Testimony in Opposition to SB 673
Education –
Merit-Based Pay
Senate Education, Health, and Environmental Affairs Committee
March 7, 2007
1:00 PM
Herman S. Whitter, Esq.
Managing Director, Collective Bargaining & Affiliate Program Development
Good afternoon and thank you for the opportunity to be part of this discussion on merit-based pay.
The Maryland State Teachers Association and its affiliates continue to play a major role in initiating and supporting proven strategies for improving our public education system in Maryland.
MSTA wishes to express opposition to Senate Bill 673, which would allow the institution of a merit pay plan if the majority of certificated employees in a school building are in favor of such a plan and if there is enough private money to fund the plan.
Out of hand, this violates existing law. The Education Article, Section 6-408(b)(1) states: On request, a public school employer, or at least two of its designated representatives, shall meet and negotiate with at least two representatives of the employee organization that is designated as the exclusive negotiating agent for the public school employees in a unit of the county on all matters that relate to salaries, wages, hours, and other working conditions.” According to the law, only the exclusive representative has the authority to negotiate wages, and merit pay is wages.
We have other concerns about the bill. What happens if there is enough money for one year but not the next? What happens to the salary schedule and step increases already in place? What would be the basis and criteria for a merit pay plan? What about employees' pensions? They would no longer be eligible for public employee pension benefits because the source of their salary would be private money.
MSTA believes that compensation must be:
-
Negotiated;
-
Included in base salary so it is part of retirement base;
-
Based on objective criteria;
-
Based on identified funding source; and
-
Sufficiently funded to include all who are eligible.
The questions that arise from this bill and the problems it creates are extensive. Not only would this proposal turn a system upside down, it would discourage professionals from working in a particular school or staying there. It is a proposal that cannot work and, in fact, will work against recruiting and retaining highly qualified educators.
-
First of all, the best and most effective venue for crafting education employee compensation plans is the local bargaining table. Those at the bargaining table are typically the most knowledgeable about, and responsive to, the concerns of the educators and support professionals who teach the community's children.
-
The allocation of funds to provide the additional compensation must not limit increases in the basic compensation for all education employees.
-
We must provide entry-level salaries and career earnings comparable to those of other professions and occupations with similar education, training and responsibilities.
-
Compensation initiatives must be based on objective factors, such as preparation, academic degrees, experience, professional growth, responsibilities and skills.
-
Tuition reimbursement and financial support for professional development opportunities should be a key component of any compensation strategy.
Although extremely important, compensation, in and of itself, is not the answer to the recruitment and retention problem. There are other factors which must be considered, such as:
-
Class Size. We must reduce class size levels and caseloads so educators will have more time for one-on-one instruction.
-
Workload. We must reduce workload to a manageable level, especially the administrative burden on new teachers in chronically low-performing schools.
-
Professional Development. Professional development is another critical factor in ensuring that teachers are attracted to Maryland and stay in Maryland. Especially in hard to staff schools, teachers need to have adequate resources and tools at their disposal to address the needs of the students.
-
Mentoring Programs. Mentoring programs are key to the success of new teachers in the classroom. New teachers need adequate supports, like strong mentors to help with classroom management in overcrowded classrooms, and also to help them navigate the administrative nightmare of paperwork that undermines their enthusiasm and best efforts in the classroom.
Many attempts at designing alternative compensation strategies fail. Why?
-
They can be quite difficult and expensive to administer.
-
There is no strong body of evidence that merit-based pay plans help to attract and retain high quality teachers. What's more, there is precious little empirical data to show that such plans improve teacher performance and student achievement. They force teachers to compete rather than cooperate, especially when they are judged against their colleagues instead of an objective standard.
-
Finally, and perhaps most disturbing, is that these plans often completely overlook the fact that an educator has no control over the learning resources and environment that are available to the student outside of the classroom. (Therefore, a compensation program that equates standardized test scores with student and teacher achievement does a grave disservice to both.)
On behalf of the 67,000 members of MSTA, we urge an unfavorable report.
