I had a couple of follow-up thoughts on the concept of Reciprocal Accountability from the Nov. 5 session here in D.C. (See my previous two posts.)
One is that these comprehensive systems of teacher support seem to implicitly recognize that teachers have different strengths, weaknesses, and competencies. In other words, one teacher might need P.D. on diverse learners, another on classroom management. They also seem to recognize that not all teachers are going to be equally effective.
Yet most salary schedules don't address such differences. In fact, one could make the case (and certainly some have) that today's system of scatter-shot professional development is exacerbated by the fact that pay is linked to getting masters' degrees and so forth, which may or may not be aligned to the teaching standards, instructional goals, or areas in which teachers need help.
That was the question I posed to the panelists: How should salary schedules be rethought in a comprehensive system of teacher supports?
American Federation of Teachers President Randi Weingarten offered this response: "The reason teachers have steps and lanes is ultimately because when these were negotiated, they served as proxies for the things were are talking about right now [i.e., a comprehensive system of teacher supports]. There are lots of us willing to look at these things in a new way, but it has to be a system that pays people decently [before differentiating pay.]"
We encourage lively debate, but please be respectful of others. Profanity and personal attacks are prohibited. By commenting, you are agreeing to abide by our user agreement.
All comments are public.