Our posts related to salary and retirement information have generated a pretty sizable level of...shall we say...discussion? We received this e-mail commentary. This is a great example of someone offering solutions. Instead of just mentioning that there is an 800 lb gorilla in the room about which n o one wishes to speak, here's someone at least suggesting ways to deal with said gorilla. And that's what SP-EYE is all about. Let's get everything on the table so that we can take stock of our situation , and deal with it. While others ENRAGE the community, we prefer ENGAGING the community. Get the community informed. Nothing will change with an uninformed electorate. Knowledge is power.Power to the people!
SP-EYE
.......................................
Now that we’ve exposed a little of the 800 lb. Gorilla, we may as well starve him, poke him with a stick, and turn him loose in the city. Let’s talk about salaries-
We have an elementary school librarian making $88,435, or roughly double what a new teacher gets paid (and roughly what the Director of the Library of Congress gets paid http://www.glassdoor.com/Salary/Library-of-Congress-Director-Salaries-E22696_D_KO20,28.htm). I don’t know this individual, nor do I begrudge this individual for reaping the benefits of his/her dedication to the district. What I will say is that I think the district could go further towards educating children with a brand new librarian and a brand new teacher. Two for the price of one has always been a deal I could never pass up.
Now there is nothing we can (nor should) do about this salary in particular. It’s just an example. Promises were made when people were hired and should be kept (although, in fairness to the contrary argument, promises were made when this person was hired that by now we’d be taking our high-speed floating car from domed city to domed city http://blog.modernmechanix.com/2008/03/24/what-will-life-be-like-in-the-year-2008/). So what’s the answer?
One humble suggestion (in 3 parts)-
1) Increase starting salaries to attract the best students right out of college and early in their teaching careers.
Once a teacher gets established in a system, they are less likely to leave for small differences in pay. The costs of moving and learning a new system and changing textbooks and finding the last remaining safe place to sneak a smoke are high, and it’s easier to just stay put for the small amount of difference.
2) Compress the step pay schedule.
To fund the higher starting, make each salary increase smaller and really compress it on the top end. That difference between $42k and $47k means more to a young teacher trying to start a family and buy a house and pay off student loans and take care of aging parents than the difference between $82k and $87k means to someone with a few more years (and, if they are like the rest of us, pounds) under the belt. Also, the extra money is less essential to retaining someone with a couple years left, since they are less likely to leave in their last few years.
3) Skip steps in the pay scale for a significant number of great teachers each year. I know that this sounds a whole lot like merit pay, and maybe it is. I know that teachers will scream about being judged on test scores and administration will scream about not being able to properly evaluate in a fair manner. Too bad. You people are in the evaluation business. Administrators used to be teachers, and somehow they figured out a way to determine which kids did well and which ones didn’t. For the most part, people know who the good teachers are, and a combination of parent feedback, student evaluation, administrator evaluation, student progress, extra contribution, and other factors would give a pretty good idea of who deserves the extra carrot. Will this cause some veteran teachers who get passed over to leave? Maybe, but that would let us hire a superstar anyway, and it makes the salary step compression more palatable for those doing great work. If each step raise were cut in half and the top 50% of teachers get to double their progression (4 new steps), then this would be more-or-less budget neutral. It would also give a superstar the motivation to go the extra mile to teach kids and work with administration and families to improve the school.
If anyone is still reading, they are probably well aware that this would take an effort more monumental than even that required to build a pool with a door on the first try. Old teachers, not bright-eyed young dynamos, run teacher’s unions and if there is one thing that the entrenched power knows how to do it is stay entrenched.
Can’t stop us from dreaming, though.
These opinions not necessarily shared by SP-EYE. I’m sure there are problems with this theory, and I’d like to hear them. Agree/disagree, drop SP-EYE a line and let them know how you feel. All comments anonymous unless requested otherwise.
We have an elementary school librarian making $88,435, or roughly double what a new teacher gets paid (and roughly what the Director of the Library of Congress gets paid http://www.glassdoor.com/Salary/Library-of-Congress-Director-Salaries-E22696_D_KO20,28.htm). I don’t know this individual, nor do I begrudge this individual for reaping the benefits of his/her dedication to the district. What I will say is that I think the district could go further towards educating children with a brand new librarian and a brand new teacher. Two for the price of one has always been a deal I could never pass up.
Now there is nothing we can (nor should) do about this salary in particular. It’s just an example. Promises were made when people were hired and should be kept (although, in fairness to the contrary argument, promises were made when this person was hired that by now we’d be taking our high-speed floating car from domed city to domed city http://blog.modernmechanix.com/2008/03/24/what-will-life-be-like-in-the-year-2008/). So what’s the answer?
One humble suggestion (in 3 parts)-
1) Increase starting salaries to attract the best students right out of college and early in their teaching careers.
Once a teacher gets established in a system, they are less likely to leave for small differences in pay. The costs of moving and learning a new system and changing textbooks and finding the last remaining safe place to sneak a smoke are high, and it’s easier to just stay put for the small amount of difference.
2) Compress the step pay schedule.
To fund the higher starting, make each salary increase smaller and really compress it on the top end. That difference between $42k and $47k means more to a young teacher trying to start a family and buy a house and pay off student loans and take care of aging parents than the difference between $82k and $87k means to someone with a few more years (and, if they are like the rest of us, pounds) under the belt. Also, the extra money is less essential to retaining someone with a couple years left, since they are less likely to leave in their last few years.
3) Skip steps in the pay scale for a significant number of great teachers each year. I know that this sounds a whole lot like merit pay, and maybe it is. I know that teachers will scream about being judged on test scores and administration will scream about not being able to properly evaluate in a fair manner. Too bad. You people are in the evaluation business. Administrators used to be teachers, and somehow they figured out a way to determine which kids did well and which ones didn’t. For the most part, people know who the good teachers are, and a combination of parent feedback, student evaluation, administrator evaluation, student progress, extra contribution, and other factors would give a pretty good idea of who deserves the extra carrot. Will this cause some veteran teachers who get passed over to leave? Maybe, but that would let us hire a superstar anyway, and it makes the salary step compression more palatable for those doing great work. If each step raise were cut in half and the top 50% of teachers get to double their progression (4 new steps), then this would be more-or-less budget neutral. It would also give a superstar the motivation to go the extra mile to teach kids and work with administration and families to improve the school.
If anyone is still reading, they are probably well aware that this would take an effort more monumental than even that required to build a pool with a door on the first try. Old teachers, not bright-eyed young dynamos, run teacher’s unions and if there is one thing that the entrenched power knows how to do it is stay entrenched.
Can’t stop us from dreaming, though.
These opinions not necessarily shared by SP-EYE. I’m sure there are problems with this theory, and I’d like to hear them. Agree/disagree, drop SP-EYE a line and let them know how you feel. All comments anonymous unless requested otherwise.
Posts
