Home ::

Testimony of the Texas Classroom Teachers Association on SB 8
Before the Senate Education Committee
August 1, 2005

Thank you for the opportunity to present our views regarding SB 8 before you today.  We appreciate the many hours of effort you have committed to crafting this bill.

We are supportive of many of the bill’s reforms including:

  • provisions relating to charter schools (though we still have concerns such as requiring only a high school diploma for some teachers)
  • funding of the 2002 textbook proclamation
  • clarification of the right of employees to speak with school board members directly
  • funding for voluntary college entrance exams

There are, however, some areas of concern remaining that I would like to focus on today.

Salary increases:  We appreciate your efforts to boost the amount of the salary increases in light of the limited funding available in the bill.  However, with regard to the salary provisions, we raise the following issues:

  • Employees in the many districts using the mid-point salary structure may not be guaranteed the increase provided in the bill.  We would be happy to provide you with language to address this issue.
  • Districts that did the right thing and continued the health insurance supplement funding at $1000 over the past two years may not be required to pass along the full amount of the increase. Though we recognize and appreciate the efforts of these districts, it does not seem appropriate to now reduce the amount of the salary increase their teachers will receive when state funding is being provided to cover these increases, even to property-rich districts.

Longevity pay:  We appreciate your inclusion of this concept and have long advocated that incentives, rather than disincentives, are a better way to retain experienced personnel in the classroom.  We will continue to urge you to also address the need to extend the salary schedule for those employees who have reached the top of the salary schedule and whose salaries have been largely stagnant for years, even though some of these individuals may not yet be eligible for retirement.

Salary driver:  We do believe that it is important that a salary driver remain in law that will require a certain portion of new funds to be used to enhance the salaries of those who directly deliver educational services.  Texas has a history of making gains in the rankings of average salaries, only to neglect the issue for a couple of sessions and slide back.  Only a salary driver that is honored over time will help us preserve salary gains.

State policy on teacher compensation:  This language is unusual in statute, by virtue of the use of terms such as “may and should.”  We fear that the language may create significant legal problems if it is read to restrict the ability of a district to augment compensation for reasons other than growth in student achievement, e.g., for personnel in shortage areas, who serve as mentors, or who go to hard-to-staff campuses, all of which are purposes you have acknowledged the value of in other sections of the bill.  We are also concerned that the language could be construed to disallow local supplements that provide higher salaries across the board as a recruitment tool.  If the language is intended not to be binding, it should not be in statute and we recommend its deletion.  Should you feel it essential to encourage compensation based on student achievement in the bill, we would be glad to provide you with language clarifying the nonbinding nature of this section and ensuring that it does not interfere with the existing authority of districts to supplement minimum compensation for other reasons.

Performance incentives:  As we have testified many times before this committee and others, we have serious concerns about performance pay. Additionally, in light of the fact that funding for education is so limited in the bill, we do not believe that two incentive programs should be established, nor that incentive programs should be prioritized above more basic needs.  It would be our preference that the funding for one or both of the incentive programs be allocated instead to the mandatory restoration of the health insurance supplement for support personnel, as noted above. 

It should be noted, however, that we are pleased that the local incentive program has now been structured as a grant program for districts that wish to participate.  However, it seems contradictory that all districts will still be required to develop a local incentive plan, whether they choose to apply for grant funding or not.  We suggest that bill language, if both incentive programs stay intact, be modified to require development of a plan only by those districts that plan to participate.

Required percentage of instructional expenses:  We have no philosophical objection to efforts to direct dollars to classroom instruction, as this function is the core of the education process.  As always, though, the devil is in the details and we ask that you ensure that appropriate definitions are used; including, specifically, that the salaries of instructional aides who are assigned to the classroom be included.  These individuals are indeed directly engaged in classroom instruction, and should be counted in the required percentage of classroom expenditures.

Essential changes to SB 8

We note and appreciate that you have attempted to assuage some of the concerns of districts through elimination of the start date requirement and November elections of school board members.  From the teacher perspective, however, there are a few items that are equally important to us in assessing this bill, as follow:

Health insurance supplement for support personnel:  We are concerned that though state funding will be provided to districts that would help continue funding for the health insurance supplement for categories of personnel not subject to the state minimum salary schedule, there is no requirement that districts use the funds provided in this manner.  The funding provided is tied to the number of teachers, counselors, nurses and librarians, rather than to the number of support personnel. The salaries of categories of employees that are critical to the provision of a quality education for students, such as instructional aides, are already painfully low and the state has taken no interest thus far in improving their adequacy, despite the advent of recent federal requirements that they hold at least the equivalent of an associate’s degree.  We strongly advocate that the bill be revised to require continuation and restoration of the health insurance supplement for these personnel.

Salary schedule exemptions:  We do not see the need for or propriety of exempting retirees returning to work, or teachers with emergency, temporary, or probationary certificates, from the protections of the salary schedule.  Not only is this exemption likely to undo some of the effort made during the regular session to discourage retire/rehire practices, but it also serves as an incentive for districts to hire less than fully-certified personnel when possible for economic reasons, shortchanging the students of that district.

Changes to contractual provisions in the event of reduction in force:  SB 8 permits a school district to unilaterally end a teacher’s contract at any point in the school year by virtue of a reduction in force or program change.  It changes the current law ability of an employee proposed for a RIF to eliminate the ability to appeal to an independent hearing officer, and allow an appeal only to the local school board.  Those of you who have served on local school boards understand the pressure on board members to support administrative recommendations, thus making this appeal of very limited value.

We encourage you to stay with current law which requires external scrutiny, through an independent hearing officer, of any mid-year contract termination for reduction in force or program change.

As an attempt to forestall this language, we have worked with representatives of two of the state’s largest districts, Dallas and Houston, to reach a compromise.  Under our proposed language, which was accepted in the House, a teacher would still have access to an independent hearing officer review for a mid-year RIF, while end of the year nonrenewals based on this reason would be subject to review by a designated individual who does not have to be a TEA-approved independent hearing officer. 

Though our first preference is current law, if you are determined to make changes in this area, we recommend inclusion of the compromise language, which we can provide to you.

Exemplary exemptions:  Those of you who are veterans know that it has taken years to get the limited protections in state law that currently exist for educators.  The list is a relatively short one, including the state minimum salary schedule, contractual protections, duty free lunch, planning and preparation periods, access to health insurance that is comparable to that offered to state employees, and a few others.

SB 8 would allow a district or campus whose teachers are performing at very high levels to strip teachers of these basic, core protections.  From our perspective, such a change could only be of benefit to management, and holds the potential of great harm to the affected teachers.

Many have argued that districts and campuses will not use this new authority.  We would argue that if they will not use this authority, it doesn’t need to be granted.  Further, the reason that these basic rights were put in law is that they were not being granted to many teachers under local control.  Finally, these campuses and districts are performing very well already – they aren’t broken; don’t fix them.

We urge the elimination of this section, or, at a minimum, the exclusion of employee rights and benefits from exemption authority.

Once again, we appreciate your efforts and stand ready to work with you to address our remaining major concerns.  Thank you for considering our perspective.