After months of revisions and discussions, Senate Pro Tem Del Marsh has now introduced his RAISE Act which has now morphed into the Preparing and Rewarding Educational Professionals (PREP) Act of 2016.
Here is some language in the bill:
This bill would provide a procedure for observing and evaluating teachers, principals, and assistant principals on performance and student achievement.
STUDENT GROWTH MODEL. A statistical growth model usd to isolate the effect and impact of a teacher on student learning, controlling for pre-existing characteristics of a student including, but not limited to, prior achievement.
The model evaluation system developed by the department pursuant to this act shall define the elements of evaluation and standards for effectiveness for teachers providing classroom instruction at the K-12 level.
So the good Senator’s intent is all about how teachers are evaluated, ranked and rewarded.
OK. But does he practice what he preaches?
For instance, Philip Bryan is his chief of staff. Information obtained from the Alabama Open Checkbook shows that he had an annual salary in 2011 of just over $51,000. Today he makes $146,000 a year. My math says that’s an increase of around 180 percent in five years.
By comparison, Alabama teachers had a two percent increase in 2013. That is their only raise in the last eight years.
How does Senator March evaluate his staff. How does he decide that someone is worthy of a $95.000 jump in five years? Does he have a procedure for observing and evaluating staff? If so, what is it? Does he use a statistical growth model to determine how much impact a staffer has on the legislative process? What are the standards his staff members must meet to get huge salary increases?
Since the legislature had to have two Special Sessions in 2015, did this count AGAINST his staff.
Surely, Senator Marsh has another bill waiting to be introduced. One that would apply the same kind of standards to those who work for him as he wants to apply to teachers.. One he could dub the Politicians Rigorous Evaluation Process (PREP) act of 2016.
If he doesn’t, I think I can find some educators who will be glad to draft it for him.
Very interesting observation. Has Senator Marsh had the opportunity to explain his thought process for the raise afforded his Chief of Staff? Also, you failed to mention that when teachers received the 2% raise in 2008 their share of the state retirement increased, and effectively they took a pay cut. Recently I found a pay stub from 2007. In between then and now I had a small increase in pay due to a change in positions within the school system; however, I was bringing home a considerable amount more in take home pay in 2007. Between the increase in our share of retirement and insurance, teachers have had a 10% decrease in pay in the last 8 years.
The question is who are his friends who would provide all the expertise for evaluating teachers? The state will not and cannot pay for fair observation and evaluation so that will be dropped and they will use test scores. I am a reading teacher. My concern is about honest evaluation for our children that guides instruction and actually lets teachers know what they can do to help children read. We are going backward.
Larry,
Have you ever reviewed the 1980s (or so) attempt to evaluate teachers to reward the better ones with “merit pay” increases? It was put together by the legislature with the input of AEA. (Imagine that in today’s anti-AEA political environment)
Teachers were to be evaluated by teachers from other districts so that coworkers didn’t judge their own. That came to require subs to stand in for teachers while they traveled to evaluate other teachers. The state decided that was too expensive and assigned the job to each school’s own administrative staff.
When these evaluations came in, the state decided there were too many “better teachers” and explained that the raises would therefore be “too expensive”. The state explained they had expected to pay at most only one “better teacher” per school. As a result of too many “better teachers” the whole process was dropped after two or three years.
What I believe the legislature is attempting to do is find a way to give the wealthier suburban districts even more state money for them to work with than other districts receive. There will still be no funding to improve “failing schools” by helping them hire “better teachers”.
Very good point, Larry. Personally, I believe that ALL government positions should be held to accountability standards similar to those of the people that they are supposed to serve.
I doubt there are any John Q Public Alabamians that received an increase of this size, while doing the same job.