A commenter posts:
Here's a critique of an earlier similar study:Good stuff, but I noticed the NCS caveat dates back to 2005. Hmm... I wonder if the Bureau of Labor Statistics maybe has more recent advice about how to use the NCS? Say maybe from 2008?
The report relies on hourly earnings data in an attempt to provide an apples-to-apples comparison of pay for a standard unit of work. Unfortunately, this approach is fundamentally flawed because the NCS calculation of weeks and hours worked is very different for teachers and other professionals. In fact, the Bureau of Labor Statistics — which publishes the NCS — has explicitly warned its users not to use hourly rates of pay in this exact same context. It is unclear why the authors of this report have apparently have chosen to ignore that warning, but what remains is a measure of compensation that is of very little use in informing policy discussions of teacher pay.
Never, ever, ever believe any "study" from the Manhattan Institute, the Heritage Foundation, AEI, or any of the other wingnut-welfare head shops.