HR 2204 AND TEACHER EXCELLENCE FOR ALL CHILDREN ACT OF 2007--
IMPACT ON COLLECTIVE BARGAINING
Both of these bills contain nearly identical provisions that would permit LEA’s to apply for grants that would be used to provide for merit pay and career ladders in ways that would undermine collective bargaining for certificated employees.
TEACH Act of 2007
Merit Pay
This Act would require the Secretary of Education to make grants to LEA’s to provide higher salaries to “exemplary, highly qualified principals and...teachers” who agree to serve for four years in a “high-need” public school.
The LEA receiving the grant “may use” the funds to provide up to $10,000 in an annual bonus to qualified teachers. As a condition for receiving the grant, the LEA must have in place a plan, or propose a plan “developed on a collaborative basis with the local teacher organization, to develop a system “in which principals, and if available, master teachers rate teachers as exemplary.” The system must be based on classroom observations and feedback at least four times per year, conducted by master teachers and principals, and based on “strong learning gains for students” i.e., growth of the teacher’s students on any state-required tests, and value-added student achievement gains if the state uses a value-added longitudinal data system.”
Hiring Timelines
An LEA seeking a grant under this section must also agree to pay matching funds to the federal grant. It must also adopt a new teacher hiring timeline, that would require retiring teachers to notify the district by March 15 of their intent to retire, and require that staffing allocations and deadlines for transfer be no later than April. Schools would be required to consider external candidates at the same time as internal candidates, and schools should not be required to hire transferring or “excessed” teachers without administrators’ consent.
Career Ladders
Section 2112 reads: “The Secretary may make grants” to LEAs that establish and implement career ladders that increase teachers’ pay in high-need schools for taking on new professional roles, such as serving on school leadership teams, serving as instructional coaches, and serving in “hybrid roles.” Master teachers could get up to $10,000 per year, and mentor teachers could get up to $5,000 per year. Career, mentor and master teachers could get up to $4,000 additional bonuses based on three classroom evaluations per year and student performance growth based on state tests.
Evaluations done to determine eligibility for the bonus are prescribed. They must be conducted by both the principal and the master teacher and be based on three annual classroom observations.
Career ladders may not be implemented unless “the percentage of teachers required by prevailing union rules votes affirmatively to adopt the program,” or in non-collective bargaining states, not unless 75% of the teachers vote affirmatively to do so.
Qualifications for mentor or a master teacher are also prescribed.
HR 2204
Provisions in Sec. 2501. Premium Pay essentially mirror the TEACH Act. Both contain a “Rule of Construction” that replicates the savings clause in the current ESEA, providing that “nothing in this subsection” shall alter the rights and remedies afforded employees and districts under state law or collective bargaining agreements. The problem is that the “subsection” referred to in both of these bills relates only to the hiring deadlines provision. It does not apply to the provisions regarding merit pay or career ladders.
Impact on Collective Bargaining
Both of these bills severely undermine collective bargaining in California and any other collective bargaining state because they remove employee organizations and the agreements they have negotiated from any role in shaping the contours of a pay- for- performance system.
The bills impose a version of merit pay, placing a cap on what can be earned, and narrowly defining what the “merit” is, e.g. student test scores, classroom observations, and agreeing to work in high-need schools for four years. The career ladder program also interferes with collective bargaining by setting a ceiling on what can be earned and for what activities. Becausethe LEA would have to come up with matching funds for these programs, the overall amount of money available for traditional, across-the-board salary increases or benefits increases could be drastically reduced. In short, the negotiable subject of salary and benefits will be significantly circumscribed if these bills pass.
Obviously, the same comment applies to the hiring timelines contained in these bills. Transfer is a negotiable subject of bargaining, but these bills would undercut the range of proposals that would be negotiable.
Procedures for evaluation, another enumerated topic of negotiations, would also be adversely affected by these bills because they prescribe what elements must be included in evaluations, e.g. student test scores, value-added models, in addition to requiring a certain number of observations per year. The requirement that master teachers participate in evaluations of teachers in schools who apply for these grants has the potential to undermine basic unionism, as it could result in those master teachers being removed from the bargaining unit because they would be performing supervisory functions.
Another insidious swipe at collective bargaining is the requirement that the career ladder program be adopted by a vote of the teachers, as opposed to the procedures or requirements established through collective bargaining. Similarly, the merit pay program must be developed “on a collaborative basis” with the local teacher organization. “Collaborative basis” is not collective bargaining. Indeed, it is a code for “meet and consult,” a process that places no obligation on the employer to reach agreement with the union. It could be argued that this is the authors’ way of insulating merit pay and the related subjects (evaluation, transfer) as described and funded by these bills from any collective bargaining.