MEA Misses the Mark in it's Rebuttal

I recently wrote an opinion piece advocating that we find a way to better reward those teachers who excel. I wrote, “Ideally, the Michigan Education Association -- the state's largest teachers union -- would be part of the solution.”

Last week the MEA gave some indication of how they felt:

Detroit News: Pay system rewards right traits for teachers (07/21/08)

In it, MEA President Iris Salters advocates for maintaining the status quo. Well, actually, she advocated for more money for everyone.

Her point was that knowledge and experience are the most important factors to consider in compensating teachers. I agree those are certainly important factors, but only if they are effectively applied and produce results. The current system doesn’t consider whether a teacher is having an impact, and doesn’t reward those who are.

Ms. Salters also raised a common misconception about merit pay systems when she said they favor, “teachers whose students receive the highest test scores”. Were that the case, she’d have a point to back her opposition. But effective merit pay systems are designed to reward the annual GROWTH in student achievement for students of all learning levels, not just the top students.

Furthermore, despite what Ms. Salters might think, merit pay is not just about scores. I specifically said, “Subject matter and teaching environment also deserve consideration, all in an effort to reward teachers who are truly making a difference in areas where they're most needed.” The expression, "Teaching environment" is oftentimes the politically correct way of referring to economically disadvantaged schools, which would include “the neediest children”.

Her rebuttal also used the tired old MEA line about reportedly low teacher salaries. On the surface, the salary comparisons she included might indeed suggest there is some imbalance nationally, but her figures only address annual salary, and ignore work schedules, health benefits and retirement. She cites national figures, which do not reflect the fact that Michigan has among the highest paid teachers in the nation. And she only references starting salaries; my point was not to look at where salaries start – or where they finish for that matter – but was instead meant to examine and challenge how the salaries change over time. I still believe that those teachers who are better at their jobs deserve more compensation and should get it faster than those who are only average – or worse.

We’ll save the detailed salary discussion for another time. For now, I’d suggest that those really interested in the facts review the government’s Bureau of Labor statistics. It’s a wealth of information, and can be found here: http://www.bls.gov/oes/current/oes_MI.htm

Finally, Ms. Salters notes, “… in some cases where alternative pay systems have been jointly agreed to, they've collapsed because of insufficient resources to support the rewards the system deems worthy.” If the example she cited from decades ago was indeed “dismantled because the funds weren't available”, one could easily accept that the failure was more likely due to the historically poor structure of education pay systems. School boards generally lack financial acumen, and history shows time and time again that they are willing to approve unaffordable labor agreements. There is not a problem with the concept of merit pay; there is instead a problem with the way it may have been poorly designed and implemented.

An effective system would first look at what money is available, and then distribute it based on who is doing the best job.

I really think the MEA is missing the mark when it attempts to advocate for the general mass of teachers, and does so at the expense of the truly strong and successful teacher.

Mike.

I’ve pasted below the article in case the link doesn’t work

--------------------------------------------------

Rebuttal
Pay system rewards right traits for teachers

While I was glad that Mike Reno noted many teachers deserve higher compensation for the work they do to educate future doctors, lawyers and presidents, I disagree with his criticism of the fairest, best understood and most widely used approach to teacher compensation -- the salary schedule ("Increase teacher pay in manageable way," July 10).

The salary schedule rewards things that make a difference in teacher quality -- knowledge and experience. A well-constructed salary schedule rewards classroom experience, promotes continued professional learning, and promotes both retention and recruitment of high-quality staff.

Alternative pay systems, such as those where pay increases or bonuses are paid to teachers whose students receive the highest test scores, unfairly punish educators who work with some of the neediest students, including children at risk of dropping out of school and children with special needs.

The fundamental problems with teacher compensation in Michigan -- and America -- are low teacher pay and lack of investment in education.

The teaching profession has an average national starting salary of $30,377, according to the National Association of Colleges and Employers. Meanwhile, college graduates who enter fields with similar training and responsibilities receive higher salaries. Beginning computer programmers, for example, get $43,635. Registered nurses earn $45,470.

The structure of teacher pay is a local issue decided through collective bargaining between school boards and teachers. But in some cases where alternative pay systems have been jointly agreed to, they've collapsed because of insufficient resources to support the rewards the system deems worthy.

In Tennessee, a merit pay system was enacted with union support in the 1980s. A decade later, it was essentially dismantled because the funds weren't available to reward the thousands of excellent educators in the state.

To make any pay system work, the investment in education has to be up to the task.

Iris K. Salters

President, Michigan

Education Association

East Lansing

CLICK HERE TO READ THE REST OF THIS POST......

Restructure Michigan Public Education; Scrap the Step System of Pay

One of the most frustrating practices I’ve seen in education is the pay system.

I wrote about it in this opinion piece:

Detroit News: Increase teacher pay in manageable way (07/10/08)

I’m told that you-know-what will freeze over before schools move away from the step system. Perhaps so, but the practice is damaging to the profession, and changing it would be worth the fight.

With this system, teachers earn the same, regardless of whether they work hard or not. They earn the same, regardless of whether they’re effective or not. They earn the same, regardless of what subject they teach.

For the first part of a teacher’s career – while they’re still gaining experience and perfecting their craft – their pay increases substantially.

Then, once they’ve got some significant experience in the classroom, and are presumably hitting their stride, the pay spigot closes. A teacher is likely to be limited (on average) to inflationary pay increases for the rest of their career.

It probably served a useful purpose decades ago, but it’s now obsolete and belongs in an education museum.

I’ve pasted a copy of the article below (along with the salary chart created by the Detroit News) in case the link doesn’t work.

-------------------------------------------------------

Increase teacher pay in manageable way
Scrap unsustainable salary hikes for better reward system

Teachers' pay has followed a single salary schedule -- or "step system" -- in which years of teaching experience and college credits alone determine pay raises. Yet shifting expectations, limited funding and increased accountability in education are challenging the viability of this outdated pay system in Michigan.

Under the current system, teaching professionals -- many of whom deserve higher compensation -- are held hostage in a bizarre pay structure that ignores their skills or effectiveness. It artificially rockets up salary early in their career, only to see it stall once they're seasoned.

The step system isn't good for schools either. It can cause district payrolls to grow faster than annual funding increases, leaving districts little choice but to lay off teachers, increase class size or make other instructional cuts.

While the history of teacher salaries might explain why this pay system was established decades ago, it's time to scrap the steps now.

Each year, teachers take one step up the pay scale until reaching the top, typically in 10 years.

The only opportunity for salary increases comes from post-graduate college work. Teachers move to new pay scales -- and new steps -- by earning more college credits or degrees. Most obtain a master's degree within their first 10 years of teaching.

In Rochester, the starting pay for a teacher is $37,697. Top-of-scale is reached after 10 years, and this year it's $83,470 for those with a master's degree.

During the past 10 years, the average contract increase in Rochester has been a meager 2.5 percent (inflation during that period averaged 2.6 percent). However, that average contract increase doesn't actually reflect the pay increases for all teachers or the payroll increase for the district.

A newly minted teacher hired in 1997 was paid $29,771. His or her 2007-08 salary (with a master's degree) would be $83,470. Over 10 years, the average compounded salary increase was an impressive 10.9 percent.

Meanwhile, the seasoned and experienced teacher -- a 10-year veteran already making the top-of-scale $65,918 in 1997 -- would be earning the same $83,470 (plus a few other stipends). The average salary increase for this teacher was just 2.5 percent -- not quite on par with inflation.

This one-size-fits-all system is fundamentally unfair. It's also unsustainable as a business model. Maintaining this system is irresponsible.

A revamped system should be based on measurable metrics such as student achievement and mentoring, as well as principal and peer review.

Subject matter and teaching environment also deserve consideration, all in an effort to reward teachers who are truly making a difference in areas where they're most needed.

A fiscally responsible system would distribute available money in the form of pay increases -- even bonuses -- based on meaningful elements, rather than the number of years of service alone.

Florida's schools are trying a new plan, as well as schools in Houston and Denver. As with all new concepts, the startups have been challenging and subject to criticism -- primarily from teacher unions. But the concept is sound, and Michigan needs similar forward thinking.

Local boards in Michigan are ill-suited to the task and are no match for powerful teacher unions that are resistant to change.

Ideally, the Michigan Education Association -- the state's largest teachers union -- would be part of the solution. It could help to secure voluntary implementation at the local level. If the MEA refuses to participate in a new compensation system, then perhaps the state should unilaterally intervene.

Changing the compensation system in Michigan's public education is necessary, not only for financial reasons, but also to reward those teachers that make a difference.

CLICK HERE TO READ THE REST OF THIS POST......

A timely example of Tenure absurdity

I wrote about tenure a few weeks ago. Many of the rebuttal comments made in response to my blog attempted to point out "the fairness" of tenure, and how it's all about simple "due process".

Well, here is a real-life example.

Grand Rapids Press / MLIVE - West Ottawa Public Schools holds its first teacher tenure hearing (6/24/08)

(Thanks to the Michigan Education Report for it's coverage!)

A teacher gives students the answer to a test -- before the test is taken. The teacher -- Karl Nadolsky -- "... contends there is educational theory supporting his methods with struggling students." The distict decides to draw a line, and "accuses him of giving his students answers on a biology test to cover up his ineffectiveness in the classroom." They attempt to fire him, and the tenure laws -- and the MEA -- step in.

Hardly seems fair that the district needs to fight this. And consider the “due process” cost:

While awaiting the hearing to contest his dismissal, Nadolsky was paid his full salary of $69,712 and received his full benefits package of $16,198, according to information obtained by The Press through the Freedom of Information Act.

West Ottawa also shelled out $23,577 for a long-term substitute to cover Nadolsky's classes from Thanksgiving to the end of the academic year.

In addition, the school district spent $17,915 in legal fees through June 5 to evoke the tenure charges.

Some argue the board should've just paid a settlement. Perhaps we can look at that as a form of merit pay. Cheat children out of an education, and receive a financial reward.

Some are also likely to argue that perhaps the teacher should keep his job, and be counseled on this poor teaching practice. Sorry, but this seems to be a pretty fundamental part of teaching, and if this teacher -- with some 36 years of experience – needs to be reminded not to give advance answers to a test, then it’s time to pack it up.

Another alternative according to one board member – himself a former teacher – is “to assign an ineffective teacher to duties outside the classroom.” It's sad that school officials are willing to suspend or expel students for bad behavior and poor judgment, but those same officials hold educators to a different – and lower – standard.

Bravo to the board for pursuing what sure appears to be the right course of action.

These tenure laws need to be revised. This case also serves as another reason that we need to reform Michigan’s goofy tort laws, so that the district could recoup the costs it incurred in fighting a frivolous hearing.

I’ve pasted below the entire article in case the link doesn’t work.

---------------------------------------------------------

West Ottawa Public Schools holds its first teacher tenure hearing
Posted by Kym Reinstadler The Grand Rapids Press June 24, 2008 21:14PM

HOLLAND -- What does it take to fire a tenured teacher who doesn't want to leave?

West Ottawa Public Schools is about to find out.

The first-ever tenure hearing in the district's 50-year history begins today as veteran teacher Karl Nadolsky, 58, fights to keep his job.

The district accuses him of giving his students answers on a biology test to cover up his ineffectiveness in the classroom. Nadolsky disputes that, according to board members, and contends there is educational theory supporting his methods with struggling students. He is fighting the school board's vote in January to fire him, asking a state tenure judge to review his case.

Tenure hearings are relatively rare because a buyout often can be negotiated for less money, attorneys say. Only about 50 each year are held statewide and it takes an average of 10 1/2 months to resolve one, according to the State Office of Hearings and Rules.

"We don't want him back in the classroom," said school board President Randy Schippers, a Holland lawyer. "Now, we have to follow the process the state devised to try to make that happen."

The hearings are run like a trial, with lawyers for both sides presenting evidence today, Thursday and Friday. Nadolsky, like most teachers, requested his hearing be closed to the public.

The witness lists are said to include many current and former West Ottawa students, who will be called to testify before a state administrative law judge about what happened in their classroom.

The district's attorney, Barbara Ruga, will not disclose her strategy because of the request for privacy. Fil Iorio, Nadolsky's attorney sponsored by the Michigan Education Association, declined to comment.

The district likely will present copies of a multiple-choice test on evolution that Nadolsky gave in October to students repeating biology because they had failed the class before. The correct answers were indicated because they appeared in italic, enlarged or bold-faced type, according to an administrative report made to the school board earlier this year.

That report further alleges Nadolsky did not intervene when classmates began to harass the student who blew the whistle by telling his guidance counselor about the test.

Michigan teachers usually earn tenure within four years and then can be fired only for serious problems, such as abusing students, sexual misconduct, substance abuse or bad teaching.

Schippers said the West Ottawa board ultimately was not t willing to offer Nadolsky -- who with 36 years experience could have retired with full benefits -- a settlement to avoid a tenure hearing, although "we hear buyouts are the typical way to make a tenured teacher go away."

Only teachers who are convicted of a felony or who have court-imposed bond conditions that prohibit contact with minors, forfeit full salary and benefits during a tenure procedure, Ruga said.

While awaiting the hearing to contest his dismissal, Nadolsky was paid his full salary of $69,712 and received his full benefits package of $16,198, according to information obtained by The Press through the Freedom of Information Act.

West Ottawa also shelled out $23,577 for a long-term substitute to cover Nadolsky's classes from Thanksgiving to the end of the academic year.

In addition, the school district spent $17,915 in legal fees through June 5 to evoke the tenure charges.

"Fiscally, I'm conservative, so I can't buy this," said Bill Bloemendaal, a 17-year member of the West Ottawa board who was the lone vote against firing Nadolsky. "This is a process a school district cannot afford."

Bloemendaal, who was a West Ottawa High School teacher for 39 years before being elected to the board, said he believes it is cost-effective for the public purse to assign an ineffective teacher to duties outside the classroom.

Few types of employees are guaranteed their full salary and benefits by law while contesting dismissal, but Schippers said he understands why the law treats teachers differently.

"A teacher facing tenure charges can't just go out and get another teaching job," Schippers said. "As hard as it is to pay a teacher who's not in the classroom, you have to understand the difficult situation the teacher is in while the board's decision is being contested."

The judge will have 60 days after testimony concludes to issue a written recommendation to the five members of the governor-appointed Michigan Tenure Commission on whether there is sufficient evidence to dismiss Nadolsky.

Either party can appeal the judge's decision to the tenure commission, which reviews transcripts of the hearing and summaries submitted by attorneys to affirm or overturn the decision.

Thirty days after the time for a final appeal lapses, the state posts the resolution on the Michigan Department of Education's Web site, often the only public acknowledgment of the matter, according to the department's communications office.

CLICK HERE TO READ THE REST OF THIS POST......