Freeing teachers to negotiate their own salaries is a start

As politicians across the nation continue to wring their hands over a solution to the sad state of our public education system, they would do well to take a closer look at the problematic system of teacher compensation. The current quasi-Marxist system of compensation that pays teachers the same regardless of ability or performance is, perhaps, more responsible for the state of our public schools than anything else.

In his education initiative, "Putting Children First," Gov. Bill Owens hit upon this problem when he proposed allowing school districts the flexibility to pay good teachers what they deserve. This proposal is laudable in it's recognition that performance, not length of service, should determine teacher pay. However, to truly improve our public schools, we should go further and completely overhaul the outdated system of teacher compensation.

It is standard practice for all teachers at a school with the same education and experience to be paid the same regardless of ability or talent. An exceptional teacher is paid no more than a colleague who happens to be a mediocre teacher. Therein lies a major problem in retaining good teachers in our public schools.

Indeed, there are simply no rewards or incentives for being a good teacher. Unlike the private sector where valuable employees are often rewarded with pay raises and bonuses, teachers receive the same salary without regard to talent. As a result, many of the good teachers that are necessary for successful schools leave the profession for another that will reward their talent. A recent study by the U.S. Department of Education vividly illustrated this point when it showed that teachers who left in the first five years, on average, scored the highest on standardized tests.

If, as a country, we are really serious about improving our schools then we need to attract and retain highly qualified individuals. The best way to do this is to adopt the free-market system of compensation prevalent in the private sector. In the private sector if you are considered a valuable employee, you have the ability to negotiate a salary that reflects your value to your company. Individual teachers should be afforded that ability as well.

In a free-market system, teachers would be able to negotiate a contract that pays them commensurate with their value as a teacher. Talented teachers would be able to negotiate the higher salaries that their talent and ability justify. Conversely, mediocre teachers, like mediocre employees in the private sector, would see their salaries reflect that mediocrity.

What is the roadblock to changing the system of compensation for teachers? Surprisingly, it is the teachers themselves. Or more specifically their union. Of course, the teachers union does not oppose higher pay for teachers. But they want higher pay for all teachers; including the ones who do not deserve it. Moreover, they vehemently oppose any system that would allow individual teachers to negotiate their own contracts. Therein lies the problem of the union representation of teachers.

Teachers are unique among the traditional professionals such as doctors, lawyers and engineers. They are the only ones represented by a labor union. As a result, they forfeit their right their professional colleagues have to individually negotiate compensation. And because the union does its job by negotiating a uniform salary for all of its members, teachers are generally the lowest paid professionals.

Allowing teachers to individually negotiate their own contracts would require radical change. Gone would be union representation, something teachers have had for decades. But, with the primary union function of salary negotiation eliminated, there would be no need for a union.

Also gone would be the concept of tenure. Tenure affords teachers tremendous job security. But that security is paid for in low salaries. Eliminating tenure would be difficult. It is an article of faith among many teachers. However, as is the case in the private sector with valuable employees, valuable teachers would likely not have a problem with it. Furthermore, the elimination of tenure in exchange for the adoption of a free-market compensation system would have the dual effect of better salaries for our good teachers and the ability to fire teachers who are not adequately doing their jobs.

As for the cost of a free-market system of compensation, perhaps it would cost more, but probably not as much as one would think. Along with the higher salaries of good teachers should come lower salaries for mediocre teachers, many of whom are among the highest paid in the profession simply because they have been around the longest.

It is naive to think that public schools can be successful without paying good teachers what they are worth. Yet that is what we have historically done, often to the detriment of our children. And it will continue until we change the way that we pay our teachers. Public schools need to realize they are in competition with the private sector for talented employees. And our schools will only be successful in that competition when they begin to pay valuable teachers what they are worth. That cannot happen until the compensation system is changed. Until that happens, the competition is not even close.

- Baker is a writer based in Denver and the son and husband of public school teachers.

Copyright 2000
Provided by ProQuest Information and Learning Company. All rights Reserved.