California Sen. Kamala Harris takes to the opinion section of the Washington Post with an op-ed proposing higher pay for teachers, paid by the federal government:
The United States is facing a teacher pay crisis. Public school teachers earn 11 percent less than professionals with similar educations. Teachers are more likely than non-teachers to work a second job. In 30 states, average teacher pay is less than the living wage for a family of four.
That is a rapid fire series of half true or partly true statements. I think it may be true that some jurisdictions are facing a “teacher pay crisis”. There is no such crisis in Chicago. In Chicago the starting pay for a teacher is twice the median individual income and higher than the median family income. The average teacher pay is over $80,000 a year, significantly higher than the median family income. That’s for a nine or ten month school year, leaving time for a teacher to take a second job during the summer if desired.
Additionally, pay doesn’t tell the entire story. Here in Chicago teachers retire after 30 years (or less, depending) at three-quarters pay, something which people who are not public employees can only dream of.
The way you determine the market clearing price for anything, whether it’s a Chevy or a teacher, is by how many are left over at the asking price. Here in Chicago we do not have a problem attracting qualified applicants. Basically, there’s a waiting list. Draw your own conclusions.
She continues:
As president, I will make the largest federal investment in teacher pay in U.S. history. We will fully close the teacher pay gap during my first term, and provide the average teacher a $13,500 raise.
Here’s how it will work:
Under my plan, the federal government will immediately make an investment in every state to provide the first 10 percent of funding needed to close the teacher pay gap. Then we will support states to do their part: For every $1 a state contributes to increasing teacher pay, the federal government will invest $3, until we fully close the teacher pay gap. States will be required to maintain their investment over time, and increase that amount to cover their share of wage inflation.
Under prevailing pay rules in every school district I’ve ever heard of, the worst teacher at a given pay grade and step receives the same wage as the best. The teacher from the worst and least selective education school in the country receives the same pay as a teacher from the best education and most selective education school in the country in the same grade and step. Seniority is the primary determinant.
As far as I can tell the primary effects of her plan will be to reward states that underpay teachers while enormously increasing federal spending. That’s assuming Congress attaches no additional strings to the program. Short version: I’ll be paying for Los Angeles’s educational system.
Shorter version: the bidding war has begun!
Your analysis and commentary is complete except for one thing: how many votes will this blatant panderin….uh, noble defense of educators win?
My interpretation was that she’s looking for the endorsement of the NEA. It’s what I meant by a “bidding war”. More pay for teachers will be a valence issue among the 2020 candidates for the Democratic nomination. A valence issue is one in which all of the parties agree and what distinguishes among them is how enthusiastic they are.
We should probably start making a list of the valence issues for 2020. More pay for teachers. Support for strenuous action to reduce carbon emissions if not for the GND as such. Infrastructure spending, an evergreen. M4A? Klobuchar, Schultz, Hickenlooper haven’t endorsed it yet but the day is still young. What else?
Renewed subsidies for ethanol, solar, electric vehicles, the tech sector and planned parenthood, social security raises, rigorous civil rights enforcement, affirmative action and open borders.
“Supreme Court overhaul”
https://www.politico.com/story/2019/03/18/2020-democrats-supreme-court-1223625
I don’t believe that open borders will be a valence issue. A path to citizenship for so-called “DREAM-ers” and their parents, perhaps, but not open borders. If there’s an explicit call for open borders, the Republicans will probably carry 49 states in the 2020 election.
Yeah, that really looks as though expanding the number of Supreme Court justies will be a valence issue. It will take a few more candidate endorsements.
IMO it’s a risky strategy for the Democrats.
This is what you do to win primaries. Doesn’t have a chance in the general. Has just as much of a chance as “will build a wall and Mexico will pay for it”.
Steve
I don’t believe that will fly as easily in 2020 as it has in the past, steve. There is an impatience among the “democratic socialists” that I think is something new.
“There is an impatience among the “democratic socialists†that I think is something new.â€
It’s an interesting observation. The issues seem to be relatively the same as 50 years ago. …..and the band played on.
https://g.co/kgs/Lihy4e
The gatekeepers are no longer operational. In the past the media needed the political establishment and, consequently, made sure that the messages that were getting out followed the party line. That was even true a decade ago.
Now people with views that don’t comport with those of the leadership can just go around them. It really is something new.