Nicholas D. Kristof wants to improve our lot by attracting top talent to public education. And he has the proof that an excellent teacher will result in students earning an additional $500 per year. But his proof only works because he ignores the potential productivity lost when talent is drawn from other fields by his proposed $65,000 starting salary. Kristoff would do well by skimming Economics in One Lesson.
Source link: http://archive.mises.org/16051/kristof-needs-hazlitt/
Kristof needs Hazlitt
Previous post: Technology and the Changing Educational Landscape
Next post: Free to Write
{ 7 comments }
$500/yr/student @ a low estimate of 20 students (high would be 30), you would recoup the costs in two years on average. But then, do these wages actually equate with productivity?
The drain that occurs when talent is drawn away from other fields is a problem, but I have a more immediate, acute and quantifiable problem with what I won’t be doing with the money that will go to pay these increased salaries.
Whatever people would have done with that money won’t be done, which will probably also make it harder for students to earn that extra $500, since everyone in the economy will have less money.
If Kristoff knows so much about the education market and what prices for labor should be, why not do the same analysis on the petrol business or finance business and make billions buying and selling securities on firms that either pay too much or pay too little relating to the prospective output?
I will answer the question. Kristoff is intending to play the game with taxpayer money instead of his own, or at least not a large portion of his own. This way if he is wrong all he gets is a tax hike but if he is correct then the NYT will pay him more money.
Considering I would be willing to take on a class of 45 students for $2,500 a head if there wasn’t a huge regulatory burden in place, which is 1/4 of what is spent on public education on average in the US, it makes you wonder what the Hell is being paid for when $65,000/year, or half of my hypothetical salary, is considered a big deal.
That is a great point… the amount of money that goes into education is huge compared to the amount of money that actually trickles into the classroom. Think of the improvements possible if parents were able to penalize school boards plagued by massive bureaucracies by spending their money on more efficient schools.
That’s ok… think of all the failed teachers-turned-bureaucrats who are employed by the current system. They need to earn a living too, don’t they?
I don’t see anything wrong with what the author stated? In fact, I would take it one step ahead and say that because the economic benefit for teaching is no longer worthwhile for the top 15% of the student class graduating (based on SAT scores) then their is a fundamental issue at public schools and their pay. If public schools cannot attract the highest educated individuals to teach, and public schools’ goal should be only teaching then obviously this is a failed system and a move to a more privatized system is needed. I agree wholeheartedly for teachers to be paid $65,000 or more; in fact take out the current system, replace it with a private school that give an attractive salary based on merits and accomplishments by the teacher and I think you have a better system as a whole.
But again that’s my opinion.
My answer: Free market High Schools. Teachers get paid per student. Students choose their own classes. Teachers charge their own rates. Problem solved – your welcome.
Comments on this entry are closed.