Dear Editor,
Last month you ran a story about the school board’s actions to grant Morgan Hill Unified School District Superintendent Alan Nishino a pay increase. The superintendent was quoted as saying that his raise is the only one in the district which is based on merit, rather than longevity, because it required a performance rating by the board of at least “satisfactory.”
With less than a year on the job, I guess the superintendent would not qualify for much of a raise based on longevity. But as a teacher of 20-plus years in the district, I resent the implication that my own raises, and those of my many colleagues who have also devoted their professional careers to the district’s children, have been based simply on showing up for work year after year.
Teachers, too, receive performance reviews. They are called evaluations. They are conducted annually until a teacher receives permanent status (usually in the third year of employment), and they continue to be conducted every other year thereafter. While a teacher’s salary is not based directly on the outcome of the evaluation, his/her longevity is. A teacher with a less than “satisfactory” evaluation undergoes an improvement program and returns to annual evaluations. Two consecutive “unsatisfactory” evaluations result in dismissal.
Community members may also find it interesting that a teacher who works in this district for 30 years, receiving “satisfactory” or “outstanding” evaluations throughout, is eligible for a top salary that is roughly one third of the superintendent’s salary as he enters his second year.
Jeanie Wallace, Morgan Hill
Staff representative of the Morgan Hill Federation of Teachers
