DPS, teachers union haggle over proposed pay reform

By Nancy Mitchell, Rocky Mountain News (Contact)

Published August 7, 2008 at 10:34 p.m.

Text size  

• 12 Comments
• Email
• Print

Classes have not yet begun for Denver Public Schools teachers, but they're already back in the middle of a tug of war between the district and the teachers' union over a pending pay plan.

Both sides are trying to win teachers' support.

Tuesday, Denver Classroom Teachers Association President Kim Ursetta posted a slide show on the union Web site titled, "The 411 on Bargaining."

It compares the union's pay proposal with that of DPS in 19 slides, concluding that the union plan is more beneficial to all teachers.

Wednesday, DPS Superintendent Mich- ael Bennet e-mailed a two-page letter to all teachers describing the district's plan, which he said has been "mischaracterized and misrepresented."

"It is clear to me that the 'he said/she said' nature of communications to you is not advancing the conversation," Bennet wrote, adding that teachers "have not heard accurate facts."

He provides a link to a "salary calculator" that allows teachers to see for themselves how they would fare.

Ursetta shot back Thursday that it's the district pay proposal that keeps changing and that their numbers seem to be in constant flux.

"They're misrepresenting their proposal to the teachers and to the public," she said.

The two sides are in dispute over how to change ProComp, the nation's first wide- scale teacher pay plan based on factors such as increasing student achievement and teaching in high-poverty schools.

On Aug. 20, union and district officials are set to resume stalled talks before a mediator. That's two days after DPS students return to class - and a few days before the international spotlight of the Democratic National Convention hits Denver.

• August 9, 2008

  4:43 p.m.

  Suggest removal

  BetterEducated writes:

  I figure everybody is pretty sick of me commenting on DPS so I have waited to ask this....but now that it seems that nobody else will...
  Rocky: Could you please go through the slides on the DCTA website, and relate the projected earnings to what DPS has proposed? In other words, can you please either validate or correct the DCTA information? According to that information, teachers will earn much less under the DPS proposal than under either (a) DCTA's proposal or (b) Procomp as proposed to the taxpayers. That was the unmistakable impression of the figures and graphs from my perspective.
  ???
  The public needs more information in order to make sense of this dispute, and instead your article reports that there IS a dispute, without attempting to correct either side's figures.
  I would also like to emphatically point out that DCTA's comment in regard to the DPS proposal is that DPS is misrepresenting the figures. That comment, all by itself, ought be explored. Thoroughly. In detail. A taxpayer-supported entity intending to seek further bond funding from the populace should at least be able to readily and resoundingly clear itself of claims of "mischaracterization" and "misrepresentation" by anyone bargaining with it in good faith. And if it cannot, that bare fact should speak for itself as well.
  Please....Rocky....is DPS misrepresenting? Are the DCTA figures correct? Or is this a case of that little-understood and notoriously controversial New Math in operation?!
  If DCTA can run the figures.....please either run them too or give us enough side-by-side information to run them ourselves. The products being published online through the 411 link should be easy enough to compare with DPS' own calculation of the figures.

• August 11, 2008

  8:47 a.m.

  Suggest removal

  jacka writes:

  CEA and NEA, blocking reform and self-determination for decades.

  YES on Amendment 47 for real free choice.

  YES on 47 to stop FORCED UNIONISM AND FORCED UNION DUES.

• August 11, 2008

  12:50 p.m.

  Suggest removal

  BetterEducated writes:

  jacka, we keep going back and forth about this.
  It's my understanding there are no "forced union dues" at DPS. There is, however, forced acceptance of the union as the exclusive representative of all workers in the unit.
  Might you focus on that, and forget the dues issue? Otherwise, your posts are plain inaccurate in that regard. Only in the private sector do non-members pay union dues, to my understanding.
  Please note: unionization of public workers in CO is not covered by any statutory mechanism. It's OK to be confused. That's part of the Mysterious Magic that allows backdoor mechanisms to flourish in confusion and secret. Since this is part of your argument, please do consider it.

• August 11, 2008

  1:54 p.m.

  Suggest removal

  MIKANE20 writes:

  I am one of those DPS teachers that work in a "Hard to Serve" school as well as in a "Hard to Staff" position. Additionally, I am in my 7th year as a teacher.

  According to the District propaganda, the proposal put forth by the district is supposed to attract and retain teachers such as myself. Unfortunately, when I read Mr. Bennett's email and referred to the salary calculator I found no substantial gain in compensation.

  To the contrary, the district's plan to hold on to the bonuses we are used to recieving as part of our monthly compensation until the end of the school year will actually result in a decrease in my monthly paychecks for the upcoming school year! And this is according to the salary calculator Mr. Bennett asked me to use in the email he sent out last week.

  If the proposal is not designed to attract and retain teachers such as myself, I would sure like to know who they are looking to attract and retain. It sure as hell wasn't designed to retain quality experienced teachers who accept the toughest of assignments.

• August 11, 2008

  3:07 p.m.

  Suggest removal

  BetterEducated writes:

  Thank you, Mike, for being the first to address how the numbers actually stack up in Real Time. Yours is the most valuable perspective.

• August 11, 2008

  3:20 p.m.

  Suggest removal

  BetterEducated writes:

  And Mike -- or any other teacher that happens to see this -- could you please either confirm or correct both of the following statements?
  1. Teachers must accept DCTA as their exclusive representative in regard to DPS employment.
  2. Non-member teachers are not required to pay any fees or dues to the union for this representation.
  Thank you.

• August 11, 2008

  4:34 p.m.

  Suggest removal

  bec1363 writes:

  I am a teacher entering my third year in DPS. Contrary to MIke's experience, when I used the calculator from Mr. Bennett, my pay would increase by 20.8% next year by receiving two of the "bonuses" that are constantly referred to (CSAP Expectations and Hard-to-Serve school). In addition, if I had a Master's Degree the increase would be nearly 28%.
  In addition, I am finding fewer reasons to keep paying dues to DCTA. I am appaled at the emails I receive that claim Mr. Bennett emailing Denver Teachers (his employees) is outrageous and inappropriate.
  Educated, from what I have been told, DCTA is our only option interms of representation to the District, but non-members do not have to pay dues if they choose not to, and they still work according to the same contract and salaries negotiated by DCTA. The accuracy of this I am not sure but I will bechecking into other options if they are available because I am becoming less and less of a fan of DCTA.

• August 11, 2008

  7 p.m.

  Suggest removal

  BetterEducated writes:

  bec1363, thank you for the information. It is very unclear who is giving out the straight info, and how it applies to specific workers.
  As for DCTA being the only option, I would like to ask that you go back to your initial understanding of agency representation in a democratic society. From that perspective: how can you be required to accept any exclusive representative, other than yourself or your own elected designee? I've never understood this about DPS' (voluntary) recognition of exclusively-representing unions (and maybe I never will).

• August 11, 2008

  8:56 p.m.

  Suggest removal

  retiredteach writes:

  As a retired DPS teacher, who was in the system before Pro-Comp for seventeen years, perhaps I can shed some light on the DCTA exclusively representing the teachers. DCTA has always had the exclusive right for negotiating the contract, during my tenure, although some of us belonged to AFT, we were still required to pay dues to DCTA. If one didn't want to pay dues, there used to be a way to opt out during a specified time period during the fall. Opting out required a special form one had to fill out and file, in person, at the DCTA office.
  The year I retired, the push was for Pro-Comp to be passed, and many of the newer teachers were pressured to vote in favor of the program. I had looked at it, and would have taken a cut in pay, if I had opted to switch from the older system with steps for education and longevity. When I retired, I was at the masters with 60 hours level, with seventeen years of service. I worked in a hard to serve and hard to staff school, was Nationally Board Certified, was ELA-T certified, and was highly qualified to teach in several subjects, as well as possessing a master's degree.
  It had been my experience that those in charge of the union pretty much did what was best for them--past presidents and negotiators had gotten administrative jobs in DPS, and even appointments to the superintendent's office after selling the members down the stream.
  However, having a union or bargaining unit is vital to teachers for preserving their rights when they have a grievance with a building administrator. I have seen the resulting abuses when individual teachers have to negotiate their contracts with a school board and the superintendent in a small, rural school district. As for an amendment to do away with collective bargaining, it is a great way for corporations and companies to abuse the rights of the workers with impunity. Unions exist because the workers aren't treated or paid fairly, and working conditions are terrible.
  CEA and NEA have worked for the teachers, but they have also worked for the benefit of students.

• August 11, 2008

  10:32 p.m.

  Suggest removal

  BetterEducated writes:

  RetiredTeacher, yours are the most thoughtful words on the subject I have read.
  Thank you.
  After picking at it for some time, I also concluded that -- however impaired or imperfect they may be -- the DPS collective bargaining agents were better than nothing.

• August 13, 2008

  4:55 a.m.

  Suggest removal

  TeacherDPS writes:

  Here is my proposed salary from the calculator sent to teachers from the superintendent:
  Traditional-$72,267
  Procomp-$66.530 (as proposed)
  I will have 14 years experience in DPS, two MA degrees, and a PhD. This is as high as the current pay scale goes in DPS. Check the math. I am getting a huge cut in pay with Procomp as proposed. The proposal claims the desire to retain highly qualified teachers?

• August 13, 2008

  9:06 a.m.

  Suggest removal

  BetterEducated writes:

  Gee.....ummm.....oops?
  If you already have 14 years' experience at DPS, you are not in the target range for the workers they want to encourage.
  They know you're not going anywhere: your school community, career and pension investments will keep you there. Am I right?

Featured

• Through Your Lens

  

  Submit your photos or see the Editor's Choice slide show here.

• Rocky Multimedia

  

  The news comes alive in our videos and slide shows. Catch up on what's happening today.

• Holiday Lights

  

  Is your house the jolliest on the block? Submit your holiday lights display.

• Holiday Gift Guide

  

  Looking to get a jump-start on the holiday shopping season?

• Mount Crushmore

  

  Which four Broncos greats should be immortalized on Mount Crushmore? Vote here.

• Bronco Dean's rant

  

  Listen to Bronco Dean's midweek rant on the Chiefs.

• Broncos Video

  

  Get the latest from Dove Valley as the Broncos prepare for Sunday's matchup.

• Calendar wallpaper

  

  Download this month's desktop wallpaper calendar

• Sam Adams' Open Mic

  

  Open Mic: Stirrin' the Soup with Matt Iseman