Can I have those five minutes back? blah, blah, blah!

Vote was 6-3 with Carson joining the majority.

Always wondered why SB meetings aren't on CTV.

Greetings from the World's Worst Politician and Largely Irrelevant Data Nerd.

The consensus is that for the next five years--but more likely seven--I am to be zoned for an elementary school one-third of which is housed in 40 year-old trailers and a high school with 900 empty seats.

My property value is to drop and my property taxes are to increase.

Did I mention it appears I'm banned from the SPEAK Facebook page? Which is okay, I guess, if they're still rehashing topics I wrote about three years ago here.

So how's by you?

Mayor Burchett released the following statement:

"I am very pleased with the Knox County Board of Education’s approval of the Memorandum of Understanding between Knox County and the school system," said Knox County Mayor Tim Burchett. "This agreement will help to ensure increased fiscal responsibility while also providing for much-needed teacher raises and two new middle schools, all without the need for a tax increase."

Vote was 6-3 with Carson joining the majority.

Carson shared tonight that a couple of years back she had joined the majority to vote for a new Carter Elementary and "got fooled" by the mayor as to increased funding for schools.

After offering her multiple concerns for the MOU and its Cap Plan at Monday's work session, she again joined the majority tonight to support these same financial priorities about which she had just complained.

But she said she won't be fooled a third time, by golly.

The fix for your leaky sink is to build a new kitchen somewhere else.

Oh, and the new kitchen won't cost you anything, but it will increase the odds we'll be kicking you out of the house we're letting rot.

Wonder where the $1 million in cuts for the MOU will come from? Teachers who have been to the podium at BOE meetings?

(link...)

The non-renewals will continue until moral improves.

Before last night's vote but after Carson announced she would hold her nose and stand with the majority, I just got up and moved to the door, awaiting the inevitable by the closest exit.

Fidgeting there in the doorway with me was a chirpy little wench in a bright blue satin skirt just a smidgen too tight across her ass to keep it from jacking up in the back and stiletto heels just a tad too high to keep her from walking like a Geisha. She was holding a microphone for one of our local TV stations.

We had a brief conversation that went something like this:

Wrinkled old crone: So you're covering this for local media?

Chirpy young wench: Why, yes!

Wrinkled old crone: I have to ask, have you read the Middle School Demand Analysis?

Chirpy young wench: What's that?

Wrinkled old crone: It's the $75K study the BOE commissioned to guide their decision on these requests for two new middle schools. It said they're not needed.

Chirpy young wench: Well, I'm just covering the MOU.

Wrinkled old crone: But you're not able to report on the MOU if you don't know how its proposal compares to the findings of the Middle School Demand Analysis.

Chirpy young wench: Thank you for your input.

And she turned and minced away in short, hobbled steps.

I do have a few more questions for our local media brain trust...

Since the beginning is a very good place to start, and since neither the superintendent nor five members of the BOE started there, has anybody questioned either of these parties on this very first clause in the MOU:

Knox County will pay Knox County Schools $3 million on or after November 24, 2016 for the purpose of a one-time planned APEX bonus for teachers which shall free up recurring revenue to enable teachers to receive a raise of approximately 2 percent. This one-time payment will be treated as a transfer, which by definition, is not a component included in Maintenance of Effort. This will be in addition to $1 million of cuts Knox County Schools will make, which amount will be contributed to the raise.

If some local media did not read and are not aware of a Middle School Demand Analysis, may I assume that they are at least aware of TCA 49-1-302(d) establishing statewide LEAs' teacher evaluation models rooted in TVAAS and TCA 49-3-306(h) establishing statewide LEAs' differentiated pay plans (i.e., "merit pay") based on same?

I ask because, obviously, the mayor's willingness to fund a one-time transfer to pay APEX bonuses, even if the expectation is that APEX will soon go away, does NOT relieve KCS of the requirements under law to evaluate teachers using TVAAS, to adopt a different differentiated pay plan if abandoning APEX, and to continue covering the cost of same in its subsequent budgets.

So have any media outlets pointed out to either the superintendent or BOE members or their readers that the mayor's covering differentiated pay in the upcoming fiscal year leaves unanswered the question of how KCS will cover differentiated pay in subsequent years, under what model this pay is to be extended, and who is to create this new model, if the APEX model is, indeed, to be abandoned?

Most importantly, have any media outlets pointed out that this one-time transfer coming from the county to cover APEX bonuses in NO WAY "frees up recurring revenue" with which to fund 2 percent teacher pay raises? Does everybody understand that KCS is still obligated to spend on BOTH types of teacher pay?

I've read every media outlet's coverage on the MOU and I haven't seen one word of reporting on this very first and most glaring of the agreement's multiple fallacies.

Know that strategic pay is required by law.

I'll remind you, too, that three years ago Kincannon, Buttry, and Carson all three told me they thought that since Nakia Towns had presented the APEX strategic comp plan to them, they thought she had personally created it.

Randy's the one to have discovered it was a boilerplate developed by Battelle for Kids and thrust upon multiple states and I was the one to have filled in the BOE on same.

I'd just about bet this new crop of BOE members doesn't have a clue who's to create the next strategic pay plan--nor even that someone, somewhere, has to create one--either.

After all we've been through on this subject, this level of naiveté is mind boggling.

Tamara -- I expect strategic compensation will be eliminated ... and if it's required by state law, that will be repealed. But promise to research this. One day short this week and on deadline.

Bean says Tamara is exactly right about the strategic compensation being required by state law. I can see why a board member didn't know that (since I didn't), but can't understand why someone on the superintendent's staff didn't speak up and say funding strategic compensation is NOT a one-time deal.

Bye!

Rachel, I believe I painted a picture of someone (who happened to be female) who was not, in any manner, a "serious journalist." The conversation I invited was whether "info-tainment" of this sort serves the public well when the purported "journalist" isn't "covering" the topic any better than she is "covering" her ass. Maybe poll Gloria Steinem to see if she agrees with me?

Sandra, I cited the statute mandating LEA's strategic comp plans above, namely TCA 49-3-306(h).

(EDIT: Sandra, that's not the right citation. That one is for differentiated pay plans for hard to staff positions. I'll look up the right one and route it to you.)

I suspect Tamara's political ambitions are in the past - but still if you are trying to promote a political agenda I don't think it makes sense to demean someone whose employer buys pixels by the barrel.

And whether or not you agree with their method, the news presenter's job is to attract and retain viewers.

But bottom line is, Tamara's as unlikely to ask for permission to tell her story the way she wants to as she is to give a damn what any of us think.

Which, in my view, makes this little corner of the world more interesting.

Sandra, I'm still not sure if that citation I offered above is the one mandating strategic comp. There's so much in there, I'm having some trouble digesting it...

However, here is a page from the site of Education Resource Strategies (January 2014), whom you'll recall was subcontracted by The Parthenon Group to do the KCS "resource allocation."

Excerpt:

Tennessee is currently undertaking one of the most ambitious teacher compensation reforms in the country. State legislation passed in 2007 and updated in 2013 mandates that districts offer differentiated pay, which can include rewarding teachers differently based on their roles and ability to improve student outcomes. Fewer than a dozen states have implemented differentiated pay plans thus far. In Tennessee, “differentiated pay” means more than “pay for test scores”—it can include anything from teaching in high-need areas, to taking on new leadership roles or bonuses for increased student performance. Now, every district must decide what differentiated pay looks like for them.

The page also explains that "The state has struck a balance between statewide reform and local control by mandating differentiated pay for all districts but creating flexible guidelines around design and implementation."

And the page links to "guidelines" at the State Board of Ed site, too, but I'm getting a "page not found" error there.

Here is a news story on the topic (July 2013), written at The Tennessean and appearing in the archives at WBIR's site.

It references Michelle Rhee's Students First having lobbied the General Assembly heavily in 2012, prior to the new pay plan having been adopted in 2013.

Another excerpt, explaining the plan:

Though Tennessee's plan doesn't go quite as far - some states have actually stopped tying pay to higher degrees altogether - districts here must now consider new factors other than experience and advanced degrees when they create pay scales for the 2014-15 school year.

It's now up to Tennessee's 137 school districts to craft plans that match the new criteria.

This could range from no additional pay for advanced degrees or experience to bonus pay for student achievement or for teaching in high-needs schools.

The Tennessee plan might be considered a hybrid of the other U.S. states' plans because it only prohibits using experience and advanced degrees as the sole reason for pay increases. It allows districts to consider an advanced degree as part of a pay increase as long as another factor, such as test scores, is also used.

Tamara is correct. When Tennessee took the Race to the Top money, they agreed to have laws that required compensation to teachers be tied to test scores. Knox County picked TEAM model as the evaluation tool and APEX as the compensation tool. The are lots of different programs and models that they could have picked. Each school system can pick the one that they want. Here is the scary thought. Our fearless leaders downtown and in Nashville have known that the Race to the Top money would run out, and they knew when, but no provisions were made for continuing funding. They did not tell teachers that the money would run out after last November. So, teachers were evaluated while thinking that they would get paid. The lead teachers evaluated while thinking that they would get paid. Then, surprise no money in the budget for this year's work. So, our fearless leader first decided to drop APEX bonuses and give a raise with money from the state. Then, he decided to give us bonuses and not a raise. So, now we will get both. What about next year? Is there a plan?

Okay, Sandra, I didn't have much time to look into this any further until late last night, but that statute I originally cited for you is the correct one, after all. I had been thrown because it seemed to lack specificity, but I found that it's further supported in guidelines at the State Board of Ed's site.

So here's how that portion of the statute relating to differented pay and dating to 2007 reads in full:

TCA 49-3-306

(h) Notwithstanding any other provision of this section to the contrary, an LEA shall develop, adopt and implement a differentiated pay plan under guidelines established by the state board of education to aid in staffing hard to staff subject areas and schools and in hiring and retaining highly qualified teachers. The plan shall be reviewed and evaluated annually to consider any change in circumstances regarding the hiring and retention of highly qualified teachers in the LEA's schools and subjects taught or any necessary revision or restructuring of the plan. No plan or revised plan shall be implemented prior to approval of the plan by the department of education. Each LEA shall implement a differentiated pay plan prior to the beginning of the 2008-2009 school year.

However, although differentiated pay had been the law since 2007, the State Board of Education (SBE) had never enforced it across all TN school districts due to a lack of state funding required for its implementation (see ARCC's study, Teacher Compensation Initiative: Literature Review, August 2014, pdf page 4).

As we know, in its 2010 First to the Top Act, in support of Tennessee's related Race to the Top (RttT) federal grant application, the legislature indicated its intention to better enforce differentiated pay across all Tennessee districts.

For the period 2010 through 2013, then, more districts (including KCS) came to offer differentiated pay plans, but the plans were still offered just sketchily and were reliant for their funding on RttT's various federal grant monies.

In June 2013, though, the State Board of Education passed a revised set of guidelines requiring all districts to create and implement differentiated pay plans for the 2014-15 school year just ended. As we know, KCS stayed with its APEX model.

One notable aspect in the SBE's new guidelines, though, is that "districts are required to differentiate pay for at least one element in addition to education and experience." That is, districts may offer additional compensation for teachers working in hard-to-staff schools OR teachers taking on additional roles/responsibilities OR teachers performing well per what remains a test-based teacher evaluation model, among some of the possible measures they may choose. They may also choose some combination of measures. It is not necessary, however, that districts' differentiated pay plans utilize ALL of these measures, as does the APEX model used to date by KCS (see same above link to SBE revised guidelines and click on "Sample Differentiated Pay Plan Table").

Interestingly, a Differentiated Pay Plan Summary also prepared by ARCC said that given these choices last school year, just one-third of districts therefore chose to include in their differentiated pay plans a measure of teachers' performance on Tennessee's test-based teacher evaluation model (see same above link to SBE revised guidelines and click on "Differentiated Pay Summary Report," pdf page 1).

What I don't know is what any KCS differentiated pay plan to have replaced APEX for the upcoming 2015-16 school year looked like, and specifically whether KCS has still chosen to include teachers' performance on test-based teacher evaluations as one or more measures to be utilized in its model--and it appears that the KCS plan has already been submitted to the SBE, given the June 30 deadline for districts to do so.

I’ve missed some BOE meetings/workshops over the last few months, but I’ve searched minutes for February through June online and I don’t see any BOE discussion of what differentiated pay plan to replace APEX Dr. McIntyre intended to submit to the SBE, so I don't know whether this BOE discussion/approval took place?

I've also searched the Knoxville News-Sentinel website for stories appearing in the last year and I don't see any mention of BOE discussion of what differentiated pay plan Dr. McIntyre intended to submit to the SBE. I used the terms "differentiated pay," "strategic compensation," and "APEX" as keywords in my searches. I found three stories relating to the budget, one relating to the most recent teacher survey results, and one relating to the most recent system strategic plan--but none to indicate what model would/has replaced APEX?

What I’m really wondering, of course, is whether Dr. McIntyre has possibly handled this differentiated pay plan submittal like he handled that last Broad contract, namely under the radar?

As you know, he did preview the original APEX plan with the BOE, what, four years back, just as he previously ran these Broad contracts past them.

And instruction at the SEC's site does indicate that the first step in the submittal process is that "local school boards are informed of and/or approve differentiated pay plans that will be submitted to TDOE" (see same above link to SBE revised guidelines and, under the heading "2015-16 Differentiated Pay Submission Process," click on "see this template for additional information")?

Well, maybe I didn't quite "put a bow on it," Sandra, but I didn't expect this question to arise in the course of my explaining how it is differentiated pay of some sort still has to be included in the KCS budget.

I'll invite anybody with an answer as to what model has apparently already been submitted to the SBE to please fill in Sandra and me, both.

For the benefit of anyone absorbed in or distracted by a "subtopic conversation" in this thread, what I said up there is that a state law requiring differentiated pay has existed since 2007, it became uniformly enforced by the SBE in 2013, it is therefore a line-item for which KCS must budget going forward, districts' differentiated pay plans for the upcoming 2015 school year were due to the SBE on June 30, but it thus far appears that our local BOE was not given the opportunity to approve the plan submitted last week by KCS.

Do carry on.

So a school board could toss $1K to teachers in hard-to-staff schools and call it a day -- instead of $3 million we're spending $100,000 or so.

Can you all explain your objections to paying more to teachers in "hard to staff" schools.

Did you see Sandra Clark's mention in this week's Shopper about the furor in Farragut over a proposed apartment complex?

This is how Farragut Intermediate maintains a Free and Reduced Meal population of just 19.3%--and precludes any "hard to staff" schools on its turf--relative to a F&RM population of 86% at Norwood Elementary, which community probably has more apartments than any school zone in the county.

There's a reason I keep referring to our local do-gooders as the "reformers from afar." Too many "Farragutians" in that bunch to take them very seriously.

one afternoon a week at Sarah Moore Greene (with our newspaper club this past year) I think all teachers should make double and those teachers should make double that.

What Sandra said. Every word of it.

Retired, Burchett has drafted this MOU to give the appearance that because the APEX strategic comp model is/will be abandoned, KCS won't have any more strategic comp/differentiated pay costs, and that KCS can therefore cover teacher raises with this "found" $$$. That's not true. KCS *will* have more strategic comp/differentiated pay costs, but now KCS will have to scramble to find the $$$ to cover them, or else reduce the size of its bonuses. And KCS will have to reduce this cost because Burchett is limiting their future budget monies in so many other ways. Bottom line is that it was a way sucky deal for KCS.

As for the ridiculous statements made by some BOE members to the effect that they "liked the increased fiscal responsibility inherent in the MOU," turning over to another elected official (like the mayor) one's fiscal authority under state law is NOT increasing fiscal responsibility. It's abdicating that responsibility altogether.

Increased fiscal responsibility on the BOE has to come from within, not from without.

And my comments above address just the KCS operating budget.

As to the KCS capital budget, how are they going to address building those schools they DO need to build when all their funding is tied up in building these two schools they DO NOT need to build?

More on the MOU's possible impact to KCS: The situation now is that KCS pays rent for its space in the AJ. The MOU doesn't say whether the county or KCS will carry the debt service on its any new facility required to move KCS out of the AJ.

If KCS acquires some new facility it owns, that may be another chunk out of its capital budget. If KCS acquires rental space elsewhere, that's definitely another chunk out of its operating budget.

Either way, KCS could well begin assuming a higher cost to house its Central Office. They didn't make any agreement to keep that cost comparable to what it is now.

I suspect he's convinced a couple of people that there will be enough money "left over" for capital projects in their districts. And he may be right.

Terry Hill mentioned this in the work session Monday night, suggesting that the two middle schools might possibly come in at less than the $56M budgeted for them collectively. She said any excess could then be applied to construction of a new Northcentral--her reference apparently being to this lesser "state standard" Burchett intends to apply.

You know my beef with that suggestion. I object that we're building these two projects at all, at any cost. And I *certainly* object that we're building them before we're building other projects that clearly should be our priorities.

Old South High, with some restoration and build out would be a great location, geographically.

But, 17 floors of the AJ building sounds like a lot of space. How many sq feet is that?

I don't know if the city has any input but having all those workers at Vine could boost Magnolia revitalization. That stretch of highway really is a fast food desert or "any kind of prepared food" desert since Scruggs BBQ closed.

Am I the only person in this conversation who's mortified to think Knox County might still be trying to integrate its public schools 60 or 65 years after Brown v. Board of Education?

Am I the only person in this conversation who's mortified to think Knox County might still be trying to integrate its public schools

I'm not mortified that Knox county is trying to integrate its public schools. I'm just sad when integration efforts lead to white flight.

Did you guys know there are white kids attending Vine Middle? From the magnet program and walking in from Parkridge. It may seem like a good revitalization ploy to turn it into an employment center but on second thought the Vine community and PTA might feel differently.

OTOH Standard Knitting Mills is just sitting there vacant.....

It was just Sandra's conjecture they would be all sent to Holston, that didn't come from the administration.

If, and it's a big if, Vine were to be closed the kids would be spread among Holston, South Doyle, Whittle Springs and perhaps Bearden.

Is it sad that Knox County is dealing with integration in 2015 - yes. I was reacting to your use of "mortified". And wondering about your reaction were you to visit Memphis.

I went ahead and looked up (at the 2014 State Report Card) last night the percentages of white students at all of our East Knox County elementary schools, these percentages still relative to that Knox County average of 74% white:

Gibbs Elementary, 93.8%
Carter Elementary, 93.1%
Corryton Elementary, 92.5%
East Knox Elementary, 92.5%
Halls Elementary, 90.2%

Only Ritta Elementary, closest to town, has a percentage of white students lower than 90%, at 70.8%.

I do appreciate Gloria Deathridge's concern for resegregation.

are housed in the AJ -- pre-trial release, I think, and maybe PBA.

The schools have a large maintenance building located north of Magnolia, beside the RR tracks and near Hall of Fame.