4 ms·

> 3. Click on the job title. You still have a table sorted by comp, where the top many rows include teachers who have taken on administrative duty, worked over

by mlyle 4y ago

> 3. Click on the job title. You still have a table sorted by comp, where the top many rows include teachers who have taken on administrative duty, worked over summer, etc. > Whilst SFUSD may not seem representative to you, it seems representative to me, because: Sorry, this doesn't fly. You made a blanket statement about public school teachers, not public school teachers in SF. > - there are often cries that SFUSD teachers are underpaid, can't afford to live in SF etc. And the lower rows in those tables, making $45k base (or less) plus benefits, are going to have a pretty hard time doing so. And, SF is still a much more desirable working environment and comp environment than most public school districts. > > You can't raise standards while you have a shortage. You need a surplus to be selective. > Yes you can, if you have to be willing to relax two assumptions: No, if you are going to pull people into the profession from elsewhere, you're going to need to have higher average comp than now. You probably have to also significantly improve working conditions. After all, us private school teachers are willing to make 30% less for better working conditions. Another faulty assumption is that academic performance is the key figure of merit for educational effectiveness. If you're teaching computer science or calculus, maybe it's very important. On the other hand, this is probably not true for elementary teachers. And while salaries overall correlate to SAT scores, it is a very poor predictor of salary in most fields.

rahimnathwani 4y ago
> Sorry, this doesn't fly. You made a blanket statement about public school teachers, not public school teachers in SF. You questioned my 45% assertion. I provided some data. You say it's not representative. I invited you to provide different data that contradicts my point. Again, I invite you to change my mind by showing me some more representative data. I checked another district in California (Morgan Hill). Looking at all 2021 employees whose job title includes the word 'teacher', the median additional compensation is 21% of base salary. I'm not familiar with this district, so I don't know whether those numbers include the present value of unfunded pension liabilities. If so, the actual number is higher. > And the lower rows in those tables, making $45k base (or less) plus benefits, are going to have a pretty hard time doing so. Those numbers are total compensation in a particular calendar year, and may be for employees who worked part time or joined/left part way through the year. No elementary school teacher in SFUSD has a base salary that low.[0] > No, if you are going to pull people into the profession from elsewhere, you're going to need to have higher average comp than now. This doesn't contradict what I said. One of the things I said (paraphrased) is that you have to be willing to pay new teachers more, without being constrained by the salaries of teachers hired under the old system (with the old bar). > Another faulty assumption is that academic performance is the key figure of merit for educational effectiveness. I'm not sure where this point is coming from. I never stated or implied this assumption. I did refer to academic performance (as estimated by SAT score). Academic performance affects career options. When we talk about some profession being underpaid or overpaid, we have to compare pay to other occupations that those currently employed could actually get. And teachers' unions explicitly accept this. They compare teachers' salaries not to median salaries in the country, but to salaries for people with bachelors degrees, or masters degrees. But that ignores the wide range of academic performance represented by being a 'degree-holder'. [0] https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1ZOLlnHJ2OHZN3TuaVXkyMulp67FO4DtV https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1ZOLlnHJ2OHZN3TuaVXky...
- mlyle 4y ago
  > You questioned my 45% assertion. I provided some data. You say it's not representative. I invited you to provide different data that contradicts my point. Again, I invite you to change my mind by showing me some more representative data. > I checked another district in California (Morgan Hill). Looking at all 2021 employees whose job title includes the word 'teacher', the median additional compensation is 21% of base salary. Oddly enough, this is where I live. Random chance or stalking? luls. This is still a relatively well-compensated district compared to most other states or many other parts of California. And ... even so.. 45% is not the same as 21%. I have not checked your numbers to see whether 21% is correct. Also, if you're including pay for additional duty (e.g. working over summer) in that 21%... that's not so great, given that you've accounted for that separately in your calculation. > so I don't know whether those numbers include the present value of unfunded pension liabilities. From the site you chose to link: "Total benefits" consists of the employer-paid cost of health, dental and vision medical insurance and retirement contributions only. The cost of benefits do not reflect monetary payments received by the employee but, instead, reflect the cost incurred by taxpayers associated with employer-provided health and retirement benefits. > If so, the actual number is higher. ??? The actual number is higher because what we're comparing against includes NPV of benefits? > When we talk about some profession being underpaid or overpaid, we have to compare pay to other occupations that those currently employed could actually get. Yes, but using the SAT scores or other measures of academic performance as a proxy to determine career options is a faulty methodology. And even if it were a powerful determinant of career options, it would still be faulty, because willingness of people to engage in the work for the pay matters (e.g. you have to pay garbagemen more). > They compare teachers' salaries not to median salaries in the country, but to salaries for people with bachelors degrees, or masters degrees. Which would seem to be a reasonable measure. You haven't demonstrated teachers have lower SAT scores (you made a faulty indirect argument about this, too), they still have completed those degrees. Comparing them to a cohort that includes workers at McJobs is not fair.
  - rahimnathwani 4y ago
    I have to get back to parenting, so this will my last comment on this thread. I appreciate you taking the time :) I just want to clarify two things: 1. I didn't state clearly my point about the NPV of unfunded pension liabilities. AIUI, SFUSD contributes to teachers' pensions in two ways. The first is a contribution at the same time the teacher is paid their salary (which would show up on the 'total benefits' numbers we've been looking at). The second is contributions made after teachers are retired, when the contributions made beforehand aren't enough to pay for the defined benefits. When you look at teachers compensation today, it may account for the former, but probably not the latter, even though that has real value, it's paid by the employer, and it has real value for the teacher. 2. When you say 'workers at McJobs', I presume you mean those performing low-skill service jobs. AIUI[0], very few recent college graduates enter those jobs, so they're probably not a useful reference group. [0] https://libertystreeteconomics.newyorkfed.org/2016/01/working-as-a-barista-after-college-is-not-as-common-as-you-might-think/#.VpVBY8ArLBi https://libertystreeteconomics.newyorkfed.org/2016/01/workin...

by mlyle 4y ago

rahimnathwani 4y ago

> Sorry, this doesn't fly. You made a blanket statement about public school teachers, not public school teachers in SF. You questioned my 45% assertion. I provided some data. You say it's not representative. I invited you to provide different data that contradicts my point. Again, I invite you to change my mind by showing me some more representative data. I checked another district in California (Morgan Hill). Looking at all 2021 employees whose job title includes the word 'teacher', the median additional compensation is 21% of base salary. I'm not familiar with this district, so I don't know whether those numbers include the present value of unfunded pension liabilities. If so, the actual number is higher. > And the lower rows in those tables, making $45k base (or less) plus benefits, are going to have a pretty hard time doing so. Those numbers are total compensation in a particular calendar year, and may be for employees who worked part time or joined/left part way through the year. No elementary school teacher in SFUSD has a base salary that low.[0] > No, if you are going to pull people into the profession from elsewhere, you're going to need to have higher average comp than now. This doesn't contradict what I said. One of the things I said (paraphrased) is that you have to be willing to pay new teachers more, without being constrained by the salaries of teachers hired under the old system (with the old bar). > Another faulty assumption is that academic performance is the key figure of merit for educational effectiveness. I'm not sure where this point is coming from. I never stated or implied this assumption. I did refer to academic performance (as estimated by SAT score). Academic performance affects career options. When we talk about some profession being underpaid or overpaid, we have to compare pay to other occupations that those currently employed could actually get. And teachers' unions explicitly accept this. They compare teachers' salaries not to median salaries in the country, but to salaries for people with bachelors degrees, or masters degrees. But that ignores the wide range of academic performance represented by being a 'degree-holder'. [0] https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1ZOLlnHJ2OHZN3TuaVXkyMulp67FO4DtV https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1ZOLlnHJ2OHZN3TuaVXky...

mlyle 4y ago
> You questioned my 45% assertion. I provided some data. You say it's not representative. I invited you to provide different data that contradicts my point. Again, I invite you to change my mind by showing me some more representative data. > I checked another district in California (Morgan Hill). Looking at all 2021 employees whose job title includes the word 'teacher', the median additional compensation is 21% of base salary. Oddly enough, this is where I live. Random chance or stalking? luls. This is still a relatively well-compensated district compared to most other states or many other parts of California. And ... even so.. 45% is not the same as 21%. I have not checked your numbers to see whether 21% is correct. Also, if you're including pay for additional duty (e.g. working over summer) in that 21%... that's not so great, given that you've accounted for that separately in your calculation. > so I don't know whether those numbers include the present value of unfunded pension liabilities. From the site you chose to link: "Total benefits" consists of the employer-paid cost of health, dental and vision medical insurance and retirement contributions only. The cost of benefits do not reflect monetary payments received by the employee but, instead, reflect the cost incurred by taxpayers associated with employer-provided health and retirement benefits. > If so, the actual number is higher. ??? The actual number is higher because what we're comparing against includes NPV of benefits? > When we talk about some profession being underpaid or overpaid, we have to compare pay to other occupations that those currently employed could actually get. Yes, but using the SAT scores or other measures of academic performance as a proxy to determine career options is a faulty methodology. And even if it were a powerful determinant of career options, it would still be faulty, because willingness of people to engage in the work for the pay matters (e.g. you have to pay garbagemen more). > They compare teachers' salaries not to median salaries in the country, but to salaries for people with bachelors degrees, or masters degrees. Which would seem to be a reasonable measure. You haven't demonstrated teachers have lower SAT scores (you made a faulty indirect argument about this, too), they still have completed those degrees. Comparing them to a cohort that includes workers at McJobs is not fair.
- rahimnathwani 4y ago
  I have to get back to parenting, so this will my last comment on this thread. I appreciate you taking the time :) I just want to clarify two things: 1. I didn't state clearly my point about the NPV of unfunded pension liabilities. AIUI, SFUSD contributes to teachers' pensions in two ways. The first is a contribution at the same time the teacher is paid their salary (which would show up on the 'total benefits' numbers we've been looking at). The second is contributions made after teachers are retired, when the contributions made beforehand aren't enough to pay for the defined benefits. When you look at teachers compensation today, it may account for the former, but probably not the latter, even though that has real value, it's paid by the employer, and it has real value for the teacher. 2. When you say 'workers at McJobs', I presume you mean those performing low-skill service jobs. AIUI[0], very few recent college graduates enter those jobs, so they're probably not a useful reference group. [0] https://libertystreeteconomics.newyorkfed.org/2016/01/working-as-a-barista-after-college-is-not-as-common-as-you-might-think/#.VpVBY8ArLBi https://libertystreeteconomics.newyorkfed.org/2016/01/workin...