Teachers, Unions, Money

Educaton Sector has released a new report authored by Marguerite Roza of the University of Washington and the Center on Reinventing Public Education, analyzing the fiscal impact of teacher contracts. Titled "Frozen Assets," the paper finds that roughly $77 billion nationwide is tied up in supporting contracts provisions that have a weak relationship with student learning, and could thus potentially be put to better use.

The Washington Post has a good story on the report here. NEA president Reg Weaver offers the standard "object first, figure out what the heck I'm talking about later, or more probably never" non-sequiter response, by saying: "Research has shown us time and time again that low salaries drive committed people from the teaching profession." Had he read the report, he would know that it has nothing to do with cutting salaries for teachers overall. If anything, it would increase teacher salaries by redirecting money that is currently being used for purposes that, according to research, don't contribute to student learning, such as teacher's aides, marginal class size reductions, ineffective professional development, and overly generous non-salary benefits. As the paper notes, that money could be used for proposals that the NEA itself supports, like increasing the average starting salary for teachers.

AFTie Michele posits that one of the provisions analyzed--excessive sick days--may be a function of the fact that teachers, more than most workers, tend to (A) be women, who take time off to go the doctor when pregnant, and (B) spend a lot of time with children, who spread a lot of germs. Seems like a fair point, whether it accounts for all the differences the report notes, I don't know.

Beyond that, her objections mostly boil down to "This is all about not liking seniority and the single salary schedule." Well, sure, it is mostly about those things. The report explains these positions and cites research to back them up (hopefully this will address the concerns of Sherman Dorn). If you disagree, you have to say why you disagree. Noting that private schools have similar policies isn't enough, they may just be making the same bad decisions.

By contrast, I recommend this post from Leo Casey at EdWize, who, unlike his colleagues at AFTBlog, actually offers detailed arguments and evidence to back up his disagreements. In doing so he inadvertently exposes some of the internal contradictions in the way unions talk about teacher salaries, which are apparently vitally important unless we're talking about differential salaries, in which case teachers are suddenly much more motivated by "an altruistic sense of public service and nurturance, to make a positive difference in the lives of children." But it's still a thoughtful post on the topic of wage compression and the history of teacher salaries and collective bargaining, and well worth reading.