BISMARCK - North Dakota's teacher pay ranking has dropped to 50th among the 50 states and the District of Columbia, a National Education Association report says.
The report, released Monday, said the average teacher salary in North Dakota was $36,449 during the 2004-05 school year.
Connecticut had the highest average teacher salary at $58,688, while South Dakota had the lowest, at $34,040, the Washington, D.C.-based teachers' group said.
The national average for teacher pay during the 2004-05 school year was $47,808, up from $46,735 the previous year, the report said.
North Dakota initially was ranked 48th but was later revised to 49th during 2003-04 school year, with an average salary of $35,441, the report said.
Teachers in Oklahoma, which ranked 50th during the 2003-04 school year, got a pay increase of 8 percent, putting them ahead of North Dakota.
North Dakota's 2.6 pay increase during the 2004-05 school year was slightly more than the national average of 2.3 percent, the NEA says. Inflation increased 3.1 percent during the same time, the teachers' group said.
People tend to overreact a bit to these reports about teacher pay, so let me give you some of my reactions to this study.
My first reaction to this is that its a study by the NEA, a union for teachers. Hardly an objective source for information on teacher pay. They get paid to squeeze every last drop of tax money for teacher pay out of the government that they can. I'd even go so far as to say that the Grand Forks Herald should make a better effort to inform readers as to the nature of the organization responsible for this study as their agenda is an important consideration when evaluating these results.
My second reaction is teachers in my state are making substantially more than the average citizen. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics North Dakota workers pull in a mean average of about $30,620/year, which means that North Dakota teachers are earning just under $5,000 more per year than the average citizen. And that's not including the excellent benefit package that teachers enjoy, which is far and above what most non-government employees get.
My third reaction is that this is a poor method for evaluating teacher pay. What's missing in the analysis is an adjustment for cost of living. Living in places like Oklahoma, South Dakota and North Dakota is a lot less expensive than living in a place like California or New Jersey. Consider that North Dakota ranks 49th in the 50 states for cost of housing. Everything from groceries to consumer items to rent is cheaper in North Dakota. Certain inelastic products like petroleum products aren't typically any cheaper here, but overall a dollar goes a lot further in North Dakota than it does in other states.
My fourth reaction is that there doesn't seem to be any need to increase teacher pay. Already several school districts in the state have a waiting list of teachers trying to get jobs. Clearly, these people are satisfied with the compensation or else they'd be seeking employment in another field.
And that's true for a lot of mid-western states.
Personally, I think teacher pay is important. America's future is wholly dependent on the education our children receive and the people providing that education should be well compensated. That being said, I don't see the logic in increasing teacher pay just for the sake of keeping up with other states. Those other places have economic realities that are different from North Dakota's. We need to do what's best for our state and not worry about what teachers in other states make. Because really, it just doesn't matter.
Update:
Taking Back ND has more on wage comparisons throughout the country.
Update:
State Democrats are all over this, predictably sticking it to Hoeven for not paying teachers enough. But their position is just knee-jerk political opportunism. Hoeven is an overwhelmingly popular governor. Openings for criticism are few and far between, and teacher pay is an emotional issue.
By suggesting that Hoeven isn't willing to pay teachers more they can suggest that Hoeve doesn't really care about educating our children, but maybe the reality is that Hoeven just doesn't want to throw tax dollars at a "problem" that, for all the reasons I've described above, really isn't a problem at all.