Yes We Can build a comprehensive long-term vision for basic education funding while dealing with the current economic crisis in a way that supports school funding.
Two months ago, I went to Olympia to testify before the Basic Ed Funding Task Force. As the proposal was finalized, I was shocked to learn the policymakers had not been more inclusive of the Full Funding Coalition (WEA, AWSP, PSEW, WASA, WSSDA). The members are essential to any education policy decision. What were you thinking?
Last night, I came home from yet another 12-hour day to a slew of emails from my state association against HB 1410/SB 5444. I don’t expect to agree on every topic, but I do expect my association to refrain from setting up win/lose situations, especially on a policy that isn’t a simple, isolated item. These bills are attempting to address deep inadequacies in basic education funding in a comprehensive way. What are you thinking trying to kill them rather then negotiating through their content?
Legislators and union leaders – We Can Do Better! Our students do not need a political battle to the death that leaves them the losers. They need an honest negotiation of a multi-faceted policy.
That’s the most important message I have, but if you’d care to hear more about a few specifics in HB 1410/SB 5444 and the Full Funding Coalition’s bill SB 5607 that will soon be discussed in Olympia, read on.
I’ve spent as much time as a
full-time middle school teacher and doctoral student in the midst of data
analysis possibly could trying to understand and reflect on the work different
policy players have done to address the imperative set out by the legislature
to examine Basic Education Funding. It’s complex. And the issue desperately
needs the voice of thoughtful educators; not distant representatives, or
worse-yet, educators who respond without reading the documents.
Here’s how I tackled them,
looking at two issues I care about: differentiated funding for low-income and
ELL kids and compensation models for teachers.
The HB 1410/SB 5444 per-pupil allocation model spells out that students who are low-income or ELL
will generate dollars based on a lower class size than those students who are
not, and will generate additional hours/days for instruction (p. 15 and p.18). SB 5607 (p. 11 and p. 18) states that the legislature is expected to adopt an
allocation model that “accounts for school size, region,
family income level, and other relevant demographic factors.” My conclusion?
Both bills address the need for differentiated funding. Let’s build negotiation
there. I’m not sure either addresses a big concern for me – how to ensure funds
that go to a district get spent on the students who generate them. I’ll push
again on that one.
HB 1410/SB 5444 rolls out a
whole new way of compensating teachers – based on their experience and
professional growth rather than potentially less relevant education credits. I
like it. The model has three tiers – residency, professional, and master (p.
43). In the translation from draft to legislation language, the proposal lost
its graphic, but you can still see the idea on p. 16 of the task force final report. I do and have worked with a lot of newer teachers and many of them are
just itching for a way to grow that rewards them professionally and
economically. I think this plan does that. I used to wonder about incentives in
education, but in just the past few years, I’ve seen the National Board bonus
spur substantially more interest in my building. I enjoy teaching with teachers
who want to get better at what they do, and I think a professional-based career
ladder will encourage more of them among our ranks. SB 5607 leaves the current
salary schedule pretty much in place. I think we need a change.
I understand that the
legislature can’t just lay out a plan for the future that doesn’t need to be
funded until some date beyond their next election and expect to have the full
support of the working educators. They need to build an economic bridge between
today and the vision. Now.
At the same time, there are
some radical changes in the way we as educators work that need to change if we
are going to grow in our capacity to deliver top-notch education to all of our
students. The opportunity to overhaul the way we look at education and
education funding only comes around every few decades. To do it well will take
the best thinking of accomplished and dedicated educators. Now.
Start this Saturday morning.
Grab a cup of coffee, open HB 1410/SB 5444 and SB 5607, pick a passion, and
carve out a piece of the negotiation. I want to read what my colleagues around
the state think about how the bills address early childhood education, a
special education safety net, professional development, and evaluation of
teachers among other topics. And policymakers will, too. Policymakers, I want
to hear your plans for negotiation. And other educators will, too.
Another wrench to throw in: in the new salary model, what about content areas for which there are no options to certify with National Boards? A colleague of mine teaches Japanese and says that even WLOE wouldn’t include Japanese…there would be no way for her to NB certify in her primary content area (I have not investigated further to verify this). Are there areas which are not “certifiable,” and if so, how would that inequity be addressed?
Thanks for the continued dialogue Becky and Travis. Are there any ways you see melding the current salary with the one proposed in HB 1410/SB 5444? Currently, there are several horizontal lane changes based on education credits and no “markers” within the steps of the vertical continuum of years worked. Would it be possible to maintain the masters degree as a sideways move, but eliminate some of the other credit options?
I also wonder about how a few benefits of the proposed plan might be incorporated: 1. A financial incentive for newer teachers to complete pro-cert (now they have to for their certificate, but without reward which seems quite unfair), 2. A substantial incentive for newer teachers to reach for NB earlier in their careers because they could vertically jump several steps, and 3. NB as a professional standard for teacher leadership. I will elaborate on some of these in a new posting within a few days, but I would encourage you to think if you see possible hybrids that might maintain some of your interest in academic learning and at the same time, promote greater development of practice. At this stage in the game, a specific visual will help policymakers.
@Becky, thanks for the continued thought on this discussion. I like how you saw the master’s as first and NB as a follow up. One more content and theory, the other more applicable to the art of teaching.
Susan wanted to know how other NBCTs feel about their compensation. I, too, am at the end of the salary schedule (both in credits and years) and that coupled with the NB bonus (and the added bonus of working in a high needs school) make my salary respectable. I feel that the Masters program I went through almost 20 years ago gave me a firm theoretical foundation and the NB certification process built upon that. As Travis commented, there is some overlap of the two, but they are different processes and both have high value, particularly if the Masters degree is through a quality institution. I don’t think the state should abolish the current schedule. It’s evident that the bonus has significantly increased the number of teachers seeking NB certification. The value and compensation for both Masters degrees and NB certification need to be maintained. Both bring value and added respect to the profession.
Some thoughts to consider. Received from a colleague (not my words):
HB 1410/SB 5444 eliminates the current salary allocation model.
What does this mean to you? It is hard to say. The current proposal has a “model salary schedule” that contains no salary numbers. What we do know are two things:
· The only way in this model to reach the highest level of pay is to achieve and retain National Board Certification.
· In addition, what is proposed is a “Pay for Performance” model. Initially, this model would only apply to new hires. However, by 2022, all certificated employees would have to transfer to the new model.
HB 1410/SB 5444 severely limits the ability of school boards and local associations to negotiate local salaries (TRI) paid by the school district.
What does this mean to you? Currently your TRI and supplemental pay (the locally bargained money) is comprised of compensation for Time, Responsibility, and Incentive. Under this proposed model we would only be allowed to bargain for additional time. This takes us back to an accounting system of hours and activities that we dismissed in bargaining. There would be no ability to bargain for responsibility or incentive pay. In our current salary schedule, incentive pay accounts for between $4,100 and $5,500. Additionally, these supplemental contracts would need to be renegotiated every year.
HB 1410/SB 5444 replaces the current teacher certification system with a complicated, three-tier system. It also dramatically changes teacher evaluation policies.
What does this mean to you? The ability to bargain an evaluation model and criteria with the district will be gone, as will the due process rights in our contract language.
HB 1410/SB 5444 immediately eliminates I-728 class size reduction funds (also known as the Student Achievement Fund) and eliminates state levy equalization funding from the state – with no guarantee that they will be replaced.
What does this mean to you? The selling point of this legislation is very attractive class size numbers, and a definition of class size as being the actual number of students in your room. But without guaranteed funding, these class sizes are simply numbers on paper. We cannot risk fewer teachers and larger class sizes for our students. We cannot fail to address the most basic needs of kids and schools.
Interestingly, a Master’s and a National Certificate are not the same although they do have some overlap. One is more content, one more the skill of teaching. To see them as the same thing does the other a disservice.
I posted same comments on another post, but find the need to repeat:
What often comes up as a query to this restructuring of education $ whenever it happens and is going to be linked to performance is, What about the SPED teacher? I taught SPED for many years so I can relate. Or what about the severely-profoundly disabled? My father taught that for many years. Will there be adjustments for these sorts of classes? And if so, where is the line drawn? What about the class that is 99.99% some-thing-or-other and does not qualify for the adjustment but really is….? You understand the thinking.
I fid these situations depressing and lack every bit of focus on student learning.
Susan, you make excellent points about salary comparisons to other fields and the value of your own advanced degree work. Like you, I find great value in the learning that stemmed from my master’s degrees. As a perpetual student myself, I feel a little strange promoting a career ladder that doesn’t reward education. However, as I commented on Tom’s post, I worry about the variation in quality of master’s programs and if we are going to include education beyond the bachelor’s in a compensation model, then I’d like a plan to guarantee more uniform quality. I definitely like the idea of National Board being the requirement for designated leadership roles such as mentor/peer evaluator/coach. How do you feel about that?
I’d like to know how you’d design a salary schedule. Do you see keeping the existing model or do you see a way to take the HB1410/SB5444 model and meld it with parts of the current schedule? If so, at what point would it be possible to earn education credits? When moving to professional or master’s level or anytime, but horizontally on the schedule? I’ll pose the same question to Tom, so you might read/contribute to his post as well. (Just a reminder that the visual for the proposed compensation model is in the final task force proposal: http://www.leg.wa.gov/documents/joint/bef/FinalReport.pdf)
Hello–Thanks for the good discussion regarding the new salary allocation model and WEA’s response. As a newly certified NBCT, I feel that the process is one of documenting the work we are doing with kids. That work is largely affected by grad. level education, and for me, at least, I AM a better teacher because of my master’s +200 credit education work. I’m wondering how many NBCT’s have their master’s degrees in a relevant field. I am concerned about replacing higher level education for educators with solely using the certification process. I would be wary of wage comparisons to other fields where graduate level education is not required. I think of myself as a professional, and I highly value my personal education AND my national board certification. For me, at least, I’m glad to have both, as this is a way to feel like a professional, while staying with kids in the classroom, mentoring other teachers, and providing PD for other teachers. Under the proposed new salary allocation model, would pay go up or down? Right now, topping out the education columns plus the state bonus actually provides a respectable salary. How do others in this situation feel?? THANKS, Susan
Mark, thanks for responding. Yes, it is my understanding as well that National Board would be the only way to move from professional to master level, and heard that confirmed by members of the Basic Ed Task Force when they were ironing out the last changes to their proposal. They too, felt, it was the best and fairest method we have available.
Well done, Kelly. I love your focus and your wit. Thank you for taking the time to carefully read these bills and give a cogent and thoughtful response.
Hi Kelly: I too have been thrown off by the association response… it seemed knee-jerk to me: this is a change, resist!! As for the residency/professional/master salary allocation model, would earning NB certification be the only way a teacher would rise to the master tier? It seems like the way the report is written this is the case, but I have not pored over it.
I do like the idea of NBPTS certification being considered an indication of mastery as opposed to relying solely upon in-building administrator assessment, which too me would be far too subjective.