I'm sorry BigV, but I can't/I refuse to go on thru the link ("News Release") and the "Report", itself.
This is internal to the Heritage Foundation, with authors from HF
staff.
Both (non-peer reviewed) articles are filled with HF assumptions and biases.
When I read the "News Release" and then the Executive Summary of the "Report",
I first thought there was an error in the links.
To wit: compare the "News" with the first paragraphs of the HF
Report.
(Underlining is mine)
Quote:
The teaching profession is crucial to America’s society and economy,
but public-school teachers should receive compensation that
is neither higher nor lower than market rates.
Do teachers currently receive the proper level of compensation?
Standard analytical approaches to this question compare teacher salaries
to the salaries of similarly educated and experienced private-sector workers,
and then add the value of employer contributions toward fringe benefits.
These simple comparisons would indicate that public-school teachers are under-compensated.
However, comparing teachers to non-teachers presents
special challenges not accounted for in the existing literature.
First, formal educational attainment, such as a degree acquired or years of education completed,
is not a good proxy for the earnings potential of school teachers.
Public-school teachers earn less in wages on average than non-teachers
with the same level of education,
but teacher skills generally lag behind those of other workers with similar “paper” qualifications.
<SNIP>
|
My reaction is "HF Garbage In/Garbage Out"