Under the Dome - February 21, 2012
House Education Committee amends licensure and evaluation bill
The Education Committee met this morning and continued work on HB 2736, the teacher licensure/educator evaluation bill.
We started the day with major issues on the negative aspects of the bill. We asked you to weigh in with your legislators and you did. They heard you and they responded.
Through a series of amendments today the following took place:
- Chairman Aurand moved to return the due process provisions to current law with the addition on one sentence requiring a hearing officer to consider the evaluations of an educator as evidence. This motion passed. The burden of proof in due process stays as it is now - with the District.
- Representative Spalding moved to delete the sections of the bill dealing with licensure and allowing Teach for America graduates and holders of certain bachelor's degrees to get a license with no teacher training. This motion passed. Standards for entering the teaching profession in Kansas stay rigorous as they are now.
- Representative Colloton moved to strike a section indicating that an educator with two "ineffective" evaluations "may be terminated. It was agreed that this could happen under current law and the language was superfluous. This motion passed.
- Representative Colloton also moved to restore the current teacher mentoring program which had been replaced by an alternative grant program. This motion passed. Our current law on mentoring of probationary teachers stays in place and there is an additional opportunity for extra grants for mentoring.
- The bill was then moved favorably for passage; the motion prevailed and the bill now goes to the House floor.
All of our concerns have been appropriately addressed with the exception of two:
1. The bill still strikes "evaluation procedures" from the collective bargaining law although it was amended to happen only after KEEP is implemented. While this language is an improvement we continue to believe that if KEEP has local components in its final form, those components should be developed collaboratively.
2. The bill calls for student growth to be "a primary factor" in evaluation. Our concern is that "primary" implies more than 50%. We would prefer a word like "significant" and allow the KEEP development group to determine what that is.
A number of the Committee members made reference to the intense lobbying they got in the days leading up to this morning. Our members are to be congratulated for standing up for themselves and taking this issue on.
Additionally, we want to thank United School Administrators for their help. They have consistently put out the message that the best thing the Legislature could do would be to let the collaborative process in the development of KEEP continue without interference. We greatly appreciate the respect that our administrative colleagues have shown teachers through their advocacy on this bill.
Senate Education Committee continues discussion on SB 361, finance bill
Our report from the Senate Education Committee is a bit hard to write. Normally as a bill is "worked," amendments are moved, debated and voted upon. But in this case, amendments are being presented and discussed but not acted upon. So up to this point there have been no changes to the Governor's bill (SB 361) other than to have stripped out of it all provisions on career and technical education, educator evaluation, teacher licensure, mentoring, and incentive pay.
Today's discussion took up an amendment by Sen. Steve Abrams (R-Arkansas City) to allow counties to levy a sales tax to be distributed among the school districts headquartered in that county. This was in an early version of the Governor's proposal but did not make the final cut as the bill was drafted.
The Committee also had an explanation of an amendment by Sen. Susan Wagle (R-Wichita) to provide a form of at-risk funding to school districts that receive no additional funding under the Governor's plan. The amendment would add about $13 million to school funding.
A proposal from Sen. Vratil that would change the provision that caps carry-over in most funds at 7.5% was voted upon and passed. Vratil's amendment would limit the cap to only six funds: the general fund, at-risk, professional development, Parents as Teachers, vocational education, and bilingual education. This was further amended to have the carry-over calculated on Dec. 30. The Governor's proposal would cap carry-over in most funds at 7.5%. If, on a date certain, there was more than 7.5% in a fund, the District would be required to send the overage to KPERS.
The Committee adjourned without taking action and will not meet again until next week after the "turn-around" break. The bill will be "blessed," retired to a committee exempt from legislative timelines. If the bill had not been blessed, it would die at turn-around.
KPERS Committees moving off defined contribution, now thinking "cash balance"
The Pensions Committees in both the Senate and the House are beginning to explore Cash Balance Plans as an alternative to the KPERS Commission proposed change to a Defined Contribution System. The Senate has introduced SB 429 which is similar to the KPERS Commission Bill, but could be used as to bring forward a Cash Balance Plan. The House Pensions Committee is exploring the Cash Balance Proposal and has testimony from Nebraska which has a Cash Balance Plan. The KPERS Commission proposals are still alive and could go forward, but it is a good sign for those opposed to a defined contribution plan that both chambers are reviewing cash balance as an alternative. The House Pensions Committee will not meet again until next Wednesday after turn-around. The Senate Select Committee on Pensions will meet today to hear testimony regarding cash balance plans. No action is planned until after turn-around.
Need to understand more? Read on!
What is a cash balance plan?
- A cash balance plan is a defined benefit plan.
- Cash balance plans are viewed as the "middle ground" between a traditional defined benefit plan and a defined contribution plan.
- If a cash balance plan were added to KPERS, it would be a Tier 3 of the current KPERS system and not a separate plan. Adding a cash balance tier would not require the current KPERS plan to be closed or frozen.
- The only real difference between a cash balance plan and current KPERS is how the retirement benefit is calculated.
How do cash balance plans work?
- Under a cash balance plan, you are guaranteed to receive the dollar value of contributions made on your behalf plus a guaranteed annual interest crediting rate.
- The idea is that the guaranteed interest rate will be set below the plan's expected annual return, so that any lower performing years will be offset by higher performing years.
At retirement, the "cash balance" for each employee is converted to a lifetime monthly annuity.
