According to MPS figures cited by Gwen:
Zone 1 Zone 2 Zone 3
Average salary $ 84,459 $ 87,381 $ 87,486
Total teachers 832 8 74.6 793.1
Teachers with1-3 years tenure 198.2 74.6 69.8
% teachers with 1-3 years tenure 13% 10% 9%
This is classic MPS Public Relations misinformation designed to make problems
magically disappear.
When I divide the number of zone one teachers with 1-3 years tenure by the
total number of zone one teachers, I get the percentage rate of 24% (23.82211)
on my calculator. 198.2 FTE is pretty close to a quarter of 832, after all. And
there are school to school variations in every zone.
In a district with about 25,000 pupil and 2,500 on-site teachers, excluding
administrators and special Ed teachers you might expect average class sizes of
no more than 13 pupils. Exactly, what is the district's definition of "teacher"
in this context. Regular Ed Teaching Assistants and registered volunteer
classroom aids, and other staff that might engage in lunchroom and recess
monitoring? Please notice that the district tables refer to staff to student
ratios.
Does the "average salary" for a zone refer to the mean or the medium salary?
Given the immense pay differential between teachers on the low and high end of
the scale, it seems unlikely that the "mean" average for zone 1 would only be a
few thousand dollars less than in zones 2 and 3. If the difference in the mean
average salary between zone 1 on the one hand, and zones 2 and 3 on the other
is just a few grand, the cost saving achieved by maintaining a large pool of
new hires in zone 1 certainly can not be justified as a cost-containment
tactic, and certainly not as a strategy to improve the quality of instruction.
How is it that teachers in their first 3 years of employment with the district
constitute 24% of all teachers in zone 1. State-wide, licensed teachers in
their first year of employment with a Minnesota Teaching License in the state
of Minnesota is 3%. If most teachers are retained in an average school district
that is not increasing or decreasing its teaching workforce, the number of
teachers in the first year of employment would be about 9 to 10%. It is very
hard to explain how 24% of the Full Time Equivalent of all teachers are in
their first 3 years of employment as being strictly the effect of teachers
transferring out of zone one as soon as they can. There has to be a much higher
rate of employment termination, i.e., firings and quits (voluntary or forced)
in zone one.
One explanation for the decline in absolute numbers of African American
teachers in the public school system nationwide since the 1970s, despite the
growth in the total workforce, is that African American teachers are heavily
assigned to schools where a large percentage of teachers are fired and
replaced, even if the African American teachers are somewhat more likely to be
retained than their white counterparts in those schools.
Having a high concentration of new and inexperienced teachers also impacts
curriculum, classroom climate (and a focus on "behavior management"). Teachers
on probationary status, and especially the least experienced are more reliant
on the canned lesson plans and narrowed curriculum designed to boost test
scores that are tied to the teacher quality evaluations. Need I go on about
how a high concentration of new and inexperienced teachers adversely effects
instructional quality and student outcomes?
Is the difference in concentrations of inexperienced and new teachers, and
teacher turnover alone not inequitable enough for Gwen?
Since 1999, the Minnesota Department of Education and school district that
operate "racially identifiable schools," like Minneapolis, have been required
to monitor for differences in "educational inputs" between schools that are
racially identifiable, and schools that are not racially identifiable.
Minnesota Administrative Rules, Chapter 3535, section 1 et seq require an
annual report that shows whether and to what degree there are measurable
differences in educational inputs between racially identifiable and
non-racially identifiable schools, and a plan of correction, if substantial
differences exist. The list of educational inputs, school-based factors that
would logically effect student outcomes, includes teacher expertise
(experience, training, licensure (in and out of field), curricular and
extracurricular offerings and participation rates, amenities such as air
conditioning, libraries, swimming pools, etc. The statement of need and
reasonableness for Rule 3535 also states that the existence of substantial
differences in measurable educational inputs between schools that are racially
identifiable, and those that are not racially identifiable is deemed to be
systemic racial discrimination in violation of the Civil Rights Act of 1964,
the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment of the US constitution, and
the Education clause of the Minnesota Constitution.
What we now have in place is an updated version of the Separate But Equal
Doctrine first applied to the field of public education by a 1897 US Supreme
Court Ruling. It is deja vu all over again.
Is compliance with Civil Rights laws impractical because of the teacher union
contract, its wage scale, and impossibility of the district meeting its
obligations under the contract if most newly hired teachers were allowed and
encouraged to complete their 3 year probationary period and became "tenured"
teachers with administrative due process rights, recall rights if "laid off,"
etc.
The Minneapolis Federation of Teachers has a history of outspoken support of,
or silence about the mass firing and replacement of probationary teachers. This
is not in the best interests of public education, nor is it in the best
interests of the teaching profession. Moreover, the union cannot expect the
backing of people toward whom the union has turned its back as teachers unions
come under attack as part of the neo-liberal / corporate school reform reform
agenda, which is cleverly marketed as a "civil rights agenda."
The widening of teacher pay differentials, and of pay differentials in union
contracts generally since the 1970s was, until then, generally not something
that labor unions demanding, but was part of a divide and conquer strategy used
to get a majority of union members to support austerity measures. Some call it
win-win collective bargaining, where the employer but not all of the employees
come out winners. I think of it as an example of company unionism, or business
unionism. And in the quest to become one with the employer in matters of school
policy, the union either supports the district administration, or keeps silent,
including policies and practices which has a disparate impact on people of
color.
ALEC's model legislation to make "money follow the students" is about promoting
charter schools, mostly non-union, and applying pressure on school districts to
promote and sponsor charter schools, and to get out of the business of
operating public schools. Naturally, given the realities of school district
finances and the structure of union pay scales, compliance with equitable
principles of resource allocation required of school districts by civil rights
laws are deemed impractical.
On paper, the strategic goal of the Minneapolis School District is to achieve
better and more equal outcomes for students, and in more concrete terms, the
strategic goal of the district improvement plan of 2002 was to bring teacher
turnover rates to low levels in all schools by measures to increase teacher
retention. However, the administration worked energetically to undermine that
plan, with the blessing of president and executive board of the Minneapolis
Federation of Teachers of that era.
If you think about it, and consider the impact of new teachers being retained
and allowed to climb the pay ladder, the cost to the district would be quite
small, in the short run. Fewer resources would have to be expended on
recruiting and training new teachers. Instructional quality and student
outcomes can greatly increase in our most "challenged" schools. Radical changes
in teacher pay structures and big increases in revenue would not be required,
at least for a time. I would like to see higher starting pay with a
corresponding reduction in pay differentials, rather than big cuts in actual
pay rates for teachers on the high end of the pay scale. I would like to see a
union that demands governance of the district on the basis of equitable
principles. We need a teachers union that fights for social justice, not for
business as usual. That is our best hope of defending public education, making
it available to all on an equal basis, and defeating the neo-liberal school
reform agenda.
Boiling down the cause of the achievement gap to lousy, low-income parents who
are stressing out their kids is a defense of the status quo to which the Star
Tribune periodically gives a voice. And by "status quo," I mean a social order
based on economic exploitation of the poor (non rich) by the rich, and which
nurtures and is nurtured by systemic racial discrimination. The Star Tribune is
quite interested in framing public debate through its "news stories" and
editorials. Other points of view are ignored, to the extent possible. I would
probably die of shock if the Strib were to ever publish an Op-ed piece by me,
even a short one.
-Doug Mann, Folwell neighborhood