A familiar complaint from teachers and their unions is that their compensation isn't fair or right, and that others whose work is far less "important" are paid more.
To illustrate his point he cites the example of a "semi-literate" football player pulling down $10 million per, while a teacher (presumably fully literate) makes only $30,000. The column, in typical Rosen fashion, keeps getting more absurd from there.
Listen Mike, I don't know what teachers you've been hanging out with, but teachers have a multitude of complaints much more familiar than the one you chose to highlight.
In a recent Harris Interactive Poll, over 40,000 teachers were asked to list their concerns. School reform and student achievement headed the list. Compensation came in number three, but not in the same whiny fashion you suggest.
The last time I checked, concern about the off the charts pay for professional athletes is not the exclusive property of the National Education Association. I bet there are a lot of owners who share our outrage.
Like his smugly sophomoric headline suggests, Rosen goes on to explain to all of us greedy educators why this pay discrepancy exists. We live in a market economy he impatiently states. ". . .the forces of supply and demand make these determinations."
Thanks Mike. But then he offers another illustration. Water is necessary for life and can be had relatively cheaply (tell that to some of your readers in the Sahara, or in Nevada), while diamonds have virtually no practical value yet are worth a fortune. It is all about scarcity.
I understand, but his analogy breaks down. I guess the teachers are like the water, necessary for life, and the diamonds are like the football players, of no value. But this is not analogous to the situation in public education. Teachers aren't the product of education, students are. So wouldn't the water really be like students and the teachers really be like the civil engineers who create the means to deliver the water? Would you like that water delivery system to be ruled by the laws of supply and demand?
Rosen adds fuel to the fire when he says that there is a surplus of teachers waiting to step into one of the 7 million teaching jobs in this country and virtually tens of millions of people who would be capable of taking over a classroom; therefore, since there are precious few people who could be pro quarterbacks, we have a perfectly understandable pay discrepancy.
If this argument were valid CEO's of the largest investment banks should be making approximately the same salary as, say, a high school advanced placement teacher. I mean there must be plenty of MBAs out there just waiting to fill in the next vacancy at Goldman-Sachs and judging by CEOs' performances the last couple of years, there are also tens of millions of us who could step in and screw it up just as badly.
So why doesn't it work that way? BECAUSE PUBLIC SCHOOLS WON'T WORK IF THEY ARE GOVERNED BY THE RULES OF SUPPLY AND DEMAND! Neither will fire departments, police departments, or public works departments. Would anyone really like to live in a society where the fire department sets up charges based on supply and demand? I'm not an economist, but it seems to make sense that for the marketplace to "set the rates" for public education there must be some variability in supply and demand and the ratio between the two. It doesn't work that way in public schools. Educators have no control on demand and even less on supply.
Rosen leaves his argument at this point and sets out to prove that when it comes to pay, teachers have nothing to complain about. In Jefferson County for example, the salary schedule tops out at "more than $81,000." As much as that? I can't imagine why a Ph.D. with over thirty years of professional experience would be displeased with a salary like that.
Yeah, Mike. I know we have good health insurance and a wonderful retirement plan (a plan that Rosen attacks every chance he gets). On the other hand if the most I can look forward to after thirty years is "more than $81,000," I need a great retirement plan. After all, I'll bet my 401K looks piddling compared to Goldman-Sach's compensation package for top executives.
