Like other city unions, SDP teachers' union gets above average benefits

[OldMama]

There used to be tenure. After I had been teaching a few years, I was called to my principal's office to sign my "tenure papers." Basically, I think tenure gave me the right to due process if I were disciplined. Prior to having tenure, my right may have been more limited.

Mja is correct, teachers get fired all the time. If you read the minutes of each SRC meeting there are lists of terminations. No reasons are given but there they are.

[phillycat]

Some public employees also do not get social security, so the pension plan they pay into is the only retirement income they get -- don't know if the PSD has this policy.

[BarryG]

If by close to $100K you mean $62,869.00, then sure, because that's what a 10 year district vet with a Bachelor's degree makes under the current contract. A senior career teacher, i.e. someone with 10+ years in, multiple areas of certification, and 90 graduate credits, makes around 90K.

Also, "tenure" doesn't exist in the SDP. I don't believe the word is found anywhere in the contract. Seniority exists, but that is another matter altogether. With Site-selection at most high-performing schools, seniority is largely irrelevant anyway. If a school votes to be a site-select school (which most "good" schools do) then the school decides who it hires based purely upon their own criteria. Seniority has no bearing whatsoever.

Also, the union gave Ackerman a concession on seniority in the contract it negotiated with her. 50% of all vacancies throughout the district are filled via site-select, regardless of whether or not a particular school is a site-select school, which makes seniority a non-issue for more than 50% of the teaching positions in the district when one considers there are many site-select schools that fill up to 100% of their vacancies based on factors other than seniority.

Teachers do get fired. Lay-offs are based in seniority. Disciplinary firings are not. I've seen 15 year vets get fired for a variety of reasons, mostly for poor attendance/punctuality (which the PFT will not defend) or for just not being a very good teacher.

First, tenure does exist, it is statewide.

$62,869.00 + health + present value of that year's pension will get you very close to $100k, and that is not a full year job. If you have a masters you are clearing well over $100k. Thank you for the education on the other points. I am curious however how many disciplinary firings there are per year. According to the school district, in 2007-08 only 16 teachers were rated "unsatisfactory" and only six were dismissed for performance. (source: Teacher tenure comes under fire | Philadelphia Public School Notebook). So that means that only 1.5% of teachers in PSD are doing a less than great job and the rest deserve tenure? Sorry, I don't buy that.

It is good hear about site-selection; but of course, even 50% of appointment based on seniority is nonsensical. And why must wages be tied to seniority?

[mja]

First, tenure does exist, it is statewide.

$62,869.00 + health + present value of that year's pension will get you very close to $100k, and that is not a full year job. If you have a masters you are clearing well over $100k. Thank you for the education on the other points. I am curious however how many disciplinary firings there are per year. According to the school district, in 2007-08 only 16 teachers were rated "unsatisfactory" and only six were dismissed for performance. (source: Teacher tenure comes under fire | Philadelphia Public School Notebook). So that means that only 1.5% of teachers in PSD are doing a less than great job and the rest deserve tenure? Sorry, I don't buy that.

It is good hear about site-selection; but of course, even 50% of appointment based on seniority is nonsensical. And why must wages be tied to seniority?

I've been a teacher for 12 years, the first time I heard the word tenure in relation to the job was a year or two ago when the district sent out a mass of forms to practically every teacher in the district for some bureaucratic nonsense to officially file for tenure to the state, something the district had been neglecting for at least a decade. While tenure may exist state-wide, what it actually entails is a complete mystery to me. In disciplinary hearings the word tenure doesn't come up. While I can't say how many teachers get fired annually, I've seen colleagues fired at my previous school, all for either attendance and/or performance issues.

Concerning the 16 teachers rated "unsatisfactory", that seems ridiculously low to me based upon my previous experience. I think there were years when there may have been nearly a third of that number at my one school alone. The usual process that I've witnessed is that teachers are rated "unsatisfactory" and several things happen. The principal makes recommendations as to whether or not they should be suspended without pay or terminated. This then goes to the regional or deputy superintendent or whatever they are calling it at that particular moment, where a due process hearing takes place. The superintendent then decides upon the final recommendations. Off the top of my head I know of at least 9 colleagues who were rated unsatisfactory at ONE school during a 10 year window. Out of those 9, 2 were fired, 2 quit, 1 retired, and at least two more are still in jeopardy last I knew. Actually that might explain that number, a lot of teachers will quit rather than get fired if they can help it. Another thing probably affecting that number is that if you rate a teacher unsatisfactory due to classroom performance you typically have to keep them for an additional year and put them through a bunch of training and oversight. If an administrator wants to get rid of a teacher, it is easier to rate the teacher satisfactory but cut their position so they get moved to another school. That happens quite a bit.

As for the salary & benefits, first of all, stop moving the goalposts. First it was 100K in salary, now it is 100K with salary & benefits? My wife works in the private sector. Her employer pays a large chunk of medical insurance and aggressively matches contributions to her 401K. People in the private sector get benefits, too.

Also, if it is such a good deal then why isn't everyone out there jumping into a career in the SDP? Why do we have such a hard time getting qualified candidates? I became a teacher over a decade ago through the apprentice program because the district couldn't recruit enough certified Special Education teachers. Why does the district fill out a bunch of vacancies through Teach for America and other similar programs every year? Why aren't there a slew of qualified teachers knocking down the doors to come work for the district? Check a vacancy list, the district is woefully short on speech therapists. There are probably more than 2 dozen vacancies that just roll over year after year. You know why? Because they make more money in private clinics.

I currently have the luxury at working at one of the top schools in the district. I have colleagues who went to Ivy League schools and who used to work for NASA who decided to go into education not because it was easy or lucrative but because they were passionate about it. They could EASILY make more money in the private sector if they wanted to go that route. Are you suggesting we shouldn't hire people like this, or should a person with an advanced degree from an Ivy League school have to make 100K less for the privilege of being a teacher in an urban district in order to actually give disadvantaged youth a fighting chance? What sense can that possibly make?

As for tying wages to something other than seniority, could I assume that you would favor "performance-based" pay? There are so many things wrong with that. For example, I'm guessing we're going to judge performance based on standardized tests? What about grades that don't take standardized tests? What about the questionableness of judging the educational progress of a student on one single high stakes test under artificial conditions. How do we judge special education teachers who may have students with MDS or Intellectual Disabilities? How do we judge speech, vision, hearing therapists?

At my old school based on standardized tests, I was a terrible teacher. Based on standardized tests at my new school, I've suddenly become one of the best teachers in the entire district. Is it fair to compare teachers from comprehensive high schools vs. special admissions schools, when the former loses all of its most capable students to the latter and when the latter can refuse any and all students who will present any behavioral and/or academic challenges if they so choose?

I won't even get into the fact that such a system encourages and actually rewards cheating (at least for a time).

[FKD19124]

My wife back in 2003 was asked if she wanted the choice to be paid over 12 months.
If you do, they deduct cash from your pay to do so. Otherwise you get a bigger check each week
for only 9 months.

BTW, Philly teachers do not choose to be paid over 12 months; it's required.

I did the job for 36 years. I earned every penny. My SIL worked in the executive service of the federal government. She made way more than I did, had free benefits AND kept her free benefits when she retired. Meanwhile I'm paying almost $800 a month for my benefits on a pension 30% less than hers. Before she had kids, my friend used to go on about the easy life of teachers and how she should go back and get certified. Flash forward to her first class trip with her son. She said she'd NEVER be a teacher.

And yes, the teachers union is concerned about salaries, benefits, and pensions, Folks, that's what we pay them for - 1% of our salary. That's their job. They're doing what they are being paid to do.

[BarryG]

I've been a teacher for 12 years, the first time I heard the word tenure in relation to the job was a year or two ago when the district sent out a mass of forms to practically every teacher in the district for some bureaucratic nonsense to officially file for tenure to the state, something the district had been neglecting for at least a decade. While tenure may exist state-wide, what it actually entails is a complete mystery to me. In disciplinary hearings the word tenure doesn't come up. While I can't say how many teachers get fired annually, I've seen colleagues fired at my previous school, all for either attendance and/or performance issues.

Concerning the 16 teachers rated "unsatisfactory", that seems ridiculously low to me based upon my previous experience. I think there were years when there may have been nearly a third of that number at my one school alone. The usual process that I've witnessed is that teachers are rated "unsatisfactory" and several things happen. The principal makes recommendations as to whether or not they should be suspended without pay or terminated. This then goes to the regional or deputy superintendent or whatever they are calling it at that particular moment, where a due process hearing takes place. The superintendent then decides upon the final recommendations. Off the top of my head I know of at least 9 colleagues who were rated unsatisfactory at ONE school during a 10 year window. Out of those 9, 2 were fired, 2 quit, 1 retired, and at least two more are still in jeopardy last I knew. Actually that might explain that number, a lot of teachers will quit rather than get fired if they can help it. Another thing probably affecting that number is that if you rate a teacher unsatisfactory due to classroom performance you typically have to keep them for an additional year and put them through a bunch of training and oversight. If an administrator wants to get rid of a teacher, it is easier to rate the teacher satisfactory but cut their position so they get moved to another school. That happens quite a bit.

Why the SD would cover this up in their official numbers?

As for the salary & benefits, first of all, stop moving the goalposts. First it was 100K in salary, now it is 100K with salary & benefits?

I'm not moving the goalposts, I was always talking about total compensation. It is the public workers and sympathizers who always compare public and private sector salaries without including the total benefit packages. That's a ruse.

My wife works in the private sector. Her employer pays a large chunk of medical insurance and aggressively matches contributions to her 401K. People in the private sector get benefits, too.

Of course people in the private sector get benefits. But your wife doesn't get 99% of a high end healthcare plan covered, and I'm guessing her contribution rises every year. Your wife's company is not on the hook to pay her pension benefits after she retires. And the match your company pays was not decided by the state legislature; the company can decrease that amount if they are in a financial crisis. The two benefit packages are not remotely comparable--and your wife has one of the better packages in the private sector. Most workers don't get these things.

Also, if it is such a good deal then why isn't everyone out there jumping into a career in the SDP? Why do we have such a hard time getting qualified candidates? I became a teacher over a decade ago through the apprentice program because the district couldn't recruit enough certified Special Education teachers. Why does the district fill out a bunch of vacancies through Teach for America and other similar programs every year? Why aren't there a slew of qualified teachers knocking down the doors to come work for the district? Check a vacancy list, the district is woefully short on speech therapists. There are probably more than 2 dozen vacancies that just roll over year after year. You know why? Because they make more money in private clinics.

A number of issues here. First, compared to suburban counties, working at SDP is in many cases a sucker's deal. You get some of the worst pay (though some of the better benefits) and working conditions. I actually think that teachers in SDP should be getting paid more than the suburban schools because it's a harder job--but the whole industry needs reform. Why do you have trouble filling specialist vacancies? The entire structure of the teachers' contract disincentivizes young and talented people and encourages mediocrity. Many people prefer a job where they have the possibly of a promotions and raised based on criteria other than seniority. And the pay structure discourages the young too, with the low starting salary but gold-plated healthcare and pension that young people really don't need or care about yet. Plus by constantly trumpeting how poorly you guys are paid, salary wise, you are turning off new applicants. The whole contract is designed to benefit unambitious, middle-aged people who crave job security. I'm not saying all or even most teachers fit that description, but the compensation and work rules benefit people like that and not high performers.

And for the record, I don't think teachers are overpaid. I also don't think they are underpaid like they always claim. The problem is that the work rules cause us to get a substandard product for what we pay, and are too inflexible both financially in times of financial crisis, and to adapt to changing classroom trends.

I currently have the luxury at working at one of the top schools in the district. I have colleagues who went to Ivy League schools and who used to work for NASA who decided to go into education not because it was easy or lucrative but because they were passionate about it. They could EASILY make more money in the private sector if they wanted to go that route. Are you suggesting we shouldn't hire people like this, or should a person with an advanced degree from an Ivy League school have to make 100K less for the privilege of being a teacher in an urban district in order to actually give disadvantaged youth a fighting chance? What sense can that possibly make?

Yes there are many people who teach because they like it and are good at it. We're all happy to have them. I'd point out though that not all Ivy League advanced degree holders could get better jobs in the private sector. A master's degree in Education or the liberal arts doesn't guarantee high pay at all, even in the sciences the job market is not all roses.

As for tying wages to something other than seniority, could I assume that you would favor "performance-based" pay? There are so many things wrong with that. For example, I'm guessing we're going to judge performance based on standardized tests? What about grades that don't take standardized tests? What about the questionableness of judging the educational progress of a student on one single high stakes test under artificial conditions. How do we judge special education teachers who may have students with MDS or Intellectual Disabilities? How do we judge speech, vision, hearing therapists?

Performance based pay, yes. Based 100% on testing, absolutely not. I don't know the best way to measure teachers' ability, and whatever it is probably varies from district to district. What I do know is that every industry on the planet has ways to measure the effectiveness of its employees. You guys aren't so special that it's impossible.

[ArcticSplash]

Years ago I made a list of careers that I would never do, teaching inner city youth was way up there. It's a wonder to me how they retain so many teachers.

Since local governments across America have been slashing and burning their public school staffs, it's not hard to fathom how they stay in their positions.

Teaching used to be a recession-proof job. Even in the nasty recession in 1981 if you were teaching you pretty much didn't have a recession. This is probably the first time in 100 years that education has been slashed to the degree that it has.

[BarryG]

Since local governments across America have been slashing and burning their public school staffs, it's not hard to fathom how they stay in their positions.

Teaching used to be a recession-proof job. Even in the nasty recession in 1981 if you were teaching you pretty much didn't have a recession. This is probably the first time in 100 years that education has been slashed to the degree that it has.

Of course since 1981, education, at least blue and purple states, has had funding increases to a degree that never existed before.

[Dave]

Union leaders are there to get their employees money. My cousin makes a lot more than she deserves but I don't blame her. I blame the idiots who pay her to sleep at her desk.

Obviously what teachers would make depends on their qualifications and what sectors they'd go into. I don't get what the point is comparing them, though. The idea for school districts is to pay teachers as little as they can and to get the best results they can. Somewhere they need to find the best medium for all of the competing political interests. Theoretically better pay gets you better candidates to select from in new hires and increases retention--of course it increases retention of both good and bad teachers. There is no right or fair answer here. There are only attempts to reach policy objectives which in Philly/PA/America are a mix of educating students and protecting unions or fighting unions depending on your persuasion.

I'm not into "fighting unions" just for the sake of it. Personally, I think unions, just like governments and even private corporations, are only as good as their management. And Philly unions, as well as Philly government, have had terrible leadership for decades. They've signed one unsustainable contract after another since the 60s/70s, and taxpayers are always left holding the bag, which is how we ended up with a 5% wage tax, on top of a 6.5% business tax, with the recent property tax increases just being the latest way government and unions are dumping their fiscal mismanagement on the taxpayer. It's pretty obvious to me that neither side has any regard for the average taxpayer, beyond minimal considerations for re-election on the government side (and you need to keep in mind that the unionized workforce represents a significant voting block in the city). Hence, I think it's time taxpayers who don't hold municipal jobs started looking out for their own best interests, and the best way for me to do that is to call it like I see it and vote accordingly. The way I see it, guaranteed payout pensions are not in taxpayers' best interest.

[seand]

At this point the city may actually be better off investing its money into quantum technology to work towards an inter-dimensional attempt to assassinate previous iterations of City Council.

You haven't heard of the ATI (Actual Terminator Initiative)? Its very hush, hush.

On the serious tip, I too would rather see SDP ditch pensions for 401k for new hires and move to compensation that attracts quality new hires and incentivizes performance in some way.

[BarryG]

I'm not into "fighting unions" just for the sake of it. Personally, I think unions, just like governments and even private corporations, are only as good as their management. And Philly unions, as well as Philly government, have had terrible leadership for decades. They've signed one unsustainable contract after another since the 60s/70s, and taxpayers are always left holding the bag, which is how we ended up with a 5% wage tax, on top of a 6.5% business tax, with the recent property tax increases just being the latest way government and unions are dumping their fiscal mismanagement on the taxpayer. It's pretty obvious to me that neither side has any regard for the average taxpayer, beyond minimal considerations for re-election on the government side (and you need to keep in mind that the unionized workforce represents a significant voting block in the city). Hence, I think it's time taxpayers who don't hold municipal jobs started looking out for their own best interests, and the best way for me to do that is to call it like I see it and vote accordingly. The way I see it, guaranteed payout pensions are not in taxpayers' best interest.

This illustrates precisely the problem with public sector pensions and why FDR and union supporters from that era, thought they should not exist.

[3rd&Brown]

Yes there are many people who teach because they like it and are good at it. We're all happy to have them. I'd point out though that not all Ivy League advanced degree holders could get better jobs in the private sector. A master's degree in Education or the liberal arts doesn't guarantee high pay at all, even in the sciences the job market is not all roses.

This. I have a science degree from an Ivy League college and am unemployed. 10 years experience and my pay is zero.

And last I checked, 100K in salary (if that's indeed what experienced teachers with master's degrees make...I know it is in the burbs), is darned good pay. In any field.

You can't point to the top 3% in a field or at the rarified industry in which pay is very high (law, medicine, banking...although even there there are exceptions) and say, see? I'd make that if I wasn't in this field.

No. You wouldn't. You're not a lawyer. You're not a doctor. You're not an investment banker. It's the rarified person in the private sector who makes it to executive and gets the golden parachute type compensation I suspect we're talking about.

Teachers have a demanding and worthwhile job. And frankly, I'm happy we have teachers like OldMama and mja here, but again, there is nothing unreasonable about contributing to a health care plan and retirement. Period. Especially when you make 70K a year. That's more than enough, especially if you are in a two income household, to squirrel away money and pay your way, without us having to foot the entire bill.

I remember when teachers made $24K a year in the burbs (it wasn't that long ago). They're now making $100K. Most reasonable people are not against paying teachers well. The funny thing is, teachers are now (for the most part), paid well, at least in the Northeast and MidAtlantic (wanna teach in Tennessee or Texas or Georgia?). Now fair is fair...you got what you want...time to throw us a bone and be more reasonable with the other stuff.

[Marquis]

Where are people getting this 100k figure from? I found a few job sites with salaries, like this:

Teachers who are certified in Pennsylvania or another state, and have applied for Pennsylvania Certification, will receive a starting salary of $ 45,360 as of January 1, 2012.

New Teacher Salary - School District of Philadelphia

I tried to find teacher salaries from the PFT and SDP websites but came up with no numbers. If we're just making up salaries, I say we pay teacher a million dollars since teaching is a hard job and we can afford to be generous.

[BarryG]

Where are people getting this 100k figure from? I found a few job sites with salaries, like this:


I tried to find teacher salaries from the PFT and SDP websites but came up with no numbers. If we're just making up salaries, I say we pay teacher a million dollars since teaching is a hard job and we can afford to be generous.

Average teacher compensation as 08-09, including benefits, is $90,000. They have had raises since then, and of course healthcare costs have gone up as well (the SD pays 100% of a single teacher's health plan, over 90% of family plans).

Teacher salaries, though different, are the same in the budget | Philadelphia Public School Notebook

The average has probably gone up since the layoffs too--by contract, the SD has to lay off the cheapest teachers and keep the most expensive ones. Another part of the PFT contract that discourages young, energetic, and affordably talent.

[kbjc72]

Your comparing ranges of salary to median salary. Apples and oranges.

Let's look at a similar Joe Taxpayer, those who spent 4-6 years getting a Bachelor's or Master's.

SDP 2010 teacher salaries (from your cited report)
Bachelor's: 42,096-65,733
Master's: 42,905-74,235

2005 Median salary from the Census bureau (closest info I could find to 2010):
25+ Bachelor's full-time: $56,078
25+ Master's full-time: $61,273

It seems that working for the school district tends to pay a bit less than the median salary nationwide for an equivalent degree level. Considering that the cost of living in the city is higher than on average nationwide (Source), the benefit level isn't that bad.

BTW: $30 million of the $135 the district could 'save' was by postponing payments. That's not saving anything, just delaying the inevitable.

[FKD19124]

In the SDP? They still have tenure.
And its hard to fire teachers.

There used to be tenure. After I had been teaching a few years, I was called to my principal's office to sign my "tenure papers." Basically, I think tenure gave me the right to due process if I were disciplined. Prior to having tenure, my right may have been more limited.

Mja is correct, teachers get fired all the time. If you read the minutes of each SRC meeting there are lists of terminations. No reasons are given but there they are.