Let's Talk iStars...
- The Career Foundation Pay (the existing system) would remain intact and managed as before (negotiated through union discussions)
- On the top of that Foundation Pay would be a Student Achievement merit pay bonus where a SCHOOL (not teacher) would be based on improvement and/or overall excellence in student performance. (thus allowing teacher in a "bad" school to get a bonus based on improvement and teachers in a "good" school to get a bonus based on student test scores of the whole school, not just their class)
- Local school districts would also have the ability to add to this Foundation Pay a Local Control bonus to attract and retain teachers to teach in hard to fill positions.
- These three items are proposed to happen for all teachers, regardless of if they want to "sign up" for the next list of potential bonus opportunities or not. the above is how the Superintendent intends to spread out the 5% pay increase that the Governor has requested in his budget.
If a teacher elects (there is a choice here) to work under a new category of contract offered to teachers (a category 4 contract) they will also be eligible for the following bonus programs:
- Leadership Bonus: Teachers would be eligible to receive up to a $2400 bonus by taking on Leadership roles within the district or schools.
- Expertise Bonus: Teachers would be eligible to receive up to a $2400 bonus by gaining more expertise and earning qualification to teach in multiple subject areas (this is not to be confused with the current qualification improvement system currently within the Foundation Pay base system).
- Career Opportunity pay increase: Teachers would receive a $2400 bonus for signing up for a category 4 contract of 1 to 3 years. This increase would be added each year of the base contract. This contract is very similar to the current contracts that our school Administrators work under.
One of the things I did learn about these category 4 contracts through Sup. Luna was that each year the contract would be reviewed and would either be extended by a year or (if on a 3 year contract) if there were issues, one would be put on an improvement program and have an additional 2 years to improve and increase their contract length.
Learn more about the iStars plan through a video produced about the plan's objectives and details here.
"Due Process" seemed to be also a very big concern of our teachers here in Meridian and I discussed this with Sup. Luna. As far as I know, there is no way one can take away an American Citizen's "due process" based upon our nation's constitution. I suspect this miss-information came from those not wanting to even consider change.
He informed me that under the current state category 4 contracts where is a 6 step process of review if there is an issue where a teacher would be asked to leave their position:
- Evaluation: Evaluations from the Administration must be fair and valid,
- Letter of Evaluation: teachers must receive an official letter outlining their specific areas of deficiencies,
- Improvement Plan: the Administration must develop a personalized improvement plan and then provide time to demonstrate improvement,
- Probationary Period: The Teacher will receive a minimum of 8 weeks to enable them to work towards meeting the goals within the improvement plan and demonstrate that improvement.
- Re-Evaluation: the teacher must then receive another fair and valid re-evaluation from the Administration.
- Appeal Process: If after this process, the Teacher has not demonstrated the improvement required to meet the goals, the teacher can then appeal to the local school board where a hearing is held. The Teacher, parents, patrons, students and other Teachers are allowed to speak on the Teacher's behalf.
Idaho Teachers have the ability to participate in the first part of iStars bonus programs without changing their current contracts. They would, however, be provided their increases based upon performance of their schools student performance and the districts decision to provide bonuses to those that have performed at a greater level than others.
Those Teachers that elect to sign up for the new category 4 contract can add even more income based upon their capabilities and drive for excellence and involvement with their schools, districts and expertise they are able to provide to the team.
Some say that iStars is only a "union busting" effort by the department, but there are no restrictions for teachers to leave the union to take advantage of the iStars program, so that's an argument I just don't buy...
I see iStars as a choice for our Teachers to be able to excel in the classroom and get paid for it. Our Teachers seem to "top out" pay wise about mid-career and many start looking for ways to increase their take home pay about that time. We loose many really good Teachers to administrative jobs or jobs in similar careers... taking them away from our kids when they are in their prime of teaching skills and abilities. iStars provides those teachers with the choice of staying in the classroom, flexing their skills and getting paid more for their expertise and success. I also see this as an excellent opportunity to attract new teachers to problem areas where they can excel right out of the gate and make more than the base salary right out of college while filling critically vacant positions identified by the Districts.
I'm not blind, however, I do see where the IEA would be concerned about the category 4 contracts offering more than what the union's would be able to negotiate under the iStars proposal. The union is working hard for their "customers" by offering up an alternative plan that I reviewed. I don't see as much of a change from what we currently have had for the last 20 years, or have had the opportunity to implement.
I have also heard some districts have currently up to 50% of their teachers that are excited about the iStars opportunity. This is a concern for me as it could cost the state more than we are currently forecasting for approval. If I were in Sup. Luna's shoe's, I think I would put a cap on the program for a maximum number volunteers allowed per year to ensure we can stay within the approved budget.
I see iStars as an opportunity for positive change in the way we educate our students. We must be more pro-active in attracting and KEEPING good Teachers to make sure our kids are the best educated kids in the nation. If we don't provide the good Teachers with pay for performance, we will continue down the same road we travel today where Idaho is not at the top of the list of performers.
iStars has some issues, but I don't see any that can't be tweaked overtime to make this program one of the best in the nation, giving our kids the best Teachers our state can give them.
Your thoughts?
Posts
8 comments:
Due process guarantees? Give me a break. Due process for Idaho teachers is the right to be notified of termination and a hearing in front of the same board who hired the administrator to hire and fire. This is due process? You are either completely obtuse or dishonest in your comments concerning due process.
I'm sorry you don't like or understand the message. The information provided is what is being told to the Legislature as what this program and process is. I can't claim anything other than what is published, and I recited exactly what was published and told to us in the House and Senate... as well as private meetings with Sup. Luna.
I would suggest that you take a look at the program and video as linked and consider the positive aspects of a program like this with an open mind.
If you don't like the message, don't kill the messanger... I really considered not publishing your post because this is a blog for exchanging information, not name calling. Let's all focus on the message and proposed program and work to figure out the best way to educate our kids... in the end that's what our citizens expect of our state.
Cheers,
Marv
To the "an idaho teacher"; you are obviously WAY too pro-IEA. Try thinking for yourself.
Comments like yours is what gives good teachers and the union a bad name.
Before posting your comments get your facts straight, I think it's also fair to say you haven't looked at iStar with an unbiased eye. If you did, you might also see some advanages for us.
We have an opportunity to gain another $45M in salary base and some opportunities for the good teachers of our state, what's the problem with that? Those of us with better skills should be rewarded more that those that are just getting by. I like teaching and appreciate the opportunity to stay here and make a better salary instead of moving into administration or something like that.
We grade our students and reward them with those grades, I don't understand what's wrong with having a similar system for us? If I work harder, I should be rewarded for that, don't you think?
A couple of thoughts about the question. First, I'm married to a teacher. 2 sisters, a daughter in law, mother,half of the family are teachers. I chaired teams studying the workings of local districts, so I'm not just coming from left field. I'd like to offer 2 thoughts that cut to the heart of the pay question.
First, in all groups, 1/2 of the group is below average.
Second, as Einstein said,"Insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results."
It's time to stop paying for time on the job, and start paying for measurable results. Teachers, despite their rhetoric, don't work very hard compared to other professionals, and aren't accountable for anything. We really need to change.
Glen
Representative, your description of the iStars program blurs the distinction between a "bonus," which is not ongoing and happens just one year at a time, and a "salary increase," which is ongoing and which adds to the person's base pay for calculating future increases. The only way a teacher can get an ongoing *salary increase* is through the so-called "career option" that reduces their job protections.
In response to SLFisher...
If taking the career option of IStars gives you an increase in salary, then why not take it? If a teacher is good at their job then there is no need for union "job protection". The IStars program is a great way to reward the hardworking teachers of Idaho. I recently went to a history seminar for teachers and was shocked that many teachers I know did not attend. The problem is that too many teachers out there are do not care to improve their skills and knowledge as a professional. Just some food for thought, maybe the union is the cause....
Some thoughts.
The entire ISTARS concept hinges on ISAT testing results. I would hope that the legislature would be willing to validate the ISAT data as well as the processes being used to make decisions affecting pay and jobs. Considering that other assessments issued by the Department of Education have been compromised I have little faith in the validity of the ISAT results.
Here is a little background for you.
This year I was forced to administer the Idaho Reading Indicator to my students. This reading assessment is a joke amongst teachers and administrators due to its availability to the public. Consider that it can easily be purchased here and has been available to the public for many years.
This is one of the "assessments" managed by the Department of Education. Suppose that this was used to make decisions about my performance as a teacher. Thank God it is not.
The Department of Education should prove that it can actually track merit through assessment results before basing anything on it.
I don't thing either program is perfect or quite frankly have the legs to make it this session.
I do like the fact that iStars is voluntary (which is why I can't get over the Teachers huge pitch against it... if you don't like it, do volunteer for it). I also like the fact that it's based on merit. Is the ISAT the best way to measure, no... but I do believe that over time that can be tweeked to use metrics that would be ore appropriate.
... again, it's voluntary... but I think too costly for this year's budget. We will have to see what JFAC come up with as far as the budget setting goes. Loosing $39M that we planned on in Jan is not a good start for the year and I suspect we are going to run a pretty lean year to make sure we don't spend what we won't get.
Thanks for your thoughts,
Marv
Post a Comment