T he method of compensating public school teachers has been a topic of discussion for years. In the next legislative session, a compensation plan proposed by Idaho state Superintendent Tom Luna will be considered.

The Luna plan offers five levels at which teachers may increase compensation. Some are in the form of a yearly bonus, others are permanent raises.

The first opportunity to increase pay is in the form of a bonus based upon Idaho Standard Achievement Test (ISAT) scores. Bonuses are proposed for employees in schools scoring in the top quartile, or schools showing improvement that ranks in the top first or second quartiles.

This is troublesome for a number of reasons. A standardized test such as the ISAT is extremely limited in its ability to test important educational outcomes. There are already pressures related to the ISAT test that cause instructional modifications that are not all positive. We should not add another layer, where this is the only measure of student achievement affecting a teacher’s pay.

Next, the Luna plan gives bonus pay for teachers in market-scarce positions, such as mathematics, science or special education. As examples, excellent teachers of English, Social Studies or most elementary educators will have no opportunity to receive higher pay under this category.

Thus under the Luna plan, a teacher who is employed in a school that struggles with the standardized ISAT test and who teaches in a discipline that is not “market-scarce” may receive no bonus at the first two levels.

At the next level, Superintendent Luna would award teachers $2,400 per year to give up continuing contract due process rights. Teachers can progress no further in the plan without making this concession. This is an extremely important issue that demands thorough discussion and understanding.

The “continuing contract” system for public school teachers is not parallel to tenure for university professors. The issue with respect to the Luna proposal involves teachers who have successfully completed their first three years. These teachers are currently awarded continuing, or renewable contracts. It is important to understand that teachers at this level are not guaranteed a position unless their performance measures up.

Continuing contract teachers are evaluated at least once a year by school administration. If their performance is unsatisfactory, they are notified in writing. A period of probation may be determined, with supervision and evaluation during that time. If the deficiencies are not corrected, the teacher’s job in that district may be terminated. (Note that this relates to teacher competency, not criminal matters.)

According to current law, the teacher has the following due process rights: A formal hearing may be requested with the district Board of Trustees where witnesses may testify; the teacher is entitled to legal counsel and representation by the state teachers association; and if there is justification, the matter may be further pursued in the courts.

Why is Superintendent Luna’s plan a problem? It would allow only an informal dismissal hearing with the school board. He then states “due process would be expanded” to allow any students, patrons, parents or employees the opportunity to provide input at the informal dismissal hearing with the school board.

This is hardly an expansion of due process. Teachers would, in fact, be giving up due process as we know it. By allowing students, parents, patrons and co-employees input in the teacher dismissal process, the school district could allow the informal dismissal proceedings to turn into – to paraphrase Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas at his confirmation hearings – “nothing short of a public, legal lynching.”

Due process is extremely important to the teaching profession. Teachers are vulnerable to criticism and attacks over such issues as grading, sensitive curricular topics and a host of others. Support they receive from administration and board members varies, so a strong due process system is critical. Its removal invites abuse.

The fourth and fifth levels involve earning multiple instructional endorsements and assuming certain leadership responsibilities.

Sadly, the teacher who shows excellence at these levels receives no additional pay without giving up continuing contract protections. This constitutes unconscionable coercion.

It is not wrong to suggest improvements in methods of compensating teachers. However, the defects in the Luna plan are unacceptable.