MUSD board approves teacher performance-pay plan

848

The Maricopa Unified School District Governing Board voted 3-1 at its meeting Wednesday to approve a new performance-pay plan for teachers.

The plan barely received the required 70 percent approval by district teachers as 71 percent of teachers voted in favor of it. Approval varied greatly between the nine schools and ranged from 50 to 95 percent.

“This plan was accepted by the teachers,” said Tom Beckett, human resources director. “In addition, it does meet all of the parameters set forth by the Arizona Revised Statute for the 301 funds in that they are tied to teacher evaluation.”

The plan calls for highly effective and effective teachers to get 100 percent of the 301 pay-for-performance allotment, while partially effective teachers get 75 percent and ineffective teachers receive no performance bonus.

For the 2013-14 school year, the full amount of the performance bonus was $2,874.05.

Student achievement accounts for one-third of the criteria used to determine a teacher’s performance, Superintendent Steve Chestnut said.

The discussion sparked a passionate debate between board members Torri Anderson and Scott Bartle.

Anderson, the board president, was in favor of the plan while Bartle thought it didn’t adequately reward highly-effective teachers and voted against it.

“I will say that I am proud of our teachers,” Anderson said. “This is actually one of the better criteria that they’ve passed, that teachers who are ineffective will get zero of the bonus. I think that is drastic, and I think it sends a message that we do want highly effective teachers.”

“I disagree with Mrs. Anderson in the comment about this plan showing that we really value highly-effective teachers,” Bartle said. “This plan shows that we value effective teachers, but there is no difference between effective and highly effective.”

Bartle also questioned whether the plan would have the desired impact.

“I believe performance pay should be substantial enough that it really rewards these high performers,” he said.

Anderson said incentivizing teachers doesn’t work.

“This 301 money and these evaluations are based off of students who they have no control over who they have in their classroom,” Anderson said. “It’s also based off of evaluations and scores from tests from students they had the year before. To penalize those teachers or to give them an incentive really doesn’t work.”

Anderson suggested Bartle didn’t support teachers if he didn’t support the plan.

“Any opposition to this plan is not opposition to our teachers, and I would appreciate you not insinuating otherwise,” Bartle responded.

“It does look like that though, Scott,” Anderson said, to which Bartle replied, “To you.”

Bartle also cited ambiguity in the award criteria language for his vote. He suggested revising the document so the 100 percent and 75 percent “portion of the potential allocation” was aligned with the intended plan to distribute the funds.

The next board meeting is Sept. 24.