A half-million-dollar pilot program to recruit scarce math and science teachers to poor counties made it through the General Assembly this summer, but not in time to help with teacher recruitment.
With the school year now well under way, State Board of Education members hope that the money that would have been used to pay recruitment bonuses will be used instead to persuade newly hired teachers to stay on the job.
The Salary Supplement for Math and Science Teachers Pilot Program was authorized by a special provision in the state budget signed into law July 10. Under this program the State Board of Education was to designate three school districts to receive extra funds to pay $15,000 bonuses each to as many as 10 newly hired teachers in shortage areas. The idea was to use the money as an incentive to draw hard-to-find math and science teachers into low-performing districts.
The measure’s sponsor, Senate President Pro Tem Marc Basnight, wanted the program to be in place before the start of the school year so that the chosen districts could use it as a recruiting tool. But while the legislation made the money available, it left it up to the board to determine which school districts would receive the funds, and which teachers would be eligible for the bonuses. That process took much longer than Basnight anticipated, with the result that the teacher recruiting season came and went before the board was able to act.
Unfortunately, competition for teachers of certain disciplines causes school districts to begin recruiting efforts in early spring, before new teachers have graduated from college. Job fairs are usually conducted in May or June, and by mid-July most of the highly sought-after math, science, and special-education teachers that are in short supply have already committed to a district. Given the timing of the legislature’s budget deliberations, the program never had a realistic chance of having a major impact on recruiting this year.
While the board knew that Basnight’s provision was in the budget document as early as June 30 and thus very likely to pass, there was little in the way of preparation the staff could do. According to Philip Price, associate superintendent for business and financial services, it doesn’t make sense for the staff to work on proposals that have not actually been ratified into law. If they did, he said, “We would be working on a lot of items that would not move forward.”
Price said that once the budget bill was ratified the board formed a committee to review the special provision and make policy recommendations, and that the recommendations were approved at the second meeting of the full board Sept. 6 after the legislation was passed. With respect to the staffing and vetting process, “It was not possible to obtain appropriate feedback by the August meeting,” on staffing and the vetting process, Price said.
The provision authorizing the differential pay pilot program was included in the Senate’s version of the budget bill (SB1741), which passed that chamber May 25. The House initially stripped the special provision out of its version of the budget, but when the two bills went to a conference committee June 19 it was back on the table.
During the conference committee meetings the provision sparked a number of questions, most of which centered on the stipulation that the bonuses be paid to “newly hired teachers.”
Legislators wanted to know whether that meant that only those teachers new to the profession could receive the extra pay, or if it included experienced teachers from other states or districts. One legislator asked whether teachers already serving at one school in the district would be able to transfer into a position at another school to become eligible.
Several members expressed uneasiness about a policy, which seemed to pit schools and districts against one another in teacher recruitment, and with the idea of paying two teachers in the same field at the same school different salaries.
The only answer given during the hearings was that the state board would develop implementing guidance that clearly defined what was meant by the term “new teacher.” The final negotiations over the conference committee report were conducted in secret, and when the final version of the budget bill was submitted to both chambers June 30, the pilot project had survived intact, virtually assuring its passage into law.
The governor’s signing of the bill July 10 put the ball officially in the state board’s court. With less than seven weeks before the school year was to begin the board had to act fast if it was to take advantage of the opportunity to use the program as a recruiting tool.
But as a practical matter, it was already too late. Minutes of the regular board meetings for July and August show that no substantive discussion of the pilot program took place, nor was the pilot program specifically on the agenda for the conference call meeting Aug. 23.
Recommendations for implementing the program were not presented to the board until its meeting Sept. 6 in New Bern. At the meeting the board chose Rockingham County, Bertie County, and Columbus County school districts to participate, and tentatively agreed to define “newly hired” teachers (for purposes of the pilot program only) as those with less than four years teaching experience.
Price explained that the three districts were chosen because of their poverty status, poor performance on student tests, and geographical diversity. In his remarks to the board, he cited the 20 percent teacher turnover ratio in those districts and stressed that, since it was too late to use the program as a recruiting tool, it was really “now more of a retention thing.”
Picking up on that theme, board members expressed a desire to get the program under way quickly. Vice Chairman Jane Norwood said the board needed to “get this money out there as soon as possible.” Chairman Howard Lee said that it was important to see “if money is a strong enough draw” to get teachers to stay in those areas.
The board is to report to the Joint Legislative Oversight Committee on the design of the pilot program before its implementation.
Jim Stegall is a contributing editor of Carolina Journal.