honoluluadvertiser.com

Sponsored by:

Comment, blog & share photos

Log in | Become a member
The Honolulu Advertiser
Posted on: Sunday, July 29, 2001

Key terms in teacher pay dispute

By Jerry Burris
Advertiser Editorial Editor

The mystery surrounding the dispute between the state and the teacher's union over the meaning of their new contract may not be that mysterious after all.

Essentially, the battle is over a philosophical approach toward teacher pay that was established from the very beginning. It is a fight that pits unionism and tradition against the current rage for professionalism and performance-based pay.

The fight is not unique to Hawai'i. It is part of the debate in virtually every school system in the country as the nation tries to convert a 20th-century education system to meet 21st-century needs.

The key to understanding this specific dispute lies in two words: "differential" and "bonus." Keep those words in mind as we move ahead.

Early in the negotiating process between the state and the teacher's union, Gov. Ben Cayetano and his chief negotiator, Davis Yogi, produced a show-and-tell presentation for the news media and others on the status of negotiations.

The governor's interest in these negotiations was to shift pay for teachers from a system focused on longevity to one that concentrated reward on performance and on energizing teacher ranks with new and accomplished teachers.

Although the union is strongly supportive of professionalism and pay-for-performance, it does not want these ideas to come at the expense of existing systems that reward longevity, advanced degrees and the like.

But because money is not limitless, there is bound to be tension between the two schemes. Clearly, there had to be compromise.

And that's what happened. The state and the teachers slowly cobbled together a system that retained some of the perks of the old system (and in fact even restored some "step movement" which rewards longevity). But the same deal also shifted some money "up front" to attract new teachers and reward performance.

It also includes money for teachers with advanced degrees or professional certificates. That's where the fight is. Most attention has focused on whether that professional money is for one year or two.

But there's another level to the dispute that may be more important, and may go directly to the heart of that philosophical theory of teacher pay we talked about.

The state is calling the professional sweetener a "bonus," which clearly implies a one-time pat-on-the-back for good work. The teacher's union calls it a "differential," which implies something much different: a pay distinction that goes along with work assignment or skill levels. "Differentials" do not come and go from year to year; they are permanent.

In other words, the state looks at the professional sweetener as temporary. Next time, it wants to use the money to reward performance which may or may not have anything to do with degrees held or years of service.

The teachers union, meanwhile, would like to see the money treated as a differential, a permanent distinction that helps keep more senior teachers at a higher rung on the salary ladder.

Imagine that. We thought the two sides were arguing about money, when in fact the dispute may be about management style and theories of educational excellence.