Badge of Shame and Bigger Paychecks: Arne Duncan's Mixed Bag Comments for Teachers

I have a friend who is a CPS teacher and I think the term 'demoralized' describes the situation for the good teachers out there. I've heard her talk about the importance (to the Board of Ed wonks) of classroom posters, about how one year they want everyone to have posters that are professionally made and bought--general by teachers with their own money. And then suddenly, it becomes important that the teachers design the poster, or that the children do it. And she never knows, year to year, which one of these scenarios is the current 'correct' way to decorate her classroom.

There's lots of other stuff she talks about, but that conversation I had with her stuck with me the most.

You tend to hear a lot of this type of capricious, "which way is the wing blowing today" decision making at CPS.  I get the impression that the decisions are generally not made system-wide and your experience will vary highly depending on the administrators and teacher at your particular school.

The recent Chicago Reader stories on the "do not hire" policies of the CPS have been a bit eye opening to me.  Seems like a principal can make or break a teacher (and likely a school).  I also get the impression that turnover at the principal level is pretty high, which probably exacerbates the situation.  Get your posters in order for the current principal and next year it is a different guy with a completely different set of priorities. 

If I had the same job year after year with a different boss coming in every few years and changing the entire system and priorities, I'd go batty.

If I had the same job year after year with a different boss coming in every few years and changing the entire system and priorities, I'd go batty.

Wow, yeah. Do we have any statistics about average principal tenure or things along those lines? Because if it's abnormally short, that's a clear problem that needs to be addressed too.

Eh, got a few details wrong.  In any case, the school in question has had three different principals since 2010, though one of them was an interim principal.  Full story:

http://www.chicagoreader.com/c...

I've never seen a statistic published.  I'm basing my (relatively uninformed) opinion on a couple of anecdotes.

First is one of the recent Reader articles about the do-not-hire list:  the teacher in the story had a good relationship with the original principal, then a new principal came in and she got a reprimand for not following lesson plan procedures.  When she was laid off, the lesson plan infraction was enough to land her on the do-not-hire list.  By the time she was able to challenge the designation, the principal that caused the issue was in an entirely different school system (different state, IIRC).  That's 3 different principals in a few year period.

The second is based on the experiences of a friend of mine who worked at a magnet school on the west side.  There were 3 different principals during his time at the school.

I'd be really interested to see statistics on this issue.  Job stability is a really important factor in satisfaction and, at least backed up by anecdotal evidence, new principals seem to disrupt the stability of a school.

I'm all for longer, better school days and years, but there needs to be fair compensation to the people who are working longer.  Does 29% more in-class time automatically mean a 29% raise?  Probably not, but 2% is just absurd.  The city and the teachers need to meet somewhere in the middle on this, and quit being jerks (on the city side) or making fools of themselves (on the teachers' side.)

Look, by extending the school day and the school year, the school buildings will have their lights on longer and their computers running more, thus their electric bills will go up.  Is the mayor planning on only paying 2% more and telling ComEd to eat the rest?  Of course not.  Commercial electricity pricing is complicated, but essentially, CPS and ComEd will work out a fair deal.  They should take a similar approach to their dealings with the teachers.

The discussion of comparing Chicago teachers' pay/hours to those of other school districts is a good idea.  I'm just extraordinarily surprised that the Mayor hasn't been pushing these numbers himself.  Also, you have to include two factors in such a comparison: 1)In class and out of class time spent by teachers to do their jobs and 2)local cost of living.  You can't compare Chicago salaries to say, Texas or Alabama without adjusting for the difference in local costs.
Given the lack of comparative numbers coming out of the mayor's office on this issue, I wonder if it doesn't really help his case?

Some very good points here. Overall, I'd say 2% freakin' sucks, but at the same time, they city's done gone broke (more or less). I'm all for paying teachers a metric ass-tonne more, but in the short term, there's only so much water that can be squeezed from the rock.

Also, you have to include two factors in such a comparison: 1)In class and out of class time spent by teachers to do their jobs and 2)local cost of living.  You can't compare Chicago salaries to say, Texas or Alabama without adjusting for the difference in local costs.
Given the lack of comparative numbers coming out of the mayor's office on this issue, I wonder if it doesn't really help his case?

At the end of the day, my general impression is that Chicago teachers' pay is pretty much on par with that of other similar systems, even when adjusted for cost of living -- though I'll certainly entertain data demonstrating the contrary. But the school day quite obviously is NOT on par with other similar school systems. That's pretty clearly gotta be fixed.

"But the school day quite obviously is NOT on par with other similar school systems. That's pretty clearly gotta be fixed."

Someone, on another Chicagoist thread, mentioned a statistic that suggested this isn't true.  I tend to come down on the side of teachers--who are on the front lines of the battle to inform young minds and get treated like shit for the effort--so I have to admit that I'm looking for an out for the teachers on this one.

Does anyone have any evidence that the CPS school day/year is longer than the statistics being thrown around here?  Because, if not, it looks pretty damn bad...

What's kind of surprising to me is how much school days vary from system to system; it's all over the map. Which, of course, makes it pretty easy for each side to cherry-pick data to support their case. So the best thing to do is just look at as broad a sample as one can. So here's the Department of Education with a (somewhat outdated, I admit) survey: http://nces.ed.gov/surveys/pss...

The overall elementary school average is 179.5 days at 6.7 hours per day, for a total of about 1202 hours per year. CPS elementary schools, if my information is correct (9AM to 2:45PM), go 170 days at 5.75 hours per day, for a total of 977.5 hours per year. I don't know CPS's high school schedule, but I suspect it's similarly below average. Correct me if I'm wrong, though.

Now, you can fudge those numbers a bit, and try to cut it down to "instruction time", and discount things like study halls, try to correct for CPS's lack of recess, etc. But the difference is still gonna be pretty stark... I mean, I'm not going to buy the argument that CPS is 225 hours/year more efficient than average.

You know, I just don't see that teachers are treated like shit. In real life, as opposed to boards like this, I have never had someone shred teachers like they do lawyers, police, and some other professions.

Honestly, starting salary with a bachelor's degree in CPS is pretty good. $50,577 is not "treated like shit." Forget the "in this economy" argument. It just isn't that bad. I didn't understand the rest of the cps-humanresources.org page well enough to understand where you go from there.

So, maybe the one good piece of perception building the CTU is doing is that teachers are treated like shit. Outside of the always dreadful Tribune message boards, it seems to me that the union leadership is treated like shit, but not so much rank-and-file teachers.

Salary is only a small piece of puzzle, IMO.  And while I agree it just isn't that bad, it doesn't necessarily make the job worth it.

For examples of how the system completely demoralizes, disempowers and shits on teachers, see the recent Reader stories.  Or talk to current and former teachers.  The CPS system is pretty broken in most areas of the city.

BlueFairlane's comments above nail the situation pretty well.

I think I was pretty clear that my first paragraph was talking about society-at-large treating them like shit, while the second had to do with compensation. As for CPS being messed up . . . I don't doubt that. I also don't doubt that the creator of Dilbert has made millions off the fact that that's how work is. Bosses generally suck. Talk to former employees of most companies and they will explain that management was full of half-witted narcissists.

I guess the problem I have is that the range of experience that teachers have in terms of getting treated like shit seems pretty much the range of the working population. So, can we put that aside, and the mutual provocations CTU and CPS have been launching at each other and try to identify (a) how the schools would work most effectively, and (b) how we can fairly compensate people who teach?

Nah. Probably not.

I'm really not trying to stir up the pot anymore.  My original comment was basically trying to say:  "my bias is toward the teachers unless I have evidence to the contrary."  More of an admission on my part than a fully objective statement of fact.

In any case, I agree: the CTU and the CPS seem to be doing a lot of political bickering in public and are making very few steps towards a good faith solution to the problems. The CTU head in particular makes me want to pull my hair out.  Could you possibly do more to squander potential good will with the public?

As a person who will likely have kids in the CPS in the near future (barring some sort of lottery-like scenario), I have every interest in ending this silly bickering and trying to find real solutions the the very real problems of the CPS.

This is a good point. I would still say that their pay does seem to be pretty "decent", for lack of a better term, and as I've mentioned, on par with similar systems in similar systems. But you're absolutely right that that's only one part of the equation -- albeit a not-insignificant part.

My kids are hustled through their school day without a recess and only a 20 minute lunch.  And then I have to help teach my kids at night rather than being able to ask the teacher for help at school.  This fight is a big loser for the union. I don't get the fight?

The fight is that they get paid accordingly, and that any increase in the school day is an actual, substantive increase in class time, instead of just PR to make administration officials look better.

The proposed 90-minute increase isn't necessarily a 90-minute increase in instructional time, as the district hasn't laid down specific plans for that time, and union work rules mean that teachers get a 20-minute break during that time (they currently get one 20-minute break in the day).

The union is not objecting to an increase in the day, rather, make sure that increase is about quality and not mere quantity; and pay the teachers accordingly for that time, not a lump-sum payment of $1,000 for a (approximately) 20% increase in work hours.

Wow, that is really bad framing: 90 minutes is a 20% increase in hours? Yikes. Most Americans are putting in way more extra time than that, without summers off and no pay increase.

That said, the City just renegged on a contractual agreement for a 4% across the board pay raise to teachers and then offers a pittance for increased work load while also forcing a breakfast program that will also cut significantly into instruction time. What exactly is going on in the offices on Pershing?

As a Chicagoan trying to figure out what to do about schools and where to live, I am hugely frustrated to have the feeling that no parties in this mess have clean hands or are going into this with a mindset that can fix the issue. You can't be a global city with inferior schools (or a couple great schools with the neighborhoods hosting inferior schools). We will all pay dearly if this doesn't get fixed---whether we have kids or not. It is an issue that has been allowed to fester for far too long and a bill that is long past due.

As a Chicagoan who has just finishing shuffling two kids through CPS and out the door to different colleges, let me offer my own experience. This is not a discussion of what's right and wrong, just what has been for me and my kids over the last 8 years I've lived here.

I experienced personally many of the horror stories you hear about CPS. There often seems a preoccupation with things that have little to do with learning, there's a constant scrambling for resources, and I did come across some really bad teachers. In my experience, though, these bad teachers were outnumbered by far by good--though sometimes demoralized--teachers who did as much as they could to make do with what they had. CPS schools, especially on the elementary level, operate on something less than shoestrings, though in what I consider the system's greatest injustice (even though my kids benefitted from it) this differs from neighborhood to neighborhood. Based on what little I've surmised of you from reading your work here, I'd be surprised if you were in one of the bottom-rung neighborhoods. Your kids will get better than many. This often left me feeling icky, and you strike me as someone who will feel even worse about it. But then, you also strike me as someone more likely than me to try to do something about it, and CPS needs more of those.

Since you probably won't be served by the significant portion of CPS operating at third world levels, I will say your kids would have a good shot at a decent education, because then it becomes as much about you and your parenting as it does about the teachers or the time spent in class. Despite getting out about an hour earlier each day than I did growing up, my kids did well in this system. Part of that was luck, and part of it was the simple fact that I didn't live someplace like Englewood. But you have to do your part, and if you do, a CPS kid can get as good an education as any kid from New Trier.

Grand Boulevard neighborhood near Bronzeville. I am not so sure...

But I get your point. The problem is that whether you or I stick it out, the situation certainly forces young families out of the City. That is a drain on the economy at a variety of levels. And it retards civic ability to recharge talent. We simply cannot continue in this fashion and expect to retain the "world-class City" status that folks are so fond of repeating.

The school day is currently about 5 and a half hours long, or 330 minutes. 90 minutes would technically be a 27% increase in the school day, while the board/Brizard/Rahm (take your pick) offered about a 2% increase in pay. What there was framed badly?

That's an argument to which, on its surface, I'm sympathetic. But just on its surface.

The problem comes in comparing CPS to other similar school systems: in similar systems, teachers typically work longer school days while not getting paid much -- if any -- more. Viewed from this perspective, this measure seems to me to be more an exercise in bringing parity to the situation. It normalizes work-to-pay dollars to a rate more in line with similar markets.

Put another way, I wouldn't argue that CPS teachers are "overpaid", per se. I would argue, however, that a pretty clear case can be made that they're "under worked".

Now, it's of course my opinion that teachers' rate of pay (I think the average CPS teacher earns somewhere north of $60k) is still far, far too low -- in CPS and most other systems. I share Duncan's view that teachers on the whole get paid far, far too little. But framing the situation as "27% more work for 2% more pay" does completely ignore the context; simply as a matter of intra-market comparison, CPS teachers were working a comparatively abnormal day while not earning commensurately abnormal pay. Such a situation simply isn't sustainable and ultimately has to correct. When it does, the reality is harsh and unpleasant, but it is, unavoidably, reality.

You can never win in these discussions. At the end of the day the people you are talking to will always insist on the status quo as the baseline, and adding or subtracting from that. The reality is that the status quo is untenable both financially, and from a performance perspective.

Personally, I would like to see every teacher in the city have the option to vote on two things, perhaps in the same election. First, should the length of the day be increased with a 2% raise for the teachers. Second, should the CTU be authorized to call a strike in the event the current contract is voided, or expires without a replacement. This would sharpen everyone's thinking in that the rank-and-file would have the opportunity to control its own destiny one way or another. Right now, I don't think that's the case. Frankly, if I had Karen Lewis on one side of me and Brizzard on the other I'd be demoralized too.