Denver’s Instructor Strike Puts Pay-For-Performance In The Spotlight

By Anne Rowe for DPS board, February 5, 2019

DPS is offering instructors a 10% pay raise beginning in 2019 -20, while the union is seeking an increase of 12.5%. The union’s proposal needs $8 million more than the district’s most current deal. New Denver superintendent Susana Cordova has blamed the state for the standoff, stating she’d like to pay teachers more but that a lack of state assistance is excessive. (Colorado ranks 27th nationally in per-pupil spending, at $10,865 per student.)

Denver’s ProComp is one of 21 st-century school reform’s pioneering pay-for-performance strategies. Back in 2005, Denver citizens authorized a tax to fund a pay-for-performance strategy established collectively by Denver Public Schools and DCTA. The resulting ProComp plan earmarked rewards for teachers who worked in “hard to serve” schools or “hard to staff” fields, made a favorable performance assessment, obtained extra education, took part in expert advancement, and more.

ProComp allows teachers to make an annual $3,851 bump for acquiring an advanced degree or license; a $2,738 boost for working in a “hard to staff” field or a “hard to serve” school; $1,540 for working in a “ProComp Title I” school (which is different from a “hard to serve” school); $855 a year for finishing the requisite “professional advancement systems”; and up to $855 for getting a positive performance examination (with that figure falling by half for longtime educators). Teachers can likewise receive between $800 and $5,000 for leadership functions and a bonus if their school fulfills performance objectives.

The union wants to simplify or eliminate a number of ProComp rewards, arguing that they are unforeseeable and complicated and cause wages to vary capriciously from year to year based on district estimations that identified if a school is “hard to serve.” The DCTA desires to reduce the benefit for working in a “hard to serve” school by about one-third. The district has concurred to simplify some of the rewards, but Cordova declines any call to modify the bonus for mentor in high-poverty schools, declaring, “We will not desert our dedication to closing the chance space.”

The DCTA has some genuine gripes. In Denver, average instructor pay (before the rewards) is $50,757. After ProComp, the figure is $56,866. Even the greater figure is below the nationwide typical of $59,660, and it’s considerably lower than Colorado’s average home income of $69,117. And the DCTA has offered at least one talking point calculated to warm the hearts of reformers, blasting DPS for a puffed up administration. As DCTA president Henry Roman has charged, “DPS has made its option to keep critical financing in main administration, and not to use more of those funds to the class.”

At the very same time, the DCTA’s stance raises its own concerns. For one thing, the DCTA needs a dramatic, pricey raise from a district that’s currently made a generous deal. As Denver’s Superintendent Cordova argued, in discussing Denver’s deal, the Los Angeles instructors were looking for a total raise of 6.5% and instructors in Pueblo, Colorado, “sought and received a overall increase of 2% after a week-long strike.” Additionally, the DCTA’s sharp criticism of ProComp elides the fact that the DCTA was a partner in establishing the system, which has now been in location for well over a years. The union has not offered a uncomplicated rationale for its apparently sudden modification of heart.

Three things are notable about this newest entry in the growing roster of instructor strikes.

First is that even reforms agreeably agreed to throughout the Bush-Obama school reform period can no longer be counted safe. ProComp was adopted in the very first years after No Kid Left Behind, hailed as a landmark development, devised in big part as a mechanism for delivering a significant boost in teacher pay, and had long seemed to have become woven into the fabric of Denver education. Yet, even this has actually come under fire and seems likely to modification in significant ways. If ProComp is being relitigated, other apparently settled changes of the past 2 years might likewise find themselves back on the table.

Second, the conflict over perks highlights the degree to which ProComp, like so much reform of the past decade or 2, was paper-fueled. While the expression “pay-for-performance” was a sure-fire way to win support among school reformers, ProComp has always been noteworthy for how little it benefits what a instructor does or how well a instructor does it—and how much it stresses where a instructor works and what credentials they hold. ProComp reflects the restricted reach of so many “big” reform wins, the degree to which those wins relied upon welding elaborate brand-new equipment atop existing school systems, and how susceptible those reforms consequently are to moving politics and top priorities.

Third, while pay-for-performance seems a logical and promising method forward in the middle of the instructor strikes, this is the first strike in which it’s made an look—and the personnel question is how much to roll it back. It’s striking how the center has shifted, so that there’s been remarkably little call to focus on differentiating brand-new pay with an eye to instructor talent or work. Certainly, public sympathy for instructors and the desire to get strikes fixed has actually suggested that such talk has largely vaporized. That’s regrettable, considering that part of the win-win chance in these strikes is to find ways to do significantly much better by excellent instructors who play an outsized role in their schools—but, following on the contours of earlier strikes, Denver makes absolutely clear that those kinds of discussion are not in the cards.

How this ongoing wave of strikes will ultimately play out is far from clear, but the now-established pattern of negligence to advantages, bloated administrations, or differentiation makes clear that there’s little pressure on participants to look for sustainable, win-win solutions. So long as that stays the case, these strikes will represent a missed out on chance.

” readability=”124.638615339″>

Denver is teetering on the verge of the country’s next huge teacher strike. Last week, the Denver Class Educators Association (DCTA) voted to end negotiations with Denver Public Schools (DPS) and strike on January 28. The DCTA has briefly suspended the strike as Colorado’s new guv weighs whether to step in. The huge issues are teacher pay and the district’s ProComp pay-for-performance system. Denver is notable due to the fact that, in the course of the wave of 2018 and 2019 teacher strikes, this is the very first time that performance pay is in the mix.

ARTICLE CONTINUES AFTER ADVERTISEMENT

DPS is offering teachers a 10% pay raise beginning in 2019 -20, while the union is looking for an boost of 12.5%. The union’s proposal needs $8 million more than the district’s most current offer. New Denver superintendent Susana Cordova has actually blamed the state for the standoff, stating she’d like to pay teachers more however that a lack of state assistance is excessive. (Colorado ranks 27th nationally in per-pupil spending, at $10,865 per trainee.)

Denver’s ProComp is one of 21 st-century school reform’s pioneering pay-for-performance strategies. Back in 2005, Denver citizens authorized a tax to fund a pay-for-performance plan developed collectively by Denver Public Schools and DCTA. The resulting ProComp plan earmarked benefits for teachers who worked in “hard to serve” schools or “hard to personnel” fields, earned a positive performance assessment, gotten additional education, participated in expert advancement, and more.

ProComp allows instructors to make an yearly $3,851 bump for getting an advanced degree or license; a $2,738 increase for working in a “hard to staff” field or a “hard to serve” school; $1,540 for working in a “ProComp Title I” school (which is various from a “hard to serve” school); $855 a year for completing the requisite “professional development systems”; and up to $855 for getting a favorable performance examination (with that figure falling by half for longtime teachers). Educators can likewise receive in between $800 and $5,000 for management roles and a bonus offer if their school meets performance goals.

The union desires to streamline or remove a number of ProComp incentives, arguing that they are unpredictable and complicated and cause salaries to change capriciously from year to year based on district computations that determine if a school is “hard to serve.” The DCTA wants to lower the bonus for working in a “hard to serve” school by about one-third. The district has agreed to streamline some of the benefits, however Cordova rejects any call to modify the perk for teaching in high-poverty schools, stating, “We will not desert our commitment to closing the opportunity space.”

The DCTA has some legitimate gripes. In Denver, average teacher pay (before the rewards) is $50,757. After ProComp, the figure is $56,866. Even the greater figure is below the national typical of $59,660, and it’s substantially lower than Colorado’s typical family income of $69,117. And the DCTA has provided at least one talking point determined to warm the hearts of reformers, blasting DPS for a bloated administration. As DCTA president Henry Roman has charged, “DPS has made its choice to keep vital funding in central administration, and not to use more of those funds to the class.”

At the very same time, the DCTA’s position raises its own concerns. For one thing, the DCTA demands a dramatic, costly raise from a district that’s currently made a generous offer. As Denver’s Superintendent Cordova argued, in discussing Denver’s offer, the Los Angeles instructors were looking for a overall raise of 6.5% and instructors in Pueblo, Colorado, “sought and got a overall boost of 2% after a week-long strike.” Moreover, the DCTA’s sharp criticism of ProComp elides the reality that the DCTA was a partner in developing the system, which has now been in location for well over a decade. The union has not provided a straightforward reasoning for its relatively unexpected modification of heart.

ARTICLE CONTINUES AFTER ADVERTISEMENT

Three things are notable about this latest entry in the growing roster of teacher strikes.

First is that even reforms agreeably agreed to throughout the Bush-Obama school reform period can no longer be counted safe. ProComp was embraced in the first years after No Child Left Behind, hailed as a landmark development, designed in large part as a system for providing a significant increase in teacher pay, and had long appeared to have end up being woven into the fabric of Denver education. Yet, even this has come under fire and seems most likely to modification in considerable ways. If ProComp is being relitigated, other seemingly settled changes of the past 2 years might also find themselves back on the table.

Second, the disagreement over benefits highlights the degree to which ProComp, like so much reform of the past decade or 2, was paper-fueled. While the phrase “pay-for-performance” was a foolproof method to win support among school reformers, ProComp has always been noteworthy for how little it benefits what a teacher does or how well a teacher does it—and how much it emphasizes where a instructor works and what credentials they hold. ProComp reflects the limited reach of so lots of “big” reform wins, the degree to which those wins relied upon welding elaborate new machinery atop existing school systems, and how susceptible those reforms as a result are to moving politics and priorities.

Third, while pay-for-performance seems a logical and appealing way forward in the middle of the instructor strikes, this is the very first strike in which it’s made an look—and the operative concern is how much to roll it back. It’s striking how the center has moved, so that there’s been remarkably little bit call to focus on separating brand-new pay with an eye to instructor skill or workload. Undoubtedly, public sympathy for instructors and the desire to get strikes solved has actually implied that such talk has largely vaporized. That’s regrettable, since part of the win-win opportunity in these strikes is to find ways to do vastly better by terrific teachers who play an outsized function in their schools—but, following on the contours of earlier strikes, Denver makes absolutely clear that those kinds of discussion are not in the cards.

How this continuous wave of strikes will ultimately play out is far from clear, but the now-established pattern of negligence to advantages, puffed up bureaucracies, or distinction makes clear that there’s little pressure on individuals to seek sustainable, win-win options. So long as that remains the case, these strikes will represent a missed chance.