Paying Teachers More

An NBER paper this month studied the impact of an $1,800 annual bonus on retaining certified math, science and special ed teachers in high-poverty areas or academically failing public schools. The authors found a decent reduction in turnover rates (12%) and argue that the impact would be more if the State had done a better job of educating teachers about the selection criterion (sound familiar? think prescription drug bill).

For me, the real issue is the impact of annual teacher bonuses on educational outcomes. Evidence from the developing world suggests that money is better spent on buying more books in school, and that educational outcome depends more on family wealth than school quality. I'm not up to date on the literature on developed countries, but i'm not convinced spending more money on teacher salaries will make a big difference. A brief review of the literature shows a general consensus that more money is not clearly the solution.

Lets look at 5 statistics:

1) In 2002 alone, the US invested $192 billion in teacher pay and benefits.
2) The US school year is 180 days.
The world average is 200-220 days.
The Japanese school year is 243 days.
3) International comparisons show US students lagging behind their counterparts.
4) After accounting for vacation, most Americans work about 25 percent more than the typical teacher.
5) Economist Richard Vedder has observed that the Bureau of Labor Statistics National Compensation Survey shows that teachers earn “more per hour than architects, civil engineers, mechanical engineers, statisticians, biological and life scientists, atmospheric and space scientists, registered nurses, physical therapists, university-level foreign-language teachers, [and] librarians.”

I wouldn't argue that more money is not necessary for solving our educational problems, but it seems obvious that it is not sufficient.