Newsday Has Useful Opinion Piece on Teacher Compensation

Not long ago, I suggested that residents read a certain newspaper article in which the dynamics of the article was based upon a study done by a conservative think tank. I took note of the fact that I did not agree with the entire article, but that it did contain some helpful analyses, and, more importantly, it contained some statements of fact that were beyond question.

In similar fashion, I would suggest reading an opinion piece published in the June 14th edition of Sunday Newsday, on page A42, done by Stephen Bongiovi, a retired English teacher. The opinion piece is titled “Teachers do matter,” to which title every rational person would undoubtedly say “Wow! What a revelation.”

But, let's assume that the title was selected by Newsday, and not by Mr. Bongiovi, and focus upon what he has said.

Like many who focus only upon costs to the exclusion of benefits, Mr. Bongiovi takes his positions to the other extreme and uses examples of wonderful teaching moments that he encountered as a student, and later as a teacher, to suggest that people should be prepared to spend whatever they are now spending, if not relatively more, to achieve the best teaching results for their children.

It seems an equivalent extremist view to that of the conservative think tank which is designed to eliminate consequential dialogue, rather than encourage a full and candid discussion and analysis of what could be done better in order to fairly compensate teachers, while preserving the fiscal health and integrity of school districts across New York State.

Think carefully about this paragraph written by Mr. Bongiovi:

“This must be what Long Islanders want. Whatever raises, benefits and pension plans teachers receive have been negotiated and agreed upon with boards of education comprised entirely of elected representatives of the citizens of the community in which they teach.”

Are the words factually correct?

Yes.

Are they misleading?

Oh, yes indeed.

You see, there are several flaws in logic, as well as unstated truths, in Mr. Bongiovi's remarks.

From the logic standpoint, to imply that any board of education in 2009, or 2010, can materially change the financial impact of an expiring existing labor contract, between their district and their local teachers union, is absurd. The structure of the local contract, at best, can be tweaked, from one contract negotiation to the next.

To imply otherwise is to ignore the forces of momentum and inertia; these contracts are like stalactites or stalagmites, which have been accumulating their shape over long periods of time. Once these financial benefits are established, and once a broad spectrum of benefits becomes part of the package, it is very difficult to dislodge them or materially alter their shape.

From the unstated truth standpoint, the structure of the Teachers Retirement System, which is the pension plan for teachers in New York State, is a State creation and not anything that has been created by one or more boards of education in New York State. No board of education can even modify that State pension plan.

In fact, as a statement of the obvious of how the State can make life worse for school districts, former State Comptroller Carl McCall eliminated pension contributions for one class of employees after ten years of payment into the system, thereby making the pension fund less self-funding and less stable in future years, particularly since it indexes these benefits to inflation (unlike most corporate plans today).

So, Mr. Bongiovi's statement is misleading.

In order to truly understand the compensation package for teachers, you would also need to compare, in one comprehensive analysis, every financial benefit which they receive now or will receive in the future. As part of that, you would need to factor in their own contributions toward each of these present and future benefits. Then, for comparability, you would compare similar compensation packages for people in other fields, including their own contributions, so that you could develop an objective analysis of what might be reasonable and fair. Mr. Bongiovi, perhaps understandably for his purposes of advocacy, does not do that.

Now, I want to cite one set of statements by Mr. Bongiovi in which I find myself in partial agreement, yet also find myself in disbelief of some of his suggestions as a consequence of the initial reasonable statements:

“There are good teachers and poor teachers. There are good (pick an occupation) and bad (pick an occupation). Teachers are and should be held accountable.”

Later he states:

“Even with tenure, districts are not handcuffed into retaining bad teachers with no recourse. Programs in professional development, mandated mentoring and even legal processes for removal, though time-consuming and potentially costly, are available options.”

Other than some newly hired teachers who might not return for their second or third years, before tenure was granted, when was the last time that you witnessed a teacher being removed from a school district?

And, did it ever amaze you, or have you never focused upon this, that a superior teacher would be paid no more than an inferior teacher of the same experience and numbers of postgraduate credits achieved?

My children have had some amazing teachers, such as the following: (1) one dynamic teacher who is retiring, who consistently went above and beyond what his contract called for, and who even created E-mail dialogue with parents long before the district provided E-mail addresses for teachers to use; and (2) another, a superior teacher who made a big difference for my disabled son, and who left the district (for a better opportunity, but who also had some frustration with the reluctance of some existing staff to be open to new ideas), and who would call me or my wife, in the evening, even from his home.

I'll bet that many of you could provide examples, of your own, of teachers whom you believe should have received pay differentiation, but were treated no better than those who might have been either resting upon their laurels of past performance, or gliding along simply because they could, with either no benefit for doing better, or with no penalty for failing to be all that they could and should be.

And, you should also think of those situations where the board or district were trying to use the tenure system to make improvements, as it is supposed to allow, only to have either the union or some parents, or both, round up the usual cast of characters to protest the “failure” to provide tenure to a favored colleague or friend. Some might call this an exercise in bullying of the board or district, and others might call this pressure politics, or some such description, but that reality is not addressed in Mr. Bongiovi's opinion article.

In summary, even his sound statements are marred by his ignoring of the reality of these processes, and my belief is that he has chosen his words very carefully to intentionally provide a limited perspective for the average reader.

Nevertheless, you should read his piece in Newsday because it does form part of the balance of what needs to be better dialogue on the issue of costs versus benefits, and form versus function, of education in New York State.