In the next few months, the Texas legislature will be holding a special session to address education. One area of concern is teacher's pay. BFT poses a question for consideration:
Is teaching a ten month job or a twelve month job?
BFT believes this is the first question that must be answered before any debate on teacher's pay can begin.
Teachers and their supporters continuously argue about the hours, the kids, the parents, the lack of support, etc. But every job has its trials and tribulations. Having taught elementary school, I can appreciate the time, effort, and sheer exhaustion of teaching. Further very few positions require one to be absolutely "ON" all day long. If the kids even sense that you are, tired, emotionally drained, have a headache, etc. they will own you. But still, the typical posted teaching position is for less than 200 days. The typical state employee position is a 250 day position. So the question remains, is teaching a 10-month or a 12-month job?
In theory, a teacher closes up shop and gets the summer off, gets long spring breaks and winter breaks. In theory. In actuality, there are development days, training days, CLE classes, master's requirements, "voluntary" summer sessions or "voluntary" after school work. But still the question remains, is teaching a 10-month or a 12-month job?
If the answer is "Teaching is a 10-month job," then teachers should not be forced into all of these developmental programs and such that take away from additional income or time with family; especially during the summer. Think about it... If a person has two months to do as they please (earn income, family, travel) they can make the plans necessary. Every time there is a Development day or a department meeting, the flexibility is taken away. For instance, one can gets a temp job for two months and receive $400 per week ($3,200 for the summer). But if that person is required to come back for a meeting here or a meeting there, odds are that summer job would fall through and certainly the flexibility to travel would disappear. If teaching is a 10-month job, teachers would gain additional income, time with family, travel and compensated accordingly. (Or would they?)
If the answer is, "Teaching is a 12-month job," then teachers should be required to work 12-months. No more spring break or Christmas break, and forget about summer break. During the summers they can take full time training sessions, paint the building, teach summer school. Of course they would get the standard 2-4 week vacation that most workers get. If teaching is a 12 month job, teachers could lose out on additional income, time with family, travel. BUT they should be compensated accordingly. (Or should they?)
BFT's Solution
First answer the question. Is teaching a 10-month job or a 12-month job?
We believe the Texas legislature (and any other state or local education policy making body) should declare teaching a 10-month job. Literally, teachers are given eight weeks of no contact from their schools, their administration, union, PTA, anyone. Should a district or agency need a teacher for ANY reason during that eight week period, that teacher must be paid as a full-time employee for the entire 8-week period. Now a teacher is free to work elsewhere, even another district looking for summer help. If the $400/week opportunity arises (as mentioned above), that would be equivalent to an 8% raise (based on a $40,000 salary). This would also allow teachers to plan and rejuvenate. This defined time would have the effect of making teaching a more valuable profession with less ambiguity and less stress.
While BFT advocates a 10-month definition, either a 10-month or a 12-month standard would give teachers a better leg to stand on when they argue for more pay, and allow the policy makers a better and more solid standard for determining the market pay base.
We wecome your comments.
Comments? Questions? Feedback?