Where the Single Salary Schedule Came From

The New Yorker recently ran an article on pay disrimination that Alex Russo of This Week in Education linked to the teacher salary schedule that controls what teachers make based on years of experience and qualifications while ignoring student achievement, evaluations, and the like. I've also heard before that the salary schedule was a response to the Spoils System that was once so pervasive.

Maybe it's time has come, maybe it hasn't; that's for folks above my pay grade to say. What needs to be understood, though, is that the salary schedule didn't arise out of a vacuum--it had a reason for being.

Terry Bergeson—Underpaid?

Surfing around I came across this spreadsheet from the Washington Citizens’ Commission on Salaries for Elected Officials which shows that there are 110 superintendents in Washington who have a higher base salary than Dr. Bergeson, our Superintendent of Public Instruction.

Only making low six figures is such a drag.

The Salary Gap

Here’s a spin-off from the post I did yesterday looking at teacher and administrator salary averages over the last 35 years here in Washington State.

We’ve heard a lot in the past few years about how CEO salaries are outpacing those of the workers by an ungodly percentage; this article gives a good overview. I was curious to see if that applied on our level, too.

Here are the average salaries for central office administrators, principals, and teachers from 1973-1974 and the current school year:

	1973-1974	2007-2008
Central Office	$19,540	$101,475
Principals	$17,368	$92,103
Teachers	$11,295	$49,903

This table shows the teacher salary as a percentage of the central office and principal salaries for the two years above (teacher salary/other salary):

	Central Office	Principals
73-74	57.8%	65.03%
07-08	49.18%	54.18%

So what does it mean?

In 1973, the average teacher made about 58% of the salary of the average superintendent. This year, the average teacher makes less than half of the average supe.

In 1973 the average teacher made 65% of the average principal. Now it’s 54%.

You could argue, then, that teacher salaries have not kept pace with administrative salaries. You could argue further that, given how the state funds administration, that this means that local money is being poured into administrator salaries at an increasingly aggressive pace.

The argument that I’d get from WASA and AWSP is that we need to attract quality people to the principalship and beyond by offering a quality salary. I won’t disagree with the point, but if you’re an administrator it’s also not a very good argument to make because it’s so damnably easy to turn on its head: don’t we also need to attract good people into the classroom by offering them a competitive salary as well?

I don’t know if these numbers matter, or if I’m reading them correctly. I think there’s something there, but I’m not sure what.

Any thoughts?

Six Figures

The OSPI website is a fun place, depending on what kind of fun you’re looking for. It’s not Spitzerish fun; it’s not even Disneyland fun. It’s more like that sense of fun you feel when you open the dishwasher and see that it’s already been run so the dishes are clean and you can use those dishes for a few days and then worry about loading it again at some point in the future, and if you get lucky your wife or mother-in-law might do it!

Anyhow, poking around the site a few weeks back I came across this spreadsheet (Historical Comparison of Statewide School District Personnel Annualized Average Base Salaries) looking at trends in teacher pay in Washington State. It’s complete for teachers, administrators, and classified staff back to 1973-1974, and the patterns are pretty interesting.

• In the 1973-1974 school year there were about 32,700 teachers who made an average salary of $11,295. In 2007-2008 there are 54,000 teachers making an average of almost $50k a year.
  
  
• In 1973 there were 1,200 “central administrators” (I’m assuming that means superintendents; the page I have doesn’t define) making $19,540 a year. In 2007 there were 1,174 administrators making an average of $101,475.
  
  
• “Wait a minute,” I can hear you thinking, “there are less central administrators now than there were 35 years ago? That can’t be right!” I agree, given the rise of special ed directors, assistant superintendents, and the like, though I’d posit that the fact that there’s less school districts now than there were then could be an influence.
  
  
• Unit administrators (the principals) make an average of $92,103 a year, up from $17,368 in 1973.

Hooray for numbers!

More Isn't Always Better

Cross-posted from "What It's Like on the Inside"

I was chatting with an elementary principal recently who talked about the lack of time for his teachers to teach science to their young charges. The reason provided was that many of the children were receiving two to three times as much math and/or literacy instruction as their peers in an attempt to bring them up to grade level. I remarked that quantity wasn't always the best substitute for quality. I don't doubt that there are some kids who benefit from some additional time to focus on a topic, but I still think it comes to down to how that time is used. More of the same isn't going to help.

I remembered this story when I was reading an editorial in the Tacoma News-Tribune about offering higher pay to math and science teachers. The main reason offered is that "there are more opportunities to make more money outside of public education for those with math and science skills than for those with other skills. How does public education respond? It must pay those teachers enough to keep them in the classroom, for a few years anyway."

Okay. As a science teacher, the promise of more money is appealing...as it would be for anyone (and not just teachers). But what I think the author of the editorial hasn't considered is that more pay is not going to lead to better teaching. For example, I know of a teacher in the district who is very happy at his school. He talks about teaching there until retirement...which is 25+ years away. But just because he likes picking up a paycheck there doesn't make him a good teacher, does it? I know that he creates his tests a couple of hours before he gives them (and just uses a test generator to spit out something). There are few labs or cooperative activities ever done. Students in his classes consistently underperform others in the district. Should we pay him more simply because he teaches science? More pay is not going to equal better instruction from this man. And a full generation of kids is going to suffer in the meantime.

I suppose that this post could quickly evolve into one about merit pay...but I'm not interested in going there at the moment. What I do want to think about is separating the concept of "quality" from "quantity." These are not interchangeable terms and in educational matters, we need to stop using them as such.

educational legislation: 2007 House Bills in review

In 2007, regional media types paid all kinds of attention to the fate of various Washington State educational laws. Joint Resolution 4204, which passed by a Gregoire-thin margin to allow simple majorities for levies, was probably the best-known, while HB 2079 was the most controversial. But lots more were passed. Here are the highlights from the House's year in educational legislation. (I've focused on the elementary and secondary level, with a few postsecondary bills thrown in there as they relate to high school instruction. If I've missed one, let me know.)



Kevin's Law: ESHB 1050
IEP students must be allowed to walk in a grad ceremony with their peers, even if all they receive at the time is a "Certificate of Attendance."


Completing High School at a Community College: HB 1051
The most concise summary comes from Governor Gregoire's partial veto:

Sections 1 through 8 of this bill provide for the development of two pilot programs at community or technical colleges. The programs are intended to support certain students as they work to meet the State's academic standards in reading, writing, mathematics or science. For these students, demonstrating proficiency in one or more of these subjects is the final step in meeting their high school graduation requirements and obtaining a high school diploma. The legislation outlines the student eligibility and program criteria, authorizes the financial support, waives student tuition and fees, and provides for a study of the program's results in two years' time.

Section 9 of the bill creates and recognizes a new state certificate for high school students who do not meet the requirements for a high school diploma, the Certificate of Academic Completion (Certificate). The Certificate may be conferred by school districts to students who meet all state and local requirements for graduation with the exception of passage of one or more of the high school assessments in reading, writing and mathematics. Our students are working very hard to achieve the skills necessary for success in their endeavors beyond high school. By creating the Certificate of Academic Completion we will be sending a message to these students that they do not need basic skills required for the high school diploma. This is wrong.

Get Students Involved: HB 1052
This little bill provides greater access for middle and high school students to the Legislative Advisory Council, plus grants for students to participate in civic education competitions such as Model UN.


Postsecondary Opportunities: HB 1096
Globalization, according to the legislature, requires need-based grants for workers to gain certification or skills training in "high demand occupations" from community or technical colleges.


Book Savings For All: HB 1224
Community colleges were added to the ranks of institutions that must pursue policies that keep book and material costs down, or, at the very least, make options and alternatives publicly known.


Cash for Computers: HB 1280
If I understand this correctly, this bill allows districts to pay for major technology upgrades out of existing "capital projects" levies, instead of having to run a special techno-levy. (Another minor bill, HB 2357, would allow districts to use timber money for capital projects, too.)


Service Credit for ESAs: HB 1432
Might as well quote the bill itself:

Beginning in the 2007-08 school year, the calculation of years of service for occupational therapists, physical therapists, speech-language pathologists, audiologists, nurses, social workers, counselors, and psychologists regulated under Title 18 RCW may include experience in schools and other nonschool positions as occupational therapists, physical therapists, speech-language pathologists, audiologists, nurses, social workers, counselors, or psychologists. The calculation shall be that one year of service in a nonschool position counts as one year of service for purposes of this chapter, up to a limit of two years of nonschool service.

It's only for the salary schedule; retirement counts only school service.


Dealing With the Dropout Problem: HB 1573

Sections 1 through 7 of this bill provide for the development and implementation of a grant program that, through collaborative school district, family and community partnerships and services, support vulnerable students who are at risk of dropping out of middle or high school. The grant program will be called the Building Bridges Program.

This is perhaps the most ambitious attempt the state has made at reducing the dropout rate. I still see this as the problem at the high school level, come low or high WASL.


Defining a Counselor: HB 1670
Up until this year, for all legal intents and purposes, school counselors didn't exist. Now they do.


Agency Shop Fees Clarified: HB 2079
10 + 10 - 10 = 10. Now, which 10 is left? This bill says: not yours, shop fee payer, that the Supreme Court may be mollified. Whew. That was a dire emergency.


Add a Little Spice: HB 2154
Now ESD board members will come up for election in odd, rather than even, years. That oughtta bring out the vote.


Bonus Bonus: HB 2262
Become certified by the National Board for Professional Teaching Standards, collect $5,000--or more, if you teach in an impoverished district. For me, this was the incentive that tipped the scales away from ProCert to NBPTS. Apparently, a lot of other teachers feel the same way.


Investing in the Common Schools: HB 2396
On the same day she signed the Rainy Day Fund into law, Gregoire also allowed the state to invest its permanent common school fund in equities, in hopes that it would earn at a rate at least equal to inflation.


Killing Gainsharing: HB 2391
On that same day, gainsharing died, and teachers mourned.


Let's Have a Poet Laureate: HB 1279
Why not? By the way, it's Samuel Green.

What Leaders Make

The November 16th edition of the Chronicle of Higher Education features their yearly look at what college and university presidents are making; there’s some big numbers to be found. Consider these, the highest paid presidents at private universities:

• Richard Freeland, Northeastern University: $2,887,785
  
• James Gallagher, Philadelphia U: $2,557,219
  
• William Brody, Johns Hopkins: $1,938,024

At public universities:

• David Roselle, U of Delaware: $874,687
  
• John Casteen, U of Virginia: $753,672
  
• Mark A. Emmert, University of Washington: $752,700

That said, given how the UofW has been doing lately, you could fairly argue that Dr. Emmert has earned every penny.

Washington State’s recent president, V. Lane Rawlins, made $576,450. William Robinson of Whitworth brought home $286,420, and Reverend Spitzer of Gonzaga took down a cool $259,477, though I suspect he probably doesn’t see much of it, what with the vow of poverty and all.

Good for them!