Stop the presses! It seems that states don't all play by the same rules. In a study released last month, the Florida Department of Education diagnosed a marked lack of standardization in teacher-salary reporting from state to state. Given the inconsistencies among states' reporting of high school graduation rates, this really isn't surprising.

This "Teacher Pay Review" asserts that there is actually no universally agreed upon methodology for defining average teacher salaries at the state level. This seems problematic given that every year the nation's two big teacher unions release state salary rankings that become the subject of much debate and punditry. Not surprisingly, the results of the two rankings vary considerably. For instance, Oregon's NEA-calculated average salary was $1,340 higher than its AFT-calculated average salary. Meanwhile, Florida slipped from 29 to 31 when moving from the AFT rankings to those of the NEA.

According to the study, these different ranking figures are a result of all sorts of ambiguous methodological issues. Like: What's the definition of a teacher--full time, part time or instructional specialist? Does extra-duty pay count as part of a salary? What if teachers are automatically docked for retirement? What if they aren't? What about incentives?

With questions like that, it's no surprise that the study--focusing on observations of exactly how 15 states, with a special Flori-focus, determine their salary figures--ends up feeling a bit like a list. It turns out that some states include part time teachers, some include halftime teachers, some include incentives, some include insurance benefits. It's noted that it might be good to factor in cost of living, which of course varies wildly from state to state.

The variables are extensive. Really. And the conclusions are few and far between, with the review making only one clear assertion: instead of comparing just "average teacher salary," states should be encouraged to submit data on "average teacher salary," "average teacher compensation" and "average teacher market value" in order to create a more accurate picture of compensation. These three figures would not just enable raw comparisons of states, but actually attempt to convey an understanding of the financial realities of life for teachers in different areas.

The starting point would be the same: average teacher salary would still give a base average of state salary expenditures--the actual sum of state compensation divided by the number of teachers employed. But from there, the average compensation figure would take that salary and factor in average yearly supplements, such as duties or bonuses, in order to approximate what a teacher might actually take home each year. And finally, market value would both add in the monetary value of benefits like retirement or insurance, and factor in the comparative cost-of-living, in order to identify the actual economic status of teachers in the region.

These certainly seem like fair revisions, if, in fact, the exercise of state rankings is useful in the first place.

But that's the question this study really raises for us. More important than a highlight of Florida's unfair showing in state-to-state rankings, or a discourse on how those rankings could hypothetically be made fair, the report leads us to the following question: if the details of teacher compensation are so complicated and so locally driven, is it ever particularly useful to generalize about salaries across either states or nations?