Teaching Troubles

In light of the recent tenor of education politics in Idaho, I have a few quick things to say.

A new teacher in my Idaho school district makes $31,750. This is public information that can be looked up on our website. I am technically a second year teacher because I was part-time last year. That means I cannot get a raise until I earn a Masters + 12 credits. That gets me a whopping $360/year over what I am getting paid now. Or until I have been teaching for 7 years. That gets me an "extra" $610/year. I also earn a $3100/year stipend for the countless hours I spend at football games, basketball games, taking care of uniforms, music, instruments, and everything else, bringing my total compensation before taxes to $34,850.

I teach 3 hour and a half long classes a day, with one prep. Last year, teachers were asked to teach 3 classes one day (with one prep) and 4 classes the next day (no prep). I was part-time so I didn't feel the effects of this, as other teachers did. (But I was part-time, so I wasn't paid for any prep time.) The pay scale has been frozen for several years. Even if I had been working long enough to be getting incremental raises every year (except after 10 years when your pay only increases with more education), I wouldn't have been getting those raises. Veteran teachers have actually seen pay cuts in the last few years.

With the push of the Luna education laws two years ago, a pay-for-performance plan was implemented.  This was supposed to be an awesome solution to paying our teachers more. Criteria were established at the state level, as well as at the local level. You only got your state-funded pay-for-performance money if you met the state level criteria as well as the local criteria. And the teachers were evaluated by school; the idea being that teachers within the same school shouldn't be competing against each other for higher pay. Last year, our school met the state criteria, as well as the local criteria, and earned the maximum allowed "bonus". (The alternative high school met the local criteria, but not the state criteria, and so were not going to receive any money.) It was rumored that if the Propositions did not pass, teachers wouldn't get paid. The vote would be held on the 6th and the money was to be distributed on the 15th. It was decided that the vote would not be official until the 21st, meaning the money would have to be paid on the 15th because the official outcome would not be known until a week later. Not to mention that this is money that was earned in the previous school year. And employers are required to pay employees for their work.

Somewhere along the line, Idaho parents and teachers decided the "Students Come First" laws were going to do more harm than good. They limited the collective bargaining of the teachers to strictly salary and benefits. (meaning that the people who are actually in the classroom all day would have no say in scheduling, class sizes, curriculum, etc.) They put in place a "pay-for-performance" system of compensation that was no more fair or just than what we already have. (Teachers in the same school all get paid the same "bonus" no matter who's actually doing the work to meet the state-level criteria. How is that any different than teachers earning a set salary whether or not they are exceptional teachers?) Third, they mandated laptops for every high school student and teacher in Idaho, and a requirement to take online classes to graduate. So concerned parents put together a petition and got enough signatures to recall the laws for a referendum vote.


Besides the obvious problems with this plan, a contract for the laptops was not even awarded until last month. For way more than State Superintendent Tom Luna had proposed. And the schools wouldn't own the laptops, they would only lease them, leaving them responsible for replacement/repair (not due to manufacturer defect) or paying for extra insurance on the laptops. Plans for how the laptops would be used or distributed within a school were to be determined by the local school board/administration. Because that's not ambiguous. I never encouraged conversation about Propositions 1, 2, and 3 in my classroom, because that would be unethical. I never voiced my opinion or even dropped hints as to what I thought. I told one of my classes that taking notes would be so much easier when they all had laptops. I had a student shoot back with "I don't want a laptop! They're going to make us take online classes, and online classes suck! I took one last year and dropped out half way through the semester because it was so bad." You can't even bribe a high schooler to take online classes by giving them a brand new laptop. Because, oh wait, even a teenager can see that a trained, certificated teacher, a classroom, and a text book are better than a computer.

There was an ugly debate about the Propositions for months leading up to Tuesday's vote. Millions of dollars were spent on both sides, trying to convince the public of their position. It was argued that we are giving unions too much control of our students' education, and they won't be competitive in the workplace without laptops and online classes. It was argued that laptops will increase taxes because the state hadn't properly funded them. It was argued that teachers don't care. It was argued that we have some of the best teachers in the country. Everything was argued. Our district's school board and superintendent publicly supported the propositions while parents and educators alike grumbled all the way to the voting booth.

And teachers felt attacked. When did we go into education for anything but the students? We are in the classroom with some of these kids more than they are with their own parents. Why should we not have a say in what is best for them? We are doing our jobs, and doing them well. Why should parents get to fill out an evaluation based on what their child tells them, and have that decide how much we get paid? We went to school to understand the best ways to teach our subject matter. When did the State Superintendent become such an expert on what our students should know, and the best ways to teach them that information? Why are they shutting us out? And on the subject of merit pay and getting rid of teacher tenure, administrators have always had the means to get rid of lack-luster teachers with enough documentation.

Last Friday, our administration came around with letters indicating the exact dollar amount of "bonus" money we earned - signed by our Superintendent. Interesting timing, don't you agree?

And on Tuesday, each and every one of the 44 counties in Idaho shot down Propositions 1, 2, and 3 - with Proposition 3 (laptops) losing by the widest margin. It was a great night. And the comments in the paper were that "It's too bad money can buy an election." Are you kidding me? And "The opposition did a good job of making this an emotional issue." Really? How about accepting that you grossly misread the priorities of the citizens you claim to serve and represent?! You pushed your own agenda, you were called out, and you lost.

But that means that the money we are supposed to receive is now in question. A quote from our school board is somewhere along the lines of "People don't realize just how much was lost." So there goes my $2300 "bonus", or as we like to refer to it, "back-pay". And you know what I was going to use it for? Paying off my dental and medical bills that my job's crappy insurance did not cover. What I don't get is this: How can they not pay out money that was earned last year? How can they get away with that?! What a sleazy thing to do. What sore losers.

It's been so frustrating to not be allowed to talk about these issues, or to voice our opinions because we are teachers, while our school board and superintendent can go on local news and openly support these laws. (Am I violating my contract by even posting this? ... Erin? Dad?)

But what really seems unfair to me is that even with a full-time job (and then some! when you add basketball, football, etc.) it is not enough to support my spouse and child. Chad's unemployment will run out within the month (although, he can supposedly apply for "emergency" unemployment...(?) ... isn't it all "emergency" unemployment??) and we will no longer be able to pay all of our bills. Chad will have to take some terrible minimum wage job and work nights because we won't be able to afford childcare. (Besides the fact that we don't want Charlie in daycare all day...) I guess he can work at Arby's with my high school students. Or I will have to start teaching music lessons afternoons and weekends.  I can work a summer job, but that won't get us through this year. I guess I should've seen that coming and worked last summer. We live in a modest home, we don't travel or eat out, or buy expensive things. But I think on a school teacher's salary, you should be able to pay your bills and feed yourselves.

I guess I am wrong.