Not a typical teacher's point of view:
If you haven’t heard, MPS and the Milwaukee Teacher’s Education Association (MTEA) are at an impasse in their current contract talks. Once again, Milwaukee teachers are working under an expired contract and no progress in negotiations is in site. It is very possible that teachers such as I will still be without a contract when it comes time to renew again after the 2010-11 school year.
You’re probably thinking, “Oh no, here goes another MPS teacher complaining again.” And to a point you’re right. I am going to complain. I’m going to complain about the MTEA’s insidious habit of fighting things simply for the sake of fighting.
The most egregious example of this arrived in the most recent batch of negotiations’ updates sent to teachers by the union in late November. In it the MTEA said,
“More Bad News: Some of the school board’s proposals were worse than previously offered. Examples: The board’s package does not include a raise. Instead the board’s team wants to set up a joint MPS/MTEA committee to study an alternative compensation system that would consider:
· Individual skills and knowledge
· Market incentives for hard-to-fill positions and hard-to-staff schools
· Value-added growth
· Demonstrated competencies
· Experimental (pilot) schools and programs.”
My response… Yes, no offer of a raise is disappointing, though not surprising in these economic times. However, what in the list of potential alternative compensation ideas is bad news?
The MTEA claims to be defenders of the children, wanting only the best for the kids of Milwaukee. That said, why on earth are they opposed to discussing the idea of market incentives for hard to fill math, science, and special education positions when many of the current positions are being staffed by long-term subs because MPS cannot find anybody to fill them?
Are they afraid that English and social studies positions with a hundred applicants per job won’t be filled if they’re compensated less than a math teacher?
What about paying more to teachers in schools that show high value-added growth? Value added growth being the idea that a school with poor achievement that shows a high level of improvement is graded higher than a school with high achievement that makes no progress.
This type of measurement is not strictly a measure of standardized test scores as the MTEA is right to oppose. But it also takes into account certain demographic characteristics such as poverty and mobility, making it a more accurate barometer of how well a school is doing with its resources.
And do they really have “demonstrated competencies” as something on their list of things they don’t wish to discuss as it relates to compensation? Demonstrated competency being the idea that a teacher would be rewarded for showing mastery of important characteristics of teaching. Why is the union opposed to the idea of teachers who show mastery of the craft being compensated more than those who don’t demonstrate competency? I’ll tell you why.
It is because the MTEA culture is to fight simply for the sake of fighting. It is not because the MTEA has the best interest of the children in mind.
If they did, they would have the foresight to see that these changes in compensation are not a matter of if but when. They would have the foresight to discuss changes while Federal money is being offered to make these types of changes. They would have the foresight to see that it’s wise to get started now and work the kinks out of the system before the change is forced upon us.
With teacher advocates on the board such as Terry Falk and Peter Blewett, it is ludicrous to believe that the Board is deliberately screwing the teachers of MPS in trying to make these changes. Wake up MTEA and go to the table with some fresh ideas. The public is tired of the status quo and the old guard is dying.
Either you’ll lead the way in negotiating thoughtful forms of alternative compensation that will benefit hard-working teachers and kids, or you’ll be begging for forgiveness from all your members when they changes are forced upon us and we have no say in the matter.
Wednesday, January 13, 2010
One for the Teachers
Janary 4th, Milwaukee Journal Sentinel Opinion Column
Teachers' benefits-to-pay ratio is misleading
I'm a teacher in the Milwaukee Public Schools. I'm not one of those teachers who constantly complains about compensation. In fact, I've got a public track record for opening my mouth and lashing out at those who do.
However, I'm also not one to take abuse. And so I take issue with a statistic that is constantly cited with regard to MPS teacher compensation, which was repeated in Alan Borsuk's Jan. 3 article, "Just the facts, please, as we discuss MPS."
In his ninth of 10 points, Borsuk writes, "For every dollar MPS pays in salary this year, it is paying 69 cents for employee benefits. For next year, MPS budget makers expect the rate will be 71 cents."
First off, I'll tell you exactly why those budget makers foresee a rate increase for next year. It's because we're working under the old contract, and they're not expecting it to be settled before the next school year - i.e., nobody will be getting a raise.
The rate increases because they still must provide health insurance under the old contract, and that will increase in price. So, yes, my benefits-to-pay ratio will go up. However, this is only because my pay won't.
Therein lies the problem of using the benefits-to-pay ratio to try to make it appear as though teachers have lavish benefits. I'm not going to say that we don't have some very nice perks. We do. They're as nice as anyone's. However, the point I'm trying to make is that this statistic is wildly misleading as an indicator of our total compensation. Case in point: If teacher salaries were to be cut in half in the next contract, our benefits would be approximately $1.42 cents for every dollar of salary. Does this mean teachers would be getting a good deal?
Those who have cited this statistic would do far better to compare our benefits packages to that of other government entities, comparable urban districts or our private-school counterparts.
Though I don't think a comparison of benefits to pay between private and public school teachers would be completely fair due to the significant differences in work environment, at least you'd be comparing apples to apples. This is far more accurate reporting than throwing out arbitrary numbers that can be manipulated to make whatever argument you're trying to make look stronger.
As an MPS teacher in a tough economy, I'm thankful for the job I have and the compensation I receive. I appreciate the willingness of the taxpayers to fund our schools at a level that gives us a chance to educate our students effectively.
However, I don't appreciate it when people in the media attempt to manipulate numbers to serve their own agenda. One area where I will agree with the union I so often spar with is that teachers have given up salary increases in the past in order to maintain their benefits.
So keep this in mind the next time somebody tries to use the benefits-to-pay ratio to argue that teacher benefits are too good. If our salaries were doubled, the ratio would fall to 35 cents for every dollar we make in salary. No doubt if that were the case, the taxpayers would be jumping for joy.
Teachers' benefits-to-pay ratio is misleading
I'm a teacher in the Milwaukee Public Schools. I'm not one of those teachers who constantly complains about compensation. In fact, I've got a public track record for opening my mouth and lashing out at those who do.
However, I'm also not one to take abuse. And so I take issue with a statistic that is constantly cited with regard to MPS teacher compensation, which was repeated in Alan Borsuk's Jan. 3 article, "Just the facts, please, as we discuss MPS."
In his ninth of 10 points, Borsuk writes, "For every dollar MPS pays in salary this year, it is paying 69 cents for employee benefits. For next year, MPS budget makers expect the rate will be 71 cents."
First off, I'll tell you exactly why those budget makers foresee a rate increase for next year. It's because we're working under the old contract, and they're not expecting it to be settled before the next school year - i.e., nobody will be getting a raise.
The rate increases because they still must provide health insurance under the old contract, and that will increase in price. So, yes, my benefits-to-pay ratio will go up. However, this is only because my pay won't.
Therein lies the problem of using the benefits-to-pay ratio to try to make it appear as though teachers have lavish benefits. I'm not going to say that we don't have some very nice perks. We do. They're as nice as anyone's. However, the point I'm trying to make is that this statistic is wildly misleading as an indicator of our total compensation. Case in point: If teacher salaries were to be cut in half in the next contract, our benefits would be approximately $1.42 cents for every dollar of salary. Does this mean teachers would be getting a good deal?
Those who have cited this statistic would do far better to compare our benefits packages to that of other government entities, comparable urban districts or our private-school counterparts.
Though I don't think a comparison of benefits to pay between private and public school teachers would be completely fair due to the significant differences in work environment, at least you'd be comparing apples to apples. This is far more accurate reporting than throwing out arbitrary numbers that can be manipulated to make whatever argument you're trying to make look stronger.
As an MPS teacher in a tough economy, I'm thankful for the job I have and the compensation I receive. I appreciate the willingness of the taxpayers to fund our schools at a level that gives us a chance to educate our students effectively.
However, I don't appreciate it when people in the media attempt to manipulate numbers to serve their own agenda. One area where I will agree with the union I so often spar with is that teachers have given up salary increases in the past in order to maintain their benefits.
So keep this in mind the next time somebody tries to use the benefits-to-pay ratio to argue that teacher benefits are too good. If our salaries were doubled, the ratio would fall to 35 cents for every dollar we make in salary. No doubt if that were the case, the taxpayers would be jumping for joy.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
