By Tom
Thing are heading into the homestretch in Olympia. There’s sure to be a special session in which the House, Senate and Governor’s office hash out a final budget for the next two years.
No one’s going to be happy with the final outcome. That’s for sure. But depending on who prevails, there may be less unhappiness in the area of K-12 education.
Personally, I’m pulling for the House.
First of all, Washington State invested a lot of time, money and effort on National Board Certification as an effective school reform initiative. It’s been growing steadily for the past ten years, to the point where our National Board system is the envy of the nation. National Board Certification is supported by research as an effective way to increase teacher capacity and student learning. It works.
The Governor’s budget suspends both the base pay for NBCTs and the challenging schools bonus. The Senate’s budget retains the bonus, but only for the first three years of certification. The House budget retains the entire bonus system, but moves the next payment from November of this year to July of next year, effectively suspending the bonus for one year. (The Senate budget also does this.)
Looking at the three budgets in regards to the damage they would do to our state’s National Board system, the House has the clear advantage.
Looking at the broader picture, both branches propose eliminating funding for lower K-4 class sizes. Additionally, the House budget would freeze salary step increases next year to save $56 million. The Senate budget has a 3% salary reduction to save $261 million. The Governor’s budget does neither of these and she has also spoken out against the Senate’s salary cut.
Again, the House budget seems to be a little less harsh on its impact on education. I hope they prevail.
Go House!
It’s not always easy to reconcile the requirements and budgetary needs of the population. Esperont everyone has the budget to his house;)
The government has already said she does not support it, especially because it will effectively shift the burden to reduce wages in the districts, that is with them that teachers accept the conditions, and most districts have already agreed to their contracts.
My salary drops, too. I’d get mad about it, but I’m more mad at the continued waste I see in education in general – bad construction decisions, paying waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaayyy too much for things like lightbulbs being changed, weird satellite employees who are supposed to do something in HR or Professional Development or curriculum development or whatever – the evidence of whose worth I never see.
I’m for the house, too, but it’s the lesser of two evils.
Yikes, Mark. I think I’m in about the same boat. I honestly don’t think the 3% pay cut will happen. The Governor has already said she won’t support it, mostly because it will effectively pass the burden of cutting salaries onto the districts, since it is with them that teachers agree to terms, and most districts have already agreed to their contracts. In other words, it would be a huge mess.
I did the math. My pay will be 16% lower next year than it was supposed to be, if all this shakes out “not in our favor.” That seems like I’m being punished for something. Sixteen percent less compensation, and likely larger class sizes.
I’ve said before on this site that teacher pay is one of those issues which I tend to get less fired up about now than I used to… even stating my own willingness to forego the stipend or accept a reduced stipend.
That was until I did the math. When I look at what my salary likely would be next year, I think back and the last time I made the same amount per year, I had to work evenings teaching at a for-profit and now defunct “learning center” for a pittance just to make ends meet (and never see my family…)
I already know of two other teachers who either have interviewed with private sector non-Education jobs or plan to…and one more who has an offer on the table. All three are top tier teachers about to bail. They see the writing on the wall, each has said.
If the budget cuts salaries by 3% AND eliminates the NBCT stipend (which is written into the salary scale – they take my retirement and benefits out of it – and don’t forget my WEA dues) won’t we be taking on a greater burden than those who have chosen not to go through the process yet? This hardly seems just and turns a back to the very reform that is being asked of educational professionals.