As summer turns up the heat, ProComp has become the talk of the town in education reform circles. Of course, it’s not the first time the innovative teacher pay plan has received this much buzz. But the almost unstated assumption after ProComp funding won at the city ballot box in 2005 was that it had crossed the last major hurdle. Clear sailing from then on, right?

Insiders have known better, though I’m not sure anyone a few years ago could have foreseen that 70 percent of the inflation-adjusted $25 million per year ProComp Trust Fund would go unspent. As Alan ably highlighted last Thursday, the angst most openly seems to be felt by the citizens of Denver, represented on the A-Plus subcommittee:

…[P]anel members concluded that “most voters would be surprised, and some outraged” to learn that the vast majority of ProComp money goes to building teacher salaries permanently rather than to one-time bonus payments. DPS says 98 percent of ProComp expenditures thus far have gone to “salary-building” elements of the plan. The DCTA says the figure is much lower.

Some sub-committee members even questioned whether ProComp is salvageable. “Is this a tool worth having at all?” co-chair John Hereford mused. “If it’s not what voters expected, not effective and expensive to administer, should we pull the plug if it’s not fixable?”

Even talk of scrapping the plan at this point seems premature. My fear, though, is if ProComp for some reason were soon to hit the ash heap, that all the usual suspects would say: “Look, another failed merit pay plan. It’s too risky to move away from the trusty, old salary schedule.” Let me be abundantly clear here: ProComp is NOT merit pay. This paper highlights the shortcomings of the plan—namely, too little focus on rewards for improving student achievement.

Don’t get me wrong, though: ProComp definitely was a step in the right direction. It just seems to me that many who have sought to laud Denver’s still-young alternative compensation program have placed too much focus on the collaboration between district and union as the greatest innovation. Now that the two parties are in dispute about the future direction of ProComp, the substance of this collaboration comes into a little clearer view. DCTA apparently had a different goal in mind. I think Mr. Hereford from the citizens subcommittee, who isn’t afraid to speak the truth, said it well:

Hereford said the union’s earlier presentation to his group seemed to suggest that they view Procomp as a pension system for teachers, on top of the one they already have.

“I don’t agree,” he said, “and I don’t think the rest of the community does, either.”

Either the ProComp brain trust banked too much on the assumption that the DCTA was interested in real reform, or has creatively prepared to survive and advance through the looming bitter political showdown. Let’s hope they have their boots strapped on tight.

Popularity: 1% [?]