The AFT publishes the mean teacher salaries by state, so I thought I’d analyze the data and see if there were any relationship between the mean teacher salaries and the percentage proficient or above in math and reading. Just glancing at the data leads one to suspect there may not be. Here are the three states that pay the highest teacher salaries and the three that pay the lowest:
|
State
|
2003-04 Mean Salary
|
% US Mean
|
Proficient or Above Math
|
Proficient or Above Reading
|
| Connecticut |
$56,516 |
121.3% |
34.6 |
33.6 |
| California |
$56,444 |
121.1% |
21.8 |
20.5 |
| New York |
$55,181 |
118.4% |
30.8 |
33.5 |
| North Dakota |
$35,411 |
76.0% |
34.6 |
36.5 |
| Oklahoma |
$35,061 |
75.2% |
20.6 |
25.3 |
| South Dakota |
$33,236 |
71.3% |
36.5 |
35.1 |
Note that South Dakota pays the lowest mean teacher salaries, yet has the highest percentage of students proficient or above in math, and in reading, is second only to North Dakota, which pays the third lowest mean teacher salaries. Also note the difference between the percentage proficient or above in math and reading between California, which pays the second highest teacher salaries, and Connecticut and New York, which pay the highest and third highest teacher salaries, respectively.
But let’s run regressions on the data to see if there is a statistically significant relationship between mean teacher salary and percentage proficient or above in both skills. First, math:
| Regression: 2003-04 Mean Teacher Salary, % Proficient+ Math |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Multiple R |
0.23431406 |
|
|
|
|
| R Square |
0.05490308 |
|
|
|
|
| Adjusted R Square |
0.03521356 |
|
|
|
|
| Standard Error |
6.99589092 |
|
|
|
|
| Observations |
50 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| ANOVA |
df |
SS |
MS |
F |
Significance F |
| Regression |
1 |
136.473288 |
136.473288 |
2.78844187 |
0.10145623 |
| Residual |
48 |
2349.23951 |
48.9424898 |
|
|
| Total |
49 |
2485.7128 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
Coefficients |
Standard Error |
t Stat |
P-value |
|
| Intercept |
17.3262997 |
6.93479542 |
2.49845867 |
0.01595078 |
|
| 2003-04 Mean Salary |
0.00026116 |
0.0001564 |
1.66986283 |
0.10145623 |
|
First, note that the correlation coefficient for the two variables is only 0.23431406, and that the variation in mean teacher salary only accounts for 5.49% of the variation in the percentage proficient or above in math. But the p-value for the regression is 0.10145623, and because it is greater than 0.05, these data support no statistically significant relationship between the mean teacher salary and the percentage of students proficient or above in math.
Now, reading proficiency:
| Regression: 2003-04 Mean Teacher Salary, % Proficient+ Reading |
| Multiple R |
0.16902722 |
|
|
|
|
| R Square |
0.0285702 |
|
|
|
|
| Adjusted R Square |
0.00833208 |
|
|
|
|
| Standard Error |
6.1429964 |
|
|
|
|
| Observations |
50 |
|
|
|
|
| ANOVA |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
df |
SS |
MS |
F |
Significance F |
| Regression |
1 |
53.2725707 |
53.2725707 |
1.41170234 |
0.24061977 |
| Residual |
48 |
1811.34743 |
37.7364048 |
|
|
| Total |
49 |
1864.62 |
|
|
|
| |
Coefficients |
Standard Error |
t Stat |
P-value |
|
| Intercept |
22.9389444 |
6.08934927 |
3.76706005 |
0.00045145 |
|
| 2003-04 Mean Salary |
0.00016317 |
0.00013733 |
1.1881508 |
0.24061977 |
|
Here, the correlation coefficient is even lower (0.16902722), and teacher salary accounts for only 2.86% of the variation in the percentage of students proficient or above in reading. The p-value for the regression is greater than 0.05 (0.24061977), so these data also do not support any statistically significant relationship between teacher salary and the percentage of students proficient or above in reading.
There could be a relationship, of course, that’s hidden by aggregating the data by state. If we had, say, the mean teacher salaries and percentage of students proficient or above in math and reading data aggregated by school district, we might see a statistically significant relationship that is concealed by aggregating the data by state. But these data cannot support the argument that increasing teacher salaries will increase the quality of education.
There are, of course, other arguments for raising teacher salaries. But it’s a good idea not to use an argument that can easily be demonstrated to be false.