Summary: This entry follows on several others (see links below), all of which have focused upon justice--particularly social or distributive justice. In this third of 3-4 entries I apply Deutsch's distributive justice questions (see references and links below) to the Fair Shares teacher compensation package which was developed in my previous entry (see references and links below). Further, I compare the rules, processes and anticipated effects of the Fair Shares compensation package with a 'typical' school system compensation package. For me, the results of this extended mental experiment in educational system justice are compelling. See what you think.

I've set out, here and in preceding justice and teacher justice articles (see below for links and references), on a mental journey of moral creation. I have asked myself "What would a Healthy, Just and Effective Teaching System Look Like?". I have progress to report!

The details and in-depth treatment are in Table 1 but I will summarize as introduction. First, the notion of justice served to energize this particular sequence of entries (listed at bottom of this entry). John Rawls, Peter Corning and Morton Deutsch gave inspiration and useful mental tools. I added their notions of justice to my own already established concerns for system health and teacher effectiveness.I also applied a law of parsimony as I considered elements in this compensation package; that is, I would install no element that didn't contribute directly, obviously and positively to at least one of the following:

• just and compassionate treatment of teachers,
• sustained system health,
• and teaching effectiveness

Comments on this package as sorted by these three concerns:

• Just and Compassionate Treatment of Teachers

To a community or school system desiring much for its children: Find people who have been shown to teach. Treat them and theirs in a way that you would like your and yours to be treated. If they do what you have asked pay them enough for a sufficient living for a family. And then get out of the way. Intrude only if what was once obvious when you hired them -- that s/he was a proven/commited teacher--is clearly no longer true.[Note: As I've noted in at least once in recent entries, it is partially happenstance that I here 'insist' on just and compassionate treatment of teachers.That is, it happens that I am a teacher and, as a consequence, we are talking about teachers. However, all people should be treated this way in any system (even if you are only concerned with long term 'yield'), and, if they are not, bad processes, destructive ones, will automatically result thus undermining the accomplishment of any of the system's worthy goals. (I'm sorry, but enduring goodness is hard to build on top of a morally corrupted foundation.Or--good output doesn't follow bad process.)For the record, then, this is a general principle of well constructed human systems. It must therefore be applied, obviously, to one a system that happens to have teachers within it.]

• Sustained System Health

One way to undermine the health of a system is to cause it to do too many things that have little or nothing to do with it's purpose. Another is to fail to build in a means to get better and better at realizing its central purpose. In the general sense that would mean assessing effectively, effectively enough, at any rate, to realize when a greater realization of that purpose has occurred; effectively enough to, when greater realization is the case, to determine responsible factors for that success; effectively enough to restructure itself so that those success factors play a more central part in its operations. When this is done the system will get better with time.

Conversely, when progressive improvements in teaching/learning are not built in and central, there will not only be an absence of improvement, but, worse yet, there will be meandering progress through unrelated and painful states, e.g., schools as a generic human service organization.

To put it bluntly: Schools are about supporting effective teaching of worthy learning.This is their central purpose. Schools which (a)constantly measure learning and teaching efforts that affect it are off to a good start. Schools which can repeatedly (b) alter teaching/learning conditions so that teaching produces more learning are likely to be excellent on a sustained basis. Formula for schools system unhealth virtual failure: avoid measuring learning and the relation of teaching efforts to it (for any reason you care to name, e.g., 'it's difficult'or 'it's controversial').

• Teaching Effectiveness

The teacher is the central active player in the drama of schooling. We should do everything we can to enlist and support each teacher's full and complete attention on successful teaching. We've already removed the very real concern of insufficiency of funds to support the needs of one's family. (Just and compassionate treatment, above). Now, if we reward meritorious practice--that which realizes teaching goals above and beyond average, we have built in support for and recognition of successful striving. This has to be the main piece of our recognition of quality.

Secondarily, we will recognize effective and loyal support of the system and pay for educational efforts (independent or through a university) which we have cause to believe will allow the teacher to become more effective. Finally, we will release teachers who cannot sufficiently come to terms with their central responsiblity, to teach effectively (see Table 1 for definition).

(Note: In just and compassionate fashion, we will have given 2 years of carefully structured and planned additional support to any 'tenured' tecaher before release. For entering teachers we will have provided that support as a matter of course -- but only for the first year which must be deemed to be effective by the same standards that are applied to any teacher in the system.)

Table 1. Fair Shares Teacher Compensation System (Corning)
In response to Deutsch's questions and as it is compared to
a similar 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)	Yes   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 are covered from the start. Significant support of costs of child raising (up to two children) also provided.   Within context of assignment   No! Paid basic needs( see above)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. That is, if ratio is between 1.2 and 1.4 the boost= 10%, if between 1.4 and 1.6, boost=20%, etc. Boosts are earned for 9 week periods (see prior entry for more details.)   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 (two successive years)at or below a yr to yr ratio of less than .8 will be fired. No!   $750/year in loyal and effective service reward for the first 8 years of service. Accumulates on top of basic needs pay. (However no fixed dollar amount will have a constant, inflation corrected impact.) Alternative: A percent of base pay--say 2--per year as permanent additions as long as you stay with the district. In this particular illustration a teacher who learns the system and stays with it will be rewarded with an additional 16% of the base 'for proven teaching' 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's 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's pay is tied to year to year student growth. The ties or links will vary depending on the processes linking their job functions related to teachers and ultimately to student achievement. No support or leadership personnel will stay in their positions without meeting criteria sanctioned by those who teach. No support or leadership personnel will be employed who haven't proven their year to year teaching effectiveness for at least five years.	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 excludes 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 . if practiced in a significant number of schools, force added 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 first consideration, above and beyond ethical and compassionate treatment of all human beings, is that each client be taught well; given that all else will follow.	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 have had 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.

1. A Just Teacher Pay System (2): Fair Shares. In which I explain my application of Peter Cornng's Fair Shares system to teacher compensation packages. ( (:o[> link being a problem... it will show up as my weblog entry for January 25, 2004.)
2. 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?
3. 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.
4. Justice: A fair distribution of goods and harms (2). Bio-logic. I discuss Peter Corning's Fair Shares approach to the distribution of 'goods'.
5. Justice: A fair distribution of goods and harms (1) John Rawls' approach to defining justice is outlined.
6. 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 third].)
7. 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 and here to see his "Complex Systems" website).
8. Deutsch, Morton (1978), Distributive Justice, Yale University Press, pp 2-4.