I've got great respect for the profession. I may occasionally covet their summer vacations, but I recognize the work can be difficult if it's done right. I don't resent them their salaries, particularly because of the level of education that we require these folks to have (and the school loans that go with those educations.) If we want to get bright minds to teach our kids, we must pay reasonably well or lose them to better-paying professions.
Despite this still deep respect, I was struck by one item on page 20 of the Revenue Task Force Report. The chart--a fairly typical line graph you'll find done in an Excel document--compared Newburyport's average teacher salary with the group of comparable communities used throughout the report. (Ashland, Bedford, Holliston, Ipswich, Lynnfield, Melrose, North Reading, Swampscott and Wakefield). The chart presents annual average teacher salaries since fiscal year 2002.
I was surprised to see the line representing Newburyport's average teacher salary never fell below the state average. The info on the chart contradicted the explanation I've always heard about the reasoning behind the significant salary bump in the 2002 teacher contract. As I was told, the school committee, reacting at least partly to a state Department of Education report that the city's teachers were among the worst paid teachers in the state, negotiated a generous contract that bumped up salaries to competitive levels. In my eyes this is a sound strategy to keep our best teachers in house.
But here's the problem. That apparently wasn't true. From the report:
In 2003, data published by the DOE indicated that the average salary for Newburyport teachers placed them in the bottom 10% statewide. Based on this data, the School Committee negotiated a contract to align teacher salaries with competing districts. In January 2008, the DOE published adjusted salary figures (shown above) which pushed the average FY02 Newburyport teacher salary above the statewide average.
Yikes. So when the school commmittee negotiated the 2002 contract to remedy the problem of rock-bottom teacher salaries our teachers actually were getting paid above statewide average? That's not going to play well, nor should it.
The little note ends with this...
While this information was not available to the School Committee before the most recent contract was negotiated, it should be considered in the current round of negotiations.
It certainly should. If I'm painting an incorrect picture of the situation I hope someone will let me know. The report correctly notes that things like layoffs of less experienced teachers can cause the average to rise as their smaller salaries are cut from the equation, and I'm told Newburyport has cut more than 70 full-time positions over the past five years.
But my reading of the report, particularly the statement mentioned above, leaves me with the impression that the discrepancy isn't the result of layoffs. Sounds like the school committee got ahold of some bad DOE information.
.
4 comments:
Here's my solution:
Take the money the city spends every year on K-12 education.
Divide it by the number of school-age residents.
Hand out vouchers for the resulting amount to parents.
Tell current public school principals and teachers that they're free to start schools and compete for the dollars that come with those vouchers. Heck, the city will even let them stay in their current city-owned school buildings (for a fee, of course).
Watch public education improve when teachers realize they have to compete in a marketplace instead of using bogus stats to secure cushy raises for delivering a service in a quasi-monopolistic market.
Hmm, how about this.
Take the money the nation spends on defense.
Divide it by the number of people in the country.
Hand out vouchers for the resulting amount to each household.
Tell current soldiers and officers that they're free to start militias and compete for the dollars that come with those vouchers. Heck, they can even use the supplies they currently have (for a fee, of course.)
Watch our defense improve as we're allowed to back those militias that don't undertake foolhardy campaigns.
Sorry Paul, I don't buy the free market solution. First, I think it would provide inconsistent eductation. Second, it's a lot easier to switch cell phone service providers than it would be to switch school systems.
Third, I've be screwed by enough private companies--and worked for others--to know they are not nearly as efficient and responsive as many portray them to be.
The defense analogy does not work, because the effectiveness of national defense is linked to how big the armed forces are. Nations with small armies are not respected, which is one reason we make fun of Canada. Shatner is the other.
But education can be effective at a micro level. Let's say ten Newburyport couples wanted their kids to attend a high school with a Great Books curriculum. The public schools don't provide that, and the parents don't have the disposable income to hire private tutors or the time to home school.
But let's say each household receives a voucher for $9,000. The ten couples now have $90,000, which can be used to hire a full-time teacher and contract for some space and occasional substitutes.
That might not be the way you want to educate your children, but why should these parents be forced to hand over $9,000 of their tax money to a public system they don't want to use? Phrased differently, should the kids be deprived of a Great Books high school curriculum solely because their parents are forced to hand the tuition money over to the government system?
The military analogy was a bit of a joke, but I'm not convinced your smaller scale operation provides a better eduction.
We have efforts in Massachusetts to increase competition. Newburyport benefits from one--school choice--which allows parents from other towns to send their kids here if we have room.
This was supposed to create a sense of competition that would drive supposedly weaker school systems to improve. I haven't seen that happen.
Furthermore, we have a charter school program in Mass. as well. For reasons I'll go into later it seems to be a serious financial burden on Newburyport's public schools. However, I still haven't seen any sign that they provide a better education. It's still early though.
I just don't buy the notion that competition and entrepreneurial spirit works in every aspect of life. And I do believe--very strongly--that education is a basic, public service that government ought to provide.
Post a Comment