Years ago, the powerful director of a local teachers union told me in no uncertain terms: Differential pay for teachers in high-poverty schools wasn’t a good idea and wouldn’t help poor kids. He called it, and I quoted him, “a glitzy solution.”
So what a jolt it was to learn, after the union leader’s passing, that the big school district he helped shape for decades actually had a differential pay plan – a lucrative benefit he signed off on for a handful of teachers in the district’s elite magnet programs.
I bring this up now because of a new report that touches on teacher views about differential pay. And also because of the backdrop it brings into focus on so many ed reform issues, including expanded school choice. Too often – and I say this as respectfully as I can - school boards and teachers unions appear to lack the will to do the right thing for low-income kids.
Differential pay obviously isn’t all that and a bag of chips. But it is a tool that can be used to attract and/or keep high-quality teachers in high-needs schools. Survey after survey shows the vast majority of teachers agree.
In the latest, an Education Sector report that asked teachers about all kinds of things, 83 percent said they supported more money for teachers in low-performing schools. That’s up from 70 percent in 2008 and 80 percent in 2007. With young teachers, the results were even more lopsided: 88 percent of them liked the idea.
And yet, with few exceptions, school districts have not tried differential pay in a meaningful way. In Florida, this has been true even though state laws and rules have required it. Many districts abide by the letter of the law, offering minimal amounts that don’t make a difference, and so the vicious cycles that could be mitigated instead swirl on.
The district in Pinellas County, Fla., is no exception. That’s the district whose longtime union chief, Jade Moore, I was referring to above. (more…)
School districts spent nearly $15 billion in the 2007-08 school year to pay teachers extra for earning master's degrees, up 72 percent from four years prior, concludes a report released this week by a left-leaning think tank.
The Center for American Progress suggests money for the so-called "master's bump" was not well spent because research shows there is little difference in effectiveness between teachers who have master’s degrees and those who don’t.
“This increase, which outstripped inflation many times over during the same time period, is music to the ears of those institutions of higher education that cater to teachers and their academic pursuits,” the report says. “But for the nation’s primary and secondary schools, this increase strikes a discordant note and underscores the need to uncouple teacher compensation from the earning of advanced degrees.”
Illinois paid out the most for the average bump, coming in at $11,910. The District of Columbia was second ($11,280), followed by Minnesota ($10,090), Ohio ($8,760) and North Dakota ($8,550). Utah paid the least, at $2,010.
Florida was among the lowest per bump, at $2,850. But in 2007-08, the report shows, that extra pay added up to $197 million.
That total is likely to fall in coming years as a result of Senate Bill 736, which was signed into law last year by Gov. Rick Scott. Among other changes, it mandates that extra compensation cease for teachers whose advanced degrees are not in their certification area.
The report describes the cost for the master’s bump as a “lost opportunity" because, in its view, the money could be better spent on teachers who mentor other teachers, work in high-poverty schools, teach hard-to-fill subject areas like math and science or demonstrate "extraordinary instructional impact."
