New Jersey is unquestionably one of the two or three highest performing states in the nation on NAEP. Given its extremes of wealth and pockets of dense poverty, it may well be the highest performing state.
As is obvious by now, Governor Chris Christie and his helper Chris Cerf hope to privatize as much of he state school system as they can while they can.
Jersey Jazzman is predictably wary of the Newark contract. Here is his take on the deal, which is funded in large part by private and non-recurring money.
Diane Ravitch's blog 
“Announced yesterday, the tentative contract between the state-run Newark public school system and the 3,100-member Newark Teachers Union was hailed by such disparate players as Gov. Chris Christie and American Federation of Teachers President Randi Weingarten.”
I am thoroughly convinced that Weingarten does not have the best interests of the schools in mind if she is going to endorse merit pay no matter how it is dressed up.
“Among its highlights: performance bonuses, peer reviews, and the first steps to end to the salary guides that all but guarantee a raise every year.”
There are good salary guides and there are bad salary guides. Just as there are good politicians and there are bad ones. Does the existence of bad ones mean we should eliminate them all?
“… it appears to do little about the excess teachers that continue to dog Newark’s billion-dollar budget.”
I heard about these bully teachers who “dog” the budget by hiring themselves, but I thought it was just a myth. Apparently, it’s happening in Newark right under our noses.
“And while the mostly private money for performance bonuses may exist now, will it be there in the future?”
Why is it there now? Is this how public programs are funded?
“Unlike broader merit pay agreements, they are directed to very specific standards. For instance: Teachers who are rated ‘highly effective’ can get a $5,000 bonus for each year they maintain that status.”
I wonder if the percentage of the cut that the evaluators get for giving out high marks is spelled out in the contract, too? Or perhaps this provision is part of “another” contract that has offers you can’t refuse.
Oh wait, there will be peer review.
“Peer review isn’t new — Rochester, NY, and Montgomery County, MD, are the most notable examples of peer systems. But the NTU has built in a number of checks and balances that will ensure that teachers not only have an eye on their peers but also a say in their evaluations.
This is accomplished by having teachers sitting on school panels and taking a direct part in the evaluations. Some will serve on a district council that will monitor the evaluations as they come in. Teachers can even bring in outside ‘validators’ to double-check their evaluations.”
Just like salary guides and politicians, peer review systems can be good or bad. My question is, which peer teachers will serve on the panel and who appoints them? Will they be voted into service by the teachers? Will they be compensated for their time and efforts? Will they be carefully selected (as per that “other” contract, maybe) by administrators or the board? Can they recuse themselves if they have personal relationships with those who they are evaluating? What about teachers with disparate teaching philosophies and styles—can they be impartial? What if there is a private and personal conflict between peers and one is on the panel to evaluate the other—how are these situations handled? If a teacher feels as if the evaluation was skewed, what recourse does that teacher have to protest? What is the liability of the peer evaluator in that process? So many questions and so little explanation offered in this piece. If I were one of the Newark AFT members, I would be asking these questions before I vote to ratify anything.
“Teachers who work in the highest-need schools, essentially those in the bottom quartile of the district in performance, can earn an extra $5,000 annually.”
Who do you have to pay off to get a job there?
“Teachers working in high-need subject areas like math, science, and special education can receive $2,500 annually.”
This stipulation is the most troubling. The insinuation here is that there is a hierarchy of subjects—therefore there is a hierarchy of professionals based on what they teach, not how well they teach or how they contribute to the education of their students. Teaching is a team effort—otherwise, there would be at-large tutors for each individual citizen and not school systems. Just because a related arts teacher teaches students for a fraction of the time that math and science teachers teach students, it does not mean that a) they are not fine teachers, b) they do not contribute to the overall education of the students, and c) the subjects are low-need.
“Bonuses…will also be part of a separate salary guide required of new teachers and those with only a bachelor’s degree, but they will be optional for as many as half of the district’s teachers, those now holding advanced degrees and able to stay on a more traditional salary scale if they choose. That standard salary scale will continue to pay them for experience and credentials.”
This is what is called “divide and conquer.” It is understandable that no one supports a system of compensation for status quo, but there are professional concerns to consider. A teacher who has earned tenure is put through a rigorous process to show skill and knowledge in situ. Experience feeds skill and knowledge and should not be held as an equal criterion—it should be isolated for its contribution TO skill and knowledge. Placing inexperienced or less-credentialed professionals on a different guide from others (and then attaching incentives to this guide) creates a two-tier system of professionals. Instead, incentives to gain more credentials ought to be included in the guide, as in most salary guides. If you work for an advanced degree in your teaching area, you should receive compensation for the time and effort put forth, and the skills and knowledge acquired with such an endeavor, but not on a different salary guide.
“Other than a few isolated instances, incentive pay is new to New Jersey and provides the first real test of the idea in a state that already pays its teachers as well as any in the country.”
This is a misleading statement. One cannot compare salaries of New Jersey with the rest of the country until one considers the high cost-of-living in New Jersey compared with the rest of the country.
“Further, this contract will limit pay raises to teachers who maintain an ‘effective’ rating or better. Those who receive the lowest evaluations will automatically be refused a raise. It will be the district’s option for those deemed in the second tier, or ‘partially effective.’ ”
There’s that tier system again, although who can forget about the possible “other” private contract between teachers and their evaluators.
“Administrators already can withhold such raises under current rules, but it doesn’t happen much. This year, the district withheld increment raises to about 25 or 30 teachers total, the union said.”
The reason for this is: It has to be proven why a district would withhold an increment. If there is veracity to the claim, the district can proceed. If there is not, the district faces a lawsuit. Most districts do not care to back up any negative evaluations with facts. It’s simply easier to just “pass” everyone. Knowledgeable and fair administrators know the difference between quibbles over teaching philosophy and a lack of skills. In effect, the myth of the existence of “a plethora of bad teachers in the system” is just that. If a teacher has earned tenure in New Jersey, that person has passed the rigors of evaluations as a non-tenured teacher. That is not to say that there isn’t any “dead wood” out there. There is a means to withhold increments with proof in every contract. Why punish teachers for what administrations do not do?
“The Newark contract won’t come cheap, and although hard numbers are yet to be released, both public and private dollars are essential to making it fly.”
Private money does not belong in the public schools when it comes to running the systems. Adding un-mandated enhancements is another thing.
“Even without performance bonuses, the average teacher could see raises exceeding the state average of 2 percent to 3 percent in each of the next three years.”
Do the corporations hired by the state and municipalities ever increase their prices? Yes? Why should teachers be expected to not be compensated for their experience and the cost-of-living? Every employee should—it is irresponsible and unfair to frame this argument as stated above. This is part of the cost of maintaining systems, and it goes on in EVERY public system, even the ones where portions are run by hired private corporations that are not publicly contracted (i.e. Haliburton, etc.) People act as if the expense that stems from the rising costs of running a system is shocking and uncalled-for.
“This will also be the first big ticket investment for Zuckerberg’s foundation, which in two years has doled out as much as $16 million, depending on who’s doing the counting. But it has been a trickle so far, with foundation leaders saying the strategic planning has taken time.”
Trickle down has never worked in any economic system. Perhaps what the powers-that-be really mean is the “time” for the money to “do its job” is actually the “time” needed for the system to be revamped, restructured, and de-unionized. THEN once the system is completely unrecognizable, the “money” is put to the use to privatize it. Just a theory. If this is not the hidden agenda, why are teachers held to timely annual standards with the “failure of the meeting of such” a factor that may cause them to lose their jobs? Don’t they need “time” to show the merits of having them on staff? I thought that was what earning tenure was about, but apparently, that means nothing if we’re going to give bonuses to some and not others. I think teachers should have the same amount of time that the money gets to do its job, whatever that job may be.
“If this deal goes through, it would be committing as much as another $50 million to the contract alone, most notably the bonuses — a full quarter of the $200 million to be raised.
The district will provide the other half of the $100 million at a time when it is struggling to make ends meet, especially with the surge of charter schools taking a bigger and bigger share of the dollars.”
Why does the district need to fund merit pay at all? Why not utilize that money for supporting the teachers they have now?
“ ‘We are confident we can find savings that can be deployed to this key effort,’ she said.”
Interesting how money can be found when it’s time to divide and conquer employees, but there is no money anywhere when the “big, bad teachers” are negotiating contracts.
“As copies of the contract are leaked, all eyes will be on the salary guides. They lay out how teachers are compensated at different parts of their careers, and have been notoriously uneven — especially for new teachers.”
So have our policy makers been notoriously uneven, but where’s the public outcry to fix THAT system?
“They also said there will be special incentives for new teachers as well, with one-time bonuses of up to $20,000 for gaining an advanced degree, a sure help in paying off student loans.”
Is there a stipulation that the teachers getting advanced degrees and whopping bonuses are going to stay with the district long enough for the district to see the fruits of these efforts? If that astronomical amount is going to be given to each teacher going back to school (a great idea that has already been implemented in smaller degrees), there ought to be very strict rules regarding the service back to the district. For that amount, it might be fair to say that 5 years of service after the degree is earned is fair. If a teacher must leave the district, that money should be returned in part. This should be stipulated in the contract. Also, who gets first dibs on the money? If every teacher wanted to do this, the district would never be able to afford it no matter how many Zuckerberg’s contribute. Now you have to have a plan stipulating who gets the opportunities and in what order.
“Still, the extent of the performance bonuses beyond this contract remains an open question. The drying up of funds has led to the demise of pay-for-performance plans in other states, and both Anderson and Del Grosso said that will be determined in the years ahead.
‘Let’s pray there is another Zuckerberg out there for the next contract,’ Del Grosso said.”
I’m thinking, let’s not. Zuckerberg’s money, like any private interests’ money, comes with a price. Besides “divide and conquer,” we have yet to hear what else it will be.
The above quotes are from the article linked in Jersey Jazzman’s piece:
http://www.njspotlight.com/stories/12/10/19/newark-teachers-contract-a-game-changer-for-nj-s-often-troubled-school-district
Good stuff. It’s becoming clear this contract is a trade-off (I guess all contracts are). I just don’t know right now if it’s a good one or not. But you lay out many of the issues well.
Yes, you choose your battles in every contract negotiation.
There are, however, some issues that should never be up for negotiation. The union ought to notice that there are some proposals in this contract that divide its members so subjectively that their implementation goes against the principles of collective bargaining.
One such issue is: fairness in the workplace. Providing compensation opportunities for some at the exclusion of others (if they are in the “wrong” school or teaching the “wrong” subject) creates an unfair working environment. I don’t feel it’s even necessary to read the contract’s explanations of its merit pay proposals to know that their basic philosophies are damaging to teachers and, in turn, damaging to the schools in which they teach. Like I’ve said before: No matter how you “dress it up,” merit pay is wrong for public schools.
Dear Diane:
I’m hesitant to post the following because it is boasting, and I hate that. But this just happened, last Thursday, Oct. 18, 2012, after a somewhat dispiriting week in education which included the Obama Administration’s lack of meaningful response to our letter-writing campaign — and a mind-numbing all-day training in how to prepare for New York States’ new teacher evaluation protocols. Also, I don’t think what happened to me is especially important; it’s just that it reflects the sort of thing that happens all the time to teachers — and which the general public rarely hears about. So, I hope you and your readers will forgive the ignobility of sharing this; it’s meant for people outside of public education to see.
As I said, last Thursday I was feeling pretty down, and wasn’t looking forward to the 18-hours of grading I have to do this weekend. But just before I went to bed, I checked my Facebook account on-line, and found I had two messages from former students. The first was from a student I hadn’t heard from in a decade; the second from a young teacher whom I’d taught both as a high school sophomore and as a graduate student in teaching.
The first one included a link to an article that the 20-something student, now a writer, had published in a major magazine. It read, “Hello, mr. —–!
i’m writing to thank you for the critical thinking and writing skills you instilled in the 15-year-old me that helped me with this article. i think you’ll enjoy it!”
The second message described a lesson that teacher had just taught. “Dear Mr. _——-, I wanted to send you a quick note of thanks. Today I simulated the meeting of the estates general after throwing out cookie after cookie into a trashcan labeled Versailles. My bishop and lord loved the lesson, while my third estate I thought for sure would quickly rush the table in rebellion! The lesson was a big hit and a great way to begin our study of the French Revolution. Thank you for being an endless source of inspiration, I love every day of teaching.
“I hope you are doing well!”
Thanks to these two messages from these wonderful young adults, I AM doing well — and taking just enough time out from grading to post this. THIS is what it’s all about. And THIS has nothing whatsoever to do with testing teachers, testing students, unions, charter schools or any of the other malarkey that the larger world seems to mistake for the relationships between teachers and students.
Although, I would say that one buzz word DOES apply. Notes like these are my merit pay!