Paying Teachers What They're Worth
A few years before I joined the Legislature, I heard Tom Hatch speak. It was at a time that teachers were threatening to strike. A teacher demanded, "When will you pay us what we're worth?" Tom answered, "When you let us."
It is an odd phenomenon that the best teachers go along with collective bargaining agreements and don't demand to be paid more than mediocre or even bad teachers.
Saturday I heard Rick Hess speak about education reform. In his work, A Better Bargain, he makes the following points about collective bargaining contracts:
1. They restrict efforts to use compensation as a tool to recruit, reward, and retain the most essential and effective teachers.
2. They impede attempts to assign or remove teachers on the basis of fit or performance.
3. They over-regulate school life with work rules that stifle creative problem solving without demonstrably improving teachers’ ability to serve students.
Hess argues that collective bargaining agreements should be modified in 5 important ways:
1. Teacher pay should reflect the scarcity and value of teachers’ skills, the difficulty of their assignments, the extent of their responsibilities, and the caliber of their work.
2. Pension and health benefits should resemble those offered by other organizations
competing for college-educated professionals, which will entail shifting from industrial-era defined-benefit plans to defined-contribution plans better suited to the new economy and a professional workforce.
3. While reasonable safeguards are essential, tenure should be eliminated from K–12
schooling or, at a minimum, contracts and state laws should be modified to enable
management to more readily remove ineffective educators.
4. Personnel should be assigned to schools on the basis of educational need rather
than seniority.
5. Work rules should be weeded out of contracts, and contracts should explicitly define managerial prerogatives.
It is an odd phenomenon that the best teachers go along with collective bargaining agreements and don't demand to be paid more than mediocre or even bad teachers.
Saturday I heard Rick Hess speak about education reform. In his work, A Better Bargain, he makes the following points about collective bargaining contracts:
1. They restrict efforts to use compensation as a tool to recruit, reward, and retain the most essential and effective teachers.
2. They impede attempts to assign or remove teachers on the basis of fit or performance.
3. They over-regulate school life with work rules that stifle creative problem solving without demonstrably improving teachers’ ability to serve students.
Hess argues that collective bargaining agreements should be modified in 5 important ways:
1. Teacher pay should reflect the scarcity and value of teachers’ skills, the difficulty of their assignments, the extent of their responsibilities, and the caliber of their work.
2. Pension and health benefits should resemble those offered by other organizations
competing for college-educated professionals, which will entail shifting from industrial-era defined-benefit plans to defined-contribution plans better suited to the new economy and a professional workforce.
3. While reasonable safeguards are essential, tenure should be eliminated from K–12
schooling or, at a minimum, contracts and state laws should be modified to enable
management to more readily remove ineffective educators.
4. Personnel should be assigned to schools on the basis of educational need rather
than seniority.
5. Work rules should be weeded out of contracts, and contracts should explicitly define managerial prerogatives.
posted by steve u. at 6/04/2006
Subscribe
37 Comments:
The good ones are making an exodus out of the system, and your trying too explain why you pay then so poorly in an attempt to take the blame off of your failued republican leadership.
Go build a parking lot.
Yes, I know -- Republicans bad, Democrats good. But what about collective bargaining? In a year with an 11-13% increase in public education spending, it would be healthy in many ways for extra amounts of that money to go to the best teachers. I'm interested in commentary on whether that would be good policy.
11-13%, another bare minimum. I never said Democrats good. But I will say "Bad Republicans, Bad!"
Maybe it is time to take a look at Democrats, thanks for the idea.
Sounds like Vern has been drinking the union kool aid. Let's pay teachers based on results like the rest of the world.
However, how would we determine what teachers were "good?"
If we did it by kids getting good grades, then teachers would simply hand out more "A"s.
If we did it by test scores, there would be corruption in the testing system (there already is under NCLB).
However, if there was a concrete measuring stick for how much a teacher truly influences a student's life, then I'm all for using that.
-Bob
In virtually every other profession, executives, administrators, etc., evaluate the performance of their staff. Is teaching any different? If so, how? Why can't principals, superintendents, etc., perform performance evaluations similar to management in other professions?
If teachers want to be paid more, they need to loose the "union mentality", and accept the risks and rewards that come from having their pay based on their performance.
A teacher's performance is far more than test scores. What about customer (read parent) satisfaction, ability to work with one's peers, attitude, work ethic, willingness to go the extra mile, staying late, arriving early, and all of the other criteria that could be utilized?
Bob,
You raise the key issue. Though I don't pretend to have THE answer, it seems that criteria could be put in place by which principals evaluate personnel. (If these aren't already in place, something is very wrong).
Some injustices would occur in evaluations and compensation decisions. The trick is to minimize the errors. It would help to evaluate the evaluators. Principals with good results likely are making good personnel decisions. Those with poor results likely aren't -- and should be invited back into the classroom where, typically, they did excell.
Correcting any bad reflection on my elementary school English teachers, the word I meant to use was "excel".
Since teaching is very subjective, the best way to determine what a teacher is worth is to give prinicpals more freedom to set salaries. They know who the best teachers are (just like parents do. Haven't you ever wanted your kids to have a specific teacher because you knew how effective she was, regardless of how well her kids did on the latest standardized test?).
Paying teachers in this fashion is exactly how every other professional is paid--your boss determines how much your work is worth to achieving the company's goals.
But even this is not enough. To really have a pay system that awards the best teachers, we need school choice as well (i.e. vouchers or tuition tax-credits). Couple this with a system that lets principals have more say in how much a teacher makes and you'll see them doing everything they can (including increasing salaries) to make sure that they have the best staff in the area so that they can attract more students to their school.
Our current system is broke because it tries to work from the top-down. Yes, I admit that we have a definite funding problem, but even if we didn't, we'd still have the same problem of mediocre teachers being paid the same as the teachers who excel. This leaves no one with many incentives to do better. I can't imagine how the teachers who work their tails off put up with a pay system that shows them no respect. I'd leave, too.
And to "Republican Vern," can we grow up a bit and make constructive comments? I think Rep. Urquhart is being sincere about wanting to make meaningful education reforms.
What is to prevent the "bad old days" system coming back where rather than representing themselves individual in negotiations with management as is represented in your ideal world shown here, folks were pitted against each other and forced to take wages that were far far lower because someone else out there would do it for cheaper? Ideally your system would be great, but that counts on a perfect boss who desires to pay his employees what they are worth and for them to hire people who really would do the job rather than just taking a low wage because they need the work.
I would like to see the legislature *and* the UEA think outside the box for a change. I agree that parents and principals and the UEA should be able to evaluate a teacher based on performance. Those of us who *choose* to send our kids to public schools would feel great about having the ability to really be involved, and we would feel good about the public school system again.
One of my kids had a drama teacher this past year, worst drama teacher in the history of theater. Nothing inspiring about this teacher, nothing done well, everything mediocre. Our public schools should *never* be mediocre. I think said teacher should be outa there, and I think if parents took an active role in providing audits of the teachers in conjunction with principals, local school boards, AND the UEA, it would be an easy thing to decide who was best and who wasn't. Those who are the best get paid what they are worth. It would weed the mediocre ones out. The UEA could provide training and etc. to help these teachers not be mediocre, too. Anybody who wants to keep their job will go above and beyond.
We also really need to take a good hard look at how we are funding this thing. Are we really giving it our all?
If the system that adam dynes and anonymous suggested were used, I would be fired because I opposed the extreme liberal math program called Investigations in Alpine S.D. Many teachers were afraid of being ousted under the current system. When you state that principals know who the best teachers are, you don't understand that most principals are hired based on the political philosophy of the district administration. Teachers would be evaluated based on the political correctness rather than on their abilities. There are more politics in the district offices than there is in the legislature! About every 20 years we really dig into the merit pay and get rid of tenure issues. When you dig down below the attractive surface, we've always walked away because the alternatives are worse. If we move that way farther we will end up having every decision made in court.
Once again, a system with REAL school choice options for parents would help alleviate the problems pointed out by the two anonymouses.
The first anonymous says that management will give lower wages to save a buck and then the good teachers will lose out. But if parents had school choice, the schools' hiring the lower qualified teachers would be the ones to lose out because parents would realize that their children were receiving a lesser education and send their kids to a better school. And if you doubt that parents know enough to figure out who the good teachers are, then read what the 2nd anonymous had to say.
This is the beauty of school choice--it works from the bottom up. Schools have to meet the demands of the customer (the parents and students) and have real accountability.
And to the 2nd anonymous, if schools operated in a more market-like environment and had to earn students and the money that followed them, you would see schools created that would meet your child's need for a better theatre arts teacher. Hopefully, we'll have a system one day that can more adequately respond to the needs of ALL of the people it is supposed to serve.
Last anon,
Great points. Along with reform, I push for increased public education funding whenever I can. But I fully recognize that it is a balance. Because education takes up such a huge chunk of the budget, other areas would have to be slashed to keep up the pace the Legislature has set the past 2 years. And, the money would come from the 2 other big growth areas of government -- medicaid and transportation. You saw the outcry last week when an optional medicaid program wasn't enhanced; magnify that by a lot, if we start talking about slowing the growth of the core medicaid program.
Incidentally, many local school districts have the ability to raise additional revenues under their voted leeway. They simply choose not to, because of the political heat they would take; it is easier to pound on the Legislature.
You are absolutely right that we need to think outside the box. Toward that end, I appreciate the dialogue on this blog on the many education posts I've posted. It is helpful.
But, I'd like to have some tool or format that better involves parents, citizens, and teachers who want to explore constructive solutions. A wiki? A citizens' symposium? I need some help on this one. Ideas please.
Wow! Lots of comments today. I directed my last post at the 1:12 anon.
And what happens in Panguitch where no private school wants to set up shop because it is not a money making proposition? It is a bit unrealistic to say that all our problems are going to be solved by school choice.
Panguitch Pete
Once again, if you had school choice the Investigations Math thing would not be a problem because if you did get fired by Alpine for opposing them, you'd be picked up the new schools created to meet the demands of parents for a math system that works for their kids. And from what I've seen from the whole Alpine fiasco, a lot of parents in that district are looking for alternatives. Unfortunately, the supply of alternatives does not meet the demand for them. That's why I support more school choice reforms.
Let's avoid calling parents and students "customers." They are not customers. They participate actively in their children's and their own education and are given assignemtns and graded on performance. Such actions rarely happen in the mall, my friends--a market system where "the customer is always right" and one is buying a product. It is dangerous to throw around marketplace metaphors in something that is clearly not a marketplace. Yes I understand that you are paying for education either through tuition or through taxes but it is not at all the same thing as going to a grocery store and buying a product and teachers are not simply purveyors of a product nor are students that product.
Panguitch Pete
Panguitch Pete -
Anon #2, here. I agree with you. We need to realize we are talking about people's lives here, and children and parents are NOT customers, and we don't want teachers bending over backwards to please parents. No parent-pandering!
I also agree that educational choice does not do any good in your area, or even in larger communities like Cedar City where the Iron County School District is the 2nd largest employer in the county.
I am also a big proponent of public schools. As I said before, I *choose* to send my children to public schools. I attended public schools. I would, however, like to see some of our teachers do better. As I see it, I am paying taxes so that these people can make a living, and I want to take advantage of a service that the State of Utah provides. As a taxpayer I am willing to pay *whatever* they feel they are worth if they can indeed prove that they are worth it.
So, do you agree that we need to get creative, here? I think that we all miss the boat when we want to do things in the "same-ole, same-ole" way.
What do you think we should do to ensure we get the very best teachers? I know it is not easy to fire state employees, is it the same with teachers? What kind of standards do we expect from them now, and what are we doing to make our public education system the best in the nation? If we could accomplish that, it would be something to be proud of.
This is a real tough one, of course, since in rural places like Panguitch you might just have to put up with what you get. In any case I think that the way you get the best out of anyone is to challenge them. This includes not only the teacher but also the administration of a school and a school district. Principals should also be in this equation too--not just the teacher. Principals, superintendants and the like should be leaders who are rewarded for creating an environment that fosters good teaching. They should have at their disposal the tools and resources necessary to do that. They should also, as well, have the resources to get rid of teachers who are not performing up to standards. We should not assume, however, worst case scenarios with teachers--nor should we focus solely on the bad apples on the tree. We should help teachers improve in their craft and challenge them where necessary. We should also, however, be willing to pay the price that having top-notch teachers entails. Now, of course, weather this is at a private or public school doesn't really matter.
I really don't want to address the idea of school choice here since I'm not sure it can really work well in most of Utah outside the Wasatch Front. Keep in mind that our tax dollars are shared throughout the state for a reason: it prevents small communities from being continually victims of small rural economies and very little funds to go around. Do you really want a have and have-not state on your hands again?
Panguitch Pete
I do agree with you on all points. I also agree that in anywhere *but* the Wasatch Front, school choice is a moot point.
Anon #2
Panguitch Pete,
You bring up some legitimate concerns about school choice. First, I don't think that school choice is the end all for education reforms, but I think it will help us better resolve many of the problems that have been addresses in the comments about this blog entry. Also, I think that by having more school choice, we'll better be able to find solutions to the many problems that our schools face, but the first step (from what I've seen in education research and reform) is to attach money to children and not to a system. If you doubt this, please check out the information about the Milwaukee voucher program as provided at schoolchoiceinfo.org (look under the school facts section). You'll see that student performance increased as a result, student spending per pupil in the public schools increased, local control of public school money increased (95% of the public school budgets are now dictated by the school itself), and parent satisfaction went through the roof. Even the superintendents of the Milwaukee School District had to admit that providing real school choice for all parents helped the public schools to improve. The reason I tout school choice so much is because it works.
Concerning Panguitch, I assume there are about 500 to 800 school aged children. Well, in the Milwaukee voucher program, many small, community sized private schools developed once vouchers were available. Before that, there were hardly any private schools because no one in the inner city could afford them, but with vouchers, it was made possible. With 500 to 800 students in one town, I'm sure that there are parents who are looking for some other options to meet their children's education needs. Even if the number of students were 30 or 50 that wanted to go to a different school, with vouchers that would be possible. And as demonstrated by the Milwaukee voucher program, even if there was no demand for a private school in Panguitch (or enough interest for one to be created) you would still see an overall increase in the amount of money spent per student in the entire public school system as a result of students in other areas of Utah opting to use a voucher (which would cost less per student than what Utah currently spends per student).
Concerning markets, I think we've done harm to our public education system by somehow thinking of it as an entity that is above or beyond the grasp of market prinicples. Whether you like or not, our current system is a monopoly. As such, it provides lower quality goods at a higher price. This economic fact cannot be escaped (the USSR didn't escape it, and neither will our schools) In every other serivce based industry, healthy competition has driven down costs and improved the quality of the services provided. It allows for innovation. Heavy-handed mandates from the state legislature rarely do.
You say that it's dangerous to throw around marketplace metaphors in something that clearly is not a marketplace, but what I'm saying is that schools already function in a market. Unfortunately, most of that market is controlled by a government monopoly. That's partly why you see the best public schools in the wealthy neighborhoods--these schools are already competing in a market to provide the best education service. Unfortunately, parents in poorer communities don't have the option to move to a new neighborhood or pay private school tuition to have another option. Their public schools don't face any competition. If they don't perform, the parents in those neighborhoods have no other choice but to continue to send their kids to that school.
It's hard for me to understand how schools can be exempt from the principles of competition and accountability that every other service providing industry faces. I think that because we have tried to separate schools from the reality of market forces is why an education crisis is beginning to develop across the nation. By denying that markets can or do play a role in the school system, we have denied ourselves access to a plethora of solutions to the problems our schools face.
It's tough to keep school choice out of any education discussion. While that is an important issue, let's fight the urge here. I think the collaborative bargaining issue is the same w/ or w/o school choice and has sufficient importance to be discussed.
I respectively disagree. Even if you break the chains of collective bargaining, you won't get very far without adding school choice to the formula.
For example, you mention that principals should evaluate personnel and that a system should be set up to outline how that evaluation shoulc occur and how the principals should be evaluated to ensure good evaluations on their part, etc.
In this conversation, school choice plays a major role because it is a very viable way to ensure accountability with how the principals evaluate their teachers. In fact, it's probably the better way to ensure good evaluations because it works from the bottom-up and allows for direct accountability to parents. If the principal doesn't evaluate well, and can't keep a good staff by having competitive pay (and doind all of the other things mentioned by Rick Hess) then he will lose parents and students.
The system you suggest just creates another department at the district level, and once again, puts bureaucrats in the driver's seat instead of parents.
I agree that we should focus on collective bargaining, but to say that the collective bargaining issue is the same regardless of school choice is inaccurate. They go hand in hand.
But since this is your blog, I'll refrain from anymore school choice talk (I just had to get my last two cents in there before I left). And I should add, I'm impressed with what you've said so far and with the topic that you've brought up. It's essential that something better is worked out.
A blog should be a public forum. So, I am reluctant to direct the discussion. You, Adam, have as much right as anyone to comment here, and I appreciate your participation. Therefore, if you feel strongly that the 2 must be discussed together, go for it. Like everyone else, I need to be taught, so teach away.
I tend to quickly factor political feasibility into my considerations. And, I can't see that these two big concepts could pass coupled together into one bill. Therefore, I gravitate toward separate discussions. But, I'm just glad we're having the discussion.
Doesn't getting rid of collective bargaining entail that management is going to act in a fair and ethical way towards the employee? The reason that people collectively bargain is that employers don't always treat their employees fairly and will, as I said before, go for the cheapest wage. I don't think we can trust that people in charge are going to always act in the best interests of children more than they will act in the best interest of their (albeit) collective pocketbook. In an ideal world those people in charge would negotiate fairly with each teacher rather than play each teacher off each other. As you know we don't live anywhere near an ideal world. People collectivize for protection against a much more powerful team of people (those in charge of all the education dollars in this case) than they. Yes a big union such as UEA can be a pain in the neck, buut a system of fat-cat educational mongers (such as a system we had before collective bargaining) is no good either. Yes we need some fresh thinking here and we need to figure out what is fair for everyone and not just assume collective bargaining is bad because it involves unions etc.
"Management" in this case, ultimately, consists of elected school board members. Your neighbors. I think they'll do the right thing.
Except for one bigoted drivers education teacher, my experience with my public school educators was fantastic.
The "union mentality" is not the problem. Once again you demonize teachers in the attempt to privatize education to help a few pals line their pockets.
Bad Republicans, Bad!
By the way, that bigot was a republican who voted for Nixon, and loved Reagan.
Actually the bosses here often are a legislature that has shown itself to be patently anti-employee. In Utah it is far easier to get a 75 million dollar building funded than it is to get one employee. The mistrust of people or common employees in this state is boggling.
I'm the anonymous who was talking about collective bargaining: yes ultimately the boss in this case is the electorate, but there are many levels of management between the actual teacher and the representatives of the people on the school board. School boards in very small districts might take more direct control and work with individuals but in very large school districts this would be impossible and probably should be. What we are talking about is the management of principals and superintendants and, indeed, school district administration. Those people too are ultimately accountable to the Board, but they too seem to have precious-little review and seem to become members of an untouchable club. I guess what I am saying is that you can't just pick on teachers collectivized or not in this case. The whole system needs to be examined.
Big companies end up with strong unions, because when it's so big, management and employee are not concerned about each other and tend to take advantage of each other, even if unintentionally, thus the need for unions to protect employees in big organizations. The bigger the districts the more union problems and entrenchment of the union. This is the real problem. Solve the size issue and you solve the union issue. But don't just hurt the employees by allowing big organizations and at the same time taking away employee protections. They have accumulated for good reason.
"Incidentally, many local school districts have the ability to raise additional revenues under their voted leeway. They simply choose not to, because of the political heat they would take; it is easier to pound on the Legislature." From your post above.
Some school boards see not maxing out the leeway as responsible stewardship. I am a school board member and our board has had many conversations about keeping a cushion in our voted leeway because we're not sure what the next legislative session will bring. Our constituents have been generous with voluntary donations; they know it does take money to improve our schools. When and if we do chose to increase our voted leeway it will be an indication that we have resorted to finally using our "savings." Our taxpayers will support a tax increase but I will see it as a failure to provide for the children in our community. Please keep the dialogue open, your comment is presumptive and antagonistic toward the public education community.
Thanks.
To Anon, 9:28,
I'm confused why raising taxes will be seen as a failure? You say that your constituents understand that it costs money to provide quality education so why would it be a failure for you to raise taxes? Isn't that why you're given that power so that you can meet the needs of your community and not have to rely on the state legislature to decide how much your schools do or don't need? Or is it just the leg's responsibility to raise taxes for education? I'm confused. Your comments seem to validate what steve u. was saying in the first place. Please explain your arguments better so that we don't all missunderstand.
9:28 anon,
Sorry, if the voted leeway comment hit you wrong. I don't know which school district you're with, so I can't comment on your situation. But, the comment is factual -- though re-reading it I see that I make the too-common mistake of painting with an overly-broad brush.
The comment was, "Incidentally, many local school districts have the ability to raise additional revenues under their voted leeway. They simply choose not to, because of the political heat they would take; it is easier to pound on the Legislature."
For some districts that comment is correct and, as the anonymous school board member argues, in some it is not.
Granted that education is important and all, but why the sudden interest in this post, do you think? Is it the matter of labor put in there as well?
While personally I don't agree with your position on labor issues, I am interested more in what makes a blog post subject to comment and others are not. This, of course, is way off topic from your subject, but I thought I would just let you know I am studying your blog and how people interact on it. (It is a professional subject of mine, not just a silly hobby.)
Don't know. Interesting though, isn't it? The title is a touch provocative. Maybe that has something to do with it.
<< Home