Pondering the realities of teacher compensation
Tuesday, August 12, 2008Written by: Mark Sass
I was attending one of the seemingly hundreds of educational fact finding committee meetings (if someone did a meta-analysis of the reports put out by these well-intentioned powerless groups—think P-16 Council, P-20 Council, Great Education Colorado — I predict they would all say the same thing: something needs to change!), and a business owner asked why teachers wanted more money.
“Don’t teachers work for only 10 months out of the year? If you look at the pay for 10 months and not 12 months, it’s not that bad.”
To a certain extent, this is a valid argument. But looking at pay by the hour versus the year tells a different story. Let’s ay the average worker puts in 50 weeks a year, with two weeks off for vacation. At 40 hours a week times 50 weeks, that’s 2,000 hours. Now let’s look at a teacher’s hourly work week. This is not empirically based. I am sure there is data out there that tracks the time teachers work (if you know of any, let me know), but this is based only on my observations of 14 years of teaching experience.
A typical teacher puts in 10 hours a day with, let’s say, a minimum of another 4 hours at home per week. That’s 54 hours a week, times 38 weeks (the typical contractual timeframe), which equals 2,052 hours a year. In other words, teachers work just as many hours in 38 weeks (or more) as a your typical 40-hour per week worker.
Yes, I am sure that some teachers do not put in that many hours, just as I am sure that not all workers are actually doing what they are supposed to be doing at their jobs every hour. The missing factor here is what teachers do over the summer and the fact that most are not compensated for work that SHOULD be done over the summer.
Teachers should be responding to the needs of the students during the school year–remediating with students, changing lesson plans to adapt to the changing needs in the classroom, tutoring students, conferencing with parents and, finally, implementing lesson plans. Teachers should not be working on the “Three Cs” (as Rick DuFour names them): Consequences, Calendar and Choices.
Before I start teaching every year, I should have looked at any and all data that was produced the year before, i.e. CSAP, ACT, district assessments, common course assessments or individual teacher assessment data. This allows me to focus on any shortcomings from the previous year. The problems might stem from misaligned courses, wrong essential outcomes for courses, invalid assessments or poor teaching strategies, just to name a few.
Researching best practices and locating resources to assist me is key as well. I am not suggesting that all this be done in isolation. It needs to be done collaboratively to ensure consistent application and implementation. Some teachers do this without pay. Most do not do it because it is outside of their contractual obligations.
Currently, the first day back for teachers may be spending a brief time glancing at the previous year’s data, if you are lucky enough to get that data when you return in the late summer. In my district, we have three teacher duty days, in which you are supposed to get ready for the upcoming year. This also includes copying, preparing rooms, attending meetings about new policies, and meeting with administrators to set up individual teacher objectives for the year, among other requirements.
This has to change! I believe we need to pay teachers to work over the summer on the Three Cs. A recent article in the Washington Post describes a district that is doing this. Contracts have been extended nine, 14 or 21 days. Not all teachers can participate. There is a “competitive” process to select teachers. Teacher’s duties are very specific, and they are expected to monitor their summer work throughout the year.
Yes, it takes money. And my district is struggling, as are most, with maintaining current services and would be hard-pressed to find additional money to compensate teachers for this vital work. Can we find funds to accomplish this? Here’s a thought: What about Denver altering Denver’s ProComp to make this one of the options for teachers?
As always, constructive feedback is appreciated.
August 12th, 2008 at 8:15 am
I am both deeply interested in increased pay for teachers, and believe that the only way to accomplish this is to reduce some of the protections in collective bargaining agreements. It’s hard for district’s facing deficits and pensions burdens to be fiscally responsible if new pay programs become “fixed” for all teachers - it prevents the ability to experiment with different systems and try programs on a smaller scale (ProComp is a great example).
So my question would be: what are teachers willing to give up for more pay? If you look at Rhee’s proposal in DC, she would raise pay significantly but would have a probationary period and reduce (or perhaps relinquish) tenure. Is there a willing tradeoff, or is the expectation to retain CBA and just receive more money? Because I am pretty sure how the former proposal will fare, regardless of its merit.
August 12th, 2008 at 8:25 am
I’m not sure how sympathetic I am to your argument. I wouldn’t assume a 40 hour work week for a majority of workers. Many people, especially in the higher paying occupations, take work home with them during the week and weekends. So I would be hesitant to say teachers work as much or more than lawyers, doctors, engineers, etc. Another thing is that we have seen numerous examples of teacher pay not being a problem for strong performance. Teachers in private schools make less than teachers in a public school on a consistent basis. There are other factors involved here of course, perhaps an easier student body to teach, etc. But even in private schools with voucher programs performance tends to be better. But for an even better case look at Teach For America. This program has had phenomenal success in inner-city, high poverty, low performance schools. College graduates who are a part of this program don’t get paid a lot and do a phenomenal job of teaching. I know there are greater problems in the education world than teacher compensation. I’m not saying that should be left unchanged, but it comes in about 5 or 6 on my list of top things to change.
-Paul
August 12th, 2008 at 10:03 am
Teacher pay is abysmally low, as my recent post on income by college majors indicates. As a nation, we claim that kids are our most precious resource, and then pay near minimum wage for day care and ECE teachers, and at the low end of the international scale for teachers. It is a never-ending source of wonder to me that people believe that “you get what you pay for” doesn’t apply when it comes to education…that highly motivated, intelligent people with other work options will continue to teach despite the economic hardships.
Why, precisely, do we insist that teaching be a “calling” requiring a level of self-sacrifice not mandated in other careers?
Until the financial incentives are aligned with desired outcomes, we’ll continue to have a substandard education workforce.
That being said, teachers won’t be taken seriously as “professionals” as long as they continue to insist on work rules and pension plans more appropriate for garment workers and truckers.
August 17th, 2008 at 11:19 am
Paul, do you have some research to back up the claim that vouchered private schools perform better? The same for Teach for America?