The charter school's founder, 31-year-old Yale graduate and Teach for America veteran Zeke M. Vanderhoek, tells the New York Times why he wants to pay teachers more than he'll pay himself (as principal, he'll get $90K/yr):
Even in the Big Apple, $125K is a lot of money. To pay his teachers that much, Vanderhoek will have to cut a lot of other areas. He'll hire fewer teachers and have 30 students per class. TEP "will have no assistant principals and only one or two social workers" [Gootman]. To further keep down the number of necessary staff, the fifth- through eighth-graders at TEP get no electives: in addition to the core courses, they all take music and Latin. The teachers will also work longer days and a longer school year and take on extra duties relating to attendance and discipline [again, see Gootman].The school’s creator and first principal, Zeke M. Vanderhoek, contends that high salaries will lure the best teachers. He says he wants to put into practice the conclusion reached by a growing body of research: that teacher quality — not star principals, laptop computers or abundant electives — is the crucial ingredient for success.
“I would much rather put a phenomenal, great teacher in a field with 30 kids and nothing else than take the mediocre teacher and give them half the number of students and give them all the technology in the world,” said Mr. Vanderhoek, 31, a Yale graduate and former middle school teacher who built a test preparation company that pays its tutors far more than the competition [emphasis mine, article Elissa Gootman's, "At Charter School, Higher Teacher Pay," New York Times, 2008.03.07].
Vanderhoek has experience in recruiting and paying top-dollar for top educational talent. He founded a test-prep company, ManhattanGMAT, where instructors earn $100 an hour to help prospective MBA's get into grad school. He also has experience setting pretty rigorous standards for the teachers who apply to work for him: his ManhattanGMAT instructors must have GMAT scores in the 99th percentile and go through a 100-hour training process (or so says the company's website). I'm also encouraged to see that, even though ManhattanGMAT looks for high test scores on résumés, Vanderhoek recognizes that test scores aren't everything: the MGMAT site says that its "extensive in-person audition process" for job applicants "reflects the fact that there is a vast difference between ability on the GMAT and ability to lead a class (there are some boring 800-scorers out there)."
Teachers applying for jobs at TEP should expect a similarly rigorous vetting:
The school’s teachers will be selected through a rigorous application process outlined on its Web site, www.tepcharter.org, and run by Mr. Vanderhoek. There will be telephone and in-person interviews, and applicants will have to submit multiple forms of evidence attesting to their students’ achievement and their own prowess; only those scoring at the 90th percentile in the verbal section of the GRE, GMAT or similar tests need apply. The process will culminate in three live teaching auditions [Gootman].So, $125,000 a year for South Dakota's teachers? Not likely -- we'll be lucky if we can catch up with North Dakota. But Vanderhoek's experiment deserves our close attention.
A final thought: consider what Vanderhoek said about great teachers versus "all the technology in the world." Imagine we gave our 91 certified instructional staff this radical choice: the district will take every penny it planned to spend on technology (new computers, software, smartboards, etc.) and put it toward salary increases. Which do you think would produce better educational results? Which would you choose?
Are you going to apply?
ReplyDeleteNYC is a fun place to visit, but Lake Herman is home. For all my exhortations, I'm surprisingly resistant to free-market rationale. Let's hope enough SD teachers are as well!
ReplyDeleteActually, your last paragraph which reads...
ReplyDelete"Imagine we gave our 91 certified instructional staff this radical choice: the district will take every penny it planned to spend on technology (new computers, software, smartboards, etc.) and put it toward salary increases."
...actually happened this year in South Dakota, somewhat. The Legislature and Governor Rounds removed the $3 Million earmarked for Computers in the Classroom and is using those dollars to get the extra half-percent from the Governor's budgeted 2.5% K-12 increase to the 3.0% level, and of course all state employees get to share equally on the backs of our students across the state, out of "fairness".
In South Dakota, we either need to increase tax revenue or reallocate current tax spending. If the State Budget is so short, why didn't Governor Rounds suggest reducing state supply budgets, a hiring freeze for state positions and early retirement incentives with savings from attrition on unfilled positions as a financial fix. That's what we did locally in our school district, and guess what...It works!
There's no need to balance the State Budget on the backs of our students by limiting their opportunities for learning.
If you compare the growth of school district employees to the growth of State Employees in the past 10 years, there is NO comparison. State growth is rampant and that costs millions each year.
According to a post of Cory's awhile back, the schools can still buy new computers for the same amount of money they would have had to spend thru the governor's program. The state would have only paid I think 1/3 or so, and the schools had to come up with the other 2/3. But with that same 2/3 amount, computers can be purchased, just not quite as fancy as the ones the kids now get. So don't get whiny about that!
ReplyDeleteAnd even if a school still wants to buy its own laptops without state aid, consider the trade-off: spend $800 per laptop per student, or take the same amount of and divide it up among the teachers. At Madison, we have about 400 HS students and 91 certified staff. $800 per HS students could be rechanneled to $3200 per teacher. Just some math to consider....
ReplyDeleteCory, $3200 per teacher? In the budget process, would you consider that one-time money or a recurring expense? If it is recurring, we need a source for the extra $300,000 you're proposing for each year after that, and don't forget, they will want a 3% increase each year in addition to the $300,000 you're thinking about. Sure adds up doesn't it. I like the fact you're thinking of our teachers, but keep in mind the recurring cost of salary increases and our limited source of income. Thank you.
ReplyDeleteGood point, Anon! Sometimes I'm as bad as Governor Rounds at remembering that one-time money still leaves districts in a bind.
ReplyDeleteAs I understand it, we get the Tablet PCs on 3-year leases. So (more quick math that will probably get me in trouble) instead of a one-time $3200 bonus for teachers, could we spread the money out to fund a $1000 raise each year?
And the question still remains: what gives us the better bang for the educational buck? If I have $300K to spend, do I do more for the school by spending on computers that the kids and teachers can use, or do I get better educational results by funneling that money into higher pay to try attracting and keeping top-quality staff?
http://www.argusleader.com/apps/pbcs.dll/
ReplyDeletearticle?AID=/20080315/VOICES09/
803150323
Here's an interesting article....
I still find it interesting that the Teachers seem to be the only one getting raises when they complain enough about them.....I would love to get the 3% raises every year at almost any job that I have worked, work at or will work at in the future...most of my raises consist of a about .25 cents per hour, about 100 dollars less than the 3%.......Maybe I should become a teacher....Don't get me wrong, I believe that teachers should have fair pay but what about the rest of the workers in this state, maybe instead of concentrating on only teachers, we should invest that money into something that would benefit everyone in the state.
JusBskt, I agree that a lot more South Dakotans should stand up and demand to be paid what their worth instead of accepting low wage jobs that don't feed a family.
ReplyDeleteBut I have to disagree with your last line: investing in teachers does benefit everyone in the state. Do education right, and everything else -- economic development, law enforcement, health care -- becomes easy.
That may be true for FUTURE generations, what about the the people who have already passed High School which the teacher pay raise will affect? I don't remember seeing anything about affecting college teacher pay, I've passed that as well but that is a moot point. That is why I think the money would be better served to put it into something that would benefit all of the state's workers. I have a Bachelor's Degree in History and I work in a manufacturing job, if that money was reinvested in a company that would bring higher paying jobs to the state. That not only benefits the teachers because it means more taxes that will in turn be spent on schools and also help the rest of states workers will more disposable income.
ReplyDeleteYou and I may be looking at "benefit" differently, Jusbskt. You're right: my efforts to raise teacher pay won't put money in your pocket right away.
ReplyDeleteBut building a strong base for economic development, health care, law enforcement, etc., through education is a long-term investment that does benefitevery citizen, young and old. Every taxpayer benefits from having intelligent graduates who can bear their fair share of the social burden. Every employer benefits from having an educated workforce to boost their productivity and profits. Every retiree benefits from having young people smart enough to earn a paycheck and participate in civic affairs to make sure everyone is provided for.
You mentioned using money to draw companies to being jobs to the state. I'm all for higher-paying jobs for everyone. But again, think long-term: The Federal Reserve Bank has a great page on the economic returns we get from investment in education. Their focus is on early childhood education. Among the links: this 2006 report from economist Timothy J. Bartik that concludes that in the long run (and we're talking 30-60 years), investment in pre-K education produces twice the expansion of jobs in your state as investment in tax subsidies to draw businesses from out of state. Even more remarkably, Bartik finds that every five jobs we gain from drawing an out-of-state employer means four jobs lost elsewhere (think Gateway's move to California). Naitonally, state tax subsidies to draw businesses are a net loser, bringing in only 65 cents in real earnings for every dollar invested.
Now if I could just find a study like that on the impacts of higher teacher pay. I'll keep reading!
In the mean time, remember: Education is a long-term investment, better than any short-term stimulus package.
(quote)But I have to disagree with your last line: investing in teachers does benefit everyone in the state. Do education right, and everything else -- economic development, law enforcement, health care -- becomes easy.(quote)
ReplyDeleteI think this is more of an unfounded assertion than fact considering that unless education is coupled with good job opportunity, the best and brightest are likely to leave SD the fastest.
It may not be a chicken and egg question, but perhaps scrambled egg discussion is needed. There needs to be a coupling between education funding and opportunity for the educated.
It is also nice to talk about the wonders of improving education without discussing the funding. Driving increased education on the backs of agricultural land taxes is a long-term no win combination.
Always gotta complicate things, Douglas, by thinking them through, don't you? ;-)
ReplyDeleteI agree: investing in teachers is a necessary but not sufficient condition for building utopia. But competitive teacher salaries are a step toward keeping the best and brightest. Keep smart teachers, they'll have smart spouses and smart kids (at least we hope)!
Funding: I'm with you on ag land taxes -- silly tax structure! Income tax, personal and corporate, to first replace the bad property and sales taxes. Then we work on building revenue. North Dakota has found the money; so can we!