Why do some people think the new high school graduation requirements are a “huge unfunded mandate”?

I think I get it now.  I understand the argument that leads some folks to believe that the new high school graduation requirements are a “huge unfunded mandate”.  It’s just that the argument is wrong.

School Zone posted a link to my op-ed on the chemistry teacher shortage that the Orlando Sentinel published yesterday.  An Orlando-area chemistry and physics teacher named Steve argued that the “chemistry or physics” requirement (really just a chemistry requirement) will cost the state $50 million per year in salaries for new science teaching positions – he said 900 of them.

Here is why Steve’s argument is wrong:  The new grad requirements do not increase the number of science courses each student will take – it is three now, and it will continue to be three.  The total number of science courses being offered in Florida high schools will not increase, and we will not have to increase the number of science teachers we have now.

What will change is how those science courses are distributed among different subjects.  Students who have been taking low-octane science courses to meet the present graduation requirements will have to replace one of those low-octane courses with chemistry.  So we will need fewer teachers to teach low-octane courses, and we will need more teachers highly qualified to teach chemistry.

But the gentle reader might ask, “How are we going to replace teachers who are not qualified to teach chemistry with teachers who are?”

First of all, there is a certain amount of normal attrition.  Every year, some science teachers leave the teaching corps.  Every one of them should be replaced with a new teacher highly qualified to teach chemistry.  (If the colleges of education and alternative certification programs can produce them, that is.  And as I pointed out in the op-ed and elsewhere, Georgia-style differential pay would help.)

Second, the state should come up with the funds – from Race to the Top, or the National Science Foundation, or somewhere else – to provide opportunities for science teachers who want to do so to retrain to become highly qualified in chemistry.  Based on my limited knowledge of the gold standard in professional development in physics – the University of Washington program – I’d say that such a program would require 6-8 eight weeks per summer for three summers, and would cost a total of $25,000 per teacher (including a stipend for the teacher).

Third, the state should aggressively expand its alternative certification effort and recruit practicing science and engineering professionals into the teaching force.

In summary, the science teacher salary pool might increase by a few million dollars per year if a large number of Florida’s districts implement differential pay for starting chemistry teachers.  And the state might spend as much as $10 million or even $15 million one time to retrain in-service science teachers to become highly qualified in chemistry.  But that’s it.  The $50 million-per-year cost of creating 900 new science teaching positions in the state is just a fiction.  Sorry, Steve.

Steve also mentioned that he anticipates an enormous drop in the graduation rate due to the chemistry-or-physics requirement.  But the experiences of Brevard and Duval counties – where SB 4-style graduation requirements have been in place for years – do not support Steve’s assertion.  Neither does the experience that the Chicago Public Schools had following their 1997 implementation of tougher graduation requirements in science.  And very soon now, we will see how Michigan does with graduation requirements that are identical to ours and that were enacted in 2006.

Update (2:45 pm): Steve asked what science courses I would cancel to compensate for the additional sections of chemistry that will be necessary, if the science teaching corps is to remain at a constant size.  A summary of the answer I posted is given by the Gang of 90 white paper – any science course that is not on the Gang’s “approved” list should not be taught.

Orlando Sentinel op-ed on demand for chemistry teachers

My op-ed in the Orlando Sentinel on the huge demand for chemistry teachers Florida is facing is here.

Should Florida adopt the Georgia model for teacher salaries?

Florida’s present system of setting teacher salaries through district-level collective bargaining with no statewide framework makes it nearly impossible to implement reforms like differential pay for math and science teachers.  Differential pay for math and science has been in the state’s statutes for years, but (to my knowledge) it has never been enacted anywhere in Florida.

However, last year the Georgia legislature and governor adopted a pay scheme that provides starting math and science teachers a $4,600 salary differential.  How were they able to do this?

Georgia has a statewide teacher salary schedule.  It is not inflexible – there is still the opportunity for district school boards and teachers’ unions to negotiate supplements to the statewide scale (and they do).  But the statewide framework provides opportunities to push data-driven reforms that have little chance of implementation in a system that is completely district-based.

From the point of view of an economic purist, the Georgia scheme has flaws, just as Florida’s district-based salary schedules do.  Like district-based salary schedules in Florida and nearly everywhere else, large automatic raises are given for graduate degrees, even though a significant amount of research shows that such degrees have little or no correlation with increased student achievement.

However, Georgia’s statewide salary schedule does a somewhat better job than some of Florida’s district-based salary schedules in providing large pay increases early in a teacher’s career.  Student achievement is strongly correlated to teacher experience early in a teacher’s career, but the correlation weakens considerably as the teacher reaches five years of experience.  For a teacher with a bachelor’s degree, Georgia’s statewide schedule provides a 26.0% increase during a teacher’s first ten years.  In contrast, the 2007-2008 salary schedule for my home county, Leon, provides only a 9.7% increase in the first ten years.  Instead, the Leon County schedule provides large increases beginning in year 20.

It is clear that the Florida Legislature will take up teacher compensation and tenure reform during the 2011 session.  The question is this:  Will we have a replay of this year’s SB 6 donnybrook?  Or will the legislature look for a way forward that will provide opportunities for important reforms without appearing vindictive toward the teachers’ unions?  If it’s the latter, perhaps the Georgia statewide salary schedule will provide a model for the Florida legislature to follow.

Can differential pay for math and science teachers happen in the Side Deal State?

A glance at the data on starting salaries for new bachelors’ degree recipients makes it clear that attracting young talent into the fields of chemistry, math and physics teaching will require substantial differential pay for new teachers in these fields.  What would it take?  $5,000 for new chemistry teachers; $10,000 for new math and physics teachers.

Differential pay for starting math and science teachers is not unheard of.  Georgia enacted it last year – properly certified starting math and science teachers start at a salary $4,600 higher than teachers in other subjects.

But could differential pay for math and science teachers happen in Florida, the Side Deal State?

The authorization of differential pay for teachers in math and science fields has been in Florida Statute for years, yet to my knowledge not a single one of Florida’s 67 school districts has ever implemented it.

SB 6, the lightning rod bill on teacher employment and compensation practices, included a mention of differential pay in high needs areas, although the bill would actually have removed the specific mention of math and science as high needs fields from the law.

Why is it that Georgia can enact differential pay for math and science teachers into law, and Florida can’t?

The answer lies in the role that district-level collective bargaining plays in setting teacher salaries.

Georgia has a basic teacher salary schedule that applies to every district in the state.  The district-level unions can collectively bargain enhancements to that salary schedule, but the statewide schedule provides a concrete framework around which district-level frameworks must fit.

There is no such statewide framework in Florida.  District salary schedules are completely uncoupled from each other, and there is no way to set any sort of statewide policy on teacher compensation – including differential pay for math and science teachers.  And a scientist like me is willing to point out that there are plenty of data on how Florida’s school districts respond to the idea of differential pay for math and science teachers – they ignore it.

So no, there are no prospects for differential pay for math and science teachers in Florida, the Side Deal State.  The now notorious district-level side deals between district teachers’ unions and school boards that may put a stake through the heart of Florida’s RTTT hopes symbolize the complete independence of district collective bargaining processes from state-level interference and any hope of differential pay for chemistry, math and physics teachers.