(Members present, FYI – Tom, Sullivan, Priest, Hyde, Chow, Bergeson, Grimm, Jarrett, Hunter, Hartmann, Kowalkowski, Dolan)
[Some documents are up on the BEFTF website. Find the working draft of the report here. Find a summary of decisions to date here. Find a list of decisions yet to be made here.]
9:20am-10:40am
Discussion of proposals, continued
Questions from WSIPP staff
- Employee compensation: deferred
- Salary survey – 10-, 11- or 12-month year?: 10- and 12-month salaries, to understand implications of both
>>Sen. Rodney Tom thought there should be consistency, e.g. not using 10 months for annual salaries and 12 months for TRI pay. Rep. Ross Hunter said that whatever decision they make, the Task Force needs to justify the choice. To him, it made sense to do a survey on 10- and 12-month salaries, applying the 12-month survey to employees who work a 12-month year and the 10-month survey for employees who work a 10-month year. Superintendent of Public Instruction Terry Bergeson wondered about the impact of either decision. Chair Dan Grimm countered that the Department of Personnel has qualified and competent staff to help explain the implications of any decisions.
>>Dr. Bette Hyde said that if push comes to shove, she prefers using 12-month salaries. She thought it unfair to teachers who don’t dictate their hours or length of the year. Dr. Hyde also thought we could end up moving to a full-year calendar.<<
- Pay for performance, knowledge and skills – Bonus for ProCert for teachers in current SAM?: Conduct cost analysis
>>Rep. Hunter voiced his preference for not offering the bonus to teachers in the old system; it’s an incentive to join the new system. Rep. Fred Jarrett expressed his preference for eliminating the current ProCert [system], since it will be replaced with the new ProCert [system]. Dr. Bergeson thought offering a bonus to teachers in the old system is a good placeholder during the transition to the new system. Rep. Pat Sullivan agreed with the other representatives that there shouldn’t be a disincentive to move into the new system, but acknowledged that teachers in the old system shouldn’t be penalized for entering the profession under the old system. Sen. Tom said he did not see value in grandfathering in too many people because this leads to a dual system. Dr. Bergeson spoke to the fact that teachers on the current salary schedule do not move up for obtaining ProCert. Sen. Tom responded that he believes it to be more valuable for the state to foot the bill for tuition, rather than hand out bonuses.
>>Superintendent Jim Kowalkowski pointed out that ProCert is currently skills based and wondered why not give teachers earning that ProCert a bump up. Dr. Hyde suggested that during the phase-in of the new system, a bonus be offered for obtaining ProCert and at a certain date those bonuses are ended and replaced with the new system. Chair Grimm asked if the two systems were incompatible, citing our various pension systems as an example of dual systems without implosion. A summary of Rep. Hunter’s answer: they are incompatible. Rep. Jarrett agreed, and proffered that instead of calling it a bonus, they could offer a non-compensatory monetary award to help reimburse costs for teachers in the current system.<<
- NBPTS and master-level and mentor teachers
>>Dr. Bergeson took issue with the requirement on teachers to earn National Board certification to move to the master level. She was also concerned with the requirement for mentors to be National Board certified, suggesting a mentor certificate. Rep. Hunter (along with Sen. Tom) acknowledged they will need to phase-in the NBPTS requirement, but likes using it because it is externally validated (and a lot of money has already been spent to develop it). Dr. Bergeson brought up TAP (teacher assistance program) and the success OSPI has had with it. [Oddly, no one has mentioned that in the draft report the NBPTS requirement is no longer attached to mentor teachers.] Chair Grimm said he is a fan of getting rid of the current system, but worries that in using NBPTS we will end up with the same system in 10 years.
>>Sup. Kowalkowski brought up that in the draft report it appears professional level teachers can be mentors. Rep. Hunter said only master level teachers (with NB certification) can be mentors. [No correction to the draft report was directed.] Sup. Kowalkowski asked if the state would incur the cost of teachers pursuing NB certification. Sen. Tom said the TF needs to decide on that, and cost it out. Sup. Kowalkowski also asked if the colleges of education would assist teachers in obtaining NB certification. Sen. Tom and Rep. Hunter said they would like to see colleges of education improve their instructional and certification programs.
- Loan forgiveness: Amend language to name math and science as shortage areas and if districts have other shortages, they can ask for a waiver from the overseeing Board
>>Dr. Hyde asked how shortage areas would be determined and loans given out. Rep. Hunter said loan forgiveness would be granted by districts when the candidate is hired. Sen. Tom said the shortage areas would need to be documented. Rep. Jarrett said the TF needs to decide if it wants districts or the state to determine who receives loan forgiveness. Sup. Kowalkowski asked how loan forgiveness dollars would be allocated. Rep. Hunter answered that they have a formula based on district budgets. Chair Grimm offered that loan forgiveness could instead by given out as increased compensation. Sen. Tom said he would like to have a tax accountant look at any system to explain implications. Chair Grimm said offering loan forgiveness as compensation is simpler and requires less administrative oversight and cost. Dr. Bergeson said they are looking at things like loan forgiveness to avoid a conversation about differential pay.
>>Sen. Tom suggested shortage areas be determined at the district level. Chair Grimm said that would require more sophisticated data and tools than currently available, which is fine; he just wanted to share that information. Sup. Kowalkowski thought math and science should be clearly identified as shortage areas across the state.<<
