Defrost ‘Frozen Assets’

Washington Gov. Chris Gregoire wants to boost education spending by 25 percent, using much of a $1.9 billion surplus. What happens when the money’s gone? In a Spokane Spokesman-Review column, Richard Davis argues for smarter spending of education dollars. He cites the “Frozen Assets” report by Marguerite Roza, a University of Washington and Education Sector researcher.

In her recently released report, Roza looked at eight common provisions of teacher contracts that “obligate schools to spend large amounts of money on programs that lack a clear link to student achievement.” Among them: basing pay raises on years of experience and educational credentials, professional development days, paid sick and personal days, class-size limitations, use of teacher aides, and above-average health and pension benefits. Nationally, these provisions tie up about $77 billion in “frozen assets,” 19 percent of school budgets.

Seniority pay, “a bedrock principle” of industrial unionism, ties up the most money, about 10 percent of school spending, more than half the 19 percent she’d like “repurposed.” Roza says there’s no direct relationship with seniority and classroom effectiveness. Pay may be more productively tied to performance. Similarly, increased compensation for additional education can’t be justified across the board. Master’s degrees in math and science may yield direct benefits, but she finds scant evidence that graduate training in other fields makes much difference.

. . . Thawing these “frozen assets” would allow leaders to redirect the money to programs more likely to improve student achievement. For example, she says schools could boost minimum salaries for teachers, provide bonuses for teaching in low-performing schools or specializing in tough subjects like math and science, invest in new technology, extend the school day or offer Saturday classes.

I think it’s inevitable that soon teachers will be paid more for taking tougher assignments and teaching high-demand subjects. Pay for performance may come too, but it’s much harder to implement well.

About Joanne


  1. not harder to implement — done in the other sectors all the time … and even done in the education setting.

    just harder to overcome the inertia.

  2. Joanne Jacobs wrote:

    What happens when the money’s gone?

    It has to be replaced by more permanent sources of revenue since not doing so would be taking desperately needed funds from a resource-starved public education system. Or something like that.

  3. Miller Smith says:

    Ha! We can’t even get art or spanish teachers to interview for the easy jobs in my county. for the first time in history my county did not fill all of its positions at the beginning of the school year. We never did. We had to collapse classes of kids being run by subs into other classes that had real teachers. We now have students who are behind in credits for graduation.

    If you reduce benifits for people with other options, you will have more of the same. That’s fine by me. I want vouchers. I’ll get rich on vouchers.

  4. The problem is not money. We spend plenty. The problem is the breakdown of the family and the community.

  5. I believe in choice, and competition among schools. I support vouchers.

    But turning teaching into a competition, and teachers into competitors is a recipe for disaster.

  6. Um, did you read the whole report? Some of the frozen assets are actually health and retirement benefits for teachers.

    Yep, she’s right that they aren’t tied to student improvement, but they are expectations of more full time professional employment.

    I think there are some aspects of educational reform that could improve things overall, maybe merit pay versus experience pay, but this frozen assets stuff is largely crap.

    When you look at the salary steps for experience, usually they are about what one could expect at any other professional job for doing a decent job. It averages 2.5% a year, I think.