Teacher Salaries Cut By Inflation

What do you think about this article?

So, with the private sector giving employees a cost of living increase in addition to a raise and teachers are denied the same...why would someone want to go into teaching? Why is it so hard for legislators to get it?

Raises are hard to come by in this area and don't even cover the cost of insurance increases paid by employees. I understand everyone wants a raise but I get tired of teachers complaining about the fact that their "raise" isn't enough. Isn't working only 9 months out of the year enough of a bonus?? If you figure out how much that is per hour, isn't over $45/hour enough?

I wonder where you are getting your stats? I have a Master's degree and have been teaching for 25 years. I figure I get $23 per hour. And, I am required to pay for my mandatory renewal college credit hours. I also spend over $800 a year on school supplies for my students. My summer is spent planning new curriculums and taking classes. I don't get paid for the days I go into school and work during the summer which is usually 10-15 days. I'm expected to be ready to go when students arrive on my own time. What other job requires this? We are expected to put up with unreasonable parents, disrespectful students, and smaller budgets each year. Those of us that have reached the top of the pay scale actually get pay cuts each year because insurance goes up so much that it takes money away from us. And, the school insurance does not cover our families so we pay nearly $800 a month to cover our spouse and children. The reason people from the private sector don't want to teach in schools is that they don't want to put up with the disrespect issues and take a pay cut.

Placing almost exclusive emphasis upon test-score improvement as a basis for rewarding teachers is patently unfair and, when coupled with inadequate performance-appraisal systems, drives teachers toward unethical behavior or departure to other pursuits.

A primary reason the public has not been more supportive of higher funding for education has been the poor relationship between better funding and higher educational quality as revealed by a number of studies.

Use of an appraisal system based upon the following guidelines should go a long way toward turning things around.

Those associated with schools, need to fairly identify true "stars" and "inadequate performers" as one of the bases for:

justifying good pay for outstanding teachers,

providing for self-guidance on the part of newcomers and present staff,

and providing an important basis for terminating those who cannot, or will not, measure up.

Research findings show that evaluators achieve much better agreement about who are Stars and Inadequate Performers than they do about who are Average, Above-Average, and Below-Average performers. Yet, placing individuals in the middle-three categories is a time-consuming, often arbitrary, and resentment-causing activity that most evaluators dislike having to do. Also, clearly, an average performer in a superior organization deserves much more recognition than an average performer in an inferior one. No wonder that many teachers and their unions oppose conventional merit-rating systems!

To avoid a popularity contest, assure greater fairness, and provide for constructive self-guidance, there should be behavioral documentation for both Star and Inadequate Performer nominations via the Critical Incident Technique.
To lay the groundwork for this, students, parents, veteran administrators, and experienced teachers should be polled at to what specific, observable behaviors they associate with outstanding and inadequate performance for each important aspect of a teacher's job.

Then, required behavioral documentation for Star and Inadequate-Performer nominations from fellow teachers, adminstrators, students, and parents should be based upon the most agreed-upon behaviors, and the agreed-to relative weights that should be assigned to these.

The results of this analysis can also constructively guide the initial training and subsequent selection of teachers, as well as, provide a much-needed, qualifying context for the currently over-stressed evaluation factor of test-score-improvement.

This approach also sets the stage for more productive review sessions between the rater and ratee. Since the ratee has a sound basis for self-rating, the session should start with the rater asking "How do you rate yourself for this past period through the presentation of relevant, supporting behaviors?" No rater can be all-knowing, so if behaviors are mentioned that she or he is not aware of, the rater can postpone giving his or her evaluation to provide time to check out the validity of the assertions, if this seems necessary.

A sound behavioral basis for rating also facilitates the use of motivational goal setting during the review session. For example, if the ratee wants to be a Star, what specific behavioral goals does she or he plan to adopt by such and such a time? If stardom is not the goal, which specific, Inadequate Performer behaviors will he or she need to avoid?
This approach permits a rater to be more of a counselor and coach, than one who appears to sit in arbitrary judgment.

For discussion of relevant research and related citations, see: "Improving Performance Appraisal Systems" by William M. Fox, NATIONAL PRODUCTIVITY REVIEW, Winter 1987-88, pages 20-27.

William Fox
gryfox@bellsouth.net
Professor Emeritus
Department of Management
University of Florida
(352) 376-9786