On stealth and poverty...

By David Boze, Policy Analyst

Teachers are regarded by many as heroes—civil servants on nearly the same level as police officers or fire fighters. The social prestige that comes from being a successful teacher is well-deserved. After all, teachers are entrusted with parents’ most valued possessions: their children. It is only natural that parents and others would want to see that schools are able to attract and retain well-qualified teachers.

On September 8, Superintendent of Public Instruction Terry Bergeson delivered her "State of Education Address" in which she declared that "new century" demands were being placed on teachers’ shoulders. "If we ask more of them," Bergeson said, "they deserve more from us."

Bergeson highlighted three actions the state needs to take: invest more in staff development and resources for teachers; improve the preparation and support of teachers at the start of their careers; and pay good teachers more.

The reasons why beginning teachers are not prepared, and why current training is not enough, are worthy of serious attention. But that debate will have to wait for another day. It was the gravity of the superintendent’s third suggestion that most caught my attention.

As evidence supporting her assertion that good teachers need to be paid more, Bergeson offered some general statistics that apply to all teachers, good and bad. She claimed that "a beginning teacher in Washington makes $22,950 a year—$1,720 below the poverty level." She further asserted that "9,000 of our teachers had an income level that would qualify a family of four for free or reduced-price lunch." This second comment may lead the public to believe that 9,000 teachers are not paid enough to support their own children.

Superintendent Bergeson’s statistics would be sobering if they were not so misleading.

According to 1997 U.S. Census Bureau figures, beginning teachers compensated at $22,950 a year are a far cry from the poverty level: more than $14,000 above the poverty level if they are single; $12,000 above poverty if married; $6,617 above poverty level if married with two children under 18. In fact, if a beginning teacher had a family of six with four children under 18, he or she would still be $1,500 above the poverty threshold.

Why, then, did Bergeson make the statement? Was she merely supplied with faulty data? No, Bergeson used her own OSPI definition of poverty, rather than the standard definition. Her comment does not appear to be an unintentional mistake, but a deliberate attempt to mislead the public.

Bergeson’s statement that "9,000 of our teachers had an income level that would qualify a family of four for free and reduced lunch" also seemed designed to shame us into accepting the Superintendent’s proposals without careful deliberation.

But here are the facts: Last year, 9,000 Washington state teachers made $29,694 or less in salary (which does not include supplemental contracts or benefits). That amount is the cutoff for reduced lunch eligibility for a family of four. Thus, some teachers’ families would qualify for the reduced lunch program. The 9,000 teachers below this salary level (less-experienced, less-educated teachers), however, are disproportionately younger teachers who are less likely to be supporting a family (much less a family of four). It is disingenuous to imply that their wages are those of typical, experienced teachers trying to support a family.

Worse yet, it is an outright falsehood to suggest, as Bergeson does, that a teacher’s income could qualify a family of four for free lunches. (Recall that Bergeson’s claim speaks of "free- or reduced-price lunch," not simply reduced.) Last year’s free lunch eligibility cutoff for a family of four was approximately $20,865, which is below the minimum beginning teacher salary of $22,950.

Some teachers (even beginners) deserve more pay. But without market-based reforms, and/or performance measures based on student achievement, the true worth of teachers is likely to remain unreflected in their salaries. But before meaningful debate on the subject can occur, the OSPI needs to address these issues honestly.

The superintendent is not doing children, parents or policymakers any favors by exaggerating shortcomings in teacher salaries. Misleading scare tactics will not help us find solutions to the problems facing our educational system. She can do better, and we should expect her to do so.

Evergreen Freedom Foundation P.O. Box 552, Olympia, WA 98507 Phone: (360) 956-3482, Fax: (360) 352-1874 Email: effwa@effwa.org