You are on page 1of 3

House Bill H0222

2015 Freedom Index Score: (-5)


Analyst: Parrish Miller
Date of analysis: March 9, 2015

ANALYST'S NOTE: House Bill 222 is a long and complicated bill that creates a 'career ladder' for teachers
and spends an additional $125 million over the next five years doing so. In addition to creating a
'residency compensation' rung and a 'professional compensation' rung on this 'ladder,' the bill would
allow for additional rungs based on attaining additional education. Obtaining a 'professional
endorsement' would be the key to advancing from the residency rung to the professional rung. The
other component is "measurable student achievement" which includes such things as the Common Core
SBAC test.
Among the numerous problems with this bill is the fundamental fact that spending more money on
teachers does not assure improved educational outcomes. Reliance on test scores for professional
advancement encourages rote memorization and 'teaching to the test' rather than teaching students
how to think. Attaining additional degrees and credit hours will result in higher pay, but may be
essentially irrelevant to the age group or subject being taught. A dynamic first-year teacher who
engages her students will earn far less than a disinterested veteran who has racked up degrees and
focuses on test preparation. This bill fails to correctly define or identify what success really looks like and
serves to tie compensation and advancement to the wrong metrics.

Point No. 4 Does it increase barriers to entry into the market? Examples include occupational
licensure, the minimum wage, and restrictions on home businesses. Conversely, does it remove barriers
to entry into the market?
ANALYSIS: House Bill 222 creates Section 33-1004B, Idaho Code, to declare that "effective July
1, 2015, all existing instructional staff shall be placed in a cohort on the career ladder starting
with the second cell on the residency/professional compensation rung that corresponds with
the next higher allocation amount than is currently received by the district, based on the
experience and education index pursuant to section 33-1004A, Idaho Code, as applied in fiscal
year 2015." It goes on tie compensation to years of service and obtaining a "professional
endorsement." "Instructional staff who are in their first year of holding a certificate shall be

placed in the first cell of the residency compensation rung and shall move one (1) cell on the
residency compensation rung for each year they hold a certificate thereafter, for up to three (3)
years, at which point they will remain in the third cell of the residency rung until they earn a
professional endorsement." [Page 13, lines 13-28] (-1)

ANALYSIS: So how does one obtain this professional endorsement? House Bill 222 creates
Section 33-1201A, Idaho Code, to spell that out.
"To be eligible for an Idaho professional endorsement, the instructional staff employee must:
(a) Have held a certificate for at least three (3) years, or have completed a state board of
education approved interim certificate of three (3) years or longer;
(b) Show they met the professional compensation rung performance criteria for two (2) of
the three (3) previous years or the third year;
(c) Have a written recommendation from the employing school district; and
(d) Have an annual individualized professional learning plan developed in conjunction with
the employee's school district supervisor." [Page 30, lines 10-20]
Are the teacher's students happy? Are they learning? Is the teacher inventive or resourceful? Do
any of these questions factor into these decisions? These are the metrics of bureaucrats, not the
metrics of students interacting with their teacher. (-1)

ANALYSIS: House Bill 222 modifies Section 33-515, Idaho Code, to stipulate that "instructional
staff who have not obtained a professional endorsement under section 33-1201A, Idaho Code,
may not be placed on a renewable contract status." [Page 30, lines 43-45] It doesn't matter if a
teacher's students are happy or thriving. What matters is obtaining that "professional
endorsement." (-1)

ANALYSIS: House Bill 222 also offers $4,000 annual bonuses to what it calls "master teachers."
The bill creates Section 33-1004I, Idaho Code, to define and set compensation for these
individuals. One might hope that this is where we find more relevant metrics, but alas we are
again to be disappointed.
"The minimum qualifications for an instructional staff employee to earn a master teacher
designation shall be as follows:
(a) The instructional staff employee must have eight (8) or more years of continuous
teaching; and
(b) The instructional staff employee must have demonstrated mastery in each of the
following areas for not less than three (3) of the previous five (5) years of instruction:
(i) Student achievement data;

(ii) Proven mastery of instructional techniques through additional artifacts


demonstrating evidence of effective teaching; and
(iii) Successful completion of an annual individualized professional learning plan."
Let's break it down. What is required is showing up, teaching to the test, using existing and
approved techniques, and stacking up more degrees and credit hours.
The bill also allows that "in addition to the minimum qualifications for a master teacher
designation ... local school districts may develop and require additional qualifications showing
demonstrated mastery of instructional techniques and professional practice through multiple
measures..." [Page 27, lines 29-47 and Page 28, lines 1-8] (-1)

Point No. 7 Does it increase government spending (for objectionable purposes) or debt? Conversely,
does it decrease government spending or debt?
ANALYSIS: Paying teachers is not objectionable. Paying teachers well is not objectionable. What
is objectionable is spending $125 million over five years to pay some teachers substantially more
than others for doing essentially the same job. House Bill 222 doubles down on failed and
irrelevant metrics such as standardized tests, time served, and degrees and credit hours
acquired. Idaho has limited resources and education funding is always controversial, but tying a
significant portion of teacher pay to "professional endorsements" and discredited metrics is not
the right solution. (-1)

You might also like