The DPS bargaining propsals fail on several principles we set forth at the beginning;
Fairness -- It picks winners and losers without regard to teacher quality. For example it is design to build salary growth for younger teacher -- capping salaries for veterans. And for good measure throws out an arbitrary "master teacher" lottery not connected to ProComp in any way.
It's not based on principles (or research) of ProComp -- We are not as quick to say ProComp is broken but we have agreed to make changes. But ProComp was designed to encourage those things that make a difference on teacher quality. DPS's plan aims to implement Washington, DC-based theories by Marc Tucker, not deal with Denver realities. The current DPS proposal is a radical departure from the system that was agreed to by our teachers and the Denver voters.
There's too much funny math in how DPS characterizes its proposals -- sometimes they say 9000 average salary increase, sometimes they say 6000 but too many teachers would get 2.2 percent -- and lose thousands in retirement. Bennet and Pena call us "crazy" for not letting a few teachers take the short end money and sacrificing retirement security for their families.
For all the talk of attracting and retaining the DPS it would strongly encourage teachers to leave after 13th year.
To reach and agreement, they will need to talk about all issues and barriers to quality teaching including financials, time, and peer assistance and review (ie a better program for evaluating, mentoring and assisting teachers who are struggling)
We're ready to talk whenever the district is ready to have meaningful conversations about all of these issues.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
So Kim, what would do you propose? It seems to me that ProComp is fairly broken with $87 million sitting in trust and only $7 million being paid out this year requiring $2 million in administrative costs. You agree? If so, what do you think needs to change?
Here is what Teachers think Van:
1. There is nothing wrong with Pro-Comp, it is too new to judge with the finality necessary to make any major changes at this point in time.
2. The problem is in retaining (through the medium term) teachers. This is probably tracable to the traditional pay scale, not Pro-Comp, wich is the top of the line in year 4 and competitive in year 7 (with other Metro area districts). Pro-Comp is currently the top of the line for attracting new teachers and is very competitive for veteran teachers past year 13.
3. The solution is to raise the base index on both sides to stem attrition.
4. The Pro-Comp trust must be protected from raids to ensure its long term viability.
Post a Comment