ShareThis Page
Editorials

Trib editorial: Back-to-the-future teachers contract hinders needed reforms

| Sunday, April 15, 2018, 9:00 p.m.
Metrocreative

Six weeks after a tentative agreement narrowly averted a strike, Pittsburgh Public Schools students, parents and taxpayers finally know details of the district's new, three-year teachers contract. They should not be pleased that it's a victory for union resistance to change in a district that must change to improve academic performance.

Most notably, the deal nixes performance incentives that since 2010 had awarded raises more quickly to teachers who did well on state evaluations, which their union's president dismissed as unfair, inconsistent and ineffective. The superintendent says this contract will help reduce teacher turnover and improve school stability. Indeed it will, but by regrettably restoring the prior status quo — a seniority-based, 12-step pay scale that prizes service time over effectiveness.

Then there's the up-to-15-percent bump in teachers' starting salaries, from about $40,000 to $46,920 this fall and $47,858 in 2019-20; the $95,254 salary atop teachers' pay scale; and raises of at least 2 percent for all teachers. Many district taxpayers can only dream of such compensation.

Their envy may well turn to enmity once this back-to-the-future contract's impact on their school-tax bills becomes clear. And with this contract also hindering reforms needed for academic performance, expect still more city families to look beyond Pittsburgh Public Schools to educate their children.

TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.

click me