The board has posted the following Q&A in response to questions we have received concerning the status of the contract negotiations. The original is
available here. (note: This document and this post have been updated 9/25)
An Update from the Monona Grove Board of Education Regarding Negotiations between the Monona Grove Education Association (MGEA)and the Board (September 15, 2010)
When did current contract negotiations start?
Negotiations began with an exchange of initial proposals on February 17, 2009. The initial proposals of the Board of Education and the MGEA are linked here.
When did the current contract expire?
The collective bargaining agreement between the MG Board of Education and the MGEA expired on June 30, 2009. However, during “hiatus,” the period between expiration and agreement on a new contract, the terms of the most recent contract constituting mandatory subjects of bargaining and which do not specifically sunset by their own terms remain in effect. Mandatory subjects of bargaining are defined, generally, as those items which primarily impact wages, hours, and conditions of employment.
Are teacher salaries “frozen” during this “hiatus” period?
No. Although the applicable salary schedule is subject to change only through negotiations, teachers receive increased pay in accordance with that schedule for each year of teaching experience in the District and attainment of professional development, both of which provide for increased salary during the contractual “hiatus.”
What is meant by “working to contract?”
Teachers voted in May, 2010, to “work to contract” in an effort to bring pressure on the Board of Education to settle the negotiations. “Working to contract,” in contrast to engaging in a “strike” which remains illegal for public school teachers in Wisconsin under most circumstances, means that teachers engage in concerted activity to perform only mandatory duties associated with their respective positions. Generally, teachers refuse to participate in voluntary activities such as extra committee work. In addition, they may decide not to attend student concerts or athletic events to
support their colleagues and students unless assigned to do so.
Many teachers are paid additives to coach various athletic teams or advise student clubs. These kinds of activities continue because teachers are under contract and paid specifically for this work. Also, teachers’ presence at school open houses and at monthly staff meetings is required under the terms of the collective bargaining agreement. Job descriptions, Board policies, rules and regulations, faculty handbooks, student handbooks, evaluation criteria, past practices regarding expectations of duties in the District, among other things, all assist in determining the difference between mandatory and voluntary duties.
The decision by the teachers to “work to contract” is by no means a universal union strategy;
in fact, it is our understanding that teachers and other represented employees in the majority of districts do not elect to engage in such activities.
How do these negotiations work?
After the exchange of proposals occurs at a public meeting, negotiations sessions are closed. The MGEA is represented in these sessions by their bargaining team of teachers and their attorney. The School Board is represented by the Superintendent and the Board’s attorney.
Meetings are scheduled according to the ability and willingness of members of both bargaining teams to meet. When agreement has been reached on all proposals, which may include some proposals being dropped, the final agreement is approved by the MG Board of Education and by the MGEA.
If no agreement is reached, a mediator may be called in to help with the negotiations. If the mediator is unable to help both parties reach agreement, either party may file a petition for arbitration. The mediator now becomes an investigator who continues to work with the parties to reach settlement. If settlement is not reached, the investigator will conclude that impasse has been reached and will certify a final offer from each party. These final offers will then be submitted to the Wisconsin Employment Relations Commission (WERC). A list of arbitrators is generated by the WERC, and each side alternatively strikes names from the list until one remains. That arbitrator will schedule an arbitration hearing, read briefs submitted by attorneys from both sides, and issue a decision. The decision will be to accept one party’s proposal in full. There is no combining of features from each.
Where are we in the process?
A number of meetings have been held since February, 2009, and tentative agreement has been reached on some items. However, the “big” items of base salary and post-employment benefits remain unsettled, along with some other issues. We began working with a mediator last March, and the School Board has now filed a petition for arbitration. While some issues may still be resolved, we basically await the request for and certification of final offers, the selection of an arbitrator, and the hearing date.
Why don’t School Board members participate in negotiations sessions?
Board Policy 185 and Board Rule 185 describe a standing Negotiations Committee, to be composed of no more than three Board members and no community members. Previous Boards have expressed a willingness to participate if the MGEA would agree to use a consensus bargaining model. However, that model is not being used, and the Board at the time current negotiations began, in February, 2009, voted not to participate directly in the negotiations sessions. This could change for the next round of negotiations, which is currently scheduled to begin in February, 2011.
How much do teachers make? What benefits do they receive?
Teachers are paid a base salary determined by their years of experience as well as degrees and other college credits earned. Each year of experience moves a teacher up a step on the salary schedule, (see linked document; note this document shows the “effective” schedule, incorporating hiring stipends described below) and each twelve college credits earned or master’s degree or PhD moves teachers horizontally across lanes. Teachers are obligated to maintain their respective certifications through DPI requirements or negotiated requirements, depending upon the teacher’s licensure status.
As a result of negotiations for the 2007-2009 collective bargaining agreement, the “effective” salary schedule (see link) for teachers in the District reflects a stipend being added to all cells in all columns at Steps 1 through 5. Therefore, the actual starting salary of a newly hired teacher in the District, with a bachelor’s degree and no previous experience, is $31,400, and the actual starting salary of such a teacher with a master’s degree with no previous experience is $34,940.
Under current contract language, the District can give credit for up to three years of actual previous teaching experience to a newly hired teacher in the District. In other words, effective with newly hired teachers in the 2008-2009 school year, a teacher with a bachelor’s degree and three (or more) years of prior teaching experience is hired at Step 4, at a salary of $34,243.
The other substantial change which took place for all teachers with regard to the 2008-2009 salary schedule was the modification of the longevity provisions to include an experience increment raise for each year that the teacher continues to be employed in the District.
Note that the step and lane on which each teacher is placed on the schedule gives only the base salary for that teacher. Benefits paid by the District currently include full health insurance premiums and annual retirement contributions, including the employee share, to the Wisconsin Retirement System (WRS) equaling 11% of the teacher’s earnings, as well as District-paid dental insurance premiums of up to 100% depending upon the dental plan selected. The District also provides life insurance protection and long-term disability protection for teachers, as well as payment of the employer’s share of FICA/Medicare payroll taxes.
Teachers may earn additional pay for coaching, advising clubs, and directing various co-curricular activities, monitoring after-school detention centers, substituting for absent colleagues during prep periods, etc., in addition to the salaries quoted. Note that such activities are beyond the normal 7 ½ hour (excluding the 30 minute duty-free lunch) workday.
When all of the above is taken into account, the average teacher’s salary in the District in 2008-2009 was just over $49,000. The average teacher district-paid benefits for 2008-2009 totaled almost $21,000. The resulting total salary and benefit cost, on average, was slightly more than $70,000 per teacher in 2008-2009. These averages are taken from costing documents typically reviewed by the parties during negotiations.
What was the QEO? What has been the impact of its elimination?
The QEO, or Qualified Economic Offer, became law in 1993 as part of an attempt to control property tax increases. The idea was that the QEO could enable a school district to avoid arbitration on economic issues if, after attempting unsuccessfully to reach settlement, it offered its teachers a total salary and benefit package of at least 3.8% over the prior year. All existing fringe benefits were required to remain, and the employer’s percentage of contribution toward such fringe benefits had to stay the same. With the increase in health insurance costs, it was possible that a package increase of 3.8% could mean no salary increase, since health insurance costs had to be covered.
Teachers’ salary and benefit increases were never limited to the QEO. Rather, a district could impose this package settlement if it chose to do so. Many districts continued to negotiate package increases higher than the QEO rate of 3.8%.
In the current economic climate, the elimination of the QEO (effective with negotiations for the 2009-10 school year) has not led to higher settlements than while it was in existence. In fact, during the time the QEO was in effect, teachers’ bargaining units tended to view “imposition of the QEO” as punitive, tended to view the QEO 3.8% total package increase as a “floor” for settlement, and many settlements were higher than the 3.8% total package increase.
Did Monona Grove ever impose the QEO?
No. The MGEA and the Board have always reached voluntary settlements throughout the entire period that the QEO was in effect.
What are the sticking points in the current negotiations?
Post-employment benefits and the salary-benefit package are two big items on which there is no agreement. Current post-employment benefits for teachers include a payment of a stipend (Teacher Emeritus Program (TEP)) which is equal to a teacher’s highest annual salary and is paid out over a period of three years in equal installments. In addition to this and to the regular monthly pension benefit received by the teacher from WRS, full health insurance and the major share of the cost of dental insurance are paid by the District until the retired teacher reaches the age of 70. In the event of the death of the retiree prior to reaching the age of 70, the surviving spouse continues to be eligible for the District’s group health insurance coverage until the date the retiree would have reached age 70 at the retiree’s spouse expense.
The School Board’s current proposal for post-employment benefits is proposal #6 in the Initial Board of Education Proposals to the Monona Grove Education Association (linked here). There is no corresponding initial or counter-proposal from the MGEA; its position is to maintain the existing benefits described in the previous paragraph.
The School Board’s current salary and benefit package proposal (see link) is an increase of 3.90% for 2009-10 and 3.70% for 2010-11. The MGEA’s current total package proposal (seelink) is an increase of 5.35% for 2009-10 and 5.28% for 2010-11 and includes an average teacher salary increase of 4.21% for 2009-10 and 4.07% for 2010-11. These percentages reflect what’s known as “cast forward” costing and do not include the cost of horizontal lane movement on the salary schedule or the post-employment benefit costs of retirees.
Is the Board trying to alter the post-employment benefits for teachers who have alreadyretired?
No. In fact, the current Board proposal preserves the current negotiated benefits for teachers employed during the 2008-2009 school year and within ten years of retirement.
How do Monona Grove salaries and benefits compare with other school districts in the area?
Although the Board has attempted to engage the MGEA in a study which would lead to the restructuring of the salary schedule in such a fashion as to make the hiring rates more competitive with area school districts, the hiring stipend agreement has helped in that regard. The remainder of the current salary schedule structure is very competitive, especially the feature that allows teachers to receive salary increases for each year of experience without “maxing out” at the top of a schedule as teachers in many other area districts do. District-paid Wisconsin Retirement Systems (WRS) contributions, health, and dental insurance premium benefits are among the highest in the area. The post employment benefit is, by far, the highest in the area.
Monona Grove Board of Education
33 comments:
This is an interesting turn of events.
I think this is great the union went on TV and said the school district is doing this and that to us and now we know the truth.
In case anyone is wondering about the type of pressure the board is under to settle this contract without addressing the retirement issues that are killing our budget, see this link. http://www.weac.org/Multimedia/ShareYourPhotos/10-09-09/Monona_Grove_teachers_protest_proposed_cuts_in_benefits.aspx
Hang in there School Board!
The parents are 100% behind you!!!
Do not know who anonymous is but not all the parents are behind you! They just may not admit it to their neighbor! I remember not long ago when people were so eager to sign the Maywood petition only to find out what effects it caused later
I've posted under the name Monona Parent for a few months now, and I am not behind the school board either. I understand the difficult situation the board is in, but I think they should spend their efforts fighting the state politics that put us in this mess, and educating voters to help them in that cause.
The teachers didn't enact the restrictive levy limit which the board has to follow, nor did the teachers cause the economic problems which has many out for revenge. The teachers have done what was required of them, for a year and a half they were doing more, and should get the pay and benefits system they were promised when they started.
"I understand the difficult situation the board is in, but I think they should spend their efforts fighting the state politics that put us in this mess, and educating voters to help them in that cause."
Oh really? Do you really think the MG board has the power to make change in Wisconsin or in the minds of our citizens? How naive are you? Do have any idea how much time they put into this role and now you want them to change the world? This is a very convenient position for you to take. What have YOU done to bring this change you wish to see? And for that matter, what has the MGEA done? I betcha you'll find out our school board members have spent a lot more time on legislative issues than anybody in the MGEA. Why do they, and you, get a pass on this?
I do think most of the citizens want to see the board hang tough on this. They are tired of decades of these antics.
"I do think most of the citizens want to see the board hang tough on this. They are tired of decades of these antics."
Yes
The way I see it there are three valid positions for a member of the public to take:
1. The board should stand their ground and let the arbitration process play out.
or
2. The board should offer the teachers a new package, complete with higher starting wages and excellent retirement benefits. In order to fund this without layoffs and cuts, they should go to referendum.
or
3. Same as #2, but the board should make layoffs in personnel and in programming to fund this.
If anyone has any realistic solutions other than these, please suggest them!
One can quite easily make a case for doing all or some of those. There are valid budgetary/fiscal reasons for the board to hold the line and deal with this through arbitration. The union has made it abundantly clear it simply won't negotiate any changes in retirement benefits, and the board is insistent it has to see some kind of change in the benefits structure. So the state provides a mechanism (arbitration) for sorting that out.
Basing a referendum around maintenance of teacher's salaries and benefits is a sure loser, even in a district comprised of communities quite supportive of public education. Rather, the referendum ought be based around issues that touch the lives of people (students, parents, long-time residents) -- reasonable class sizes; a healthy array of extra-curricular programs, including clubs, fine arts programs like musicals AND athletics; academic programs beyond just the basics, such as wonderul tech-ed and fine arts programming (orchestra, elementary strings); and long-term maintenance of buildings (district voters have approved more than $50 million worth of buildings in recent years; they need to be taken care of).
That kind of referendum has a chance of passing. One focused on teacher pay and benefits does not.
OK. Let's scrap #2 then. What choice does the board have in that event? If they continue to fund teacher retirement beyond the budget numbers, their alternative is to cut, correct? Where else can they come up with a plan that will not eventually bankrupt the district?
re:"Oh really? Do you really think the MG board has the power to make change in Wisconsin or in the minds of our citizens? How naive are you?"
Well I can be pretty naive, but yes I do think the board can make the changes. They don't have to call legislators or voters and change their minds, but they can stop getting bullied and stand up for themselves and our district.
First of all, their primary goal is education. While this may be just for our children, adults can learn some things through their children too. Teaching people to use critical thinking skills in real world situations is always talked about, but that's about all. An extra little bit of it in economics, math, civics or history would help change the political landscape quite a lot. I personally think that's why there is so much animosity towards public education by some in power. They'll loose their power as people get smarter.
But our board shouldn't worry about some politician, they should worry about our children. This will help the district in the battle as the State and Feds try to cut resources. There are a lot of things the board can do through their process to help. They should reject any textbooks that are written to comply with the Texas standards. The board could increase graduation requirements in civics/math/economics, or change a topic in current requirements to apply critical thinking skills to political claims. How about starting each social studies class where a child brings in a news story from tv or the paper? Having children learn to pay attention to politics alone will help the children learn to protect their interests, and might inspire some parents to look into it too. The board could find several community service projects for the students to work on. In addition to the students learning skills and about being involved, it builds up a good relationship with the community.
And speaking of good relationships, the board needs to lead a charge against the slander that teachers get, not towards it. The board could have sent out information that showed the bind the state put the district in, instead it posted information about the teachers pay and benefits. How about a line on the annual meeting postcard that says "Promised 2/3rds State Revenue $21 million, Actual State Revenue 11 million," or whatever the numbers are. People would probably be just as mad and motivated if the district made the effort, or at the very least stopped directing it at teachers.
Finally, the board frequently talks to other school boards who are all in the same situation. Instead of comparing notes on raising class sizes, and closing schools, they should be working on a plan with other districts to do the above. The State wants to push the focus to a local level where the groups are small and weaker. But just like the teachers have strength in numbers, so do the 300+ school boards.
"Well I can be pretty naive, but yes I do think the board can make the changes. They don't have to call legislators or voters and change their minds, but they can stop getting bullied and stand up for themselves and our district."
Yes, you are naive.
But I am also observant, thoughtful, and offer suggestions to our local leadership about how I want to be represented.
And I'm old enough to remember how much better things were, when the country thought long term instead of quarterly. It's not naive to suggest we return to a system that worked better then the current one, it's historically supported.
"But I am also observant, thoughtful, and offer suggestions to our local leadership about how I want to be represented.
And I'm old enough to remember how much better things were, when the country thought long term instead of quarterly. It's not naive to suggest we return to a system that worked better then the current one, it's historically supported."
Pompous much? You're not the only one, you know. There are wise, progressive members of this school board. They are not idiots, nor do they disrespect teachers. They get it. But they have to deal with their budget no matter how screwed up it is. Again, you hold the board accountable for big picture thinking, but the union and their leadership get a pass from you. And that's just wrong. Teacher's unions in Wisconsin have more political power than school boards.
WEAC should show the board why they should join together with other boards and fight harder at the state level. I hadn't heard of the AWSA until it was noted on a post on Ace's blog. It and the WASB should take some lessons from the teachers. Had they started 10 years ago when the problems starting hitting smaller districts, the problem might have been fixed by now.
However, all three groups together have about a tenth of the power of the WMC, who get many more of their proposals through for half the cost, because they have about 40% of the public fighting on WMC's behalf for free (and against the public's own interest).
What all three should learn is how to get the public to help their fight and that it doesn't take that much money to spread a message.
What you do not understand about WASB is that it is a weak, anemic group. This is because many, many school boards in Wisconsin are not progressive but rather are very conservative. They have no patience for teacher's unions. Sorry to say that progressive boards are in the minority. And, very importantly, WASB has no money to contribute to campaigns, but WEAC does. You want to know where the influence and power reside? Follow the money, my friend.
You are right on about WMC, but that doesn't help the Monona Grove school board tackle this issue.
All of this angst about the state funding formula for K-12 education, and particularly the (predictable) jab at WMC, is entirely misplaced.
A Democrat has sat in the governor's office for eight years. Democrats control the Assembly; they also control the Senate. A Democrat occupies the White House, and Democrats control both the U.S. House and Senate (and have recently -- twice in the past three years -- sent huge amounts of dollars to the MG school district, totaling well over a million dollars in special appropriations, that have bailed out the district's budget twice).
The state funding formula has existed in the way it has, largely unchanged, since 1993, for a reason. That reason may not be obvious from the cozy confines of the uber-progressive politics that wraps itself around much of the Madison area, but it's readily evident if you spend some time in any of the state's other 71 counties.
Education funding is not seen -- by most people, in most areas of the state -- as in crisis. Sure, there's concern about longer bus rides in some communities (last Sunday's Wis. State Journal), or school closures in rural areas, and yes some school districts are finally getting around to consolidating.
But a major overhaul of the school financing system is unlikely until those who created the system feel enough political pressure to do so, and -- even more importantly -- have the money to spread around to ease the transition into the new system (remember that it was last changed in 1993, when the state was flush with cash; not so today).
"I personally think that's why there is so much animosity towards public education by some in power. They'll loose their power as people get smarter."
After the overthrow of the Communist government in Poland, a friend of the family who grew up there told me that the biggest mistake the communists made was giving everyone a good education. The people could all see right through the propoganda.
[redacted]
My Mistake, the MGEA is an affiliate of WEAC.
I am really sorry to read this kind of nonsense. I don't know about you but I want my kids to be taught by the best teachers not the ones that we hire who receive lousy pay, no benefits and are the districts 3rd or 4th choice.
"I am really sorry to read this kind of nonsense. I don't know about you but I want my kids to be taught by the best teachers not the ones that we hire who receive lousy pay, no benefits and are the districts 3rd or 4th choice."
Please show me how MG is giving out lousy pay and no benefits? I reviewed the board's proposal and can find no rational for your misguided statement. I will assume that your statement is more about your feelings then the rest of our reality.
The general report is that teachers start low at MG, but have high retirement benefits. To a new teacher the higher retirement benefits make MG worth a consideration. Part of the board's proposal is to cut those benefits for new hires, but it doesn't bring up the starting pay to compete. So MG becomes a less desired district for new teachers, and the principals get fewer options to pick from. Odds are if the board's plan was approved, the overall quality of teachers would drop over time, and most kids would probably get at least one of these newer teachers in their 12 years in MG.
"But a major overhaul of the school financing system is unlikely until those who created the system feel enough political pressure to do so, and -- even more importantly -- have the money to spread around to ease the transition into the new system (remember that it was last changed in 1993, when the state was flush with cash; not so today)."
That's part of the problem and touches on much of the rest. This isn't a Democrat/Republican issue. The biggest pressure to cut taxes is by business. 50 years ago, business paid almost 40% of the state revenues, now it's down to 15%, you and I try to make it up in income and property taxes, but our wages have been stagnant. And at the same time, businesses threaten to move away, and the state gets forced to pay millions (GM, Johnson Marine, Harley) to keep some jobs. Even when they do stay, workers get their pay and benefits cut, so they can't pay as much (costing revenue to the state), and need more help from the state (increasing expenses).
These same people with less money, can't afford to make campaign donations and secure meetings with their elected officials, Republican or Democrat. A email or phone call to a staff member is not the same as helping draft the legislation. Best of all for the businesses, with many people scared about loosing a job, and angry they've had to pay more in taxes, some will continue the fight for free.
There are many good business in this state, and many do use tax cuts to create jobs. They will stay and hire people, especially well educated workers, like Wisconsin had been known for years. But there is a small, very wealthy, and very powerful group that is milking this state for as much as they can, instead of finding ways to improve efficiency or develop a better product, or create jobs. They are going to move away when they can't get anymore from us anyway, I think we should let them before we cut any more.
"But there is a small, very wealthy, and very powerful group that is milking this state for as much as they can, instead of finding ways to improve efficiency or develop a better product, or create jobs."
This is verging on "black helicopters in the sky that you can't see" stuff.
Wisconsin state government has been run by DEMOCRATS for a few years now -- eight, if you include the governor's office. It was a DEMOCRATIC governor who ended the QEO but decided leave in the property tax caps (a tax paid by businesses like Wal-Mart in Monona). It was a DEMOCRATIC governor who declined to raise taxes on business, or at least end their exemptions.
What's most troubling about this dialogue is that it quickly delves into an either-or argument. Either you're with the teachers, or not. Either people are over-taxed, or big bad business keeps choking the purse strings by constantly calling for tax cuts.
Can't one make an argument both ways? How about a 2-cent increase in the state sales tax, coupled with the following:
-- Differential pay scales for teachers, so districts can really recruit in hard-to-fill areas like math and science (MG routinely gets hundreds of applicants for elementary teacher openings)?
-- Some attempt to link how well a teacher teaches, with pay?
-- Mid-career probation for poor teachers, with clear plans for improvement laid out, or they can be replaced?
Teachers are the single biggest variable in the quality of education children receive. It's too bad we treat them like -- and they regard themselves as -- assembly workers in the auto plant.
For everyone who is worried about starting salaries in MG, do not blame the school district for this. The school district has proposed many solutions to that issue within the framework of the budget and each and every one has been rejected by the teacher's union? Why? Because they are afraid it will make less money available for teachers at the top of the scale, and they say it's not fair to them. Essentially their argument against raising the entry wage is "the experienced teachers started low too, and now they shouldn't sacrfice anything to change the future."
I believe the school board needs to stand pat and let the arbitration play out. Until the the teacher's union gets the message that working the contract is not an effective strategy, this will continue in future years and nothing will change. We need a union that is willing to sit down, get real, and be willing to talk about substantive change. This has happened in other districts, why can't it happen here? As it stands, the union always, always, advocates for status quo. And they get it, because working the contract hurts kids and sooner or later, the board and adminstration feel as though they need to make it stop.
"How about a 2-cent increase in the state sales tax..."
That just what the pilots of the helicopters would want you to say. Seriously though, I'm o.k. with some changes to the structure of teacher contracts, even some of the board's proposals, but disagree with several points in this post.
My biggest disagreement is I don't think increasing the sales tax is the right path. Sales taxes may be paid by everyone, but are unequal in their effect. How much you buy does go up with income, but at a slower rate. If you are poor, the extra 2 cents adds up quickly, keeping you in poverty. States with high sales tax tend to have higher levels of poverty, and a larger disparity between rich and poor.
Often these states have lower income or business taxes too, that's why companies threaten to go to the same places. Lower taxes for the owners, and a larger pool of people desperate for jobs. I understand why the state feels the pressure, but I think it's wrong of the companies to extort us, and it's wrong of our leaders to try to turn us into the next Kentucky. Like I said before, this isn't a Democrat/Republican issue, Doyle's inaction is just as much to blame.
I think the best tax would be on inter-business transactions. There are a ton of tricks, where one division of a company buys or leases something from another division, which is just a post office box. It would be like selling your house to your kids and renting it from them, to count the mortgage interest twice (once for you and once for your kids) Frontline did a good show on this and other tricks. They used to have the show online, but now all I could find was a synopsis:
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/tax/etc/synopsis.html
I'm in favor of a good evaluation program that rewards good teachers, and discourages under performing ones, but there was an article yesterday that found merit pay is probably not the path. I would also be skeptical of a mid-carer probation being abused to fire people because of their pay level, and not their skills. I've seen many good employees loose their job because they were paid well for working well. The trick would be to make a double-blind review, where both the teacher wouldn't know when they're being evaluated, and the reviewers wouldn't know the age or pay level of the teacher.
I also think there is much more grey, than the either/or nature of teacher support. But I am appalled at the extent of, and number of people who are clearly not with the teachers, ever. There are bad teachers, but most teachers are doing a good job, and they deserve to make a good living for their efforts.
"...but most teachers are doing a good job, and they deserve to make a good living for their efforts."
How do you know that? How do you know teachers are doing a good job? By the experience of your own children? That's hardly representative. By anecdotal comments from neighbors or friends? Hardly a good or valid sample? Can you cite some statistics, or valid studies, that actually reflect how well "most teachers" are doing?
Why do those who insist that teachers deserve: a) automatic double raises every year (remember they get a raise for both moving up the pay scale, in addition to pay increases negotiated for every step on the pay scale); b) the ability to retire at the age of 55 (these aren't firefighters or police officers, literally putting their lives on the line every day); and c) retirement benefits enjoyed by few if any workers nowadays (the Teacher Emeritus Program and health care 5 years past Medicare eligibility being two prime examples) --
-- resist or put constraints on any attempt to fairly evaluate teachers to make sure that every child has a capable and motivated instructor every day? Your concerns center on employees, not students -- a recipe for policies that aren't truly aimed at improving the lot of children.
Lots of folks would be more willing to support a, b, and c above if there was some willingness to at least discuss salary restructuring and performance review.
Very informational and interesting material now posted on the teachers web site
www.mgea.org
"Very informational and interesting material now posted on the teachers web site
www.mgea.org"
Yes and funny 2-I wonder why the are not comparing our ACT scores with districts in the county.
"I wonder why the are not comparing our ACT scores with districts in the county."
I had to go back and double check after I read this, and as I think about what the MGEA was saying, it's pretty impressive.
Their point is that when an average number of MG kids (about 65%) took the ACT, they did better (between .2 and 1.2 points) then the Wisconsin average for that year. So MG was doing better then average. There were probably a lot of schools in the area above the state average, so this is good, but not great.
But then 2 Years ago, MG started having almost every kid take the ACT (about 95%), while just about everywhere else, about 2/3s of students (often those planning on going to college) took the test.
The first year this was done at MG, the ACT average dropped below the state average which could be expected. But after only a year, MG brought it up so that it was again above the state average. That's very impressive.
They say MG is one of only two schools in the state that does this, so that other school would be a better comparison for the last 2 years then other county districts. We'll also have to see a couple of years where everyone takes the ACT to know if this was a positive or negative fluke, but it's a good start.
It is not impressive-the state ACT scores include all school districts in the state.
We should be comparing apples to apples: schools that are like in soci-economic status. Then control for all of our students taking the ACT.
Most school districts don't want to lower their average ACT score by requiring all students to take it (although a few nearby ones, following MG's lead, are thinking of it). At least MG has the guts to actually find out what all of its students are learning, through having all of them take the test. Maybe Wisconsin will one day be as enlightened as states such as Illinois that require all students to take the ACT.
I've been gleaning a lot from these comments, and I love the blog, but all of these "annonymous" posts are confusing for the reader. I think it would be easier to follow without the "annonymous" (non)identity.
But, thanks for the post and comments....
Post a Comment