Jon Caldara Educates Us on Teacher Salaries

How much should teachers make?

As I noted in a recent blog post, I am not a fan of the silliness that ensues when people lament how "athletes make millions of dollars for playing a game," but teachers can barely afford to pay the rent. However, K-12 teachers are credentialed professionals whose work is highly valued and necessary, and they certainly deserve a middle class living. The issue of education budgets, including teacher compensation through salaries and retirement plans, has been front and center in recent weeks as education associations across the country have taken to the streets to lobby for appropriate increases in state education budgets. From the statewide strike in West Virginia to the teacher rallies here in Colorado, educators have taken their case to the legislators and the public. So, what's the deal with education funding in Colorado, and are teachers overpaid, underpaid, fairly paid, or what?

Fortunately, Jon Caldara, the state's resident libertarian think-tanker at the Independence Institute, took time out of his busy think-tanking schedule and "ran some numbers" to answer the question. Jon was, of course, inconvenienced because teachers weren't at school to take care of his kids, so he let us know that he "couldn't go to work Friday when teachers abandoned my kids." Interesting thing about that word - work. As a think-tanker whose job appears to basically consist of doing research and then writing and talking (sometimes endlessly) about what he learned, Jon appears to have been able to do his work without actually "going" to work. That think tank gig - nice job if you can get it. Makes me kinda wonder what someone like Jon Caldara makes. I'd have to guess it's an easy $150K if it's a dollar, which would be about three times an average teacher's salary. And we know from Jon's writing about the health care challenges in his family that he has some pretty sweet benefits. I wonder if Jon and the Independence Institute would be willing to share their budget, salaries, and benefits? You know, in the spirit of the importance of transparency. Granted, they are aren't a government entity - but their entire existence basically depends on the government to exist, so ....

Anyway, let's let that pass.

Back to teacher salaries. Jon did grab some numbers off the internet, and he offered some fair commentary drawing from the usual talking points. The average teacher salary in Colorado is $52,000/year, which is basically the very bottom of what is considered middle class, and it is about the median nationwide income of all wage earners for a family of four. So, in terms of the professionalism, Jon may be right that teachers are "insultingly compensated."  Additionally, a bit of research into salary scales (which are public and transparent), the starting pay for many teachers is around $30K, which can make it tough for people to pay rents that hover around $1400, not to mention mortgages in a state with homes averaging $500K in the metro area. Yet, Jon's biggest complaint about the compensation isn't the amount but the fact that teachers negotiate contracts as part of associations, and these contracts use degree credentials and years of service as the gauge. To Jon this is an abomination; but having apparently little knowledge or experience with the field, he fails to appreciate the teachers' choice to collectively bargain and not negotiate individual contracts. Considering Jon is not a teacher, I'm not sure why he takes offense to how others negotiate their pay. But, you know, when you have a lot of time on the clock to just sit around think-tanking, I guess your mind wanders.

Additionally, Jon does attempt to make a seemingly logical argument about just compensation for teachers based on the ol' "summers off" angle, implying that like hourly workers, teachers should make less because they get more vacation. It's an interesting claim that I don't fully disagree with, and I have had my share of conversations with fellow educators about the compensation based on work day/week/year. To be fair, critics from both sides often note, teachers make less money than other professionals of similar education and work experience, sometimes by as much as 20%. That said, a teacher contract is usually for 40 weeks out of a 52 week year - that is if they don't spend breaks working other jobs, lesson planning/grading, pursuing professional development etc. To be perfectly honest, I don't completely oppose Jon about this, and as an educator of 25 years, both domestically and abroad, in several school systems both public and private, I have never been truly dissatisfied with my pay. I'd take more money, sure. And experience tells me I am at least adding as much value to society as many six-or-seven-figuring earning think tankers, writers, and speakers.

But, of course, it's sort of a silly point to make. Teachers are professionals who earn a salary, not hourly at-will employees paid like the "factory workers" that Jon strangely seems to disparage in his column. School contracts are usually about 185 days, and there isn't a comparable argument for changing that. Schools aren't going to stay open and in session for 50 weeks a year - heck, two-thirds of Colorado districts already operate on four-day weeks because they can't afford to stay open with current budgets. And, I've already made the "summer vacation argument" numerous times, so we're not going to year-round school, nor should we. Beyond the hourly-wage argument, Jon also takes a shot at PERA and teachers' cushy retirement at the age of 58. While it's a fair soundbite, it also reveals an ignorance of the deal made to teachers - take lower pay for many years on the front end (I made $20K in 1997), and the trade-off is an earlier retirement. And, to be sure, PERA and other state pensions need review and revision.

So, in the end, the think-tanker in Golden gets to take his shot at educators from his Ivory Tower via his regular column in the Denver Post. And, he's not entirely wrong about some of his criticisms, even if he is a bit blinded by the privilege of not working a real job. (Disclaimer:  I'm a bit jealous - being a think-tanker, writer, and speaker is my dream retirement job .... after I'm done educating the youth of America).

For a more thorough and informed perspective on education funding, I recommend Diane Carmen's piece in the Denver Post, or the numerous articles by the professional researchers and journalists at Chalkbeat.

Know a young Mathlete? The Art of Problem Solving (AoPS) is for them.

"So, how did you get your son to .....?"

This question about my 16-year-old son's highly-developed math prowess has been asked of me and my wife countless times by parents who wonder just how we raised such a successful mathlete. He was a two-time state champion and national competitor for MATHCOUNTS, he aced AP Calculus BC in eighth grade, he's qualified numerous times for the AMO/JMO (American/Junior Math Olympiad), and the list goes on. We are incredibly proud of him and happy for him, and the answer for all the parents hoping to raise a similar math whiz is "We didn't do anything - it's all him."

Of course, he and we have benefited from some important mentors and exceptional resources, the most notable of which is a self-driven math curriculum and website called The Art of Problem Solving. The AoPS program is a beautifully crafted training ground for young math prodigies who seek to refine their skills through math competitions, and my son first engaged with it when he was in fourth-grade and participating in math enrichment class taught by a math teacher and math team coach at his school. It's been a constant source of connection to other mathletes nationwide, and I recommend it to anyone with a kid interested in math.

Recently, a friend sent a nice article and interview that education writer and blogger Rick Hess did with the founder of AoPS, Richard Rusczyk. If you don't know of the Art of Problem Solving, use this link as your introduction.

Richard Rusczyk is the founder of the Art of Problem Solving (AoPS), a math curriculum and online learning community that supports students who excel in math. In the early 1990s, Richard started AoPS as a book series; it has grown into a 300,000-member online community with classes, video lessons, and an adaptive learning system. AoPS is also the go-to trainer for America’s Math Olympiad participants. I recently had a chance to chat with Richard about AoPS, how it works, and the effort to extend its reach to new kids.

Colorado Legislator Seeks to Criminalize Teacher Strikes

Nobody wants a labor strike - it's never the good option for people seeking fair and just compensation in collective bargaining for employment. It's a last resort. That said, work stoppages have been a time-honored practice as the one significant piece of leverage workers have in negotiations. In certain places and fields, the practice is prohibited by law or contracts with a "no-strike" clause. Good examples are first responders - a labor stoppage can be a public safety risk. And any employer can simply fire all striking workers - Ronald Reagan proved this on a grand scale in 1981. Of course, strikes by public employees such as teachers can be quite inconvenient, though occasionally educators find the action a necessary move. Teacher strikes are actually quite rare (before this spring teachers in West Virginia had not struck in 30 years), and they are often resolved in a reasonable time, and progress is made.

And 2018 has proved to be a year that progress is necessary, and improvements in the funding and structure of public education must be made. What started in West Virginia has moved to Kentucky, Oklahoma, Arizona, and now Colorado, as educators take a stand for appropriate funding of one of society's most valuable institutions. We need schools, and schools need improved funding. There are many reasons for the protests and strikes, and in Colorado the cause seems justified when the state with a scorching hot economy, high levels of education, and growing population ranks near the bottom of the economy in education funding and teacher salaries. An increasing number of school districts are going to four-day weeks as a cost-cutting measure, and the legislature is considering several versions of a bill to alter the teachers (PERA - Public Employees Retirement System) pension by altering benefits and shifting more of the financial burden to the teachers, who do not receive Social Security.

So, some teachers in several of the largest school districts have worked with their districts to coordinate days of action at the state capitol, leading to the cancelling of classes due to large numbers of teachers taking legal personal days. One school district faces a potential teacher strike as well. And that legal action doesn't sit too well with a couple state legislators who have introduced a late bill in the legislative session which would make teacher strikes illegal and would criminalize - with penalties of jail time - any work stoppage by educators. This seems to me, by any reasonable assessment of the situation, to be a huge over-reaction and a politically charged stunt by a couple state politicians looking to make names for themselves with the fringes of the Colorado Republican Party. Senate Bill SB18-264, sponsored by Republican senators Paul Lundeen and Bob Gardner  "would prohibit pubic school teacher strikes by authorizing school districts to seek an injunction from district court. A failure to comply with the injunction would “constitute contempt of court” and teachers could face not only fines but up to six months in county jail ..." 

I'm not sure what has led Paul Lundeen to take such extreme action toward educators - but I have a hunch. Lundeen is running for Senate. At one time, Paul Lundeen seemed to be a true friend of public education, and he played a significant role in supporting schools, students, and teachers during the standardized testing mess in Colorado a few years back. But he appears to have a problem with organized labor, and he has decided that labor strikes are criminal behavior which should be punished with jail time. They are not, and they shouldn't be. Seriously. The action of work stoppage by labor organizations can certainly be inconvenient - which is precisely the point - but they are legal actions that have Constitutional merit. Choosing to protest and stop work would seem to be a simple issue of individual freedom. What do Lundeen and Gardner have against individual freedom and personal rights? Actually, very little. These politicians are trying to score cheap political points, and I find their choice to clog up the legislative docket quite disappointing. 

Thus, I am urging teachers, parents, community members, and legislators to stand against Lundeen and Gardner's bill. SB18-264 should not waste the time of the Colorado legislature which is doing good work to address the challenges of public funding in the state. This bill should be killed in committee. Please consider contacting the following legislators and encouraging them to oppose this bill which is a stunt at best, but at worst a vindictive assault on democracy and personal freedom.

Senator Vicki Marble - 303-866-4876  vicki.marble.senate@state.co.us

Senator Jerry Sonenberg - 303-866-6360  senatorsonnenberg@gmail.com

Senator Lois Court - 303-866-4861  lois.court.senate@state.co.us

Senator Stephe Fenberg - 303-866-4872  stephen.fenberg.senate@state.co.us

Senator Owen Hill - 303-866-2737  owen.hill.senate@state.co.us

And, contact Senators Lundeen and Gardner and ask them how they can claim to support freedom and individual rights with a bill that seeks to suppress individual liberty through the power of the state.

Paul Lundeen - 303-866-2924  paul.lundeen.house@state.co.us

Bob Gardner - 303-866-4880   bob.gardner.senate@state.co.us

Teacher guru Ron Clark's $100,000 teacher folly

It started with a Tweet: The starting salary for educators should be $100,000. In ten years time the U.S. would have the strongest and most powerful education system imaginable.

Ron Clark, a veteran educator and teacher guru whose career has spawned an inspirational teacher movie and a NY Times bestseller, proposed a seemingly logical idea that increasing teacher pay would "fix" America's "failing schools" by attracting and retaining the "best people" to the field of education. On the surface his proposal addressed many concerns about public education in the United States: teachers are underpaid, the country's education system is weak and ineffective, the nation's best and brightest don't become teachers because of low salaries, paying people more improves the quality of work they do, deficiencies in public education are simply a result of low funding for schools, etc. The market-based reform model for public education has gained much clout in the past two decades, as billionaire edu-philanthropists have convinced legislators and political pundits that they can fix schools by throwing money at the problem and running schools like a business. And, hey, what teacher or school administrator would be against paying teachers six figures to start?

Under scrutiny, however, with a little of the critical thinking we hope students learn, Clark's proposal and pie-in-the-sky optimism (ie. naivety) is a profoundly flawed idea.

The most obvious problem is Clark's implication that teacher performance/effort/effectiveness is driven by salary, as if current teachers are "holding back" on the really good instruction because they're not being paid enough. Or even worse is the idea that the top 2-3 million best teachers in the country aren't even in education because they can't make the big bucks there. This implication is nothing short of insulting to the numerous hardworking and effective teachers currently making a difference in America's classrooms. It also poses this question for Clark: how and why was he effective when he wasn't making $100K, especially in his first three years. The conventional wisdom (and research) indicates it takes three years to become truly effective in the classroom (with the same curriculum), and that teachers truly get better with age. That's why an apprenticeship model is actually a great idea for school improvement. The idea of paying a new teacher $100K fresh out of the gate - especially when 50% of teachers quit the profession in five years - seems to be a horrible business practice. Then there is the obvious question of fiscal sustainability for such teachers over a thirty-year-career. Where does the pay scale top out, and just how will it be funded in school systems that are already financially strapped?

The second glaringly obvious error in Clark's plan is the belief that simply throwing more money at the public education system - primarily in the salary area - will solve deeply complex sociological issues that impact a child's education and lead to low achievement and inequity in academic success. It's as if Clark is completely unaware of the shortcomings in corporate ed reform efforts by Bill Gates and Mark Zuckerberg. As the nation has been distracted by the Cambridge Analytics scandal at Facebook, it seems to have forgotten "Mark Zuckerberg's $100 million lesson," where the billionaire whiz kid was going to transform the schools of Newark, New Jersey into the best schools in the nation in a quick five years with his infusion of cash and business brilliance. It failed for all the obvious reasons. And, the original edu-philanthropist Bill Gates basically admitted that he wasted more than a billion dollars on his small schools reform. It's quite obvious that simple budget issues are not the reason that the US doesn't have Clark's "strongest and most powerful education system imaginable." Though, it's also worth noting that by many significant measures, we actually already do have that.

Finally, the mythical reverence Clark places on the figure $100,000 also negates his claim. First of all, a "hundred K" is not a uniform measure of a good salary nationwide. That sum is basically the "top end of middle class" in large parts of the country. An annual salary of $100K is practically rich in some parts of the country (and would be almost disproportionate for the work done) whereas it's simply a decent living in other areas, and in some major metropolitan regions it wouldn't even be sufficient to afford a one-bedroom condo and a car payment. With that in mind, it's worth noting that many teachers in many school districts nationwide are already making six figures and up. Currently, there are so many layers to the teacher salary issue with entire state's worth of teachers ready to strike over low pay and benefits whereas many areas defy the myth of the poorly paid teacher. And, there are so many places where students are doing incredibly well and teachers are achieving great success without six-figure salaries. That is certainly true when people look at education systems worldwide. When international comparisons are used to malign the US system, it's not because of teacher pay. In fact, when explanations for poor performance in American school are explored, it's the poverty of students, not the teachers, that emerges as the primary factor in low achievement and in achievement gaps.

Ultimately, Ron Clark's tweet is a minor and relatively harmless bit of "internet wisdom" that doesn't have much relevance to the discussion of public education. And, Clark, with his publications and website and speaking engagements and film receipts, doesn't really have much credibility anymore for discussions on teacher compensation. But it's worth scrutinizing claims like his because they only serve to muddle legitimate discussions about how to improve student achievement.

"Elegy for Thelonious"

On Sunday afternoon/evening (April 1) around 5:00, I heard a beautiful jazz poem and piano composition on Denver's jazz station, KUVO 89.3, "The Oasis in the City." Some of the words came from Yusef Komunyakaa's "Elegy for Thelonious," but I feel there were additional poems, and I don't know what the piano piece was. I haven't been able to locate the rest of the information, but the poem is just too good to not be shared. Put on some cool piano jazz and give it a read:

Elegy for Thelonious

Damn the snow.
Its senseless beauty
pours a hard light
through the hemlock.
Thelonious is dead. Winter
drifts in the hourglass;
notes pour from the brain cup.
damn the alley cat
wailing a muted dirge
off Lenox Ave.
Thelonious is dead.
Tonight's a lazy rhapsody of shadows
swaying to blue vertigo
& metaphysical funk.
Black trees in the wind.
Crepuscule with Nellie
plays inside the bowed head.
"Dig the Man Ray of piano!"
O Satisfaction,
hot fingers blur on those white rib keys.
Coming on the Hudson.
Monk's Dream.
The ghost of bebop
from 52nd Street,
footprints in the snow.
Damn February.
Let's go to Minton's
& play "modern malice"
till daybreak. Lord,
there's Thelonious
wearing that old funky hat
pulled down over his eyes. 

from Copacetic. Copyright © 1984 by Yusef Komunyakaa 
Online Source

Writing in the Day

At a recent staff development (well, really more like a group reading/grading) for eleventh-grade English teachers in my district, one of my colleagues offered a short presentation about the idea of "Writing in the Day," as a way to engage students in class and the writing process. She offered a few prompts that she regularly uses and reminded us of valuable resources and opportunities like the National Writing Project. I loved this idea, and today I am trying it for myself as part of a commitment to embrace writing and create more this year. Thus, I've been at my desk with the goal of writing from roughly 7-8 (or 6:30-8) as regularly as possible. As I was pondering that and tinkering around with the blank page, I was reminded of a quote about some successful writer and how she was "at her desk from 9-12 everyday, whether she produced any writing or not." That got me thinking about the necessary daily ritual of writing, and I enjoyed this piece "The Daily Routine of 20 Famous Writers ..." on Medium.com

Sorry, Hillary, but it's not them - it's you.

I hate to be writing about politics today (or really any day lately), and I should probably just write this one and delete it; but as I strolled through the living room and heard the news of Hillary Clinton's latest lament, I simply had to put this on the table. It's not about sexism, Hillary; it's about you. When people are asking that she simply "Go away," they (and I mean the general) are not saying it because she is a woman. It's not about telling a woman to know her place and keep her mouth shut. It's because they are simply done with Hillary and the whole Clinton ... thing.

Many people are still hurting over the 2016 election fiasco, they are still struggling to accept that a basically worthless tool of a human being is President of the United States, they are trying to accept and rationalize the bizarre turn of events, and they quite simply blame Hillary Clinton for this mess they're in. And, I have to say, they are justified. Many pundits and critics and stats readers will conclude that Donald Trump could only have beaten one person in the general election - and that person was Hillary Clinton. She was, and still is, just too unpopular. She's tainted as a political leader, and she simply had too much baggage. It may not be fair, it may not be just, it may not be right, but it is the reality. As I listened to one speaker argue for how talented and accomplished Hillary is, I couldn't help but roll my eyes at how clearly he misses the point. You can argue that voters should like her and respect her more - but they don't. And she should have known.

I have a hard time believing that Joe Biden or Cory Booker would have lost to Trump (Hell, I don't think Martin O'Malley or John Hickenlooper could have lost) - they aren't disliked, they don't have a complicated and messy political history, they had no email scandal tied to them, they could have smoothly run on the economy and job growth, etc. If, as many critics and pollsters have argued, Comey's "October Letter" literally pushed the election to Trump, then it's all the more reason to blame Hillary (and ask that she simply "go away"). The scandal and the hint of controversy was just so glaringly obvious that any person not weighed down by an incredible degree of hubris would have realized that Hillary should not have been the candidate (I personally think her window passed in 2008 - and should might have won then and been able to pass the White House to Obama in 2016). It's almost a Sophoclean tragedy in that regard. Heck, she ran a terrible campaign, dismissing concerns in "must have" states like Michigan and Pennsylvania to chase dreams of glory in Texas and Georgia. It's just so sad.

So, no, it's not because she's a woman. It was and always will be because she is Hillary.