Check out the full analysis.
-Patricia
By Stephen Sawchuk | Ed Week
June 7, 2010
Preliminary results from schools taking part in a Chicago program containing performance-based compensation for teachers show no evidence that the program has boosted student achievement on math and reading tests, compared with a group of similar, nonparticipating schools, an analysis last week concludes.
The findings are notable not just for being at odds with other studies of the Teacher Advancement Program model, but also for the Chicago experiment’s unique background: During his tenure as chief executive officer of the district, Arne Duncan—now the U.S. secretary of education—oversaw the development of the initiative.
And through the economic-stimulus program’s Race to the Top and Teacher Incentive Fund competitions, the Obama administration has pushed states and districts to engage in changes to teacher-pay and -evaluation systems. Mr. Duncan has been a vocal supporter of the incentive-fund program, which provided some of the financing for the Chicago project.
The study by Mathematica Policy Research also found that the Chicago TAP, a local version of the national program, did not improve the rates of teacher retention in participating schools or in the district.
Read on...
Showing posts with label Performance-based Pay. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Performance-based Pay. Show all posts
Tuesday, July 13, 2010
Sunday, April 11, 2010
Obama's unfortunate comments on teacher firings
By Valerie Strauss | March 1, 2010
I have an uncle who was for years a Chicago public school teacher. Passionate and articulate about his subject, biology, Arnie cared a great deal about whether the kids learned in his class.
But here’s the disturbing thing he recalls about his career:
In the years that his classes were filled with kids from poor, broken homes who didn’t eat or sleep with any regularity, he worried that he wasn’t nearly as effective as he wanted to be. He reached some of the kids, sometimes, with some material, but not enough to his liking, no matter what he did or how hard he tried.
When he changed schools and suddenly was teaching kids from middle-class families who valued education, he instantly became a brilliant teacher. His students progressed at a fast clip, and everything he did seemed to work.
What some school reformers seem to forget is that the kids' circumstances outside school affect their class performance: how much they eat, how much they sleep, how many words they heard when they were young, how many books were made available to them, the abilities and the disabilities with which they were born, etc.
What happens in the classroom is incredibly powerful, but it is not the only thing that matters.
This is why it was so disheartening to hear President Obama wade into a debate about last week’s firing of all of the educators at Central Falls High School in Rhode Island.
The firings by the Central Falls school trustees made big headlines, not because reconstituting a school is new, but perhaps because it is the only school in the state’s poorest and smallest city, and because it was not reported as being the consequence of years of calculated efforts to fix the school (even if it was).
Education Secretary Arne Duncan immediately applauded the move, saying the committee members were “showing courage and doing the right thing for kids.”
And today, Obama felt the need to jump in, saying in a speech:
“So if a school is struggling, we have to work with the principal and the teachers to find a solution. We’ve got to give them a chance to make meaningful improvements. But if a school continues to fail its students year after year after year, if it doesn’t show signs of improvement, then there’s got to be a sense of accountability.
“And that’s what happened in Rhode Island last week at a chronically troubled school, when just 7 percent of 11th graders passed state math tests -- 7 percent. When a school board wasn’t able to deliver change by other means, they voted to lay off the faculty and the staff. As my Education Secretary Arne Duncan, says, our kids get only one chance at an education, and we need to get it right.”
One thing that Obama got right: the school board wasn’t able to deliver change, but, unfortunately, the school board didn’t fire itself. It fired all the administrators and teachers, as if they were the only things responsible for student failure.
I wish someone would tell Obama the truth about school restructuring.
What happened in Rhode Island was not unique; restructuring schools is a “reform” tool that administrators use after other attempts to improve student achievement have failed. It is the last resort in the No Child Left Behind law, which mandates that school systems meet specific student achievement targets. If they don't, in the end, all the teachers have to be fired (though some get rehired, as is expected at Central Falls).
The overall problem with this approach is that there is no proof that it actually works for most of the schools that undergo the process.
As I said in a post last week after the news of the firings at Central Falls became public, this has been true in districts around the country, including Washington D.C., and even in Duncan’s Chicago public schools, which he ran for years before becoming education secretary.
My colleague Nick Anderson noted in a 2009 Post story that Duncan had tried a lot of things during his more than seven years as Chicago schools chief: shutting down schools, hiring experts in turning around schools, and firing a lot of people. The record in Chicago was less than spectacular.
In her new book, “The Death and Life of the Great American School System,” education historian Diane Ravitch notes that studies conducted by the Washington-based nonprofit Center on Education Policy, concluded that restructuring “very rarely” works in improving student achievement enough to meet the requirements of the federal No Child Left Behind law.
And we are talking about a lot of experiments in restructuring that didn’t work; in 2007-08, more than 3,500 public schools across the nation were in the planning or implementation stage of restructuring, an increase of more than 50 percent over the previous year.
So when Obama and Duncan talk about firing all the teachers and replacing them as if it is a last resort worth doing, they have it all wrong.
It is a last resort, but it doesn’t solve the problem and creates havoc not only for the teachers--many of whom do a good job--but for kids who have enough problems without being subjects in endless educational experiments.
I have an uncle who was for years a Chicago public school teacher. Passionate and articulate about his subject, biology, Arnie cared a great deal about whether the kids learned in his class.
But here’s the disturbing thing he recalls about his career:
In the years that his classes were filled with kids from poor, broken homes who didn’t eat or sleep with any regularity, he worried that he wasn’t nearly as effective as he wanted to be. He reached some of the kids, sometimes, with some material, but not enough to his liking, no matter what he did or how hard he tried.
When he changed schools and suddenly was teaching kids from middle-class families who valued education, he instantly became a brilliant teacher. His students progressed at a fast clip, and everything he did seemed to work.
What some school reformers seem to forget is that the kids' circumstances outside school affect their class performance: how much they eat, how much they sleep, how many words they heard when they were young, how many books were made available to them, the abilities and the disabilities with which they were born, etc.
What happens in the classroom is incredibly powerful, but it is not the only thing that matters.
This is why it was so disheartening to hear President Obama wade into a debate about last week’s firing of all of the educators at Central Falls High School in Rhode Island.
The firings by the Central Falls school trustees made big headlines, not because reconstituting a school is new, but perhaps because it is the only school in the state’s poorest and smallest city, and because it was not reported as being the consequence of years of calculated efforts to fix the school (even if it was).
Education Secretary Arne Duncan immediately applauded the move, saying the committee members were “showing courage and doing the right thing for kids.”
And today, Obama felt the need to jump in, saying in a speech:
“So if a school is struggling, we have to work with the principal and the teachers to find a solution. We’ve got to give them a chance to make meaningful improvements. But if a school continues to fail its students year after year after year, if it doesn’t show signs of improvement, then there’s got to be a sense of accountability.
“And that’s what happened in Rhode Island last week at a chronically troubled school, when just 7 percent of 11th graders passed state math tests -- 7 percent. When a school board wasn’t able to deliver change by other means, they voted to lay off the faculty and the staff. As my Education Secretary Arne Duncan, says, our kids get only one chance at an education, and we need to get it right.”
One thing that Obama got right: the school board wasn’t able to deliver change, but, unfortunately, the school board didn’t fire itself. It fired all the administrators and teachers, as if they were the only things responsible for student failure.
I wish someone would tell Obama the truth about school restructuring.
What happened in Rhode Island was not unique; restructuring schools is a “reform” tool that administrators use after other attempts to improve student achievement have failed. It is the last resort in the No Child Left Behind law, which mandates that school systems meet specific student achievement targets. If they don't, in the end, all the teachers have to be fired (though some get rehired, as is expected at Central Falls).
The overall problem with this approach is that there is no proof that it actually works for most of the schools that undergo the process.
As I said in a post last week after the news of the firings at Central Falls became public, this has been true in districts around the country, including Washington D.C., and even in Duncan’s Chicago public schools, which he ran for years before becoming education secretary.
My colleague Nick Anderson noted in a 2009 Post story that Duncan had tried a lot of things during his more than seven years as Chicago schools chief: shutting down schools, hiring experts in turning around schools, and firing a lot of people. The record in Chicago was less than spectacular.
In her new book, “The Death and Life of the Great American School System,” education historian Diane Ravitch notes that studies conducted by the Washington-based nonprofit Center on Education Policy, concluded that restructuring “very rarely” works in improving student achievement enough to meet the requirements of the federal No Child Left Behind law.
And we are talking about a lot of experiments in restructuring that didn’t work; in 2007-08, more than 3,500 public schools across the nation were in the planning or implementation stage of restructuring, an increase of more than 50 percent over the previous year.
So when Obama and Duncan talk about firing all the teachers and replacing them as if it is a last resort worth doing, they have it all wrong.
It is a last resort, but it doesn’t solve the problem and creates havoc not only for the teachers--many of whom do a good job--but for kids who have enough problems without being subjects in endless educational experiments.
Statistician's analysis could determine teachers' fates
The opening sentence says a lot: "I can't explain how you calculate it. I can explain the concept."
So the concept in theory is understood but how it plays out in practice is not. These are some of the very disconnects in policy making that ultimately hurt many of our children and youth.
-Patricia
Erica Mellon | Houston Morning Star
Feb. 21, 2010
Statisticians don't often make the news. But William “Bill” Sanders became known among local teachers when the Houston Independent School District decided this month to evaluate — and possibly fire — them based on his statistical analysis of student test scores. HISD has paid Sanders' employer, the SAS Institute in Cary, N.C., more than $1.3 million since 2008 for his analysis, which is the basis of the district's performance bonus system.
Q: Teachers have criticized your formula as being too complicated. In simple terms, can you explain how you calculate a teacher's effectiveness?
A: I can't explain how you calculate it. I can explain the concept. The concept is very simple. You look at the progress rates for the individual student. The way to visualize it is, every student has his own trajectory. If the kid is having a really good year, there will be a positive bubble. If the kid is not having a good year, there will be a negative dent. By mathematically aggregating the dimples and bubbles across all students, that gives you a basis for measuring the effectiveness of the schooling entity — the district, the building or the classroom.
Q: I've heard your formula is a secret or proprietary.
A: That's not true. Sanders has given the Chronicle a paper about the Tennessee Value-Added Assessment System, which he developed. Find it at blogs.chron.com/schoolzone
Q: Some teachers say they would prefer being judged on a test given to students at the beginning and the end of the school year. What's wrong with that?
A: When any one kid takes any one test on any one day any one year, there's this huge error of measurement. If you're doing a simple gain, you don't have enough data to dampen those errors.
Q: Much of your analysis is based on TAKS test scores. Isn't the TAKS imperfect?
A: (He laughs.) There is no such thing as a perfect test. What you're looking for are three conditions. The scales have got to be highly correlated with curricular objectives. They must have appropriate stretch to enable you to measure progress of high- and low-achieving students and have appropriate reliabilities. We feel very comfortable using the TAKS test.
Q: Is a school or a teacher with a lot of high-achieving students at a disadvantage?
A: Absolutely not. We have determined there's not a major ceiling effect problem with the TAKS test, unlike the (former state test) TAAS. In fact, with that we had several districts asking us to do these analyses and we said, ‘Thanks but no thanks. The ceiling effects are too great.'
Q: How can teachers have, say, 90 percent of their students pass TAKS yet have negative growth?
A: Those are totally different things. The proficiency level that's set for passing is relatively low. So you could have students that are scoring above proficiency but yet not making appropriate growth, particularly for the above-average kids.
Q: If I'm a seventh-grade English teacher and I have a student who in sixth grade got every question right on the English TAKS, how do I show growth?
A: For that kid, you can't. But you're evaluating it on all the kids. When you look at the composite of the kids, those things start averaging out.
Q: Is it harder for schools with more disadvantaged students to show growth?
A: There is no relationship between the percentage of free- and reduced-priced lunch students in the classroom and the measure of classroom effectiveness.
Q: Some social studies teachers complain that the seventh-grade curriculum doesn't align with the Stanford test, which is used in your formula.
A: There's probably some very legitimate question about that. Remember, one of the three criteria — it's got to be highly correlated with curricular objectives. The question is, ‘How high is high enough?' I would submit to you that there is considerable relationship between the Stanford test and the social studies curriculum, but it certainly would not be as highly correlated as math, say. We still are very comfortable that these are unbiased estimates.
Q: HISD has placed high stakes on your data, awarding bonuses to teachers who do well and threatening to fire those who don't. Do you support HISD's plans?
A: What I've said consistently is, ‘I'm the numbers guy. I'm not the policy guy.' I have maintained for over 20 years that an appropriate value-added measurement should be a major component of formal evaluation. I have also said, ‘It should not be the sole component.'
Q: But if HISD's decisions weren't statistically smart, would you speak up?
A: Of course.
ericka.mellon@chron.com
So the concept in theory is understood but how it plays out in practice is not. These are some of the very disconnects in policy making that ultimately hurt many of our children and youth.
-Patricia
Erica Mellon | Houston Morning Star
Feb. 21, 2010
Statisticians don't often make the news. But William “Bill” Sanders became known among local teachers when the Houston Independent School District decided this month to evaluate — and possibly fire — them based on his statistical analysis of student test scores. HISD has paid Sanders' employer, the SAS Institute in Cary, N.C., more than $1.3 million since 2008 for his analysis, which is the basis of the district's performance bonus system.
Q: Teachers have criticized your formula as being too complicated. In simple terms, can you explain how you calculate a teacher's effectiveness?
A: I can't explain how you calculate it. I can explain the concept. The concept is very simple. You look at the progress rates for the individual student. The way to visualize it is, every student has his own trajectory. If the kid is having a really good year, there will be a positive bubble. If the kid is not having a good year, there will be a negative dent. By mathematically aggregating the dimples and bubbles across all students, that gives you a basis for measuring the effectiveness of the schooling entity — the district, the building or the classroom.
Q: I've heard your formula is a secret or proprietary.
A: That's not true. Sanders has given the Chronicle a paper about the Tennessee Value-Added Assessment System, which he developed. Find it at blogs.chron.com/schoolzone
Q: Some teachers say they would prefer being judged on a test given to students at the beginning and the end of the school year. What's wrong with that?
A: When any one kid takes any one test on any one day any one year, there's this huge error of measurement. If you're doing a simple gain, you don't have enough data to dampen those errors.
Q: Much of your analysis is based on TAKS test scores. Isn't the TAKS imperfect?
A: (He laughs.) There is no such thing as a perfect test. What you're looking for are three conditions. The scales have got to be highly correlated with curricular objectives. They must have appropriate stretch to enable you to measure progress of high- and low-achieving students and have appropriate reliabilities. We feel very comfortable using the TAKS test.
Q: Is a school or a teacher with a lot of high-achieving students at a disadvantage?
A: Absolutely not. We have determined there's not a major ceiling effect problem with the TAKS test, unlike the (former state test) TAAS. In fact, with that we had several districts asking us to do these analyses and we said, ‘Thanks but no thanks. The ceiling effects are too great.'
Q: How can teachers have, say, 90 percent of their students pass TAKS yet have negative growth?
A: Those are totally different things. The proficiency level that's set for passing is relatively low. So you could have students that are scoring above proficiency but yet not making appropriate growth, particularly for the above-average kids.
Q: If I'm a seventh-grade English teacher and I have a student who in sixth grade got every question right on the English TAKS, how do I show growth?
A: For that kid, you can't. But you're evaluating it on all the kids. When you look at the composite of the kids, those things start averaging out.
Q: Is it harder for schools with more disadvantaged students to show growth?
A: There is no relationship between the percentage of free- and reduced-priced lunch students in the classroom and the measure of classroom effectiveness.
Q: Some social studies teachers complain that the seventh-grade curriculum doesn't align with the Stanford test, which is used in your formula.
A: There's probably some very legitimate question about that. Remember, one of the three criteria — it's got to be highly correlated with curricular objectives. The question is, ‘How high is high enough?' I would submit to you that there is considerable relationship between the Stanford test and the social studies curriculum, but it certainly would not be as highly correlated as math, say. We still are very comfortable that these are unbiased estimates.
Q: HISD has placed high stakes on your data, awarding bonuses to teachers who do well and threatening to fire those who don't. Do you support HISD's plans?
A: What I've said consistently is, ‘I'm the numbers guy. I'm not the policy guy.' I have maintained for over 20 years that an appropriate value-added measurement should be a major component of formal evaluation. I have also said, ‘It should not be the sole component.'
Q: But if HISD's decisions weren't statistically smart, would you speak up?
A: Of course.
ericka.mellon@chron.com
In grading teachers, value-added test is indispensable
Joe Klein - "The Houston Independent School District is taking a critical step to ensure that all its students are taught by top-notch teachers. Superintendent Terry Grier — who has long been a true warrior in the national fight to close the achievement gap — is making an important move by recommending that the teacher evaluation process include an examination of student achievement data."
Since Klein believes in grounding his argument in research he should be fair and take into account what research says about test scores simply being a diagnostic assessment to gauge where students are, and should not be end-all-be-all decision maker for their fate. Just as we misuse tests when it comes to students, Grier is similarly following this error with teachers; this may also have a negative effect on the students.
More thought should be put into these decisions.
-Patricia
Both research and experience tell us that teachers matter.
By JOEL KLEIN
Feb. 21, 2010
Both research and experience tell us that teachers matter. In fact, they matter more than any other factor that we can control in a student's education — more than dollars spent per student, class size or the type and quality of textbooks. No reform is more critical to closing the nation's shameful achievement gap than boosting the quality of teachers in high-poverty schools. “The single most important factor in determining [student] achievement is not the color of their skin or where they come from,“ says President Barack Obama. “It's not who their parents are or how much money they have — it's who their teacher is.” Without “the right people standing in front of the classroom,” the Hamilton Project at the Brookings Institution concludes, “school reform is a futile exercise.”
The Houston Independent School District is taking a critical step to ensure that all its students are taught by top-notch teachers. Superintendent Terry Grier — who has long been a true warrior in the national fight to close the achievement gap — is making an important move by recommending that the teacher evaluation process include an examination of student achievement data. The data will look at how much learning a student gains over one year. This type of data is called “value-added,” meaning that it analyzes only the change across one year relative to where a student begins, a leveling of the playing field that allows us to isolate teacher impact. Value-added data will be one element in a set of criteria that are used to gauge a teacher's effectiveness in the classroom.
To be sure, value-added analysis is still a work in progress, and methodological challenges remain. Yet for all its imperfections, value-added analysis is a vast improvement on the existing system, which fails to address the one question that really matters: Compared to other educators with similar students and facing similar challenges, how well are a given teacher's students actually acquiring the knowledge and skills they need to succeed in life? While experts debate the finer points of the value-added model, it is now clear that, at minimum, it is a fair way to identify those teachers who are truly failing our students. Value-added data should never be the only metric by which we assess teachers, but honestly, how can it not be in the mix?
In Houston, parents should commend the insistent and persistent Grier for his effort to close the racial and ethnic achievement gap by ensuring that every child is taught by an effective teacher. Grier is a signatory of the Education Equality Project (www.edequality.org), a bipartisan advocacy organization of elected officials, civil rights activists, educators and other leaders who believe eliminating this gap is the most pressing civil rights issue of our generation. And Houston is among a handful of cities leading the nation in closing the achievement gap.
Klein is chancellor of New York City public schools and co-chair of the Education Equality Project.
Since Klein believes in grounding his argument in research he should be fair and take into account what research says about test scores simply being a diagnostic assessment to gauge where students are, and should not be end-all-be-all decision maker for their fate. Just as we misuse tests when it comes to students, Grier is similarly following this error with teachers; this may also have a negative effect on the students.
More thought should be put into these decisions.
-Patricia
Both research and experience tell us that teachers matter.
By JOEL KLEIN
Feb. 21, 2010
Both research and experience tell us that teachers matter. In fact, they matter more than any other factor that we can control in a student's education — more than dollars spent per student, class size or the type and quality of textbooks. No reform is more critical to closing the nation's shameful achievement gap than boosting the quality of teachers in high-poverty schools. “The single most important factor in determining [student] achievement is not the color of their skin or where they come from,“ says President Barack Obama. “It's not who their parents are or how much money they have — it's who their teacher is.” Without “the right people standing in front of the classroom,” the Hamilton Project at the Brookings Institution concludes, “school reform is a futile exercise.”
The Houston Independent School District is taking a critical step to ensure that all its students are taught by top-notch teachers. Superintendent Terry Grier — who has long been a true warrior in the national fight to close the achievement gap — is making an important move by recommending that the teacher evaluation process include an examination of student achievement data. The data will look at how much learning a student gains over one year. This type of data is called “value-added,” meaning that it analyzes only the change across one year relative to where a student begins, a leveling of the playing field that allows us to isolate teacher impact. Value-added data will be one element in a set of criteria that are used to gauge a teacher's effectiveness in the classroom.
To be sure, value-added analysis is still a work in progress, and methodological challenges remain. Yet for all its imperfections, value-added analysis is a vast improvement on the existing system, which fails to address the one question that really matters: Compared to other educators with similar students and facing similar challenges, how well are a given teacher's students actually acquiring the knowledge and skills they need to succeed in life? While experts debate the finer points of the value-added model, it is now clear that, at minimum, it is a fair way to identify those teachers who are truly failing our students. Value-added data should never be the only metric by which we assess teachers, but honestly, how can it not be in the mix?
In Houston, parents should commend the insistent and persistent Grier for his effort to close the racial and ethnic achievement gap by ensuring that every child is taught by an effective teacher. Grier is a signatory of the Education Equality Project (www.edequality.org), a bipartisan advocacy organization of elected officials, civil rights activists, educators and other leaders who believe eliminating this gap is the most pressing civil rights issue of our generation. And Houston is among a handful of cities leading the nation in closing the achievement gap.
Klein is chancellor of New York City public schools and co-chair of the Education Equality Project.
Grier names 2 outsiders to HISD leadership team
By ERICKA MELLON | Houston Chronicle
Feb. 15, 2010
Houston ISD Superintendent Terry Grier announced Monday that his leadership team will include a charter school executive, a former leader of a suburban Dallas district and an award-winning HISD administrator.
Grier, who came to Houston five months ago from the San Diego school system, has hired the three men as his chief school officers.
One will oversee elementary campuses. Another will supervise middle schools. The other will manage high schools.
National search
Grier said he purposefully conducted a national search to fill the positions, rather than promoting only from within the district.
“We wanted to find candidates who had shared values and beliefs around all students being able to learn,” Grier said. “These are important positions, and we wanted to cast a wide net.”
The lone internal candidate to get the job — overseeing elementary schools — is Sam Sarabia, the interim east region superintendent. He was an executive principal in that area and was principal of Roberts and Port Houston elementary schools. In 2005, he was named principal of the year by the Association of Hispanic School Administrators, according to HISD.
KIPP administrator
The new chief officer for middle schools is Terence Johnson, a former HISD principal who oversees leadership training for the KIPP charter school chain.
To supervise high schools, Grier hired David Simmons, who in August abruptly resigned as superintendent of Richardson ISD, a diverse district outside Dallas.
The district earned the state's “recognized” rating during his tenure, but the school board wanted a leader with a “more strategic vision,” according to the Dallas Morning News.
Simmons has run four other districts, including Texas City ISD. Grier said he was not concerned about Simmons' departure from Richardson.
Salary plus bonus
The chief school officers each will earn annual salaries of $165,000 plus a potential bonus, which has not been determined, according to district spokesman Norm Uhl.
The chiefs will replace HISD's five regional superintendents, who can apply for other jobs in the district but are not guaranteed positions.
Grier said he hopes the new organization will help schools across the city share best practices.
Houston Federation of Teachers President Gayle Fallon said the new structure will help with continuity in the curriculum, but she has some concerns.
“There is a danger that the community will find the district to be more distant and will have a feeling of less ownership and increased alienation,” she said.
Feb. 15, 2010
Houston ISD Superintendent Terry Grier announced Monday that his leadership team will include a charter school executive, a former leader of a suburban Dallas district and an award-winning HISD administrator.
Grier, who came to Houston five months ago from the San Diego school system, has hired the three men as his chief school officers.
One will oversee elementary campuses. Another will supervise middle schools. The other will manage high schools.
National search
Grier said he purposefully conducted a national search to fill the positions, rather than promoting only from within the district.
“We wanted to find candidates who had shared values and beliefs around all students being able to learn,” Grier said. “These are important positions, and we wanted to cast a wide net.”
The lone internal candidate to get the job — overseeing elementary schools — is Sam Sarabia, the interim east region superintendent. He was an executive principal in that area and was principal of Roberts and Port Houston elementary schools. In 2005, he was named principal of the year by the Association of Hispanic School Administrators, according to HISD.
KIPP administrator
The new chief officer for middle schools is Terence Johnson, a former HISD principal who oversees leadership training for the KIPP charter school chain.
To supervise high schools, Grier hired David Simmons, who in August abruptly resigned as superintendent of Richardson ISD, a diverse district outside Dallas.
The district earned the state's “recognized” rating during his tenure, but the school board wanted a leader with a “more strategic vision,” according to the Dallas Morning News.
Simmons has run four other districts, including Texas City ISD. Grier said he was not concerned about Simmons' departure from Richardson.
Salary plus bonus
The chief school officers each will earn annual salaries of $165,000 plus a potential bonus, which has not been determined, according to district spokesman Norm Uhl.
The chiefs will replace HISD's five regional superintendents, who can apply for other jobs in the district but are not guaranteed positions.
Grier said he hopes the new organization will help schools across the city share best practices.
Houston Federation of Teachers President Gayle Fallon said the new structure will help with continuity in the curriculum, but she has some concerns.
“There is a danger that the community will find the district to be more distant and will have a feeling of less ownership and increased alienation,” she said.
State exam results to help determine whether 700 teachers win tenure
BY Rachel Monahan | NY DAILY NEWS STAFF WRITER
Friday, February 12th 2010
It's teachers who now have to sweat student test scores.
State exam results will help determine whether 700 teachers win tenure this year, city officials announced yesterday, prompting the teachers union to threaten a lawsuit.
"It is clearly bad educational policy to evaluate teachers through the use of state test scores that the state itself has deemed unreliable," said teachers union president Michael Mulgrew.
City Education officials fired back, defending the plan. "It's hard to imagine how anyone could object to looking at a teacher's impact on student progress as a part of a comprehensive evaluation," said spokesman David Cantor.
Fourth- through eighth-grade teachers who are up for tenure and have two years' worth of state math and English scores under their belts will be stacked up against educators at schools with similar demographics.
They will then be ranked based on how much students improved their test scores, with the top 25% of the teachers considered "tenure likely" and the bottom 25% deemed "tenure in doubt."
In each case, a principal "will be asked for additional rationale" if they overrule the recommendation, a letter from Schools Chancellor Joel Klein stated.
State officials have announced plans to overhaul the state exam this year because of criticism the exam was too easy and too similar year to year, making it easier for educators to teach to the test.
Friday, February 12th 2010
It's teachers who now have to sweat student test scores.
State exam results will help determine whether 700 teachers win tenure this year, city officials announced yesterday, prompting the teachers union to threaten a lawsuit.
"It is clearly bad educational policy to evaluate teachers through the use of state test scores that the state itself has deemed unreliable," said teachers union president Michael Mulgrew.
City Education officials fired back, defending the plan. "It's hard to imagine how anyone could object to looking at a teacher's impact on student progress as a part of a comprehensive evaluation," said spokesman David Cantor.
Fourth- through eighth-grade teachers who are up for tenure and have two years' worth of state math and English scores under their belts will be stacked up against educators at schools with similar demographics.
They will then be ranked based on how much students improved their test scores, with the top 25% of the teachers considered "tenure likely" and the bottom 25% deemed "tenure in doubt."
In each case, a principal "will be asked for additional rationale" if they overrule the recommendation, a letter from Schools Chancellor Joel Klein stated.
State officials have announced plans to overhaul the state exam this year because of criticism the exam was too easy and too similar year to year, making it easier for educators to teach to the test.
HISD passes teacher dismissal plan
By ERICKA MELLON | HOUSTON CHRONICLE
Feb. 12, 2010
At a contentious meeting pitting parents against teachers, the Houston school board gave final approval on Thursday to a policy allowing the firing of instructors whose students fall short on standardized tests.
Dozens of parents spoke in favor of the decision, while more than 750 teachers packed the school district's headquarters to protest the policy, considered among the most aggressive efforts in the nation to improve teacher quality.
Starting next year, the Houston Independent School District will include a measure of student progress, called value-added, in teachers' job evaluations. Those teachers whose students fall far below expectations for multiple years could be at risk of losing their jobs.
HISD Superintendent Terry Grier and the school board, which passed the policy on a 7-0 vote, have promised to provide training and mentoring to struggling teachers and to use termination as a last resort. Trustees Carol Mims Galloway and Manuel Rodriguez Jr. were absent.
District data show that more than 400 teachers — about 3 percent of the teaching corps — could be at risk if they don't improve. The policy affects only teachers of core academic subjects in grades three through eight.
Teachers have complained that the value-added system, a complex statistical measure of their effectiveness, is unfair and unreliable.
“I agree our system has room to grow,” HISD Trustee Anna Eastman told the crowd, which spilled into the hall where televisions broadcast the meeting. “Our data has room to grow, but our kids deserve to have an effective teacher in every single classroom.”
Policy called ‘unjust'
The district has used this same statistical measure of student progress for the last three years to determine which teachers receive performance bonuses. The district's two largest employee groups, the Houston Federation of Teachers and the Congress of Houston Teachers, oppose using the data for rewards or punishment.
A middle school special education teacher, Tuesdey Neal, called the new evaluation and dismissal policy “unjust.”
“We deal with children in poverty. We deal with lack of parental support. We do the best with what we can,” Neal said, before a district police officer approached because she exceeded the one-minute time limit for each speaker. “I do not want to suffer and lose my job because I love what I do.”
Grier has said the district plans to target those teachers with the lowest marks and to make principals defend putting them on permanent contracts.
Parents and business leaders who addressed the board at the meeting uniformly supported the policy.
“I'm here to applaud you for taking a stand for our children,” mother Beth Brown said.
Bill Perkins, a prominent venture capitalist, compared teaching to other professions with high stakes.
“We have bad pilots. We know the results can be disastrous,” he said. “We don't have that many bad teachers, but we need to get rid of them.”
Teachers in the hallways, many of them union members, reacted with boos.
HISD's new policy has drawn national attention – good and bad. A growing number of states have begun tying student test scores to teachers' evaluations to meet the mandates of President Barack Obama's $4.3 billion Race to the Top grant contest. But few districts have been as clear that teachers who repeatedly fall short should be dismissed.
‘Better teachers'
Ellen Winn, director of the Education Equality Project, a national advocacy group that includes educators, policymakers and politicians, praised HISD's move.
“Think of the doors that will be open to these students with better teachers and better chances at a good education,” she said.
Randi Weingarten, the president of the American Federation of Teachers, said HISD's plan is too narrowly focused.
“Houston is a perfect example of what not to do,” said Weingarten, who recently gave a well-publicized speech supporting the use of student data in teachers' evaluations. “The plan has all the wrong components, and it's one of the reasons why teachers and parents are opposed to standardized testing.”
Feb. 12, 2010
At a contentious meeting pitting parents against teachers, the Houston school board gave final approval on Thursday to a policy allowing the firing of instructors whose students fall short on standardized tests.
Dozens of parents spoke in favor of the decision, while more than 750 teachers packed the school district's headquarters to protest the policy, considered among the most aggressive efforts in the nation to improve teacher quality.
Starting next year, the Houston Independent School District will include a measure of student progress, called value-added, in teachers' job evaluations. Those teachers whose students fall far below expectations for multiple years could be at risk of losing their jobs.
HISD Superintendent Terry Grier and the school board, which passed the policy on a 7-0 vote, have promised to provide training and mentoring to struggling teachers and to use termination as a last resort. Trustees Carol Mims Galloway and Manuel Rodriguez Jr. were absent.
District data show that more than 400 teachers — about 3 percent of the teaching corps — could be at risk if they don't improve. The policy affects only teachers of core academic subjects in grades three through eight.
Teachers have complained that the value-added system, a complex statistical measure of their effectiveness, is unfair and unreliable.
“I agree our system has room to grow,” HISD Trustee Anna Eastman told the crowd, which spilled into the hall where televisions broadcast the meeting. “Our data has room to grow, but our kids deserve to have an effective teacher in every single classroom.”
Policy called ‘unjust'
The district has used this same statistical measure of student progress for the last three years to determine which teachers receive performance bonuses. The district's two largest employee groups, the Houston Federation of Teachers and the Congress of Houston Teachers, oppose using the data for rewards or punishment.
A middle school special education teacher, Tuesdey Neal, called the new evaluation and dismissal policy “unjust.”
“We deal with children in poverty. We deal with lack of parental support. We do the best with what we can,” Neal said, before a district police officer approached because she exceeded the one-minute time limit for each speaker. “I do not want to suffer and lose my job because I love what I do.”
Grier has said the district plans to target those teachers with the lowest marks and to make principals defend putting them on permanent contracts.
Parents and business leaders who addressed the board at the meeting uniformly supported the policy.
“I'm here to applaud you for taking a stand for our children,” mother Beth Brown said.
Bill Perkins, a prominent venture capitalist, compared teaching to other professions with high stakes.
“We have bad pilots. We know the results can be disastrous,” he said. “We don't have that many bad teachers, but we need to get rid of them.”
Teachers in the hallways, many of them union members, reacted with boos.
HISD's new policy has drawn national attention – good and bad. A growing number of states have begun tying student test scores to teachers' evaluations to meet the mandates of President Barack Obama's $4.3 billion Race to the Top grant contest. But few districts have been as clear that teachers who repeatedly fall short should be dismissed.
‘Better teachers'
Ellen Winn, director of the Education Equality Project, a national advocacy group that includes educators, policymakers and politicians, praised HISD's move.
“Think of the doors that will be open to these students with better teachers and better chances at a good education,” she said.
Randi Weingarten, the president of the American Federation of Teachers, said HISD's plan is too narrowly focused.
“Houston is a perfect example of what not to do,” said Weingarten, who recently gave a well-publicized speech supporting the use of student data in teachers' evaluations. “The plan has all the wrong components, and it's one of the reasons why teachers and parents are opposed to standardized testing.”
400 teachers may face firing over test scores
By ERICKA MELLON | HOUSTON CHRONICLE
Feb. 10, 2010
More than 400 teachers in the Houston school district have performed so poorly that their students have lost ground, according to HISD, and those educators' jobs could be on the line if they don't improve.
HISD Superintendent Terry Grier is asking the school board to give final approval today to a policy that would allow the district to fire teachers whose students don't make enough progress on standardized tests.
Opposed to the move, the Houston Federation of Teachers is trying to rally 1,000 educators to protest at the board meeting, though union president Gayle Fallon acknowledges the policy likely will pass. Trustees voted 8-0, with one absent, to give their initial approval last month.
With teachers on edge, Grier and board members have emphasized that the Houston Independent School District will provide training and mentoring to those who are struggling and will not oust them based solely on a year of bad test scores.
“We have an obligation to provide assistance to teachers who are not meeting the needs of their students,” Grier said, adding that staff training will focus on strategies for improving instruction.
But, Grier said, “teachers who cannot or will not meet district standards could lose their positions with the district.”
Data provided by HISD show that, over the last three years, 421 teachers have gotten far lower-than-expected progress from their students on standardized tests. That represents about 12 percent of the teachers the policy could affect and 3 percent of all teachers in the district.
“Don't forget that we have approximately 13,000 teachers in HISD,” Grier said. “The vast majority are doing a good job.”
Some of the teachers may have poor scores in one subject but rate highly in another. In those cases, Grier has suggested that principals could switch teaching assignments instead of turning to termination.
Grier said he is particularly focused on the 100 or so less experienced teachers who are on probationary contracts and have a track record of severely poor performance. Principals, he said, will have to defend decisions to put those teachers on more permanent contracts next year.
The district only tracks the individual performance of teachers in grades three through 8 in the subjects of math, science, social studies and language arts. These 3,500 or so teachers would be the ones affected by HISD's plan to include so-called value-added scores in formal job evaluations and as a potential reason for dismissal.
Standardized test data is not available for teachers of lower grades or elective classes. High school teachers get rated on the performance of their entire department, such as math or science.
Principals confused
The district's two largest employee groups, the HFT and the Congress of Houston Teachers, have questioned the accuracy and fairness of the value-added data since the district began using it a few years ago to decide who gets performance bonuses.
Put simply, the value-added analysis by North Carolina statistician Bill Sanders looks at a student's test score history to project his or her scores the next year. Teachers are rated on whether their students met, exceeded or fell short of expectations.
Sanders has repeatedly defended his method, which he pioneered in Tennessee in the 1990s.
Fallon, the HFT president, said she plans to ask the school board at least to clarify the policy to say teachers will get training and will not be dismissed based on a year of low value-added scores. The policy as is says simply that teachers can be fired for “insufficient student academic growth as reflected by value added scores.”
“We have Grier shooting his mouth off saying, ‘We're going to do assistance. We're never going to fire a teacher based on a single test score,' ” Fallon said. “What he says won't mean a thing once the policy is adopted.”
Ray Reiner, the executive director of the Houston Association of School Administrators, said principals — those charged with evaluating teachers and recommending them for termination — are confused about the policy changes. Grier's administration sent out conflicting memos on the topic last week.
“Principals — their job is to carry out the policies of the school district, and those policies need to be clear,” Reiner said.
Feb. 10, 2010
More than 400 teachers in the Houston school district have performed so poorly that their students have lost ground, according to HISD, and those educators' jobs could be on the line if they don't improve.
HISD Superintendent Terry Grier is asking the school board to give final approval today to a policy that would allow the district to fire teachers whose students don't make enough progress on standardized tests.
Opposed to the move, the Houston Federation of Teachers is trying to rally 1,000 educators to protest at the board meeting, though union president Gayle Fallon acknowledges the policy likely will pass. Trustees voted 8-0, with one absent, to give their initial approval last month.
With teachers on edge, Grier and board members have emphasized that the Houston Independent School District will provide training and mentoring to those who are struggling and will not oust them based solely on a year of bad test scores.
“We have an obligation to provide assistance to teachers who are not meeting the needs of their students,” Grier said, adding that staff training will focus on strategies for improving instruction.
But, Grier said, “teachers who cannot or will not meet district standards could lose their positions with the district.”
Data provided by HISD show that, over the last three years, 421 teachers have gotten far lower-than-expected progress from their students on standardized tests. That represents about 12 percent of the teachers the policy could affect and 3 percent of all teachers in the district.
“Don't forget that we have approximately 13,000 teachers in HISD,” Grier said. “The vast majority are doing a good job.”
Some of the teachers may have poor scores in one subject but rate highly in another. In those cases, Grier has suggested that principals could switch teaching assignments instead of turning to termination.
Grier said he is particularly focused on the 100 or so less experienced teachers who are on probationary contracts and have a track record of severely poor performance. Principals, he said, will have to defend decisions to put those teachers on more permanent contracts next year.
The district only tracks the individual performance of teachers in grades three through 8 in the subjects of math, science, social studies and language arts. These 3,500 or so teachers would be the ones affected by HISD's plan to include so-called value-added scores in formal job evaluations and as a potential reason for dismissal.
Standardized test data is not available for teachers of lower grades or elective classes. High school teachers get rated on the performance of their entire department, such as math or science.
Principals confused
The district's two largest employee groups, the HFT and the Congress of Houston Teachers, have questioned the accuracy and fairness of the value-added data since the district began using it a few years ago to decide who gets performance bonuses.
Put simply, the value-added analysis by North Carolina statistician Bill Sanders looks at a student's test score history to project his or her scores the next year. Teachers are rated on whether their students met, exceeded or fell short of expectations.
Sanders has repeatedly defended his method, which he pioneered in Tennessee in the 1990s.
Fallon, the HFT president, said she plans to ask the school board at least to clarify the policy to say teachers will get training and will not be dismissed based on a year of low value-added scores. The policy as is says simply that teachers can be fired for “insufficient student academic growth as reflected by value added scores.”
“We have Grier shooting his mouth off saying, ‘We're going to do assistance. We're never going to fire a teacher based on a single test score,' ” Fallon said. “What he says won't mean a thing once the policy is adopted.”
Ray Reiner, the executive director of the Houston Association of School Administrators, said principals — those charged with evaluating teachers and recommending them for termination — are confused about the policy changes. Grier's administration sent out conflicting memos on the topic last week.
“Principals — their job is to carry out the policies of the school district, and those policies need to be clear,” Reiner said.
Monday, December 28, 2009
The Problem with Performance Pay
It can work—but only if performance is broadly defined and all parties agree to the plan.
Donald B. Gratz | Educational Leadership
November 2009 | Volume 67 | Number 3
Multiple Measures Pages 76-79
A new round of interest in performance pay has been growing for the past decade, as more states and districts have introduced mandates related to the push for ever-higher standards. This year, President Obama and U.S. Secretary of Education Arne Duncan have included performance pay among their goals for education. At the 2009 National Education Association (NEA) convention, Secretary Duncan urged teachers to support performance pay, noting that although "test scores alone should never drive evaluation, compensation, or tenure decisions," not including student achievement in teacher evaluation is "illogical and indefensible" (ASCD Educator Advocates, e-mail communication, July 18, 2009).
Definitions of teacher performance pay take different forms. For example, many districts pay experienced teachers to mentor new teachers, serve as curriculum specialists or in similar posts, or teach in inner-city schools. The most common and controversial proposal is to pay teachers on the basis of their students' standardized test scores. It turns out, however, that test-based pay is more useful politically than it is effective educationally. Although few contemporary plans built on student test scores have lasted, this lack of success has not slowed proposals for more such plans. Given the growing prevalence of performance pay, it is worth exploring its history and assumptions.
A Not-So-Stellar Story
Education performance pay stretches back hundreds of years. In the mid-1800s, British schools and teachers were paid on the basis of the results of student examinations, for reasons much like today's. After more than 30 years, however, the testing bureaucracy had burgeoned, cheating and cramming flourished, and public opposition had grown dramatically. The practice was abandoned as a failure.
In 1907, Edmond Holmes, Great Britain's chief education inspector, described schooling in the era of test-based performance pay as the teacher engaged "in laying thin films of information on the surface of the child's mind, and then, after a brief interval, in skimming these off in order to satisfy himself that they have been duly laid" (Nelson, 2001, p. 386). Holmes referred to this kind of recall as being "the equivalent of food which its recipient has not been allowed to digest" (p. 386).
In 1918, 48 percent of U.S. public school districts described their payment systems as "merit based." But "merit" was subjective: White men were paid more than minorities and women, a disparity that eventually fueled a movement toward a uniform pay scale. Two years after women won the vote, the first uniform pay plans appeared in Denver, Colorado, and Des Moines, Iowa. By the 1950s, only 4 percent of U.S. school districts described themselves as merit based (Murnane & Cohen, 1986; Protsik, 1996).
There were brief attempts to implement performance-based pay in the early 1960s after Sputnik, and again when President Nixon launched an experiment with "performance contracting," which ended in cheating scandals and failure. In the early 1980s, when A Nation at Risk alarmed citizens with the prospect of "a rising tide of mediocrity" threatening to engulf U.S. schools, President Reagan reintroduced experiments with merit pay, with similarly negative results. Some school districts experimented through the 1980s with incentive programs based on merit, management by objectives, and career-ladder or differentiated staffing approaches. Few such experiments had any staying power. A new wave of experiments developed in the 1990s, most of which were also based on career ladders, teacher skills and knowledge, or differentiated staffing.
A New Approach Emerges
In 1999, the Denver, Colorado, school board and teachers association jointly sponsored a pay for performance pilot based largely on student achievement. As head of the outside research team for the first half of the pilot, I can attest to the energy and commitment with which the joint labor-management design team approached the task.
Although the pilot was successful and teachers in pilot schools supported it, designers saw that measures of student performance were still inadequate, that connections to teacher performance were hard to establish, and that standard measures of student learning were not applicable to more than half of the teachers—including gym, art, and music teachers; media specialists; special educators; and so forth. The model didn't address incentives for teachers to work in difficult situations and didn't include the contributions that many teachers make in support of their schools, younger colleagues, students, and their students' parents.
A much broader assessment of teacher performance was needed to capture the breadth of the teacher's role (Gratz, 2005). After four years and substantial effort, teachers and administrators collaborated to produce a new plan that the board, teachers, and voters ultimately approved. In the process, Denver expanded its definition of performance.
Denver's groundbreaking professional compensation plan replaces the traditional "steps and lanes" approach to compensation, in which teachers receive annual "step" increases as well as "lane" increases if they earn additional degrees. Only one of the new plan's four components directly addresses academic achievement goals—and that one is based significantly on teacher-set objectives, not just standardized test scores. In addition to student academic growth, the plan addresses teacher skill and knowledge, professional evaluation, and market incentives—compensating teachers who work in hard-to-serve schools or in hard-to-staff positions.
The Flawed Logic of Most Plans
Although today's performance pay plans take many forms, the most commonly proposed version—in which teachers are rewarded on the basis of their students' standardized test scores—flows from flawed logic and several troublesome assumptions.
Assumption 1: Teachers Lack Motivation
If we believe that additional pay will motivate teachers to work harder, we must also believe that teachers know what to do to improve student achievement— and that they aren't doing it because they aren't sufficiently motivated. The assumption is that they must value financial rewards more than student success.
Does anyone really think that large numbers of teachers know what their students need but are willfully withholding it? That they would help students learn more, if only someone offered them a bonus to do so? This is a highly cynical view of teachers, one that teachers understandably find demeaning, not motivational.
Most teachers care about their students and want them to succeed. Why else enter the profession? But although presenting information may be simple, successful teaching is more complex. Some teachers could certainly do a better job, but they mostly need mentoring, support, supervision, and training in new techniques—plus opportunities to learn, grow, and take on additional responsibilities—just like the rest of the workforce.
Assumption 2: Schools Are Failing
The broad call by state and national leaders for performance pay and other "reforms" is based on the widespread presumption that U.S. schools are failing. Schools have been labeled "in crisis" since the 1800s, but this designation has usually been more political than real. Schools were blamed for letting the USSR's Sputnik "beat us into space" in the 1950s, for economic collapse in the 1980s, and for economic inequality in the early 2000s. U.S. students are accused of lagging behind their peers in other countries, and a wide range of reports over the past two decades has predicted economic disaster in the future because, the reports claim, today's students are unprepared for work and will not be productive.
In fact, the United States had a satellite nearly ready to launch in the 1950s, but kept it under wraps because of its anticipated use in spying. Explorer I was launched just four months after Sputnik. The downturn of the 1980s, for which schools were often blamed, was followed in the 1990s by the longest period of sustained growth in history, for which schools received little credit.
As for the failure of U.S. students to measure up to their foreign counterparts, this is largely not the case. Rather, as many researchers have shown, the test score gap often results from comparing older or more select students in other countries with a broader range of U.S. students and from confusing test scores with achievement (Bracey, 2005; Mathews, 2008; Rotberg, 2008).
In fact, although poor results on specific tests make headlines, U.S. students compare well with their international peers on many tests, and U.S. workers excel in measures of economic success, such as creativity and innovation. Further, test scores don't correlate with economic success. The countries whose students outscore their U.S. peers do not have stronger economies or more productive citizens. Worker productivity in the United States soared in the 1990s and has remained high.
Schools make an easy target, but school change moves too slowly to affect short-term economic cycles. It takes at least 12 years for a restructured K–12 curriculum to produce its first newly trained students. So, although an educated workforce is important, schools have little effect on economic cycles. Fortunately, schools have not yet been blamed for the current economic debacle.
It's true, of course, that we have some very troubled schools in the United States—mostly in large, bureaucratic districts and mostly serving poor children and children of color. By one estimate, the majority of failing schools in the United States are found in only 29 districts (T. W. Slotnik, personal communication, July 10, 2008), suggesting that these districts need improvement at the school and district leadership levels, not just among teachers. Despite the existence of troubled schools and districts, however, most students achieve more academically now than in past decades, and most parents give their schools high marks and support them (Bradshaw & Gallup, 2008).
Assumption 3: Measuring Academic Achievement Is All That Counts
The third assumption—the most perilous for the United States—is that standardized test scores accurately measure student academic achievement and that academic achievement constitutes the full range of goals we have for students. However, beyond basic academic skills, corporate leaders have consistently cited the need for critical thinking, problem solving, teamwork and collaboration, communication skills, and a good work ethic as the keys to worker success. And because there is more to life than work, most citizens want children to learn about art, music, and other aspects of civilization; to explore and develop their own skills and talents; and to become good neighbors and active, productive citizens.
Look for the megacompanies that control standardized testing to produce new tests that claim to measure all these attributes—but don't believe them. If we want students to develop as well-rounded human beings who are empathetic, thoughtful, and creative, we will have to include these characteristics among our goals for schools and seek ways to gauge our success. A system that rewards schools, students, and teachers only for test scores will get mostly test scores. This is not what most of us want for our children.
The Upside
The most promising aspect of the current discussion is the surprising extent to which district leaders, corporate leaders, and teachers unions are recognizing that they have common interests—interests that include accountability, expanded professional responsibility, and improvements in teaching conditions. Many parties are coming to see the value of higher and differentiated pay, and although we must carefully consider the specifics, the potential for change that benefits both teachers and students is real.
Denver's pilot has helped to demonstrate some of the possibilities. In an increasing number of districts, teachers who teach in hard-to-serve schools, such as those in inner cities, or in hard-to-fill positions, such as advanced physics, may earn additional pay. Teachers who mentor younger teachers, develop components of the curriculum, or take on other specialized duties may also earn more. Such pay doesn't insult teachers. Instead, it provides experienced teachers with the opportunity to learn, grow, and support their colleagues—critical opportunities in all professional fields to keep people refreshed and engaged.
Denver's plan also involves teachers in setting objectives for their own students, an approach that engages both their professional judgment and interest. Such opportunities have often been missing from teaching in the past.
Beyond Denver, it is also promising that some larger districts, often with outside technical assistance, are using performance pay as a catalyst for fundamentally changing how they do business— reorganizing their processes around their goals for their students and how best to reach them.
Defining Performance
Finally, it is crucial that the discussion of performance pay—which requires districts to develop a new definition of performance—leads states and districts, including Denver, to a new consideration of their true goals for their students. An exclusive focus on academic achievement is a relatively new idea in U.S. education. Thinkers like Thomas Jefferson and Ralph Waldo Emerson did not expect schools to teach all children the same facts over an extended 12-year period. Rather, they believed that schools should provide individual students with basic skills and tools for learning so these students could pursue their particular goals and find their own place in society.
This requires a national discussion. Do we want a world of critical thinkers or a world of test takers? Do we care about citizenship, civic engagement, and the ability to work with others? Do we value the arts and humanities? Do we want each child to develop his or her individual talents and abilities? If so, how do these goals fit into our definition of student and teacher performance? How do they align with No Child Left Behind?
Until we can answer these kinds of questions—until we determine the breadth, depth, and individual scope of student achievement that is worth pursuing—paying for performance will not produce the results we want for our children or our society.
References
Bracey, G. W. (2005, October). 15th Bracey Report on the condition of public education. Phi Delta Kappan, 87(28), 138–153.
Bradshaw, W. J., & Gallup, A. M. (2008, September). Americans speak out: Are educators and policy makers listening? Phi Delta Kappan, 90(10), 7–31.
Gratz, D. B. (2005). Lessons from Denver: The pay for performance pilot. Phi Delta Kappan, 86(8), 569–581.
Mathews, J. (2008, Spring). Bad rap on the schools. Wilson Quarterly, 32(2), 15–20.
Murnane, R. J., & Cohen, D. K. (1986, February). Merit pay and the evaluation problem: Why most merit pay plans fail and a few survive. Harvard Education Review, 56(1), 2.
Nelson, W. (2001, January). Timequake alert: Why payment by results is the worst "new" reform to shake the educational world, again and again. Phi Delta Kappan, 82(5), 384–389.
Protsik, J. (1996, May). History of teacher pay and incentive reforms. Journal of School Leadership, 6, 265–289.
Rotberg, I. C. (2008, June 11). Quick fixes, test scores, and the global economy. Education Week, 27(41), 27, 32.
Donald B. Gratz is Director of Graduate Programs in Education and Chair of the Education Department, Curry College, Milton, Massachusetts, and author of The Peril and Promise of Performance Pay (Rowman and Littlefield Education, 2009); dgratz@curry.edu.
Donald B. Gratz | Educational Leadership
November 2009 | Volume 67 | Number 3
Multiple Measures Pages 76-79
A new round of interest in performance pay has been growing for the past decade, as more states and districts have introduced mandates related to the push for ever-higher standards. This year, President Obama and U.S. Secretary of Education Arne Duncan have included performance pay among their goals for education. At the 2009 National Education Association (NEA) convention, Secretary Duncan urged teachers to support performance pay, noting that although "test scores alone should never drive evaluation, compensation, or tenure decisions," not including student achievement in teacher evaluation is "illogical and indefensible" (ASCD Educator Advocates, e-mail communication, July 18, 2009).
Definitions of teacher performance pay take different forms. For example, many districts pay experienced teachers to mentor new teachers, serve as curriculum specialists or in similar posts, or teach in inner-city schools. The most common and controversial proposal is to pay teachers on the basis of their students' standardized test scores. It turns out, however, that test-based pay is more useful politically than it is effective educationally. Although few contemporary plans built on student test scores have lasted, this lack of success has not slowed proposals for more such plans. Given the growing prevalence of performance pay, it is worth exploring its history and assumptions.
A Not-So-Stellar Story
Education performance pay stretches back hundreds of years. In the mid-1800s, British schools and teachers were paid on the basis of the results of student examinations, for reasons much like today's. After more than 30 years, however, the testing bureaucracy had burgeoned, cheating and cramming flourished, and public opposition had grown dramatically. The practice was abandoned as a failure.
In 1907, Edmond Holmes, Great Britain's chief education inspector, described schooling in the era of test-based performance pay as the teacher engaged "in laying thin films of information on the surface of the child's mind, and then, after a brief interval, in skimming these off in order to satisfy himself that they have been duly laid" (Nelson, 2001, p. 386). Holmes referred to this kind of recall as being "the equivalent of food which its recipient has not been allowed to digest" (p. 386).
In 1918, 48 percent of U.S. public school districts described their payment systems as "merit based." But "merit" was subjective: White men were paid more than minorities and women, a disparity that eventually fueled a movement toward a uniform pay scale. Two years after women won the vote, the first uniform pay plans appeared in Denver, Colorado, and Des Moines, Iowa. By the 1950s, only 4 percent of U.S. school districts described themselves as merit based (Murnane & Cohen, 1986; Protsik, 1996).
There were brief attempts to implement performance-based pay in the early 1960s after Sputnik, and again when President Nixon launched an experiment with "performance contracting," which ended in cheating scandals and failure. In the early 1980s, when A Nation at Risk alarmed citizens with the prospect of "a rising tide of mediocrity" threatening to engulf U.S. schools, President Reagan reintroduced experiments with merit pay, with similarly negative results. Some school districts experimented through the 1980s with incentive programs based on merit, management by objectives, and career-ladder or differentiated staffing approaches. Few such experiments had any staying power. A new wave of experiments developed in the 1990s, most of which were also based on career ladders, teacher skills and knowledge, or differentiated staffing.
A New Approach Emerges
In 1999, the Denver, Colorado, school board and teachers association jointly sponsored a pay for performance pilot based largely on student achievement. As head of the outside research team for the first half of the pilot, I can attest to the energy and commitment with which the joint labor-management design team approached the task.
Although the pilot was successful and teachers in pilot schools supported it, designers saw that measures of student performance were still inadequate, that connections to teacher performance were hard to establish, and that standard measures of student learning were not applicable to more than half of the teachers—including gym, art, and music teachers; media specialists; special educators; and so forth. The model didn't address incentives for teachers to work in difficult situations and didn't include the contributions that many teachers make in support of their schools, younger colleagues, students, and their students' parents.
A much broader assessment of teacher performance was needed to capture the breadth of the teacher's role (Gratz, 2005). After four years and substantial effort, teachers and administrators collaborated to produce a new plan that the board, teachers, and voters ultimately approved. In the process, Denver expanded its definition of performance.
Denver's groundbreaking professional compensation plan replaces the traditional "steps and lanes" approach to compensation, in which teachers receive annual "step" increases as well as "lane" increases if they earn additional degrees. Only one of the new plan's four components directly addresses academic achievement goals—and that one is based significantly on teacher-set objectives, not just standardized test scores. In addition to student academic growth, the plan addresses teacher skill and knowledge, professional evaluation, and market incentives—compensating teachers who work in hard-to-serve schools or in hard-to-staff positions.
The Flawed Logic of Most Plans
Although today's performance pay plans take many forms, the most commonly proposed version—in which teachers are rewarded on the basis of their students' standardized test scores—flows from flawed logic and several troublesome assumptions.
Assumption 1: Teachers Lack Motivation
If we believe that additional pay will motivate teachers to work harder, we must also believe that teachers know what to do to improve student achievement— and that they aren't doing it because they aren't sufficiently motivated. The assumption is that they must value financial rewards more than student success.
Does anyone really think that large numbers of teachers know what their students need but are willfully withholding it? That they would help students learn more, if only someone offered them a bonus to do so? This is a highly cynical view of teachers, one that teachers understandably find demeaning, not motivational.
Most teachers care about their students and want them to succeed. Why else enter the profession? But although presenting information may be simple, successful teaching is more complex. Some teachers could certainly do a better job, but they mostly need mentoring, support, supervision, and training in new techniques—plus opportunities to learn, grow, and take on additional responsibilities—just like the rest of the workforce.
Assumption 2: Schools Are Failing
The broad call by state and national leaders for performance pay and other "reforms" is based on the widespread presumption that U.S. schools are failing. Schools have been labeled "in crisis" since the 1800s, but this designation has usually been more political than real. Schools were blamed for letting the USSR's Sputnik "beat us into space" in the 1950s, for economic collapse in the 1980s, and for economic inequality in the early 2000s. U.S. students are accused of lagging behind their peers in other countries, and a wide range of reports over the past two decades has predicted economic disaster in the future because, the reports claim, today's students are unprepared for work and will not be productive.
In fact, the United States had a satellite nearly ready to launch in the 1950s, but kept it under wraps because of its anticipated use in spying. Explorer I was launched just four months after Sputnik. The downturn of the 1980s, for which schools were often blamed, was followed in the 1990s by the longest period of sustained growth in history, for which schools received little credit.
As for the failure of U.S. students to measure up to their foreign counterparts, this is largely not the case. Rather, as many researchers have shown, the test score gap often results from comparing older or more select students in other countries with a broader range of U.S. students and from confusing test scores with achievement (Bracey, 2005; Mathews, 2008; Rotberg, 2008).
In fact, although poor results on specific tests make headlines, U.S. students compare well with their international peers on many tests, and U.S. workers excel in measures of economic success, such as creativity and innovation. Further, test scores don't correlate with economic success. The countries whose students outscore their U.S. peers do not have stronger economies or more productive citizens. Worker productivity in the United States soared in the 1990s and has remained high.
Schools make an easy target, but school change moves too slowly to affect short-term economic cycles. It takes at least 12 years for a restructured K–12 curriculum to produce its first newly trained students. So, although an educated workforce is important, schools have little effect on economic cycles. Fortunately, schools have not yet been blamed for the current economic debacle.
It's true, of course, that we have some very troubled schools in the United States—mostly in large, bureaucratic districts and mostly serving poor children and children of color. By one estimate, the majority of failing schools in the United States are found in only 29 districts (T. W. Slotnik, personal communication, July 10, 2008), suggesting that these districts need improvement at the school and district leadership levels, not just among teachers. Despite the existence of troubled schools and districts, however, most students achieve more academically now than in past decades, and most parents give their schools high marks and support them (Bradshaw & Gallup, 2008).
Assumption 3: Measuring Academic Achievement Is All That Counts
The third assumption—the most perilous for the United States—is that standardized test scores accurately measure student academic achievement and that academic achievement constitutes the full range of goals we have for students. However, beyond basic academic skills, corporate leaders have consistently cited the need for critical thinking, problem solving, teamwork and collaboration, communication skills, and a good work ethic as the keys to worker success. And because there is more to life than work, most citizens want children to learn about art, music, and other aspects of civilization; to explore and develop their own skills and talents; and to become good neighbors and active, productive citizens.
Look for the megacompanies that control standardized testing to produce new tests that claim to measure all these attributes—but don't believe them. If we want students to develop as well-rounded human beings who are empathetic, thoughtful, and creative, we will have to include these characteristics among our goals for schools and seek ways to gauge our success. A system that rewards schools, students, and teachers only for test scores will get mostly test scores. This is not what most of us want for our children.
The Upside
The most promising aspect of the current discussion is the surprising extent to which district leaders, corporate leaders, and teachers unions are recognizing that they have common interests—interests that include accountability, expanded professional responsibility, and improvements in teaching conditions. Many parties are coming to see the value of higher and differentiated pay, and although we must carefully consider the specifics, the potential for change that benefits both teachers and students is real.
Denver's pilot has helped to demonstrate some of the possibilities. In an increasing number of districts, teachers who teach in hard-to-serve schools, such as those in inner cities, or in hard-to-fill positions, such as advanced physics, may earn additional pay. Teachers who mentor younger teachers, develop components of the curriculum, or take on other specialized duties may also earn more. Such pay doesn't insult teachers. Instead, it provides experienced teachers with the opportunity to learn, grow, and support their colleagues—critical opportunities in all professional fields to keep people refreshed and engaged.
Denver's plan also involves teachers in setting objectives for their own students, an approach that engages both their professional judgment and interest. Such opportunities have often been missing from teaching in the past.
Beyond Denver, it is also promising that some larger districts, often with outside technical assistance, are using performance pay as a catalyst for fundamentally changing how they do business— reorganizing their processes around their goals for their students and how best to reach them.
Defining Performance
Finally, it is crucial that the discussion of performance pay—which requires districts to develop a new definition of performance—leads states and districts, including Denver, to a new consideration of their true goals for their students. An exclusive focus on academic achievement is a relatively new idea in U.S. education. Thinkers like Thomas Jefferson and Ralph Waldo Emerson did not expect schools to teach all children the same facts over an extended 12-year period. Rather, they believed that schools should provide individual students with basic skills and tools for learning so these students could pursue their particular goals and find their own place in society.
This requires a national discussion. Do we want a world of critical thinkers or a world of test takers? Do we care about citizenship, civic engagement, and the ability to work with others? Do we value the arts and humanities? Do we want each child to develop his or her individual talents and abilities? If so, how do these goals fit into our definition of student and teacher performance? How do they align with No Child Left Behind?
Until we can answer these kinds of questions—until we determine the breadth, depth, and individual scope of student achievement that is worth pursuing—paying for performance will not produce the results we want for our children or our society.
References
Bracey, G. W. (2005, October). 15th Bracey Report on the condition of public education. Phi Delta Kappan, 87(28), 138–153.
Bradshaw, W. J., & Gallup, A. M. (2008, September). Americans speak out: Are educators and policy makers listening? Phi Delta Kappan, 90(10), 7–31.
Gratz, D. B. (2005). Lessons from Denver: The pay for performance pilot. Phi Delta Kappan, 86(8), 569–581.
Mathews, J. (2008, Spring). Bad rap on the schools. Wilson Quarterly, 32(2), 15–20.
Murnane, R. J., & Cohen, D. K. (1986, February). Merit pay and the evaluation problem: Why most merit pay plans fail and a few survive. Harvard Education Review, 56(1), 2.
Nelson, W. (2001, January). Timequake alert: Why payment by results is the worst "new" reform to shake the educational world, again and again. Phi Delta Kappan, 82(5), 384–389.
Protsik, J. (1996, May). History of teacher pay and incentive reforms. Journal of School Leadership, 6, 265–289.
Rotberg, I. C. (2008, June 11). Quick fixes, test scores, and the global economy. Education Week, 27(41), 27, 32.
Donald B. Gratz is Director of Graduate Programs in Education and Chair of the Education Department, Curry College, Milton, Massachusetts, and author of The Peril and Promise of Performance Pay (Rowman and Littlefield Education, 2009); dgratz@curry.edu.
Sunday, August 24, 2008
When schools offer money as a motivator
Very good point made by Dr. Noguera in this article: Many students have trouble learning because they "are just not going to good schools, and no incentive is going to fix that,"
I agree that this solution further places the result of "failure" on the student and takes the focus off the the institutional barriers that many students face. As for proposing to give elementary school students money for doing well on standardized tests, that's insane!
-Patricia
More Districts Use Incentives To Reward Top Test Scores; So Far, Results Are Mixed
By JEREMY SINGER-VINE | Wall Street Journal
August 21, 2008; Page D1
More and more school districts are banking on improving student performance using cash incentives -- a $1,000 payout for high test scores, for example. But whether they work is hard to say.
In the latest study of student-incentive programs, researchers examining a 12-year-old program in Texas found that rewarding pupils for achieving high scores on tough tests can work. A handful of earlier studies of programs in Ohio, Israel and Canada have had mixed conclusions; results of a New York City initiative are expected in October. Comparing results is further complicated by the fact that districts across the country have implemented the programs differently.
Still, school administrators and philanthropists have pushed to launch pay-for-performance programs at hundreds of schools in the past two years. Advocates say incentives are an effective way to motivate learning -- especially among poor and minority students -- and reward teaching skills. Critics argue that the programs don't fix underlying problems, such as crowded classrooms or subpar schools.
In Texas, high-school students enrolled in Advanced Placement classes who got top scores on math, science and English tests were paid up to $500. (AP classes are considered more difficult than traditional high school curricula, and some colleges award credit for AP coursework.) The research, by C. Kirabo Jackson, an economics professor at Cornell University, found that over time, more students took Advanced Placement courses and tests, and that more graduating seniors attended college. Most of the gains came from minority students in the 40 high schools studied, accounting for about 70,000 students in all. The study, set for release on Thursday, will appear in the fall issue of Education Next, a journal published by Stanford University's Hoover Institution.
"There's a lot of buzz about pay-for-performance, but we still only have a small amount of studies on these programs, and a lot of them don't come from the U.S.," says Jonah Rockoff, a professor of finance and economics at Columbia University who is familiar with Mr. Jackson's research. "I think he's done a very careful job of doing the evaluation," he adds, noting that the study was not a true randomized experiment.
Previous data collected by the nonprofit Advanced Placement Strategies Inc., which runs the Texas program, found that in the 10 schools where it was initially launched, passing AP test scores doubled in the first year, quadrupled in the second year and have continued to increase. The program is now used in 61 schools statewide.
But exactly how much the cash incentives contributed to the improvements remains unclear. Teachers in these districts received additional training and bonuses of up to $10,000 when their students scored well. So it's inconclusive whether paying the students, rewarding the teachers or a combination of these led to the improved test scores.
In New York City, 31 high schools with large populations of poor and minority students last school year offered rewards of up to $1,000 for passing AP tests. In some subjects, such as chemistry, the number of passing scores leapt by as much as 82%. But overall, the number of students who passed AP tests slightly decreased from year ago. On Wednesday, nearly $1 million in private funds was awarded to 1,161 students. Starting this fall, additional teacher training will be offered.
"If we are going to invest, why don't we invest in something that we know does work, like reducing class size or extended learning time?" asks Pedro Noguera, a New York University sociology professor, who is critical of cash-incentive programs. Many students have trouble learning because they "are just not going to good schools, and no incentive is going to fix that," he says.
This school year, six states -- Arkansas, Alabama, Connecticut, Kentucky, Massachusetts and Virginia -- will begin replicating the Texas program, each with five-year grants of $13 million from the National Math and Science Initiative, a nonprofit organization launched last year with funding from Exxon Mobil Corp. and other private sources. About a dozen schools in each state are participating this school year, with plans to add more in following years.
The cash helped persuade Christopher Means, a senior at Marion County High School in Lebanon, Ky., to take his first AP classes. "It's definitely piqued more interest [in AP classes] than it has in the past," he says.
Overall, 60% more students will take AP courses at the participating schools in the six states this year over last year, says Tom Luce, chief executive of the initiative and a former official with the Department of Education. The organization plans to expand to 20 states within five years.
The initiative hopes eventually to expand nationwide. "I'm not Pollyannish -- it is not going to happen overnight, but it's certainly our goal," Mr. Luce says.
Previous studies of cash-incentive student programs have shown mixed results.
"It's harder than we thought it was going to be," says Joshua Angrist, a Massachusetts Institute of Technology economics professor who has co-authored two studies on cash-incentive programs, one at Israeli high schools and another at a Canadian university. He found that females respond better to cash incentives than do males. Researchers in Texas and Ohio found no significant gender difference in scores.
Stanford professor Eric Bettinger, one of Dr. Angrist's former students, is studying elementary schools at Coshocton, Ohio, where students are offered up to $20 for high test scores. Students there did significantly better on standardized math tests, but there was no effect on science, reading or social-science tests.
Many researchers and policymakers are looking to Roland G. Fryer, an economics professor at Harvard and "chief equality officer" of the New York City public schools. He oversees a privately funded program in New York City separate from the AP rewards program. In the Fryer initiative, about 10,000 elementary and middle school students earn cash and prepaid cell phones for high state test scores and good grades. He recently launched a study of the program and expects the initial results to be complete by October.
One question is whether gains attributed to cash incentives will continue if students no longer are offered rewards.
"You pay a price in motivation," says Barry Schwartz, a cognitive psychology professor at Swarthmore College. Cash incentives could ultimately diminish students' desire to learn for non-financial reasons, he says.
Dr. Fryer says he's just looking for anything that will improve student achievement, particularly for low-income and minority students: "If [incentives] don't work, I'm going to be the first person to call a press conference and tell everyone to stop."
I agree that this solution further places the result of "failure" on the student and takes the focus off the the institutional barriers that many students face. As for proposing to give elementary school students money for doing well on standardized tests, that's insane!
-Patricia
More Districts Use Incentives To Reward Top Test Scores; So Far, Results Are Mixed
By JEREMY SINGER-VINE | Wall Street Journal
August 21, 2008; Page D1
More and more school districts are banking on improving student performance using cash incentives -- a $1,000 payout for high test scores, for example. But whether they work is hard to say.
In the latest study of student-incentive programs, researchers examining a 12-year-old program in Texas found that rewarding pupils for achieving high scores on tough tests can work. A handful of earlier studies of programs in Ohio, Israel and Canada have had mixed conclusions; results of a New York City initiative are expected in October. Comparing results is further complicated by the fact that districts across the country have implemented the programs differently.
Still, school administrators and philanthropists have pushed to launch pay-for-performance programs at hundreds of schools in the past two years. Advocates say incentives are an effective way to motivate learning -- especially among poor and minority students -- and reward teaching skills. Critics argue that the programs don't fix underlying problems, such as crowded classrooms or subpar schools.
In Texas, high-school students enrolled in Advanced Placement classes who got top scores on math, science and English tests were paid up to $500. (AP classes are considered more difficult than traditional high school curricula, and some colleges award credit for AP coursework.) The research, by C. Kirabo Jackson, an economics professor at Cornell University, found that over time, more students took Advanced Placement courses and tests, and that more graduating seniors attended college. Most of the gains came from minority students in the 40 high schools studied, accounting for about 70,000 students in all. The study, set for release on Thursday, will appear in the fall issue of Education Next, a journal published by Stanford University's Hoover Institution.
"There's a lot of buzz about pay-for-performance, but we still only have a small amount of studies on these programs, and a lot of them don't come from the U.S.," says Jonah Rockoff, a professor of finance and economics at Columbia University who is familiar with Mr. Jackson's research. "I think he's done a very careful job of doing the evaluation," he adds, noting that the study was not a true randomized experiment.
Previous data collected by the nonprofit Advanced Placement Strategies Inc., which runs the Texas program, found that in the 10 schools where it was initially launched, passing AP test scores doubled in the first year, quadrupled in the second year and have continued to increase. The program is now used in 61 schools statewide.
But exactly how much the cash incentives contributed to the improvements remains unclear. Teachers in these districts received additional training and bonuses of up to $10,000 when their students scored well. So it's inconclusive whether paying the students, rewarding the teachers or a combination of these led to the improved test scores.
In New York City, 31 high schools with large populations of poor and minority students last school year offered rewards of up to $1,000 for passing AP tests. In some subjects, such as chemistry, the number of passing scores leapt by as much as 82%. But overall, the number of students who passed AP tests slightly decreased from year ago. On Wednesday, nearly $1 million in private funds was awarded to 1,161 students. Starting this fall, additional teacher training will be offered.
"If we are going to invest, why don't we invest in something that we know does work, like reducing class size or extended learning time?" asks Pedro Noguera, a New York University sociology professor, who is critical of cash-incentive programs. Many students have trouble learning because they "are just not going to good schools, and no incentive is going to fix that," he says.
This school year, six states -- Arkansas, Alabama, Connecticut, Kentucky, Massachusetts and Virginia -- will begin replicating the Texas program, each with five-year grants of $13 million from the National Math and Science Initiative, a nonprofit organization launched last year with funding from Exxon Mobil Corp. and other private sources. About a dozen schools in each state are participating this school year, with plans to add more in following years.
The cash helped persuade Christopher Means, a senior at Marion County High School in Lebanon, Ky., to take his first AP classes. "It's definitely piqued more interest [in AP classes] than it has in the past," he says.
Overall, 60% more students will take AP courses at the participating schools in the six states this year over last year, says Tom Luce, chief executive of the initiative and a former official with the Department of Education. The organization plans to expand to 20 states within five years.
The initiative hopes eventually to expand nationwide. "I'm not Pollyannish -- it is not going to happen overnight, but it's certainly our goal," Mr. Luce says.
Previous studies of cash-incentive student programs have shown mixed results.
"It's harder than we thought it was going to be," says Joshua Angrist, a Massachusetts Institute of Technology economics professor who has co-authored two studies on cash-incentive programs, one at Israeli high schools and another at a Canadian university. He found that females respond better to cash incentives than do males. Researchers in Texas and Ohio found no significant gender difference in scores.
Stanford professor Eric Bettinger, one of Dr. Angrist's former students, is studying elementary schools at Coshocton, Ohio, where students are offered up to $20 for high test scores. Students there did significantly better on standardized math tests, but there was no effect on science, reading or social-science tests.
Many researchers and policymakers are looking to Roland G. Fryer, an economics professor at Harvard and "chief equality officer" of the New York City public schools. He oversees a privately funded program in New York City separate from the AP rewards program. In the Fryer initiative, about 10,000 elementary and middle school students earn cash and prepaid cell phones for high state test scores and good grades. He recently launched a study of the program and expects the initial results to be complete by October.
One question is whether gains attributed to cash incentives will continue if students no longer are offered rewards.
"You pay a price in motivation," says Barry Schwartz, a cognitive psychology professor at Swarthmore College. Cash incentives could ultimately diminish students' desire to learn for non-financial reasons, he says.
Dr. Fryer says he's just looking for anything that will improve student achievement, particularly for low-income and minority students: "If [incentives] don't work, I'm going to be the first person to call a press conference and tell everyone to stop."
Friday, September 07, 2007
Performance-based Pay For Teachers?
Performance-based Pay For Teachers?
Science Daily — Teacher performance pay is a frequently discussed and controversial topic among kindergarten through 12th-grade educators. Recent findings by economics professors at the University of Missouri-Columbia and Vanderbilt University suggest that states and school districts in the United States begin developing programs that examine the effects of linking teacher pay to student achievement.
The study was a collaborative effort between Michael J. Podgursky, professor of economics at Mizzou's College of Arts and Science, and Matthew G. Springer, research assistant professor of public policy and education at Vanderbilt's Peabody College. The researchers critiqued previously published studies which evaluated the effectiveness of school district and state-sponsored merit pay systems throughout the United States, as well as programs in Israel, Africa and the United Kingdom. They found that student achievement mostly improved when teachers received financial incentives.
As a result, school districts should at least consider the idea, Podgursky said, by experimenting with performance-based systems, which require flexibility and only become effective through "trial and error."
"We can't say, 'Do this; or this is the right way to do it,'" he said. "However, the preponderance of evidence, when you look at a variety of sources, including the limited number of evaluations and the evidence we have on the variation of teacher effectiveness, suggests that it really is something school districts should be exploring or piloting. Every one of the evaluations has been virtually positive. They all suggest there's a positive response in terms of outcome measures -- including test scores."
Podgursky and Springer's position differs from opponents who argue that unlike sales by a salesman or billable hours for an attorney, teacher performance can't be measured or monitored or, that incentives result in competition and less teamwork by teachers.
Traditionally, teacher pay is based on a salary schedule -- years of experience and education level. Nationwide, there are roughly 3.1 million teachers. Podgursky and Springer said the current salary system increases expenditures without directly impacting student achievement. In the study, he and Springer advocate school districts to emulate private sector employers which "understand that strategic pay policies are a very important lever in raising firm performance." They said in the long run, merit pay systems result in success -- for teachers and students alike.
"The system isn't passive; the evidence certainly suggests when you offer incentives, you're likely to get better results," Podgursky said. "It suggests that the actors do respond to the incentives."
The study, "Teacher Performance Pay: A Review," will be published in the September issue of the Journal of Policy Analysis and Management.
Note: This story has been adapted from a news release issued by University of Missouri-Columbia.
Science Daily — Teacher performance pay is a frequently discussed and controversial topic among kindergarten through 12th-grade educators. Recent findings by economics professors at the University of Missouri-Columbia and Vanderbilt University suggest that states and school districts in the United States begin developing programs that examine the effects of linking teacher pay to student achievement.
The study was a collaborative effort between Michael J. Podgursky, professor of economics at Mizzou's College of Arts and Science, and Matthew G. Springer, research assistant professor of public policy and education at Vanderbilt's Peabody College. The researchers critiqued previously published studies which evaluated the effectiveness of school district and state-sponsored merit pay systems throughout the United States, as well as programs in Israel, Africa and the United Kingdom. They found that student achievement mostly improved when teachers received financial incentives.
As a result, school districts should at least consider the idea, Podgursky said, by experimenting with performance-based systems, which require flexibility and only become effective through "trial and error."
"We can't say, 'Do this; or this is the right way to do it,'" he said. "However, the preponderance of evidence, when you look at a variety of sources, including the limited number of evaluations and the evidence we have on the variation of teacher effectiveness, suggests that it really is something school districts should be exploring or piloting. Every one of the evaluations has been virtually positive. They all suggest there's a positive response in terms of outcome measures -- including test scores."
Podgursky and Springer's position differs from opponents who argue that unlike sales by a salesman or billable hours for an attorney, teacher performance can't be measured or monitored or, that incentives result in competition and less teamwork by teachers.
Traditionally, teacher pay is based on a salary schedule -- years of experience and education level. Nationwide, there are roughly 3.1 million teachers. Podgursky and Springer said the current salary system increases expenditures without directly impacting student achievement. In the study, he and Springer advocate school districts to emulate private sector employers which "understand that strategic pay policies are a very important lever in raising firm performance." They said in the long run, merit pay systems result in success -- for teachers and students alike.
"The system isn't passive; the evidence certainly suggests when you offer incentives, you're likely to get better results," Podgursky said. "It suggests that the actors do respond to the incentives."
The study, "Teacher Performance Pay: A Review," will be published in the September issue of the Journal of Policy Analysis and Management.
Note: This story has been adapted from a news release issued by University of Missouri-Columbia.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)