The Presidential Blog, by Henry Roman
A Bonus by any Other Name. . .
This past December, the Denver Post reported that the Denver Public Schools central administration would receive bonuses based on various criteria. Like many of you, I was disappointed. It’s not only an issue of pay, but an issue of pay during hard economic times. They argue that the bonuses are really part of the variable pay earned because central staff was hired with a reduced salary. They also suggest that this type of incentive is needed in order to attract and retain high performing administrators who, in some cases, had given up to 70% of their previous salary to work for DPS. They also liken the bonuses to ProComp; part of the pay is variable pay.
Variable pay: This concept is understandable, except that the base salary of central administrators is on average more than $100,000 and on the higher end $160,000 annually. While this might not seem much to those accustomed to working in the private sector during economic boom times, this is certainly more than enough for a public employee. To add bonuses on top of this base salary, while at the same time anticipating additional budgets cuts is insulting, It feels hypocritical to bombard employees with the message that DPS does not have any money, that finances are precarious and that we have a house of budget cards on the verge of imploding. How can these same people come to the bargaining table and talk seriously about austerity?
As far as bonuses are concerned people coming from the private sector to DPS must clearly understand that if they are working for an organization strapped with resources that their pay is probably not going to mimic the salad days of the private sector. Those days are long gone as we see in the papers every day; unemployment rates, collapsed pensions and increased homelessness are the daily leads. Everyone is working hard in this district, especially our teachers.
Comparisons to ProComp do not hold water either. In the ProComp structure, each of the elements are clearly defined and posted online for everyone to see. Because we are using taxpayer money, the bonus structure should be shared with the Board of Education, who has not been provided with details, as well as all employees and the public at large. ProComp was created as a transparent method for teachers to earn everything they deserve for their hard work. The bonuses earned by central administration have not mirrored that same transparent process and jeopardizes their credibility.
My best hope is that this embarrassing story has pushed central administration to start having conversations about increased transparency. Why not acknowledge what the district spends on bonuses? Every other organization is accountable to a board of directors. Why don’t we hold ourselves to the same standards with the Board of Education? Doesn’t this strengthen their credibility at the bargaining table? Or with the public at large? We don’t have the luxury of quibbling over these things. We should be seriously addressing issues of increased support for teachers in overpopulated classrooms. We should be seriously thinking about how to create a quality education for every child that enters a DPS school. We don’t have time to be arguing over whether a bonus, is really a bonus.
October 19, 2009
Not long ago we all received a copy of the 2009 Denver Plan. The overall proposal suggests worthy goals; however, without a shared vision the outcomes don’t seem clear. Crafting outcomes needs to be a collaborative process that allows for input from those that will be responsible for implementation. Unfortunately the short timeline proposed by the district doesn’t allow for meaningful feedback from all stakeholders.
Establishing a shared vision will take some time, but it is time well spent. With a clear understanding of where the district is headed, details of the plan can be clarified and priorities set. Unfortunately there seems to be an obsession with outcome oriented goals and little attention paid to process. The typical result of this approach is that the current administration finishes the plan on time, but with little or no buy-in from its primary constituency: teachers and parents. The ultimate goal should not be to just “get r’ done”, but to be effective. Teachers and the community at large, who are not given a true forum for honest dialogue and enough time to process the complicated issues that impact DPS won’t have the buy-in or commitment we need to move forward. It also puts those in leadership positions at a disadvantage because they are implementing a plan in which they have had no input. This is especially important in light of the upcoming School Board election where new members, will be elected in a few weeks.
The result of rushing this process is the creation of a document that needs significant work, has no meaningful buy-in from all stakeholders, too many omissions and simplistic perspectives. Here are a number of issues the document examines, that only present a piece the story.
Job entitlement: “If a teacher is renewed after three years…the district is often required… to give her a lifetime right of employment…” This statement ignores the fact that there is an evaluation process in place and portrays employment as entitlement. Moreover, the fact that the current evaluation process is not implemented properly, or at all, is a systemic problem that must be addressed by the district. Ironically, teachers are expected to support a plan that uses derogatory language.
Teacher placement: Another problematic area revolves around teacher placements. Simply labeling all placements as “bad teachers” ignores the fact that teachers are often placed due to declining enrollment, which has nothing to do with professionalism or skill.
Teacher effectiveness: Student scores should not be the sole measurement of teacher effectiveness. Other criteria such as professional development, a targeted curriculum, formative assessments, classroom resources, class size, etc. also impact significantly the quality of education our students receive. Unless we look at the whole picture, using one piece of data to determine teacher impact is unfair.
The Importance of Honoring Our Three Year Agreement
August 18, 2009
The Importance of Honoring Our Three Year Agreement August 18, 2009 Welcome back to another school year. Hopefully you all had time this summer to rejuvenate and recharge for the year ahead. I have spent time these past few months transitioning into my new role as President for our organization and continue to be humbled by the talent, dedication and passion that the members of DCTA bring to the organization. Many have paved the way for us to continue building a vision for this organization by expanding our membership base, reaching out to our larger community and giving all of our students the access they deserve to a truly 21st Century education. Many of you know that this year opens with another bargaining session despite our multi-year agreement. Because of the Tabor Amendment, we are meeting with the district to once again revisit an agreement that most of us thought we had completed. At this point it is fair to say that bargaining sessions have become part of the district culture and this time, all of you are feeling the disappointment of another legal promise not kept. Before delving into our three-year agreement, it’s important to reflect on last year’s negotiation ordeal. The ProComp pay system, proclaimed at a national and state level to be cutting edge, was radically modified. The promise that teachers would make a substantial amount of earnings over their careers was eliminated, leaving ProComp looking more like a minimized traditional salary schedule. Both Professional Development Units (PDUs) and the Comprehensive Professional Evaluation (CPE) were reduced as salary building elements to Step 14. None of these changes allow all members to permanently build their salaries. Our vision for a cutting edge salary system abruptly ended and I believe that over time it will hinder DPS from retaining teachers and having the best of the best serve our students. The myths presented to the public made the agreement an even harder pill to swallow. The first myth was that we all happily accepted the agreement. I beg to differ and many of you out there know perfectly well that we accepted the agreement in a significant trade off and trade down of saving our master agreement for the diet version of ProComp. Many members to this day are in disbelief that such a district gesture could be possible. The second myth was that Denver teachers received the largest salary increase in the history of Colorado. A bonus is one-time money, not an increase that builds salary over time. Last year’s agreement dealt members the largest decrease in long-term benefits for Denver teachers in the history of Colorado. I guess the definition of increase is in the eye of the beholder. So here we are again trying to clarify how to honor our three-year contract. In my mind teachers are worth a promise and the district has to show good faith if we are going to work together on implementing educational proposals in the future. The district would not be setting a good precedent for collaboration if they take advantage of the current economic crisis to try to offer less, especially in light of last year’s settlement. We understand the context of the economic crisis, and will work with the district to prioritize; however it’s a fact that we are the backbone of student learning. Investment in Denver teachers should be a priority. At this point the issue is no longer just about money, but credibility and respect.