Chicago Teacher's Strike

[B-Fly]

Shockingly, I disagree. Bonuses for taking on "the toughest students in the toughest schools"-- or combat pay, as teachers invariably call that concept-- doesn't bring the best teachers to those schools, only the ones willing to put up with the most crap for an unfair pay advantage. Teaching English, math or music to students in schools with high record sof achievement is every bit as important as teaching those subjects in schools failed by their school systems in areas failed by their municipalities.

How do you in the very same sentence acknowledge that it's a harder job (most crap) and then say that it's unfair to pay more to those willing to take it on? I never suggested that teaching English, math or music to students in schools with high records of achievement wasn't just as important. But teacher migration patterns in districts with seniority transfer rights proves that the vast majority of teachers would rather do that than stick with the toughest students in the toughest schools. It is harder to attract good teachers to those vacancies and harder to retain the good ones who start there. Why shouldn't school districts have the ability to sweeten the pot to improve their ability to attract and retain good teachers for those schools and students?

[Bob Kohm]

Because you're not attracting better/higher talent teachers, you're attracting teachers who are willing to put up with more crap for higher pay-- effectively you're hiring mercenaries. All of your teachers are equally important-- as are all of your students. Find an effective way to attract higher skilled teachers rather than ones willing to take combat pay and you have an argument. This system? Not so much.

[B-Fly]

Because you're not attracting better/higher talent teachers, you're attracting teachers who are willing to put up with more crap for higher pay-- effectively you're hiring mercenaries. All of your teachers are equally important-- as are all of your students. Find an effective way to attract higher skilled teachers rather than ones willing to take combat pay and you have an argument. This system? Not so much.

We need to attract and retain great teachers to turn around the worst performing schools, and we need to turn around the worst performing schools if we want to attract and retain great teachers. That's a classic Catch 22. There are lots of applications for every vacancy, but the best applicants seek the most desirable slots. Higher pay can make the less desirable slots more desirable, which can help attract the best applicants, which can help turn the school, which can then start attracting great applicants without "combat pay".

[DMT]

I don't understand why harder positions should not receive higher compensation, seems like a no-brainer.

[Bob Kohm]

But it doesn't really work that way, does it? It's been one of the cornerstones of the past two Admins here in DC and there is no fantastic turnaround in the schools... for exactly the reason I'm giving. More pay in a bad school doesn't mean you get better teachers there. It means you get better paid teachers in schools where they no huge amount of achievement is expected so they can hunker down and get a bigger paycheck than a teacher working his or her ass off in a better school and attaining results Way to disincentivize your teachers-- give bigger paychecks to people willing to work in bad schools with poor results at the penalty of people in better schools achieving results. I appreciate what you're trying to do, but the way you propose doing it fails all kinds of logic checks.

[Bob Kohm]

I don't understand why harder positions should not receive higher compensation, seems like a no-brainer.

Because the harder positions are already filled, DMT. The question isn't that of staffing the "harder" positions, it is of making the harder positions into "easier" positions by improving results. Merely giving someone more money to fill that position has no hard connection to higher performance in that school. Look, I live and work int he DC Metro. There are $125k positions available in the worst schools in DC... yet nobody stays in them for that long because they burn out and run for the Fairfax, MoCo and Arlington Districts. You need to improve the bones of the schools and the city needs to improve the neighborhood and its socio-economic structure. Paying teachers more to hunker down and live through the dya in a tough school does neither.

[DMT]

Because the harder positions are already filled, DMT. The question isn't that of staffing the "harder" positions, it is of making the harder positions into "easier" positions by improving results. Merely giving someone more money to fill that position has no hard connection to higher performance in that school. Look, I live and work int he DC Metro. There are $125k positions available in the worst schools in DC... yet nobody stays in them for that long because they burn out and run for the Fairfax, MoCo and Arlington Districts. You need to improve the bones of the schools and the city needs to improve the neighborhood and its socio-economic structure. Paying teachers more to hunker down and live through the dya in a tough school does neither.

It's the same in all fields that work with difficult populations or situations; tougher jobs pay more.My wife took a pay cut when she left her job doing inpatient at a community hospital for the VA but she is 10x happier. Of course we'd ideally improve the entire community but that is a much bigger issue. Nothing is going to prevent turnout but that doesn't mean the hardest positions shouldn't pay more to attract stronger candidates.

[Lurker765]

The Wisconsin law concerning teacher unions implemented by Governor Walker was overruled today:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/huff-wires/20120914/us-wisconsin-union/

[Bob Kohm]

Sorry, I simply disagree when it comes to schools-- no disrespect intended to you or Brian. Paying more for no discernible result while holding down the pay of teachers who are producing results within the same system strikes me as not only unfair to employees but both productively and politically foolish when you can't show dramatically improved results in the schools with the stilted pay scales. The difference between your wife's experience and this is that she didn't stay within the health care system she was in-- she changed to the Feds. To put it into the framework that Fly is talking about, paying a teacher significantly more to work in a terrible school in Bed-Stuy rather than in a school in Oakland Gardens winning national awards when both of their checks are being signed by the same person and both of their contracts are collectively bargained by the same union equals unequal pay for equal work.

[Judge Jude]

Very interesting, cogent debate on teacher pay. Thanks for that.

Bob, what would be your first priority to starting to fix troubled schools - I realize that "fixing" is a short-term fairy tale.

You seem relatively hawkish on foreign affairs, and more liberal on issues like gay marriage (no objections from me).

Is education in poor schools more complicated? I'm talking about parental responsibility, if society offers any rebuke to those who fail to pay child support, whether a trend against reproducing before "wedlock" - as they used to call it - is a good idea. But also not trying to punish the kids for the sins of their fathers - and mothers - and grandparents, etc.

I see a lot of right-wingers who just look down on poorer people overall, and left-wingers who don't seem to want to hold people sufficiently accountable. Not as bad here on each front, by any means, but what is the fair and sensible way to look at all this without being callous OR weak?

I don't feel as if either party is really moving forward on an approach that helps, by what almost all precincts agree, are innocent kids?

[DMT]

We know what works...look at Geoffrey Canada's model in Harlem...but they take very few kids because it's so expensive. But what is going to be the long-term cost of having a rapidly growing uneducated underclass?

[Judge Jude]

Yes, I know of the Harlem model.
Would be fascinating if a reasonable economic model could be shown that overall costs to society are LESS in the long run from expanding that plan, compared to the status quo.

Not that it's a terrible idea if it costs more overall, but if not - it would be much harder to argue against...

[Pogues]

Because you're not attracting better/higher talent teachers, you're attracting teachers who are willing to put up with more crap for higher pay-- effectively you're hiring mercenaries. All of your teachers are equally important-- as are all of your students. Find an effective way to attract higher skilled teachers rather than ones willing to take combat pay and you have an argument. This system? Not so much.

While I would LOVE a signing bonus to teach in a difficult school, I have to agree with Bob here. Perhaps instead of an upfront signing bonus, how about bonuses for certain levels of improvement within in the classroom? Essentially, making the bonuses merit based and after the fact.