Career Ladder, the centerpiece of Utah's education reform movement of the mid-1980s, gets mixed reviews from the teachers it was designed to assist.
Career Ladder provides from several hundred dollars up to $5,000 - an average $2,000 per teacher - in additional salary, through added preparation days, educational expansion opportunities and pay for extra work.In a Deseret News survey to which 104 teachers responded, 52 said the program should be retained; 48 said it should be abolished. (Figures did not always add up to 104 since not all teachers answered every question.)
But if they had the option of getting rid of the program while retaining the funds for an across-the-board increase, there is an unmistakable majority opinion: 66 said they would prefer that approach, compared with 29 who said no. Some who indicated they want the program continued said they do so grudgingly solely because it is the only way they can add to their salaries.
If the Career Ladder money were shifted to the basic education fund, as the majority propose, teachers could lose money from their salaries, rather than gain it, said Kolene Granger, associate state superintendent of education. In the general budget, it would be available for other educational purposes, and teachers might or might not see it added to their salaries.
Critics say the program pits teachers against one another, creates "Mickey Mouse" projects that don't add to the quality of education and denies teachers the dignity of being paid an adequate salary up front. Those who favor the program argue that it recognizes and rewards teachers who perform beyond the basic level and enriches education through special projects paid for with Career Ladder funds.
The extra preparation days provided by Career Ladder are almost universally hailed by teachers as an advantage. But the performance bonus portion of the program has little support. The idea originally was to provide a kind of "merit pay" to teachers who performed well, but dissenters lambaste it as a "poor way to reward good teachers"; "demeaning, demoralizing and debasing"; "busy work"; and "the worst thing that has happened to education since I've been a teacher (25 years)."
Competition for Career Ladder money has intensified as funding from the state has remained stagnant for several years, said Cristi Denler, state office coordinator. The program was initially funded at $15.3 million and has twice been increased. However, since 1986, no money has been added, while the number of teachers in the state has increased. Coupled with inflation and the rising experience level of Utah's teaching pool, the stagnation means that some teachers actually are receiving less from Career Ladder now than they did at the inception of the program.
Some districts have reduced the number of extended preparation days to accommodate their shrinking Career Ladder allocations, Denler said.
The Utah Education Association has made increased funding one of its objectives for the 1991 legislative session.
The Deseret News survey indicated that evaluation of teachers is one of the sticky problems some see with Career Ladder. In districts in which the evaluation is performed solely by a principal, the potential for favoritism or for "vendettas" increases, respondents said. Many districts have developed evaluation instruments that involve peers, parents and in some instances even students, and in these districts there appears to be less discontent.
From Granger's perspective, the imposition of teacher evaluation is a plus. "It has created an evaluation system for a number of staff who have never had an opportunity to be evaluated," she said. While evaluation by its nature may be uncomfortable, it helps individuals see their weaknesses and strengths, she said. A change authorized by the 1991 Legislature will allow groups of teachers to collaborate on performance bonus projects, possibly lessening competitive attitudes, she said.
Denler said as she reviews the district Career Ladder plans, she finds many educational innovations being financed by the additional money.
"There are some great things happening out there," she said. Some districts have used the funds creatively to achieve particular curriculum objectives, upgrade teacher training or shore up educational weak spots.
Utah's Career Ladder program might have had smoother sailing if districts had had more time initially to develop their plans, said Larry Horyna, project assistance services coordinator. The program went into effect the fall after legislation was passed, giving districts scant time to design their Career Ladder programs, he said.
Now, after several years, there is more stability, and strong programs have emerged in some districts to set a pattern for others, Horyna said.
A statewide program would have defeated the concept of local control, Granger said.
While the Legislature set some general guidelines for dividing Career Ladder money among the various parts of the program, there is considerable difference from one district to the next.
For example, Alpine District's plan includes four career levels, and a teacher can reach the top in six years, receiving a $1,500 stipend; 79 percent of the district's teachers participate in the performance bonus component, at an average additional income of $250.
Beaver, the next district alphabetically, has five career levels, and reaching the top level, where a $1,000 stipend is offered, requires 20 years; only 34 percent of the district's teachers participate in performance bonus, with an average award of $1,090.
While the controversy over Career Ladder continues, Granger said, "We are moving in the right direction. We haven't arrived yet, but we're moving to provide good evaluation, more professionalization of teachers and differentiated staffing" - all goals of educational restructuring in the state.
(Additional information)
Thumbs down
Career Ladder is an "educational fiasco whose time, we can hope, will be mercifully short," says Rob Bishop, a teacher who also is a Utah legislator from Brigham City.
He calls it an ill-conceived program that does nothing to elevate the status of teachers or improve education for children.
Career Ladder has "stolen money from other needy (educational) programs," Bishop said, including such priority items as class-size reduction, textbooks and supplies and, ironically, overall salary increases. At the same time, there is no measurable positive result, he said.
For the period from 1983-89, the Legislature appropriated about 24 percent more education money. But with an inflation factor of 10 percent, teacher salaries increased by only 6.9 percent. "Even though there was double the money, only half of it was seen by teachers as salary," Bishop said. The program promotes unfair and unequal distribution of additional money.
The merit pay program (performance bonus) has never been favored by teachers, he said, and the only districts where it is popular are those where the money has simply been divided among teachers equally - tantamount to the pay raise he would prefer.
"We should pay teachers a decent salary and expect them to do it (Career Ladder job enhancement work) as part of the job," he said.
The qualities of good teaching are so abstract as to defy evaluation, Bishop said, and Career Ladder has the weakness of rewarding many teachers who may not be doing any better work than others who do not benefit from the extra money.
Reports of "under the table" rewards to teachers are not uncommon, and there is no reporting requirement to prevent abuses.
The Legislature hoped to accomplish several things with Career Ladder, Bishop said. "It was supposed to improve morale, cut moonlighting, improve the salary base and attract brighter people into the profession. None of that has come true. They don't even talk about it any more."
"The philosophy is faulty. It supposes that if you dangle some money in front of a teacher, he will jump higher and harder. Teachers don't go into the profession for money. It's an insulting attitude to me as a teacher."
(Additional information)
Thumbs up
Davis, a special education teacher at Highland High, has been a teacher leader in Salt Lake School District for five years and has been the district's Career Ladder representative at state conferences.
Her numerous duties relate specifically to special education. She is a team leader at her school, meets with district officials on special-education issues, disseminates information, works and consults on new programs, coordinates programs for students needing special education services, presents workshops, trains other teachers and administers student surveys.
In the Salt Lake District, she said, the program has focused on ways teachers can improve their teaching through annual inservice training. Among subjects aimed at increased teacher effectiveness have been the elements of lesson design, motivation, task analysis, reinforcement, transfer and different student learning styles.
During the 1989-90 school year, district teachers learned about creative thinking skills. A before-school workshop looked at how to create an environment for creative thinking and some creative-thinking skills.
"One of the good things that came from career ladder programs is that teachers are evaluated by their administrators. It does two things: It encourages teachers to be better organized and encourages administrators to be in the classroom, observing teachers and how they interact with students. I think this is improving teaching. That's the goal; that's what it is all about.
"I put in hundreds of extra hours doing things I wouldn't normally do that are extra work," said Davis. The Career Ladder money is incentive to do the extra work.
While only a certain number of teachers are able to participate in the performance bonus part of Career Ladder in Salt Lake District, everyone benefits to some degree because of the extra six days allowed for preparation. Even the critics don't want the extra days to disappear, she said.
She suggests that the Utah Legislature, if it considers changes, "should give the districts the money with fewer strings attached and encourage the districts to be more creative in finding how the money could best be utilized. It should be a district issue, not a legislative issue."
(Additional information)
The Deseret News sent questionnaires regarding perceptions about the state's Career Ladder program to 250 teachers randomly selected from the Utah Education Association's membership list; 104 were returned, representing 26 of the state's 40 districts.
Of those responding, 51 were elementary school teachers; 21 junior or middle high school; and 27 high school. Fifty-seven said they were the primary breadwinner in their family, while 44 said their family had more than one wage-earner. (Numbers do not always total 104 as some teachers did not answer all questions.)
Should the Career Ladder program be retained or abolished?
Retain 54 Abolish 48
Would you prefer that the Career Ladder money be put into salary increases?
Yes 66 No 29
Income from Career Ladder:
8 $0 15 $2,000-2,999
18 $1-999 2 $3,000-3,999
59 $1,000-1,999 2 $4,000-plus
Effect on student education:
Strong positive 29 mild positive 36 improves relationships 21
strong negative 6 no effect 28
Effect on relationships among teachers and effect on morale:
Creates problems 49 no effect 36 improves relationships 21
Effect on teacher morale:
Better morale 37 worse morale 50 neutral 13
Overall experience:
Positive 41 negative 42 neutral 17
Deseret News graphic
Reactions to Career Ladder program
Greatly Dissatisfied No Satisfied Greatly
dissatisfied feeling satisfied
Overall 20 27 9 28 17
Extended day 6 5 7 16 69
Job enlargement 30 12 21 18 19
Performance bonus 35 14 18 12 24
Ladder levels 27 13 19 12 24