Like many states, Texas is currently facing a massive teacher shortage, with more than 10,000 classroom vacancies.  But this state is unique in that its deep deregulation of teacher preparation has made the crisis even worse. Texas’s school staffing woes provide an important cautionary tale for North Carolina as our decision makers craft a complete makeover of teacher licensure and compensation.  

***

In Texas, most new teachers don’t enter the classroom through traditional university educator preparation programs.  Instead, more than half the state’s newest educators go through alternative certification routes.  Such programs offer more flexibility and lower costs than universities, and to some extent they’ve helped diversify the teaching corps.  

However, limited state oversight of such programs means quality control is nearly nonexistent. As a result, they often produce teachers who aren’t well prepared for the realities of life in the classroom.  Those educators rarely stay in the profession for long.

The largest alternative certification program in Texas is the for-profit “Texas Teachers of Tomorrow,” a company which has expanded into a number of other states including North Carolina.  (More on the North Carolina franchise later.)  

The company advertises its product as a speedy path to becoming a classroom teacher:

Of course faster doesn’t always mean better.

A recent audit by the Texas Education Agency (TEA) found numerous problems with the Texas Teachers of Tomorrow program, including misleading advertising, failure to provide new teachers with mentors, and lack of research to support training materials.  

The agency is now considering whether to place TTOT on probation while it works to get its act together or revoke its right to operate in Texas entirely.  The state is so far down the alternative certification road that revocation could make teacher shortages even worse than they already are.

In order to better understand the impact of Texas’s deregulation of teacher preparation, the University of Houston’s College of Education took a deep dive into trends in the state’s public school staffing, conducting a decade-long study which culminated with the 2021 release of the Texas Teacher Workforce Report.  

Researchers found that after 10 years 57% of teachers prepared through traditional university programs remained, while only 46% of those who came through for-profit programs like Texas Teachers of Tomorrow were still in the classroom.

Back to North Carolina

In the 2017-18 session, North Carolina state legislators passed a law called “Excellent Educators in Every Classroom” which opened up teacher preparation to entities that are not universities.  (The same bill created the Professional Educator Preparation and Standards Commission, the group that is currently working on a proposal to reform licensure and compensation by moving to a system of merit pay.)

The legislation was sponsored by then-state senator Chad Barefoot, and eyebrows shot up when news emerged that Teachers of Tomorrow president and frequent Republican donor Vernon Reaser had contributed to Barefoot’s campaign.  

After the bill passed, Teachers of Tomorrow was authorized to operate as an educator preparation program in North Carolina.  The company’s billboards began popping up along the state’s highways, again selling the quick path to the classroom:

North Carolina Teachers of Tomorrow now refers to itself as “the largest North Carolina teacher license program” and, according to the North Carolina Department of Public Instruction Educator Preparation Program Dashboard, has a current enrollment of 1,326.  

The company’s website boasts a number of glowing endorsements by “teachers” who have completed the program in North Carolina.  

Oddly enough, not one of them is listed in NCDPI’s License Verification database, indicating none of those being used to sell the North Carolina Teachers of Tomorrow program actually holds a teaching license in this state.  

Perhaps the misleading advertising flagged by the Texas Education Agency wasn’t an anomaly.

The North Carolina officials who are promoting the state’s new merit pay proposal keep talking about the need for additional “on ramps” for educators.  State superintendent Catherine Truitt recently said, “Opening these doors into the profession for our teachers can turn into opening the doors of opportunity for our students.”

To be clear, we do need to ensure there are viable alternate pathways to the classroom and that our licensure system is resulting in a healthy, diverse teacher pipeline.  But we must be sure that when we open those doors we do so with the understanding that teaching is a highly skilled profession.  Our North Star must be our constitutional obligation to provide excellent teachers for every student.  

If we open North Carolina’s doors to shoddy operators and poorly prepared teachers, there’s no reason to think the results will be any different from the mess that’s playing out in Texas.

Last week I sat down with NC Policy Watch director Rob Schofield to talk about a new proposal to scrap our state’s experience-based pay scale for educators in favor of merit pay.

Give it a listen!

👇👇👇👇👇👇👇👇

There is a proposal underway that would eliminate the compensation model that pays teachers based on their years of experience and instead move all North Carolina educators to a system of merit pay.

Here’s what you need to know:

You can direct thoughts on the process and draft proposal to Dr. Thomas Tomberlin here: Thomas.Tomberlin@dpi.nc.gov

State Board of Education members will eventually vote on whether to approve the model, which is expected to be finalized in the coming weeks. If you’d like to share feedback with State Board members, their email addresses are:

eric.davis@dpi.nc.gov
alan.duncan@dpi.nc.gov
olivia.oxendine@dpi.nc.gov
reginald.kenan@dpi.nc.gov
amy.white@dpi.nc.gov
James.Ford@dpi.nc.gov
Jill.Camnitz@dpi.nc.gov
Donna.Tipton-Rogers@dpi.nc.gov
JWendell.Hall@dpi.nc.gov
john.blackburn@dpi.nc.gov
mark.robinson@dpi.nc.gov
dale.folwell@dpi.nc.gov

Today the Department of Public Instruction presented the State Board of Education with a draft proposal that would move the state’s teachers from an experience-based pay scale to a system of merit pay. 

Or would it?

When the presentation concluded, Board Member Jill Camnitz asked the following question:

“I’d like to ask you to address something that we’re hearing around this table in terms of the emails that we’re receiving mostly from teachers across the state and that is a fear that this is merit pay…What’s the difference?  Is this merit pay?”

DPI’s Dr. Tom Tomberlin then launched into a rambling history lesson that didn’t answer the question.  When he was finished, State Superintendent Catherine Truitt jumped in.

Superintendent Truitt started by reading a definition of merit pay which she had apparently Googled in preparation for the meeting:

Here’s how she attempted to explain away teacher worries about moving to merit pay:

“I find it interesting that some of the concerns that have been raised in emails are around this concept of merit pay.  The Department of Labor defines merit pay as ‘pay for performance based on a set of criteria established by the employer.’  I think in education there is a–and perhaps it’s because of some of the history that Dr. Tomberlin just shared in our own state–there’s a thinking that merit pay means tying teacher compensation to test scores.  And I want to be very clear there’s been some kind of incomplete and sometimes erroneous reporting in the media this past week about this model, and thank you for Dr. Tomberlin for kicking us off by reiterating that this is a model, that we are not voting on this at this time.  

This is something that if it were to be implemented, it would be two to three years away from implementation.  We’ve got a long way to go with this.  However, I want to be very clear that this is not a model that ties teacher compensation to test scores.  So while EVAAS could be one way to move up in the model, move up the ladder so to speak, it is one way.  There are multiple ways for teachers to move up via effectiveness, and effectiveness has many definitions and there are many ways to demonstrate effectiveness.  

So I want to be very clear that EVAAS is not a required pathway to advancement.  For each step on the ladder there are multiple ways to advance outside of EVAAS.  I think it’s also important to highlight on, if we could go back to the graphic please, I think it’s important to note that when we look at License III, where the star is, that is where the majority of our teachers are coming from now.  They graduate from a traditional EPP, and this is where they would start, which means that their starting salary, if we have our way, will be higher than it is right now.  

I would also point out that we are trying to solve three challenges with this model.  And I think that when we get feedback from the field right now, which I’m really happy even when the feedback is negative and even sometimes misinformed, it’s good to get that feedback because it helps all of us, and those in PEPSC, understand where the miscommunication is and how we need to do a better job of communicating this to our teachers.”

So, to sum up:

Merit pay is when you’re paid for your performance based on criteria set by your employer.

But this isn’t that, because your merit can be measured in more than one way.

Also, it wouldn’t happen for 2-3 years.

By the way, teachers will hopefully get paid more.

And finally, teachers who don’t like the model don’t understand it.

Let’s agree on Truitt’s Department of Labor definition as a starting point.

Here’s a slide from the draft proposal:

Truitt is absolutely right that there are multiple pathways under this proposal.  In other words, there are multiple criteria available to evaluate a teacher’s performance.  But all of those pathways measure the teacher’s merit in order to determine their compensation and advancement.  

I can opt out of EVAAS as that measure and instead go with the Practical Educator Evidence Review, for example.  My merit as a teacher would then be determined through principal observation, colleague observation, and student surveys.

That’s merit pay.

And you can put lipstick on a pig if you want to, but it’s still a pig.

Our current system compensates teachers based on their years of experience, just as every other state in the country does.  The experience-based approach, if adequately funded, rewards long term commitment to a career in education and recognizes the importance of veteran educators. Under this system, the tools which Truitt and her folks want to use to determine teacher pay can help teachers grow in their practice as educators. But their subjectivity and other limitations cannot harm the educator’s livelihood.

Last of all, to the point that the significant educator pushback against this proposal is rooted in poor communication, teachers are perfectly capable of reading this new plan–which is definitely merit pay–and thinking about how it would apply to their professional practice.  Dismissing their concerns as “those teachers are just misinformed” is insulting and disingenuous.  

North Carolina teachers deserve better.

****

You can direct thoughts on the process and draft proposal to Dr. Thomas Tomberlin here: Thomas.Tomberlin@dpi.nc.gov

State Board of Education members will eventually vote on whether to approve the model, which is expected to be finalized in the coming weeks. If you’d like to share feedback with State Board members, their email addresses are:

eric.davis@dpi.nc.gov
alan.duncan@dpi.nc.gov
olivia.oxendine@dpi.nc.gov
reginald.kenan@dpi.nc.gov
amy.white@dpi.nc.gov
James.Ford@dpi.nc.gov
Jill.Camnitz@dpi.nc.gov
Donna.Tipton-Rogers@dpi.nc.gov
JWendell.Hall@dpi.nc.gov
john.blackburn@dpi.nc.gov
mark.robinson@dpi.nc.gov
dale.folwell@dpi.nc.gov

Today the NC Department of Public Instruction will present the State Board of Education with a draft proposal that would move the state’s teachers from an experience-based pay scale to a system of “merit pay.” 

Much of the pushback from educators thus far has centered around the use of EVAAS, a computer software which the SAS corporation claims can accurately measure teacher effectiveness based solely on students’ standardized test results.

Educators are rightly concerned about the proposed use of this data, among other reasons because of how many factors go into student test performance that are beyond the teacher’s control.

But what about the 60% of teachers who don’t have EVAAS scores, or those teachers whose scores are low?  

According to the proposal, those educators would have the option of being evaluated via something called the “Practical Educator Evidence Review” (PEER).

PEER would use principal observation, observation by a Level IV+ colleague, and student surveys in order to gauge teacher effectiveness.

There are four PEPSC subcommittees currently working on the licensure and compensation reform proposal: Prep and Entry, Advancement and Development, Budget and Compensation, and Licensure.

Discussion at the March 31, 2022 meeting of the Licensure subcommittee revealed significant disagreement among members over whether student surveys should be used to determine teachers’ compensation and career advancement.

Dr. Chris Godwin, Assistant Dean and Chair of Professional Education at Campbell University, was the first to raise concerns about the use of student surveys at this meeting. Multiple other members then chimed in as well to say they did not support that part of the proposal.

I’ll post complete minutes at the end, but the relevant section is here:

A few minutes later Dr. Kimberly Evans, who serves as DPI’s Education Preparation Coordinator, returned to the point on student surveys to clarify that the Licensure committee had in fact voted to approve student surveys, albeit not unanimously. Another committee member replied in the chat:

“I personally don’t think using qualitative assessments for licensure is a good idea b/c it opens up too much subjectivity into the process.”

The subcommittee members’ conflicting accounts over whether or not the group had chosen to use student surveys in the model made me curious, so I did some digging and found the meeting where the decision was made.

At the November 2021 meeting of the Licensure subcommittee, the decision to move forward with student surveys was taken up despite the fact that more than half of the voting members were not in attendance–a point noted by subcommittee member and NCAE President Tamika Walker Kelly.

Others who were present appeared confused about whether they were eligible to vote or should abstain because they work for the Department of Public Instruction.

The use of student surveys was approved by a one vote margin, 8-7.

Giving students power to determine teachers’ salaries and professional path is not a decision to be made lightly. It’s one that deserves rigorous dialogue by all stakeholders (committee members and public alike) as well as clearly established parameters for how the decision will be made.

At least from these two Licensure subcommittee meetings, it appears that those things are not currently happening.

You can direct thoughts on the process and draft proposal to Dr. Thomas Tomberlin here: Thomas.Tomberlin@dpi.nc.gov

State Board of Education members will eventually vote on whether to approve the model, which is expected to be finalized in the coming weeks. If you’d like to share feedback with State Board members, their email addresses are:

eric.davis@dpi.nc.gov
alan.duncan@dpi.nc.gov
olivia.oxendine@dpi.nc.gov
reginald.kenan@dpi.nc.gov
amy.white@dpi.nc.gov
James.Ford@dpi.nc.gov
Jill.Camnitz@dpi.nc.gov
Donna.Tipton-Rogers@dpi.nc.gov
JWendell.Hall@dpi.nc.gov
john.blackburn@dpi.nc.gov
mark.robinson@dpi.nc.gov
dale.folwell@dpi.nc.gov

Complete minutes from the November 2021 PEPSC Licensure subcommittee meeting:

Nov-2021-Licensure-subcommittee-minutes

Complete minutes from the March 2022 PEPSC Licensure subcommittee meeting:

Mar-2022-Licensure-subcommittee-minutes

A draft proposal coming before the State Board of Education next week would transition all North Carolina teachers to a system of “merit pay” as soon as 2023.

The proposal represents the culmination of the work of the Professional Educator Preparation and Standards Commission, which was directed by state legislators to make recommendations on licensure reform.

The proposed change would make North Carolina the first state in the country to stop paying teachers on an experience-based scale that, at least in theory, rewards long-term commitment to a career in education and recognizes the importance of veteran educators (if adequately funded by the state–but that’s a topic for another post).  

Instead, compensation would be based on teacher effectiveness as determined through measures like EVAAS, a computer algorithm developed by the SAS corporation which analyzes standardized test scores. Teachers who do not have EVAAS scores would receive salaries based on subjective metrics such as principal observations, observations by colleagues, and student surveys.

This plan is problematic in a number of ways.  It would increase “teaching to the test” by offering a handful of larger salaries to those educators whose students do well on tests.  Competition over a limited number of larger salaries would lead to teachers working in silos rather than collaborating and sharing best practices as cohesive teams.  Teachers of subjects with no standardized tests are raising concerns that observations and student surveys are highly subjective, and basing salaries on them would be unfair.

Dr. Tom Tomberlin, who serves as the North Carolina Department of Public Instruction’s Director of Educator Recruitment and Support, has justified moving away from an experience-based pay scale by claiming that teacher effectiveness plateaus after the first few years in the classroom.

It’s an argument which shows a major disconnect between DPI and those of us who actually work in schools and experience first hand how important veteran teachers are to overall school operations.

Veteran teachers often work as mentors, run athletic departments, coach sports and deliver professional development for peers.

They have long-standing relationships with school families and community members that position them to be excellent advocates for the needs of their schools.  

None of that value is reflected in a veteran teacher’s EVAAS score.

Brenda Berg, CEO of pro-business education reform organization Best NC, has been a vocal proponent of scrapping the experience-based pay scale.  Berg, who serves on the compensation subcommittee that helped develop the plan, said this week that it’s clear our current system isn’t working and it’s time to be “bold” about change even if it’s “scary.”

I’d like to note that anyone who claims educator pushback to this plan is centered in fear of change is completely out of touch with what it’s like to be a professional educator.  We are the most flexible and resilient people on the planet, and the last two years have illustrated that fact like never before.  We also know what it means to be treated fairly.

It’s true that North Carolina is facing a major pipeline crisis, with enrollment in UNC education programs down drastically over the past several years.  It’s true that if we aren’t bold about change we will soon have nobody left who’s willing to work in our schools.

But we also need to be bold about acknowledging the reason for this crisis.  It isn’t because the licensure process is too cumbersome.  It isn’t because veteran teachers are ineffective and making too much money.  It isn’t because our teachers lack accountability.

The reason North Carolina’s schools are suffering from a lack of qualified educators is because for the last 12 years our legislature’s policies have made it deeply unappealing to be a teacher in this state.  Those policies include cutting master’s pay and longevity pay, taking away teacher assistants, eliminating retiree health benefits and many, many others.

The solution to North Carolina’s teacher pipeline crisis isn’t a system of merit pay which devalues long term commitment to public schools and ties salaries to standardized tests and subjective measures.

The solution to the problem is comprehensive policy change that makes a teaching career in North Carolina an attractive proposition.  That’s the kind of change that will allow us to put an excellent teacher in every classroom. 

This proposal ain’t it.

You can share feedback on the proposal with Dr. Thomas Tomberlin here: Thomas.Tomberlin@dpi.nc.gov

State Board of Education members will hear Dr. Tomberlin’s presentation at the April 6 board meeting. Their email addresses are:

eric.davis@dpi.nc.gov
alan.duncan@dpi.nc.gov
olivia.oxendine@dpi.nc.gov
reginald.kenan@dpi.nc.gov
amy.white@dpi.nc.gov
James.Ford@dpi.nc.gov
Jill.Camnitz@dpi.nc.gov
Donna.Tipton-Rogers@dpi.nc.gov
JWendell.Hall@dpi.nc.gov
john.blackburn@dpi.nc.gov
mark.robinson@dpi.nc.gov
dale.folwell@dpi.nc.gov