Of course, TheTruthHurts, teachers’ pay increases as they advance in seniority, add new credentials, etc. Nobody is arguing that.

The issue is whether they are receiving overall COLA or COLA+ “raises” — salary increases that maintain relative economic stability in an inflationary world.

When folks talk about “not getting a raise in a decade” they are comparing the pay of a teacher in 2000 to the pay of a teacher in 2010.

Here are the numbers:

2000 min./max salary: $37,918 / 68,144
2010 min./max salary: $39,456 / 70,600

Increase in salary over ten years (min/max): +4%/+3.6%
Inflation over ten years (U.S.): 28.2%
Inflation over ten years (Calif.): 29.2%
Inflation over ten years (S.F/Bay): 29.4%

Are you seeing the issue here? By this measure, the ACTUAL PAY increases for a first- or a fifth- or a tenth-year teacher over the decade has lagged WAYYYYYYYY behind the rate of inflation.

(Of course, some folks might want us to up the pay of teachers BEYOND the rate of inflation, but nobody is even going there. Even the so-called “crazy” demand of OEA a phased-in 20% pay hike was only an attempt to catch up with inflation.)

This, despite the fact that OUSD received monies to meet COLA (i.e., inflation) needs for employees!

The district doesn’t deny these numbers, they’ve said over the past decade:

– The 2000 contract was too rich (it brought OUSD teachers up to regional norms).
– The district didn’t manage its money well.
– We have to pay back the state for the bailout loan.

Well, the 2000 contract was mostly given back after the state takeover. And the state was supposed to have straightened out the district finances.

So how about a COLA? Well, this go-around the district did not present even a COLA raise — remember, they offered a PAY CUT and a benefits freeze. Now they’ve upped it to just a pay/benefits freeze.

In other words, sign a contract which will see the salary scale decrease in real dollar value every year of that contract.

Honestly, I don’t ask anybody to be sympathetic to teachers — we do this by choice. What I want you to realize is that our pay affects your children and the larger community, most directly through the issues of turnover, attacting talent and faculty morale.

Oh, and I think site administrators should be paid more, too. Tough, tough job, especially at the bigger schools.

http://www.oaklandteachingfellows.org/your_teaching_career.php

http://articles.sfgate.com/2000-06-13/news/17651390_1_teacher-s-salary-new-teachers-teacher-union

http://www.dof.ca.gov/HTML/FS_DATA/LatestEconData/documents/BBCYCPI.xls

The point is the same, no matter what column you look at.

If you take the paycheck of a teacher from Harold’s decade ago and compare it to their paycheck today, NOT ONE SINGLE TEACHER is receiving the same pay for the same work. I challenge anyone to prove otherwise. Any takers? OEA?

Now look. Teachers are underpaid as a profession. California teachers are underpaid relative to the cost of living. Oakland teachers are paid lower than most of their peers regionally. It’s not really worthy of argument, of course Oakland needs to raise salaries to honor the work and to hire and retain better quality teachers. But, do we need lying – uh, excuse me – “intellectual dishonesty?”

It’s this kind of hyperbole that undermines the central point that teachers should be paid more as should many other employees – take a look at the salary levels for all of Oakland’s employees.
http://publicportal.ousd.k12.ca.us/199410811175930900/lib/199410811175930900/Job_Classifications_and_Salaries_103009website.pdf

The TRUTH (I love that word) is that after the first 3 years of 1.6% raises (before tenure I guess), Oakland teachers average 3.5% annual increases for the remainder of Harold’s decade. I guess, what OEA considers a “raise” would be on top of that??? That 3.5% is more than inflation (at least as measured by CPI – http://www.inflationdata.com/inflation/inflation_rate/historicalinflation.aspx).

Still, there in the Bay, 3.5% might not be much, but it ain’t 0%. According to the numbers in that salary schedule, the increase over Harold’s “decade” would be over 30%. Again, not dot-com riches, but not 0% either.

http://publicportal.ousd.k12.ca.us/199410811175930900/lib/199410811175930900/K12T_Salary_Schedule.pdf

Another thing that friend reminded me – the facts are there if people would take two minutes to look.

Unions aren’t bad, in fact, they serve an important role – preventing management abuse. It’s when they go beyond that and stifle progress that they destroy the host on which they feed. From what I can tell, those who are closer to it than me believe that the host (Districts) cannot succeed with the unions tied around their ankles. This is clearly worse in poor urban areas where the needs are greater and the resources fewer. The answer seems to be to circumvent the unions through charters or vouchers. Is this a good strategy? I don’t know. You’d hope you would just be able to get the unions to loosen up on the ankles a bit so the host could survive.

We’ll see.

Education as a profession should be more valued, but you won’t get there without valuing results. Right or wrong, this is a primary reason charters have gained ground with parents and recruits. Good teachers don’t like tolerating mediocrity (or worse) next door. Protecting mediocrity is the road to demise and trust me, we’re accelerating.

However, just because a teacher possesses a certification (which has an almost negligible correlation to student achievement) does not make him/her ENTITLED to a job until they retire.

What I am willing to fight for is quality teachers in every classroom, no matter what. I am absolutely not willing to ask for a raise from OUSD that would come from the backs of my students (which I believe it will, unlike OEAs stance). If we want a raise, this is how we get it:

1) Become accountable, and therefore become eligible for federal and/or foundation funding such as I3, RTTT (which we lost out on), and the Teacher Incentive Fund.
2) Remove tenure and make teachers earn their jobs. A credential should not be an entitlement.
3) Parcel tax if necessary.