The PEBC Network
Click to PEBC.org
Click to EdNewsColorado.org
Click to Boettcherteachers.org
Click to Education Research and Practice

Archive for the ‘Teacher pay’ Category

Deep thoughts on teacher power and pay

Monday, February 8th, 2010

If Colorado’s teachers unions are so powerful, how come teachers here are the worst paid in the 50 states (relative to other occupations, which is the best adjustment for cost-of-living, local labor markets, etc.)?

(Note: These data are from Ed Week’s 2010 Quality Counts – and unlikely any Colorado interest group, Ed Week has absolutely no stake in where Colorado ranks.)

Since Colorado teachers are the worst paid, when the economy and budgets recover, couldn’t there be a deal of more money for more accountability – more meaningful tenure earning, meaningful “4 point” evaluations rather than “satisfactory” for nearly all, no forced placements, being able to fire poor teachers, etc.?

Popularity: 26% [?]

  • Share/Bookmark

From the editor: On budget cuts, choose your poison

Tuesday, February 2nd, 2010

When it comes to money and public education, I am of two minds. On the one hand, I do not believe that pouring more money into dysfunctional systems will by itself solve the underlying problems that plague education.

Some members of interest groups were ready to string me up last year when I used inartful language to suggest that federal stimulus money could be wasted if it was used only to prop up broken institutions.

On the other hand, I found a story by Mike Booth in Sunday’s Denver Post about crushing budget woes in Colorado Springs to be shocking and disturbing. Although the story dealt with city government rather than the school district, it gave me a canary-in-a-coal-mine feeling. In case you missed it:

More than a third of the streetlights in Colorado Springs will go dark Monday.

The police helicopters are for sale on the Internet. The city is dumping firefighting jobs, a vice team, burglary investigators, beat cops — dozens of police and fire positions will go unfilled.

The parks department removed trash cans last week, replacing them with signs urging users to pack out their own litter.

Neighbors are encouraged to bring their own lawn mowers to local green spaces, because parks workers will mow them only once every two weeks. If that.

Water cutbacks mean most parks will be dead, brown turf by July; the flower and fertilizer budget is zero.

Wow. Sure, Colorado Springs is the home of anti-government zealot Doug Bruce, and is known for its ultra-conservative politics and aversion to taxes. But did average citizens in that spectacularly situated town have any idea what they were about to lose when they, according to the Post, “said an emphatic no (last November) to a tripling of property tax that would have restored $27.6 million to the city’s $212 million general fund budget?”

It’s when I read stories like this one that I feel more in tune with organizations, like Great Education Colorado, which advocate tirelessly and somewhat monotonally for increased education spending in Colorado. Yes, education is underfunded here, if you look at needs (including capital construction) versus resources. No, education isn’t close to the Colorado Springs cliff. Not yet.

But it could get there. As EdNews’ Todd Engdahl reported last year:

The state’s financial clock is ticking because 2011 is when Referendum C (the five-year window during which the state can spend “extra” revenues under TABOR), one factor in Amendment 23 (the multi-part formula requiring annual increases in K-12 spending) and federal stimulus money all expire.

So this is the moment for people to shed their pet ideologies and their mantles of self-interest and get serious about how to tackle these challenges in a sensible manner.

That’s easy to say, of course, but as recent political debacles in Washington demonstrate, difficult to do. Nancy Mitchell reported last week that as school districts grapple with profound budgetary challenges, jockeying for position is already under way. In several districts, state budget cuts mean teachers will not be getting their full raises.

In Jefferson County, two school board members touched the third rail by passing on a community suggestion that perhaps teachers’ base salaries should be frozen. Jefferson County Education Association President Kerrie Dallman called the proposal “insulting.”

But Jeffco, which has had a tough time passing mill levy hikes and bond issues in recent years, provides an excellent illustration of the challenges districts and unions face in the coming months and years.

Teachers, famously under-compensated, do not want their salaries frozen. Who does? Nor do they, or their communities, want to see layoffs and the class-size increases that would result.

So something has to give – and probably more than one thing.

Are we capable of working together across various divides to forge creative solutions? Stay tuned. We’ll find out in the coming months.

As we move forward, let’s all keep the cautionary tale of Colorado Springs in mind.

Popularity: 41% [?]

  • Share/Bookmark

A poetry slam tribute by a teacher, to teachers

Saturday, January 30th, 2010

Popularity: 10% [?]

  • Share/Bookmark

Apparently, NEA leaders didn’t read their own report

Friday, January 29th, 2010

Does anyone take the National Education Association (NEA) seriously anymore? Not as the 800-pound political powerhouse that cannot afford to be ignored, of course. But on pronouncements of policy. I direct your attention to an excellent catch posted today by Dr. Jay Greene.

With the release of its new annual Rankings & Estimates, NEA sent out the following media release:

WASHINGTON—Inflation over the past decade has outpaced teachers’ salaries in every single state across the country, according to the National Education Association’s update to the annual report Rankings and Estimates: Rankings of the States 2009 and Estimates of School Statistics 2010.

“Public schoolteachers across the nation are continuing to lose spending power for themselves and their families in an already struggling economy,” said NEA President Dennis Van Roekel. “We need to compensate teachers fairly for the work they do.”

The complete report, a message from President Dennis Van Roekel, answers to frequently asked questions and other information can be found at http://www.nea.org/home/37872.htm

Except that Jay actually took time to look at their data. He found:

In Table C-14 “Percentage Change in Average Salaries of Public School Teachers 1998-99 to 2008-09 (Constant $)” we see that salaries increased by 3.4% nationwide over the last decade after adjusting for inflation. The increase in average salary outpaced inflation in 36 states, which is very different from the claim that ”Inflation over the past decade has outpaced teachers’ salaries in every single state across the country…” Check for yourself, the table is on p. 20 of the report, which is p. 38 of the pdf.

I can’t find a single table or figure in the report that would justify the headline and claims in the press release. But when the Ministry of Truth speaks who are you supposed to believe — them or your lying eyes?

It’s even worse than that. On page x in the Executive Summary, the NEA’s own report acknowledges:

Over the decade from 1998–99 to 2008–09, in constant dollars, average salaries for public school teachers increased 3.4 percent. Wyoming (25.9%), Mississippi (16.3%), Louisiana (15.8%), Massachusetts (14.0%), and California (13.9%) had the largest real increases in salaries during that 10-year period. Fifteen states saw real declines in average teacher salaries over those years, adjusting for inflation. Those with average salaries declining 5 percent or more: Pennsylvania (-8.9%), Indiana (-7.1%), Michigan (-6.8%), New Jersey (-5.6%), Connecticut (-5.3%), and South Dakota (-5.2%) (C-14).

Let’s be fair. Colorado hasn’t done much better than these bottom states in this category. Teacher salaries have stayed very close to the rate of inflation over recent years. But, of course, as Jay Greene also points out, these statistics don’t take into account pensions and other benefits.

Memo to NEA: A good rule of thumb is to read and understand your own reports before making public pronouncements. That approach will help not only to avoid needless embarrassment (I think being compared to Teen Talk Barbie counts) but also to encourage honest discussions about policy (e.g., teachers — especially the best ones — would be able to make more money if we didn’t choose to let our hiring of them so greatly to outpace the growth in student numbers).

Popularity: 25% [?]

  • Share/Bookmark

Worth a listen: Weingarten, others on evaluation

Wednesday, January 27th, 2010

Listen to Randi Weingarten, NPR’s Claudio Sanchez and others discuss linking teacher pay to evaluations and other weighty matters. From the “On point” public radio show — which I don’t think we get here in Colorado.

Popularity: 13% [?]

  • Share/Bookmark

From a younger teacher’s perspective

Monday, January 11th, 2010

Editor’s note: Ben Jackson is a teacher at Bruce Randolph in Denver Public Schools and a leader of the newly developed Denver New Millennium Teacher Leader Think Tank.

Today’s Denver Post contains an article illustrating the shifting demographics in our teacher workforce. To summarize, the baby boomers are leaving and a greater percentage of the workforce falls into the Generation Y category. What does this mean for interested parties?

Well, to start, one must consider the unique needs and interests of Generation Y professionals entering the field of teaching. While there is not a wide body of research on us (yes, I happen to be one of them) the little that exists shows that our generation is particularly fond of opportunities to collaborate, use technology, receive compensation tied to merit and we expect varying opportunities for professional advancement. As anyone who currently teaches knows, at least two of the four are nearly antithetical to most current teaching positions.

Teachers who sign on to teach today are expected to conform to an antiquated career ladder that more often values years of service rather than merit, pay scales that, even at their best, mirror a slightly adjusted traditional salary schedule and school environments that often drop off first year teachers unprepared to meet the challenges awaiting them. More than anything, just like our more veteran counterparts, we want to feel successful – and not the feel-good, warm and fuzzy “I made a difference today” kind of success, because we know that type of success can only sustain a teaching career for so long.

And let’s be clear, this is not to say that veteran teachers should be cast aside only to be replaced with a newer, cheaper college graduate. Every teacher, no matter how many years he has under his belt, should be given the opportunity to be successful and reap the benefits of a radically re-thought profession.

The point here is that as we think about education reforms, legislation and races to tops, we would be wise to keep in mind who our teaching population is and will be and how well matched teacher skills and preparation are to the demands of the profession. And, as a growing percentage of the workforce, Generation Y teachers have a responsibility to demand more professionalism in teaching.

Popularity: 20% [?]

  • Share/Bookmark

When business concepts don’t translate

Friday, January 8th, 2010

A new book about motivation raises interesting questions about how we translate (and in my opinion often mis-translate) business concepts into educational policy.

The book is “Drive: the Surprising Truth about What Motivates Us,” by Dan Pink. Pink’s Twitter-length summary: Carrots and sticks are so last century. Drive says for 21st-century work we need to upgrade to autonomy, mastery and purpose. By carrots and sticks, he means short-term punishments and rewards (e.g. cash bonuses) doled out in a tightly-controlled environment. Elaborating, he adds:

There is 40 years of science that says that for complex, conceptual, creative tasks—the sort of things that most white-collar workers are doing now that the more simple routine work can be offshore or automated—carrot and stick motivators don’t work. Or I should say they rarely work, and they often do harm. And this is not even close in the field of science.

Pink’s book is not about education. It is about business. But in this interview, he discusses the implications for school. His ideas interest me because, for more than a century, educators have been applying business models to schools. But it often seems to me that much is lost in translation.

Those in the education realm apply antiquated and discounted business models. Or they behave as if these models have been a silver bullet in the business realm when, in reality, they have worked imperfectly, or only under certain conditions.

Especially interesting is Pink’s take on performance pay for teachers. Before researching and writing his book, Pink supported the idea of teacher performance pay. His new take?

If you raise their base salaries and give them some autonomy, they’ll do that. If you also give either building principals or superintendents the ability to get rid of—and I am just estimating here—the 10% or 15% of teachers, like the 10% or 15% of any profession, who are duds, I think that is a simpler solution. It is not perfect, but it has far less collateral damage than tying [pay] to standardized test scores or doing these elaborate performance measurements.

Popularity: 25% [?]

  • Share/Bookmark

Arguments against merit pay

Monday, December 21st, 2009

“Is Merit Pay the Secret Sauce for Improving Teaching and Learning?” This article, written by Kim Marshall in Education Week, captures what I think are the key problems with merit pay.

1. Merit pay would stifle collaboration. For me this is the most important weakness with merit pay. If teachers are rewarded for their students’ performance, as compared to other teachers, this would negate the expressed incentive of pay for performance. Why would I want to share my successes with colleagues if it would undermine my pay?
2. There is no evidence that extra pay will make the best teachers work even harder or that it will improve mediocre teachers to work harder.
3. Standardized tests are instructionally insensitive and they focus on the wrong aspects of learning. If these are used to assess teachers, their use will become even more rampant.
4. Raising the stakes on tests encourages cheating.
5. Academically strong schools increase the amount of resources for struggling students. For example some students are pulled out of regular classrooms for additional reading instruction. Struggling students are identified and placed into intervention programs for additional time and support. How do you decide who gets the merit pay?
6. Good scores in 4th grade might be a result of the strong instruction of the 2nd or 3rd grade teacher? Don’t they deserve some of the pay?

Some ideas to deal with these shortcomings? How about rewarding entire staffs instead of individual teachers? This would encourage in-school collaboration and it would recognize the “It takes a village” approach to education and learning. Marshall also recommends salary increments to “master” teachers who mentor colleagues and serve as curriculum planners.

The bottom line according to Marshall is to “emulate the supervision and assessment approaches of our most effective schools and steer clear of the ineffective strategy of individual merit pay.”

Popularity: 22% [?]

  • Share/Bookmark

Radically re-thinking the teaching profession

Wednesday, November 25th, 2009

Between Denver’s ProComp and several other innovative school districts and charter schools, Colorado is one of the leaders in teacher compensation reform. But even where we are, close to the cutting edge on the national K-12 stage, are we perhaps thinking too small?

In a thought-provoking new Outlook piece for the American Enterprise Institute, Rick Hess makes a strong case for rewriting the job description of the teaching profession — including the matter of compensation:

In moving away from the familiar pay scale, it is not enough simply to add bonuses atop the existing arrangement. If teachers are tutoring over the web or providing support services, their compensation needs to be reshaped accordingly. Payment might be by the hour, for each student successfully served, or in some other fashion, but it requires systemic redesign that even radical reformers have yet to undertake.

In reading that passage, a more “radical” reformer like myself faces a powerful fancy to unsheathe the sword and take up the challenge. To read the entire essay, however, is to be appropriately humbled. In order to change how teachers are paid in a way that is bold and effective, we really do need to re-think the “mid-twentieth-century labor model” rooted in “industrial rhythms.”

Sure, it’s easier now than ever to malign the views of those who cling desperately to the meta-policy of class size reduction as a cure (this time it will work … I swear) to our ailing K-12 system, especially with a statistical gut-punch like this one:

If policymakers had maintained the same overall teacher-to-student ratio since the 1970s, we would need 1 million fewer teachers, training could be focused on a smaller and more able population, and average teacher pay would be close to $75,000 per year.

But a pursuit of that hypothetical path may have better illuminated the need to transform teaching into something more recognizable by those who inhabit the legal and medical professions. Put succinctly, Hess’s three main recommendations are:

  • Accommodate the need to extend and diversify the hiring pool beyond the traditional cadre of recent college graduates
  • Redesign staffing policies to recognize the differentiated skills and strengths of educators and focus their time on task in those areas, with capable support from other employees
  • Incorporate web-based and other computer technologies to break down barriers in how education is delivered, rather than merely as a way to “supplement” an existing approach

Writes Hess:

The key is to stop thinking of teaching as an all-or-nothing job and to create models that include the support and opportunity for steady part-timers who also have other obligations or complementary jobs.

Are we really ready to go there? Are we ready to move into the 21st century? If we’re serious about education reform, we ought to be.

Popularity: 18% [?]

  • Share/Bookmark

Gen Y teachers more open to performance pay

Monday, November 9th, 2009

It’s Monday, which can only mean it’s time to look at a new mildly interesting study from the world of education policy. (Okay, it doesn’t only mean that, but go with me nonetheless….)

A new focus group-based study by Public Agenda and Learning Point Associates finds a couple significant differences in views of “Generation Y” teachers. Most notably, the younger instructors express more favorability toward performance pay. Still not tremendous support, but significantly higher.

Which made me wonder if you conducted focus groups of any occupation, whether you’d find a majority of practitioners favoring more performance-based pay. Would you? The best performers likely would, but I’m not sure most people would.

In one of those not-too-odd coincidences, the Public Agenda page on this study used the very same stock photo as I did for my 2007 report on Denver’s ProComp performance pay system (PDF). Is there something about the classroom of students eagerly raising their hands in front of the attractive young Asian-American female teacher that screams merit-based compensation?

Anyway, leaving that digression behind, we come to this interesting finding: “Teachers’ concerns that unions sometimes protect seriously underperforming teachers have risen in recent years.” No significant difference between the Gen Y teachers and their older counterparts, but a growing trend across the board.

On the surface, it makes greater sense that more teachers favor cutting out the worst teachers than favor rewarding the best teachers. They’re less likely to be hurt by it.

So as I said, all in all, a mildly interesting study. One more piece of evidence to add to the policy pile.

On a side note: I did pause before this study with some confusion. It seems generally accepted that Generation Y includes those born between 1978 and 2000, which would exclude me. But the study reported Generation Y participants as those under the age of 33, which would include me. Hmmm….

Not that the views of someone my age alone on teacher performance pay and tenure could shift the findings much either way, but I’m just saying….

Popularity: 8% [?]

  • Share/Bookmark
Daniels fundColorado League of Charter SchoolsColorado Childrens CampaignCollege InvestPitton FoundationsDonnell-Kay Foundation