Summary: This entry follows in the path traveled by several others (see links below), all of which have focused upon justice--particularly social or distributive justice. In this second of three entries I summarize thoughts and concerns which surfaced when I interpret Peter Corning's Fair Shares system (see 4th and 6 references with links at bottom of this entry) of distributive justice (aka 'social justice') as it would apply to teacher compensation..Other soon-to-follow entries will work further with justice and teacher compensation.

---

Do principles of social justice need to be applied to teacher compensation ? I say "Yes!". Though I would would be the last to argue that the life of teachers is the only or necessarily the first target for such application.(Refer to my Jan 2nd entry for a look and for a first take on average teacher compensation systems)

I do so for several reasons(not all 'deep', as you will see):

• because of familiarity (I'm a teacher, a teacher educator and have been so for 38 years.) and concern for the future excellence of the profession and its 'life'
• for the sake of illustration of the principles,
AND
• because I believe that these principles, if applied to teacher compensation, would not only improve the life of teachers but would vastly improve the effectiveness of schools as social service systems.

(The comprehensive article , the one from which I derive these comments, may be found here --the Fair Shares material starts at purple number 147.)

 

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 up to 2 children (Notes:1). 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 last 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 for comparable subject matter. (Notes:2).
"After distributions for basic needs, surpluses should be distributed according to 'merit' ."	Meritorious teaching shows itself in the learning of students. It is expected that merit has been shown by a teacher when her/his students learn at a rate equivalent to or greater than the learning of similar material during the previous year. Thus if a specific teacher's students have a this year/ last year achievement ratio (for example, number of principles acquired this year divided by number of principles acquired last year) that is greater than 1.2 but less than 1.4 will generate a 10% increase over basic needs pay. If the ratio is between 1.4 but less than 1.6 the increase will be 20% and etc. up to exceeding a ration of 2.0 where pay boosts will be 50% above the pay for basic needs. The increases are in terms of average quarterly gains and are paid the following quarter. If the ratio is .8 or less the teacher receives intense support and scrutiny for up to two years. If at the end of that time the ratio has not increased to .80 or better, her/his teaching contract is terminated (with first consideration for within school employment in noninstructional positions for which s/he would be well qualified) (Notes:3). Pay boosts are for one quarter at a time and do not accumulate or otherwise affect basic needs pay or future pay. However if 4 successive quarters exceed base rate, base rate will be raised 10% for one year. Pay bumps for such a year will be in addition to the 10% one year raise. (a rationale for sustained effort but with a one year life)
"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. (Notes:4) Longevity pay (for loyal and effective within system service)provides boosts of 2% of base pay for each additional year for up to 8 years. Those additions are permanent as long as service is continyous within the system. (Notes:5)

Notes:

1. Is there any doubt that human population is ascending to heights which will, in and of themselves, threaten quality of life, even survival of social existence as we know it? Is the self limitation (in terms of number of children) to be the responsibility of others or must it start with us? I would expect, of course, that school board families and other area institutions would, if imposing this limit, also limit executive and employee support in a similar fashion. Obviously families may decide for more children but will do so at their own fiscal (and ethical) peril.
2. One possibility is to create achievement categories--say 12 (arbitrary number but would include basic skills, social studies, social skills, physical skills etc.) and then for any class the learning ratio comparison will be made between last year's achievement category gains for each student and this year's for the same category (e.g., social studies, learning disability resource, etc.) The comparisons are made of individual (within category last year) to same individual (same category this year) and then averaged to determine the ratio.
3. Any system gains achieved by not releasing the unproductive teacher (perhaps buttressed by bad arguments to the effect that individual professional assessment is technically impossible or, worse yet, morally corrupt) weigh far less than the losses in morale and possibilities for self-improvement which result from abondoning product (learning) accountability. No number of credits or accumulation of fancy degrees can replace this essential system sensitivity.
4. If a teacher is so organized and effective to meet instructional competence requirements and effectively serve the system in noninstructional ways, terrific. Her/his life-style and career choice.
5. Reciprocity payments for effective and loyal service, added to basic needs are a traditional choice. I would put more of the dollars on instruction, thank you. Four to eight years of reciprocity payments, tops. Have put in my maximum. Would probably argue for less on a case by case basis.

---

In my next entry I will synthesize Deutsch's questions and the Fair Shares teacher compensation approach, comparing the results to a normal compensation package .

---

Recent justice related entries with most recent listed first.

1. Justice for Teachers In which I introduce two teachers with no difference in pay, or background, or training, or load, or student population served. However, one is clearly more effective in nurturing meaningful student achievement. Is this just?
2. Justice: A fair distribution of goods and harms (3). Implementation . In this piece I use Deutsch's distributive justice questions to examine typical teacher compensation approaches.
3. Justice: A fair distribution of goods and harms (2). Bio-logic. I discuss Peter Corning's Fair Shares approach to the distribution of 'goods'.
4. Justice: A fair distribution of goods and harms (1) John Rawls' approach to defining justice is outlined.
5. See my full teacher justice story for a more comprehensive treatment. (I decided it was too long for a weblog entry-- plus it needed a little more 'fire' --personality. Thus the sequence of shorter entries [today's entry being the second].)
6. See also Corning, Peter A. , In Press, "Fair Shares: Beyond Capitalism and Socialism. The Biological Basis of Social Justice", in Politics and the Life Sciences) (Click here for a pdf copy of the document from his website).