The Tennessee State Board of Education met today and gave approval on first reading to two proposals that essentially mandate teacher merit pay starting in the 2014-15 school year.
The first proposal, effective in the 2013-14 year, removes the automatic step increases now mandated for each additional year of service. Instead, teachers would earn a mandated base salary plus an additional amount in years 1-5, 6-10, and 11-15. Teachers with an advanced degree would earn a higher additional amount in essentially the same time blocks. Here are the details.
This proposal is somewhat similar to the pay plan adopted last year by Metro Nashville Public Schools that front-loaded pay, making starting salaries about $6000 higher and raising pay for most all teachers in the system, but capping any years of service increases at year 15.
The plan guarantees that no teacher may see their salary go down as a result of the adoption of this pay plan. Some teachers, however, would likely be at or above the new mandated ranges and so may not see any pay increases for a few years, depending on how their local school systems handle the pay issue.
The idea is to free up funds currently used for step increases for teachers so those funds may be used to differentiate pay among teachers.
To that end, the Board adopted another proposal effective in 2014-15. It mandates that all systems develop a differentiated pay plan to be approved by the Department of Education. The plan is to be merit-based and essentially must depend on either 1) filling hard to staff schools or hard to fill subjects and/or 2) rewarding performance as determined by the state’s new and ever-evolving teacher evaluation system.
Aside from the fact that performance pay doesn’t seem to work that well, there’s no indication of how districts will locate the funds necessary to make these pay adjustments work. That is, aside from the funds that may be freed up from ending mandatory step increases, there’s no movement to add state funds to the pot to allow for significant incentives. In fact, the base pay plan adopted by the Board simply doesn’t go far enough toward establishing an effective base. Moving the base closer to $40,000 is part of an education agenda designed to make a meaningful impact on Tennessee schools.
Performance pay plans almost always cost more money than the step/level plans. That doesn’t mean they shouldn’t be pursued, but it does mean money is necessary to make them work. Metro Nashville’s compressed pay plan cost $6 million in year one. In Denver, where a performance pay plan has been in effect for a number of years (ProComp), the average teacher now makes $7000 more per year than they did under the old plan. Paying teachers more is a good thing and a key component of investing in teachers to help improve schools. But absent state dollars, it’s unclear where or how local districts will find the money to make this proposal work.
Further, because local teachers’ associations no longer have the power to bargain collectively, there is no requirement of input on new plans by teachers. Local Boards may consult any party they wish or simply adopt an approved plan and impose it on the teachers of their district. Of course, consulting those whose pay you are about to change about how they’d like to see it improved makes sense, but that doesn’t mean local districts will do that. And the State Board doesn’t require such collaboration.
Some (StudentsFirst) have indicated that because of this year’s teacher and state employee pension reform, there will be more money available in the state budget. They’ve suggested using that money to improve teacher pay. The first savings should be realized in 2014-15. So, it will be interesting to see if there are legislative proposals that incorporate the savings from pension reform into funds available to districts for the performance pay scheme that will soon be mandated from the State Board of Education. It will also be worth watching to see if the Board makes any movement on giving teacher base pay a meaningful increase.
Tennessee has experimented with performance pay before. The Career Ladder program was implemented by Governor Lamar Alexander. It was funded for a time, then became expensive, then was stopped, and is now being phased out — with fewer and fewer Career Ladder teachers remaining in service each year.
The point is, without careful planning and implementation, the proposals adopted on first reading today and likely headed for final approval in July may do nothing but put added financial pressure on local governments. Local school districts should watch cautiously and should ask their legislators to put forward plans to use state money to fund these proposals. While it is not clear performance pay will even have the intended positive results, it will surely fail if there is no commitment in the form of investment from those backing the plan.