Today in “North Carolina Department of Public Instruction documents the public needs to see” is an Eckel and Vaughan “proactive media strategy” memo sent to DPI staff and members of the Human Capital Roundtable (HCR) on April 13.
Eckel and Vaughan is a Raleigh-based communications firm that someone has hired to market the merit pay plan. (I requested an invoice from DPI and was informed they hadn’t paid Eckel and Vaughan any department funds, so it’s unclear who’s bankrolling their work.)
The memo notes a need to “gain greater control of the narrative” due to “recent media attention that PEPSC’s work has been receiving” (My first blog post on merit pay was April 2 and was widely shared, and others started speaking up about problems with the proposal around that time as well)
The E & V memo proposes the Human Capital Roundtable consider a three-phase approach.
Phase 1: Positioning Maureen Stover and Johnny Belk to write op-eds and do interviews. The memo says Stover would help with “gaining the trust of teachers around the state” while Belk’s involvement would get the business community on board and association with the Belk Foundation would bring legitimacy.
Stover is a former North Carolina Teacher of the Year who serves on two of the four PEPSC subcommittees that are working on the licensure/compensation proposal. Belk is the former president and COO of Belk, Inc. and current chair of the Belk Foundation.
Phase 2: Identifying teachers from varied parts of North Carolina to “submit an opinion piece in support to the [sic] changes to the system to a targeted outlet in their region.” This approach would ensure that teachers all over the state would hear positive things about the proposal.
Phase 3: Publish an opinion piece authored by former Governors Jim Hunt and Jim Martin. Eckel and Vaughan said this final phase would be crucial in giving the proposal legitimacy and gaining the support of legislators.
As background, I reported last week that the HCR is recruiting members to a group called the “UpliftEd coalition” to drum up public support for the merit pay plan. An HCR recruitment spreadsheet has Governors Hunt and Martin listed as honorary co-chairs. I have not been able to confirm their involvement.
The media strategy memo includes in its next steps “drafting the various opinion pieces.” It’s unclear whether that means Eckel and Vaughan would be writing the articles and then pretending the teachers and governors wrote them.
Here’s the thing.
If you work in the light, involve stakeholders and craft good policy, this manipulative crap is unnecessary. But none of that is happening here.
In addition to serving as UNCG’s Director of Professional Education Preparation, Policy & Accountability, Dr. O’Connor sits on the Preparation and Entry subcommittee of PEPSC, the organization that is working on the Human Capital Roundtable’s North Carolina teacher merit pay proposal.
At the June 10 meeting of that subcommittee, Dr. O’Connor reported back to the whole group on her breakout room’s thoughts about the proposal, voicing the same concern teachers have been raising ever since the merit pay plan became public: the NC teacher evaluation instrument used by principals (NCEES) is too subjective to be used to determine teachers’ salaries and career advancement opportunities.
NC Department of Public Instruction’s Dr. Tom Tomberlin, chief supporter of the merit pay plan’s current design, was none too pleased.
Audio and a transcript of this part of the meeting are below:
Dr. O’Connor: We don’t believe NCEES should be part of this.
I saw that in the feedback too there was a lot of the feedback that I read that had a lot of concerns about NCEES being used for this and there was a lot of, you know, concern about the peer review process and so we tried to streamline it, simplify it and you know still have multiple pathways but keeping that bar of INTASC standards and validity and reliability.
If we’re going to be making high-stakes decisions about people’s careers, we need to make sure we’re using instruments that have solid data quality behind them.
Dr. Tomberlin: So, is there some evidence that NCEES doesn’t have validity and reliability?
Dr. O’Connor: I think there’s lots of anecdotal evidence that it’s not reliable, that the scores on it are highly subjective and there’s not a lot of consistency. The validity, you know, I think you could make an argument that it has some validity. There’s some validity evidence there as far as being, you know, cross-locked to the North Carolina standards and the INTASC standards, but as far as the training and the reliability of the data I think there’s lots of concern. And I don’t think that there’s been, I have not seen any reliability evidence published on that.
Dr. Tomberlin: So my concerns with the way it’s implemented are, I’m with you on that. As far as an instrument whether…
Dr. O’Connor:Instruments are not reliable. Data is reliable.
Dr. Tomberlin: I understand that Dr. O’Connor.
What I’m saying is that that tool passed those requirements for validity and reliability. What is our theory of action that any other instrument we choose that has similar issues of, that has similar levels of validity and reliability is not going to be implemented in a way that’s problematic, that’s equally problematic to what we’re seeing with NCEES? And my question is, is the evaluation process itself fundamentally problematic (laughs), or is it the instrument we’ve decided to use? And given that virtually every other state in the union has the same issues that we have with evaluation it leads me to believe that it’s not instrument specific. It’s some other quality of the process.
As a reliability-related side note, DPI’s Dr. Kim Evans reports directly to Dr. Tomberlin and is tasked with keeping minutes for PEPSC subcommittee meetings.
I’ll let you be the judge of whether the minutes from this meeting accurately capture this important exchange between Dr. O’Connor and Dr. Tomberlin.
Documents obtained through a Department of Public Instruction records request show a so-called “Dream Team” of former politicians, business magnates, and high-powered education leaders is being recruited to form an organization named the UpliftEd Coalition.
Planning for the coalition was undertaken by Raleigh-based communications firm Eckel and Vaughan, the Southern Regional Education Board (SREB), and the Human Capital Roundtable (HCR). The coalition’s structure and recruitment strategy is laid out in this August 2021 memo:
In April of this year, Human Capital Roundtable members were sent a spreadsheet of coalition recruitment targets. The “UpliftEd NC Coalition Recruitment Targets” document includes columns for identifying HCR members best positioned to persuade individual targets. It uses an A,B,C system of ranking to gauge desirability.
The spreadsheet lists the coalition’s Honorary Co-Chairs as former North Carolina governors Jim Hunt and Jim Martin.
Board Co-Chairs are former Belk Corporation president John R. Belk, State Superintendent of Public Instruction Catherine Truitt, and Edgecombe County Superintendent Valerie Bridges.
The coalition’s Board of Directors includes the Chair of the State Board of Education (the body which will soon consider the merit pay plan for approval), the Executive Director of Teach for America NC, and Governor Cooper’s Senior Education Advisor, among others.
Only one teacher, Maureen Stover, is included on the coalition roster. Stover also serves on two of the four PEPSC subcommittees which are currently developing the merit pay plan.
By way of background, the Human Capital Roundtable is the secretive group that initially drafted the merit pay proposal before handing it to the Professional Educator Preparation and Standards Commission (PEPSC).
Despite state law requiring any body authorized to carry out a legislative or policy-making function to make their meetings open to the public and keep “full and accurate minutes,” Roundtable meetings have been held in private, and no recordings or minutes of these meetings have ever been made available to the public.
According to this email exchange, last month EdNC reporter Alex Granados tried unsuccessfully to attend an HCR meeting, noting concerns that “the Human Capital Roundtable could be making decisions that impact the licensure plan without the public being able to see how those decisions are being made.” SREB Project Manager Megan Boren told Granados the meetings were members only:
With public work on the licensure/compensation proposal now being carried out by PEPSC, HCR’s purpose appears to have shifted from building the merit pay plan to building what resembles a political campaign to ensure the controversial proposal passes.
The UpliftEd recruitment spreadsheet contains two drafts. The initial draft includes a number of noteworthy names that did not make the final cut, such as Ann Goodnight, Senior Director of Community Relations for SAS and wife of SAS Founder and CEO James Goodnight. The Goodnights’ company produces EVAAS, the value-added software at the center of the merit pay proposal. Also up for initial consideration were former UNC President Erskine Bowles and venture capital boss Bob Ingram.
Next to the two governors’ names on this early draft is a comment indicating concern about a “potential strategic conflict” with Hunt and Martin having agreed to serve as Honorary Co-Chairs of Governor Cooper’s NC Education Corps.
Whatever the strategic conflict was appears to have been resolved by Draft 2. Both Governor Hunt and Governor Martin are listed with the heading “Final and Confirmed,” suggesting they’ve agreed to support the proposal.
The documents indicate UpliftEd will formally launch when PEPSC hands off the merit pay proposal to the State Board of Education:
Proposed coalition graphics are below, and the website http://www.upliftednc.com was registered in November 2021 and is currently parked.
So why are the people behind this merit pay plan putting so much time, money and energy into marketing it if it’s actually a good idea?
One reason is that the “Pathways to Excellence” plan has gone over like a lead balloon with those it will impact most directly: North Carolina’s educators.
Teachers have raised concerns about everything from the plan’s subjective and unreliable effectiveness measures to the potential for an increase in standardized testing to the damage an influx of unprepared teachers would do to our students. (You can see one example of feedback the Department of Public Instruction collected from teachers in Davie and Caldwell counties here.)
They’ve also questioned the wisdom of enacting this sweeping, highly experimental policy during a massive teacher shortage.
The Human Capital Roundtable is no doubt hoping that the UpliftEd Coalition’s star power will drown out the voices of those teachers and help ensure that the merit pay proposal passes.
You can share concerns about the licensure and compensation proposal with key decision makers via email:
PEPSC Commission (will take up merit pay plan for consideration in August/September)
Teachers would choose from a menu of effectiveness measures including standardized test-based EVAAS scores, a portfolio-style review of student work, and something called the Practical Educator Evidence Review (PEER).
The PEER measure would include three components: principal evaluation, observation by a colleague, and student surveys.
Our students spend more time in our classrooms than anyone and are well positioned to offer feedback on their learning experiences. For years I have surveyed my own students at the end of the year, and the insight they provide always helps me to improve as an educator. But using that information to determine teacher salaries and career paths is a proposal that deserves careful scrutiny.
With only two months of PEPSC subcommittee work remaining before the licensure/compensation proposal is finalized, I filed a public records request with the Department of Public Instruction (DPI) for examples of student survey questions that could be used in this manner.
I was provided with a spreadsheet of dozens of questions that you can download or view in its entirety here (be sure to navigate the tabs at the bottom to see all the questions).
Some of the survey questions are reasonable enough, but others ask about factors that are clearly well beyond the teacher’s control.
Take this one, for example:
Now, I’ve had a classroom that required a large trash can to catch the steady stream of water that came through the ceiling every time it rained.
I’ve taught in trailers that should have been thrown off a cliff, spaces ruled by mold and cockroaches. Those “classrooms” need a phrase much stronger than “very unpleasant” to accurately capture how inappropriate they were for human occupation.
Decrepit buildings, insect infestations and crowded spaces are common in schools across our state. These poor conditions aren’t the result of bad teaching, they’re the product of bad decision making by elected officials who believe tax cuts are more important than public education.
How about this one?
My school district has adopted the EL English Language Arts curriculum for many grade levels including my own. This curriculum has some advantages, but it’s heavily scripted and repetitive to a fault. My students have spent the entire fourth quarter studying about plastic pollution in the ocean. I’ve done my best to supplement and enrich, but after two months they’re understandably at the point where they just don’t want to hear it anymore. It seems likely that my student responses to this survey question would capture their feelings about the design of this mandatory curriculum and not my personal approach to teaching and learning.
Here are some other questions from DPI’s document that seem potentially problematic:
Overall, how important is [SUBJECT] to you?
When you feel like giving up on a difficult task, how likely is it that this teacher will make you keep trying?
When you are not in class, how often do you talk about ideas from class?
When faced with a very challenging task, how hard do you work to complete it? If you came back to visit class three years from now, how excited would this teacher be to see you?
Teachers should not be held responsible for factors that are beyond their control. Building conditions, poorly designed but mandatory curriculum, student interest in the content and challenging student behaviors all have a major impact on how students feel about school and how well they learn, but they are aspects of school that teachers often have little or no power to influence.
My guess is that DPI’s reaction to this concern would be to say “Well, those aren’t the actual questions we’re going to use. They’re just examples,” “We’ll figure it out during the implementation phase” or “It’s just a draft.”
Those responses would be irresponsible at best and negligent at worst. There are only weeks left before the “draft” is final. What we can’t do is pass a bare bones policy and then trust DPI to do a good job of putting the flesh on those bones later. Not when the health of our whole system of public education is at stake.
Now is the time for the Department of Public Instruction and PEPSC subcommittees to provide specific details, listen carefully to feedback from stakeholders, and use that feedback to significantly improve the proposal.
Enacting a plan that pays educators based on unfair measures will only make it harder for us to recruit and retain the excellent teachers each of our children deserves.
If you’d like to share feedback on the proposal to compensate teachers based on student survey results, you can contact co chairs of the relevant PEPSC subcommittees at the email addresses listed below:
*This piece was originally written in July, 2021.*
By now you must have heard about it. It is everywhere! And whether or not you’ve been paying attention, this insidious ideology has taken over the country and indoctrinated the populace for the last few years. It’s the toxic racial theory poisoning the minds of children and adults in our nation – Great Replacement Theory (GRT).
‘You Will Not Replace Us’
GRT made headlines in 2017 during the Unite the Right rally in Charlottesville, VA, where a mob of torch-bearing white men marched around a recently-removed Confederate monument chanting “you will not replace us”. Attendees engaged in barbaric violence, injuring several people and ultimately killing activist Heather Heyer after a perpetrator drove his car through a crowd of counter-protesters. This mantra is identified as a white supremacist slogan by the Anti-Defamation League and reflects a long-held fear of demographic change in America. In sum, Great Replacement Theory posits that a rising majority of people of color in the country is a plot to “replace” the shrinking minority white population, pushing them and their way of life into supposed extinction. The theory was popularized in 2012 by French author Renaud Camus who wrote a book of the same title.
While originating in Europe as a response to increased Black and Muslim immigration, it has since gained a foothold in the United States. The ideology is typically not explicitly named, but the sentiments can be detected in the comments of politicians like former Rep. Steven King who in 2017 tweeted “you cannot rebuild your civilization with somebody else’s babies” when discussing US immigration. Consider former North Carolina Lt. Governor Dan Forest who during his failed gubernatorial campaign in 2019 stated “no other nation […] has ever survived the diversity and multiculturalism that America faces today” supposedly due to a “lack of assimilation”. Or the now-abandoned proposed America First Caucus in the US House of Representatives, which was intended to preserve the so-called “Anglo-Saxon political traditions” of the country while warning the “unique identity” of the nation is at risk. Perhaps worst of all is the decidedly more flagrant messaging of Fox News Correspondent Tucker Carlson who in April plainly stated that a law undoing racially restrictive immigration by limiting it strictly to free “white person[s]…of good character” was the biggest attack on democracy.
Taking all these examples together, are we supposed to pretend we don’t notice a pattern? It’s no mystery, the common thread in all the discourse is the notion of a white or Western European cultural and political supremacy that must be protected at all cost – including circumventing democracy itself, if necessary. All the pretense is gone at this point. We are instead left with raw nativism, no additives or preservatives.
GRT versus CRT
You likely do not know about this theory or the threat it poses because nearly every bit of corporate media’s coverage of racial resentment is concentrated on “Critical Race Theory”. The general population now believes they have a sophisticated understanding of the 30+ year old academic analytical legal framework that looks at how racism functions at the structural level, particularly in the post-Civil Rights era. This is thanks in large part to a coordinated far-right disinformation campaign. The phrase has been laundered unquestioningly by news outlets simply repeating the bogus accusations it is being taught in K-12 classrooms across the country without much critique or investigations of merit. We now know that pseudo-intellectuals like Cristopher Rufo of the Manhattan Institute and organizations like Parents Defending Education are behind this intentional misappropriation of the term. It now is a convenient stand-in for any investigation of systemic racism.
Sadly, it has been effective in grabbing headlines, but also ineffective as even conservative think-tank the Heritage Foundation reports many parents who know little about CRT have a neutral or favorable view. The backfiring of this propaganda should come as no surprise. The implication that examining systemic racism is somehow “un-American” isn’t landing so well after the racial reckoning of 2020. Nevertheless, conservatives seem to be banking on the idea that focusing on Critical Race Theory will somehow confirm Great Replacement Theory and trigger the historically reliable mobilizing force of white resentment. They are betting the house, better yet, the nation on the belief that a divided structure will somehow remain standing. The message is simple, “See! They are trying to replace you, your history, your worldview, your customs, etc. Be afraid!” Doubling-down and pushing all chips to the center of the political table. It’s hard to argue with their logic, for reasons they seek to prohibit from being included in US historical canon. But we know why.
In truth, the country has changed, but it’s not the existential crisis far-right extremists make it out to be. Change is an inevitable part of any nation’s evolution. Resistance to this shift in composition and culture – commonly called the “culture wars”—is about maintaining predominance, instead of plurality. The premise of the conflict rests on the idea that multiple things cannot exist harmoniously at once. That America will no longer be “America” without white social or cultural dominance. For them it’s zero sum, there is no power sharing to be had. You are either the oppressor or being oppressed, dominating or being dominated, there is no in-between. At a basic level, culture is connected to how people think, act and behave. For so long this has almost entirely been determined by white Americans and with all others (including Central and Eastern European immigrants initially) being forced to conform. However, after years of dependence on us – citizens of color as the mass producers of culture – it’s no wonder our influence and worldview is more widespread than ever.
This was not supposed to happen. Those people are supposed to “shut up and dribble”. They are supposed to enjoy their immense financial rewards, huge platforms, and choose to remain mute on issues of societal import to their communities. If things are so bad, they should leave the country, right? But that ain’t us, in fact it never has been. The difference now is they no longer have the unilateral ability to silence us. Our perspectives are maligned as “woke”, “political” and “divisive”. But when one asks the simple question, “for who?”, deductive reasoning makes it obvious. Any shift of the national culture to reflect those who have historically been on the margins is seen as a lost battle in a sadistic war for cultural supremacy. This is GRT! They’re crying about the sky falling when it’s actually just opening up.
White Supremacy Manifestos
The danger of these disinformation campaigns cannot be understated. They signal desperation and a racially-primed panic that often plays out in violence. This is why for students of history, the armed insurrection of January 6th was no surprise. GRT themes are consistently captured in the manifestos of white supremacist terrorists like Dylan Roof, killer of 9 parishioners in the Charleston Church Massacre of 2016 and Patrick Crusius, the El Paso Shooter who killed 20 people outside of a Walmart in 2018. Both murderers seemed fixated on Black and Hispanic “invasions” of the country. While many politicians and pundits railing against antiracism are not terrorists, the substance of their rhetoric is nearly ideologically identical. The widespread voter suppression and rash of bills attempting to whitewash history are all connected. This should concern all of us if we consider far-right extremists as the greatest terrorist threat in the US and research that shows white Americans who hold racial prejudices are less committed to democracy and more supportive of authoritarianism.
This is GRT, and it is the most dangerous racial theory being propagated in the country, not CRT. It is white identity politics in self-destruct mode, and if we do not work feverishly to name and eradicate it this disingenuous strategy may just succeed in preserving the America of the past while preventing it from having any foreseeable future.
We’ve borne the brunt of more than a decade of General Assembly policy that has made a career in public education in North Carolina deeply unappealing. We’ve endured a two year pandemic which upended teaching and learning and spawned a massive teacher shortage that has vastly increased the burden on those of us who have chosen to stay.
We are long overdue for some good news.
So you’ll forgive North Carolina’s teachers for being a little grumpy at the prospect of having our pay and career advancement opportunities based on effectiveness measures that are subjective or hold teachers responsible for factors beyond their control:
➢ Standardized test scores ➢ Principal evaluations ➢ Peer evaluations ➢ Student surveys
That grumpiness has translated to a whole lot of negative feedback being provided to members of the State Board of Education who will ultimately decide on the proposal as well as to members of the committees currently working on the draft.
One of those members happens to be State Superintendent Catherine Truitt, leader of the Department of Public Instruction (DPI). Truitt sits on the State Board of Education as well as the Professional Educator Preparation and Standards Commission (PEPSC) overseeing this work.
When teacher outrage about the plan erupted, Superintendent Truitt’s initial response was to deny the proposal was merit pay at all. At the April 6 meeting of the State Board of Education, Truitt absurdly claimed that since the plan offers multiple ways to demonstrate effectiveness it can’t be considered merit pay.
But last week DPI’s Dr. Tom Tomberlin disagreed.
Dr. Tomberlin serves as DPI’s Director of Educator Recruitment and Support. He sits on all four PEPSC subcommittees and directs their work, and he has shaped the licensure and compensation model more than any other individual.
Tomberlin apparently decided it was time for DPI to stop denying the obvious:
Tomberlin then went on to say the group needed to better explain how this version of merit pay differs from its past iterations in our state. He said the difference is that, in the past, merit pay has been used more narrowly to award bonuses, but this proposal would change the whole organizational structure.
In other words, Tomberlin seemed to be saying, the difference is that this time merit pay will be the entire foundation of how we compensate teachers and determine their career trajectories.
And that’s supposed to make teachers feel better about this plan?
Now that we’ve established that the proposal is indeed merit pay, it’s time for an honest and transparent conversation about whether it’s possible for a system of merit pay to be equitable to teachers.
We also need to talk about how enacting a flawed licensure and compensation system in the middle of a pandemic and during the worst public school staffing crisis in recent memory would impact our teacher pipeline and our ability to put an excellent educator in every classroom.
That is our goal, right?
You can view the entire April 27 meeting of PEPSC subcommittee co-chairs below:
DPI’s Director of Educator Recruitment Tom Tomberlin had just finished explaining that he was putting together a video to be shown at sessions of an upcoming teacher listening tour so there would be “completely consistent” messaging. (As an aside here, I’d like to note the fact that Tomberlin sees messaging as a primary focus of these sessions raises important questions about whether DPI intends to hold a listening tour or a marketing tour.)
After listening to his colleagues talk about teacher feedback collection, Dr. Wood spoke up:
Dr. Wood is right that North Carolina’s teachers will be heavily impacted by any overhaul of licensure and compensation. We are also best positioned to shine a light on exactly how implementation of a merit pay system would play out at the school level. Our concerns should not be condescendingly shrugged off as “misconceptions.” Our feedback should be solicited in good faith and used in decision making.
But let’s not forget who is ultimately most impacted by North Carolina’s leaky teacher pipeline: It’s the students who have the constitutional right to excellent teachers.
If we enact a sweeping merit pay system based on subjective and inaccurate measures and throw open the classroom doors to unprepared teachers, our pipeline crisis is going to get worse.
And, as usual, North Carolina’s children will lose the most.
(You can listen to the entire PEPSC meeting below. The section with Dr. Tomberlin starts at approximately 48:00)
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.
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:
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.
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: