An unprecedented offer for teachers
Rocky Mountain News
Published May 23, 2008 at 8 p.m.
Denver Public Schools is eager to offer the largest annual pay increase in memory to its classroom teachers - one of its proposals would hike base salaries an average of 7.7 percent.
There's more. With incentives available through the ProComp performance-pay system, average salaries, the district calculates, would rise by a jaw-dropping 18 percent.
Given the slumping economy, stagnating wages in the private sector and the fact that salaries at other local school districts may not keep pace with inflation, you'd think the Denver Classroom Teachers Association would be all over the offer. Instead, the union has flatly rejected it.
The district's three-year-old ProComp program is the sticking point. All new hires are covered by ProComp, which is building up a sizable reserve from a tax approved by voters. The district wants to use that revenue to sweeten its incentive-based pay, such as for those who teach difficult subjects in hard-to-staff schools. It also wants to direct more money to teachers who are early in their careers.
The union instead is insisting that a new contract largely preserve the current salary structure, which gives a larger slice of the compensation pie to senior teachers and funnels less money into incentives.
After five months of negotiations, union President Kim Ursetta has asked the state labor department to intervene in contract talks. We see no reason for the state to get involved with such a generous offer on the table.
Both parties want to attract and retain teachers. They differ on the best way to accomplish it. The battle is not about money, it's about who gets it - and when.
The district's approach is clearly superior.
When DPS recently refinanced its pension system, it pledged to pump an extra $20 million a year from that transaction into classrooms, amounting to a pay increase of roughly 5.4 percent, with 2.2 percent of that as a cost-of-living allowance based on the Denver-Boulder-Greeley CPI. The district also boosted longevity or "step" pay by $1,300, for a total increase of 7.7 percent. Everyone, including the most senior faculty, would get that healthy raise.
Even that one-time pay hike, however, would not address the district's troubling turnover rate among junior teachers. Nor would it fulfill the promise of ProComp, which was sold to voters as a means of rewarding the best teachers in the toughest jobs. So the district has a two-pronged strategy: First, front-load more of the compensation system so that top-notch young teachers have better reason to take a job in DPS and stay; second, triple bonuses for faculty who take jobs at high-poverty schools, get certification in challenging subjects like math and science, and help students make significant gains in achievement.
The upshot: $9,000 in potential bonuses for a teacher, which is real money. But the union would prefer that more of that money remain in teachers' base salary - and apply to all teachers at any stage in their career.
We hope the district wins the support of rank-and- file teachers because its plan puts the welfare of students first. And it honors the wishes of residents who passed the ProComp mill-levy in 2005 and expected a system that rewards teachers who assume greater risks and accept tougher challenges.
Featured
-
DNC in Denver
Complete coverage of the 2008 Democratic National Convention.
-
The Crevasse
A five-part series that examines one tragic day on Mount Rainier.
-
Deadly denial
Sick nuclear workers applied for government compensation but most haven't seen a dime.
-
Final Salute
The Rocky followed Maj. Steve Beck as he took on the most difficult duty of his career.
-
'Colorado's burning'
Coverage of the state's worst wildfires.
-
Columbine shootings
Coverage of the April 20, 1999, shootings at Littleton's Columbine High School.
-
The Crossing
Colorado's deadliest traffic accident killed 20 children on Dec. 14, 1961.
-
Osveli's journey
Osveli Sales left Guatemala for a better life. Two months later, he came home in a box.
-
Wake for an Indian warrior
Oglala Sioux bestow a tribute to the first tribal fatality in Iraq.
May 23, 2008
9:02 p.m.
Suggest removal
Jack_Bauer writes:
The districts proposal makes too much sense - the union won't have anything to do with this performance based stuff. Why in the world should a teacher be rewarded for being excellent at what they do? That might actually be fair! what a concept!
Everyone gets the same, the worst teachers and the best. period. What a complete joke and disservice to the students whom they should be serving.
And the unions wonder why they are criticized - it is not about giving the students the best teachers and learning chances for our hard earned tax dollars it is about the teachers getting whats best for themselves.
May 23, 2008
9:57 p.m.
Suggest removal
jacka writes:
Vote YES on amendment 47, shouldn't all Coloradans have the Right-to-Work, the right to earn more and the right to choose?
May 24, 2008
3:32 a.m.
Suggest removal
clyde writes:
Accountability and a way to measure performance will NEVER become a reality as long as the Teacher's Union is calling the shots.
May 24, 2008
7:19 a.m.
Suggest removal
tmsloan writes:
Once again a union is calling the shots. Ritter has no idea how big a mistake he's making inviting unions to have more say in state employees. Look to Pittsburgh, Detroit, Rhode Island to see what unions have done to their economies. Unions were once good but now protect lazy unproductive workers. Why is it union membership is down nationwide except in Municipal jobs? Because of political pandering. The teachers union does it and makes you feel quilty about disagreeing saying, "It's about the children." It's not-it's about union membership.
May 24, 2008
8:06 a.m.
Suggest removal
Mike_In_Hartsel writes:
Unions bring more job security for the useless, more rules to slow the work, and higher wages for the inept. Besides being corrupt at the top, unions no longer serve a valid purpose in the workplace.
May 24, 2008
8:48 a.m.
Suggest removal
anarchist writes:
As a card carrying Union Member for many years I dislike siding with managment, but on the surface I am definatly compelled to side with the district. I know of nobody who was given such a generous pay raise, with the possible exception of senators and congressional delegates. Kim Ursetta, please reconsider.
May 24, 2008
8:53 a.m.
Suggest removal
socrates writes:
It looks like a good deal is on the table, but I'm confused by one thing - why would the rocky say the state shouldn't get involved? What is the roll of the state in these kinds of contract negotiations? Would they be able to bring the two sides to agreement if they're currently at a stand-off?
May 24, 2008
12:47 p.m.
Suggest removal
sheepherder writes:
Our teachers deserve better pay, and in a fair contract. All you non-union people...thank the unions for your current work envionments.
May 24, 2008
1:53 p.m.
Suggest removal
WeloveDenverkids writes:
Shame on the RMN editorial board. You should stop spreading this propaganda and get to the facts. What Bennet described to you is a mix of many different proposals that were discussed seperately in bargaining together with DPS's own additions that were never even discussed with the DCTA bargaining team. He is resorting to nothing less than dishonesty and he knows that the media and people - like most who have commented on this editiorial - will immediately just jump all over it. Whatever happened with getting both sides of the story before coming to a conclusion? What happened to the responsiblity toward actually informing your readership rather than being a pawn in a DPS strategy?
BTW for all of you right to work supporters out there, get a clue. DCTA is not a closed or union shop - anyone can join or chose not to join DCTA. Also, FYI last time I looked Colorado had a Labor Peace Act - so to become a union shop takes a supermajority vote already. Please get to the facts and stop the propaganda. You endanger our democracy when you don't get the facts.
May 24, 2008
4:56 p.m.
Suggest removal
david.miller writes:
WeloveDenverkids
If you are so much in the know, why don't you set the record straight in a little more detail? I, for one, would be interested in reading your scenario of events detailing the true issues and facts as you know them. When doing so, I will be looking for the precise points you consider to be dishonest and the verifiable sources for your differing facts. This is your opportunity to be an educator! On the other hand, should you fail to respond, we will all then know you were simply puffing.
May 24, 2008
10:07 p.m.
Suggest removal
BO writes:
I always enjoy it when there are editorials and other opinion pieces that attempt to cover education. While I agree that kids need to be put first, I hate the position that teachers are supposed to forget everything else, and put the school and their students first. The only performace based pay I could get behind is one that tests kids at the beginning of the year, and measures their progress made by testing them at the end of the year. I don't agree with comparing classes. Some classes are better than others- its a fact of life. I have taught geography every school year since graduation. I give standard assessment tests every spring. Lets say that my 2007 group tested higher than my 2008 group. Does that mean I was a worse teacher this year?
BTW- teachers don't take a vow of poverty or anything else. Why do we get singled out as the only occupation that enjoys pay increases? My students are important, but their not my life. The most important student is the 7 year-old that resides in my house- the rest are a distant second. Being able to support him financially is more important then the test scores of the others. And I'm not going to apologoze for it, either.
May 25, 2008
12:07 a.m.
Suggest removal
LeaDenton writes:
Colorado teachers and, more importantly, their students, would be better served if the union were dissolved. Teachers claim to be “professionals” and expect to be treated as such, yet most of them seem afraid to negotiate their own individual contracts; collective bargaining is simply a shield behind which they can avoid individual accountability and the necessity to perform that comes with sitting down with one’s employer and negotiating a fair deal for themselves or accepting offers to teach elsewhere. Colorado taxpayers have repeatedly demonstrated their willingness to ensure that the best and brightest teachers are paid very well according to their efficacy in the classroom; why should they be afraid, then, to sell their talents on the open market the way doctors, lawyers, accountants, and other professionals do? Do they really believe that teaching is a vocation that is so unskilled that they need union protection? Let’s dissolve the union and watch the real teaching professionals rise to the top, show undergraduates that there can be real money in teaching if one excels, attract the best and the brightest among them, and allow teachers to develop their own curriculum and teach the way they know best. Surely there are teachers out there who would wish to practice in such a system and maximize their professional potential and their paychecks. It’s unfortunate that the best interests of the students are ignored to protect the mediocre and uninspired.
May 25, 2008
6:21 a.m.
Suggest removal
anarchist writes:
LeaDenton favors disolving the Union, Jaka supports right to work amendments, but I am curious as to why LeaDenton believes that without the union we would be able to attract the best and brightest, in what right to work states has that proven to be the case please, examples, facts, please. LeaDenton you also state "and allow teachers to develop their own curriculum". Do I understand you advocating each teacher teaching whatever political/social agenda they support, yes, I know they do now, but not as openly as that statement would suggest you would support.
Jaka, do you have comparative wage figures between right to work states and Colorado, for example, average income in arkansas as compared to Colorado?
I feel the offer made was way above what any of the rest of us can look forward to, I am siding with management on this one, the union is out of line, but I am not ready to throw out the baby with the bath water.
May 25, 2008
6:38 a.m.
Suggest removal
Alive writes:
In return for the pay raise, you will be asked to stop teaching the socialist indoctrination agenda. Guess that means you'll pass on the extra shekels huh? Can't take over without brainwashing the kids, now can you?
May 25, 2008
8:17 a.m.
Suggest removal
jsantani writes:
While this negotiation appears to make more sense from the district's position, let's refrain from making generalizations about Teacher Unions. Teachers have been lapped numerous times by inflation even during better economic periods. If it weren't for unions, over-zealous and uninformed politicians and the people who blindly listen to them would have done tremendous injustices to lower socio-economic students. If you destroy unions who 90% of the time ultimately protect the interests of students, the level of despair, crime, and inequality will increase exponentially and the destruction of the American dream will result for many.
May 25, 2008
11:15 a.m.
Suggest removal
david.miller writes:
jsantani, I am assuming you are a teacher, but it matters little if you’re not. You assert “Teachers have been lapped numerous times by inflation even during better economic periods.” Well, so what? I would counter that this happens to just about everybody at one time or another because wages typically lag inflation. Something else you probably should have considered prior to making this argument is that inflation has been relatively low and predictable since the mid-1980s.
You go on to say “If it weren't for unions, over-zealous and uninformed politicians and the people who blindly listen to them would have done tremendous injustices to lower socio-economic students.” What on earth are you talking about? Do you have any examples? Why would this be fact and not just speculation on your part? What role have unions played in holding the politicians and their blind followers (parents and voters, I think you mean) at bay for the benefit of students? What makes you think these two groups wish to commit tremendous injustices upon lower socio-economic students?
Finally, you assert “If you destroy unions who 90% of the time ultimately protect the interests of students, the level of despair, crime, and inequality will increase exponentially and the destruction of the American dream will result for many.” My first comment here would be that unions represent the membership and no one else. If a union position should happen to benefit another group, it is purely coincidental. And by the way, where does your 90% statistic come from? Second, perhaps you could enlighten me because I don’t see the connection between the destruction of unions and an exponential increase in despair, crime and inequality, unless it would be the despair and inequality perceived or the crime committed by the membership. Finally, the inclusion of the American dream seems to point to my observation that your comment is nothing more than an emotional rant rather than careful analysis.
May 25, 2008
1:03 p.m.
Suggest removal
jsantani writes:
Thanks for strengthening my points. Inflation has been low and predictable yet teacher salaries have lagged behind still. Also, remember that the voters that you assert I have ignored have voted down vouchers and have voted to increase public education funding. Only through crafty legislation such as CSAP(which threatens to take money from the areas which need it most) and No Child Left Behind(an unfunded mandate) and the Tabor Amendment(which nearly paralyzed the state) have politicians attempted to deceive citizens by producing skewed data. Fortunately, more and more educated citizens see through these political agendas. Politicians who know little about education are constantly trying chip away at the system. Interestingly, many charter schools are struggling with the same issues that public schools face no that they have been around for a few years(I wonder what Owens would say about this).
I see the American Dream as having the possibility of a quality education. If we continue to chip away at public schools we will see fewer productive citizens and the result will be higher crime, poverty, and desperation. If you need data just read some studies that show a direct correlation between crime and unemployment(hopefully you already know this).
May 25, 2008
2:12 p.m.
Suggest removal
david.miller writes:
jsantani, if inflation has been low, you (obviously a teacher with a vested interest) have not been hurt all that bad. By the way, if your job doesn’t provided the returns you require, go find another job and quit expecting me to fund your expectations with higher taxes (you do get a pretty generous vacation package). I, perhaps unlike you, know what it’s like to work in the real world where performance is everything. My guess is that you want all the benefits without any of the expectations. Unions tend to facilitate complacency and lassitude because there is no need to worry about your specific performance. Where do you think you fit in this scheme?
By the way, perhaps you have forgotten or perhaps you are too young to remember, but TABOR failed multiple times before being adopted. TABOR was not advanced by a particularly warm and fuzzy fellow either. Roy Romer couldn’t say enough things bad about it if you will recall. It passed because people wanted government to live on a budget, much as they must. In short, government needs to be put on a short leash when it comes to the allocation and spending of what should be scarce tax dollars. Even more specifically, government must become more efficient. One of the ways to encourage this goal of optimization is to eliminate the unions, thereby rewarding performers and forcing non-performers out of the system. Honestly, where do you think you fall in this matrix?
As far as your emotive reference to the American dream goes, education is just one part of it and truly too ethereal for your specific construct today. Nevertheless allowing this for a moment, however you define the American dream, the individual has to want it. This is where the good teacher can contribute through motivation. I have seen good examples during my high school tenure during the 1960s. Perhaps one of the best examples was a fellow that ended up teaching aviation classes at Littleton during that period. When the union pressed him to take a “professional day” and attend a rally at Woodlawn, he declined and continued to teach during that day. Though he and I did not always agree on things, I have and always will admire Dr. Ben because he altruistically placed the student at the top of his list of priorities. He was a teacher true to his profession, knowing that he could have gone elsewhere and made much more money.
jsantani, you must perform a closer examination regarding whether you are a good fit in public education or whether you should be looking for a more competitive environment where the money is better? I suspect you might find it difficult measuring up in any truly competitive, non-union environment.
By the way, what is it about vouchers you find so threatening? Might it be competition? I believe I’m fairly well educated and see exactly where you are coming from.
May 25, 2008
3:53 p.m.
Suggest removal
jsantani writes:
Hey David, the position that I interviewed for had 75 other applicants so don't assume that educators are in some kind of fictitious world free of competition. We are under the spotlight more than just about any other profession. Do people assume things about your livelihood on a daily basis in a public forum? Oh, and trust me pal, I did not get into this profession for the big bucks and I do not believe that taxpayers should pay me an egregious salary while I just sit back and do nothing. We do have frequent evaluations and believe it or not, teachers can be re-assigned and even terminated. I see my job as having awesome responsibility to the kids and I constantly reflect and self-evaluate in an attempt to better prepare my students for the real world.
Dr. Ben does sound like an admirable person based upon what you say. It's too bad that people bundle the good and bad teachers together and assume that they are all worthless. As far as where I fit in the "scheme", I believe that taxpayers are getting a good deal. I teach AP World History and economics and coach two sports. If you figure my hourly wage it is not a tremendous amount. Also, I have yet to have a “summer off” because I need to work in order to make ends meet and have completed a Master’s degree. I, like other hard working citizens earn my money and don't appreciate others assuming I am not in the real world and am just an overpriced babysitter.
While many like you probably think that I am just complaining, I see it as more as advocating for the value of our profession. Too many people in the community read statistics in a newspaper or listen to talk radio and form their opinions of us. I challenge you to spend a day with a teacher and then let me know if you still find us worthless. As far as the voucher piece, you missed my point. I was addressing your previous post about how I ignore taxpaying voters when indeed they voted down vouchers only to have politicians find a secretive way to achieve the same goal. I like that people who are fortunate have the ability to choose a private setting where they can screen out undesirable children. But in the public school setting, we, fortunately in my opinion, must attempt to meet the needs of all students. It's a tall task but one that I embrace and am challenged by on a daily basis. As far as the union goes, I believe it is essential to the maintenance of a strong school system. Although you and others believe that you can apply an all encompassing business model that measures the effectiveness of all teachers, it's not possible. Instead, have faith in us or become involved and help us if you are truly concerned about the students' well being. We would welcome you help!
May 25, 2008
4:48 p.m.
Suggest removal
david.miller writes:
Jsantani –
Let me understand this, “pal”. You beat out 75 applicants for a job that historically doesn’t pay enough to make ends meet. What’s wrong the 76 of you? If I were offering a job with so many applicants, I would immediately drop the wage being offered. And you say you teach economics? No wonder these kids don’t know anything when they come out. By the way, economics was my undergraduate degree and I seem to have managed fairly well. My takeaway from the subject is that I learned something about how markets work and how government intervention tends to distort those workings, resulting in a myriad of unintended results and inefficiencies. Since you have hopefully had some training in the field of economics before you started teaching it, consider that unions attempt to monopolize a factor of production, namely labor. I’ll bet your next paycheck that you would be one of the first to decry any and all apparent business monopolies, oligopolies, etc. So why do you think you, and more generally labor, are somehow special? I could care less how hard you work or think you work. My message to you is one of pure rational economic thought: Get out of the business if you can’t make ends meet or are otherwise unhappy. You are indeed free to choose. In the end it really doesn’t matter because you are going to whine no matter what. I have come to the conclusion that it’s truly a pity that those such as you are responsible for preparing our children for the competitive world they will be facing.
You can have the last comment “pal” because I’m done.
May 25, 2008
5:09 p.m.
Suggest removal
jsantani writes:
Did you just finger point, assume and quit? I have to say sending kids to good colleges and universities is a much better option. Have fun sitting on the sidelines complaining rather than being part of the solution. Nice economics!
May 26, 2008
5:29 a.m.
Suggest removal
david.miller writes:
Jsantani –
Let me understand this, “pal”. You beat out 75 applicants for a job that historically doesn’t pay enough to make ends meet. What’s wrong the 76 of you? If I were offering a job with so many applicants, I would immediately drop the wage being offered. And you say you teach economics? No wonder these kids don’t know anything when they come out. By the way, economics was my undergraduate degree and I seem to have managed fairly well. My takeaway from the subject is that I learned something about how markets work and how government intervention tends to distort those workings, resulting in a myriad of unintended results and inefficiencies. Since you have hopefully had some training in the field of economics before you started teaching it, consider that unions attempt to monopolize a factor of production, namely labor. I’ll bet your next paycheck that you would be one of the first to decry any and all apparent business monopolies, oligopolies, etc. So why do you think you, and more generally labor, are somehow special? I could care less how hard you work or think you work. My message to you is one of pure rational economic thought: Get out of the business if you can’t make ends meet or are otherwise unhappy. You are indeed free to choose. In the end it really doesn’t matter because you are going to whine no matter what. I have come to the conclusion that it’s truly a pity that those such as you are responsible for preparing our children for the competitive world they will be facing.
You can have the last comment “pal” because I’m done.
May 26, 2008
1:57 p.m.
Suggest removal
pachavez writes:
IMPORTANT FYI BELOW!Please read the other (true) side of the DPS proposed "RADICAL" transformation of the ProComp agreement from someone truly in the know regarding this issue. You will be enlightened.
Thanks Margret!
From: Bobb, Margaret
As a member of the ProComp Transition Team which began discussions about changes to the ProComp structure in January, I would like my voice, a teacher’s voice, to be heard in the public discussion about changes to ProComp. I speak as an advocate for the ultimate goal of ProComp, which is to raise student achievement with the children of Denver.
The five teacher representatives on the ProComp transition team challenge the implication that the basic structure of ProComp needs to be “fixed”, as has been stated in both daily newspapers within the past week. ProComp was deliberately designed to reward teachers for performance and to “attract, motivate, and retain high quality teachers in all specialties over the course of a career” (quote from Article 1.2 of the ProComp Agreement). The ProComp elements of evaluation, student growth objectives, and professional development units (CPE, SGO, and PDU) are accessible to “teachers in all specialties” in Denver. The restructure of ProComp as proposed by the district reduces the money available in these three perfomance elements and shifts the money to bonus elements that are inaccessible to every teacher.
I have done a comparison of ProComp with 5 other competing districts in the Denver metro area. The below Excel spreadsheet shows the results of this comparison: that ProComp IS competitive with other districts both in the short term (for the “top notch young teachers” that the Rocky Mountain News editorial of 5/24 referrenced) AND in the long term (for the teachers who will stay in Denver “over the course of a career”).
School District Year 1 Year 4 Year 7 Year 20
Denver ProComp CPE, SGO, PDU AND 3 BONUSES
37,816 42,084 46,352 67,000
Denver ProComp CPE,SGO,PDU only
35,622 39,891 44,159 65,000
Aurora 35,672 39,145 44,744 59,675
Douglas County 33,388 37,426 41,464 48,439
Cherry Creek 33,875 37,337 46,298 53,019
Adams 12 31,572 36,276 40,614 44,752
Denver Traditional 35,568 36,117 38,211 53,018
Jefferson County 32,408 36,078 39,746 41,583
The data was gathered from the district websites of Denver, Adams 12, Aurora, Cherry Creek, Douglas County, Jefferson County. The salaries are those that would be earned by a teacher who enters a district with a BA and no years of experience (theoretically, a talented young teacher fresh out of college).
*Please see next post
May 26, 2008
2 p.m.
Suggest removal
pachavez writes:
The spreadsheet is sorted by salary for a teacher in year 4, because a concern expressed by the district and repeated in the papers is a “troubling turnover rate among junior teachers”. The spreadsheet illuminates the relative roles that ProComp and the Denver Traditional Salary Schedule play in this turnover.
On the spreadsheet, there are three categories of Denver salary. The ProComp categories were calculated by the “Salary Calculator” on the ProComp link of the DPS website.
1) “Denver ProComp CPE, SGO, PDU, and 3 bonuses” represents the salary earned by a teacher who demonstrates satisfactory performance to their principal (CPE), whose students show growth in two objectives (SGO), and who shows professional growth through study, demonstration, and reflection (PDU). This category of teacher also received 3 bonuses for working in a Hard to Staff position, in a Hard to Serve School, and in a Distinguished School (as measured by CSAP growth).
2) “Denver ProComp CPE, SGO, PDU” represents the salary earned by a teacher who does not receive any bonus. It is theoretically ( and physically) impossible for every teacher in Denver to have the opportunity to work in a Hard to Staff position, Hard to Serve School, or in a Distinguished School. Therefore, it is important to see how the “basics” of ProComp (CPE, SGO, and PDU) would affect a teacher’s salary. It is important to attract and retain this category of teacher as well as those who are eligible for bonuses. It is important to remember that CPE, SGO, and PDU are PEFORMANCE elements that must be earned and CAN be earned by “teachers in all specialties”.
3) “Denver Traditional” is the salary earned by teachers who were in DPS prior to ProComp and have chosen not to opt-in to ProComp.
Based on the comparison shown in the spreadsheet, I question the implication that ProComp needs to be fixed. Rather, I suspect that teachers are leaving DPS because of the Traditional Salary schedule. Teachers who joined Denver after ProComp was effected are only in their third year of ProComp and are clearly at the top of the metro area salary array. Additionally, the long term promise of the salary that BUILDS in the CURRENT ProComp structure is a huge incentive to stay in Denver. In contrast, Denver teachers on the traditional salary schedule in years 4 and 7 are at the bottom of metro area pay. A simple correction is in order; raise the BASE INDEX: the foundation of BOTH Procomp and the traditional salary schedule. This raise would apply to both systems, as the ProComp Agreement requires. It would make ProComp even MORE competitive in the metro area market. More importantly, it would stem the tide of attrition from teachers on the traditional salary schedule; those are the teachers who are leaving DPS.
*Please see next post
May 26, 2008
2:04 p.m.
Suggest removal
pachavez writes:
Secondly, I would like to clarify the supposed “surplus” of money that is “unused” in the ProComp trust (money that comes from the mill levy approved by Denver voters in November 2005) and the insistence that it be “put into teachers pockets, NOW”.
IF there were CLEARLY a surplus, we the teachers on the ProComp Transition Team stated in January that we endorsed increasing the amounts of the bonuses for Hard to Staff positions, serving in Hard to Serve schools, and for Distinguished Schools. However, there is not a clear surplus in the ProComp Trust.
Currently 22% of teachers in Denver have their salary paid by grant-funded programs. This is money that comes from outside of the district budget. For such teachers who are in ProComp, the extra portion of their salary that should be paid for by the ProComp Trust is currently NOT being paid for by the ProComp Trust and is being assumed by the grants. This is reducing the number of teachers that the grants can fund, since ProComp salaries are more expensive. When this situation is rectified, there is not much of a “surplus”. Once this fiscal responsibility of the ProComp Trust is rectified, then IF there is a surplus, we endorse increasing the bonuses. We, the teachers on the ProComp Transition Team, are simply advocating for fiscal responsibility and for the long term viability of our pay system.
Furthurmore, the fact that there is more money in the ProComp Trust than has been spent in the past two years is exactly part of the fiscal plan for the long-term viability of the ProComp Trust. As the program matures, more money will be required each year to pay the ProComp portion of salaries AND pension costs.
*Please see next (and last) post!
May 26, 2008
2:11 p.m.
Suggest removal
pachavez writes:
LAST POST!
Summary values:
- Every quality teacher is worth attracting and retaining, not only those who can receive certain bonuses.
- The long term fiscal viability of ProComp should be responsibly upheld.
- Changes shall be based on data. The ProComp Agreement states (Article 2.4.1): any changes to ProComp 'SHALL be informed by internal and external evaluation of the Professional Compensation System for Teachers conducted according to section 4.3'. As of May 2008, there is no data to support restructuring the elements of ProComp. Dr. Wiley (CU Boulder) states in the Executive Summary of the official internal evaluation of ProComp, that 'more questions have been raised than answered. As the reform matures and the district is able to provide additional, more refined data, analyses exploring ProComp will provide greater insight into outcomes associated with reform'. As of the April 16, 2008 Transition Team meeting, the external evaluation was recommended to be contracted with CU-Denver. Pending the May 17th final approval of the BOE, the evaluation would then begin and be presented to the BOE, DCTA, and Trust Board in November 2009. As of this time, there is no data from the external evaluation upon which to make responsible changes to ProComp. I posit that changing the structure of ProComp at this date would actually violate the ProComp agreement.
Now you decide for yourself if the DPS "unprecedented" offer is what's best for students, teachers or tax-payers. I believe it's best for none of them!