Potentiality

Summary: This is a follow-up* entry for educators and ethicists. The initial
question: “What is a just pay system for teachers?”. Interesting and
important to teachers and the communities that employ them. Interesting to ethicists
because underneath we have a question of social or distributive justice. I’ll
explain each below. First basic questions about grading; second a dissection
of those problems in terms of justice. Third — a sketch of our present scheme
of social of distributive justice as it applies to teacher pay.

(* The original educator-oriented entry
was written on January 2nd, 2004 )

---

A. Basic Questions About Teacher Pay:**

1. What is the meaning and value of a level of pay? Is there a limited supply
of high pay available so that only few teachers can get high pay no matter
how many excellent teachers there are?

2. How is it distributed? Pay is generally distributed by schools or school
districts to teachers; teachers usually do not reciprocate .

3. What is the frequency of the pay; what is known about one’s own pay and
that of other teachers? Some teachers provide grades to their students only
at the end of a term; others provide their students with information only
about their own mark; other times students have access to information about
all students. In some courses, the factors determining a student’s grade are
clearly defined and explicitly communicated to the students, whereas in other
the whole procedure is clouded in mystery.

4. What values determine the level of pay that any given teacher receives?
A school or school district could use any of [a set of values], singly or
in combination, in distributing pay to and among teachers. It might, for example,
decide to distribute pay so as to produce equal outputs of teacher motivation,
giving a teacher who is clearly superior in terms of student learning lower
pay than instructional performance would warrant, and a teacher with low student
learning ability a higher grade than her/his performance warranted. The school
might believe that this would be the most effective means of motivating maximum
learning from all types of teachers. On the other hand the district might
decide to give high pay to those who need them the most; for example, it might
give higher pay to those with larger families. Or the district might decide
to give the greatest pay to those who work the hardest, those who accomplish
the most, put in the most hours or those who help collaborate most frequently.

5. Given the values that will “drive” pay determination, what are
specific rules or criteria that have been chosen as the basis for pay distribution.
Suppose, for example, it is widely accepted that “merit” should
be the basis for distributing “pay”, what are the criteria for defining
“merit”? Shall it be defined in terms of the quality or quantity
of work, in terms of the actual accomplishment, in terms of the improvement
over prior accomplishment?

6. What measurement procedures have been chosen to assess individual compliance
with values driving pay? [How will whatever is the basis for grading, for
example, merit, be defined and subsequently measured.?]

7, What decision-making procedures will be/ were used in developing the pay
determination procedures?

8. What is the scope of the group which will receive pay by the means and
processes generated in steps 1-7? Who, exactly has their pay determined by
the procedures described above. Who is considered outside, beneath, above
or outside these boundaries? Why?

9. Effects of distribution system on individuals, groups, group-individual
relations, overall cohesion and productivity of the entire system. What is
the effect of the present pay system on desired (and, for that matter, undesired) system processes
and outcomes?

(**The above distribution rubric is drawn from Deustch, M.
(1978) Distributive Justice, Yale University Press, pp 2-4. The interpretation
is mine)

---

B. The Fair Shares system of distributive justice:

1. Goods and services should be distributed to each according to his/her basic
   needs (P Corning’s explanation here).
2. Surpluses beyond the provision for our basic needs should be distributed
   according to “merit” (P Corning explanation here)
3. In return, each of us is obliged to contribute to the collective survival
   enterprise in accordance with his/her ability (P Corning explanation here)

The Fair Shares paradigm, briefly elaborated above, needs adaptation to something
smaller than a whole society. In this section I will make a specific adaptation
of these principles to the compensation package negotiated with/ provided to
members of a system…in this case, teachers in a school system. My presumption
is that a just* employment of educators must be part of the system that models
right behavior to a community’s children as its schools move each student toward
a full realization of individual potential.

*If such a realization, rare under best of circumstances,
were produced via relationships that were less than fair or just, the otherwise
excellent achievement would be tarnished. To process on a more general level,
if any excellence is produced by means of exploitation or oppression (e.g.,
via exploitive employment of the vary person(s) charged with discovering and
nurturing the excellence itself). the triumph of individual development would
be tainted by the denied individual and familial realization associated with
it. To put it boldly, the “taint” would be that of the blood and sweat
of those who were exploited to produce the benefits for the few.

To analyze a particular system (in this case it’s teacher compensation) of
distributive justice we can apply Deutsche’s process questions and outline.
We will evaluate one version of Corning’s Fair Shares rubric (above) as applied
to the generation of a compensation system for a teachers. (See other teacher
compensation systems here,
here, and here)
I believe you will be in a position to see that one is not only more just but
is also more likely to strengthen the overall power of the schools to teach.

The Fair Shares principles are broad enough to allow multiple interpretations.
What follows is one interpretation as it would be applied to teacher compensation
within a school or school system.

Table 1. School System Application of the Fair Shares Principles

Fair Share Principle Stated In General Terms	An Interpretation of the particular Fair Shares principle (one of a number of possibilities) as it would apply to teacher compensation
“Goods and services should be distributed to each according to his/her basic needs.”	Needs will be as specified by Corning and will be supported to the extent of a family with two adults and 2 children (replacement rate). Receipt of this needs-related pay will be conditioned upon meeting or exceeding minimum standards for instructional growth of students in assigned setting. Standards for minimum required effect will depending on clientele, subject matter and etc. A rough indication: when dividing monthly rate of objectives learned (full or by subject) this year with the rate learned this year the average rate will be at least .8. . That is, the average student in a teacher’s classroom will be earning at 80% or better of last year’s rate.
“In return, each system member is obliged to contribute to the collective survival enterprise in accordance with his/her abilities and in accord with collective/ system needs.”	Collective tasks are assigned points by a district planning group (including, of course, the planning committee). Individuals then bid for task assignments (first come, first served) and are chosen or not chosen based on qualifications.Each individual must earn at least 10 points. After completing tasks which add up to 10 points the individual has completed her/his obligation to the system. Any achieved tasks which earn more than the required minimum produce additional income in accord with the assigned ratio of so many dollars per point.Longevity pay boosts of 750 dollars are added each year for 8 years.

---

C. The Application of the Fair Shares Principles to A System which
Is Then Analyzed According to Deutsch’s Questions Concerning Distibutive Justice.

Table 2. Fair Shares System (Corning)
In response to Deutsch’s questions and as compared to
analysis of generic school district compensations system.

General Issue Involved in a Distributive Justice Concern	General processes, concerns and issues of this aspect of the distribution model	Topic of Distributive Justice Concern: Description of A Teacher Compensation System Based on “Fair Shares”	Topic of Distributive Justice Concern: Sketch of Present Teacher Pay Systems
1. The nature of the good or harm being distributed: its content, quality, and quantity.	Pay, recognition, promotion, free goods, protection are benefits.Physical punishment, torture, insults, slander, taxation are harms.	Pay and benefits (health insurance, group auto insurance, retirement and social security payments) distributed to individuals who are employed as teachers within a school district.	Pay and benefits (health insurance, group auto insurance, retirement and social security payments) distributed to individuals who are employed as teachers within a school district.
2. Roles involved.	Who distributes the good or harm, who receives? Or is it mutual?	School district distributes the pay/benefits; teachers receive the pay/benefits.	School district distributes the pay/benefits; teachers receive the pay/benefits.
3. Styling and timing of the distribution	How and when is it distributed? Secretly or publicly? With or without explanation of its meaning and possible consequences?	School districts and teachers can arrange to have pay distributed to teachers in 9 or 12 equal payments. Teacher’s takehome pay is what remains payroll deductions for taxes and contribution for benefits such as social security, health support, group auto insurance and retirement .All educational costs associated with professional development plan are fully subsidized (at level of state university tuition charges and wholesale book charges).	School districts and teachers can arrange to have pay distributed to teachers in 9 or 12 equal payments. Teacher’s takehome pay is what remains payroll deductions for taxes and contribution for benefits such as social security,health support, group auto insurance and retirement .There are extra noninstructional duties that may or may not receive extra pay and which may or may not be voluntary; these components of take home pay are not further discussed in this column).
4. Values: Justice has been variously viewed as the treatment of all people so that:	they have equal “inputs” (for example, so each teacher has equal educational resources available to him)	Each teacher has resources estimated to be sufficient for achieving a year to year ratio within the range of .7 to 1.3 or for her/his assigned subjects and students. Class assignments are made in order to create assignments of comparable difficulty.BASIC NEEDS PAY WITH CHILD INCREASES UP TO 2 Within context of assignment No! Paid basic needs if a ratio of .8 to 1.2 is achieved. Pay boosts by 10% for each 20% increase above a year-to-year student achievement ratio of 1.2 No! Indirectly. Each student assumed to be best off when learning at a constant or improving rate . Yes! At least in effect. Teachers falling and staying at or below a yr to yr ratio of less than .8 will be released No! $750/year in loyal and effective service reward for the first 8 years of service. Accumulates on top of basic needs pay.	Roughly equal instructional effort is assumed by teachers and does not figure in differences in pay.The norm, for public school teachers, is to receive pay based on degrees received and experience within a school district. (Teachers who transfer between districts often lose a portion of their experience pay. For example, teachers may well lose all but 6 years of credit for years of teaching experience if they move between districts. Thus, pay prejudice against transfers operates after the 7th year in any given district).Teachers are NOT paid for differentials in need, output, ability/potential, efforts/ sacrifices or any other of he conceivable factors that would differentiate between one teacher’s work and another’s.
	they have equal “outputs” (for example, so that each teacher has the resources necessary to enable her / him to achieve a given level of instructional accomplishment even if some teachers require more inputs than others)
	they are treated according to their individual needs
	they are treated according to their ability or potential
	they are treated according to their efforts and sacrifices
	they are treated according to their performance or improvement in performance
	they are treated according to the social value of their contributions
	they are treated according to the requirements of the common good
	they are treated so that none fall below a certain minimum
	they are treated according to what others choose to do for them
	they are treated according to the principal of reciprocity
5. Rules or criteria for defining the values.	“…Although there may be a high degree of consensus with a group about which value shall be the basis of a distribution, there may be a considerable sense of injustice about the criteria or rules that are used to define the value.”	Student assessment system developed using deep literature work and cross-sectional leadership from well regarded teachers, parents, administrators and consultants. Three iterations of system were used in trial run mock-ups (with last year trial run bonus supplementing pay by traditional means).Fourth year transitional with consultant support for ‘final draft’.New system tweaked with full community support for next five years. After that evaluation after every three years with clearly specified means by which individuals may grieve evaluation results, assignments or pay.	Present pay status is clearly defined and is relatively easy to determine from simple, noncontroversial records.
6. Measurement Procedures	How are the rules or criteria operationalized and implemented? The implementation of the criteria may be invalid, unreliable or insensitive. A sense of injustice can be aroused because one feels that a fairly implemented.	See Above	Measurement in the standard teacher pay situation is clear cut (see above).There are behavioral and norm-referenced tests which could be calibrated to reflect achievement of learning objectives by individuals or groups. This is not generally attempted.
7. Decision-making Procedures	The actual procedures may be seen as fair but may have been determined in ‘unjust’ manner. …people are more apt to accept decisions and their consequences as being fair if they have participated in making them.	See Above	There are often multiyear contracts between a school district and its teachers (frequently represented by a union) which specify dollar value of base pay(and annual base pay increases for inflation), education and experience.
8. Scope of The Moral Community	What is the scope of the distribution system? For example does the value of ‘equal educational opportunity’ also apply to the child of a migrant worker? The the child of a rich parent? To the child of a criminal? The narrower one’s conception of one’s community the narrower the range of situations in which one’s actions will be governed by considerations of justice.	To Include all Instructional and Administrative and Support Personnel. Each group tied to year to year growth by a different mechanism based on own functions related to achievement.	Generally speaking, the moral community of those receiving pay (according to rules described above)from a district consists of those certified teachers on ‘contract’ to the district. Substitute teachers, long-term substitute teachers and aides, while also involved in instruction receive pay on less favorable terms.Administrative personnel are generally paid more than teachers.How much more an administrator is paid is often more market dependent; that is, it depends on the district and the availability of administrative personnel in the area or region.
9. Effects of distribution system on individuals, groups, group-individual relations, overall cohesion and productivity of the entire system.	If we are to design our distributive justice system, would we not design it so that the values and ideals of our political system were served? And if we are starting with existing systems wouldn’t we check for compatibility between values and distribution of harms and goods, reforming as signaled by discrepancies?We would have a discrepancy if our justice system produced results which are incompatible with our value system. Such a discrepancy would lead to thoughts, perhaps actions, of reformation.The scope of such analyses and reformative efforts could be world-wide, national, or for smaller systems (e.g., for a corporation, a business or a family).	Dynamics of system development excluded no group nor do they preclude changes in system based on new or better evidence. Planned changes in dynamics relate to the effect of nonteaching teachers on morale of students, administrators, support staff and fellow teachers. Loyalty to system is given value but does not replace effectiveness. A system of deriving pay increases for those supporting instruction (not a popularity vote but clearly related to measures of instructional success) will lead to a healthy (healthier?) relationship between support and leadership personnel and parents and particularly students with teachers. Somewhere in the dynamics of development and operation will have to be some recognition that there are significantly different difficulty levels of assignments (given the same ultimate goal). This too will add to the rationality and accountability of assignments and of mutual respect. Finally, I suspect that these dynamics will end up adding realism to laws and measures which may not have been well tested against the measures of “equal access to improved growth for all” and “one person’s growth ends where another’s begins”. The system must be compassionate, yes, but effective too.	1. Some teachers will leave teaching for administration because of the pay differential between the areas of competence. 2. The design of the pay system works against pay differentials based either on student learning for the year, or for variations of this formulation based on related variables such as: entry skills, prior learning rate, unique learning needs, etc. An obvious result of this is that teacher’s end up working to contract rather than working for maximum student learning. Difficult students are given cursory or routinized instruction because, while it is admitted, in principle, that each may be equally deserving as, say, a gifted student, there is no pay ‘bump’ for what would be clearly additional effort and/or additional teacher skill, if the student were to accelerate learning growth to a previously unachieved “average” rate. Also, there is no “bump” for enhanced depth or rate of learning for average or gifted students. Since there is no fiscal recognition of either the devotion or the skill that would havehad to been involved in such enhanced student depth or speed of achievements (on the average). In the case of the ‘gifted’ the simple fact of the assignment of teaching them is argued to be sufficient reward.