At Charter School, Higher Teacher Pay

The New York Times ^ | March 7, 2008 | Elissa Gootman

[Amelia]

A New York City charter school set to open in 2009 in Washington Heights will test one of the most fundamental questions in education: Whether significantly higher pay for teachers is the key to improving schools.

The school, which will run from fifth to eighth grades, is promising to pay teachers $125,000, plus a potential bonus based on schoolwide performance. That is nearly twice as much as the average New York City public school teacher earns, roughly two and a half times the national average teacher salary and higher than the base salary of all but the most senior teachers in the most generous districts nationwide.

The school’s creator and first principal, Zeke M. Vanderhoek, contends that high salaries will lure the best teachers. He says he wants to put into practice the conclusion reached by a growing body of research: that teacher quality — not star principals, laptop computers or abundant electives — is the crucial ingredient for success.

[CottonBall]

Ahh, yes, public service. I remember when it was an honor for people to make that sacrifice.

"As I did not teach for the good of my fellow-men, but simply for a livelihood, this was a failure.", Henry David Thoreau, "Civil Disobedience"

[traviskicks]

thanks, this story will be added to these collections on charter schools and teachers unions stories:

http://www.neoperspectives.com/charterschoolsexplained.htm

[shag377]

I work in a low income school. Within five (5) more years, the white population will be the minority.

I teach, by CHOICE, students who are in the lower classes. The straight to work kids, y’all know ‘em. These are the blue collar kids, from blue collar families.

I would not dream of teaching anything else. I love those kids.

Pay me 125K a year will not change the fact that some kids simply will never achieve. Period.

Case in point. There is a student at the school, she is attractive (models...really models) has a mom for a teacher, and a two parent home. Ideal situation for a student.

She is, at best, a high mentally impaired student. Her total IQ is probably 65. She qualifies for special services, but does not get them. She cannot balance a check book, even with a calculator.

There is no amount of teaching, differentiation, alternative assignments, or ANYTHING that will get this student to pass state mandated tests. Simple as that. The best teachers in the world could not get her to do much better than what she is doing now. Even a one on one tutor could not get her to do better. Sad, but true.

This is what I have a problem with when it comes to paying teachers more money to do the same job. Sometimes it just don’t work.

[El Cid]

Re: 54

This article says they are only going to hire great teachers,

Who defines 'great'? Is this an objective measurement? If so, what are the metrics?

they are going to pay them top dollar,

Thanks. "They", of course, being the taxpayer (whether or not they have children that attend the government schools).

and they are going to see if these teachers produce better results with some of the hardest-to-teach students in the system.

In most businesses, you produce results first, and then you get rewarded. This approach is 'odd':
Reward first.
Then check results.
Then what?
If the results are great/good - give out a higher reward? If the results are dismal - make the teachers pay back their 'top dollar' bonuses? I doubt it.

What part of this are you complaining about?

Actually most of it (see my comments above). However my primary comments were addressed towards the concept of breaking the school system out of the hands of government. It certainly disrupts our 'comfort zone' (seeing how we've gotten comfortable with increasing levels of mediocrity from our schools) - but the benefits would be great. Better schools. Better opportunities for good teachers. Accountability. AND smaller government.

[SoftballMominVA]

Well, my friend, since I teach special education, also by choice, I know what you are saying. We celebrate in my 6th grade reading class when someone goes up a level. One girl, who has made it to 6th grade this year is the 'rock star' of the class. EVERYONE, and I do mean EVERYONE wants to be like "S" because, as I have heard over and over, "She's on the ORANGE level... oooooooh,,,,, ahhhhhh," and they stand at my desk counting their lessons and averaging their scores over and over trying to forecast when they will be 2 levels or "OMG!" 1 level away.

Compare this to the GT kids who are doing gawd knows what type of brainy stuff. I'll keep my guys, thanks. I LOVE their enthusiasm and eagerness to learn. Even though they are slower than the average bear, they are my babies, and they know I love every one of them dearly.

[Amelia]

Who defines 'great'? Is this an objective measurement? If so, what are the metrics?

According to the article:

There will be telephone and in-person interviews, and applicants will have to submit multiple forms of evidence attesting to their students’ achievement and their own prowess; only those scoring at the 90th percentile in the verbal section of the GRE, GMAT or similar tests need apply. The process will culminate in three live teaching auditions.

Of course the article states that the experiment calls into question "how teachers should be selected, compensated and judged", so this may or may not be the best way of selecting "great" teachers.

"They", of course, being the taxpayer (whether or not they have children that attend the government schools).

It is hard to tell for certain from the article, but it sounds as though the school itself will not cost more per student than other schools, but that the school will eliminate other costs and positions (making teachers do those jobs as well), have less technology than other schools, and have higher class sizes so that almost all the money spent on the school can go toward paying the higher teacher salaries.

However my primary comments were addressed towards the concept of breaking the school system out of the hands of government. It certainly disrupts our 'comfort zone' (seeing how we've gotten comfortable with increasing levels of mediocrity from our schools) - but the benefits would be great. Better schools. Better opportunities for good teachers. Accountability. AND smaller government.

This will be a government school, so I suspect there is no way you would like it no matter how it was constituted, but the stated purpose is to provide "Better schools. Better opportunities for good teachers.[and] Accountability."

Would you at least concede that since it is making the unions uncomfortable and challenging their way of doing things, it might be a good start and/or a useful experiment?

[Amelia]

shag377, I teach the same sort of children you do (also by choice), but the majority of our students are already minority. I agree that some students will never achieve no matter what...

But it seems to me (and SoftballMom's post is an example) the GT kids will probably do well no matter what, and it's our lower-level kids who will see the biggest difference with really good teachers.

[Keyes2000mt]

I actually think there’s something to this. Regular public schools are overbloated with staff. Basically, this school is giving teachers a raise to work there but expecting them to perform better and take on more responsibility. Thus, they’ll get the cream of the crop.

[El Cid]

Re: 66

Thanks for summarizing the 'greatness' metrics. On the surface it sounds good - but of course the devil is in the details, and how the selection committee actually weighs the data.

I am very skeptical about the comment that:
"but it sounds as though the school itself will not cost more per student than other schools, but that the school will eliminate other costs and positions (making teachers do those jobs as well), have less technology than other schools, and have higher class sizes so that almost all the money spent on the school can go toward paying the higher teacher salaries."

I agree that 'technology' is overblown with respect to K-12 education (the rage - in the 90s - to get computers into all of the classrooms and to 'wire' them onto Al Gore's Internet was insane. Learn the basics well, and let the other 'stuff' come later - as needed). But, I just don't see these folks balancing a budget -- they never have. Saying that they are going to balance the higher salaries by cutting budgets, increasing class sizes, eliminating admin positions, etc., sounds nice - but I just see this as something being stated for public consumption, and not intended to be implemented.

This will be a government school, so I suspect there is no way you would like it no matter how it was constituted, ... Would you at least concede that since it is making the unions uncomfortable and challenging their way of doing things, it might be a good start and/or a useful experiment?

You are correct on the first point - after 40 years of deteriorating school quality, I'm of the 'End it, Don't Mend it' persuasion. But in regards to your second point - yes, I concede that in principle this sounds like a positive program. I just believe that because it is operating within the existing system -- IF it shows evidence of success the system's anti-bodies will kill it, to ensure the survival of the host (the unions, and school establishment). So from an abstract perspective? - sure, sounds like a great idea. From the track record of the organization it is trying to fix? - it won't work, the government needs to get out of the school system and the schools need to demonstrate (and be held accountable) for producing good product in a competitive environment.

[metmom]

In the case I know of, the school is NOT overcrowded. The teacher’s rooms are dark, locked, and empty, and the teachers nowhere to be seen during the prep periods.

[tj21807]

So label all teachers because you couldn’t find one on their prep period?

Try the copy room, teacher’s room, SPED room, SPED office, Library, Guidance office, etc.

I have yet to see a school where teachers are allowed to go home on their prep.

[metmom]

Not only one, by any means. It was rare to find the one in their room. And nobody knew where they were.

[Amelia]

And nobody knew where they were.

That's because they were running around between the "copy room, teacher’s room, SPED room, SPED office, library, guidance office, etc." and even if they'd told someone where they were going (not that most other teachers would want to know or would remember) they'd probably be at the next place by the time you got to the first one.

The other places I'm liable to be during my "prep" period are: in the main office, covering another teacher's class because there isn't a substitute, or attending a Student Support Team meeting.

[tioga]

(snicker) try googling his name.......LOL, the plot thickens.

[Styria]

I don’t even remember his name. =)

[tioga]

Mychael Willon — seems after the NYC job he was applying to another school district to be superintendent......he made it to the top five where they reviewed the creds very thoroughly - he got eliminated as his were phony. Just google it and there are a number of articles about it. Figures that our district bought that hook, line and sinker.....but we replaced them on the board.

[MediaMole]

Here’s a searchable database with teacher salaries in the Milwaukee area.

http://www.jsonline.com/story/index.aspx?id=683257

Some of the salaries are pretty eye opening. Especially since Milwaukee doesn’t even come close to NYC’s cost of living.

[Amelia]

Interesting info! Lots of well-paid administrators in that area.

I found this...it's a little bit dated but it shows that average teacher salaries can vary wildly from state to state...

2004-05

Rank	State	2004-05
1	DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA	58,456	*
2	CALIFORNIA	57,876	*
3	CONNECTICUT	57,737
4	MICHIGAN	56,973	*
5	NEW JERSEY	56,682	*
6	NEW YORK	56,200
7	ILLINOIS	55,421
8	MASSACHUSETTS	54,679
9	RHODE ISLAND	53,473	*
10	PENNSYLVANIA	53,258	*
11	ALASKA	52,424
12	MARYLAND	52,331
13	DELAWARE	50,595
14	OHIO	48,692	*
15	OREGON	48,330
	UNITED STATES	47,674	*
16	MINNESOTA	46,906
17	INDIANA	46,583
18	GEORGIA	46,526
19	HAWAII	46,149
20	WASHINGTON	45,718
21	VERMONT	44,535
22	WISCONSIN	44,299
23	COLORADO	43,949
24	NEW HAMPSHIRE	43,941
25	NEVADA	43,394
26	NORTH CAROLINA	43,348
27	ARIZONA	42,905	*
28	VIRGINIA	42,768
29	SOUTH CAROLINA	42,189
30	IDAHO	42,122	*
31	TENNESSEE	42,076
32	FLORIDA	41,590
33	TEXAS	41,011
34	KENTUCKY	40,522
35	WYOMING	40,497
36	ARKANSAS	40,495	*
37	MAINE	39,610
38	NEBRASKA	39,456
	UTAH	39,456
40	NEW MEXICO	39,391
41	KANSAS	39,345
42	IOWA	39,284
43	MISSOURI	39,067
44	LOUISIANA	39,022
45	MONTANA	38,485
46	WEST VIRGINIA	38,360
47	ALABAMA	38,186
48	OKLAHOMA	37,879
49	NORTH DAKOTA	36,695
50	MISSISSIPPI	36,590	*
51	SOUTH DAKOTA	34,040

NEA Research, Estimates Database (2006).

[tj21807]

“I found this...it’s a little bit dated but it shows that average teacher salaries can vary wildly from state to state...”

I hate when those statistics are used, as the larger percentage of near retirement skew that statistic up.

[Amelia]

I hate when those statistics are used, as the larger percentage of near retirement skew that statistic up.

Well, that's true. In the link MediaMole provided, there were a number of teachers making about $15,000 per year, and some making over $50,000 per year.