Which would you choose: a modest salary and with modest regular pay raises and a guaranteed position as long as you weren't negligent at your job, or a higher salary and bigger raises in an environment where the people you supervised underwent high-stakes tests every year--and where you underwent annual evaluation (to determine whether you get a raise, retain your job, or are fired) based in part on their performance on the test?

If you were a teacher in the public school system in Washington, DC, this is a choice would may need to make very soon--if contract negotiations with the Washington Teachers' Union proceed as DC schools Chancellor Michelle Rhee hopes.

Rhee is proposing a two-tier contract for teachers in the district. Current teachers may choose the "red plan," which represents the more traditional path of modest salaries and tenure, or the "green plan," which offers higher salaries and raises but a more high-stakes system of a year's probation and annual reviews. Under the green plan, teachers with as little as five years experience could make more than $100,000 per year in salary and bonuses.

You can read more about this initiative and others proposed by Rhee in an article at Fast Company.

Reaction in the blogosphere has been mixed.

Abby Kelton of Reading Education is excited about the plan, yet delineates nicely the reservations of those who are less enthusiastic about it:

This is a gutsy, exciting move and I can't wait to see how it works out. It's often said that the quality of the teacher in the classroom is the greatest predictor of student achievement, yet districts often have little flexibility to fire ineffective teachers. The pay increases would also help attract teachers to the district, increase the prestige of the profession, and keep effective teachers in the district.

Of course, such a dramatic change is inevitably controversial... and rightly so. One concern is whether the funding for this program will be sustainable. The initial funding for the pay increases is coming from private donations; for long-term funding the district is planning to free up funding by reducing inefficiencies in district operations. If this does not free up enough funding it could jeopardize the whole intent of the program to keep excellent teachers in the district. For example, according to the new plan a high-performing teacher in the district can earn up to $130,000/year. Since that teacher does not have tenure even though she is an excellent teacher a cash-strapped district may be tempted to replace her with a less qualified and less expensive teacher. On the other hand, if the district is able to free up that much funding by increasing efficiency of district operations it could provide an excellent model for other districts to adapt.

Another major concern pertains to how the district will evaluate teachers. I've read that it will be according to a variety of factors, but haven't found much detail yet on what those factors would be.

Kelton expresses my concerns exactly. Are teacher evaluations going to be linked uncomfortably closely to students' standardized test scores? How can teachers be sure they won't be dismissed with little provocation because they've become too expensive to the district? Evaluation criteria might shift from year to year, making it difficult for teachers to keep up with whatever standards are current at the time.

Ann Bank of Vox Populi is concerned about reports that some teachers have been paid to lobby for the new contract:

In the midst of contract negotiations between DC Public Schools Chancellor Michelle Rhee and the Washington Teachers’ Union, a group of area business people have taken matters into their own hands by hiring teachers to lobby their fellow educators in favor of Rhee’s plan. Rhee’s green tier/red tier system, which would allow teachers to forgo tenure in favor of merit-based pay raises, was contentious enough without help from this new lobbying group, Strong Schools DC.It makes sense that DC’s business community would want to push for measures that will raise standardized test scores, presumably because better public schools will have a positive effect on property values. But there’s no guarantee that Rhee’s plan will actually raise scores, and it’s sketchy that teachers are being paid to lobby for Rhee because it calls their feelings about the plan into question.

In another post, Bank expresses further reservations:

But the incentives could become coercive for teachers who are struggling financially, and with the termination tear that Rhee is on, making yourself vulnerable is a dangerous game. Not to mention that the system is sure to create divisions between teachers who stick with the old system and those who cross the hypothetical picket line.

DC Teacher Chic reports on a Q & A with Michelle Rhee. Included in the answers are some indications about where the initial funding of the green plan will come from--and how it might be sustained.

What do you think? Which plan would you choose? And do you think the plan favors newer, less experienced teachers over more experienced ones?

Leslie Madsen-Brooks develops learning experiences for K-12, university, and museum clients. She blogs at The Clutter Museum, Museum Blogging, and The Multicultural Toy Box.