now browsing by month
Since the days of actually eating lunch in the teacher’s lounge ended long ago, there isn’t a “water cooler” moment in my teaching day anymore. I miss the adult conversation that was an opportunity to “pick the brains” of wiser teachers with much more experience. As I think about this 25% plan – the process by which some of the teachers at my school will enter a pool and be offered a bonus in turn for surrendering their career status – I have missed the forum for communication among teachers all the more. So, I decided to be a “walking water cooler” and seek the perspectives and advice of educators, current and retired, about the plan. I wanted to know practical things like, “Under what circumstances is it logical to enter the pool?” I’ve listened, and thought about it, and here’s where I now stand.
Just say no. I shouldn’t enter the pool, and there are very few teachers who should.
The only teachers who should enter the pool are those who feel very, very secure in their jobs and plan to retire in the next few years. If they get the bonuses, they will raise their pay, and that will, in turn, raise their pension.
Anyone else? JUST SAY NO.
Here’s the collective wisdom I have gathered, sprinkled with a healthy dose of wise sayings to help drive the points home:
Send a message
If the vast majority of teachers opt out, it will be a powerful statement to the powers that be that created this plan. This plan is counterproductive, resented by teachers and administrators alike, and the best way to make that clear is to refuse to participate at any level.
What about the money?
Only the first year of the bonuses are funded. If you have career status, that is worth something. The bonuses are theoretical, much like the ABC merit pay bonuses we were promised in years past.
It’s not a lot of money. After taxes, that first year, the only year that’s funded, the bonus will equal about $30-35 a month. We know if you starve a dog and then throw it a bone, it will jump. But in this case, it’s a small bone that has very little meat on it. And it could get caught in your throat.
Tenure and legislative changes
Career status might be slated to disappear in 2018, but there’s a lot of water to go under that bridge. There are elections, and lawsuits . . . the fat lady hasn’t yet sung. If the laws change, and you have never surrendered your career status, you won’t have to figure out how to restore it.
The convoluted evaluation process
Curiosity killed the cat. You might just be curious if you are in that top 25%, and the only way to know for sure is to jump in the pool. But, if you look at the process, is that rating they come up with really a fair assessment of your teaching ability? In past years, I have been rated higher on the NCEES than I deserved on some standards and lower on others. I understood I could have a long drawn out meeting with my administrator to show evidences to boost my ratings, but I was told that this was a growth tool, and did not see reason in arguing every unchecked box. I didn’t fear for my job, and heck, the last thing my evaluator or I need at the end of the year is a three hour meeting! So, I took what I could from the process and moved on.
So, if you look at how they are making the sausage, it becomes a little less appetizing to find out how you stack up. The numbers they are using are flawed, and so the results will be also. You can’t take an evaluation instrument intended to be used as a “growth” model, twist it into an “achievement” model, and expect it to yield very good results.
The spirit of collaboration
And, jumping in that pool could be corrosive to the spirit of collaboration we have been building in our schools for years. You know the drill for defeating a group – divide and conquer. Once we start seeking divisions – keeping score of who is better than whom – there is an incentive to withhold ideas so our star can shine a little brighter than someone else’s. That is not in our self-interest as teachers nor in the interest of the kids. We need all ships to rise on the tide of collaboration that has become the new norm at many schools. This 25% plan runs counter to that ethic and is, therefore, dangerous.
At first I was tempted to enter the pool and then say “no thanks” were I offered the bonus/contract. In Wake County, they aren’t “going down the line” and offering refused contracts to anyone else. My reasoning was that I would “save” someone else from making the mistake of taking the contract. But, what if the person’s spot I took was a person seeking to retire in the next few years? I could deprive them of the chance to boost their retirement income – the one group of people who stand to benefit from this deal. I decided, in the end, that plan was too unpredictable and risky.
So, in the end, it’s pretty simple. Just say no from the start. Do not enter the pool.
And remember, in Wake County, you must actually SAY NO. If you do not respond to the initial poll in Wake County in the early spring, you will automatically be entered in the pool.
So, whew. That’s decided. Back to bigger concerns, like . . . . teaching.
Wake County Outlines Implementation of 25% Contract Legislation – The Details Employees Need to Consider
A working group of teachers, administrators, and interest group representatives in Wake County have proposed a process for how 25% of 7,454 teachers, counselors, and specialists should be identified and offered four year contracts and bonus money in return for surrendering their tenure four years early. It is likely to be accepted by the Board of Education in the coming weeks, and implementation will begin in February. Those educators should familiarize themselves with the plan so they might consider how they will respond.
The plan says each of those 7,454 employees are in the “pool” because they have three or more years years experience in the Wake County school system and have no lower than “proficient” ratings on their past evaluations. It includes anyone paid on the teacher pay scale.
- All of those in the pool will be sent an electronic form in February or March. They will be asked if they would like to be considered for one of the four year contracts. If they do not respond, they will automatically be included. If they say yes, they might be offered a contract at a later time, and they can decline it at that time.
- If contracts are offered to an individual and declined, they will not be offered to another employee.
- Once the pool of candidates are known, evaluations from the past 2 years (the NCEES teacher evaluation instrument) will be analyzed. Point values will be assigned to the various levels of the rating system. For example, “Not Demonstrated” = 1 point, “Distinguished” = 5). Only standards 1 and 4 will be included.
- Candidates will get an average rating for each employee by dividing the total number of points earned by the total number of ratings given in the two year time frame.
- Those ratings will then be compared to each other at the school level.
- At each school, the 25% of the employees in the pool with the highest average rating will be offered four year contracts.
- A alternate system for rating employees not evaluated using NCEES was also provided. They will be considered as a district-wide pool.
When considering the above plan, what ethical and practical considerations does it create for you? What questions do you have? Feel free to chime in below and we will dedicate future posts to addressing those concerns.