Teachers were looking forward to this meeting where the District was asked to explain why only 2.4% of all OCPS classroom teachers were ranked as highly effective and why teachers' salaries ranked in the bottom half as compared to the other 67 Florida districts. Most left frustrated and disappointed.
OCPS Chief Negotiator, Scott Howat made a presentation intended to explain teachers' abysmal evaluation scores and ridiculously low salaries. Instead of honestly explaining why district administrators directed school-based administrators to give teachers lower observation scores, and why OCPS teachers are so poorly paid as compared to other districts, the explanation offered smoke and mirrors. Each issue appears to have been strategically manipulated to present Orange County in a better light than it actually stands.
District's Explanation for Teachers' Low Evaluation Scores
According to the FL DOE data, only 2.4% of OCPS classroom teachers were rated as highly effective. That is only 256 classroom teachers. The presentation did not dispute the fact that OCPS ranked in the bottom three out of 67 districts for the number of highly effective classroom teachers. However, the District attempted to elevate the ranking by combining the classroom teachers' scores with the scores of the instructional personnel.
Instructional personnel are employees who may not have assigned classes of students, such as instructional coaches, media specialists, guidance counselors, social workers, and others. They had 15% or 318 of their ranks scoring as highly effective. For the presentation, the district combined the instructional personnel with the classroom teachers to bring the Orange County ranking of highly effective to 4.7%. Even with that move to combine the categories, the scores still are among the lowest scores in the state as compared to other districts. Seriously 4.7%?
The question remains. Why has the District refused to own that fact that it intentionally lowered classroom teachers' scores? Where was the apology and pledge to reform?
Blaming Orange CTA for Low Scores
The Superintendent has repeatedly stated that CTA bargained the evaluation system with the District, implying that CTA should share the blame for this incredibly unfair, inconsistent and punitive system. The CTA members of the CBLT that originally bargained the system in 2011 did not envision that it would be used to demean teachers. They did not consider that it would be administered in an inconsistent or punitive way. No one believed that district personnel would make unilateral changes to the system without bargaining them or that school-based administrators would interpret the contract language in a variety of ways.
Furthermore, no teacher expected to be told, "Expect fewer innovative and applying scores and more developing and beginning scores. This is after all, a growth model."
That District directive given to school-based administrators is the reason for the low scores. It is not because of bargaining, not because of deliberate practice scores, or the other excuses and soundbites, but because of a calculated plan to keep scores low. It is all about the money since teachers' scores are tied to their pay in this merit pay system.
Each year since the implementation of the evaluation system, more problems have been exposed. It is apparent that immediate and sweeping changes are required to make the system fair and consistent. For the three years that I have been on the CBLT and have served as the Co-Chair of the Evaluation Committee, the District has refused to correct the problems with the system, including the inconsistency in the number of observation that teachers within the same category receive each year. In fact, they have refused to acknowledge many of the problems as problems.
For years numerous CTA proposals intended to reform the evaluation system have been passed across the table, only to be rejected by the District. In fact, the District defends contract language that conflicts with their own Strategic Plan.
Instead of trying to solve the problem of excessive observations and correct inconsistencies, the District handed over a counter-proposal that would increase the problem. Compare the latest two proposals below:
School Board members who think that the evaluation problems will be solved in bargaining have not witnessed the process. I have not seen any indication that the District is sincerely interested in addressing the many problems with this system.
Deliberate Practice is Not a Factor
The Superintendent claims that a change in the way deliberate practice is calculated is the determining factor in the low scores for OCPS teachers. It is true that in 2013-2014 the deliberate practice additive scores were high: Innovating +8, Applying +6, Developing +4, Beginning +2, Not Using 0. However, teachers' status scores should be innovating (highly effective) without figuring in deliberate practice scores. There should be thousands of teachers receiving innovative scores for the amazing work that they do every day on behalf of students, not hundreds! No one believes that there are so few highly effective teachers in Orange County. What we do believe is that OCPS does not want to pay those teachers for being highly effective.
Last year at the bargaining table, the District insisted that deliberate practice had to be inclusive rather than additive. The District's Chief Negotiator stated it was FL DOE policy. We researched but could find no such policy. We did locate an LSI presentation that explained that an inclusive model that the District was pushing for would give teacher's lower scores and an additive model that CTA members proposed.
Finally, after no evidence that an inclusive model was state-mandated, Orange CTA Executive Director Mark Mitchell and I contacted FLDOE and we were informed that an inclusive model was not required. We were told that the way the growth plans are calculated is determined at the District level.
The deliberate practice proposal that Orange CTA passed across the table in January 2015 called for Innovating +4, Applying +3, Developing +2, Beginning +1 and Not Using +0. It was repeatedly rejected as the District pushed an inclusive model where deliberate practice would count 20% of the instructional practice score. Finally, a compromise was reached with the current model: Innovating +4, Applying +3, Developing 0 -no harm, Beginning -1, Not Using -2. CTA bargaining team members compromised because the other District proposals were harsh and punitive. We felt that no teacher would get below a developing unless they did not even make an attempt to succeed in their growth plan. We also believed that there are thousands of highly effective teachers who would be rated as innovative (highly effective) even before deliberate practice was figured in, as it should be. What we were not prepared for was for the District to tell school-based evaluating administrators to keep teachers' scores artificially low.
The Salary Spin
The District also prepared an explanation for teachers' extremely low salary levels. At a previous school board meeting, I revealed that OCPS teacher salaries were ranked 40th in the state. That data was from a February 23, 2015 WESH Channel 2 news report. Data from the FL DOE shows Orange teachers ranking 38th in average salary out of 66 districts. Neither report puts OCPS teachers in the top half of the salary range or anywhere near where other large counties and neighboring counties rank.
In a "News You Can Use" message sent to all teachers the District claimed:
"When nontraditional public school “districts,” i.e., Washington Special, the five Lab Schools and the Florida Virtual School, are removed from the calculation, the OCPS average salary rank increased to 35th among 67 counties. Also, what the average salary report did not reflect is the 6.3 percent pay raise and $1,000 bonus the Classroom Teachers Association (CTA) and school board negotiated after the report was prepared. If no other district had a similar after-the-fact increase, OCPS average teacher salary would rank in the top 20 and possibly rank as high as 15 at $47,732."
"Another factor that influences the OCPS average salary is the notably low average years of service among OCPS teachers (9.09 years; more than 11 years if you exclude charter school teachers). It is lower than the other six large districts in Florida and all our neighboring districts. OCPS instructional turnover rate is in line with these districts. The difference in years of experience can be partially attributed to significant student growth requiring the district to hire more new teachers. OCPS has added more than 4,500 students per year over the last three years (13,687)."The main lesson in this presentation is that data can be manipulated to achieve the desired results. We can take out all of the counties above Orange and make it appear that we are number one. How does that help teachers to earn the salary that they deserve? The truth is, OCPS teacher pay is below the average state teacher pay and is certainly not reflective of the work.
The District presented data stating that teachers received higher percentages of raises than they actually received. The 2014-2015 raise was listed as 6.4%. Actually, 6.4% represents the increase of total funds allocated for teachers' salaries for the two-year period. Varying percentages of increases we received by teachers who are at different pay levels. Additionally, since this was an increase that was negotiated for two years, teachers' salaries were increased by 3.2% for each of the two years - 2014-2015 and 2015 -2016.
Howat remarked that on top of their salary, OCPS teachers have an opportunity to earn 'an extra' $1,000 over the summer. It is true that teachers may sign up for the two-week online summer professional development training, and if they successfully complete it, they will earn $1,000. The District pays $20 an hour (below teachers' hourly rate) for a 50-hour training. However, the hours to complete the course typically exceeds the total hours the District pays the teachers. It has taken teachers up to 100 hours to complete the training with all of the assignments and requirements. The hourly rate of pay is closer to $10 an hour and certainly below $15.
Furthermore, teachers are not paid for their $1,000 summer training within a reasonable period of time. One would expect that after they complete the class and submit a completion certificate, they would be paid the next pay period. However, some teachers did not even receive their check until after the beginning of the school year.
The summer training $1,000 carrot on a stick is just another way teachers are nickeled and dimed by OCPS. Instead of adding an additional week of pre-planning and paying teachers at their regular rate of pay, which CTA has proposed at the bargaining table, the District provides 'optional' summer training. The latest summer 'optional' training being offered is the digital training high school teachers are expected to take over the summer. At some schools the schedule is all over the summer calendar with two days in one week, two days in another week and two days in another month. Administrators have warned high school teachers that the training is essential and opting out is not a good idea. However, many teachers have summer jobs or family plans and cannot take the training. The training and extra money is not much of a 'bonus' to many.
According to the presentation, OCPS teachers have worked an average of 9 years. The turnover rate for teachers across our state is critical. OCPS teachers' separation rates appear to be as high as the evaluation rankings and salaries are low. OCPS policies and treatment of teachers suggest that they are regarded as disposable, replaceable labor units, rather than as valued employees.
FLDOE charts show the statewide separation rates for teachers by district and the reasons that they left the profession. Orange stands out as having a high turnover rate.
I prepared the following chart that breaks down the reasons that OCPS teachers have left the district for the last four school years. Last year, in the 2014-2015 school year 1,950 teachers left OCPS, with only 237 of those retiring. See below:
The chart below, prepared by FLDOE, shows every school district's separation rates by reasons for the last four years:
There is a more serious problem than the broken evaluation system, low wages and high turnover rate. The most serious problem is the broken trust between the district administrators and teachers. If the District does not change its attitude and build a relationship of trust with its employees, it will find itself unable to fulfill its mission and responsibility to the students.
Read more about the meeting in the Orlando Sentinel.
 |
| John and Pammy supporting teachers |
 |
| Teachers Adriane, Clinton and Empress |
 |
| Wendy and Clinton |
No comments:
Post a Comment