Huffman Will Reduce Teacher Pay. Tomorrow.

Tennessee Department of Education Commissioner Kevin Huffman says that he values teachers and the work that they do.  Commissioner Huffman wants to "re-structure" compensation systems so that the "best" teachers make the "most" money.  We "of course" want to "attract" and "retain" the best teachers.

According to the Commercial Appeal, the Tennessee Board of Education is poised to, TOMORROW, adopt the recommendation of Commissioner Huffman to reduce teacher salaries across the board.  The Memphis Daily News also covers the story (no paywall).  Here's a link to the old salary schedule - from the choices on the right, select 2012-13 for the most recent salary listings.  Here's a link to the salary schedule that will go into effect on July 1, if the state Board of Ed approves it tomorrow.  Under the proposal, the top step, which maxes out in Year 11 and an "advanced degree," is $40,310.  The current schedule differentiates among the advanced degrees, and maxes out at Year 20 and a doctorate with $54,105.

Thankfully, the Commercial Appeal has done the math (or asked other people to do the math) for us:  "The Tennessee Education Association estimated that over a 30-year career (the minimum required for full retirement benefits in Tennessee), the aggregate missed earnings is $69,025 for teachers with master’s degrees, $145,960 for those with master’s plus 30 years, $200,705 for those with education specialist degrees and $319,855 for those with doctorates."  The article also explains that "Clay, Hancock and Pickett counties pay at the minimum; 20 districts pay within 2 percent of the minimum and about half pay within 10 percent."  By my math, that means that more than 30 of the 135 districts in the state pay more than ten percent above the pay schedule - Memphis and Shelby County were both in that group of comparatively high compensation districts.

Commissioner Huffman will be the first to tell you that this change to the salary schedule does not require that local school boards adopt this minimum level of compensation.  It only sets the floor, and it cannot affect anyone who is already employed by the system.  My guess is also that Huffman would tell us that he encourages local school systems to exceed the minimum standards in order to "attract" and "retain" the "best" teachers.  He could encourage them to do that by not lowering the minimum levels of compensation, but he would rather just verbally and philosophically (and hypothetically) encourage them to do something in the future

But we all know what happens when the floor is lowered, right?  We're seeing it right now as plans for the merger progress and are implemented.  On the Transition Planning Commission's recommendation, many aspects of educational services, from class size limits to assistant principals, are being adjusted to the state's minimum requirements.  And the community is accepting and supportive of these reductions, no?

The basics of this is that the current talking points of the reform movement say that when teachers get their master's degrees or other advanced degrees, that the degrees do not lead to increased student achievement, and that years of experience in the classroom also do not lead to increased student achievement.  Therefore, teacher pay should not reward getting older and going to school.  In this discussion, we also usually hear from someone in the "private sector" who says "I don't get a raise every year" and "I don't get paid unless I do my job".  This is easily refuted by even simple television sitcoms like The Office, and of course, the unfortunate statistics regarding US productivity and consumer spending and debt levels.  But whatever.  Experienced, highly educated teachers just simply are not worth their weight in gold according to Governor Haslam's Education Department.

But let's say that what I call "talking points", you call "facts".  Perhaps my "evidence" regarding fictional television shows isn't "compelling".  Commissioner Huffman is still being sneaky.

Also according the Commercial Appeal's Richard Locker, "the governor two years ago proposed a bill to eliminate the state minimum salary schedule and leave pay fully up to local school boards. [Then] Haslam pulled the bill after lawmakers, including leaders of the Republican majority, opposed the idea.  Huffman submitted the new plan as a rule change to the appointed State Board of Education in April as the legislature was adjourning for the year. The Board approved it on the first of two required readings on April 19. The second and final vote is set for Friday."  It is worth noting that even with a Republican Super-Majority, this proposal was not a legislative priority of the Education Department.  Either that, or the Commissioner couldn't get anyone to carry the bill. 

There are at least a couple of levels of sneakiness here.  Not only is there the avoidance of the (Republican super-majority) legislature that would likely (okay, possibly) decline to adopt such a dramatic reduction in teacher pay, but there's the fundamental change in philosophy behind the unfortunate salary schedule being pushed through merely as a "rule change" by an unelected state board.  Commissioner Huffman, along with those who tell him that he's right, often believe that elected officials just won't make the hard education policy decisions because they might lose the next election.  That's not really a view that supports a democratic system of government, but that is the approach being taken here:  couldn't do it in the legislature, so let's still make it happen even though it couldn't happen in the legislature because Tennesseans don't want it. 

This is also a state board that apparently is not considering whether to adopt minutes from the last meeting, so there's no draft of the minutes to review in order for the public to understand who was present, and who voted which way.  Following the minimum rules of Tennessee transparency, and providing the public with as little information as possible . . .

If you'd like to know more about the Tennessee Board of Ed, here's the link.  Our representative from Memphis (the 9th Congressional district, anyway) is Teresa Sloyan, the Executive Director of the Hyde Family Foundations. 

If you'd like to email them your views, you can just cut and paste this list:

frolston@ecu.org, medwards@knoxvillechamber.com, lroberts@trh.com, cpearre@comcast.net,  jarogersod@bellsouth.net, ayers.janet@gmail.com, wrightmelvindds@bellsouth.net,  teresa.sloyan@gmail.com, richard.rhoda@tn.gov

The Third District representative does not have an email address listed, and there is no information about the student member of the Board.

Please take a moment to send a note to these appointees to let them know that you support teachers, and that you oppose the reduction in pay for Tennessee's teachers.

If you can't get past the Commercial Appeal paywall, try these links to the story in other publications:
Chattanooga Times Free Press
The Leaf Chronicle
KnoxNews

Here's the TEA's notice about the salary reduction.

MEA and SCEA Working for ALL Teachers

In an earlier post, I drew attention to the agenda for tomorrow night's Special Call Shelby County School Board meeting.  I said that some committee was scheduled to be appointed.

Well, thank goodness Michael Kelley explained what the Committee is about.  Mr. Kelley writes that, "Also on the board's agenda for Thursday is its first step in the implementation of the Professional Educators Collaborative Conferencing Act of 2011, the state law that effectively stripped teachers of their ability to bargain collectively for wages and benefits.  Responding to a petition from the Memphis Education Association [union] and Shelby County Education Association [non-union] calling for collaborative conferencing, the board is expected to approve the appointment of a special question committee, composed of board and professional employees, to conduct a confidential poll of eligible employees.  The poll will determine whether a majority of employees want to engage in the process and, if so, what organization they want to be represented by at the talks."

I haven't read the statute yet, but I wonder if MEA and SCEA are in competition with each other to be designated as "the organization" that will engage in the collaborative conferencing.  My understanding is that first a certain threshold of teachers have to vote in favor of engaging in the process, then another certain threshold of teachers has to vote in favor of a particular organization.  So maybe both organizations can get a seat at "the table"?  Sounds like MEA and SCEA are merging and are not in competition with each other, based on comments below . . .

Of course, the district can choose to acknowledge what happens at "the table" or not.  It's not an actual negotiation.  We'll see how it goes.  But MEA and SCEA are engaging in the process that the state legislature has allowed them to engage in, and that's good news for teachers given the current environment.

I'll be interested to see what happens in any possible muni school districts.  Will several more education associations crop up?  Will the two big ones combine and end up in all Shelby County districts?  Both have their strengths and weaknesses, but they are the current options.

This article reminded me that SCEA and MEA are also busy in federal court.  The background is that the Norris-Todd statute set forward certain obligations for the TPC.  Among them is a requirement that the TPC not recommend that any current compensation (salary schedule) or benefits to which current teachers are currently entitled be diminished as part of the merger.  Well, that's not exactly what the statute says, but that's how the TPC interpreted it.  But that's a separate post on some other day.  The point is that for current teachers, their salary schedule and benefits cannot be diminished due to the merger.

So the question has come up about whether current teachers have similar protection from salary reductions in any municipal school districts that may arise - whether an English teacher at Collierville High School will make the same amount of money if CHS transitions out SCS into the Collierville School District.  I can't find any articles (right this second) (but will keep looking) that support this, but I know of one municipal mayor that has openly stated that teacher salaries in that municipality will likely be less than the current SCS salary schedule.  However, the general talking point has been that "of course, current salaries will be matched - we want the current teachers to stay in the same buildings that they currently teach in - it would not be in our interest to try to pay them less."  The back-up to that argument is that "well, even if salaries are slightly reduced, the teachers love teaching here so much that it won't matter and they'll still be grateful to work here."  I don't know if any public official has said this, but that's how conversations I've had have evolved, and is in many of the comments sections on the articles on this issue.

But the question is whether there is any statutory protection.  On the first day of the federal trial, during questioning of Tennessee Department of Education Commissioner Kevin Huffman, attorneys referenced a deposition of another TN Dept. of Ed. employee, Stephen Smith.  In that deposition, Stephen Smith stated that for any possible municipal school districts, there was no legal obligation on the part of the municipal school district to match salary or compensation.  Commissioner Huffman tried to walk that statement back while he was on the stand, but the issue was not resolved.

SCEA and MEA were parties to the original litigation in federal court, but have played very little role in the courtroom proceedings.  But this new request - to file another complaint in the existing litigation - is notable.  It's unlikely that Judge Mays would rule on this as part of his municipal schools decision, but Judge Mays has also made up his own procedural rules (with the consent of the parties, of course) as this case has progressed.  So who knows.  But I think that SCEA and MEA are correct to try to litigate this issue on the front end, rather than the back end of setting up municipal school districts, just in case Judge Mays allows the districts to form.

Seems to me the height of unfairness to hold the larger, urban district with existing financial problems to a higher standard due to the merger - without also holding any potential municipal school districts to the same standard, when they are also only a result of the merger.  If the merger is a reason to protect teachers, then let's protect teachers.

UPDATE:  Jackson Baker writes about MEA President Keith Williams.  He seems surprisingly optimistic about the collaborative conferencing process, and unsurprisingly distrusts Stand for Children and Teach for America.  Mr. Williams suggests that there will be "unitary" teachers' organization once the merger occurs.

How Well Do We Value National Board Certified Teachers?

Recently-named Tennessee Teacher of the Year Allyson Chick is a National Board Certified Teacher ("NBCT").  School districts often mention how many NBCTs they have as a point of pride.  In order to become board-certified, candidates engage in an intensive, expensive process that may take as long as three years to complete. 

I posted about Ms. Chick first so that I wouldn't clutter her "Kudos" with this discussion.  And really, the title is misleading - there's a local debate on this subject (referenced in the title) and a national debate on this subject.  The national debate would be better described as "Should We Value National Board Certified Teachers?"

As part of the TPC work, BCG compiled the "current state" of teacher selection, staffing, compensation, benefits, evaluation, tenure, dismissal, and promotion.  On Page 41 of this 84-page report, BCG summarizes how MCS and SCS compensate teachers for achieving the NBCT designation, along with several other non-classroom activities.  Turns out that there's a big difference between how the two districts compensate their NBCT's.

SCS has about 10 NBCT's, and pays them an additional $2,000/year.

MCS has about 170 NBCT's, and pays them based on their years of experience.  Teachers with five years or less are paid an additional $5,000/year.  Teachers with 6-10 years of experience receive an additional $6,000/year.  Teachers with more than ten years of experience are paid an additional $10,000/year.

So that's one way to figure out how well we value NBCT's - you know, with actual money. 

Since it costs $2,500 for the "Assessment Fee" after the $565 for an "Initial" fee and an "Application" fee, an SCS teacher would have to work for two years before they see that money reimbursed in their additional pay.  MCS teachers see more than a return on their investment in the first year that they are certified.  And, of course, there's a disparity between MCS and SCS - a disparity that means that a MCS NBCT with 4 years of experience gets more than double the increase as an SCS NBCT with ten years of experience.

Another way to figure out how well we value NBCT's is to compare the additional compensation that NBCT's receive with the additional compensation that teachers receive for other activities.  Like, say, coaching.

If you are an athletic coach in MCS, you receive between $179 and $3,563 per year.  However, if you are an SCS athletic coach, you receive between $470 and $4,100 per year.  Both districts base their ranges on the sport and the teacher's years of experience.

In summary, an SCS athletic coach for the highest paid sport with the most years of experience will make more than twice in additional compensation as a NBCT than an SCS NBCT with 11 years of experience.  In MCS, all NBCT's make more in additional compensation than any coach.

Consider that the "how well we value NBCT's" discussion is against the backdrop of increasing student achievement, and basing teacher evaluation on student achievement scores.  Ms. Chick is an NBCT and has received the highest teacher rating (a "5") in her evaluations.  Without getting into a whole thing about the evaluation system, in order to get a "5", Ms. Chick's students are making more than one year's progress in an academic year (well, at least as predicted by a proprietary, secret logarithm based on student performance on a standardized test).  We, as a community, are trying to make sure that every classroom in MCS and SCS has a highly effective teachers.  Based on the selectivity of the process and the rigorous assessments that must be passed by the candidates, my guess would be that NBCT's are among the most highly effective teachers in classrooms.

Which brings us to the second, national debate.  The national debate has to do with whether achieving NBCT status is so desirable that it should merit additional compensation - against the background of proposed new compensation structures based on student achievement.  That is, whether NBCT's increase student achievement, and at a higher rate than non-NBC teachers.  This article from March 2011 touches on the debate - mentioning a 2008 study that found that the certification process successfully identifies good teachers, while noting mixed evidence that the process itself actually improves a teacher's practice.  The article discusses a debate in Washington state about NBCT's, but comes out squarely on the side of the certification being a desired credential worth additional compensation.  The debate was about how to make sure that "challenging" schools had equitable numbers of NBCT's.

If you extrapolate out the proposed new compensation structures (and I'm really talking about the national movement on that front, though the TPC does have some local thoughts about teacher compensation, generally) - the idea would be that NBCT's would not receive additional compensation from completing the certification.  Instead, where NBCT's actually increase student achievement, they would be receiving increased compensation anyway.  But the NBCT status would not lead to a bump on its own.

This 2011 John's Hopkins study found that "[a]lthough the process of NBC is an expensive, demanding, and time-consuming process for the teachers who undertake it, it appears that the benefits for our school systems, and thus for our students and communities, outweigh the costs. Given that our results suggest that the percentage of NBCTs has a campus-wide effect on student achievement, future studies should investigate this pattern further."  Here's a summary of the opposing position - in an article cheekily titled "Defrocking the National Board" from 2000.

Here's where I come out:  I think the national board certification process is a useful exercise.  In fact, calling it a "useful exercise" is kind of disrespectful to my friends that just about killed themselves for more than one academic year in order to obtain the certification.  My friends are obviously biased, but I think the process has made them better professionals.  They can talk and critically think about their practice in the classroom in a more analytical way that can only benefit the students they teach.  In terms of student achievement, I don't believe that standardized tests measure much of anything other than how well a student knows (or can guess) (or can regurgitate while not "knowing") a particlar concept - not how well that concept was taught by the student's teacher, or even whether it was taught.  So I'm not convinced that the student achievement measures - and particularly, the value-added measures that are currently so in vogue - are really a fair measure of teacher achievement (at teaching) in the classroom.  All of that said, my belief is that going through the NBC process and successfully achieving certification is an appropriate and desirable result on its own, and worthy of additional compensation on a yearly, go-forward basis.

My sense is that SCS is too low, but that MCS may actually be too high on a sustainable, ongoing basis (though I'm happy to entertain the position that even MCS is not paying enough, if anyone would like to make the argument).  The district could consider just reimbursing (or paying outright) for the process, with lower additional compensation/year.  But because of the importance of a teacher's practice in the classroom, the academic education of students being the primary goal of the compulsory attendance rules for elementary and secondary school - under no circumstances should an athletic coach receive more additional compensation than a teacher with a National Board Certification.

So maybe the merged district would start with how much it values its most experienced football and basketball coaches at its schools with the most prominent programs.  Put a dollar value on that for additional compensation per year.  That should be your starting point for your least experienced National Board Certified Teachers.  You know, if better classroom practice and more highly qualified professionals are your goal.

For any NBCT/athletic coaches, THAT could be some serious coin . . .