Duncan fielded questions on a variety of topics, ranging from the federal Race to the Top competition to teacher pay.

On that subject, Duncan said he envisions first-year teachers making $60,000 –- and the best and brightest drawing salaries in excess of $150,000.

He would also like to see financial incentives for teachers who take jobs in struggling schools –- or who teach high-demand subjects like math and science.

“We’ve been doing the wrong thing by teachers and the education profession for so long,” he said.

If we want to increase the production of scientists and engineers at Florida’s universities, we will need new instructional facilities.

What you see above is one artist’s conception of a STEM classroom building at FSU.  It is 90,000 square feet and would cost $35 million to build.  Last I heard, it was second on the university’s priority list for PECO funding.  The university master plan places it in the parking lot east of the Oceanography/Statistics Building.

The building would house classrooms for chemistry, computer science, Earth sciences, mathematics and physics – including several science studio rooms for housing inquiry-driven instruction.  It is the first of three buildings contemplated by a group of professors from these departments (plus Biology), and this building, Unit 1, is designed to meet the instructional needs we had last year:  that’s right, not in the future, but last year.  Building for the future is included in Units 2 and 3.

But with the flow of PECO revenue slowed to a trickle, there are no funds available for the construction of academic facilities.

If we are serious about educating more and better scientists and engineers, we’ll need new facilities.  We must start thinking about how we are going to do this.

Will is an Assistant Professor of Sociology at USF.  He is the primary author of the 2007 study on STEM bachelor’s degree attainment that I quote all the time (for example, see the paper from “The Physics Teacher” linked below).

physics teacher

The fitted line has the equation

composite score = -189.69*(percentage free/reduced lunch) + 610.52

School districts that are close to this fitted line are average and deserve a corresponding grade (let’s say “B”).  A district far enough above the line is doing significantly better than demographics would predict and deserves an “A”.  A district too far below the line deserves a “C” (or worse, but we’ll stick to “C”).

Let’s say that “average” districts are within 15 points of the fitted composite FCAT score for their particular free/reduced lunch percentages; they get B’s.  More than 15 points above the line, and the school district earns an “A”.  More than 15 points below the line gets a “C”.

Under this scheme, which school district is tops in Florida?  Dixie and Gilchrist are tied for the top rank, 67 points above the line (and therefore 67 points above the expected composite FCAT score for their % free/reduced lunch, which is 63.6% for Dixie and 55.1% for Gilchrist).  The top-ranked district in the Governor’s rankings, which do not take socioeconomic status into account, is St. Johns.  In my ranking, St. Johns still earns an “A”, but is ranked only 13th.

At the other end of the rankings, Madison County is still at the bottom, 72 points below the composite FCAT score expected for its free/reduced lunch number, which is a dismal 67.1%.

Gadsden County has an even higher free/reduced lunch number, 76.6%, but earns a composite FCAT score of 474, which is 63 points above Madison’s 411 and is 9 points above the expected value for that free/reduced number.  Gadsden earns a “B” in my scheme.

In my scheme, Leon County earns a “C” with it’s FCAT score of 533, which is 21 points below the value expected for its free/reduced lunch percentage of 29.8%.

Here’s the spreadsheet with all of this:

bands

Here’s my take on the Governor’s school district rankings – which were released this morning – showing the dependence of the district’s numerical score vs. % free/reduced lunch eligibility from 2010-2011:

What caught my eye was the three districts near 60% free/reduced lunch that have anomalously high scores.  They are Gilchrist (55%, 573), Dixie (64%, 557) and Sumter (58%, 559) counties.  Those three rural overachieving counties defy their demographics.

I’m attaching a spreadsheet with counties broken out in 10% ranges of free/reduced lunch eligibility and then ranked within those categories.  My own district, Leon, is at the bottom of the 20-30% category.

by lunch percent

SB 1366, one of two STEM education reform bills filed by the next President of the Florida Senate, Don Gaetz, will be discussed during tomorrow’s meeting of the chamber’s PreK-12 Education Committee tomorrow.

The bill is complex, but offers some insight regarding the vision of the next Senate President for STEM education.  There are some K-12 provisions, but much of the bill has to do with higher education.

So without further comment, I offer the summary given below of what I see as the most important provisions of the bill.

I’ll also note that SB 756, the proposal by PreK-12 Committee Chair Stephen Wise for a “career” high school diploma, is on the agenda as well.  The bill seems to simply insert the word “applied” in front of the names of several difficult subjects (Algebra 2, Chemistry, Physics).  It is the most constructive of several “career” high school diploma proposals that have been filed during the last few years in response to the rigor of the new high school graduation requirements approved in 2010.  For more detail, see my post on SB 756 from November.

1)  Annual report on student employment and earnings outcomes for each major, listed by university

•  Data from Florida Education and Training Placement Information Program on employment, earnings, continuing education, and receipt of public assistance
• Average student loan debt
• Incomes one year and five years after graduation
• Percentage of graduates continuing their education

2)   Program based in the Department of Economic Opportunity to match students in technology or engineering with in-state employers

3)  “Unified State Plan for Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics”

•  Developed by “State Board of Education, in consultation with the Board of Governors and the Department of Economic Opportunity”
• “…to improve K-20 education in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics and prepare students for high-skill, high-wage, and high-demand employment.”

4)  Performance funding for state universities based on students in information technology programs

• 25% of score based on “percentage of employed graduates who have earned degrees” in Computer and information science, Computer engineering, Information systems technology, Information technology; and Management information systems
• Another 25% on “percentage of graduates who earned baccalaureate degrees in the programs in paragraph (a) and who earned industry certifications in a related field from a Florida College System institution or state university prior to graduation.”
• 50% “based on factors determined by the Board of Governors which relate to increasing the probability that graduates who have earned degrees in the programs described in paragraph (a) will be employed in high-skill, high-wage, and high-demand employment.”
• “Each year, the Board of Governors shall award up to $15 million to the highest-ranked state universities from funds appropriated for the purposes in this section and as specified in the General Appropriations Act. The award per state university shall be a minimum of 20 percent of the total amount appropriated pursuant to this section.  The funds shall be awarded to the department of the state university which offers the degrees described in paragraph.

If the Legislature is indeed able to respond positively to the Governor’s call for a $1 billion increase in the K-12 budget, it should set aside $50 million of that amount to provide salary supplements of $5,000 for each of 10,000 teachers in critical needs subjects, including math and science.

The low level of teachers’ salaries is a serious issue facing the recruiting of math and physics teachers (for example, see this op-ed from the Orlando Sentinel).  Outside of teaching, new bachelor’s degree grads in math and physics earn average starting salaries near $50,000, which is $10,000 or more above the starting salary for a teacher in Florida.  Closing this gap by $5,000 would likely help efforts to recruit strong teachers in these critical subjects.

The districts are just not going to do this on their own.  Differential pay for critical needs subjects has been authorized in Florida’s statutes for years (most recently in last year’s teacher employment bill), but to my knowledge no district in Florida has implemented such a plan.

The FLDOE could run the $50 million critical needs salary pool as a grant program.  Districts would apply for the funding and the FLDOE would then respond to the proposal based on the district’s commitment – probably demonstrated through the district’s collective bargaining agreement – to faithfully implement a differential pay program.

Georgia has implemented a similar program.  New teachers in math and science earn starting salaries $4,700 above new teachers in other subjects.  Differential pay was easier to implement in Georgia than it would be in Florida because Georgia has a statewide salary schedule.

The differential pay grant program would work around the districts’ reflex to complain about unfunded mandates, while providing strong oversight to make sure that the state’s (and students’) interest in promoting better math and science education is addressed.

Insofar as the proposal for an all-online university is a distraction from addressing the proposal for improving opportunities to learn science and engineering, it is bad for the State of Florida.

This evening, the Palm Beach Post published a strongly worded editorial arguing that the idea of higher tuition for STEM degrees is “not fair” and a “bad idea”.

All of which leaves us back where we started:  How are we going to find money for the facilities, equipment, faculty and staff to teach more students well in the science and engineering fields?  It certainly doesn’t appear that more money is forthcoming from the state.