MNEA Backs Freeman

In a rather lengthy press release that features links to campaign ads and videos and touts endorsements from other labor groups, the Metro Nashville Education Association’s PAC announced its endorsement of Bill Freeman for Mayor of Nashville yesterday.

Freeman’s support for Community Schools and for expanded access to Pre-K are cited as reasons for the endorsement.

It’s worth noting that Freeman joined the majority of candidates for Mayor in saying he opposed the idea of MNPS suing the state for more BEP funds. Only Megan Barry and Charles Robert Bone have expressed support for that approach.

Here’s the release in its entirety:

Bill Freeman, candidate for Mayor of Nashville, was endorsed today by the Metropolitan Nashville Education Association as he launched a new television ad with a companion web video focused on his support of teachers, families and students in Davidson County.
“I am so happy to have received the endorsement of Nashville’s teachers, Freeman said. “These are the women and men who get up every day and dedicate themselves to teaching our children the skills and behaviors that will make them successful in the future.”
In the new television spot, Freeman said, “Nashville has the big downtown projects, but now we need to focus on the basics for our families and for all of our neighborhoods. On education, I will support Pre-K for all of our children, use incentives to keep and attract world-class teachers, innovate with community schools and better after school programs. For all our schools in all our neighborhoods we need the right strategy for Nashville to grow the right way.”

Schools Right: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AAr_byDZksA

Bill Freeman on Education Companion Web Video:   https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s4tJr–bAFE
MNEA’s endorsement caps a week where Freeman has received major endorsements from SEIU, that represents more than 3,000 Metro workers and the fire fighters that work to keep Davidson County residents safe.
MNEA President Stephen Henry said, “In spite of the fact there are seven candidates for mayor, we believe Bill Freeman is Nashville’s best choice for mayor.”

“Bill Freeman will be a champion for our public schools. He knows the challenges we face and appreciates the successes we’ve had.”

“Bill Freeman is an innovator at heart. His support of community schools indicates a deep understanding of what is needed to make Metro schools better and stronger for parents, teachers and all of our neighborhoods.“

“We’re behind Bill Freeman because we believe he will be the best advocate for students, teachers and all of us who believe every child has a right to an excellent education that prepares them for the future.  Bill Freeman will be a mayor who stands up for all children to get a great education no matter where they come from or what challenges they face.”
In the companion video that will run online at the same time as the new television commercial, Freeman goes into more depth about his belief that with more resources and the focus of the next mayor the image of Metro schools can be improved.
“Schools impact everybody. The biggest reason that families are moving outside of Davidson County into Williamson, Rutherford, Wilson County is because their school systems are deemed to be better than ours. Now, the fact is, that’s just not the case. There’s a reason the President of the United States came to Nashville and spoke at a public school. There’s a reason the First Lady came to Nashville, Tennessee and spoke at a public school. We have a fantastic public school system, we just need to do a better job selling it, make sure it has all the resources that it needs, and do everything we can to lift up and improve our public school system,” Freeman says in the web video.
Freeman Backs Community Schools
Community Schools offer wraparound services for students and families. They include before and after school programs, tutoring, mentoring, classes for students and adults who are learning English and classes for adults to earn their GED.
“I believe community schools offer an innovative solution to many of the challenges that Metro Nashville Public Schools (MNPS) are facing,” Freeman said. “We need to move past the public school versus charter school argument, and get to real solutions that help our public schools. Currently, there are over 150 languages spoken by students in Metro schools and nearly 13,000 students are English language learners and 72 percent of our students are economically disadvantaged.”
“Community schools are not unusual around the country and the statistics speak for themselves,” explained Freeman.  “In Cincinnati they have converted 34 of their 55 public schools into community schools and the achievement gap between African American students and white students has shrunk dramatically, while graduation rates for all students have skyrocketed.”
The achievement gap between African American and white students in Cincinnati has dropped from 14.5 percent to just 4 percent, while graduation rates for all students have risen from just 51 percent to 82 percent.
Ruth Stewart, a doctor of family medicine in Nashville, as well as wife of State Representative Mike Stewart, is a huge proponent of community schools.

“I see it all the time in the kids I treat,” she said, “kids with poor health often do worse in school.  They’re out all the time because of something like asthma and their school doesn’t have a nurse that they can go to for help.
“What we need are more services that are inclusive for multi children families, that way those families don’t have to split up their kids between schools because one has services that make sense for one child and one has services that make sense for another.  We need to introduce community schools in all neighborhoods of Nashville, not just in impoverished areas.  The model has been proven to work in every area, and every child, and every neighborhood should be able to benefit,” she said.
“Nashville already has a Community Achieves program where they are slowly transitioning traditional public schools into the community school model,” said Bill Freeman.  “I plan to work with the program and monitor its progress and how it impacts student achievement and I would ultimately like to triple the number of schools participating in this process.”
“I will continue to encourage non-profit and for-profit organizations in Nashville to participate in the program as many are doing currently,” said Freeman.

Bill Freeman is the co-founder and current chairman of Freeman Webb Inc., a real estate management company.  Bill grew up in Donelson with five sisters and is a devoted husband to his wife, Babs Tinsley Freeman, father to their three sons, and grandfather to two girls. His first job was as a maintenance man and he built his company from the ground up with his partner and one employee who still works there today. His company has been voted a “Best Place to Work” three years in a row. He is a decade long board member of the Tennessee State University Foundation and has been an active supporter of the Sexual Assault Center as well as continuously working to provide housing for Nashville’s homeless along with the 10,000 Homes Campaign.
About the Metro Nashville Public Schools’ Community Achieves Program:
Currently, there are 14 MNPS schools are in the program. ●      3 elementary schools ●      6 middle schools ●      5 high schools
The participating schools serve 11,865 students. Five more schools will be added this fall. The program is built on community partnerships, and more than 80 nonprofit and for-profit organizations in Nashville are participating.
Community Achieves is overseen by 14 full-time coordinators who manage the program across the 14 schools.
The programs focus on four areas of need:
1. Family Engagement — A family resource center, “parent university,” family suppers, events for dads and male role models
2. College and Career Readiness — FAFSA Night (to help college-bound students and their parents navigate all the federal student loan documents; tutoring and mentoring; reading clinics; and ACT programs
3. Health and Wellness — Mental health counseling; nutrition classes; health checkups
4. Social Services — Food pantries; workforce development and GED classes; financial classes
Bill Freeman’s goal will be to greatly expand the program to more MNPS schools and monitor its progress, not only in how it lifts families in need, but in how it impacts student academic achievement.
About the Metropolitan Nashville Education Association:  The Metropolitan Nashville Education Association represents Nashville’s teachers and is at the forefront of education reform. Through collaborations with Metropolitan Nashville Public Schools and the Nashville community, MNEA helps to provide the highest level of education to ALL children and adults of MNPS.

For more on education politics and policy in Tennessee, follow @TNEdReport

 

My First Year Teaching

I made it!

I completed my first year of teaching. It was an eye opening experience that has helped mold my views in education in a variety of areas.

I am a special education teacher at a North Nashville middle school. Our fifth graders come into fifth grade already behind. It’s our job to catch them up during the middle school years before we send them off to high school. That shows me that we have dropped the ball along the way to middle school. We have come to a point where it’s okay that students come in to middle school behind. That shouldn’t be okay.

There are bad teachers and they should not be in the classroom. There isn’t more I can say about this. Every career field has bad workers, and the teaching profession is no different.

The TEAM evaluation made me a better teacher. The rubric was really helpful in my growth as a teacher. The feedback I received from my principal and assistant principal really helped. I knew what my principal expected from me and I met those expectations. I was glad that I was being held accountable.

(Don’t get me started on teacher prep programs.)

In regards to TCAP testing, I did not see the scary testing chamber where we take the fun out of education and force the students to bubble in answer sheets for days at the time. We hit the standards that needed to be hit during the year, and we cycled back through a review when we got closer to TCAP. We still taught new concepts, read new books, started new projects, and had fun. Schools decide their climate, and my climate was not like any of the scary stories that I read online. Assessments are an important tool in the education of our students. They are needed to make sure that I am doing what I am supposed to as a teacher. I am glad that the accountability is there.

 

I did a lot this school year:

I’ve broken up fights.

I’ve had to stop students from harming themselves.

I had to use our school’s resources to get a student clothing so he didn’t have to wear the same clothes every day.

I have given a legislative update to teachers.

One of our students was shot in the head while standing in the doorway to his home.

Student’s parents have been murdered.

I have seen a mother cry tears of joy that her son was receiving a quality education.

I have seen parents beam with pride about how well their student is doing in life.

A parent has yelled at me.

I’ve read all the Common Core State Standards for 7th grade.

I have taken to twitter to get someone to donate books to my class.

I have been sick. A lot.

I have given a tour to a school board member.

I have written an op-ed in the Tennessean about our school board.

I have gotten pushback from school board members about my op-ed.

After my op-ed, people inside my school told me to watch what I say in public about my school board.

I have been mad, frustrated, sad, happy, joyful, excited, and angry.

I have seen a student do better by getting more special education services.

I have seen a student grow by reducing the amount of special education services.

I have read a loud many different types of texts.

I’ve made others cry when describing students at my school.

I’ve become frustrated when teachers tell me it’s okay that students are behind because everyone else in behind.

I got students to read and enjoy books.

I’ve heard a teacher say that you can only teach a student for so long before you need to give up and help the other kids.

I have seen teachers work mornings, nights, and weekends so that our students could succeed. One teacher would teach during the day, tutor after school multiple days, tutor on Saturday, and teach Sunday school the next day.

 

No matter where our students grow up, they can all learn and succeed in our education system. I have seen students come into our school that are so behind. We have failed that child along the way. Someone dropped the ball and that makes me really sad. But we need to accept blame for dropping the ball.

 

Everyone wants to blame someone else for a child being behind:

“They came from charter.”

“They are special ed.”

“They come from a bad part of town.”

Before that student left for a charter, they were most likely in a zoned school first. All students can learn, including students with disabilities. No matter where you come from, you are able to learn at the hands of great teachers.

We want to blame everyone but ourselves. I’ve made mistakes this year, but I know that I will come back next year and fix those mistakes. I will admit that there are problems that still need to be fixed in my teaching method, in my personality, and in the school system as a whole. Sugarcoating issues in life doesn’t make it better. I would rather be honest about education than to sugarcoat and lie about the state of our education system.

That’s a Big Class

According to the Chattanooga Times-Free Press:

Every school district in Tennessee could be part of the Hamilton County Department of Education’s lawsuit against the state’s Basic Education Program school funding formula if a judge grants a motion to grant it class-action status.

“While the larger districts have been the ones voicing concerns about the underfunding of education, this underfunding has ramifications literally everywhere,” school district attorney D. Scott Bennett said.

Hamilton County Schools and six nearby school districts — Bradley, Coffee, Grundy, Marion, McMinn and Polk — are plaintiffs in the lawsuit Bennett filed on March 24 in Davidson County Chancery Court.

The suit claims the state has “breached its duty under the Tennessee Constitution to provide a system of free public education for the children of this state.”

Achieving a level of adequate funding as contemplated in the lawsuit would cost an estimated $500 million. Should the motion be granted, all 141 school systems in the state would effectively become a party to the suit — an unprecedented show of strength in what has historically been small school systems suing over equity. This suit differs from the previous “small schools” suits in that it focuses on the inadequacy of the funding formula rather than on any inequities that may exist.

That’s money House Majority Leader Gerald McCormick says the state can’t afford:

“They are suing the taxpayers, that’s who they are suing,” said House Majority Leader Gerald McCormick, R-Chattanooga.

Fully funding the BEP has been estimated to cost $500 million. McCormick said that would have to come out of existing programs, such as funding colleges and universities, because the state constitution mandates K-12 education but not higher education. And Tennesseans don’t want higher taxes, he said.

Of course, McCormick also supported legislative efforts designed to keep local school systems from suing the state for adequate funding.

A look at three revenue issues reveals that McCormick is just plain wrong in his assertion that addressing BEP funding inadequacy would necessitate higher taxes.

First, state revenues are continuing a trend of coming in over projections.  Andrea Zelinski notes:

Year to date nine months into the fiscal year, state revenues are $444 million more than anticipated.

So, if Tennessee invested 100% of these over-collections into K-12 education, we’d come very close to the $500 million needed to adequately fund the BEP and provide more resources to local school systems to educate their students. Of course, it’s wise to save some of that money, but even a 25% investment would mean an additional $111 million a year for our schools. All with no new taxes.

Next, it’s important to protect the existing tax base. Governor Haslam took a small step on this front this year for the first time in his administration. The Revenue Modernization Act is projected to result in $20 million in new revenue by closing loopholes and helping the state collect the taxes it is owed. This is a start, but by way of comparison, the Bredesen Administration collected $500 million in revenue by aggressively protecting the tax code and ensuring that taxes owed were taxes paid. That is, they went after corporate tax avoidance strategies in smart, effective ways, year after year. It’s estimated that between $30 and $50 million a year in revenue can be protected each year by closing loopholes.

Add the mid-range, $40 million, to the low estimate of new revenue coming in over projections available for use and you’re looking at over $150 million in new money each year for schools over and above current funding levels.

Finally, I wrote in 2014 about the state’s planned loss of revenue. More specifically, the state is phasing out the inheritance tax – a move that has limited benefits but has a definite impact on the bottom line in terms of revenue collection. Specifically:

Additional revenue is lost by the gradual phase out of Tennessee’s estate tax, previously impacting estates over $1 million.  The plan is to phase that out entirely by 2016, with an estimated revenue loss of around $30 million this year and around $97 million in 2016-17’s budget. So, that’s roughly $76 million, or close to half of the projected shortfall for the upcoming budget cycle. To his credit, Haslam says he wants to hold off on efforts to repeal the Hall tax on investment income – a tax paid by a small number of wealthy Tennesseans with investment income.  However, he has also said reducing or eliminating the Hall tax is a goal. Phasing out the tax, as proposed in legislation under consideration this year at the General Assembly, would mean a loss of $20 million in the 2015-16 budget year and an ultimate loss in state funds of $160 million a year and in local revenue of $86 million a year.

If the estate tax was returned to its previous level, it would mean some $97 million in available revenue next year. Policymakers could tinker with this formula to ensure some taxes are collected, but the rate is lower and easily collect $50 million a year in revenue.  Adding these three items together and being conservative, Tennessee could easily invest $200 million more a year in its public schools.

That means Gerald McCormick is wrong. Making significant new investments in Tennessee schools DOES NOT require raising taxes or implementing new taxes. It does require political will and a little hard work.

MORE ON THE BEP:

Money Talks

Shelby County Votes to Sue

Why is he (Gerald McCormick) so angry?

Why is TN 40th?

For more on education policy and politics in Tennessee, follow @TNEdReport

 

That was Quick

The Tennessee Department of Education is out with an apology for miscommunication that caused confusion regarding this year’s standardized testing “quick scores.”

Grace Tatter over at Chalkbeat has the story, and this quote from a letter sent to Directors of schools from Assistant Commissioner Nakia Towns:

“Our goal is to communicate early and often regarding the calculation and release of student assessment data. Unfortunately, it appears the office of assessment logistics did not communicate decisions made in fall 2014 regarding the release and format of quick scores for the 2014-15 school year in a timely manner. . . . We regret this oversight, and we will continue to improve our processes such that we uphold our commitment to transparency, accuracy, and timeliness with regard to data returns, even as we experience changes in personnel.”

As Tatter notes, this is the second year in a row that release of quick scores has been a problem for the Department of Education.

Read her full story and see the complete text of the letter sent to Directors.

It remains to be seen whether the “commitment to transparency” referenced in the letter from Towns will mean that parents and teachers can see the test questions and answers after next year’s TNReady test is administered.

For more on education politics and policy in Tennessee, follow @TNEdReport

Quick and Confusing

Over at Bluff City Ed, Jon Alfuth digs into the questions surrounding this year’s release of TCAP quick scores and their correlation to student performance on the TCAP.

This year, the way quick scores were calculated in relation to raw scores was shifted so that grades 3-8 (TCAP) scores matched the EOC scores students see in high school.

One key question is why make this change in the last year of TCAP? Next year, Tennessee students will see TNReady — so, making the calculation change now doesn’t seem to serve much purpose.

Alfuth does a nice job of explaining what’s going on and why it matters. Here are some key highlights:

Lack of Communication

They (TN DOE) didn’t make it clear to teachers, parents or students that they were changing the policy, resulting in a lot of confusion and frustration over the past few days as everyone grapples with these new quick scores.

An Explanation?

From the second memo, they note that they changed to raw scores because of concerns about getting final quick scores out on time during the transition to a new test, stating that if they did it based on proficiency, it would take until the middle of the summer to make them happen.

I’d buy that…except that the Department of Education has always been able to get the quick scores out on time before. And last I checked, we weren’t transition to TNReady this year – the transition occurs next year. So why mess with the cut scores this year? Is this just a trial run, an experiment? It feels like we’re either not getting the whole story, or that if we are there is some serious faulty logic behind this decision that someone is just trying to explain away.

It’s worth noting that last year, the quick scores weren’t available on time and most districts received a waiver from including TCAP scores in student grades. I note this to say that concern about getting quick scores out on time has some merit given recent history.

To me, though, this raises the question: Why are TCAP scores factored into a student’s grades? Ostensibly, this is so 1) students take the tests seriously and 2) how a teacher assesses a student matches up with the desired proficiency levels on the appropriate standards.

Of course, quick scores are only available for tested subjects, leaving one to wonder if other subjects are less important or valuable to a student’s overall academic well-being. Or, if there’s another way to assess student learning beyond a bubble-in test or even a test with some constructed response, such as TNReady.

I’d suggest a project-based learning approach as a means of assessing what student’s have actually learned across disciplines. Shifting to project-based learning with some grade-span testing would allow for the accountability necessary to ensure children are meeting state standards while also giving students (and their teachers) a real opportunity to demonstrate the learning that has occurred over an academic year.

Trust

The Department has also opened itself to some additional criticism that it is “massaging” the scores – that is, trying to make parents happy by bringing grades up in the last year under the old testing regime. We can’t say for certain that this is the motivating factor behind this step, but in taking this step without more transparency the Department of Education has opened itself up to this charge. And there will definitely be some people who accuse the state of doing this very thing, especially given the reasons that they cited in their memo. I personally don’t ascribe any sinister motives to the state, but you have to admit that it looks a little fishy.

In fact, TC Weber is raising some important questions about the process. He notes:

If people don’t believe in the fidelity of the system, it becomes too easy to attribute outside factors to the results. In other words, they start to feel that data is being manipulated to augment an agenda that they are not privy to and not included in. I’m not saying results are being manipulated or not being manipulated when it comes to our student evaluation system, but I am saying that there seems be a growing belief that they are, and without some kind of change, that perception will only grow. I’ve always maintained that perception is nine-tenths of reality.

As both Alfuth and Weber note, the central problem is lack of communication and transparency. As we shift to a new testing regime with uncertain results, establishing confidence in the system and those administering it is critical. After last year’s late score debacle and this year’s quick score confusion, establishing that trust will be difficult. Open communication and a transparent process can go a long way to improving perception and building support.

For more on education politics and policy in Tennessee, follow @TNEdReport

Who will lead MNPS?

With the initial round of applications coming to a close, some 50 people are expected to be candidates for the job of Director of MNPS.

But, according to a story in the Nashville Scene, those candidates don’t include many “heavy hitters.”

“There aren’t any heavy hitters — by that I mean people with real experience in large urban districts, and that’s what we’re still working on,” says Bill Attea, founder of Chicago-based superintendent search firm Hazard, Young, Attea & Associates.

Instead, people are applying to upgrade from small or mid-sized school districts such as Bridgeport, Conn., Eugene, Ore., and Tallahassee, Fla. — places where Nashville would double or triple the size of their current student body. Candidates who do hail from the large cities Nashville strives to compete with may come from a district’s headquarters, but not necessarily as superintendents.

Andrea Zelinski does include a list of all 34 individuals who have completed applications thus far. Among them, current MNPS Chief Academic Officer Jay Steele. Another local candidate is Office of Innovation Executive Director Alan Coverstone, a former School Board Member.

Here’s our interview with Steele from 2013.

For more on education politics and policy in Tennessee, follow @TNEdReport

Adequate and Equitable

That’s what the Shelby County Schools are seeking from the state — adequate and equitable school funding. As the state currently provides neither, the Shelby County School Board voted Tuesday to hire legal counsel to pursue such funding, an action which may ultimately result in filing a lawsuit against the state, the Commercial Appeal reports.

Recently, Jon Alfuth over at Bluff City Ed suggested that Shelby County should join the 7 other Tennessee districts already suing the state over inadequate school funding.

According to the report, Board members referenced the 2007 funding formula update known as BEP 2.0 and noted that if it were fully and properly funded, Shelby County would receive $103 million in additional funding next year.

Rather than push for full funding of BEP 2.0, Governor Haslam has appointed his own task force asked to redistribute the pie rather than increase its size.

Other than chastising districts for asking for the full and equitable funding they deserve, the General Assembly did little this past session to address the BEP situation.

Three previous lawsuits against the state seeking improved school funding have all been successful and all resulted in significant cash infusions to local school districts.

More on the BEP:

Money Talks

Why is TN 40th?

For more on education politics and policy in Tennessee, follow @TNEdReport

Oops. Annenberg May Apply to Magnets

As we have noted, the Annenberg Standards have been adopted by the MNPS Board of Education. These standards were adopted to hold charter schools accountable. The Governance Committee met last night, for the first time since January, to discuss the standards that were already adopted by the full board. Well, it looks like these standards may also apply to magnet schools.

And the standards also apply to other schools, Gentry said. Specifically, the standards speak to exclusionary practices that might apply to the district’s magnets.

“There are reasons why we have that differentiation. There is a reason why we have wait lists and there are reasons why students bust their butt to become a part of those things,” Gentry said. “You strip all those things away and what does that mean? … We need to clean up our language, because the first thing that comes out of our mouths is charter schools, but that’s not what we voted on. These are for all schools.”

The issue of magnet schools comes up a lot when discussing choice. Proponents of choice believe families deciding to go to a magnet school are already exercising choice. Behind the scenes, choice advocates point out that some local opponents of choice send their children to magnet schools. Choice advocates believe this is clearly a double standard.

Magnet schools have exclusionary enrollment barriers for students, which is exactly what some people believe charters should not have. Again, some people believe it’s a double standard that magnet schools can have barriers for students to enroll, but the recently passed standards do not allow charter schools to do the same.

(Note: I don’t know of any charter school with exclusionary enrollment criteria.)

If these standards do change how magnet schools work, I would expect a vote to change the adopted standards.

Mary Pierce, a school board member who voted against the standards, posted to Facebook about the passage and discussion of these standards. She believes these standards were passed too quickly without enough information.

Adoption of the Annenberg Standards: Let’s be clear on the timeline.

April 3: The state teachers’ union, TEA, kicked off an email campaign with statements of support for the Annenberg Standards for Charter Schools. *It took 30 days to get just under 100 unique emails senders.

April 14: “Those in the know,” that a resolution was coming, gave public comments asking the board to adopt the Annenberg standards. That same night, Anna Shepherd gave notice that she would bring a resolution to adopt the Annenberg standards to our next meeting, Thursday, April 30.

The language of the resolution– that states the standards are for ALL schools– was not given to the board until the morning of April 30 and was not posted to the online agenda until that afternoon. Public comments are not given at the 2nd board meeting of the month, so parents from magnets or charters were never given an opportunity to speak and barely opportunity to read prior to our vote. It passed 5-3. I was one of the 3, “no” votes.

In the April 30 meeting, I asked Ms. Shepherd if she envisioned opportunity to walk through the standards that might be contrary to state law or require significant changes to our schools in Policy Governance and she said yes. Hearing of this opportunity, concerned parents emailed and asked for common sense when applying these standards and for a voice by affected school leaders–we received over 100 emails in 30 hours.

However, at our policy governance meeting yesterday, committee chair, Amy Frogge, would not allow discussion on concerns over specific standards, and instead said the standards were adopted by the board and would now become policy–pending legal analysis.

Ironically, the first standard in the Annenberg is collaboration–not seeing that apply here and wondering where our commitment to communications and community engagement is?

The school board has asked Metro Legal attorney Corey Harkey to review the standards and to report back on June 15. Magnet school PTSOs and PACs have already started to email their members about this latest development. I will update you once Metro Legal comes back with their analysis.


 

PET Releases Testing Survey

Professional Educators of Tennessee (PET) released a survey this week on teacher attitudes toward standardized testing.

Here’s the release and a link to a detailed report:

In April of 2015, Professional Educators of Tennessee surveyed Tennessee educators regarding their opinion of standardized testing in the state of Tennessee. The survey was distributed via email to all members and on social media, as well as being made available to all educators on the Professional Educators of Tennessee website.

208 educators completed the survey, with 134 being classroom teachers. Eighty-five percent of educators stated that standardized testing takes up “too much” of classroom instructional time. And, as the state moves to online testing, there appear to be numerous glitches in the testing procedure.

Based on the survey results, PET recommends:

Based on these survey results, standardized testing in Tennessee proves to be a major driving force in classroom instruction. This survey indicates that virtually every school has broadband internet, yet 89% indicated there were issues with the online testing provided.   These issues can and will negatively impact tests results. Professional Educators of Tennessee proposes that all testing continue to be done on paper/pencil OR that testing sessions interrupted by technical difficulties be coded in a special way and either discarded or given again, with different test items, OR that schools endure the tests with possible difficulties with technology and be held harmless until the percentage of tests taken without technical interference or interruption reaches a threshold of 95% or higher.  Also, before a teacher’s TVAAS scores are linked to students’ testing performance, these online testing malfunctions (computers/websites freezing, connectivity issues) must be addressed.

For more on education politics and policy in Tennessee, follow @TNEdReport

When 4=2

In preparation for next year’s TNReady exams, it seems the Department of Education is already using some new math. While the General Assembly appropriated a $100 million increase in teacher compensation, an amount equivalent to a 4% raise, the Department is recommending that the State Board of Education adjust the state’s minimum salary schedule by only 2%.

Commissioner of Education Candice McQueen revealed the proposed recommendation in an email to Directors of Schools:

Directors,

Tennessee law requires the commissioner of education to present annually to the State Board of Education a state minimum salary schedule for the upcoming school year. Historically, the board has adopted the schedule at its regular July meeting after the conclusion of the legislative session and the adoption of the state budget. This year, in response to district communication and feedback, the board will consider the issue at a specially called meeting set for June 9.

The FY 16 state budget includes more than $100 million in improvements for teacher salaries and represents a four percent improvement to the salary component of the Basic Education Program (BEP). Because the BEP is a funding plan and not a spending plan, the $100 million represents a pool of resources from which each district will utilize its portion to meet its unique needs. The structural change in the state salary schedule in July 2013 recognized this inherent flexibility in the BEP by lessening the rigid and strict emphasis on years of experience and degrees and providing more opportunity for districts to design compensation plans based on a number of factors. At the same time, while recognizing the value, appeal and need for maximum flexibility, the state board has stressed the desire to improve teacher compensation, particularly minimum salaries, and Gov. Haslam has outlined his goal for Tennessee to be the fastest improving state in teacher compensation.

Considering this background information as well as feedback from districts and in an effort to provide districts with as much information as possible as early as possible, we want to inform you today that the department will propose increasing the base salary identified in the state minimum salary schedule from $30,876 to $31,500. This represents a two percent adjustment and will impact the other six cells on the state schedule accordingly. For example, the current minimum for a Bachelor’s Degree and 6-10 years of experience is the BASE SALARY + $3,190 or $34,066 (BASE of $30,876 + $3,190). The proposed minimum for the 2014-15 school year for this same cell will be $34,690, which represents the new recommended BASE SALARY of $31,500 + $3,190.

We believe this proposal strikes the right balance between maximum flexibility for school districts and the recognized need to improve minimum salaries in the state. For the large majority of districts, the proposal does not result in any mandatory impact as most local salary schedules already exceed the proposed minimums. For these districts, the salary funds must still be used for compensation but no mandatory adjustments to local schedules exist.

The current state salary schedule can be viewed here for a determination as to how your particular district may be impacted.

Two years ago, the state adopted a new salary schedule at the recommendation of then-Commissioner Kevin Huffman. This schedule gutted the previous 20 step schedule that rewarded teachers for their years of experience and acknowledged the work of earning advanced degrees. Historically, when the General Assembly appropriated funds for a raise, the Commissioner of Education recommended the state minimum salary schedule be adjusted by the percentage represented by the appropriation. So, if the General Assembly increased BEP salary appropriations by 2%, the State Board would raise the state minimum salary schedule by 2%.

This adjustment did not necessarily mean a 2% raise on teacher’s total compensation, because many local districts supplemented teacher salaries beyond the state required minimum. The 2% increase, then, was on the state portion of salaries. Some districts would add funds in some years to ensure their teachers got a full 2%, for example. And in other cases, they’d only get the increase on the state portion. Still, under the old pay scale, teacher salary increases roughly tracked the appropriation by the General Assembly.

Here’s a breakdown of average teacher salary increases compared with BEP increases in years prior to the new salary schedule:

FY                     BEP Salary Increase                     Actual Avg. Pay Increase

2011                  1.6%                                                 1.4%

2012                 2.0%                                                2.0%

2013                2.5%                                                 2.2%

These numbers indicate a trend of average teacher pay increases tracking the state’s BEP increase. In FY 2014, however, immediately after the state adopted a new pay scale designed to build in flexibility and promote merit pay, the General Assembly appropriated funds for a 1.5% salary increase and average teacher pay increased 0.5% — teachers saw 1/3 of the raise, on average, that was intended by the General Assembly.

Why did this happen?

First, nearly every district in the state hires more teachers than the BEP formula generates. This is because students don’t arrive in neatly packaged groups of 20 or 25, and because districts choose to enhance their curriculum with AP courses, foreign language, physical education, and other programs. These add-ons are not fully contemplated by the BEP. And, under the old pay scale, the local district was responsible for meeting the obligation of the pay raise for these teachers on their own. The BEP funds sent to the district only covered the BEP generated teachers. And then, only at 70% of the salary. Now, the district was free to use BEP salary funds to cover compensation expenses previously picked up by local funds.

Instead of addressing the underlying problem and either 1) increasing the base salary used to calculate BEP teacher salary funds or 2) increasing the state match from 70% to 75% or 3) doing both, the state decided to add local “flexibility.”

To be clear, increasing the base salary for BEP funds to the state average would cost $500 million and increasing the state BEP salary match would cost $150 million — neither is a cheap option.

But because every single system operates at a funding level beyond the BEP generated dollar amount, it seems clear that an improvement to the BEP is needed. Changing the BEP allocation to more accurately reflect the number of teachers systems need to operate would improve the financial position of districts, allowing them to direct salary increase monies to salaries.

An additional challenge can be found in Response to Intervention and Instruction — RTI2. While the state mandates that districts provide this enrichment service to students, the state provides no funds for RTI2’s implementation. Done well, RTI2 can have positive impacts on students and on the overall educational environment in a school. Because there is no state funding dedicated to RTI2, however, districts are using their new BEP funds for salary to hire specialists focused on this program.

Here’s the deal: 19 Tennessee school districts pay teachers at levels that mean they’ll have to raise teacher pay if the State Board makes the recommended 2% adjustment. To be clear, the minimum salary a first year teacher can make anywhere in Tennessee is currently $30,876. That will increase to $31,500 if the Board adopts McQueen’s recommendation. Because the 2% only applies to the base number and the other steps increase by a flat amount, a teacher with a bachelor’s degree and 11 or more years of experience will go from a mandated minimum of $37,461 to $38,085.  That’s only 1.67%.

And let’s look at that again: The minimum mandated salary for a teacher in Tennessee with a bachelor’s degree and 11 or more years experience will now be $38,085.

That’s unacceptable.

Instead, policymakers should:

  • Set the minimum salary for a first-year teacher at $40,000 and create a pay scale with significant raises at 5 years (first year a TN teacher is tenure eligible), 10 years, and 20 years along with reasonable step increases in between
  • Fund the BEP salary component at 75%
  • Adjust the BEP to more accurately account for the number of teachers a district needs
  • Fully fund RTI2 including adding a BEP component for Intervention Specialists
  • Adopt the BEP Review Committee’s recommendations on professional development and mentoring so teachers get the early support and ongoing growth they need

The policy reality is those districts at or near the state minimum are the poorest and least able to stretch beyond state funds. Following the proposed recommendation may well serve to exacerbate an already inequitable funding situation.

For more on education politics and policy in Tennessee, follow @TNEdReport