SB 566 Omnibus: New testing, evaluations remain, performance pay, Masters Degree pay, IEERB, Innovative Network Schoolsall under one roof
02/23/2015

 

At its core, SB 566 (Sen. Ryan Mishler, R-Bremen and Sen. Luke Kenley; R-Noblesville) is about testing and presents an intriguing approach to Indiana’s testing dilemma. But, it is omnibus in nature and covers a lot of ground. Members should understand the entire bill.

 

The “BEST” test

 

In the testing arena, this bill seeks a way to use a modified formative test (rather than a simple summative test like ISTEP+) to satisfy the requirements of the federal and state government’s accountability laws. It primarily provides teachers with information on how to help students succeed, rather than keeping record of a simple score a student earned on any given day.

 

Labeled the “BEST” (Benchmarking Excellence Student Testing) test, it is a unique proposition that, if attainable, could lead to evaluating student growth rather than single-day performance.

 

Also, as part of the testing conundrum, the bill specifically prohibits the adoption of Common Core State Standards.

 

Teacher evaluations, locally developed

 

In committee, the authors also added much welcomed language that would, if enacted, ensure teacher performance evaluations would remain locally developed and based upon a variety of locally determined factors (with no specific weights attributed to each factor).

 

Just as important, the amendment prohibits the State Board of Education and the Department of Education from requiring additional factors to be used unless the General Assembly approves.

 

The following is a list of broad factors that the amendment require to be considered at the local level, including:

 

• Test scores of students (both formative and summative).
• Classroom presentation observations.
• Observation of student-teacher interaction.
• Knowledge of subject matter.
• Dedication and effectiveness of the teacher through time and effort on task.
• Contributions of teachers through group teacher interactivity in fulfilling the school improvement plan.
• Cooperation of the teacher with supervisors and peers.
• Extracurricular contributions of the teacher.
• Outside performance evaluations.
• Compliance with school corporation rules and procedures.
• Other items considered important by the school district in developing each student to maximum potential and performance.

 

In the end, the local school district determines what factors are most important and discussions with teachers and teacher representatives must occur.

 

Deficit financing and bargaining agreements

 

The committee amendment returned the definition of deficit financing back to its current form (per ISTA’s request). There is still work to be done on how bargaining agreements will be implemented.

 

Master’s degrees valued once again.

 

ISTA positively recognizes the authors acknowledge that relevant master’s degrees (in education or in a content area directly related to an advanced placement, dual credit or other course taught by the teacher) have value and should be compensated in the form of a supplemental payment as part of the district’s compensation plan. In 2011, the General Assembly restricted payment based upon attainment of a master’s. SB 566 reintroduces these as compensable items.

 

The challenge remaining here is to work to ensure that these payments are bargainable. To date, SB 566 makes this a discussible item.

 

Performance pay changes

 

ISTA positively recognizes the authors have decided who is eligible for these awards (although they acknowledge there is more work here) by acknowledging effective and highly effective teachers working in non-traditional programs (cooperatives and those similar) should be eligible.

 

ISTA also realizes the authors contend that the awards are to be used to pay stipends to all teachers rated as highly effective and effective, and that up to 50 percent of those awards can be put onto a teacher’s base pay.

 

The challenge remaining is to work towards ensuring these payments remain bargainable. During the initial performance pay distributions last year, the Indiana Education Employees Relations Board (IEERB) determined that these wage issues were bargainable. To date, SB 566 would make them a negotiable item.

 

Innovative Network Schools

 

This is another school governance proposal that essentially mirrors the IPS Innovative Network Schools (INS) law enacted last year. The differences between the IPS law and this proposal are two-fold:  IPS only dealt with D and F schools (SB 566 would apply to any school) and the bargaining provisions in SB 566 are somewhat better than how IPS bargaining in INS appears. SB 566 permits the INS teachers to vote to stay in the existing bargaining unit or organize separately. The IPS law simply says that employees may organize and bargain collectively.

 

The Indiana Education Employee Relations Board powers

 

SB 566 expands IEERB’s powers: 

• Gives IEERB authority to review agreements for compliance under IC 20-28 (individual teacher’s contracts) which are an expansion of its current and historical authority with regard to IC 20-29 (collective bargaining).
• Gives IEERB authority to monitor staff performance evaluation plans for legality (which is an expansion of its current role).
• Gives IEERB specific authority to review collective bargaining agreements for conformity with the law (currently that function is done by the Department of Education, but the department is supporting this transfer of authority).
• SB 566 removes the statute that limits when formal bargaining can begin, enabling the parties to start when they are ready.

As every member can see, SB 566 is many things to many people. There are items in SB 566 that are positive and noteworthy, including:

• Testing
• locally developed teacher evaluations
• more pay for master’s degrees
• more eligibility and some base pay considerations on the performance awards

There are also some challenges remaining, mostly centered on regulating bargaining issues.