There are four recurring themes when teacher compensation is discussed.

 

One is the level of compensation, but because it varies from locality to locality, it will not be discussed here. The other three, which are general in nature, include:

1) step increases;

2) all teacher being paid the same (no differential pay);

3) shouldn't exceptional teaching be rewarded differently?

The competition for teachers able to perform in exemplary fashion is no different from the competition for high-performing practitioners in other fields. Thus, starting salaries and advancement policies usually reflect both the aspirations of the district doing the hiring and the external competitive pressures from other districts seeking to employ the same caliber teachers.

Although there might be an apparent surplus of teachers for any given position, the best teachers will be sought by several districts having the same objectives and philosophies.

In general, teachers receive step increases in addition to cost of living adjustments, (COLAS) for the first 14-15 years of their teaching activities. There is (in my opinion) good human resources management (HR) logic behind this approach.

In teaching there are no career promotions. Mobility is usually limited and COLAS only insure that the teacher's purchasing power remains essentially constant. A classroom or special resource teacher is a teacher from the first day until retirement. Therefore, the question is how can teachers improve their standard of living over a lifetime of work? Or must that improvement stop after 15 or so years, unless the teacher leaves the profession? Although giving teachers incentives to leave after a relatively short time might appear to be good fiscal policy, it is my contention that it would be both poor personnel management and poor public policy.

Retention of a desired cadre of teachers becomes part of the HR policy. Step increases are a method used to deal with this question. Financial incentives are mainly based on two factors:

1) experience (up to a maximum).

2) additional education.

Experience step increases assume that, as in every profession, a teacher becomes more proficient over time. There usually is a limit to this experience increment. With education-based increases, there is the assumption that pertinent education increases effectiveness. Changes in either or both give rise to the step increases which occasionally, especially when occurring concurrently with COLAs, may appear unduly high for a given individual.

When the average staff age increases because of longer tenure this form of compensation may pose problems for districts. Maintaining such staff becomes a burden on a district's budget both because of the salaries themselves, but because with an older staff health care costs also tend to increase. There is also the political problem when the public sees an expenditure that is out of line when compared with districts that have younger staffs.

Questions that arise with a uniform schedule of increments are: why should all types of certified individuals be paid the same?

Aren't some areas such as math and science "worth" more than the humanities or the arts? Don't some require more specialized training than others? This, of course, is a matter both of perception and of market realities.

Also, when a large cohort of teachers certified in a certain area is available compared to a reduced number of teachers in another area, is it not reasonable to have differential pay? Such a differential might increase the availability of hard-to-find teachers.

While recognizing that the quality of the teacher's performance should have some influence on pay, something that is precluded by a uniform salary schedule, a discussion of such topic requires a rather long analysis to be left for a later time.

Abramo

Ottolenghi

Read 2 comments »