CMS teacher-pay bill moves forward amid criticism

The controversial teacher performance-pay bill crafted by Charlotte-Mecklenburg Schools staff and introduced by state Rep. Ruth Samuelson moved another step toward approval today in a 25-17 House committee vote. But some legislators were wary, noting the huge amount of criticism they've heard from constituents. One called it "an example of ready, fire, aim."

Superintendent Peter Gorman told the committee what he's been saying here in Charlotte: The performance-pay plan is a good one, but he and his staff haven't communicated it well. MecklenburgACTS, a local parent group that opposes the bill, countered with an open note to Gorman on their Facebook page: "The problem here is not ineffective communication. The problem is that parents do not support the massive expansion of high-stakes standardized testing that pay-for-performance, as currently conceived, will require."



Reporter Jane Stancill of the Raleigh News & Observer was there; here's her report from the Under the Dome blog:

A House education committee gave the OK to a bill to allow Charlotte-Mecklenburg schools to create a new program to pay teachers according to their performance.


Charlotte-Mecklenburg is the only N.C. district that has been approved to alter the state pay schedule under a 2007 performance-pay pilot bill that would require approval of a majority of teachers. The current House Bill 546, which applies only to CMS, would grant the district freedom to change the way teachers are evaluated and paid -- without teacher approval.

The bill, which was drafted by CMS staff, has been greeted by outrage from teachers and some parents, who object to the dozens of new tests the district is rolling out to help generate teacher ratings, reports Ann Helms of the Charlotte Observer.

The bill passed the committee 25-17, largely on party lines. One of the bill's sponsors, Rep. Ruth Samuelson, a Charlotte Republican, urged passage Tuesday but said the district had work to do to win support from the community before a final version is approved. That will take time, she said, but in the meantime the bill needs to pass one chamber to stay alive before a key deadline next month.

Several lawmakers said they were uncomfortable moving forward with a problematic bill on an issue that is so heated.

Rep. Mickey Michaux, a Durham Democrat, said it had been years since he received so much e-mail on any one issue. Rep. Ray Rapp, a Mars Hill Democrat, said he was surprised at the intensity and the volume of the e-mails. He suggested a study committee be formed to look into the issue further. "I think this is an example of ready, fire, aim," he said. "It just seems terribly premature to go ahead with this."

Rep. Tricia Cotham, a Matthews Democrat and former teacher, said a third grader had called her during Easter weekend to oppose the bill. There are serious trust issues in the school district, she said. "You cannot do this to teachers, you must do this with teachers."

Teacher performance pay is a major part of Superintendent Peter Gorman's plan to improve student performance; he believes rewarding teachers for results, rather than longevity and credentials, will help attract and keep good teachers.

Speaking to the committee Tuesday, Gorman said he wanted to work with teachers to smooth out problems, and stressed that various measures other than tests would go into the evaluation of teachers.

"We have not done a good job of communicating," Gorman said. "We are committed to do that."

New twists in CMS performance-pay bill

State Rep. Ruth Samuelson, who recently introduced a controversial bill that would give Charlotte-Mecklenburg Schools authority to break free from the state system of evaluating and paying teachers, is emailing constituents an update today.

I'm no expert on legislative process, so I'm mostly going to give you all the raw material she sent me. But here's my understanding of what she's saying in a nutshell: She's gotten a lot of feeback on this bill, pro and con. She's going to try to get it passed by a House committee on Tuesday and approved by the House soon afterward. But she's then going to "park" it before it goes to the Senate, which gives legislators, CMS officials and other interested parties months to work out revisions to the plan.

"By taking this course, all parties have a vested interest in continuing to participate in improving the proposed (pay for performance) project," Samuelson writes. "If we let the bill 'die' then it isn't fair to the folks at CMS and others who believe in the program. If we move the bill too quickly, then the folks most impacted will not be vested in it and the program will fail."

What follows is Samuelson's new email, which includes the latest amended version of the bill, followed by an email she sent last week summarizing the concerns she's been hearing. I'm off tomorrow so will have little time or ability to field questions about this, but figured folks who are interested in CMS's push toward performance pay would want to know the latest.

Here's the email Samuelson sent out today:
I know this is Spring Break week for CMS but the legislature is in full swing in spite of the hay fever! So, based on some of the responses I received to my previous email, I thought I would start with a brief explanation of how the legislative process works and then update you on the current plan regarding H546. Please be patient with me if this is all familiar to you.


The NC General Assembly meets in a two year cycle. The first year is called "long session" and runs from January until July, usually. The second year is called "short session" and runs from May until July, usually. Members may introduce new bills only at the beginning of the long session. Each idea for a bill must meet a drafting deadline and then a filing deadline. If you miss a deadline, the bill must wait two years for a new session. (The filing deadline for H546 was March 30 which is why H546 was submitted on that day. There are a few exceptions to these rules but they are complicated and don't really apply to this bill.)
Once the bill is filed, it most go through one or two committees before it goes to the House floor for a vote.

If it passes the House committees and floor vote, it crosses over to the Senate where it goes through the same process again; committees and then voted on the Senate floor.

IF there are NO changes to the bill on the Senate side, then it goes to the governor for her approval or veto.

If there ARE changes to the bill, it comes back to the House for us to accept or reject those changes. If we accept, the bill goes to the governor.

If we reject the changes, then a new committee is appointed with members of the House and Senate to negotiate the differences. At that point they come to agreement or the bill dies.

You can see that this is a long process with numerous twists and turns. Please hear me though; At any point in this process the bill can be stopped by the sponsors or a majority vote of the members.

As if the process wasn't enough of a hindrance, there are deadlines all along the way that can also derail a bill for the two year session. The next one coming up is called "Crossover" and it is currently set for May 12. Any bill that has not crossed over to the Senate by May 12 is dead for two years. That means it must have passed through committee and the House floor by May 12. This deadline has committee chairs scheduling lots of bills between now and May 12.

H546 has received input from a number of opponents and advocates and has received numerous drafting changes to address those concerns. It is now tentatively scheduled for the first committee stop in this long process for this coming Tuesday, April 26. At that time, the new version will be "adopted" and then debated. Additional changes can be offered and if accepted, they become part of the bill. If the bill passes committee, then within a few days it will be sent to the House floor for a vote.

Here is my pledge to you and a request for understanding. Given the sensitive nature of this bill AND the time constraints, I believe the best course is to move H546 through committee and the House vote so that it meets the "crossover deadline" on May 12. Then I pledge to "park" the bill until there is more progress between CMS and the concerned parties on the details of the Pay for Performance program. "Parking" it means that the bill will not be heard in a committee or on the Senate floor until the bill sponsors agree that is it ready. The bill can be parked until late June, 2012 if it takes that long.

By taking this course, all parties have a vested interest in continuing to participate in improving the proposed PfP project. If we let the bill "die" then it isn't fair to the folks at CMS and others who believe in the program. If we move the bill too quickly, then the folks most impacted will not be vested in it and the program will fail. "Parking" the bill is the fairest way to give both sides a voice and it can only be "parked" if we meet the crossover deadline.

Thank you for understanding and PLEASE stay engaged.

P. S. The text of the proposed draft is copied below. Please understand that this is a work in progress and will likely receive correction, additions and deletions as things progress.

A BILL TO BE ENTITLED AN ACT AUTHORIZING THE CHARLOTTE-MECKLENBURG SCHOOLS TO DEVELOP AND IMPLEMENT ALTERNATIVE SALARY PLANS FOR INSTRUCTIONAL PERSONNEL AND SCHOOL ADMINISTRATORS. 

The General Assembly of North Carolina enacts: 

SECTION 1. The State Board of Education shall establish a pilot program authorizing the Charlotte-Mecklenburg Schools to develop and implement alternative salary plans for instructional personnel and school administrators designed to improve student performance and increase teacher effectiveness by financially rewarding instructional personnel and school administrators through a performance-based compensation system. Under this pilot program, the value of each of the Charlotte-Mecklenburg Schools' instructional positions will be funded in accordance with the then-current State method for funding such positions, but the Charlotte-Mecklenburg Schools shall have discretion in determining how funds are allocated among such positions. Such funds may be used to develop and implement a compensation system for instructional personnel and school administrators that provides differentiated levels of pay based on student achievement gains, evaluations, and observations. Notwithstanding anything to the contrary herein, in no event shall the amount of funds received by the Charlotte-Mecklenburg Schools be less than the amount it would have received under the then-current State method for allocating such funds. 

SECTION 2. As part of its performance-based pay structure, the Charlotte-Mecklenburg Schools shall adopt a performance salary schedule that accomplishes the following:

(1) Aligns annual salary adjustments for instructional personnel and school administrators with documented student growth in learning. 

(2) Evaluates instructional personnel and school administrators on the local level in order to measure the degree to which students have shown academic growth.

(3) Substantially incorporates input from instructional personnel and school administrators in devising evaluation systems upon which compensation is based. 

(4) Ensures that no amount paid in base salary for any instructional personnel or school administrator declines below the amount of base salary paid to such instructional personnel or school administrator from the date of implementation of any performance salary schedule. Notwithstanding anything to the contrary herein, nothing in this act shall be deemed or interpreted to require any increase in base salary from the date of  implementation of a performance salary schedule.

SECTION 3. The evaluation system shall do the following: 

(1) Support effective instruction and student achievement, and the results must be used to inform district and school level improvement plans. 

(2) Provide appropriate instruments, procedures, and criteria for continuous quality improvement of the professional skills, and the results must be used to inform the professional development of instructional personnel and school administrators.

(3) Include a mechanism to examine performance data from multiple sources to measure teacher effectiveness and drive instructional practices that can lead to improved levels of student achievement.
(4) Differentiate among levels of performance, which are tied to differentiated levels of pay based on student achievement gains.

(5) Allow instructional personnel and school administrators to be evaluated by multiple measures. 

SECTION 4. The Charlotte-Mecklenburg Schools shall ensure that some percentage of the evaluation for instructional personnel is to be based on data and indicators of student learning growth assessed annually by State assessments or, for subjects and grade levels not measured by the State assessments, by district-developed assessments. The Charlotte-Mecklenburg Schools may use State-adopted measures of student growth or select comparable district-developed measures of student growth for grades and subjects by taking into account the student's prior performance, grade level, and subject while considering other factors, including, but not limited to, student attendance, student disciplinary records, student disabilities, and student English language proficiency.

SECTION 5. The Charlotte-Mecklenburg Schools shall annually submit to the Department of Public Instruction an implementation and outcome evaluation of the performance-based compensation system, including the aggregate performance results of instructional personnel and school administrators. In addition, the Charlotte-Mecklenburg Schools shall provide consistent periodic updates to its employees concerning the development and implementation of a performance-based pay structure plan. Notwithstanding anything to  the contrary herein, the Charlotte-Mecklenburg Schools shall make the details of any proposed  performance-based pay structure plan public prior to the adoption of such plan.

SECTION 6. The State Board of Education shall grant waivers of laws, rules, policies, procedures, and practices to enable the Charlotte-Mecklenburg Schools to implement and sustain its performance-based compensation system. In addition, the State Board of Education shall allow Charlotte-Mecklenburg Schools flexibility in allocating all mandated State-funded compensation, including but not limited to salary increases, longevity compensation, and bonuses for all of its employees. 

SECTION 7. This act applies to Charlotte-Mecklenburg Schools only.

SECTION 8. This act is effective when it becomes law.

Still reading? Here's Samuelson's April 14 email to constituents:

Thank you for taking the time to share with me your concerns regarding the proposed bill allowing a Pay for Performance pilot project involving CMS. I have heard from both teachers and parents and have been encouraged that folks are thinking seriously about this serious issue...how do we best educate our children.


While I certainly don't have answers to all of the concerns expressed, I do want to give you some idea of what I am hearing;
· Testing already takes too much time and interferes with the learning process.

· The field tests were especially disruptive, removing instructional personnel from the classroom and interrupting schedules, causing stress on staff, students and parents.

· Tests alone are inadequate measures for evaluating students and teacher performance. Additional measures must be in place and they must be fair.

· Therefore, these tests and the PfP program are a waste of time and money, especially in a tight budget year.

· Teachers were promised a vote in the original pilot project. The new pilot project proposed by CMS would not include a vote and erodes teacher trust.

· Low morale is a growing problem and the PfP project only makes it worse. (Some emails referred to the system being "under siege".)

· There hasn't been adequate teacher involvement in the process.

· The plan creates a salary structure just for CMS that is different from the rest of the state.

· The CMS Board does not support the plan and Gorman rushed it to the legislators "secretly". (I must comment here that the CMS legislative agenda was voted on by the CMS board and then brought to the entire Mecklenburg legislative delegation. The direction for H546 was the second item on that list.)

There were additional concerns expressed but most of them fit within these categories. If I have failed to highlight your specific concern, it may simply be that the list was getting rather long and I am trying to focus on the most common concerns in this email. I do have a master list of them all.

Please be assured that Rep. Martha Alexander, Rep. Killian and I will be working hard to see that these issues are addressed before we move the bill forward. As legislators we are called to both enable the locally elected CMS board to accomplish its objectives AND to represent the will of our constituents. When those concerns are at odds, we proceed carefully and try to find the best path.

Thank you for your patience and understanding. I will be back in touch as we receive answers and work through the process. Please feel free to continue to let me know what you are seeing and hearing regarding this issue or any others we may be discussing in Raleigh.

Representative Ruth Samuelson
District 104
Room 419 B, Legislative Office Building
Raleigh, NC 27601
919-715-3009