[Vision2020] an issue worthy of discussion?

[Mike Curley]

I have read pretty carefully the statements on this list 
regarding teacher compensation and have a passing 
knowledge of the local school district.  It seems to me that 
lost in the rhetoric at times are real kernel of potential 
enlightened discussion.  Sometimes it seems we are so 
busy arguing our "side" that no concession can be made to 
a rational point made by the "others."

I don't happen to agree that teachers are overpaid or 
underworked.  I don't agree that "annualizing" their 
salaries makes for a rational discussion (although I 
acknowledge that there are other ways to account for non-
work days).  

What I do think is worthy of discussion is the method by 
which teachers are compensated--and in the "sided" 
discussion there has actually been a bit of 
acknowledgment that there is room for consideration of 
other methods.  Dr. Wenders, Dale Courtney, et. al. are 
correct that the basic salary structure of the district (and 
most others in Idaho BTW) is a "grid."  Pay increases are 
based solely on two factors--years on the job and credits 
earned after a BA.  Every teacher who starts at the 
"bottom" of the pay scale will get an automatic salary 
increase each of the first seven years on the job, and 
additional increase after 10, 20, and 30 hours of credit post 
BA, an increase after an MA is received, and an increase 
for 10, 20, and 30 hours post MA.  At the BA + 30 hr level 
there are actually 10 annual "steps" of automatic increase, 
not just seven.  [Note, these increases are SEPARATE from 
the overall increase granted yearly by the school board--
when a 2% pay increase is announced, it applies to the 
whole grid)

Dr. Wenders makes two points that are worthy of 
consideration for their factual accuracy:  (a) experience 
beyond a 4 or 5 year period is not necessarily an indicator 
of increased teaching "value" or ability; and (b) post-
graduate degrees do not correlate to better teaching.  He 
has some data to back up those assertions, and although I 
expect one can argue certain points regarding the data, I 
also suspect that the data is essentially correct.  We 
cannot predict to a statistically significant probability that 
K-12 teachers with an MA +20 hrs. credit and 12 years' of 
teaching experience provide a better educational product 
(i.e., are better teachers than) K-12 teachers with 5 years' 
experience and a BA + 10 hrs credit.  BUT, one can also 
certainly argue that THOSE are not the reasons that the 
salary grid exists in its present form anyway.

The primary alternative to the double 
(experience/education) step-grid pay structure is some 
form of "merit" increases.  That would mean some form 
of evaluation and measurement that Teacher A did better 
than Teacher B and should, therefore, be more highly 
compensated the following year.  Additionally, account 
would have to be taken of the differences in 
measurement of success teaching English, Wood Shop 
(now called something different), and Drama.  For that 
matter some (Dr. Wenders included if I remember 
correctly) would argue that some positions should be paid 
more than others--perhaps Advanced Placement 
Chemistry teaching gets a higher base pay than, for 
example, teaching a class in Keyboarding.

And there is the conundrum.  Who assesses and How.   
The City of Moscow recently did away with its grid system 
for salaries.  Aside from the argument of whether salaries 
in Moscow should have been compared with those in 
Nampa, the issue of merit v. time-in-grade raises was 
resolved by the Council in favor of merit increases even 
though it was recognized that the evaluation process was  
likely to be less than perfect and might lead to some 
employee unhappiness.  If you are adamantly opposed to 
merit pay in any form, then Dr. Wenders' statistics mean 
nothing to you.  But if you can admit that there are some 
situations in which it is appropriate, then it is worthy of 
discussion regarding teachers before dismissing the idea 
out of hand.  And that discussion in no way assumes that 
teachers are overpaid or underworked.  The system of 
pay and the amount of pay are two different things.

There are obvious advantages to merit pay increases.  
There are some obvious drawbacks.  Are the drawbacks 
insurmountable?  I guess we won't know if we don't talk 
about them.  Are the drawbacks of the best merit system 
we could fashion worse than the drawbacks of the current 
system?  Again, hard to tell if we don't at least talk about it.

Just for the record, while the formal "tenure" period may 
be three years at MSD, the realistic period is one year.  
And since administrators have to expect that a first-year 
teacher will improve, they are (appropriately) loathe to 
recommend not renewing the contract of ANY about-to-
be-second-year teacher.    The reality is that anyone hired 
by MSD stays at MSD unless there is a reduction in force.

However much one wants to argue about public schools 
and the inability to fire underperforming teachers, it is 
unrealistic to blame the local district or expect them to do 
much about it.  Idaho Code and the cases that have been 
determined in the courts make it very difficult to fire a 
teacher--and the local union (doing the job it's supposed to 
do) challenges every dismissal/firing by filing a lawsuit on 
behalf of the aggrieved employee.  

 Note that a merit pay system would not necessarily mean 
underperformers would be "fired."  They simply wouldn't 
make as much as they otherwise might.  And further note 
that a teacher's pay cannot go down--by Idaho state law.  
So, if I get to a level that sustains my lifestyle and I don't 
get any pay raises, maybe I still choose to "skate" until 
retirement if that would be my MO under the current 
system.  

Food for thought--merit pay v. salary grid?

What if teachers (the union) were allowed to figure out 
the evaluation system for merit increases?  What if 
teachers had a voice in the administration of the system?

Mike Curley