Why Are NC Politicians So Reluctant to Raise Teacher? They’ve Been Listening to Frederick Taylor Too Long

"The writer has great sympathy with those who are overworked, but on the whole a greater sympathy for those who are under paid. For every individual, however, who is overworked, there are a hundred who intentionally underwork---greatly underwork---every day of their lives, and who for this reason deliberately aid in establishing those conditions which in the end, inevitably result in low wages." Frederick Taylor, The Principles of Scientific Management

Could it be that at the heart of the reluctance by North Carolina political leaders to provide raises to teachers is the Taylorist belief that “most teachers are lazy, therefore, none of them deserve a raise?" In his Principles of Scientific Management, Frederick Taylor made it clear that he believed that workers are inherently lazy and will seek to do least amount of work they can. There can be no doubt that Taylor’s Principles have been and consistently are applied to education, but this stubborn reluctance on the part of our state political leaders seems to defy logic at times, unless your logic happens to be based on Taylorist principles. That logic goes: “Because most teachers are lazy, we only want to reward the few who aren’t."

Taylor’s Principles of Scientific Management, though written a little over a hundred years ago are still bedrock thinking in business and I would contend much of our schools and their operations. Since our legislative leaders see the application of the business and corporate model to everything as the ultimate answer, it only stands to reason is that the last thing they want to do is give those “lazy teachers a raise.” Instead of finding ways to improve North Carolina teacher pay , they continually look for ways to reward “good” teachers.

The problem becomes though how do you define “good” teachers? If you follow Taylorist principles to the maximum, you must rely on science to identify those “good teachers.” In our American Taylorist education system, the only measure of a “good teacher” often perceived to be “scientific” is a test score. A merit pay system where pay is based on test scores is usually the option explored, because, after all, the job of teachers is to produce student achievement, and test scores are an accetable proxy for student achievement. But most psychometricians and educators who know education, know this to be incorrect. Tests just are incapable of capturing all worthwhile learning, and they are impossible instruments to measure achievement in the arts and performance-based disciplines. If you make the product for which teachers are rewarded test scores, then anything that can’t be tested or is not tested automatically becomes irrelevant.
So then how do you reward “good teachers?” Some of our politicians talk about rewarding teachers who work in science and math, and other hard to fill areas with more pay. Additionally, they want to pay more to teachers who take on additional responsibilities. Certainly, it is understandable to try to find ways to fill those math and science positions, as it is also understandable to try to find ways to reward teachers who take on additional responsibilities. But by focusing only those in hard-to-fill areas, aren't they saying that only teachers in math and science are “good teachers?” “Good teachers” are not just those who teach in areas deemed “highly-valued” by the current regime. To reward only those teachers immediately subjugates English teachers, foreign language teachers, kindergarten teachers, and guidance counselors. They are not seen as valuable. Our cultural richness exists because the arts are valued, literature is valued, film is valued. Like a good Taylorist though, our political leaders and even education leaders want to subjugate every aspect of education in the pursuit of economic dominance anyway.

As far as rewarding teachers for taking on additional responsibilities, what about the hard and difficult job that these teachers already do? The idea of rewarding additional responsibilities is so wrought with the stench of Taylorist thinking, that it should be discarded immediately. It communicates to all teachers that they do not deserve a raise. It tells them they are not working hard enough. It tells them that they currently do not earn the salaries they currently receive.

In the end, our state political leaders don’t really think our educators in this state work hard. There are certainly lazy educators, just like there are lazy legislators, governors, and business men, even CEOs. Lazy leadership is relying on belief without going out and gathering the facts before making decisions, and that’s what these merit pay ideas demonstrate. Our political leaders need to perhaps spend some time in the shoes of a kindergarten teacher or of a urban school principal. They perhaps they can make the correct decisions about educator pay.

NC State Senator's Mean-Spirited & False Response to Concerned Teacher's Email

Would you like to see what happens when a teacher in North Carolina sends her legislators an email about her concerns about the teaching profession? This message from State Senator David Curtis of Denver, North Carolina is a good indicator that the level of respect he has for teachers. This email came from the Senator after Charlotte-Mecklenburg teacher Sarah Wiles sent her email to all the legislators. Senator Curtis's reply to her email went to all the state legislators in the state after he selected "Reply to All."  Check it out. Here's the original story and Wiles' original email. (See "Teacher Email to Legislators Draws Harsh Reply.")

From: Sen. David Curtis

Date: May 12, 2014 at 9:46:57

Dear Sarah,

I have given your e-mail titled “I am embarrassed to confess: I am a teacher” some thought, and these are my ideas.  A teacher has an incredible influence on students–for good or for bad. My teachers, coaches, and Boy Scout leaders had a great influence on my decision to go to college which was not a family tradition. My concern is that your students are picking up on your attitude toward the teaching profession. Since you naturally do not want to remain in a profession of which you are ashamed, here are my suggestions for what you should tell your potential new private sector employer:

1.    You expect to make a lot more than you made as a teacher because everyone knows how poorly compensated teachers are.

2.    You expect at least eight weeks paid vacation per year because that is what the taxpayers of North Carolina gave you back when you were a poorly compensated teacher

3.    You expect a defined contribution retirement plan that will guarantee you about $35,000 per year for life after working 30 years even if you live to be 104 years old. Your employer will need to put about $16,000 per year into your retirement plan each year combined with your $2,000 contribution for the next 30 years to achieve this benefit.  If he objects, explain to him that a judge has ruled that the taxpayers of North Carolina must provide this benefit to every public school teacher. Surely your new employer wants to give better benefits than the benefits you received as a poorly compensated teacher.

4.    Your potential employer may tell you that he has heard that most North Carolina workers make less than the national average because we are a low cost-of-living- state, private sector workers making 87% of the national average and teachers making 85% of the national average.  Tell him that may be true, but to keep that confidential because the teachers union has convinced parents that teachers are grossly undercompensated based on a flawed teachers union survey of teacher pay.

I support the teacher pay raise but am very concerned that the teachers union has successfully presented to the public a deceptive view of total teacher compensation that is simply not consistent with the facts.

Sincerely,

Senator David Curtis

It is fairly clear that our state legislature still operates under the misconception that there are teacher unions in North Carolina. They also seem to forget that these organizations represent "real teachers" who have concerns. Sadly, I suspect Senator Curtis' feelings and ideas run deep in this North Carolina Legislature.

Update: According to this WBTV news posting ("CMS Teacher's Strong Words to Politicians") North Carolina State Senator David Curtis "has no regrets" for what he said. He states that he just wanted to tell his side of the story. A visit to his web site, which hasn't been updated in three years is a fairly good indicator about Mr. Curtis and all he stands for. (See Curtis Davis' Web Site Here.) He is apparently against anyone, especially if you happen to be employed by the government, which he sees as the enemy except perhaps when it helps business. Too bad Curtis is like so many other legislators in this state. Their districts are so gerrymandered that they can run for re-election unopposed.

NC Governor McCrory Proposes Pay Raise and Merit Pay Scheme for NC Teachers

According to North Carolina Governor Pat McCrory’s press conference (which you can see here from WRAL), he is going to seek the following in his budget which he plans to present to the North Carolina State Legislature:

• Expansion of early childhood education by about $3.6 million.
• Increase textbook funding by $23 million.
• Increase beginning teacher pay from $30,800 to $35,000 over the next two years.
• Provide an average 2% pay raise for experienced teachers.
• Institute a new long-term pay plan for teachers that combines experience, education, merit, mentoring, and market needs. In addition he seeks to offer higher pay to teachers choosing to work in hard-to-staff schools.

At this point, it appears that McCrory’s long-term pay plan which he called “Career Pathways for Teachers” looks to be a compromise between the idea of merit pay and traditional ways in which teachers are rewarded. Giving teachers pay raises based on experience and degrees formed the basis of North Carolina’s previous teacher pay scales.

What will be perhaps harder to implement is the idea of merit pay, especially if based on test scores. The obvious problems being that not all teachers’ classes are subject to tests, and the fact that current use of value-added and growth scores are being increasingly challenged in the courts. I would also add that the reliability and validity of value-added measures and their use in a high-stakes manner are also disputed as well. Add these concerns with the fact that studies on merit pay tied to student achievement mostly show that such pay schemes do not work any way, and it would seem this part of the pay plan is a waste of time and money. 

McCrory’s idea to offer higher pay to teachers choosing to teach in hard-to-staff schools is also not surprising. This has been tried as well and with mixed results. McCroy’s idea of letting market conditions determine teacher pay may seem sound to those outside education, but one can only imagine what that measure will do to morale and collaboration in a school.

Governor McCrory also stated that he was committed to moving the decisions regarding this differentiated pay scheme to the local level which is interesting, but it remains to be seen how that will actually be implemented. The question will be how much freedom local districts will really have and how much will be dictated from above. Also, how willing are districts to take on this task? Most struggled with simply trying to identify the top 25% under a bill passed during last year’s legislative session. This was due in part to trying to find a way to fairly and effectively identify deserving teachers. Is the legislature willing to budget enough money for everyone who qualifies, even if that amount is more? Or would they simply give districts a set amount of money and tell them to distribute it as a bonus? Performance pay schemes have been implemented before in North Carolina but were abandoned when the state could no longer afford them. Under the old North Carolina ABC for Accountability program, teachers could receive $1,500 or $750 based on their school’s test performance. This pay stopped when the budget collapsed and there was no political will to find the money to continue funding it. Will politicians in Raleigh be committed to the pay scheme or will they once again abandon it when “times get tough?”

As an educator, I applaud Governor McCrory for listening to educators which it is clear that he has done in some of his proposals. All teachers do deserve pay increases. The past few years have not been kind to North Carolina teachers and teachers nationwide. The real test Governor McCrory faces is whether he can get this plan, or some variation of it, through a legislature that has demonstrated an incredible unwillingness to budge from many of its far right stances.

NC Teacher Pay Task Force Recommends Pay Increases for Beginning Teachers & Merit Pay

The North Carolina Legislative Task Force concluded its series of meetings to study teacher pay in North Carolina, and here’s their recommendations in a nutshell:

• Raise beginning teacher pay and not raise the pay of any other teachers.
• Future raises for any teachers should be performance-based or merit pay tied to test scores.
• The General Assembly should direct the North Carolina State Board of Education to study educator compensation models and submit recommendations to the General Assembly AFTER this fall’s legislative elections.

That’s it. Those are the recommendations of this so-called Task Force. While they might have buried these exact recommendations in tons of verbiage, these basically do the following:

• Endorse Governor Pat McCrory’s plans to only raise pay for beginning teachers. (Why am I not surprised that this Task Force turned into a rubber-stamp committee of the McCrory administration and our current legislative leaders?)
• Recommend that the state adopt some kind of merit pay scheme, even though that’s been tried and proven to not work multiple times. It has been even tried in North Carolina. (Again, considering the state of our North Carolina Legislature, I am not surprised at all they basically endorsed plans put forth by the American Legislative Exchange Council and many others who see merit pay as the salvation for everything.)
• Finally, recommend another study, this time by passing the buck the North Carolina State Board of Education. Of course this passing the buck was by design due to their own earlier law. Isn't it really interesting though that the State Board of Education is to REPORT BACK AFTER THE NOVEMBER ELECTIONS this fall? You can certainly read much into that move!

There’s absolutely nothing in their findings that wasn't out there and already being discussed. Meanwhile, North Carolina is hemorrhaging teachers who are seeking greener pastures elsewhere, and there are so few teachers graduating from colleges to replace them. In addition, morale for teachers in this state has never been lower, and all our state leaders can do is study so that they can again study the studies? This is all due to a legislature, who at least judging by their actions and appearances, absolutely detest public education.

Some other interesting things coming out of this exercise in political pointlessness, were the comments made by some of the teachers on the task force.

“I’m struggling to understand why we were brought here.’' Teacher Timothy Barnsback stated. He also called the whole ordeal’s four meetings “Presentations and Propaganda.”

Johnson County History teacher Richard Nixon said the report ignores veteran teachers who have been frozen out of their contractual pay increases for six years. He stated, “I don’t recall anyone saying we should raise salaries for beginning teachers and leave the rest down the road.”

It is clear that our North Carolina Legislature continues to predictably be no friend to public education. After passing a slate of legislation all designed and directed toward dismantling the teaching profession, it isn't really surprising at all that nothing substantive comes out of this North Carolina Legislative Task Force on teacher pay. Our state political leaders have certainly remained steadfastly dedicated to their anti-public education agenda, and they are counting on kicking this "teacher pay can" down the road past this fall’s elections.

UPDATE: Read WRAL's article here "Teacher Pay Report Gets Chilly Reception" and also you can read the Legislative report here: "NC Educator Effectiveness and Compensation Task Force Report."

Why Merit Pay Is Still a Bad Idea & Waste of Time

The Education Commission of the States (ECS), an organization whose stated mission is "to help states develop effective policy and practice for public education by providing data, research, analysis, and leadership" has released  a report entitled "More on Pay-for-Performance." In that report it describes Pay-for-Performance models, and it reviews the current research regarding pay-for-performance policies in schools. The studies they review are the following:

Nashville Tennessee's Project on Incentives in Teaching (POINT): In this study, it was found that bonus pay alone does not result in higher student performance.

Study of Six Teacher Incentive Fund Sites (Louisiana, Arizona, Pennsylvania, North Carolina, South Carolina, and Texas): This study boasted a laundry list of positives: 1) Greater academic growth, 2) Increases in teacher retention rates, 3) Increases in schools meeting AYP goals, 4) Increases in high school graduation rates, 5) Significant increases in math and reading proficiency, 6) Increases in teacher collaboration. According to the ECS report though, this wasn't a "study" at all because an experimental design was not used in the research so no one can really say these positives were attributable to the pay incentives.

What's more of interest in the ECS report are its suggesting policy implications.

• "The theory of action for pay-for-performance may be flawed." The report draws the same conclusion that many of us educators in the field have been screaming loudly: "Incentives alone may not be sufficient to prompt improvement in teacher and student performance and to attract high-quality teachers to hard-to-staff schools and subject areas." There's no doubt that teachers want more pay. Who doesn't? But teaching and learning is such a complex process, achievement can't be reduced to a single test score. Paying incentives for test scores is morally wrong, and most teachers know that scores are the result of much more than the teaching and instruction they provide. As far as incentives for teachers to teach in hard-to-staff schools? What about dealing the with conditions at those schools that make them hard-to-staff? There's a reason teachers don't want to teach in those schools, and it certainly isn't necessarily just pay. The whole idea that you can use pay-for-performance schemes in education is flawed and will only turn our schools into places where test scores matter more than kids.
• "Performance pay incentives may have a low motivation value as compared to accountability systems." In other words, the authors of the ECS study review suggest that NCLB may have "diminished the power of pay incentives." NCLB's penalties and sanctions could have possibly affected the effects of incentive pay, but what is objectionable to many educators is having a entire system of incentive and punishments based on test scores. That kind of system elevates "the test" to the center of everything that happens in the classroom. Most teachers find no joy in teaching test preparation. Both performance pay and performance punishments suck the joy from teaching and learning.
• "Pay-for-performance reforms may take several years to realize their desired outcomes." This ECS statement frightens me. We know what pay-for-performance systems based on test scores do in the short term. The "test" is elevated to the center of the curriculum. Schools and classrooms turn into test-prep factories churning out students who have either acceptable or unacceptable scores. The whole idea of implementing that model long-term may destroy public education in the US. The truth is we don't know that the long-term implementation of performance pay will improve education either.
• "Securing sustainable funding for pay-for-performance remains a challenge in the current economic climate." With this statement, the ECS is right on target. Even if states were to implement pay-for-performance schemes, they have difficulties funding the current pay schedules much less new pay schedules. What if they changed to a pay-for-performance scheme, and in the third year of that scheme, two-thirds of the teachers in a state meet the pay-for-performance standards specified by the pay scale? But the state only budgeted enough money for a third meeting those standards. State funding streams do not increase based on the performance of schools and teachers. It is relatively fixed.  The state in this case has two options: a) find more revenue, b) freeze the incentives pay due to lack of revenue. States rarely are willing to increase revenues because that usually means more taxes. They usually resort to the second option. They freeze pay. I can only imagine the effect of telling two-thirds of teachers in the state who were expecting a bonus, now suddenly finding out the money's not coming. But wait a minute! That's happened in North Carolina for the last four years. The state did away with testing bonuses when the economy went awry. Teachers were to get $1,500 or $750 bonuses based on test scores. Instead, they got nothing. Ultimately, what ECS is suggesting here is that pay-for-performance schemes for states may not be sustainable in both short term and long term.

Pay-for-performance schemes in education are not new, despite politicians and billionaire ed-reformers attaching the word "reform" to them. They have been used before. The reason they weren't continued is simple. They didn't work. Never mind that states and districts found out they couldn't afford to pay their promised bonuses. Pay-for-performance schemes ultimately are attempts to buy our way to a better school system. The problem is that price is too high and it is too-short-sighted.