Commentary on 'Shortchanged: The Hidden Costs of Lockstep Teacher Pay'
This commentary was contained in an August 2014 letter to the Board of Education negotiating team by Beth Thompson, a parent of two Reynoldsburg students who teaches in Columbus schools.
Recently, the district released a study http://www.reyn.org/Downloads/TNTP_Shortchanged_2014.pdf titled “Shortchanged: The Hidden Costs of Teacher Lockstep Pay”. Since this document is being used to promote the idea of merit pay as proposed in the recent teacher contract, I will assume you have all read the document carefully and have discussed it. As you prepare to head back to the negotiating table, I offer my thoughts regarding the document. Please take the time to read my analysis. You will see that, though I am critical of the document at first, there are later points which I support.
First, I must say that the authors make quite a few assumptions without providing facts to back them up, and these assumptions have little to do with our situation here in Reynoldsburg. For example, “Even people willing to look past the low starting salaries are turned off by the profession’s low expectations and willingness to reward mediocrity.” (Introduction) First, the authors assume that communities have low expectations for teachers, which obviously is not the case here in our Excellent school district- we are a far cry from mediocre! I had to ask myself, how many poor to mediocre teachers are floating about, that there is enough housekeeping to do that merit pay should be instituted? And I found an answer, in the references at the bottom of the same page: “3 Even if we conservatively assume that around 96 percent of teachers are effective—the approximate finding across sites where TNTP has worked—that still leaves 4 percent who are rated ineffective." So, let's put them all on a merit based plan to weed out four percent, is that the plan? Why don't we instead work with teachers to develop a plan for helping struggling teachers to improve, and making a clear set of expectations about what that looks like, then having consequences if they don't meet those objectives?
Then, the authors make comparisons to other professions which I believe to be apples-to-oranges rather than apples-to-apples. From page 2: “For example, biologists and biology teachers in Chicago—professionals with similar interests and educational backgrounds—earn similar salaries in their first year (Figure 2). But by their 10th year, biologists can expect to have more than doubled their salaries, while
biology teachers will have seen their salaries rise by only 45 percent.” This could be explained by the funding source- public tax dollars vs. a company that makes a profit or has investors with deep pockets. It is not a simple comparison but a multifaceted one, yet the authors fail to explain any other possible differences in salaries between the two professions. On the next page, the authors present similar information in graphic form, with the caption, "and teacher salaries grow slowly, even in critical-need subjects like science." The implication seems to be that ‘critical-need’ subjects and those who teach them should be paid more than other, not so valuable subjects. So what's next, social studies isn't a 'critical need' so we pay social studies teachers less? This is a slippery slope.
Later, additional charts and graphs are used to compare teacher salaries, using misleading labels. On page 5, the graph shows the pay differential between teachers at 5 years vs. 20 years, whatever their rating. However, the columns are labeled ‘20-Year Ineffective Teacher’ vs. ‘5-Year Highly Effective
Teacher’. It's not as if bad teachers are really paid more than good teachers, as is implied, simply the difference in pay related to longevity. In their narrative, the authors add, "In one typical urban district, ineffective teachers with 20 years of experience earn nearly 60 percent more than highly effective teachers with five years of experience for fulfilling identical responsibilities (Figure 3)" (p. 4)
This sounds terrible, until one reflects back on the authors' own footnote that only 4% of teachers are rated ineffective. In another compelling graphic organizer on p. 7 of the document, it is lamented that teachers are paid the same regardless of demographics of school/district. I’m not sure where one draws the line as to which schools struggle enough for the teachers there to be paid more, but I’m certainly not against paying teachers more money to work in high-needs areas.
On page 8, teacher pay tied to earning advanced degrees is discussed: "Yet nearly 90 percent of teachers with master’s degrees hold those credentials in areas that have no proven benefit to student achievement." I tried, unsuccessfully, to find a citation on that one, because I'm not sure how teachers who learn more about how kids learn best do not benefit those children. The authors provide no evidence to back up that particular claim- I wonder, which credentials were tied to student benefit? How does one 'prove' the benefit of further education? The next page contains only the following, on a full page: "Last year, schools spent an estimated $8.5 billion on raises for teachers due to master’s degrees— enough to cover the cost of school nutrition programs for more than 15 million students." I'm really not sure how the two are related. First the authors seem to argue that we should pay teachers more, then they imply the money should go to feeding hungry kids. This is a glaring example of a propaganda technique designed to tug at the reader’s emotions, rather than a valid argument.
Soon thereafter, the authors get into the meat of their proposal, and explain their thoughts regarding revamping the pay structure we are most familiar with. I find it hard to believe that the community and the taxpayers would embrace their philosophy that a teacher, “… should be able to earn six figures within six years in high-cost markets or the market equivalent in areas where the cost of living is lower.” (p.11) Are you proposing that teachers make upwards of $100,000? If that were the case, teachers may find your proposal less offensive, but those details have not been forthcoming. The authors’ ideas, frankly, are much more concrete regarding compensation than the plan presented for consideration by the REA. If the district was truly interested in restructuring teacher salaries, why weren’t details given?
In the case studies summarized starting on p. 17, several scenarios were laid out. Each is markedly different from the proposal put before REA, to eliminate the current salary schedule completely and to rely on one measure, the OTES, for an accountability tool. I must insist, again, that you consider that OTES is only a year old, and that the value added measures used for some teachers will be changing dramatically with the implementation of the PARCC and new Ohio tests this coming year. To me, this means that logically, we should allow some time to see how OTES and PARCC are working, before using those tools to provide pay increases or not. As evidence, in another footnote, I found that “Sabine Parish has suspended their value-added stipend due to the hold on VAM by the LDOE for the next
two years; therefore, they will not be providing any stipends for transitional student growth data during this two-year transition period.” (p. 22) Clearly, that district recognizes the changes inherent to the new testing structure that is aligned to the Common Core. The Achievement First model adds a support structure for teachers, clearly outlining how beginning teachers will be mentored and offered professional development, while master teachers can influence professional development offerings. Correct me if I am mistaken, but hasn’t the REA asked for professional development and been denied? There are also examples given on page 22 of smaller districts which have allowed for flexibility in their ratings systems, to award stipends and bonuses without going to an all-or-nothing approach. Some schools even use a combination of base salary increased plus merit increases. To be fair, schools were cited which did sound similar to the proposal offered here, but good advice was also given.
One major recommendation of this study is to significantly raise a starting teacher’s salary. Nothing of that nature was mentioned in the negotiating team’s proposal to REA. Here's another piece of advice that isn't contained in the district's proposal: "To limit transition costs, districts may need to phase in the new system, increasing starting salaries and implementing performance-based salary bumps slowly…” (p. 14) Slowing the process seems a logical idea. Another interesting item from this article suggests that salary and benefits should be FIXED COSTS, "The overall compensation model should include costs that are both fixed (salary/benefits) and variable (bonus/stipends) so that in times of funding shortfalls or shifting priorities, districts can adjust variable costs to avoid a budget gap." These considerations should have been part of the district’s proposal to the teachers.
I urge you to reread pages 24 and 25 (“Implementation Considerations”) carefully, as I believe they contain valuable advice that could have saved the community from some of the upheaval we are currently experiencing. Some pertinent statements include using a trusted teacher evaluation tool and providing clear recourse for teachers with concerns about their evaluation. Communication, it is emphasized, is key: engaging the community, using surveys, clearly explaining not only a rationale but a timeline and implementation plan, helping teachers to see what the differences in their paychecks will be, and allowing educators a way to have their concerns and preferences noted and questions answered. This last piece has me concerned, as the last Board meeting seemed to make it clear that a trusting system between teachers and administrators does not exist here in Reynoldsburg.
Simply stated, a move to a merit-based pay structure is a huge undertaking, and the current contract proposal takes a very simplified approach to it. There is not buy-in from much of the community, and teachers were not consulted so that they could have a say in the design of such a structure (they are the experts in student achievement, after all). I urge you to take a deep breath, settle a fair contract with teachers soon that utilizes the existing salary and benefit schedule, and if you so desire, create a realistic timeline for a team-based approach to designing a different structure that the whole community can support.
Respectfully,
Beth Thompson
Recently, the district released a study http://www.reyn.org/Downloads/TNTP_Shortchanged_2014.pdf titled “Shortchanged: The Hidden Costs of Teacher Lockstep Pay”. Since this document is being used to promote the idea of merit pay as proposed in the recent teacher contract, I will assume you have all read the document carefully and have discussed it. As you prepare to head back to the negotiating table, I offer my thoughts regarding the document. Please take the time to read my analysis. You will see that, though I am critical of the document at first, there are later points which I support.
First, I must say that the authors make quite a few assumptions without providing facts to back them up, and these assumptions have little to do with our situation here in Reynoldsburg. For example, “Even people willing to look past the low starting salaries are turned off by the profession’s low expectations and willingness to reward mediocrity.” (Introduction) First, the authors assume that communities have low expectations for teachers, which obviously is not the case here in our Excellent school district- we are a far cry from mediocre! I had to ask myself, how many poor to mediocre teachers are floating about, that there is enough housekeeping to do that merit pay should be instituted? And I found an answer, in the references at the bottom of the same page: “3 Even if we conservatively assume that around 96 percent of teachers are effective—the approximate finding across sites where TNTP has worked—that still leaves 4 percent who are rated ineffective." So, let's put them all on a merit based plan to weed out four percent, is that the plan? Why don't we instead work with teachers to develop a plan for helping struggling teachers to improve, and making a clear set of expectations about what that looks like, then having consequences if they don't meet those objectives?
Then, the authors make comparisons to other professions which I believe to be apples-to-oranges rather than apples-to-apples. From page 2: “For example, biologists and biology teachers in Chicago—professionals with similar interests and educational backgrounds—earn similar salaries in their first year (Figure 2). But by their 10th year, biologists can expect to have more than doubled their salaries, while
biology teachers will have seen their salaries rise by only 45 percent.” This could be explained by the funding source- public tax dollars vs. a company that makes a profit or has investors with deep pockets. It is not a simple comparison but a multifaceted one, yet the authors fail to explain any other possible differences in salaries between the two professions. On the next page, the authors present similar information in graphic form, with the caption, "and teacher salaries grow slowly, even in critical-need subjects like science." The implication seems to be that ‘critical-need’ subjects and those who teach them should be paid more than other, not so valuable subjects. So what's next, social studies isn't a 'critical need' so we pay social studies teachers less? This is a slippery slope.
Later, additional charts and graphs are used to compare teacher salaries, using misleading labels. On page 5, the graph shows the pay differential between teachers at 5 years vs. 20 years, whatever their rating. However, the columns are labeled ‘20-Year Ineffective Teacher’ vs. ‘5-Year Highly Effective
Teacher’. It's not as if bad teachers are really paid more than good teachers, as is implied, simply the difference in pay related to longevity. In their narrative, the authors add, "In one typical urban district, ineffective teachers with 20 years of experience earn nearly 60 percent more than highly effective teachers with five years of experience for fulfilling identical responsibilities (Figure 3)" (p. 4)
This sounds terrible, until one reflects back on the authors' own footnote that only 4% of teachers are rated ineffective. In another compelling graphic organizer on p. 7 of the document, it is lamented that teachers are paid the same regardless of demographics of school/district. I’m not sure where one draws the line as to which schools struggle enough for the teachers there to be paid more, but I’m certainly not against paying teachers more money to work in high-needs areas.
On page 8, teacher pay tied to earning advanced degrees is discussed: "Yet nearly 90 percent of teachers with master’s degrees hold those credentials in areas that have no proven benefit to student achievement." I tried, unsuccessfully, to find a citation on that one, because I'm not sure how teachers who learn more about how kids learn best do not benefit those children. The authors provide no evidence to back up that particular claim- I wonder, which credentials were tied to student benefit? How does one 'prove' the benefit of further education? The next page contains only the following, on a full page: "Last year, schools spent an estimated $8.5 billion on raises for teachers due to master’s degrees— enough to cover the cost of school nutrition programs for more than 15 million students." I'm really not sure how the two are related. First the authors seem to argue that we should pay teachers more, then they imply the money should go to feeding hungry kids. This is a glaring example of a propaganda technique designed to tug at the reader’s emotions, rather than a valid argument.
Soon thereafter, the authors get into the meat of their proposal, and explain their thoughts regarding revamping the pay structure we are most familiar with. I find it hard to believe that the community and the taxpayers would embrace their philosophy that a teacher, “… should be able to earn six figures within six years in high-cost markets or the market equivalent in areas where the cost of living is lower.” (p.11) Are you proposing that teachers make upwards of $100,000? If that were the case, teachers may find your proposal less offensive, but those details have not been forthcoming. The authors’ ideas, frankly, are much more concrete regarding compensation than the plan presented for consideration by the REA. If the district was truly interested in restructuring teacher salaries, why weren’t details given?
In the case studies summarized starting on p. 17, several scenarios were laid out. Each is markedly different from the proposal put before REA, to eliminate the current salary schedule completely and to rely on one measure, the OTES, for an accountability tool. I must insist, again, that you consider that OTES is only a year old, and that the value added measures used for some teachers will be changing dramatically with the implementation of the PARCC and new Ohio tests this coming year. To me, this means that logically, we should allow some time to see how OTES and PARCC are working, before using those tools to provide pay increases or not. As evidence, in another footnote, I found that “Sabine Parish has suspended their value-added stipend due to the hold on VAM by the LDOE for the next
two years; therefore, they will not be providing any stipends for transitional student growth data during this two-year transition period.” (p. 22) Clearly, that district recognizes the changes inherent to the new testing structure that is aligned to the Common Core. The Achievement First model adds a support structure for teachers, clearly outlining how beginning teachers will be mentored and offered professional development, while master teachers can influence professional development offerings. Correct me if I am mistaken, but hasn’t the REA asked for professional development and been denied? There are also examples given on page 22 of smaller districts which have allowed for flexibility in their ratings systems, to award stipends and bonuses without going to an all-or-nothing approach. Some schools even use a combination of base salary increased plus merit increases. To be fair, schools were cited which did sound similar to the proposal offered here, but good advice was also given.
One major recommendation of this study is to significantly raise a starting teacher’s salary. Nothing of that nature was mentioned in the negotiating team’s proposal to REA. Here's another piece of advice that isn't contained in the district's proposal: "To limit transition costs, districts may need to phase in the new system, increasing starting salaries and implementing performance-based salary bumps slowly…” (p. 14) Slowing the process seems a logical idea. Another interesting item from this article suggests that salary and benefits should be FIXED COSTS, "The overall compensation model should include costs that are both fixed (salary/benefits) and variable (bonus/stipends) so that in times of funding shortfalls or shifting priorities, districts can adjust variable costs to avoid a budget gap." These considerations should have been part of the district’s proposal to the teachers.
I urge you to reread pages 24 and 25 (“Implementation Considerations”) carefully, as I believe they contain valuable advice that could have saved the community from some of the upheaval we are currently experiencing. Some pertinent statements include using a trusted teacher evaluation tool and providing clear recourse for teachers with concerns about their evaluation. Communication, it is emphasized, is key: engaging the community, using surveys, clearly explaining not only a rationale but a timeline and implementation plan, helping teachers to see what the differences in their paychecks will be, and allowing educators a way to have their concerns and preferences noted and questions answered. This last piece has me concerned, as the last Board meeting seemed to make it clear that a trusting system between teachers and administrators does not exist here in Reynoldsburg.
Simply stated, a move to a merit-based pay structure is a huge undertaking, and the current contract proposal takes a very simplified approach to it. There is not buy-in from much of the community, and teachers were not consulted so that they could have a say in the design of such a structure (they are the experts in student achievement, after all). I urge you to take a deep breath, settle a fair contract with teachers soon that utilizes the existing salary and benefit schedule, and if you so desire, create a realistic timeline for a team-based approach to designing a different structure that the whole community can support.
Respectfully,
Beth Thompson