Wendy Says

The headline reads, “700 NYC Teachers are Paid to do Nothing.” Intriguing. Some days I’m so overwhelmed at school, I’d love to be paid to just sit and do nothing for a day or two. It seems these teachers, however, are being paid to sit out of the classroom while waiting for hearings. All of them have been accused of wrongdoing of some sort and, because of the strong union in New York, they cannot be fired without a disciplinary hearing.

I live and work in a right-to-work state. Being a part of the local or state-level union is optional, which means that membership is typically low. Consequently, unions don’t have a lot of clout. I’ve heard of non-tenured teachers being fired on the spot, given less-than-desirable assignments to flush out what the administration deems a “bad seed,” assigned extra duties and responsibilities as punishment, and moved to another school mid-year because of an infraction. There’s not a lot teachers can do about this. Quit? Sure.

But to put 700 teachers (making salaries of $70,000+) in a room for months, and sometimes years, on end just seems ridiculous. The arbitrators that hear the teachers’ cases work only five days a month, causing a huge back-up.

Administration officials complain that the union makes it too difficult to fire teachers. But if a teacher is in the so-called “rubber room” for sexual misconduct, why should taxpayers have to pay for the teacher to sit and write a book or teach fellow “detainees” yoga? That’s what they’re doing, and not just in New York. Similar rooms exist in unionized states all over the country!

Some of the teachers are being disciplined for what I see as minor infractions, such as using foul language after being abused by a student. (I’d probably have a few involuntary words myself if a student physically abused me!) Another teacher is accused of pushing a student while attempting to stop a fight. (In the heat of the moment, someone likely did get pushed. But the teacher was protecting both students from each other. Isn’t that what we’re supposed to do?)

Teachers waiting for their disciplinary hearings are not permitted to do school work, and they must stay in the room during the school day. Though they do still enjoy weekends, holidays, and summers off while waiting. All while earning their regular salary.

I’m sure all teachers yearn for that paid day off now and again. But to hold disciplinary hearings only five times a month while paying teachers their regular salaries to sit and wait is just a waste. Get the teachers with the major infractions out of the way quickly, and deal with the minor infractions at the school or district level. Don't misuse taxpayer dollars.

I think I’m typically in the minority when I say that, looking at the big picture, teachers are not, as a whole, underpaid. The national average salary for a teacher hovers around $42,000 which is hardly a fortune. In fact, one would be hard-pressed to support a family on that income alone. But adding in all the extra stipends for extra work that many teachers are known for, most teachers are hardly living in poverty conditions. Though who couldn’t use a raise, right?

A recent New York Times article spotlighted a new charter school that is developing a “dream team” of teachers. The school, set to open this fall in New York City’s Washington Heights, plans to pay its teachers $125,000 per year. My interest was piqued immediately. But as I read on, I decided that these teachers don’t stand a chance.

The teachers that are signed on for this revolutionary school experiment include a former NBA personal trainer, two Ivy League graduates, an accomplished violist, and a teacher whose supervisor actually cried when offering a recommendation, among other very qualified individuals. The eight teachers hired for this new school will teach 120 fifth graders, chosen in a lottery with preference given to low income students that don’t perform well academically. Eventually the school’s founder, expects to grow the school to 480 students.

Sounds like a great concept—give these disadvantaged kids the best teachers and they will do well, right? Wrong, I’m afraid. What the article only mentions briefly is that these teachers are “it.” With the high salary the teachers will receive, also comes a lot of extra responsibility. The school will not have an assistant principal, teacher coaches, or substitute teachers. And teachers at this school will work longer hours and more days than the typical teacher.

What is not stated is the other “extras” we are all used to that these teachers may not see. Cafeteria services, crosswalk guards, maintenance staff, a library, supplies, readily-available technology, continuing education opportunities, support staff… The list can go on forever. I wonder how this new school can be successful with great teachers but limited resources.

Sure, hiring the best and paying them what they are worth is a great, new concept. But I don’t know any teacher that can get through the day without some of these basic necessities at their disposal. It will be very interesting to see how this experimental school does.

Me? I’ll take the lower salary and enjoy some of the great benefits of teaching. Great hours, summers off, and resources available when needed.

As a teacher in a Career Ladder district (a merit-pay program), I am no stranger to merit pay. In fact, as a second-career teacher, I have experience being rewarded for my performance, not simply the number of years I’ve been on the job.

In the midst of an economic crisis, President Obama recently called for teacher pay for performance—student performance, that is. I am all for improving student performance. And while I can see how a teacher’s instructional ability is directly tied to student performance, there are so many other factors that are part of the puzzle. How will it all be measured?

Is it really fair to weigh a teacher’s salary—or salary increase—on student performance? Take the 10^th grader who is absent 30 days during the school year because she has to babysit her baby brother. Or the kindergartener who has never been read to, simply because his parents didn’t know the importance of reading and language.

To base a teacher’s salary on the performance of these students is doing a disservice to everyone involved. It is telling the teacher she didn’t impact students because a few students didn’t meet the formulaic goal set by someone who has never set foot in her, or quite possibly, any classroom. And it is sending a message to students that are at an educational disadvantage that their progress doesn’t count, simply because they don’t meet a standard set, again, by someone that doesn’t know their circumstances.

Don’t get me wrong. I am all for rewarding teachers for a job well done. But that job must be measured by more than just whether or not students meet the standards. Professional development, school and district leadership, community involvement, and much more should be part of the equation. And when measuring student performance, measure overall growth. Not every student is capable of meeting predetermined standards for their grade level. But, with highly trained, motivated teachers, every student is capable of growth!