By Cynthia G. Brown, Robin Chait

Center for American Progress

October 1, 2007

Recent research has demonstrated what we all know—great teachers are critical to high levels of student achievement, particularly for low-income and minority students. Yet today poor and minority children are least likely to get our best teachers.

Congress is considering proposals for the reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act that would provide federal incentives to reform the teacher compensation systems in high poverty schools.

House Education and Labor Committee Chairman George Miller has spent his career fighting to improve the quality of America’s teaching force—and, at the same time, to protect the rights of American workers to join a union. As part of his plan to fix Title II of the No Child Left Behind Act, he and Ranking Committee Member Howard McKeon have proposed a grant program for school districts that pay more to the highest-performing teachers who commit to stay in the highest-need schools for at least four years.

This is an important initiative that deserves support on both sides of the aisle—especially from progressives who believe in strengthening public education for low-income students.
Unfortunately, critics of the proposal have been spreading misleading information that has obscured the facts. Let’s take a look at some of their claims.

CLAIM: The federal government, through this proposal, would mandate the use of test scores to evaluate teachers.

FACT: The new proposal for Title II, Part A does not mandate the use of test scores to evaluate teachers. It is a voluntary grant program in which states and districts can choose whether or not to participate. If they choose to participate, growth in student achievement, rather than absolute student achievement, is used as one measure for evaluating teachers. Consequently, teachers aren’t penalized for teaching low-performing students. And test scores are not the sole measure used to evaluate teachers—classroom evaluations conducted by multiple professional educators must be used as well.

CLAIM: Teacher compensation is a matter of collective bargaining subject to state and local law and not federal law.

FACT: The proposed Title II provides protections for collective bargaining—it does not override it. Employment contracts are negotiated and agreed to at the local level and are subject to state law.

CLAIM: Decisions about how to evaluate teachers should be made at the local, not federal level.

FACT: The Title II proposal requires districts to design their own evaluation programs working in collaboration with teachers. While the programs are subject to some general guidelines, most of the decisions about how teachers are evaluated will be made at the local level.

Moreover, the federal role in education is and should be about addressing issues of educational equity and ensuring that students in high-poverty schools receive a high-quality education. Performance pay is one tool districts can use to attract outstanding teachers to high-poverty schools. Many districts will welcome this federal support.

CLAIM: Performance pay programs are premature because methods to determine the value that individual teachers add to student learning haven’t been thoroughly researched and evaluated.

FACT: Performance pay is still a new idea, but the record from recent research and experiments around the country is encouraging. Recent summaries of research on performance pay programs demonstrate that these programs have positive effects on student achievement.[i] An evaluation of 130 schools participating in the Teacher Advancement Project, a comprehensive professional pay system that includes pay for successful performance, found that these schools are now getting better results than similar schools.[ii] Programs developed in consultation with teachers in Denver and Minnesota are also proving effective and popular among teachers.

Until we find a better way to attract and retain great teachers in our highest-poverty schools, we need to keep trying promising reforms, including performance pay.

CLAIM: Attention and resources are better spent on reforming the whole school, improving working conditions for teachers, and providing professional development.

FACT The proposed Title II does provide funding for professional development. Part B is a large formula grant program for states that support professional development activities in the neediest schools. Moreover, districts that participate in the Part A performance pay program are also required to improve working conditions for teachers. Title I of NCLB provides significant funding for whole school improvement.

CLAIM: Performance pay programs will spark unhelpful competition among teachers and create a disincentive for them to collaborate and share information.

FACT: Research has found that performance pay programs do not create negative, competitive environments if the programs are designed appropriately and with teacher input. Moreover, nothing in the performance pay provisions in the Title II proposal stops districts from providing awards to all teachers at schools that show gains, not just to individual teachers. As we know from endeavors ranging from military service to athletics, commitment to the team and recognition of individual excellence are perfectly compatible.

Union making play for teachers

Teamsters say CCEA representation lacking

By ALAN MAIMON

Las Vegas Review-Journal

Armed with a litany of complaints against the Clark County Education Association, a local Teamsters union is fighting to bring teachers into its fold.

For months, representatives of Teamsters Local 14 have scoured public records and crunched numbers in search of ways to discredit the union that represents teachers.

At a news conference this afternoon, they plan to share their findings.

The goal is to convince a majority of the district's 18,000 teachers that the Teamsters can provide more effective representation, said Ron Taylor, a school district teacher and Teamsters organizer.

It's new terrain for a local affiliate of the International Brotherhood of Teamsters, a spokesman said.

Galen Munroe, who is based in the group's headquarters in Washington, D.C., said he isn't aware of any school district in the country whose teachers are represented by Teamsters.
Taylor, a computer science teacher at High Desert State Prison in Indian Springs, hopes that will soon change.

"The biggest concern is that an association that represents teachers isn't watching out for the concerns of teachers," Taylor said. "That's what we'll do."

Local 14, which was chartered in 1955 and represents about 3,300 blue- and white-collar workers in Southern Nevada, needs to win the support of more than half of all teachers in the district to oust the current union.

The Teamsters couldn't meet that threshold when it recently tried to take over representation of the school district's support staff.

It plans to make a formal challenge to the teachers union as early as November.
To help woo teachers, the Teamsters are targeting both the education association and a community foundation that partners with the union.

Union officials also have concerns about the solvency of the Teachers Health Trust and the relationship between the union and school district.

A common thread through more than 100 pages of public records compiled by the Teamsters is the activities of John Jasonek, executive director of the teachers union and community foundation.

The foundation uses government funding and private donations to administer grants and other education-related programs.

A Review-Journal analysis of documents independently obtained by the newspaper raises questions about Jasonek's roles in the organizations.

He received $129,000 for 12 hours of work per week at the foundation between Sept. 1, 2004, and Aug. 31, 2005, according to the foundation's most recently available federal tax forms.
Another official received $124,500 in compensation from the organization.

Those payments accounted for a large chunk of the $625,000 the foundation spent on overhead that year. The foundation administered $813,000 in program services, which accounted for only 57 percent of its overall expenditures.

Both Jasonek's salary and the amount the foundation spent on administrative costs are far above national averages, according to Charity Navigator, a New Jersey-based evaluator of charities.

Several larger foundations in school districts including Houston and Dallas have spent less than 10 percent on overhead in recent years, a Review-Journal analysis of tax forms shows. None of the officers in those foundations has made a penny for their work.

Jasonek said the Teamsters are looking only at salaries and ignoring the good work of the foundation.

"I'm a little bit tired of it," Jasonek said. "You end up with a lot of innuendo and no charges. ... If somebody thinks we're doing something wrong, they should take it to some agency. I'm not going to sit here and justify what we do."

Since forming in 2000, the foundation has launched several initiatives, including the Student to Teacher Enlistment Project (STEP), a program that pays for the tuition and books of a group of Nevada State College and College of Southern Nevada students who commit to teaching in the district for four years after graduating from college.

Jasonek said his foundation's 2004 tax return, which was submitted to the federal government after several delays, doesn't tell the whole story.

For one thing, he works more than 12 hours a week, he said.

"I don't know where that number comes from," he said.

Public records show Jasonek made another $134,000 in the 2004 tax year in his role as executive director of the teachers union. The foundation's tax return says the union and foundation "reimburse each other" for certain expenses.

Jessica Word, an assistant professor at the University of Nevada, Las Vegas, who specializes in the management of nonprofit groups, said that line is troubling, "In general, if someone has decision-making authority over both sets of organizations and funding is passed back and forth, it's a basic conflict of interest," she said.

Taylor said he wants the teachers union and foundation to address his group's concerns. "Every time I confront anybody about this stuff, I get a different answer," he said. "I'd like to see them step up and explain what's going on."

by ANDREW KIRALY

September 20, 2007

Las Vegas CityLife

NICE WORK IF YOU CAN GET IT: From September 2004 to August 2005, Clark County Education Association Executive Director John Jasonek picked up an extra $129,043 salary.

That's in addition to what he's already making in his official job as a top officer of the county teachers' union, for which Jasonek was paid $134,706 during the same period.

Jasonek's sweet little side gig is for the Clark County Education Association Community Foundation, a nonprofit charity run by the teachers' union. The foundation helps recruit minority teachers, tutors students in at-risk schools, doles out scholarships, and gives small grants to teachers to help out with everything from Elmer's Glue to buses for field trips. The foundation also operates a point-based, free classroom-supply store for teachers, who, with starting salaries of about $33,000, often find themselves dipping into their own wallets for classroom supplies. Need a new set of dry-erase markers, scissors or construction paper? The foundation is here.

"Some of these programs are nationally award-winning models," says Jasonek.

In the 2004 tax year, the latest for which information is available, the foundation spent more than $800,000 on these worthwhile endeavors. But the foundation has also proven to be a boon for people who run it. Also in the 2004 tax year, it spent more than $600,000 on overhead costs. Of that amount, about $400,000 went to salaries -- including Jasonek's -- which comprise about 28 percent of the foundation's expenses. It might make sense if those fat paychecks went for the long, grueling hours. The clincher is, it doesn't look like top brass is burning the midnight oil. On tax forms, Jasonek is listed as working 12 hours a week for the foundation.

"It's like working a part-time job at Subway," he explains.

But others can't help but wonder whether Jasonek -- and others -- are feasting on a foot-long greed sandwich. Indeed, Jasonek's not the only one who seems to be pulling down major bucks at the foundation these days. In the 2002 tax year, foundation Director Kevin Nielsen was paid about $58,000 from the charity coffers. Two years later, his salary from the foundation more than doubled; from 2004 to 2005 he pulled in nearly $125,000. Nielsen insists he's been earning roughly the same salary over the past few years, and says it's likely his salary was being split between the foundation and some other source -- which perhaps explains the puzzling language on many of the foundation's tax forms stating that "CCEA and the foundation reimburse each other for direct costs that each incur from time to time."

Rather than dredge up tawdry exposés of foundation salaries, Nielsen asks, why not focus on the programs? "I understand where people are coming from and how they might want to point fingers," he says, hinting at a mud-slinging campaign from the rival Teamster's union, which is currently vying to dislodge the teachers' union as the bargaining unit for the district's 18,000 teachers. "But the biggest secret out there is the Teacher's Aide Warehouse Store," the free classroom-supplies shop he runs for district teachers.

As the Teamsters ramp up its campaign, something else seems to be ramping up, too -- a tide of resentment against the teachers' union for netting classroom instructors little more in recent years than token raises. Teamsters organizers are hoping to tap into that resentment as they begin to wave around executive salaries -- and other numbers (see sidebar) -- to show the Clark County Education Association has lost sight of its core mission of representing teachers.

"When you've got pay increases that come out to that, you'd think they're doing a fantastic job for teachers, getting good contracts, and offering great representation," says Ron Taylor, a school district employee and teacher organizer for the Teamsters Local 14. "The truth is, they're not."

Jasonek balks at criticism of his side-job salary, explaining he's paid based on what money he raises. "What's dirty is that [the Teamsters] don't raise a legitimate issue," he says. "If it's about my salary, so be it. If they want to raise an issue about the programs, let them criticize us for funding minority students [to become teachers], or let them criticize us having a scholarship in the name of a lady who was in the plane that went into the Pentagon [on 9/11]."

The way Jasonek sees it, his extra $129,000 salary is an incentive to bring in money for the community foundation, and was a factor in its rapid growth since it began in September 2000 as a "little $25,000 grant program," he says. Compare that to its 2004 revenue of more than $1.6 million, thanks to help from top-drawer corporate donors such as Citigroup, Nevada Power and Advantage Financial.

"Am I supposed to be penalized for doing a good job?" Jasonek says. "If I go out and someone says, 'We'll donate $2 million,' am I supposed to say, 'We better not take that because it might report on my salary. Sorry, I'll have to let the kids do without'?"

It's a fair question, but there are at least a few indications the foundation is a bit top-heavy on the payroll side. According to a 2006 report on foundation salaries published by the Foundation Center, a New York-based organization that tracks and analyzes philanthropic groups, the median salary for executives heading up foundations with less than $10 million in assets was about $50,000.

The folks over at the Wall Street Journal are a bit more liberal in their estimation. If you plug the parameters into their Career Journal's "Salary Expert" website, you'll find that even by their lights, Jasonek's foundation could trim some fat. The site reports that a charitable organization director working in Nevada earns an average salary of $80,890. The high end of that? About $107,000.

Of course, it's assumed that's a full-time position, and not just, say, a dozen hours a week. Even Jasonek might agree: Part-time work is for sandwich shops.

Accounts questioned after chief leaves: Schools' top cop gave work to an associate, then quits and takes a job with him
By Emily Richmond

Las Vegas Sun

Three months before his departure as chief of the Clark County School District Police, Hector Garcia sent $11,750 in business to a longtime associate to evaluate the feasibility of metal detectors at a North Las Vegas High School.

Within weeks of his Aug. 10 resignation Garcia had new employment - as vice president of his associate's company, the School Safety Advocacy Council, which offers training and security assessments for school police and resource officers.

Now, an internal audit of the Clark County School District Police is being hampered by shoddy record-keeping and missing files.

Audits are common after department head s leave. But the examination of School Police operations is raising a number of concerns.

School Police Capt. Phil Arroyo, one of two veteran officers sharing interim chief duties, said he was surprised that all files were not readily available. Auditors are accessing the hard drives of the department's computers, but "the actual paper documents are not there," Arroyo said. "There's really very little to work with."

Arroyo declined to specify which files are missing.

Clark County Schools Superintendent Walt Rulffes said it would be inappropriate to comment on the audit until the report is complete.

Garcia told the Sun on Tuesday that no one from the district had contacted him for help in locating files.

"I would certainly help if I were asked," Garcia said.

Garcia said the only materials he took with him were personal copies of files and memorandums, all of which he said he thinks are duplicated on district servers and hard drives.
As the audit proceeds, Arroyo said , he is focused on straightening out the department's finances, including unpaid bills.

Among them: costs for attending a July conference in Las Vegas con-ducted by the School Safety Advocacy Council.

For the past two years the Florida-based company has held a conference in Las Vegas, drawing attendees from across the nation. In 2006 Garcia spent nearly $10,000 on registration fees to send 50 employees. A bill for the conference from July 2007, totaling about $15,000, remains unpaid while district officials resolve discrepancies over how many employees attended.

The company's executive director, Curtis Lavarello, worked in the Palm Beach County School Police Department in the 1990 s, at the same time as Garcia. And while Garcia was chief of Clark County School Police, he served on Lavarello's advisory board.

Garcia said sending department staff to the conference was a worthwhile expense, given the caliber of the guest speakers and workshops.

The district was charged for 81 attendees at the July conference. But Arroyo said department records show only about 45 people - including clerical and support staff - attended . He has asked the company to provide a sign-in sheet from the conference to clear up the discrepancy.
"We're still waiting for a reply," Arroyo said.

In May, at Garcia's recommendation, the district paid Lavarello $11,750 to study whether metal detectors were feasible at Canyon Springs High School in North Las Vegas. They money came from the region office responsible for Canyon Springs High , not School Police funds.

Because the consulting job was less than $25,000, the district was not required to put the job up for bid or get approval from either the superintendent or the School Board.
Still, Phil Gervasi, president of the Clark County School Police Officers Association, said he was bothered by Garcia hiring his associate as a consultant.

Lavarello did not return phone calls or e-mails from the Sun seeking comment.

Garcia said his decision to hire Lavarello to study metal detectors posed no conflict of interest. Lavarello was the most qualified and affordable consultant for the job, Garcia said. And Garcia emphasized that he did not become Lavarello's vice president until after he decided to quit as chief.

Rulffes said Garcia's decision to hire Lavarello for the consulting job "does rise to a level deserving some scrutiny."

Ronan Mathew, principal of Canyon Springs, said he requested the feasibility study after two incidents last year in which students brought loaded handguns to campus.

Lavarello spent about two hours touring the campus during a visit in May. In a 14-page report submitted to the district in June, Lavarello concluded that metal detectors were not feasible at the school. He made a number of suggestions for improved campus security, including better signs directing visitors to the appropriate entrances and increased staff visibility when students arrive in the morning and leave in the afternoon.

Garcia had spoken out against metal detectors at the district's high schools. Mathew said the former police chief chose a consultant he knew would share his point of view.

"It's my feeling that our concerns were not taken seriously," Mathew said.

The final months of Garcia's tenure were marred by complaints that he was rude during a negotiation session with the School Police union, making a derogatory remark about a federal mediator that was overheard by other participants in the contract talks. Rulffes said he considered that matter closed after Garcia apologized to the mediator and was removed from the bargaining table.

Garcia told the Sun that he is moving to Florida with his family and that serving as vice president of his associate's company is "one of my jobs . " He would not say how much he would be paid for the part-time job. Garcia said he will soon begin classes for his doctorate.

This is the second time in as many years that the School District has lost a police chief. Elliot Phelps, who became the district's first police chief when the department was created seven years ago, was fired in 2005 after it was discovered that he had not completed a state-mandated certification program.

By Jean-Paul Renaud | South Florida Sun-Sentinel

September 7, 2007

Broward County teachers today are voting on a contract that more generously rewards the top union officials who negotiated it than rank and file educators.

If it is approved, about two-thirds of Broward's 17,000 public school teachers will receive raises of 5 percent or less. The most substantial increases, as high as 17 percent, will go to the most senior teachers — less than a third of Broward's educators.

In contrast, more than two-thirds of the 22-member Broward Teachers Union executive board, which negotiated the contract, have the seniority to qualify for the most generous raises, records show.

"I'm not surprised at all because one would assume that the people at the top level are the ones that are on the negotiating team," said School Board member Stephanie Kraft. "I don't think that sounds right. I guess it would be nice if they would look after all the teachers equally."Several board members said the situation, though not unusual for a school district, reflects the power of unions. Some teachers said it shows union leaders are out of touch with the rank and file.

School districts across the state have a complicated system of setting salaries, mostly based on seniority levels that officials call "steps." In Broward, there are 22 steps, and teachers typically do not see substantial pay raises until they reach the 20th level — or their second decade educating children. All salaries are based on 196 days of work and can be increased if teachers obtain additional academic degrees and training.

The executive board of the teachers union helped craft the contract with the school system. The board includes 15 educators with more than two decades of service to the district. Union leaders say their board's makeup is dynamic and diverse, and this year members argued about how to divide the raises.

"It's become much more diverse," said Pat Santeramo, who as union president collects a $150,000 salary. "There are quite a few younger people. They are all very opinionated, similar to the School Board."

Teachers at the beginning and middle of their careers often complain about the salary system.

"Everyone should be taken care of across the board," said Denise Haltrecht, a first-grade teacher at Coconut Palm Elementary in Miramar. "One step should not be neglected over the other. We all work just as hard. Just because you're at year 20 doesn't mean you're working any more than a beginning-year teacher."

On her 13th year as a teacher, Haltrecht and her 467 colleagues on that step will receive a 4 percent raise.

Some School Board members say the system is unfair.

"Everybody should be treated equally," said Chairwoman Beverly Gallagher. "I didn't agree with the step system. But if we don't agree to the steps, then we would be at an impasse and nobody would get anything. Everybody would just be waiting."

But Santeramo said there should be rewards for "longevity, skills, knowledge."

"How we do that could be restructured," he said, adding that the union will sit down with school district officials in the new year to devise a less complicated way of doling out raises.

One person on BTU's board is on step 20. The 419 other teachers on that step will be paid a base salary of $53,377, a 7 percent raise.

Another board member is on step 21, along with 413 other teachers in Broward. Their salaries will jump to $62,677, a 17 percent increase over last year.

And 13 board members are on step 22 and will see their base salaries climb to $70,000 — a 12 percent increase that will make the 4,000 teachers with that seniority among the highest paid in the tri-county area.

"It's just another example of people who are not experiencing what most teachers are experiencing," said Donna Shubert, a kindergarten teacher at McNab Elementary in Pompano Beach. "They have the years in and they're negotiating with their own mind frame."

Shubert has been a teacher for nine years and will receive a 5 percent increase that will raise the salaries of educators on step 9 to $40,980.

Santeramo, however, says the makeup of the union's executive committee has little to do with the way senior teachers are compensated.

"We look at trying to provide a fair and equitable salary for all the employees," he said. "We represent all 17,000 teachers."

One School Board member has a solution for those teachers who think their union doesn't represent them.

"This is a perfect example of why beginning teachers and those that are a few years into their careers need to be more involved and engaged in their union," said Board Member Jennifer Gottlieb.

Jean-Paul Renaud can be reached at jprenaud@sun-sentinel.com or 954-356-4556.

Union Negotiates Pay Raises… For Union Chiefs
Posted on September 14, 2007 at 9:30 am by WTH

I suppose we shouldn’t be surprised when union representatives negotiate themselves bigger raises than they do for their own membership. But, it still rankles every time it happens… and it happens almost every time!

In this case it is the Broward County, Florida teacher’s union that has fenagled a higher raise for the top earners in the District than those at the lower end of the pay scale. It seems they have invented an absurdly complicated “steps” plan (there are 22 of these “steps”) where folks at the low end will forever get smaller raises than folks at the high end. Naturally, the union reps are all at the highest end of the scale.

Big surprise, eh?

Broward Teachers Union negotiates big raises for vets, little for newcomers

“Broward County teachers today are voting on a contract that more generously rewards the top union officials who negotiated it than rank and file educators.

If it is approved, about two-thirds of Broward’s 17,000 public school teachers will receive raises of 5 percent or less. The most substantial increases, as high as 17 percent, will go to the most senior teachers — less than a third of Broward’s educators.”

I thought that unions were all for the ‘little people”? What happened to that whole egalitarian concept that unions claim is their chief motivation?

I guess where it concerns getting raises for union bosses, the little guy will have to wait!

You know, they are only out to “help” you, dontcha?

Debate Over Merit Pay Heats Up

By The Associated Press in Teacher Magazine

Washington

The head of the nation's largest teacher's union and a top House Democrat had a testy exchange Monday over the inclusion of merit pay in an updated version of the No Child Left Behind education law.

California Rep. George Miller, chairman of the House education committee, criticized National Education Association President Reg Weaver for rejecting the merit-pay proposal.
The exchange occurred during a hearing into the renewal of the five-year-old education law, which requires annual testing in reading and math and imposes sanctions on schools that fail to hit progress goals.

Miller included the teacher pay plan in draft legislation circulating on Capitol Hill.
The proposal would give bonuses, worth up to $10,000 in most cases, to "outstanding" teachers. The proposal doesn't spell out who would be eligible for the extra money but says raising student test scores must be a factor.

Weaver said that level of detail should be bargained locally, not spelled out by Congress. The NEA has long opposed linking individual student scores to teachers' pay, though many local teachers unions across the country are agreeing to such proposals. Most notable is a popular plan in Denver.

Miller noted that Weaver previously supported teacher-related legislation that included the same merit-pay proposal, but Weaver said the union gave general support for that overall bill, not the pay plan specifically.

That nuance didn't sit well with Miller. Growing visibly angry, he said: "You can dance all around you want. You approved the language."

The union, which has more than 3 million members, is actively lobbying against the draft legislation. The union is influential, particularly with Democrats who often benefit from the NEA's political backing.

"Our members are united and will stand firm in our advocacy for a bill that supports good teaching and learning and takes far greater steps toward creating great public schools for every child," Weaver said during the hearing.

The draft bill also would change the law to allow schools to get credit for tests in subjects other than math and reading. And it would measure the performance of individual students over time rather than comparing the scores of students in a certain grade to students in that grade the year before, a change that is generally popular.

Miller said he hopes the full House will take up the renewal of the law this fall. Senate lawmakers also are in the process of writing legislation.

View of Merit Pay Shifting

By The Associated Press
Washington

While the words "merit pay" drew hisses and boos at a recent teachers' union convention, educators are endorsing contracts that pay bonuses for boosting students' test scores.
The National Education Association and the American Federation of Teachers oppose linking a teacher's paycheck to how well their students do on tests. But that is not stopping Rob Weil, the AFT's deputy director of educational issues, from helping local unions hammer out contracts that include new merit-pay plans.

"We don't have a message on a board that says, 'Hey, thinking about this?'" he said. But he said the AFT feels obliged to assist chapters that have decided to go that route.

Teachers usually are paid according to a century-old career ladder that rewards seniority and levels of education. The system was designed to ensure fair compensation for women and minorities. The average starting salary today is about $31,000.

"They don't make enough money, especially the good ones—especially the great ones," said Louis Malfaro, the teachers' union president in Austin, Texas, where nine schools are part of a pilot program to overhaul how teachers are paid.

In North Dakota, North Dakota Education Association President Dakota Draper said a merit pay system would be tough to set up, though the association would be willing to look at the idea.

"If you go into any school, the difference in the classrooms can be remarkable," Draper said. "It would be very unfair to base a merit system on test scores."

Jon Martinson, executive director of the North Dakota School Boards Association, said all teacher salaries in the state should be higher because it is becoming more difficult to attract people to the profession. Martinson also said he is frustrated with the traditional pay scale and would like to see more incentives.

"If everybody's on the same pay scale after X number of hours, what's the incentive to be outstanding teachers?" Martinson said. "I support the concept of looking at student test scores as a way to incentivize. When you get into details, that's difficult."

Malfaro said Austin's approach is modeled partly on Denver's, which links salaries to students' test scores and other measures. Malfaro says the Austin effort will expand slowly and be evaluated methodically to avoid the kinds of mistakes made elsewhere.

"Our approach has been a slow, deliberate and steady one," Malfaro said. "This is a highway with wrecked cars all over it."

Florida recently had to retool a merit-pay plan after a large number of districts opted out, citing teacher concerns. A plan in Houston came under criticism because it was put in place over teachers' objections.

Vanderbilt University education professor Jim Guthrie said the involvement of teachers is essential.

"I just put myself in their shoes. All of a sudden you are going to change all the rules and you're not going to talk to me?" said Guthrie, who is assisting districts that got federal grants to implement merit pay.

Weil, the AFT official, said teacher compensation has to be bargained locally. He also said the new plans should make good professional development available to increase the chances that teachers will raise students' achievement.

Union opposition to merit pay stems partly from failed efforts of the 1980s. In those cases, principals generally were given the power to decide who would get the additional dollars.
"They often had no basis of any objective measure of performance," said Susan Moore Johnson, a professor at the Harvard Graduate School of Education. "So what sometimes happened is there would be different awards made to different individuals and they would become public, and people would be appalled at the individuals who were given the awards or not given the awards."

The 2002 No Child Left Behind law has placed a greater emphasis on using objective data in schools.

The law requires annual math and reading tests. The scores of students in certain grades are compared year to year. Lawmakers want to change the law, which is up for renewal, to encourage schools to measure individual student progress over time instead of using snapshot comparisons of certain grade levels.

Once schools track that, they could look at which teachers consistently are moving students along, say children's advocates. Some places, including Tennessee, already are doing this.

But teachers say many factors affect test scores, including some that are beyond their control; for example, family income and level of parental involvement.

While individual student scores already are tied to teachers' pay in Denver and elsewhere, Austin's program relies on test scores to reward all teachers for school-wide gains.

Johnson, the Harvard professor, said that is fair. "It's becoming clear to do math well, you have to read well. So if students do well in math, do you give that math teacher the bonus? Or do you give that bonus to the reading teacher two years before?"

Malfaro said Austin's approach will encourage teachers to collaborate instead of competing. To further encourage that, some teachers will serve as mentors. As in Denver, principals and teachers will work together to set goals at the start of the year.

"If this is just about making money a different way and isn't about forcing systemwide change, then I think it fails to live up to its potential," Malfaro said. "Then I think it's just going to be one more education fad that kind of came up, got kicked around for a few years, and then faded out. And that would be a shame."

The Austin school board approved more than $4 million annually to fund the pilot program. A districtwide plan would cost at least $30 million annually, which voters would have to approve, Malfaro says.

A study of the pilot program in Denver, before it was expanded, showed that the changes improved student achievement. That probably helped persuade voters to support a $25 million-a-year tax increase to pay for expanding it to the entire school system.

The federal government, foundations and states also are helping finance new teacher-pay programs.

The chairman of the House education committee, Rep. George Miller, D-Calif., says he wants the revised No Child Left Behind law to include money for a new merit-pay effort. Among states, Minnesota is out front on the issue. The Minnesota Legislature passed a law two years ago encouraging districts and teachers to develop new pay plans, partly linked to student test scores.

There is excitement about the change in the three dozen or so districts that have undertaken it, says Randi Kirchner, professional pay systems coordinator for Education Minnesota, a union that operates at the state level.

Kirchner acknowledges some national union leaders do not support pay plans linked to student scores. But she says the Minnesota system is more acceptable than some others because student scores are just one of many measures used and teachers have a strong say in whether the new plans are put in place and what they look like.

"We didn't just sit on the sidelines," she said. "We chose to be actively involved, so Minnesota would have a workable system that focuses on the best ways to improve teaching and learning."

Teachers who get police training could get extra pay, carry guns

By Emily Richmond

Las Vegas Sun

A proposal that Nevada teachers be allowed to carry concealed weapons garnered a lot of notoriety but little traction among state lawmakers this year. Now comes this idea: Give bonus pay to teachers - from kindergarten to college - who would be trained and armed as reserve school police officers.

Faculty-turned-campus cops would supplement the thin ranks of campus police and be in position to respond quickly to campus emergencies, the two champions of the idea say.
Others worry about allowing teachers to be put in that kind of position.

The idea will be taken up at separate meetings this month by Nevada System of Higher Education regents and the State Board of Education.

The proposal was initiated in June ago by Regent Stavros Anthony, a Metro Police captain, who was thinking in terms of college campuses. State Board of Education member Anthony Ruggiero, an investigator with the state attorney general's office, wants to extend the concept to the state's K-12 teachers as well.

It expands the idea, proposed during the 2007 legislative session by Sen. Bob Beers, R-Las Vegas, that teachers be allowed to carry concealed weapons on campus, provided they had undergone 40 hours of training. The bill died in committee.

To become reserve campus police officers, teachers would have to pass a physical and psychological evaluation, as well as a comprehensive background check. Those who make it through the selection process would have to pay about $1,190 for classes at the community college's Law Enforcement Training Academy, including "Firearms I & II" "Defensive Tactics/Physical Training" and "Introduction to Juvenile Justice." An additional $1,000 would be required for the academy uniforms and equipment.

After completing the training, teachers would be responsible for $1,500 in uniform and equipment costs, although their guns would be provided by the school police department. School districts would then have to pay the auxiliary officers $3,000 annually.

Ruggiero said he met with School Police officials in Washoe and Clark counties, and he assured them that the reserve officers would be expected to follow the directives, rules and regulations of each individual school district police department.

The idea is a win-win, Ruggiero said: Teachers would have an opportunity for more training and pay, and schools would solve the perpetual shortage of campus cops.

"Rather than trying to reinvent the wheel, why not use the resources you have in place?" said Ruggiero, who is himself a reserve officer for UNLV's campus police. "I'm sure there are teachers out there that have thought about becoming officers. We shouldn't restrict them . We should train them."

Education officials say so far there are more questions than answers about the proposal.
If a child becomes violent during class, would the teacher-officer be allowed to use more aggressive means of restraint than a regular teacher? In a campus emergency, would the teacher-officer leave his classroom unattended to respond?

"I'm a common-sense guy, but it's hard to wade through this," said John Jasonek, executive director of the Clark County Education Association, which represents most of the district's 18,000 teachers. "Right now this isn't passing the initial sniff test."

Clark County Schools Superintendent Walt Rulffes said he would like to see how the proposal plays out at the university level.

"There may be some value in having teachers who want increased security training to receive that training," Rulffes said. "But it's too soon to say whether they should actually be able to carry firearms."

Rulffes said he's not even wholly comfortable with regular school police officers carrying guns, even though he realizes it's a necessary response to the level of violence and criminal activity in the community at large, which often spills onto campuses.

He also wonders whether the program would encourage teachers to leave the classroom in pursuit of better-paying jobs in law enforcement.

Ken Trump, president of National School Safety and Security Services based in Cleveland, said the proposal to turn teachers into reserve officers is misguided.

"Teachers get into education to teach, not to be cops," Trump said. "Teachers are already overwhelmed with all of the academic, behavioral and administrative tasks they have to perform. To say you're going to add a whole other role and mind-set is unrealistic."

Debate about arming teachers surfaces periodically in other states, usually in the wake of a high-profile campus shooting, Trump said.

"Rather than off-the-wall proposals, how about our legislators focus on stopping the cuts to funding for school safety and emergency preparedness, mental health services and support programs," Trump said. "That might actually provide an improved learning environment, instead of trying to make teachers into cops."

Empowerment teachers get little something extra

By Emily Richmond

Las Vegas Sun
Pay bonuses - the kind of incentives that typically go to salespeople and chief exeutives - are now also going to about 250 Clark County School District teachers for jobs well done.
The bonuses will range from $250 to $1,200, and will go to teachers who worked at the district's four empowerment schools. The district hopes to include the bonuses in teachers' Aug. 25 paychecks.

By awarding fatter checks to some teachers, the district is dipping its toe into the pay-for-performance waters. The district is considering an expanded version of the program that might qualify for state funding.

The bonus for each teacher will range from 0.5 percent to 2 percent of his annual salary, depending on how well his school performed on criteria such as gains in student achievement, parental feedback, evaluations of the campus management and whether the school served large populations of at-risk children.

The scorecards that establish how each school measures up in the bonus column are calculated by officials in the School District's central office. The first-round bonus money will come out of the district's empowerment schools budget. Next year, the district will be eligible for state funds for teacher incentive pay in at-risk schools, which could potentially be used for staff at both empowerment schools and traditional campuses.

"Student achievement has to be the important thing and that is not negotiable," said Karlene McCormick-Lee, an associate superintendent who oversees the empowerment schools pilot program. "However, this was an opportunity to demonstrate the other things the district values - climate and working conditions, parent satisfaction and the quality of the campus management."

The empowerment schools pilot program, launched last year, gives principals greater autonomy in staffing, budget and instructional decisions, in exchange for greater accountability. Additionally, Superintendent Walt Rulffes pledged licensed personnel at those schools would be eligible for incentive pay of up to 2 percent of their salaries, based on a formula the teachers helped devise.

Although state law requires Nevada teachers receive a 5 percent pay increase if they complete national board certification, this is the first time the School District has attempted its own version of "pay for performance" on this scale.

Teacher bonuses have been awarded in various forms across the country for decades, with varying degrees of success.

Supporters of the model say the standard pay scale for teachers doesn't offer enough incentives for individuals to excel, or to stay in a profession where they are already undervalued. Opponents of pay-for-performance say the formulas rely too heavily on a principal's subjective assessment of teacher performance, and often force colleagues to compete against one another for a limited pot of funds.

"I don't see how it can be anything other than favoritism," said one Clark County teacher with more than 20 years ' classroom experience, who asked not to be identified. "Merit pay takes away your personality in teaching. You're going to do what the principal wants, even if it's not best for the kids. If you have a principal you don't get along with, you're done."

The teacher, who works at one of the district's empowerment schools, said the district's formula is reasonable. But she worries that the public's perception of school performance will be unduly influenced.

"If a school doesn't get the bonus, or another school gets more, the public perception will be that we didn't do our jobs," the teacher said. "The truth is there are wonderful things going on that can't be easily quantified for the purposes of the bonus pay equation."

Teachers at Antonello and Culley elementary schools will each receive 2 percent bonus es , the largest allowed as part of the empowerment model. Adams Elementary teachers will receive 1.5 percent and Warren Elementary teachers will receive 0.5 percent.

Instead of awarding different amounts to individual classroom teachers, the school's overall performance determined the bonus percentage given to everyone.

Schools were able to earn as many as 200 points in various categories. Student test scores accounted for 100 points, and schools that made "adequate yearly progress" under the federal No Child Left Behind Act received as many as 50 points.

Parent and student satisfaction surveys counted for 15 points, as did a working conditions survey completed by the staff.

Adams and Antonello each received full marks from parents and students, while Warren received six points and Culley , five.

Antonello's teachers were satisfied enough to earn the school the full 15 points, while Adams and Culley were just a step behind at 14 points. Warren , where a new principal began the year with only two returning teachers, received no points for the survey.

Warren also received the fewest points for student test score improvement - 11, compared with 100 for Culley, 63 for Antonello and 42 for Adams.

Mary Ella Holloway, president of the Clark County Education Association, said it's appropriate for all licensed personnel at the campus to share in the reward.

"The art teacher doesn't have a test to show they're accomplishing something in the classroom," Holloway said. "But everybody at the school, whether they're the art teacher or the librarian, has an impact on student performance."

That blitz campaign doesn't appear to have paid off.

July 29, 2007
Ten of Clark County's comprehensive high schools failed to meet the all-important participation rate on the state's proficiency exam, one of the requirements for "adequate yearly progress" under the federal No Child Left Behind Act.

At Indian Springs High School, the shortfall in participation is the sole reason why the school is now on the state's "watch list."

Students have their first chance to take the proficiency test as sophomores. Those who pass on the first try are added to their classmates who take the test again in the spring of their junior year. The total must equal 95 percent.

Billboards, radio spots and campus banners urged students not to skip school on March 27. Schools that don't meet the 95 percent participation requirement also don't make "adequate yearly progress" under No Child Left Behind .

Part of the problem is that juniors know they'll have other chances to pass the test in their senior year. That makes it difficult to motivate them to show up for the spring test day.
Three schools, Basic, Del Sol and Palo Verde, missed the participation mark on the math test. For Chaparral, Legacy and Western it was the reading and writing tests.

And Bonanza, Canyon Springs and Clark didn't have enough students show up for either section of the test.

• • •

Clark County Schools Superintendent Walt Rulffes gave reporters two reasons why he didn't want to hear the media refer to the district as failing.

First , that would be inaccurate, he said at a news conference to unveil the annual list of campus test results .

Graduation rates are up. Dropout rates are down. And more schools made "adequate progress" on standardized tests, as state and federal law requires.

And the second reason?

"My feelings will be hurt," Rulffes said.

Divided Clark County School Board approves pay raises for trustees

By Beth Walton

Las Vegas Review-Journal

Clark County School Board trustees gave themselves a raise Thursday night.

In a 4-2 vote, with one trustee abstaining, board members decided to allow themselves to choose how much they'll be paid each month, as long as their increased pay doesn't put the board's budget in the red or exceed the $750-a-month maximum set by the Legislature.

Board members had been paid between $80 and $85 per meeting and averaged about two to three meetings a month.

But trustees often put in 20 hours a week, said board member Mary Beth Scow, who supported the pay increase. Some board members won't be able to seek re-election because of term limits and higher pay will help ensure the quality of the board is maintained, she said.

Trustee Carolyn Edwards also supported the raise, but said she would have preferred the Legislature provide money for higher pay along with permission for the pay increase.

"There is a big difference between not supporting an unfunded mandate from the Legislature and believing I'm worthy of compensation," she said.

Also voting in favor of the raise were Board President Ruth Johnson and Terri Janison.

Trustees Larry Mason and Shirley Barber opposed the pay increase.

"We should stop playing with our teachers and give them the money they should be given," Barber said. "In a state as rich as Nevada, especially in Las Vegas, we shouldn't have to deal with the problems we do. Teachers shouldn't have to worry about having two to three jobs."

Mason, who participated in the meeting via phone, acknowledged the hard work and long hours board members put in, but added, "I wasn't in it to make money. I never have been. The volunteering, the public service, that in itself is compensation."

Trustee Sheila Moulton abstained from voting. She had proposed an alternate plan of incremental pay raises, starting at $510 a month in September and rising to $750 a month by January 2009.

A new state law requires that Clark County School Board members receive a raise to $750 a month on Jan. 1, 2009. But trustees were given the option of voting to implement the raises before that date. The new law allows trustees to return all or part of their pay to the district.

District Chief Financial Officer Jeffrey Weiler said he believes there are enough unspent funds in the board's budget to allow trustees to accept raises.

The School Board saves a substantial amount of money because trustees can be paid for up to six meetings a month, but they rarely meet that frequently.

Previously, any unspent money was returned to the general budget. Now, any leftover funds will be redirected toward increasing trustees' compensation.

Some people at the meeting voiced opposition to the raises, saying there aren't enough resources going to the students or the teachers.

"You are not here for personal gain," said Constance Kosuda, a retired lawyer. She told the trustees they knew it was a "volunteer" position when they sought election to the board.

Michele Cotterman, a PTA member at Cunningham Elementary School where her daughter is in the first-grade, was shocked to learn board members were paid at all.

The PTA is a voluntary position, she said.

"We do it because it is our right, our passion, our responsibility," she said.

Cotterman encouraged board members to take advantage of the option to donate their compensation to the schools.

Las Vegas resident Eleanor Chow said the pay increase was long overdue.

"When you're a board member, this is a business and you have a deep responsibility," she said, challenging the people in the room to put in the time and effort trustees do and not be compensated.

Congress Passes ‘Competitiveness’ Bill

By Sean Cavanagh

Education Week
Congress approved legislation Thursday that seeks to bolster mathematics and science education through improved teacher recruitment and training and promote successful classroom practices through federal grants.

The bipartisan legislation, which the House approved by a 367-57 vote and the Senate passed unanimously, had the backing of numerous business and education organizations. Members of Congress have dubbed the proposals, now consolidated into one bill, “competitiveness” legislation, because they believe it will strengthen the quality of the U.S. workforce and gird the American economy against foreign competition.

The bill now goes to President Bush, who lawmakers believe will sign the bill.

"In my mind, there will be no more important legislation that passes the Congress this year," Sen. Lamar Alexander, R-Tenn., one of its sponsors, told reporters this week. "This is the prime model of bipartisan cooperation."

The bill would establish several new federal math and science programs and expand existing ones. If Congress appropriates money for all the programs, it would cost $43.3 billion over three years, though much of that spending would be devoted to research programs in technology, energy, and other areas.

The measure would broaden the Robert Noyce Scholarship Program, which provides grants of $10,000 a year to college majors in math- and science-related subjects who agree to teach in high-need schools. Among other changes, the bill would provide awardees of the program, which is administered by the National Science Foundation, up to three years of scholarship funding, instead of the current limit of two years. In addition, scholarship recipients would be given additional time to complete their teacher training, under the legislation.

Furthermore, the proposal addresses some of the math and science priorities identified by President Bush. It would create "Math Now," a program in which the U.S. Department of Education would award grants to states to attempt to implement proven strategies in math instruction. The legislation says the goal is to help students reach grade level in math and prepare them for algebra, a subject most students take in 8th or 9th grade.

In the past, Bush administration officials have likened Math Now to the federal Reading First program, a $1 billion-a-year effort that seeks to improve instruction through the promotion of researched-based practices in reading. Department of Education representatives have faced charges of favoring certain commercial reading products in awarding grants to states, but Reading First has also won praise for improving instruction and achievement from state officials and researchers. ("White House Suggests Model Used in Reading To Elevate Math Skills," Feb. 15, 2006.)

'In Harmony'
The "competitiveness" legislation also appears to address another of President Bush's goals by authorizing new grant programs to increase the number of Advanced Placement and International Baccalaureate classes in schools nationwide.

Additionally, the bill calls for the secretary of education to contract with the National Academy of Sciences to convene a national panel to "identify promising practices in the teaching of science, technology, engineering, and mathematics in elementary and secondary schools."

Last year, the White House set up the National Mathematics Advisory Panel, a 17-member group charged with studying effective classroom strategies in math and presenting recommendations to the president. Lee Pitts, a spokesman for Sen. Alexander, said the panel established in the new legislation would "extend the work of the math panel into science, technology, and engineering." It is not meant to duplicate the math panel, he added.

The House and Senate originally approved separate versions of the math and science legislation. Lawmakers from both chambers met in a conference committee in an effort to resolve those differences and produce a final bill for consideration by the House and Senate.

Speaking with reporters Aug. 1, two sponsors of the House and Senate bills, Rep. Bart Gordon, D-Tenn., and Sen. Alexander, said negotiations over the final bill were not difficult.

"We were very much in harmony," Rep. Gordon said. "The conference was short and sweet."

The bill would establish two new competitive grant programs within the Education Department, according to a conference report released by lawmakers this week. The first is aimed at expanding master's degrees in science- and math-related fields. The other would support programs that encourage undergraduates to obtain bachelor's degrees in science- and math-related fields and foreign languages at the same time they are gaining teacher certification. The legislation authorizes $151 million for the bachelor's degree program and $125 million for the master's degree program in fiscal 2008, according to a summary of the conference report.

The bill only authorizes new spending on federal math and science programs; it does not guarantee they will get that money. Appropriations for those programs are currently included in three separate spending bills under consideration by Congress, said Mr. Pitts.

Francis M. "Skip" Fennell, the president of the 100,000-member National Council of Teachers of Mathematics, in Reston, Va., said his organization was pleased with the legislation, especially provision within it that seek to provide support and assistance to inexperienced and struggling educators.

"We know that the lack of proper mentoring and support for teachers is one reason so many leave the profession in the first years of teaching," Mr. Fennell said in a statement. Math coaches, he said, "will help early and midcareer teachers and afford better learning opportunities for students."

John J. Castellani, the president of the Business Roundtable, also praised the congressional action. "If we are to maintain our competitive edge, we must improve the education our students receive in science, technology, engineering and mathematics," he said in a statement. "America's ability to compete in a 21st-century economy rests on our continued investments in math and science education. The U.S. Congress has confirmed its commitment to ensuring that we are prepared to continue to lead the world in research and technology-well into the future."

Associate Editor David J. Hoff contributed to this story.

Doubts Cast on Math, Science Teaching Lures

By Sean Cavanagh

Education Week

Few strategies for luring more students and working adults into math and science teaching have proved as popular among elected officials as financial incentives, which try to make one of the least appealing aspects of the job—low pay—a little less daunting.

Lawmakers on Capitol Hill are considering a number of bills that would expand existing incentives, such as scholarships and loan forgiveness for aspiring educators, and create new monetary inducements. Dozens of states, meanwhile, already offer their own incentives for teachers in subjects with shortages, including mathematics and science.

But those who have studied financial incentives say evidence is scant that they are attracting substantial numbers of college students and career-changers to math and science teaching, despite years of investments in those programs.

Opinions vary on why incentives have not shown greater results. Some believe the money available is relatively insignificant when weighed against potential job candidates’ worries about poor salaries and working conditions. Others say the hodgepodge of federal, state, and local incentives is so fragmented that few potential teachers are aware of what’s available.

“There’s been virtually no research on how effective [these] options are,” said Dan Goldhaber, a research professor at the Center on Reinventing Public Education, based at the University of Washington in Seattle. “We ought to be making decisions about these programs based on something more than what might be effective, and instead base it on empirical evidence.”

Yet backers of incentives believe they can offer an important carrot for college students and for people already in the work world. Even if that extra money is of secondary importance to job candidates, it can make the teaching profession more appealing to math and science majors who are likely to have more lucrative options in the private sector.

Teaching for Dollars
In addition to the myriad state financial-incentive programs, the federal government oversees a number of monetary hooks to recruit and retain teachers in high-need fields, including math and science:

The Robert Noyce Scholarship Program, administered by the National Science Foundation, offers scholarships of $10,000 annually, for two years, to students majoring in math- and sciencerelated fields, as well as to working professionals.

The Teacher Loan Forgiveness Program, signed into law in 2006 and administered by the U.S. Department of Education, makes teachers of math, science, and special education eligible for up to $17,500 of loan repayment.

Teachers of math and science also can have up to 100 percent of their Perkins Loans canceled, with the amounts depending on years of service in the classroom.

The federal Transition to Teaching program provides money to school districts and colleges to pay for financial incentives of up to $5,000, total, to midcareer professionals, including paraprofessionals, interested in becoming trained as teachers in high-need schools.

SOURCES: U.S. Department of Education; National Science FoundationAnna M. Swenty, 26, credits an incentive program with having changed her thinking about teaching.

After earning a bachelor’s degree in biology from the University of Missouri-Columbia three years ago, Ms. Swenty was considering graduate school and research jobs, but those career paths seemed too specialized. It wasn’t until she learned about the federal Robert Noyce Scholarship Program that the idea of teaching began to take hold.

The program, which is financed through the National Science Foundation at about $9 million a year, provided her with a total of $10,000 to return to school and earn a teaching certificate. In return, she agreed to work in a high-poverty school. She now teaches biology and earth science at Narrows High School in western Virginia.

“It was a godsend,” Ms. Swenty said of the scholarship. “I was worried about going into debt. … No one ever told me in my [undergraduate] program that teaching was a viable option.”

Financial Hook
Noyce money flows to colleges and universities, which give it to qualified applicants: college majors in math and science subjects who want to go into teaching, and working professionals with expertise in those areas. The program’s effectiveness is being evaluated, a process that is expected to be complete next year, said Joan T. Prival, the program’s lead director at the NSF. Separate bills approved by the House and the Senate would expand the program.

House lawmakers also recently approved a bill that would provide scholarships of as much as $16,000 to college students who agree to work in high-need subjects in schools serving large numbers of low-income students A measure that cleared the Senate this month would tie loan forgiveness to teachers’ income levels and lengths of service.

Low pay is just one of the factors that most frustrate teachers about their profession. Surveys show lack of administrative support and poor working conditions are of equal or greater concern.

Schools nationwide struggle to find qualified teachers in math and science. About 36 percent of secondary school math classes are taught by teachers who lack even a minor in math or a related subject, compared with 24 percent in all core academic subjects, according to the Education Trust, a Washington-based policy organization.

The pressure on schools to find teaching talent is likely to grow. About one-third of today’s teaching corps is expected to retire by 2010, according to one estimate. And the United States will need about 280,000 new teachers in math and science by 2015, a recent report says.

Although he believes financial incentives can make a difference to potential teachers, Gerald F. Wheeler, the executive director of the National Science Teachers Association, in Arlington, Va., said pay plans that offer higher salaries to math and science teachers have greater potential, because they bring educators’ yearly pay closer to those of jobs in the private sector.

“It doesn’t have to be equal” to other professions, he said, “but they have to be able to play in that marketplace.”

But grants and scholarships have proved more politically palatable in states than such differential-pay plans or pay-for-performance proposals, which tie teacher compensation to student achievement, said Tricia Coulter, the director of the teaching-quality and leadership institute at the Education Commission of the States, a research organization in Denver.

Thirty-one states have financial incentives for recruiting and retaining teachers, the ECS estimates. They vary in size and scope. Kansas offers $5,000 a year to college juniors and seniors who agree to become teachers in high-need subjects, including math and science.

During the 2006-07 academic year, the state awarded 248 scholarships, 45 of which went to math and science teachers, said Diane Lindeman, the director of student financial assistance for the Kansas board of regents. The state spent $778,000 on scholarships during that year.

The program helped only a small fraction of the number of teachers needed to fill math and science vacancies, Ms. Lindeman acknowledged. “There are so many factors in this other than just throwing money at people for going to college,” she said. “You’ve got to have the people who are actually eligible to do this and want to do this.”

Little Advertised?
Kansas’ scholarships require recipients to teach at a public or private school in the state for at least two years. About 40 percent of awardees in the most recent recorded year did not complete their obligation because they moved out of state or lost interest in teaching, among other reasons. Awardees who do not fulfill that obligation must repay the scholarships. Recouping money from those who renege can be a cumbersome process, Ms. Lindeman said.

Some policy experts warn that incentives can have the unintended effect of encouraging new teachers who lack the necessary talent or enthusiasm for the job to stay to meet financial commitments.

“You lock in some people who you probably do not want to be teaching,” said Eric A. Hanushek, a senior fellow at Stanford University’s Hoover Institution.

Several observers said a greater flaw is that aspiring teachers do not have a single source to tell them about the available federal and state incentives—a common problem in financial aid. A bill sponsored by U.S. Rep. Rush Holt, D-N.J., would require the federal government to set up a database of public and private scholarships in math- and science-related fields.

“There’s a whole lot of stuff out there, but people kind of stumble across it,” said Margaret E. Heisel, a lead coordinator for the California Teach/Science Math Initiative, a program aimed at recruiting educators into the profession. Students, she said, need a system that tells them that “if you are interested in math or science teaching, we have a way of making sure you don’t have a lot of debt at the end of college.”

The UC and California State University systems in 2005 announced a plan to try to raise the number of math and science teachers who graduate from their collective teacher programs from 1,000 to 2,500 a year. The systems, with private-sector support, offer a host of financial incentives to teachers, including waiving up to $19,000 in college loans.

One state program that appears to have achieved some success is in North Carolina, where teachers of math, science, or special education in high-poverty or academically struggling schools were given an extra $1,800 a year, according to a 2006 study by researchers at Duke University. Turnover among those teachers fell by 12 percent from 2001 to 2004, and might have fallen more if the program, which the state eliminated in 2004 for lack of legislative support, had been better understood by teachers, researchers found.

Many state incentive programs “are new, and they’re relatively small in scale,” said James Brown, the co-chairman of the Science, Technology, Engineering, and Math Caucus, a Washington-based group that is backing federal legislation to expand incentives.

“The states are grappling with this just as the federal government is, and it’s going to take a while to get it right,” Mr. Brown said. “The problem is large enough that you need a national role that will get national attention.”

Coverage of mathematics, science, and technology education is supported by a grant from the Ewing Marion Kauffman Foundation, at www.kauffman.org.

To the editor:

Because more and more teachers in Clark County have expressed discontent with their representative unit, the Clark County Education Association, the Teamsters have decided to throw their hat in the ring.

But the fact of the matter is neither the association nor the Teamsters is looking out for the best interests of teachers. Teachers are professionals who deserve a professional organization that will engender the type of respect and recognition that unions do not bring to the table. The Teamsters are no better a solution to the concerns of the teachers of Clark County than the association.

The militant labor union mentality is inherently wrong for teachers. Industrial-style unionism neither advances the respect and compensation that educators deserve nor does it improve the quality of education for kids.

Teachers have been tasked with the education of our nation's children, and must be the best and the brightest. The union model rewards teachers who act in a way that belies the nature of their profession. If teachers strive to be taken seriously as a profession, they need to align themselves with groups whose priorities do not center on political agendas that have little to do with the classroom.

It's understandable that Clark County's educators are wondering if there are better options than a union. The answer is yes. In fact, there is a groundswell among America's teachers, who are leaving traditional teacher labor unions to join non-union professional associations. Nearly 300,000 teachers nationwide have opted to join non-union educators associations such as the Association of American Educators, which has members in all 50 states. Members can get most of the benefits that the unions provide but at a fraction of the cost.

Clark County teachers have a unique opportunity to do what's best for their profession and for the kids they teach. There have indeed been problems with the Clark County Education Association's representation, and teachers should want change.

However, the Teamsters outdated labor model is no more appropriate for today's teachers than is the National Education Association. Teachers deserve a professional choice.

Gary Beckner

MISSION VIEJO, CALIF.

THE WRITER IS CHAIRMAN OF THE ASSOCIATION OF AMERICAN EDUCATORS.

Here is the story you have waited for.

I know, it seems ridiculous that CCEA would be doing this while refusing to represent teachers and negotiate a decent contract. We hope you really think about the implications of what they are doing.

According to several Clark County Education Association officials, the money in question has been accounted for. Yes, we’re talking about the mysterious whereabouts of those exorbitant tuition fees drained from the pockets of hard-working teachers for the Center for Teacher Excellence program, also known as Advanced Studies Certification. In a recent conversation with union insiders, it was revealed that Executive Director John Jasonek has commented he would be more than happy to show the public the union books on CTE. However, he doesn’t, according to our sources, want the public or the union rank-and-file to view CCEA’s overall operating books. Apparently he explained to several officers at a CCEA Senate and Executive Board meeting that the union has $1,000,000 tucked away in various accounts, so the UniServ representatives won’t know about the extra money. (Yes, that’s one million dollars!) It seems these UniServ reps have been seeking raises, and Jasonek has different plans for the stashed cash. Remember the CTE program? It’s the one where teachers paid $3,600 to receive a $3,000 raise; while the state-run program, RPDP, had been charging $810 for the same teacher raise.

After months of Teachers4Change following this pile of money, some courageous teachers have started coming forward with revelatory information. As usual, CCEA tried to close ranks to cover up the dirt in this story, typical of their behavior, but, in this case, they haven’t been able to keep the truth from coming out. Executive Director Jasonek in a board meeting was heard telling the audience that CCEA is using CTE money for a union building fund. Apparently CCEA wants to build an ivory tower to house their hard-working association officers. The idea is to house all union facilities in one central location-- i.e. Association Offices, Teachers Health Trust, etc. Considering what a fine job the union has done to serve the interests of teachers for the past eight years (we jest!), this building fund may be a tough pill to swallow for the average, suffering rank-and-file teacher.

While teachers are trying desperately to figure out how to climb up a last notch on the already-pathetic teacher pay scale by meeting the heavy financial requirement of the CTE program, CCEA is saving for a brand-spanking-new building from the pockets of these teachers. Even further, teachers who are not union members and taking these CTE classes are also contributing significantly to the CCEA building fund. According to one source, Jasonek was happy to report that non-union teachers would be, unwittingly, bankrolling the new CCEA building. In fact, the source said, that was one of Jasonek’s main selling points. And what do you think the name of the new union building is going to be? Hmmm. Does the name Jasonek ring a bell?

Maybe the time has come for teachers (both members and non-members) to bring
a halt to deception like this. Isn’t it bad enough teachers keep coming out on the bottom, over and over again, with this union in charge? Perhaps the time is here for teachers to start paving a new road; to head in a different direction. Because teachers deserve so much better than what they’ve been getting from CCEA.

By Aaron Dalton

There’s a venerable legend about inventing the high-tech world’s Next Big Thing: All you need is to do is disappear into your garage with a computer and a really terrific idea, and what you come out with may change the world. Scaled down to the teaching world, and allowing for a few variations in time and place—it’s not the late 1970s, and New York City has few garages of the type Microsoft founder Bill Gates or Apple co-creator Steve Jobs did their fiddling in—that’s what former teacher Paul Edelman has in mind with teacherspayteachers.com.

Click here for more.