Indiana Law Gets it Right

State lawmakers “got it right” in Indiana on Saturday, when Governor Mitch Daniels signed one component of his comprehensive education reform package into law. The bill overhauls the way teachers are evaluated and incorporates merit pay into the education lexicon in the state of Indiana. According to WISH-TV, “among some of the provisions, teacher performance is now a factor in hiring, promotion, salary and dismissal.”

Under the new law, students would not be required to have an “unsatisfactory” teacher for more than one year, without parent approval. Additionally, the educators that rank in the bottom two of the four categories used for evaluation would be ineligible to receive automatic pay increases, and all new, incoming teachers, would be ineligible to receive tenure. Under Indiana’s current system, 99% of teachers are rated effective educators, but nearly 25% of the state’s children fail statewide examinations. It’s clear that 99% of Indiana’s teachers are not effective at what they do.

One important factor to note is the way in which Indiana will evaluate its teachers. The evaluation scheme for educators in the state will incorporate “objective student performance” or test scores into the assessment criteria, but it will not be the sole component of any scheme. In addition, performance reviews will become an annual occurrence, teachers will be evaluated based on how well and how often they use their best available resources, and peer and principal reviews will be incorporated into the overall assessment model.

Work with unions has been essential to the bill’s success, and will make the overall bill more effective than measures in other states. The previous union contracts, for example, prohibited yearly reviews of the state’s teachers. In addition, Indiana unions can see the collective bargaining big picture: it’s vital to both ensure good teachers are paid well and to produce high academic achievement for America’s children. The ABA, as well as the AMA, promote the welfare of their members, but they also make certain that their associates achieve the profession’s loftier goals and regulate the profession.

Daniels’ bill does take some collective bargaining rights away from the teachers’ unions in Indiana, but they don’t remove the organizations’ abilities to negotiate for wages and benefits. What is no longer in the purview of union negotiations is educational curriculum, classroom size, and other components of the general education system. These components do not drastically affect the working conditions of the teaching profession, but are vital to the success of public school children. In addition, many of the subjects now outside of the realm of negotiation, like classroom size, impact students and teachers in the same way. A smaller class size is a calmer environment for teachers and increases student performance (and in the case of the new bill, should increase teacher pay as well). Other state and federal teachers’ unions must emulate the union response in Indiana.

Finally, opponents cite two problems with the reform bill. First, they fear that any evaluation metric will fail to fairly grade teacher performance; and second, they claim that teachers are not in the education field for the money. While the first concern is always a valid one when a new metric is introduced, the Indiana bill goes as far as any can in producing a fair evaluation. The system incorporates both concrete, quantitative measures, as well as objective peer and administrator teacher review. In addition, the four levels of performance are much more expansive than what many other states currently use when evaluating performance (either effective or ineffective, or a third, middle category). When a choice is between lower student performance and a pay scale that rewards teaching longevity rather than performance, or higher student performance and a scale that, may somewhat imperfectly, reward the best teachers, I’ll choose the latter.

The second argument against the bill, even if a valid concern, demonstrates why this legislation was so necessary. According to Senator Earline Rogers, "I don't think teachers are in it for the money. If they had been in it for the money, they would have chosen another profession." This is precisely the problem. Although we would never discourage passionate individuals from becoming teachers to help children, the low salary of the teaching field dissuades many from ever giving it a shot in the first place. Some of the most highly qualified individuals and some of the most academically successful students would never dream of entering the teaching field, because the pay is so much lower than what they could earn at another job. Why would anyone strive to be a high quality teacher when they could succeed in finance, law, or medicine, and make five times the salary? What’s more, Senator Rogers is implying that the joy educators get from being a high quality educator and the impact they have on their students are more motivating than financial rewards. If this is true, then most, if not all, public school teachers should get the most out of their children, and American students should all be passing their standardized tests. That, however, is not the case.

The Indiana bill shows the considerable progress that we can make in education reform efforts if government bodies and teachers’ unions work together. Merit pay systems for public school teachers not only reward educators for high quality work, but they raise the level of all teachers, and in turn, improve the academic performance of America’s students.

For more information, visit Governor Daniels' website at: http://www.in.gov/portal/news_events/69879.htm.