Heres an update on the teacher pay raise bill, starting from the beginning. 1. In early February, the House passed HB 504, which provided the following raises: FY 2015 - $1000 raise FY 2016 - $500 raise FY 2017 - $1350 (if the state has 3% growth in general fund) FY 2018 - $1400 (if the state has 3% growth in general fund) Another caveat was that teachers with less than five years experience would automatically receive the raise. Teachers with more than five years experience would have to meet at least 3 of 22 benchmarks. All in all, the Houses original position was a commitment of $4250 over 4 years, totaling $180 million. 2. Last week, the Senate passed its version of HB 504, which revised the raise to the following: CY 2014 - $1500 raise CY 2015 - $1000 raise 2016 and beyond - raises would move to an entirely merit-based system. A school would receive $100 per child if the school maintained an A rating or moved up one letter grade in its accountability rating. If the school maintained a B rating, the school would receive $75 per child. A committee of teachers and staff at each school would determine how the money would be spent- either on salary supplements or for educational equipment and materials. Overall, the Senate plan is a commitment of around $105 million over 2 years, with the rest subject to appropriation in later years. So heres a quick analysis of both plans. And after watching some of the initial posts from the Capitol, I think its important to approach the issue rationally and without finger-pointing. First of all, give credit to the Senate for bringing forth a plan. Many thought the Lt. Governor would balk at the idea of a teacher pay raise, but he did not; and in true Reeves style, he thought it through and presented a product that has advanced the conversation. Here is what I have heard from teachers and other policymakers. Advantages of the Senate plan: - more money on the front end ($2500 vs. the Houses $1500) - no benchmarks to meet (everyone gets the same raise regardless of experience) Disadvantages of the Senate plan: - in Year 3, the state goes to a merit-based system that rewards teachers at good schools - anything Year 3 and beyond is subject to appropriation - even if a school qualifies for the per student supplement, there is no guarantee that the teachers at the school receive the money (again, the school committee of teachers and staff make the decision) Advantages of the House plan: - more overall money on the table ($4250 vs the Senates $2500) Disadvantages of the House plan: - benchmarks (more hoops to jump through) for teachers with more experience - less money on the front end - raises in years 3 and 4 depend on 3% growth in the general fund, which is projected (though never guaranteed) 3. So what happened after the Senate version of HB 504 came back to the House? As with any bill, when it leaves one chamber and is changed in the other chamber, it comes back for either Concurrence or Nonconcurrence. In this case HB 504 left the House, was amended in the Senate and came back. If the House voted to Concur with the Senate amendments, the bill would go straight to the Governor for his approval. If the House voted to not concur, but instead Invite Conference, the bill would then go to a conference committee (made up of 3 representatives and 3 senators) for further negotiation. Yesterday, the House voted to Invite Conference. And while I do not aim this at any other legislator or party, I believe inviting conference was the right thing to do. Heres why. In my legislative district (90% of which is in Hattiesburg Public School District), five of the six elementary schools are ranked C or below: Hawkins, Woodley, Grace Christian, Lillie Burney and Rowan. This also applies to Hattiesburg High. Under the Senate plan, teachers at these schools would not qualify for raises in Year 3 and beyond- because they do not meet the A or B rating requirement. To qualify, they would have to move up a letter grade. Keep in mind, there are amazing teachers at each of these schools. There are great principals at these schools. If you know the Hawkins and Woodley stories, remember that they have made remarkable jumps in the last three years. Quite frankly, I expect these two to make it to B status very soon. However, at this point, they would not qualify for Year 3 raises under the Senate plan. In my opinion, under the Senate plan, in Year 3 and beyond, we would create a system that would incentivize good teachers to leave traditionally low-performing schools- because they would be at a competitive disadvantage when it comes to pay raises. Indeed, we need a system that rewards good teachers for staying at schools that traditionally have had challenges. Furthermore, there is no guarantee that the money awarded in Year 3 and after to high performing schools will go to the teachers themselves. The Senate plan leaves this decision to a committee of teachers and staff, who can either award it to teachers or use it for educational materials. While the bulk of this would probably go to teachers, it is not guaranteed in the Senate plan. However, I also recognize (and I believe House leadership recognizes) that the good parts of the Senate plan should be used. Front-loading the raise to $2500 during the first two years makes sense. Eliminating the benchmarks for more experienced teachers makes sense. But lets also keep the overall commitment at $4250 over 4 years (instead of just the Senates $2500). Lets also recognize that a merit-based system, like the one proposed in Year 3 of the Senate plan, might not be the best idea for school districts like mine. In the end, I believe a solid compromise will include good parts of both plans. It might take this form: 2014 - $1500 raise 2015 - $1000 raise 2016 - $1000 raise (if the state sees 3% growth in general fund) 2017 - $750 raise (if the state sees 3% growth in general fund) No benchmarks. No imperfect merit system. Hopefully, after the initial political spinning stops in a few days, the House and Senate can arrive at a final compromise product similar to the above. As always, feel free to contact me if you have questions or concerns.
Posted on: Thu, 13 Mar 2014 11:31:53 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015