed engineers, doctors, day cares, and florists, as well as teachers.
There is a market wage for teachers, but it depends heavily on certification. It also depends on the school district, with teacher salaries varying widely from one town to another. It even depends on teacher expertise, since teachers can and do negotiate for wages at the time of their initial employement, at least in my state.
This market is obviously a distorted market, distorted by government regulations, but is it any more distorted than any other regulated profession?
William Green:As a teacher in a public high school, I have an interest in justifying my salary. I tend to think it is higher than a free market would allow
This is where you lost me. You're basically saying "I tend to think I'm on the better end of an unfair arrangement, but I have an interest in defending why this unfair arrangement should continue, and why I deserve to be on the winning end of it."
What's even more interesting is midway through when you make the comment "(I was a statist then)"...implying you are an anarchist now. I find it odd, to say the least, that someone who claims to be an anarchist would purport to justify a non-market wage.
But finally...despite you admitting you have an interest in defending your salary, I saw nowhere in that entire post that it seemed like you even attempted to do this. Were you just stating the fact that you have an interest in justifying it, while not intending to actually attempt to do so? I'm confused.
Did you know that Bill Gates would die without food? I guess that makes his personal cooks worth billions of dollars.
If you believe that out of the billions of people living on under a dollar a day, 1/1000th of them are above average teachers who would be willing to work for $5000/year, then the marginal value of EVERY american teacher (taken together) is strongly negative.
I've rewritten to clarify:
Hey folks: As a market anarchist, I abhor state involvement in education, but if I must be a teacher in a public high school (which I am), I of course would prefer that my salary not be too much inflated by market distortions caused by government involvement. And this concern has been a source of tension for me, despite Rothbard's allowances for living in a State-run world (http://mises.org/daily/1721), because there do exist a few private alternatives, however poorly they pay. And until recently I have seen my position as a public school teacher as worse than most other occupations because it is so obviously public and this results in so obvious a disparity in wages. Recently, however, I have been somewhat comforted by a new consideration: that the inflation of my salary may not be due primarily to the fact that my salary comes from public funds, but from a much more common effect--the effect of certification and unionization. To simplify, let's assume there would be the same number of teachers needed if public schooling were abolished. This may not be true, but it is not unlikely that the demand for primary and secondary education would not change much, at least for quite a while after privatization of the system. After all, while home school is an option for all (this is in fact how I school my own children), few take it. In addition, there seems to be a high demand for education in parts of the world where public education is non-existent or extremely deficient. Secondly, we might assume the resources available to pay the costs of education would fall, because the tax-based resources would disappear, but it is also possible they would not fall, since the the parents of students would now be faced with a new reality in which education becomes a visible (and sizable) portion of their budget, as it is in many countries of the world. Judging by the spending on education in other parts of the world, it is not clear whether spending on education would fall or rise. Under such conditions, we would have to ask whether the price of teachers would fall if education were entirely privatized. I think that, given the above assumptions, it would depend on two other factors: unionization and regulation in the form of teacher certification requirements. In fact, it seems to me that these are the factors that drive up teacher salaries, just as they drive up the salaries of auto workers, engineers, and even doctors and lawyers. If education were entirely privatized and yet these factors remained, teachers' salaries may well remain the same, just as licensed engineers continue to make much more than their unlicensed peers, and just as unionized auto workers salaries are much higher than their non-unionized counterparts. What do doctors make without a state license? How about contractors or electricians? And it is clearly certification that makes the difference in wages between the public and private schools. I worked at a private school for one year before seeking my certification, which increased my salary by a third. I would not have made the same decision today (I was a statist then), and yet it is clear what happened. Not everyone is able to get certified. They lack either the time, education, or capital to do so. The same is true of doctors, lawyers, and engineers. Whether it is states, towns, schools or unions that require certification does not matter. It seems to me there is a market wage for teachers, but it depends heavily on certification. It also depends on the school district, with teacher salaries varying widely from one town to another. It even depends on teacher expertise, since teachers can and do negotiate for wages at the time of their initial employment, at least in my state. And if we assume teacher certification requirements and unions were abolished, then to be fair we must assume all certification requirements and all unions in all fields are abolished, in which case teacher salaries would certainly fall, but so would salaries in competing professions, and so would prices, so real wages may well stay the same. My point is that we cannot treat teacher salaries as any different or any more inflated than those of any other unionized, licensed profession. We should decry the inflated wages of state-licensed engineers, doctors, day cares, and florists, as well as teachers. This market is obviously a distorted market, distorted by government regulations, but is it any more distorted than any other regulated profession? I am not attempting to justify compulsory schooling, government certification, or regulation of education or any other aspect of life. I abhor it all. But I am defending my position as a public teacher in as much as I am no more a beneficiary of the State than any other professional. Why do people pick on teachers rather than engineers or doctors? Maybe it is because the teachers are the whiniest bunch in the professional world. I'll buy that. And yet I still feel like many folks have this idea that teachers have it too easy and get inordinate salaries and perks. But if this is so, if a teachers life is so attractive, why are there shortages of math and science teachers across the country? Why do something like only one third of new teachers make it through their third year? I don't like unions or licensure any more than any other an-cap, but I'm not so sure it is justified to single out teachers, unless you single them out for being whiners wearing their Statism on their sleeves.
Sieben:
I'm sorry. I don't follow you. It seems you are referring to the diamond/water paradox, but I don't see how that relates to my argument. There is a reason there is a shortage of teachers, even in private schools. Whether there are enough people in the world who "could" do the job (however you determine that) seems irrelevent. There are no doubt hundreds of millions that "could" be engineers or even doctors, and of course, lawyers. In fact, it is quite an easy thing to be a college professor. I've tried it. It's easier than teaching high school.
There is a market for teachers, however distorted. And the market determines the price. My district would love to pay the teachers less. Why can't they?
I do believe the wages for certified teachers are inflated, but I believe this is priimarily due to the certification and unionization, and so it is an effect common to the professions in genral, and not unique to teachers. That was my main point.
William Green I fail to see how any of that justifies your inflated wage, as you claim to "have an interest" in doing. Basically the best you've done is said "well...uh...what about those guys? They have unfair wages too."
You'll have to forgive me if I'm not exactly moved.
John: I undertsand your confusion. That was in fact my only point--that my position is no worse than theirs. It may seem strange, but this is comforting to me because in the past I have have struggled with feeling that my position as a teacher was more immoral and/or more avoidable than theirs. My new view is that the inflation of teachers salaries is not a special case, but a common to nearly all professions. I just wanted input on that point.
I still believe my wage is inflated. I still bemoan having to live in a state run world. And of course, I am ashamed of my whiney and vocally statist and unionized peers.
I suppose I could be a martyr, as Rothbard calls it, and find a job the market for which the state has not distorted, but here I am persuaded by Rothbard that I needn't play the martyr.
In a free market, I would likely still find a job as a teacher, and there is no telling what my real wage might be. My guess is all real wages would be much higher in a truly free market.
William Green:this is comforting to me because in the past I have have struggled with feeling that my position as a teacher was more immoral and/or more avoidable than theirs.
Great, so basically you've come to be able to justify your unfair position by simply saying "Hey. Other people are doing it too." Whatever works for you, I guess.
My new view is that the inflation of teachers salaries is not a special case, but a common to nearly all professions.
How can the wage rate be inflated in "nearly all professions"?
Oh yes, actually getting a job in the competitive sector is being a "martyr". Some people just call that "life".
Well I'm saying teachers aren't super important just because they have a non-marginal (i.e. meaningless) productivity of 4.5 million. Lots of things do and that doesn't mean they're super important. Teachers just get this "free pass" like they're super essential to the nation. Don't think so man. Any moral immigration policy would drop all wages, especially those of low-level professionals drastically. Dunno what real wages and equilibrium would be though. Don't care.
Sieben:Well I'm saying teachers aren't super important just because they have a non-marginal (i.e. meaningless) productivity of 4.5 million. Lots of things do and that doesn't mean they're super important. Teachers just get this "free pass" like they're super essential to the nation. Don't think so man. Any moral immigration policy would drop all wages, especially those of low-level professionals drastically. Dunno what real wages and equilibrium would be though. Don't care.
And one could easily argue "teachers" fit into that "low-level professionals" category. Especially when they can get university level degrees and teach high school without even being able to read.
Or more specifically, a teacher one standard deviation above the mean effectiveness annually generates marginal gains of over $400,000 in present value of student future earnings with a class size of 20 and proportionately higher with larger class sizes.
How do they define "good teacher?" Is a "good teacher" one whose students eventually become wealthy? Did those students become wealthy because of that teacher? It implicitly assumes that there's a direct causal relationship between the material taught to students (in our government school systems) and their future financial performance. This is a ridiculous assumption to make.
Either way, too much emphasis is placed on education, and this is especially true in our system, where the material is either incorrect or entirely superfluous, and where teachers merely prepare students for test taking. I see no reason to believe that there's any sort of relationship between education (especially at the high school and middle school level), on the one hand, and financial success.
In other words, I seriously doubt that Bill Gate's owes much to his 8th grade history teacher, who taught him that the great depression was caused by capitalism, and that FDR "saved capitalism from itself." The wealthy people I know are entirely uneducated.
"If we wish to preserve a free society, it is essential that we recognize that the desirability of a particular object is not sufficient justification for the use of coercion."
Sieben: I agree. I don't believe teachers ahve any special importance.
John: Education is a competititve market. Not all would-be teachers get hired, and jobs at good schools are very competitive. Granted, teacher pay is not merit based, but that is true of any unionized field. As far as other jobs being "life," while teaching is not, again, my entire argument is that teaching is no different than any professional or unionized field. Maybe no such jobs are morally permissible to the libertarian. My main point was they are all equivalent. And in fact, even many non-professional and non-unionized fields are in the same boat. Construction companies, day cares, restaurants are all under state certification and regulation that greatly distorts their wages.
And yet I think Rothbard's argument was sound: that in a world in which the State essentially has a hand in everything, we cannot be morally accountable for being involved in such a job. I am not sure it is necessary for all libertarian to inhabit the small realm of the non-regulated economy or black market. I am open to this possibility, I am just not sure it is necessary.
As far as all wages falling, I mean those of affected fields. What would happen to wages in general if all of these controls were removed. I believe the wages in all of these fields would all fall. That is, they are currently all inflated relative to nonregulated vocations. If the controls were removed, there would instantly be more competition since the regs keep many potential competitors out.