Home ::
When Texas Commissioner of Education Robert Scott invited TCTA, along with representatives of several other education organizations, school superintendents, and members of the business community to participate in a school finance summit in July, he initiated a conversation that outlined a far broader range of issues likely to be discussed in the upcoming legislative session. In addition to the concerns voiced by superintendents about the inability of local school districts to generate additional revenue without going to their voters for approval in tough economic times, a litany of longstanding issues relating to employment conditions and benefits was also aired.
Perhaps not unexpectedly, most of the suggested changes to employment practices were instigated by Bill Hammond, a former legislator and current President of the Texas Association of Business, who has for the past several years appropriately described himself as a “burr under the saddle” of the public education community. Hammond is quick to criticize the public education community and has regularly referred to the business community as the real “consumer” of the public schools. He routinely calls for higher standards for all students and chides the Texas Education Agency for what he perceives as dishonesty in “lowering standards and manipulating statistics.” Interestingly, the Texas Association of Business, under Hammond’s leadership, is not without controversy. The organization was the subject of several indictments in 2005 as a result of allegations of misuse of corporate money in the 2002 election cycle; some counts have been dismissed but others remain pending before an appeals court.
Hammond’s targets are not limited to setting higher standards for schools and students; he frequently and loudly advocates for changes to the public school infrastructure such as eliminating contracts for teachers, paying teachers based on performance rather than experience and, more recently, abandoning the defined benefit retirement approach of the Teacher Retirement System (TRS) in favor of a defined contribution plan. Changes such as these, from Hammond’s perspective, would mirror the “real world” and encourage the schools to operate in a more businesslike fashion.
Although Hammond is among the most vocal critics of the schools, he is not alone; a handful of politically connected, largely conservative businessmen who have considerable influence with large campaign donors have taken aim at various aspects of the operation of the public schools. These critics generally are very specific in their demands for higher standards, but far less so in terms of what level of financial support the business community may be able to offer up to help the schools achieve increasingly ambitious goals. Because of the political influence wielded by these critics, their ideas have to be countered with the realities of the school environment and the flaws in those ideas that may be better in theory than in practice. And it should be noted early on that not all of the business community is critical; important allies such as Raise Your Hand Texas and the Texas Business and Education Coalition are constructively working with the education community toward our shared goals.
Here are previews of some of the major battles we anticipate having to fight again in the upcoming legislative session:
Teacher salaries and raises
Much of the talk about the state minimum salary schedule among those who would change or eliminate it centers on the idea that salaries are a reward for good performance. This notion leads to proposals such as tying teacher pay to student performance and eliminating pay based on experience. It completely ignores the larger role of salaries as a recruitment and retention tool.
Salary schedule opponents believe that teacher experience is not an important component of teacher quality and does not correlate to better student performance. But considerable research does show a correlation. One report, Understanding the Effectiveness of Teacher Attributes (Jennifer King Rice, University of Maryland), demonstrates a positive effect after 15 years of experience, while a 2007 study by researchers at Duke University’s Sanford Institute finds that the benefits of experience rise to a peak after 21-27 years of experience. Several other studies show similar results, and of course much of the value of experience is not quantifiable but shows up in areas like classroom management and mentoring.
The “local control” argument is another that makes the rounds when our current salary structure is under attack. The oft-heard assertion is “Of course, we don’t want teachers to make less money, but districts should be free to pay their employees as they see fit, rather than according to the dictates of Austin politicians.” These arguments stubbornly fail to recognize that Texas school districts do have local control over teacher salaries. If there is general agreement that teachers should not be paid less, there is no point in removing the minimum schedule, a floor that ensures teachers a minimal level of salary growth throughout most of their career. Districts have the flexibility to pay more than the salary schedule dictates (and most do). That flexibility includes the ability to pay individual teachers more than others with the same level of experience, but most administrators have chosen not to utilize that option except in subject shortage areas.
Performance pay proponents complain that raising salaries across the board rewards ineffective teachers as well as the cream of the crop. Interestingly, many performance pay models note that base pay should be raised to an adequate level before incentive pay is even considered. In the absence of a fair measure that can determine teacher effectiveness beyond a simple relationship to student test scores, across-the-board pay raises are the best way to address teacher salaries. Given that teachers cannot control which students end up in their classrooms, and given that students are only held accountable for their test scores in certain grades, it is patently unfair to tie teacher salaries to standardized test performance. This strategy fosters competition between teachers, rather than teamwork, and leaves out a large number of teachers whose subject areas and/or grade levels are not tested.
TCTA’s ongoing financial tracking shows that unless the state legislature earmarks a portion of increases in education funding for teacher salaries, salary growth continues to fall behind–too many districts make choices based on financial, rather than educational, concerns. Policies that attract and retain qualified teachers may cost money, but the result is a better public education system that benefits everyone. (TCTA is also seeking better salaries for paraprofessionals, who are an essential part of the system but whose compensation is often woefully inadequate.)
Teacher legal protections
Educators often hear the claim “You can’t get rid of a bad teacher.” This is especially common when policymakers are considering proposals that would weaken or eliminate crucial teacher legal protections (such as contracts and due process).
The assertion is that school districts should have complete autonomy over local employment decisions, and teacher contracts interfere with that autonomy. The legal procedures required for termination or nonrenewal are painted as complex and outrageously expensive, and estimates of tens of thousands of dollars are routinely bandied about as evidence of the districts’ difficulties in removing incompetent educators.
The naysayers refer to the contract system as archaic and not representative of “real world” professions, and use the “too expensive to fire employees” argument to back up their claim that schools would be far more efficient if they were run on a business model. But there is little value in comparing the public education system to a typical business. The normal components of a business model simply do not apply-schools do not have a profit motive, they have no control over the “raw materials” (students), and employee stability is a key ingredient for success.
The reality of teacher legal protections is that (a) contracts protect not only teachers, but students and the district as well; and (b) any reasonably competent administrator who follows the simple procedures required by law should not find it unduly difficult to replace a teacher. The contract system benefits all parties by ensuring stability in teacher employment. The strict laws and sanctions associated with violating a contract agreement protect against the disruption that would be caused by disgruntled teachers leaving in the middle of a school year.
The process for removing a teacher is actually very simple, as Texas teachers do not have tenure. Districts have significant local control in adopting policies establishing a laundry list of reasons for nonrenewing a teacher contract. If the district is able to produce some credible evidence in support of any of those reasons, the district can release the teacher at the end of a contract term. During the contract term, the standards are higher and the teacher is entitled to a hearing before an independent hearing officer, but correctly following the law will ensure that it is not a particularly complex or costly process. Administrators, including former Commissioner Shirley Neeley, have even acknowledged this fact in testimony before legislative committees.
A recent study from the Fordham Institute notes that three of the top five most flexible large-district contracts in the country are found in Texas school districts. Coby Loup, one of the researchers, notes “There seems to be a lot more latitude for the managerial side of school leadership than previously thought.”
Class size limitations
The requirement for class sizes not to exceed 22:1 in grades K-4 has been around for more than two decades now, though it still encounters resistance, in many instances from school administrators who consider it an expensive and unfunded mandate. Waivers from this requirement are readily available for the district that unexpectedly has a 23rd child enroll, but some critics still want to eliminate this requirement or return to the use of an average, rather than a cap. Those critics cite studies that do not show systemic benefits of class size caps, but in fact a large and well-researched body of evidence (including the only actual experiment examining randomly assigned larger vs. smaller classes) clearly demonstrates the value of smaller classes, especially in the early grades.
It is difficult for studies to measure the intangible benefits that lower class sizes provide, such as improved teacher morale, better classroom management, student interest and motivation, but there is research to support those less quantifiable results as well. A key factor in teacher turnover is “working conditions,” and studies on that topic reflect the common-sense conclusion that larger classes are a negative working condition and can help lead to higher teacher turnover rates, in addition to their harmful impact on student learning.
A publication by one conservative think tank, the Texas Public Policy Foundation, includes the following comment: “When we spent a third of what we spend today there were almost twice as many children for every teacher and school buildings were smaller and often un-air-conditioned. Yet our graduates were demonstrably better prepared for the world after high school.” TCTA would respond that the education mission has expanded significantly over time to ensure that every student receives a quality education, and with a far more complex “world after high school,” individualized classroom instruction is more important than ever before.
One participant in the July school finance summit characterized the Texas class size laws as “harmful to taxpayers” because of the cost to districts of adding new teachers and classrooms. While it can be argued that property taxes might be slightly lower if districts did not build as many new schools/classrooms, the real danger to taxpayers would come from lowering the quality of the public school system. Class sizes are crucial to education success, and increasing student-to-teacher ratios is simply not an educationally sound policy.
Retirement fund structure
The current Texas teacher retirement system is a defined benefit (DB) plan. Retirees are promised a certain level of benefits, and contributions are adjusted if needed to provide those benefits. A defined contribution (DC) plan is essentially the opposite–contributors promise to provide a certain level of funding, and retirees receive whatever benefit that allows for; popular examples of a DC plan are 401(k) and 403(b) plans.
The Senate State Affairs Committee was given an interim charge of investigating the possibility of converting TRS to a DC plan for new employees and reporting its findings to the 2009 Texas Legislature (the committee has not yet scheduled a hearing on that topic). The issue also arose at the school finance summit.
Corporations are increasingly turning to DC plans for their employees, as they are less expensive for the employer. The concern from the employer’s standpoint is that because plans rely on investment income for stability, when the economy is unstable a DB plan can require increasing contributions from the employer in order to continue to provide the promised benefits. And of course if the economy is struggling, the employer will find it more difficult to come up with the additional contributions. But note that corporations are converting to the DC structure because it is beneficial to the employer, not the employee. The employee bears all of the risk in a DC structure.
A DC plan is considered to be favorable to younger, mobile employees as they can retain the plan not only in moving from one employer to another but even from one career to another. For school employees that argument is weakened somewhat by the fact that TRS also is completely portable within the Texas public education system, and even if an employee chooses to leave the profession entirely, TRS contributions can be refunded. More importantly, the greater portability is actually an argument against a DC plan, as unlike a DB plan it does not serve as an incentive for employees to remain in the profession.
Another argument offered in support of a DC plan is that employees are given more control over their own investments. Depending on how the plan is structured, the employee may have some leeway in choosing how much money to save as well. This higher level of choice is portrayed as a valuable benefit for employees.
However, most employees have far less expertise in managing a retirement portfolio than the investment staff of a major retirement system like the Texas Teacher Retirement System. TRS has scores of financial experts whose only job is to invest retirement fund dollars to gain the greatest possible returns. The size of a large retirement fund allows for much greater diversity of investments, a crucial part of minimizing risk that is very difficult to achieve in an individual retirement account.
Defined benefits protect employees against economic downturns. This is especially important for Texas school employees who, unlike most other workers, do not also have access to Social Security–a DB plan that provides regular cost-of-living increases. In a struggling economy, an individual’s retirement savings can be decimated. It is in nobody’s best interest for the state’s retired school employees to face financial disaster in their later years. Even now, when TRS is experiencing investment losses because of general economic trends, it is still fundamentally sound. Texas teachers can still expect the same level of benefits as when the economy was more stable; in contrast, an individual relying on a 401(k) invested in stocks has likely seen those fund balances decline significantly over the last year.
TCTA has been battling these issues for many years and we will continue to defend crucial teacher and student protections against those who have little understanding of the realities of today’s education challenges. The Legislature must consider the opinions of classroom professionals in developing the policies that guide public education, and lawmakers, the business community and taxpayers (a category that includes educators!) must be willing to advocate for those policies that provide the best possible education to our students and support to those responsible for delivering education services.
Web posted: 08/20/08 from The Classroom Teacher, Fall 2008
