More K-12 teachers in SC can earn bonuses in $5M pilot program
Teachers in Williamsburg County School District receive Excellence in Teaching Awards from the state Department of Education in May 2024. (Provided/SC Department of Education)
COLUMBIA — Teachers in dozens of public schools across South Carolina are newly eligible for bonuses if their students show enough academic progress.
The state Department of Education recently announced choosing 37 schools from among 118 that applied to participate in its pilot program. They will cumulatively receive $5 million.
The size of teachers' potential bonus is unclear. District officials will distribute their allotment to teachers based on their students' test scores.
The department hopes the program becomes a statewide model for rewarding excellent teachers and keeping them in the classroom.
'This initiative is about more than just pay — it's about rewarding the educators who are moving the needle on student growth in the foundational skills of reading and math,' state Superintendent Ellen Weaver said in a news release. 'When we recognize and support the very best teaching, we set a new horizon for what's possible for students in every corner of our state.'
The latest experiment may accomplish through bonuses what legislators and state superintendents of both parties have attempted unsuccessfully for two decades: paying teachers statewide based on their effectiveness in the classroom.
Teachers in South Carolina are paid by their academic degree and years of experience. Teacher advocacy groups have long argued it's impossible to fairly construct a pay-for-performance model recognizing that every class is different, and some students enter their classrooms years behind.
Weaver first called for a statewide, voluntary incentive program in 2023. The Legislature provided $5 million for a pilot this school year.
The state budget plan approved by the House earlier this month would fund another $5 million for the coming school year. The bonuses would be in addition to the House's $1,500 boost in state-paid minimums for teachers. A final spending plan is still months away.
Weaver sees the number of applications as showing widespread support. In selecting which schools to include in the program, the agency gave priority to high-poverty schools with the highest teacher turnover, according to the education department.
Participating schools could choose different ways for determining teachers' bouses. All involve measuring how much progress their students make in meeting grade-level expectations for math and reading.
Roughly half of the 37 schools opted to use results on state-standardized math and reading tests taken by third- through eighth-grade students in the spring. Other schools created their own model for determining academic growth, which include scores on end-of-course tests taken by high schoolers.
Eleven schools adopted the Excellence in Teaching Awards model, which has been funded in high-poverty schools with private donations since 2021. It involves comparing students' scores on district-level tests they take at the beginning and end of the school year.
SC House budget plan raises teacher pay by $1,500 instead of $3,000
The awards were inspired by the four Meeting Street Schools, an innovative approach to neighborhood schools launched in Charleston by billionaire philanthropist Ben Navarro to prove all students can succeed. The donor-funded awards expanded to high-poverty public schools throughout Charleston County.
Last school year, the state Department of Education expanded it with federal aid to schools in Allendale and Williamsburg counties, which remain under the agency's control. Those schools are becoming part of the state pilot.
The money helps both teachers and students, said Josh Bell, president of Beemok Education, which manages the various education initiatives of Ben and Kelly Navarro. In the 28 schools that have given teachers bonuses using private funding since 2021, student test scores have improved and teachers have said they are more likely to stay in the classroom, he said.
'We deeply believe that teachers who work really hard and get these outcomes ought to be compensated for them,' Bell said.
Last school year, rewarded teachers in Charleston County received, on average, a $5,000 bonus, while the largest single bonus was $31,000, according to Beemok Education.
Sherry East, president of the South Carolina Education Association, reiterated teachers' concerns that paying teachers for students' performance puts too much focus on a few tests rather than students' overall improvement.
'Do I think there needs to be a way of recognizing high-performing teachers? Absolutely,' East said. 'Do I think it should be based on test scores? Absolutely not.'
An alternative to the test-based bonuses could be to offer incentives for teachers in hard-to-hire positions, said Patrick Kelly with the Palmetto State Teachers Association. Hawaii did something similar by offering $10,000 bonuses to special education teachers beginning in 2019, which helped the state put teachers in commonly hard-to-fill roles, he said.
If education officials want to continue doing performance-based bonuses, Kelly suggested the state instead encourage districts to look at teachers' end-of-year evaluation, which grades their teaching abilities as a whole instead of simply how well their students perform on tests.
Looking solely at whether a student is meeting or exceeding grade level can discount the work teachers do to help students who enter their classes while falling behind catch up, even if the students still don't get to where they should be for their grade level, Kelly said.
'If you're going to do (a bonus) on the basis of student performance, it cannot be done on test scores alone,' Kelly said.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


CNBC
26 minutes ago
- CNBC
What a ‘revenge tax' in Trump's spending bill could mean for investors
As the Senate weighs President Donald Trump's multi-trillion-dollar spending package, a lesser-known provision tucked into the House-approved bill has pushback from Wall Street. The House measure, known as Section 899, would allow the U.S. to add a new tax of up to 20% on foreigners with U.S. investments, including multinational companies operating in the U.S. Some analysts call the provision a "revenge tax" due to its wording. It would apply to foreign entities if their home country imposes "unfair foreign taxes" against U.S. companies, according to the bill. "Wall Street investors are shocked by [Section] 899 and apparently did not see it coming," James Lucier, Capital Alpha Partners managing director, wrote in a June 5 analysis. More from Personal Finance:The average 401(k) savings rate hit a record high. See if you're on trackOn-time debt payments aren't a magic fix for your credit score. Here's whyWith 'above normal' hurricane forecasts, check your home insurance policy If enacted as written, the provision could have "significant implications for the asset management industry," including cross-border income earned by hedge funds, private equity funds and other entities, Ernst & Young wrote on June 2. Passive investment income could be subject to a higher U.S. withholding tax, as high as 50% in some cases, the company noted. Some analysts worry that could impact future investment. The Investment Company Institute, which represents the asset management industry serving individual investors, warned in a May 30 statement that the provision is "written in a manner that could limit foreign investment to the U.S." But with details pending as the Senate assesses the bill, many experts are still weighing the potential impact — including who could be affected. Here's what investors need to know about Section 899. As drafted, Section 899 would allow the U.S. to hike existing levies for countries with "unfair foreign taxes" by 5% per year, capped at 20%. Several kinds of tax fall under "unfair foreign taxes," according to the provision. Those include the undertaxed profits rule, which is associated with part of the global minimum tax negotiated by the Biden administration. The term would also apply to digital services taxes and diverted profits taxes, along with new levies that could arise, according to the bill. The second part of the measure would expand the so-called base erosion and anti-abuse tax, or BEAT, which aims to prevent corporations from shifting profits abroad to avoid taxes. "Basically, all businesses that are operating in the U.S. from a foreign headquarters will face that," said Daniel Bunn, president and CEO of the Tax Foundation. "It's pretty expansive." The retaliatory measures would apply to most wealthy countries from which the U.S. receives direct foreign investment, which could threaten or harm the U.S. economy, according to Bunn's analysis. Notably, the proposed taxes don't apply to U.S. Treasuries or portfolio interest, according to the bill. Section 899 still needs Senate approval, and it's unclear how the provision could change amid alarm from Wall Street. But the measure has "strong support" from others in the business community, and it's a "strong priority" for Republican House Ways and Means Committee members, Capital Alpha Partners' Lucier wrote. House Ways and Means Committee Chairman Jason Smith, R-Mo., first floated the idea in a May 2023 bill, and has been outspoken, along with other Republicans, against the global minimum tax. If enacted as drafted, Section 899 could raise an estimated $116 billion over 10 years, according to the Joint Committee on Taxation. That could help fund other priorities in Trump's mega-bill, and if removed, lawmakers may need to find the revenue elsewhere, Bunn said. However, House Ways and Means Republicans may ultimately want foreign countries to adjust their tax policies before the new tax is imposed. "If these countries withdraw these taxes and decide to behave, we will have achieved our goal," Smith said in a June 4 statement.


The Hill
40 minutes ago
- The Hill
GOP downplays Trump-Musk feud's impact on midterms
Republicans are downplaying concerns that the feud between President Trump and Elon Musk will hamper the party's chances of defending their majorities in the House and the Senate next year. In the midst of the escalating war of words on Thursday, Musk claimed Trump would not have won the White House without him last year and floated the idea of launching a third party. Musk has also threatened to use his financial war chest and platform to challenge Republicans backing Trump's legislative agenda. However, many Republicans say Trump's influence within the party is strong enough to withstand any kind of political challenge from Musk. Others even say they still think Musk is a part of their team. 'I think if you're a Republican in a primary and you have Trump's support and Elon's opposition, you're going to be okay,' said Rep. Nick LaLota (R-N.Y.), adding that the president would eclipse Musk 'by a 10 or 100-fold.' Musk notably took credit for Trump's White House during his keyboard war with Trump on Thursday, claiming Democrats would control the House and hold a 51 to 49 majority in the Senate. The billionaire was the single largest donor in the 2024 general election, spending nearly $300 million. Musk's political action committee, America PAC, supported Trump and a number of Republicans running in key congressional races. The PAC has remained active during Trump's second administration, spending over $18 million in a closely watched race for a Wisconsin Supreme Court seat. The group has also promoted Trump's work this cycle, releasing its first television ad following Trump's joint address to Congress earlier this year. But despite the resources poured into Wisconsin, the Democratic-backed candidate won the court seat in what was described by critics as an embarrassment for Musk. America PAC spent millions in 18 competitive House races. Ten of the PAC's backed GOP House candidates won their elections, while the other 8 lost. 'America PAC spent $20 million on House races but none of that was super consequential— none of it was on TV, just digital and canvassing,' said one national Republican operative, who noted Musk was still on the GOP 'team.' Speaker Mike Johnson called Musk 'a big contributor in the last election' in an interview on CNBC's 'Squawk Box' on Friday, but said it was ultimately 'a whole team effort.' 'I mean, President Trump is the most consequential political figure of his generation, of modern American history. He is the one responsible for that,' Johnson said. 'But we all worked hard. We delivered the House majority. I traveled the country nonstop. I did over 360 campaign events in 250 cities and 40 states, and I logged enough miles last year to circle the globe five and a half times. I mean, I contributed to it as well. All of our House Republicans did.' Democrats have spent much of the first half of this year making Musk a boogeyman of sorts, painting him as out of touch with most Americans. The feud between Trump and Musk does not appear to be changing that strategy going into the midterms. 'Democrats are going to win by highlighting the fact that Republicans are failing at lowering costs because they are too busy pushing tax breaks for the ultra-wealthy and big corporations, while making the rest of us pay for them,' said Viet Shelton, a spokesperson for the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee. 'Elon is, and forever will be, an instantly-recognizable manifestation of the fact that House Republicans don't work for the American people, they work for the billionaires.' Some Republicans remain weary of Musk, noting his massive online following that is made up of over 220 million followers on his platform X. Musk's views on the debt are widely shared by fiscally conservative voters. 'If Musk makes the national debt and deficit his defining issue and starts backing candidates who share that focus, it could create a real fracture inside the GOP. Trump's economic agenda has never been about fiscal restraint,' said a former White House communications aide who worked in the first Trump administration. 'If Musk begins channeling serious money into candidates who want to draw a hard line on spending and debt, you could see a Freedom Caucus 2.0 emerge — this time with financial firepower and a mandate to push back on Trump and Speaker Johnson's spending ambitions,' the aide said. But Rep. Ralph Norman (R-S.C.), a member of the House Freedom Caucus, threw cold water on the notion that the feud could jeopardize Republicans in the midterms. 'No, I don't think so. Now everybody's got to decide that. We all have one vote and we'll see,' Norman told The Hill. 'But I hope he keeps doing what he's doing and the team of people he put together, I want to do it statewide. Each state, I would do just what he's done with the federal government,' he added, referring to Musk's leadership at the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE). DOGE Subcommittee Chair Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Ga.) noted the importance of all of Trump's 2024 donors and supporters, including Musk, but suggested the two take their feud offline. 'I think every single American that voted for us deserves credit and Elon Musk is one vote,' Greene told reporters. 'I've said that every single vote and every single donor matters whether they've donated a dollar or hundreds of millions of dollars.' 'I don't think lashing out on the internet is the way to handle any kind of disagreement, especially when you have each other's cell phones,' she said. –Alex Gangitano and Emily Brooks contributed.


Newsweek
44 minutes ago
- Newsweek
How SNAP Benefits Are Impacted by Trump's Tax Bill: What to Know
Based on facts, either observed and verified firsthand by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources. Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content. House Republicans have advanced a sweeping tax and spending bill backed by President Donald Trump that makes significant changes to the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), also known as food stamps. The bill—the One Big Beautiful Act—passed the House by a narrow 215–214 vote and is now headed to the Senate, where revisions are expected. If enacted, the measures would mark a major shift in eligibility and administrative rules for the country's largest anti-hunger program. Why It Matters More than 40 million low-income Americans rely on SNAP to help pay for groceries each month. The changes proposed in the Trump-supported bill reflect broader Republican goals to tighten eligibility, reduce federal spending and increase work requirements for federal food assistance. While the legislation also aims to cut taxes and simplify rules for retirees and workers, critics warn the SNAP provisions could leave vulnerable recipients—especially childless adults and those without full-time work—at risk of losing access to essential food support. What to Know The bill includes the following SNAP-related provisions: Increased state financial responsibility : States would be required to contribute more funds to support SNAP, shifting part of the cost burden from the federal government to state budgets. : States would be required to contribute more funds to support SNAP, shifting part of the cost burden from the federal government to state budgets. Expanded work requirements : The bill would require more SNAP recipients to work in order to maintain eligibility. Specifically, it increases the age cap at which work requirements end from 54 to 64 years old. Able-bodied adults without dependents would be subject to these rules unless they meet other exemptions. Only parents with children under age 7 would be exempt from the work requirements, a significant change from the current exemption for parents with children under 18. : The bill would require more SNAP recipients to work in order to maintain eligibility. Specifically, it increases the age cap at which work requirements end from 54 to 64 years old. Able-bodied adults without dependents would be subject to these rules unless they meet other exemptions. Only parents with children under age 7 would be exempt from the work requirements, a significant change from the current exemption for parents with children under 18. Reduced state exemptions : The legislation limits states' ability to exempt individuals from federal SNAP work requirements. : The legislation limits states' ability to exempt individuals from federal SNAP work requirements. No changes to benefit amounts or maximum eligibility thresholds were specified in the bill, but administrative changes could affect how and when recipients qualify. These SNAP reforms are intended to partially offset revenue losses from the bill's expanded tax deductions, including higher standard deductions for older Americans and the elimination of taxes on overtime and tips. Stock image/file photo: Man shopping for groceries in a store. Stock image/file photo: Man shopping for groceries in a store. GETTY Policy and poverty experts have said the bill could be devastating for SNAP recipients. The Center for Budget and Policy Priorities, a left-leaning think tank, said the passage of the bill would constitute "by far the largest cut to SNAP in history"—with some 7 million recipients possibly seeing reduction or total loss of their benefits. The Congressional Budget Office has said that while it will reduce federal spending on SNAP to $76.6 billion in 2034, down from a baseline projection of $115.8 billion, recipients would see an average reduction of SNAP benefits of $15 dollars per month by 2034 for every single SNAP participant What People Are Saying President Trump has not commented directly on the SNAP provisions, but he framed the broader legislation as a necessary reset. "It's time for our friends in the United States Senate to get to work, and send this Bill to my desk AS SOON AS POSSIBLE!" he wrote on Truth Social. Democrats have been outspoken in their criticism. Those on the House Agriculture Committee said the bill is "irresponsible" and poses an "immense threat" to "food assistance for vulnerable seniors, children, working families, veterans, and Americans with disabilities." Jennifer Greenfield, associate professor at University of Denver who specializes in the intersection of health and wealth disparities, told Newsweek: "The proposed federal "savings" are not savings at all—it's a shift of the costs to our already cash-strapped states and families. The net result will be to increase hunger and financial instability among households with children, older adults, people with disabilities, and veterans—while also sending tens of thousands of people into unemployment." What's Next The Senate is expected to negotiate revisions to several parts of the legislation, including the SNAP work requirement provisions, before any final vote. If changes are made, the bill will return to the House for another vote.