“With ProComp plan, DPS has grown up,” the headline read.
Well, maybe not so much.
The column I wrote in September 2005 reflected my enthusiastic support for the $25 million mill-levy increase to fund an innovative pay-for-performance plan for DPS teachers. Voters agreed and the plan, designed collaboratively by the teacher’s union and the administration, has been in place for nearly two years.
ProComp rewards teachers for professional accomplishments in four areas:
• Increasing knowledge and skills;
• Meeting student growth objectives;
• Earning satisfactory evaluations; and
• Working in hard-to-staff positions and hard-to-serve schools.
Certain measures are treated as a one-time bonus, while others accrue to teachers’ base salary. The program’s ambitious goals begin with improving student performance and include increasing accountability by tying performance to pay, recruiting and retaining gifted teachers and raising the base salary of Denver’s teachers (among the lowest in the metro area).
Concerned about public trust, the financial model was professionally vetted to confirm that $25 million a year would sustain the program over the long haul. The ProComp Trust — made up of three teachers, three administrators and two community representatives — was established to administer the funds, further ensuring public accountability.
The legislation includes a review every three years. Recognizing problems with implementation, the union and the district agreed to initiate that review now and has hired University of Colorado Denver professor Paul Teske to evaluate the program. The evaluation has not been completed.
Nearly half of the district’s teachers are enrolled in ProComp. All new hires will automatically enter the program.
Seems like a grown-up plan, agreed to by adults.
Not so fast.
Unfortunately, ProComp has landed smack in the middle of contract negotiations. Though the two are symbiotic, the bargaining process requires mutual confidentiality and good faith. While teacher base pay is impacted by ProComp, negotiations have been seriously tainted by legitimate differences regarding the incentive plan.
Changes to ProComp’s structure must be fully transparent to all stakeholders — including the taxpayer. Negotiating changes without fully integrating and publicizing the final independent evaluation is foolish.
Many teachers signed up under policies that provided for permanent increases to base pay. The district wants to change those rules — not merely for new teachers coming into the program but retroactively, for teachers already in ProComp. That issue has no place at the bargaining table.
The district want to frontload ProComp as a bonus-only program for newer teachers. The district claims their offer will give teachers nearly $9,000 in annual wage increases. They have yet to demonstrate this increase is systemwide. If you happen to be an outstanding English teacher at East High School or an art, music or stagecraft teacher at Denver School of the Arts, it’s nearly impossible to qualify for incentive pay. The district must reveal its criteria.
These are just a few unresolved ProComp issues. In the meantime, the district should stop negotiating through the editorial boards and the teachers should behave as they want to be treated: as adult professionals. “Sickouts” are childish.
A truly effective and innovative incentive pay plan has the potential to transform DPS and become a model for urban school districts everywhere. Contract negotiations must be held in private, according to established protocol.
The evaluation and revamping of ProComp is a very public issue. Diverse stakeholders must participate in informed negotiations. A good outcome cannot occur under any other conditions.
I’m reminded of something my tennis coach said to me 40 years ago: “You’re getting older, but you’re not growing up.” It’s time for everyone to grow up.
Susan Barnes-Gelt (sbg13@comcast.net) served on the Denver City Council and worked for Mayor Federico Peña. She is a consultant to local architectural and development companies.
