No, "typically" you do that only when actual work hours are specified or measured, and thus actually comparable, but not with some loose, self-serving estimate of "hours worked" many teacher advocates like to throw around. When you actually punch a time clock and recieve pay only for those hours actually on that clock, we can use your hourly comparisons. Teacher compensation complaints are generally accompanied by whining about grading papers, attending meetings, etc.. The actual time a teacher is required to be present at the job site is rarely more than 8 hours a day, 5 days a week and they have a very liberal holiday schedule, as well as a 9 month "year" in most locations. Many educated, salaried employees in the private sector work more hours per week, all year long, for similar compensation on an annual basis. I have often heard the complaints of "long days" from teachers but I have also seen that the teaching staff parking lot traffic flow oddly matches the student's schedule, with very little midnight oil being burned at our public schools. Certainly there are some educators who spend far more than the required time and effort, and it is unfortunate that the teacher unions oppose methods designed to compensate individual teachers based on the mesured results of such extra effort. And most coaches do it for the love of the sport. It is by its nature not something the taxpayer needs to pay a compensatory wage for, being EXTRA-CURRICULAR, and a voluntary activity.<quoted text>
Typically you look at GAW (gross annual wage) by the hours worked.
Please recognize that the compensation problem for public education is relatively simple, your long time teachers and your top heavy "administrators" suck up far to much of the total payroll under your union socialist, time in grade,seniority system, leaving starting salaries far too low to attract the better new graduates. It is also unfortunately true that teaching is now basically a "closed shop" and very difficult for even much more educated AND more experienced individuals than your average teacher to enter later in life without being required to take a series of largly useless "education" courses supporting both the public education monopoly and the weakest link in higher education, the teacher certification instructors and "education" Phds. In sum, for a doctor, lawyer, engineer or accountant to enter teaching later in life as something other than a "substitute", they are first required to take "bean bag 101"and its equivelant at some teachers college, often for two years, thus eliminating a potentially valuable source of teaching talent that specifically may not be motivated by the jobs income potential, having already been financially successful in real world careers. Additionally, the dominant short year schedule, designed primarily for a rural farming student lifestyle, is retained by and tends to attract new "professionals" who value time "not working", or at least "time not at the jobs location" far more than your average, equally educated professional. I hope you have also read today's article about new Charter school experiments with significant increases in teacher pay,and support such efforts, but merely pouring more money into pulic education under todays structures will be merely good money after bad.