A voter-approved mill levy in 2005 gave officials with Denver Public Schools and local teachers something most districts and unions rarely see: a cash cow that has pumped $50 million into Denver’s educational system.

Unfortunately, the school district and the union are currently at odds over how best to share the loot. That difference of opinion has led to a five-month-long contract fight, a teacher sick-out and a potential strike should mediation not lead to an amicable settlement before the school year begins in late August.

The major issue involves a fairly new pay system known as ProComp. Funded by a mill levy that provides about $25 million a year, ProComp acts like a complicated payment matrix and trust fund. It allocates money for teacher salaries, and pays for step increases based on such things as years of service or advanced degrees.

ProComp money is also doled out for bonuses given to teachers who work in lower-income schools, or for those who take on hard to fill positions in areas including middle school math and bilingual education.

Pitched to voters as a “revolutionary” compensation method that would reward teachers for professional accomplishments and instructional goals, the idea found a welcome home with voters. The measure passed in November of 2005 with 58 percent of voters supporting it.

Back then, school district and union leaders stood side by side in support of ProComp. Today, the two sides are miles apart.

Though both union leaders and DPS like ProComp, there is little agreement over how to share the cash. The district favors a plan that relies on bonus money for teachers who take on tough schools or help their schools do well on achievement tests. It tends to skew in favor of younger teachers. The union, while supportive of bonus pay, wants more ProComp money reserved for teacher salaries, which tends to benefit more senior teachers.

District leaders content the proposed contract gives the 4,500 members of the Denver Classroom Teachers Association “the largest increase to compensation in modern history.”

The offer provides pay increases of up to $9,000, “on average,” according to DPS Superintendent Michael Bennet. The district has also offered an across the board cost of living increase of 2.8 percent.

“As far as we know, the changes we have proposed would result next year in the largest increase to teacher compensation in the modern history of public education in the State of Colorado,” Bennet wrote in a May 19 update on union negotiations. “There has never been an opportunity in the history of DPS to increase teacher pay this substantially. We owe something better to our hardworking teachers, and we cannot allow this opportunity to pass.”

As first blush, the numbers and claims sound impressive. How many teachers would turn down a $9,000 raise?

The union's view

Union leaders scoff at the district’s claims.

“The district has done some interesting math and says this is the highest offer ever,” said Henry Roman, an elementary school teacher and union expert on ProComp. “The district will say that ‘on average’ you can earn $6,000 or more from bonuses. The trick is the ‘on average’ comment.”

Roman said many teachers would not be eligible for bonuses. Teachers who work in middle or upper income schools, for instance, don’t fall under the “hard to serve school” bonus plan. Those who teach English, or Social Studies could not put in for extra pay for taking on hard to staff jobs in math and science.

“Schools like John F. Kennedy High School don’t qualify for any of the bonuses,” Roman said. “And we have many other high schools that would qualify for just one bonus. To say that the contract provides more than $6,000 to all teachers is incorrect. … Not everyone has access to this (bonus money).”

Union leaders also take issue with DPS’s plan to place a ceiling on salary-building elements under the new contract. At present, a veteran teacher who gains extra degrees can see paychecks rise each year.

Roman said the district wants to cap the earning power of veteran teachers.

“Almost 50 percent of the teachers in DPS would have their salaries frozen, except for a cost of living pay increase,” Roman said.

Union leaders claim DPS’s proposed contract is a “radical departure” from what teachers and voters approved in 2005.

“Before you make significant changes to the system, we need to ensure the changes are based on known data over time”

While Roman is not opposed to changes in the ProComp system, he wants the district to wait until a detailed study is done to determine the pros and cons of the new pay system. A review is currently underway at the University of Colorado, Denver. The study is scheduled for completion in 2009.

“Before you make significant changes to the system, we need to ensure the changes are based on known data over time,” Roman said. “We have an independent evaluation underway, but it won’t be finished until November of 2009. By then, we will have a pretty good idea of the impact of the ProComp incentives.”

The district parries

District officials, meanwhile, point out that everyone knew from the beginning that ProComp would be a work in progress, and in need of changes along the way.

“ProComp was reached three years ago,” said Tom Boasberg, DPS’s Chief Operating Officer. “Everyone knew this was an experiment and that it would be renegotiated in the third year.”

The district considers the contract not only lucrative, but one that will boost salaries, and also keep and retain new and mid-level teachers.

Boasberg said the current offer gives all teachers a pay increase of more than 8 percent. Those figures come from a 2.8 cost of living bump, a 2.2 percent rise given for each step of a teacher’s annual pay scale, a 2.7 hike in step scale payments and a $500 payment for health costs.

These figures do not include the $3,000 incentive payments given to teachers who meet specific categories, like working in high poverty schools. Though not every teacher can access every nugget of bonus money, Boasberg says nearly every teacher in the system will be able to obtain at least one of the incentive measures.

Boasberg said the current offer would make Denver schools attractive for those seeking to enter hard to staff jobs in math, science and special education. It would also help keep and retain younger teachers. Denver schools typically lost about 20 percent of their teachers in the first five years of service. Experts say that is a common rate of attrition for the education sector.

Though not every teacher can access every nugget of bonus money, Boasberg says nearly every teacher in the system will be able to obtain at least one of the incentive measures.

“Our goals are to give our teachers the largest annual increase in the history of Colorado, to do a much better job of utilizing ProComp revenues, to make meaningful incentives to attract teachers to teach in high poverty schools and to reward schools and teachers that drive student growth, Boasberg said. “We also want to improve our ability to attract good teachers, retain teachers and to lower the very high rates of turnover among junior and mid-career teachers.”

District officials say that younger teachers will earn more under the proposal. They a new teacher will have the ability to earn $44,000 under the proposed contract.

A matter of trust

So what’s the problem? Perhaps it’s just a little old fashion management/union distrust.

“Our contract requires us to reach agreement by May so we can give teachers the basic decency of knowing what their pay will be,” Boasberg said. In the last 20 years, he said, “only twice has the agreement been reached in May.  … This is because of a belief that conflict is somehow better than agreement. And that is a view we disagree with. It is bad for schools and bad for kids.”

The extensive contract negotiations and a teacher walk out in late May led to a scathing editorial from The Denver Post.

“The district has proposed the largest compensation increase in the history of Colorado Education,” the May 29 editorial explained. “The response? Some teachers failed to show up for work.”

But district PowerPoint presentations and editorials don’t tell the whole story, said union president Kim Ursetta, who takes issue with nearly every monetary claim put forth by DPS.

“I don’t know where they get their numbers,” she said of the district pay figures. If it were a 7.2 percent increase for all teachers, we would have already signed the contract.”

She said the district seeks to eliminate some important salary building elements that have proven beneficial to teachers and students.

“They want to eliminate payments for student growth objectives,” she said, adding that this incentive plan was part of what the union and voters supported in 2005.

Like Roman, Ursetta says not everyone can compete for the bonus heavy plan the district supports.

“They want to increase bonuses, but not everyone is eligible to get them,” she said.

The union also seeks a 3.5 percent cost of living raise, along with increased bonus money and no changes to the current salary-building plan.

In the end, the union does not want change to come without a fair review of the ProComp process, Ursetta said. That, she claims, is part of the district’s proposal.

“We want changes to be based on data and for people to know how they can get bonuses,” Ursetta said. “We want to know the rules before the games starts. But right now, they want to change the rules without communicating them to people.”

Comments (1)

Subscribe to this comment's feed

Show/Hide comment form