Teacher World

Teachers, how would you feel if your ability to earn a performance bonus was, in part, decided upon by the parents of the children you teach? Well, this is exactly what many school districts in the state of Idaho have decided to do. Let’s take a closer look.

Idaho is in the process of implementing broad education reforms which will require schools to award deserving teachers with performance bonuses. And about a third of their school districts will be asking parents to play a key role in the evaluation process.

To be exact, 29 school districts throughout the state are allowing parents to be an integral part of the decision regarding performance bonuses for teachers. For example, in the Challis district in the central Idaho countryside, teachers will be required to be in contact with each of their students’ parents at least twice every three months in order to remain eligible for bonuses.

Let’s explore that requirement for just a moment. My first question is whether this means that teachers who have more than one group of students which they teach would be required to make contact with the  parents of all of the students they teach the same number of times as an elementary teacher with just one class? Let’s just do the math for a moment. I team teach with another teacher, and together we have 57 students. If we each had to call all of those students’ parents two times every three months, that would mean 114 phone calls. If we stretched those phone calls over approximately 90 days, we would have to make 1 to 2 phone calls daily, along with all of our other duties (and there is no way of knowing how long these calls will take). I don’t even want to consider mathematically what this would mean for high school teachers.

My second question is this: When do you think you are most likely to reach the majority of your students’ parents? The evening, right? Most of our parents work and can only be reached in the evening when teachers are home with their own families. Now, these teachers in Idaho are expected to make school-related phone calls from their home on a regular basis? Is that fair to their own families? This would not only cut into their time with their family but would also cut into the time they set aside for grading and planning at home for school. And what about those parents who, for whatever reason, you are never able to reach? You have to keep calling repeatedly in the hopes that you are able to reach them twice in that 3-month period? And what if there are some parents, try as you may, that you just can’t reach? Does that take you out of the running for bonus pay? Seems very unfair to me.

In the farming town of Gooding, Idaho, near the Challis district, some teachers will receive 25 percent of their bonus pay if they can somehow get enough (not sure what is considered enough) of their parents to attend three meetings throughout the course of the academic year. Challis Superintendent Colby Gull told the Associated Press, “We’re a really little town in the middle of nowhere. Parents are pretty involved in what’s going on. But we wanted to get them more involved in the academic side of the school.”

Now, maybe in a small farming town this is a little easier for teachers to accomplish, but is this a fair expectation of teachers everywhere? Should teachers really be placed in a position of coercing their students’ parents to attend school meetings? I think this crosses the line, and I would be very reticent to contact parents to persuade them to do anything other than to ask for their help with an issue I am facing regarding their child.

Jeanne Sager, a parent and writer of The Stir, wrote, “In Idaho, a teacher’s raise could be rated on how many parents show up for conferences or how many parents return paperwork sent home. To me, that’s just bizarre. It’s not her (or his) fault if some parents don’t take an involved role in their kids’ education. As far as I can tell, going to a house to kidnap a parent, then carting them into a school building is still a felony!”

RiShawn Biddle at Dropout Nation says to get used to it. “Accepting families as lead decision-makers in education” is critical to addressing America’s education crisis. Parents aren’t “nuisances and enemies” — they’re a necessary part of any successful school.

I have had some wonderful, highly-involved parents over the years who have helped in the classroom, supported their child’s education, attended every parent-teacher conference and PTA meeting, and been an integral part of their child’s educational experience. On the flip side, I have had parents who have ignored my phone calls, emails, and letters home to come in for a conference, who never look at their child’s assignment book or help in any way with their child’s homework, who don’t even leave a working phone number in the office in order to contact them in case of an emergency, and who have the audacity, given the fact that they have rarely, if ever, even set foot in the school, let alone my classroom, to tear public education down in general and teachers down specifically.

Do I want parents to be a factor in determining my pay? The good ones, yes, the uninvolved ones, no way! Unfortunately, teachers will not be able to pick and choose which parents will be questioned. And if you don’t think that will influence how teachers teach and how they discipline the children in their classrooms, you are sorely mistaken. To please parents, teachers will have to please their children, and that is not always possible, especially when dealing with children who have behavior or academic issues.

As Jeanne Sager writes:”… some parents are more than happy to go on the attack because they don’t get what they want: flawless teachers who have personal time for every student and their parents. Now add in the parents who are always convinced their kid is right 100 percent of the time (we all know at least one). Plus the parents who start out every year convinced teachers have it easy because they have summers off. Oh, and we might as well throw in the parents who heard from a friend of a friend that this teacher did X, but have no real idea.”

“If these parents all get a say, what does that do to a teacher? More importantly, what does it do to a classroom? Suddenly the teacher has to decide whether or not she disciplines the class brat because she has to worry that his parents are determining her paycheck! And she’s spending more time on the phone trying to coerce parents to show up than actually teaching your kid 3 + 3.”

And the last piece of bad news for teachers in Idaho is this: One hundred five school districts and charter schools have written their own merit-pay plans so far, which use an assortment of benchmarks. Some of these include graduation rates, student attendance, and writing assessments. Fifty districts and charter schools in the state decided to comply with the state’s plan, which attaches bonuses to standardized test scores. And since teachers across the state will have to meet Idaho’s goals, test scores will be the one common factor upon which all teachers will be judged for performance bonuses.

Educational Reform, Merit Pay for Teachers, state achievement tests, teacher evaluations, Teacher-World's Blog Idaho's education reform, Jeanne Sager, teacher evaluations, Teachers' Perfomance bonuses

Heavy controversy surrounds Idaho’s new education plan which, among other things, makes Idaho the first state to require high school students there to take at least two of their high school credits online in order to graduate.

In spite of the fact that this proposal received heavy opposition this past summer at public hearings across the state, the education board gave its initial approval to the online graduation requirement in September. Over the month of October, trustees collected feedback regarding this requirement during a 21-day public comment period.

Those who were for the virtual classes claim that it will help the state to save money while better preparing its students for college. But those who were against the requirement claim that it will reallocate state taxpayer money to the out-of-state companies which would provide the online curriculum and the laptops. They also expressed concerns that the state will ultimately replace teachers with computers.

Board member Don Soltman said, “A majority of the comments felt there should not be an online learning requirement.”

Yet, in spite of huge opposition to this online requirement, the plan received final approval Thursday. This law will apply to students who are entering the 9th grade in the fall of 2012. It will then go before Idaho lawmakers for review in the 2012 session, which begins in January.

It comes as no surprise that the Idaho Education Association criticized the decision in a statement on Thursday, where they said that the board “overruled the wishes of a majority of Idahoans and disregarded parental choice” by mandating the online credits.

Online learning advocates, however, feel that this requirement is reasonable because it is necessary for children to be prepared for life after high school.

Susan Patrick, president of the International Association for K-12 Online Learning, a Washington-based nonprofit, and an obvious proponent of online learning, argued, “There is still a live teacher. It may be at a distance, but that teacher is still instructing and interacting with the student.”

One of those opposing this new requirement is Kendra Wisenbaker, an elementary school teacher in Meridian, the largest school district in Idaho. While she agrees that some students may actually flourish from online learning, she also expressed concerns, saying, “The poor kids are guinea pigs. I am a little conflicted, I am. It won’t work for every kid, and I think requiring it is a horrible idea. But it shouldn’t be an option for saving money,”

Members of the Idaho State Board of Education have stated that the majority of the opposition people are expressing is directed at the whole education law, not just the online requirements. While state legislatures nationwide are tackling education policy this year, education experts agree that Idaho has made some of the most far-reaching changes of any state.

Idaho’s new education plan is introducing merit pay, limiting union collective bargaining rights, and reallocating money from salaries toward changes which include more classroom technology; all part of the changes backed by Idaho’s governor and Tom Luna, the Superintendent of Public Instruction.

Some in Idaho have praised Luna for changing how the state’s limited education dollars are being spent and for working to fix a badly broken system.

But others, including educators, have heavily criticized Luna’s plans. In fact, a group sought to recall Luna because of the education changes, but they failed to garner enough signatures earlier this year to be successful. Since then, parents and teachers who want to overturn the new laws met a June deadline to put three repeal measures on 2012’s November ballot.

What’s my opinion? First, while I understand the need to cut costs, I don’t understand how that is going to happen if tax dollars are simply being sent out of the state to provide curriculum and technology.

Second, online learning is certainly a wonderful alternative for some students and being exposed to this avenue of learning is probably very constructive for them. But to make it mandatory is ludicrous. There are students who will struggle with this method of instruction: students on IEPs, those with ADD or ADHD, students with vision problems, etc. Forcing all students to conform to this type of instruction is diametrically opposed to basic educational philosophy which requires us to meet children’s individual needs based upon their dominant learning style. Shouldn’t the superintendent of public instruction be well-versed in basic school pedagogy?

Finally, do I worry that computers could take the place of teachers some day? Well, who can really say what the future holds, but I will tell you, without any hesitation, that there is no computer online course on this earth that can ever replace a caring, sensitive, child-motivated, highly-trained, competent teacher. Teachers don’t just teach; they nurture. No online program can ever compete with that.

Changes in Teaching, Educational Reform, Merit Pay for Teachers, Teacher's Unions, Teacher-World's Blog Idaho Education Association, Idaho's new education plan, K-12 Online Learning, online classes, Tom Luna

A recent article which appeared in Education Week by Boris Korsunsky caught my eye and kept my attention as he enumerated some very powerful reasons to keep tenure in public schools. Let me summarize his very interesting points.

First, let me tell you a little about the author of this piece. Korsunsky is a physics teacher in a public school in Massachusetts, who happens to also be tenured. He has two master’s degrees from Russia, his native land, as well as a doctorate from Harvard Graduate School of Education. Korsunsky is an educational consultant, a widely published author, and a winner of the 2011 Amgen Award for Excellence in Science Teaching. I tell you all of this in order to establish the wisdom and expertise that this man possesses. 

In his article, he first focuses on the current trend to improve the quality of public school teachers by rewarding effective teachers with merit pay while removing the security of tenure. He points out that dangling the promise of merit pay is an empty rhetorical tool in light of the current financial problems which schools face. And removing tenure, which is a central benefit for teachers, to supposedly improve the quality of teaching may actually do just the opposite.

He states that, if the goal is to attract and retain excellent teachers, the tenure system should not only be kept in place, but it should be expanded. He maintains that strengthening tenure systems should be considered a cost-effective way to draw effective teachers into the teaching profession, attracting higher quality candidates and improving the morale of currently employed teachers.

Korsunsky argues that contrary to the belief that tenured teachers don’t have any incentive to work hard because they know they can’t be fired, tenure isn’t a lifetime job guarantee, and unions don’t go out of their way to keep incompetent teachers in their jobs. Unions make sure that teachers’ rights to due process are being protected, and that administrators can’t fire teachers on a whim.

He goes on to explain the importance of due process since it is so difficult to judge the quality of a teacher objectively, and test scores aren’t an accurate measure either. It is sobering but true that, as Korsunsky states, “In reality, any teacher is only as good as his boss thinks he is.”

He brings up the definite possibility that without tenure, teachers who would likely be fired first are those with more experience, who also earn a higher salary and may be considered “troublemakers.” As he points out, these teachers tend to be the most creative, but potentially controversial employees.

“Do you want your children’s teachers to be silent in faculty meetings for fear of displeasing the principal? Do you want your child’s biology and history teachers to be fired each time a different political party wins a local election, or when a principal has a nephew or a girlfriend who needs a job? I have heard plenty of such stories from my colleagues working in the ‘non-tenure’ states,” Korsunsky writes.

Many aspects of the teaching profession have made it an undesirable career for many people, including the inherent stress, the lack of respect teachers receive from the public, the tedious hours spent grading in the evenings and on weekends, and the low salaries with no opportunity for promotion. Korsunsky’s claim is that a stronger tenure system might help teachers overlook these drawbacks, as it would give them both job security and intellectual freedom.  

Korsunsky writes, “The main beneficiaries of the tenure system, in the end, are the students and their parents, not the teachers. Without tenure systems, the nation’s public school teachers would be either much less competent or much more expensive—or both. The evidence of the positive effects of tenure can be found, for instance, in the generally higher levels of student achievement in the ‘tenure’ states as well as in the presence of tenure-type systems in some of the best American private schools, such as Phillips Exeter Academy. As a teacher, I am grateful for the tenure system. As a parent, I am glad my children’s teachers have it. As a taxpayer, I know that many of the nation’s best teachers would have left the profession for the private sector if their paltry public-school salaries were not augmented by relative job security.”

At the same time, he acknowledges the need to make the process of granting tenure more rigorous than it is in some districts. But he likens the need for qualified teachers to earn tenure to the need for Supreme Court justices to have it. He concludes, “Without tenure, no president would be able to find decent candidates for a stressful job with no promotion opportunities, no objective quality indicators, plenty of public backlash, and a comparatively low salary. And, as we all know, America needs a lot more than nine good teachers every year, doesn’t it? How do we lure tens of thousands of bright and passionate young people into the classroom every year? Free apples just won’t cut it, I am afraid—but some job security should help.”

I could not agree more. Tighten up the qualifications for earning tenure, but give teachers a perk that makes it worth it to stay in a profession which has virtually no economic advantages.

Merit Pay for Teachers, teacher evaluations, Teacher's Unions Boris Korsunsky, Education Week, merit pay, teacher tenure, teacher unions

I know I don’t speak alone when I voice the fact that a certain commercial has been running in my state of Ohio which gets my dander up every time I see it. If you’re a teacher in Ohio, you probably know exactly the ad I am referring to. It features a teacher from Baltimore, Ohio, who is all for Issue 2. Well, recent information has turned up about this educator who obviously has some ulterior motives for appearing in this commercial.

Kyle Farmer, who is featured in this ad, (please follow this link to view it if you haven’t yet) identifies himself as a teacher, which is true; he teaches at the Eastland-Fairfield Career and Technical Center, where he is listed as a social studies instructor. But he is so much more than that, or at least he wants to be.

In the ad, Farmer sings the virtues of this legislation, in spite of the fact that it would strip Ohio’s public employees of almost all of their collective bargaining rights, leaving critical decisions in the hands of school districts. (Just look back at my blog about New Berlin, Wisconsin if you want proof of what it could do to teachers in Ohio.)

So, why does he appear in this ad, risking the anger of many of his fellow teachers? Well, according to several sources, including the Columbus Dispatch, Farmer is the official chairman of the Fairfield County Republican Party, with great aspirations for a future in politics. In fact, on his Twitter page, he refers to himself as a “wannabe political operative.” And, low and behold, he is a member of Kasich’s steering committee of teachers assembled to help him decide how merit pay should be implemented. As you recall, this was one of the provisions of Senate Bill 5, now Issue 2.

Farmer has spoken more than once of his dislike of the Ohio Education Association on his Twitter account, accusing the union of “stealing” money from him, and calling the OEA “thugs.”

He has also posted a picture of himself at the governor’s mansion, and appeared in a political ad on the Internet plugging “Teachers for Kasich.”

And what of his own aspirations? Well, in 2006, he ran unsuccessfully for a seat in the Ohio House of Representatives, and it is rumored, according to the citizen-driven, community-based, bipartisan coalition, We Are Ohio, which came together to repeal SB5, that he is considering another run for office in the future.

This is a man whose motivation is clearly not to express the view of teachers, but to glean favor from a governor who is determined to strip public employees (and that includes those that Farmer would call his colleagues) of any decision-making ability and protection from their union.

By the way, Kyle is not the only Farmer to be politically inspired. His father, Joseph Farmer, is an At-Large member of the State Board of Education whose term expires on Dec. 31, 2014. Would it come as a huge surprise to learn that Joseph was appointed in 2011 by Governor John Kasich?

So, how credible is this ad? Well, it features a teacher who does not disclose his ties to Kasich or his resentment of labor unions and claims to be speaking for his fellow teachers. Not very truthful so far, and then the Columbus Dispatch uncovered one last little deception in the ad which also features footage of a female teacher in a classroom of young children in front of a whiteboard. Guess what? That isn’t a real Ohio teacher at all; it is a stock clip that has also been used in similar anti-union campaigns in Wisconsin.

Shame on you, Kyle Farmer! How dare you pretend to represent the teachers of your state when you are clearly seeking to advance your own agenda! I am sure you made points with the governor, but I bet things are a little uncomfortable for you around your sold-out colleagues.

Merit Pay for Teachers, Teacher's Unions, Teacher-World's Blog collective bargaining, Governor Kasich, Issue 2, Kyle Farmer, Ohio's SB5

In February of this year, I wrote two blogs about the Atlanta Public Schools being investigated for possible cheating on their state standardized tests. They came under suspicion when a significantly high number of erasure marks were noticed and a high number of wrong answers were changed to right answers. Well, hang on to your hats, because here we go again!

Several schools in the District of Columbia Public Schools are under suspicion for the exact same thing. An example of one of these schools is the Crosby S. Noyes Education Campus which made significant improvement in just a two year time period.  How significant? Well, in 2006, only 10% of its students scored proficient or advanced in math on their standardized tests, but two years later, 58% scored at this level, and similar results occurred on their reading tests as well.

The U.S. Department of Education named Noyes a National Blue Ribbon School, one of 264 public schools to receive this award in 2009. The chancellor of D.C. schools at the time, Michelle Rhee, took a special interest in the school, holding it up as an example of how the changes she had championed could turn around even the lowest-performing Washington school. In 2008 and in 2010, she rewarded those who worked there for improving test scores by awarding bonuses: $8,000 to each teacher and $10,000 to the principal.

Now, there are questions being raised about Noyes’s test scores from 2006-2010. The rate of improvement rose at a much faster rate than that of other D.C. schools. Additionally, USA Today has been calling for further investigation after one of their articles reignited suspicion regarding unusual test gains after examining the Noyes Education Campus. At Noyes, “the number of [wrong-to-right] erasures in one class was so high that the odds of winning the Powerball grand prize were better than the erasures occurring by chance,” statisticians told the reporters.

USA Today spoke with a former principal who talked about the intense pressure they were under from the administration to produce results. Aona Jefferson told the newspaper, “What do you do when your chancellor asks, ‘How many points can you guarantee this year?’” She also claimed that D.C. officials would not let them visit the schools or talk to current principals.

In 2009, Caveon Test Security was asked by D.C. officials to look into security concerns at schools which had been flagged by the Office of the State Superintendent of Education after the state tests had been taken. The flagging was prompted because an unusually high number of incorrect answers were clearly erased and changed to correct answers.

The president of this independent firm, John Fremer, said that “in no instance did Caveon conclude that cheating had been revealed.” In fact, he stated that teachers gave some credible reasons why there might have been so many erasures: test-taking strategies which allowed students unlimited time for taking their test and being encouraged to look over their answers which could lead to changing answers, mis-gridding their answers and then correcting them, or using the process of elimination on their answer sheets instead of in their test booklets.

Fremer did admit that his investigation was limited and his company did not do its own data analysis of the tests.  And while Caveon found no specific proof of cheating, it did warn the D.C. Public Schools to do some tightening of security at one elementary school, Stanton Elementary School. 

Former chancellor Rhee originally showed disdain for the USA Today investigation into test tampering. She stated, “It isn’t surprising that the enemies of school reform once again are trying to argue that the Earth is flat and that there is no way test scores could have improved … unless someone cheated.” She went on to say that the allegation of cheating “is an insult to the dedicated teachers and schoolchildren who worked hard to improve their academic achievement levels and that USA Today’s investigation “absolutely lacked credibility.”

Last Tuesday, the new acting D.C. Public Schools Chancellor Kaya Henderson requested the city’s inspector general to look into allegations of potential cheating in eight schools in her district. She is encouraging this investigation because she believes it will prove that there was no cheating and that the improvements that were made were legitimate and a direct result of Rhee’s reforms while she was chancellor. “We know our schools are improving,” Henderson said. “Our children are learning, and I want the public to share our confidence.”

Meanwhile, a seemingly less confident Michelle Rhee said in an interview on Bloomberg Radio this weekend, that she “absolutely” supports the decision to launch an investigation, but opened the door to the possibility of cheating when she said, “If there were isolated instances of this, those should be dealt with properly and we should actually discount those scores in those classrooms.” Rhee told Bloomberg that “the vast majority of teachers in our system … would never think to do anything like that. Can I guarantee that every single person held that same high standard? No, I can’t.”

It sounds a little like back pedaling to me, or worse still, throwing the teachers under the bus. I’m not going to pretend to know what happened in these schools. I am not here to judge. I truly hope that the investigation reveals that there was no cheating and that these gains were directly linked to education reform. Public education doesn’t need any more people proclaiming what an awful job we do.

But I also know the pressure teachers feel to get their students to pass these tests, especially with 2014 fast approaching and NCLB’s deadline for 100% passage of standardized tests. That kind of pressure can make for poor decisions. I can only hope that is not what happened here.

Educational Reform, low-performing schools, Merit Pay for Teachers, state achievement tests, Teacher-World's Blog Crosby S. Noyes Education Campus, D.C. Public Schools, Michelle Rhee, standardized test scores, test tampering

Voting on Senate Bill 5 in Ohio has been delayed as lawmakers look over lengthy changes recommended by Republican state Senator Shannon Jones, the bill’s sponsor. New plans are underway for the committee to meet Wednesday in order to discuss the 98 pages of changes that Jones submitted.

My first thought is: Are you kidding me? After all of the discussions senators have had over this bill, now, when they planned to take a vote, there are 98 pages of amendments to read, discuss, and agree upon? Is this just an attempt to push forward legislature which senators do not have enough time to adequately consider before pushing for a vote? Does it sound a little like our health plan? Is this just more smoke and mirrors?

Here is a sample of the long list of amendments Jones is proposing:

* Allows all current contracts with public employee unions to be re-opened as if under fiscal emergency.
* Allows collective bargaining rights for state employees on wages, hours, and terms and conditions of employment, within limits.
* Bases future pay increases on merit and keeps those merit raises within established pay ranges.
* Caps vacation leave at 7.7 hours per two-week pay period after 19 years of service, as opposed to current 9.2 hours per two-week pay period after 24 years of service.
* Caps annual sick leave for state and local government employees and employees of state colleges and universities at 10 days a year.
* Identifies areas not subject to collective bargaining, such as health care benefits, pension pick-ups, privatization of services, and work force levels such as maximum classroom sizes for teachers.
* Bans striking for all public employees.
* Establishes penalties for strikers that include firing and sanctions of up to twice the employees’ daily pay each day the strike continues; violating a court injunction against a strike could mean up to $1,000 in fines, up to 30 days in jail, or both.
* Gives each public employer’s legislative body the ability to settle unresolved contract disputes after reviewing the employer’s last best offer, the union’s last best offer, and holding a public hearing and public vote.
* Clarifies public employer rights on hiring, firing, discipline, work assignments, employee qualifications and other rules.
* Excludes firefighters in supervisory roles from collective bargaining and establishes new firefighter bargaining guidelines.
* Excludes management-level employees of public universities from collective bargaining.
* Bases teacher layoffs not only on tenure but also on teacher performance as measured by level of license and other qualifications, student performance and performance evaluations or other evaluations set by the school board.

In my early 20’s, I was seriously ill and making repeated visits to doctors’ offices and undergoing numerous tests in an effort to find out what was wrong with me. This agonizing process went on for almost three years, and after awhile, with no definitive diagnosis in sight, the stress became overwhelming, which, in turn, made me sicker. When I finally was diagnosed, even though I was not happy with the diagnosis, I was able to accept my situation and learn to deal with it. The torture was in the not-knowing; knowing brought acceptance and the ability to learn to cope with the difficulties I knew I would face in the future.

This waiting, worrying, and stressing over what is going to happen to my job due to Senate Bill 5 is a little like what I went through in my early 20’s. No matter how much I call in or write to my senators, I can’t control what is looming in my future, anymore than I could control my illness, and I just want to know what it all means for my school system, those I work with, my pension and health plans, my salary, my ability to pay my bills, and my ability to retire someday.

I don’t think I am alone when I say: I want the details. I want to know what I face and then, torturous as it may be, I will find a way to accept it and make the best of it.  Don’t get me wrong. I am not advocating that this bill get passed, amendments and all, without careful consideration by our state’s senators, but quit throwing more into it and let’s end this stressful, torturous stand-off.

All in favor say Aye!

Merit Pay for Teachers, Teacher's Unions, Teacher-World's Blog amendments, collective bargaining, Senate Bill 5, Senator Shannon Jones

Over the next few blogs, I ask for your indulgence as I write about some very interesting articles which appeared in the latest neatoday magazine (August/September 2010). This first blog pertains to an article that appeared regarding merit pay.

This short article was entitled “Merit Pay Myths”, and it focused on whether merit pay has been proven to increase student test scores or student achievement. The prevailing belief by supporters of merit pay is that the promise of bonuses or increased salaries will inspire teachers to work more diligently to get their students to perform at the levels that are necessary to show academic excellence, particularly as evidenced by higher test scores. One of the assumptions that those who advocate the need for merit pay make, in my opinion erroneously, is that teachers are inspired by the higher pay check, and will not work as diligently without holding out that carrot. Let’s get real for a moment! If teachers were inspired by a higher pay check, they would never have entered the teaching profession, which is notorious for being an underpaid vocation. Am I right?

Another issue I have always had with merit pay is that at a time when school systems everywhere are being asked to engage in collaboration and mentoring to improve student performance, which involves utilizing and sharing each other’s effective techniques, I believe merit pay could lead to a completely different outcome. I fear the tendency for some teachers who are highly effective in their teaching strategies and therefore receiving merit pay, might be to guard their strategies so as to guarantee continued monetary rewards, thus leading to competition rather than collaboration. I have argued against merit pay for these and other reasons.

So, what did the latest study completed by Mathematica Policy Research find? According to this article, these researchers looked at Chicago’s Teacher Advancement Project, which has been operating for three years now getting its money from the federal Teacher Incentive Fund, and they found that merit pay “had no impact on test scores or teacher retention rates”. Over three years and no improvement? Does that seem like good news for merit pay advocates? The article concludes by saying, “In its defense, federal officials said they ‘can’t expect immediate results’.” Okay, but shouldn’t there be some improvement after three years? It just leaves me wondering: how many years does it take before merit pay pays off?

Educational Reform, Merit Pay for Teachers, Teacher's Unions, Teacher-World's Blog merit pay, NEA, teachers

Ohio’s application for the phase 1 portion of Race to the Top was soundly rejected and may be again in phase 2 unless the writers are able to make some major changes to the application. Ohio teachers are probably wondering why it was rejected, and what kind of changes need to be made. Well, let me tell you what I have been able to learn.

First of all, each portion of the application received points, which when totaled, determined which states would be the recipients of RttT resources. According to my research, the area in which Ohio scored lowest (second to the lowest of the 16 finalist states) was in the area called “Great Teachers and Leaders”. Apparently, Ohio’s application was too wimpy due to “the state’s inability to ensure equitable distribution of teachers in hard-to-staff subjects, specialty areas, or in high-poverty or high-minority schools”, according to The Ohio Education Gadfly. Reviewers felt that the process it would take to remove ineffective educators was not clearly provided. There was also criticism due to the fact that only half of the local schools who participated in the phase 1 application process agreed to link teacher evaluations to their compensation and promotion. Some of the other areas of concern were its failure to adequately detail how it would close achievement gaps between poor students and wealthier students, and how it would turnaround the lowest-performing schools.

Now what does this mean for Phase 2? Well, first of all, if Ohio has any hope of being considered, it will need to develop stronger guidelines regarding merit pay, tenure, and dismissal of teachers. And you can rest assured that all of these will be linked to a large degree on achievement test scores. One source I read stated that RttT approved heartily of states like Florida, where the legislature approved teacher salaries being tied directly to test scores, and teachers would be offered one year salaries only. (Although, as I have previously blogged, this was later overturned by Florida’s governor.) Clearly, this is indicative of what the judges are looking for.

Secondly, Ohio will have to state more clearly how teachers would be evenly redistributed so as to level the playing field between low income and higher income school districts in order to turnaround lowest-performing schools. In other words, they are looking for stronger language regarding how highly effective teachers could be moved.

Additionally, Ohio’s application lacked teeth when it came to teachers unions. From what I have been able to glean, RttT reviewers are looking for a firm commitment by unions to be willing to make pretty radical changes to teacher salary, licensure, evaluation, tenure, and termination.

These are some of the salient reasons why Ohio’s application was rejected. I will continue to keep you informed and, of course, give my opinions about upcoming information as it becomes available. In the meantime, I hope you take the time to comment about what you have heard or read, and how you feel about Race to the Top, no matter which state you are from.

Changes in Teaching, Educational Reform, Merit Pay for Teachers, state achievement tests, Teacher's Unions, Teacher-World's Blog low income schools, merit pay, Phase One, Race to the Top, teacher licensure, teacher tenure, Teacher's Unions, turnaround schools

I promised more information on the Phase 1, Race to the Top application, so here goes…

One of my concerns with the original application has always been the mention of moving effective teachers and principals to low income, turn-around schools. The application spoke of evenly distributing teachers and principals. I am not sure how this is going to work. Is the plan to make this mandatory, or would teachers have a chance to decide if they want to move or not? If teachers were offered incentive pay or merit pay to move, and they made the decision to do so, that is fine with me. Where I would balk, is if teachers and principals had no choice! If these moves are mandatory, I have a problem, and I don’t think I would be alone!

I am well aware that there are schools out there that need help. But I also am quite sure that there are many awesome teachers in those schools who battle environmental and social issues that most of us have never experienced, thank goodness! So my first problem is assuming that low test scores in these schools is the fault of the teachers who teach there. I challenge anyone to produce good test scores in an environment where test scores mean virtually nothing. I do not believe moving teachers is going to solve the problems inherent in these schools.

If highly effective teachers and principals are to be mandatorily moved to low income schools without their agreement or desire, I do not feel that this is fair. In fact, I would not be surprised if you saw less effective teachers if they felt the “reward” for their hard work might be an involuntary move to an inner city school. I, for one, would seriously think about standing out too much, and might become a marginal teacher; adequate enough to stay employed but not stellar enough to be forced to relocate.

And how would this affect suburban schools? If effective teachers are redistributed to problem schools, won’t we see a decline in effectiveness in suburban schools? Must they pay the price for the problems that are epidemic in at-risk schools? How fair is that?

As we speak, Ohio is revamping and rewriting their application for Phase 2 of Race to the Top. Does the prospect of redistributing highly effective teachers and principals concern you as it does me? We need to let our voices be heard now while we still have a chance. Comment, blog, send letters, talk to your fellow teachers. The teachers in Florida are proof that when we speak up together, people do listen. So speak up! Whether you are for or against, speak up!

Changes in Teaching, Educational Reform, Merit Pay for Teachers, Teacher-World's Blog merit pay, Race to the Top, redistributing teachers and principals, turn-around schools

Well, it finally happened! What I have feared since the first moment I heard the words “merit pay for teachers”: the linking of merit pay to student test scores. Now that the cat is out of the bag, don’t think we have heard the last of it. Let’s look at what happened in Florida over the past two weeks.

First, the bitter: the Florida legislature voted for merit pay for their teachers. Now that may not seem so bitter until you listen to what they approved, which was that half of a teacher’s salary in Florida (according to news coverage) would be based on their students’ test scores. And if this wasn’t bad enough, teachers would only be offered one-year contracts. This would obviously allow teachers to be non-renewed if their students do not perform as expected. And forget about tenure which teachers earned by putting in years of faithful service to their profession and taking classes. Wow! I could go on for hours and bore you to death as I repeat all of the reasons why this is just crazy, but I won’t because, if you know anything about teaching, you understand a teacher’s inability to control all of the outside factors that can interfere with good test scores.

Now, the sweet: Governor Charlie Crist, Florida’s republican governor, turned his back on political prudence, and voted down the legislation after spending significant time listening to teachers express their outrage and their legitimate concerns over the ramifications of such a proposal for both teachers and students. Apparently, one of the deciding factors for him was a conversation he had with a friend from St. Petersburg who called him to ask how such a bill would impact his special needs child and his child’s teacher. And that is a huge consideration, because if this had become a law, who would want to risk their salary and possibly their career by taking on a co-teaching classroom or work with the special education population? And that is only one of the many huge reasons why merit pay linked solely to test scores is dead wrong! So, thank you Governor Crist, for bringing sanity to this highly charged issue.

Finally, the bitter again: Don’t think this is over! Now that this ugly topic has been breached, don’t think we won’t hear it again. Even though we have heard the countless assurances that merit pay would be based on a myriad of factors, politicians will continue to advocate and push for linking merit pay solely to test scores, and eventually, it will pass somewhere. When that day comes, we should all hang our heads in sorrow that what was once considered an honorable profession has been corrupted by politicians who have little to no understanding of the real issues teachers face in classrooms today, and who think they can impose business-like regulations on a profession that should never operate like a business.

Hats off to the teachers in Florida who forcefully raised their voices for teachers everywhere! We all need to take a lesson from them and start speaking up now before it is too late!

Changes in Teaching, Merit Pay for Teachers, special education, state achievement tests, Teacher-World's Blog Florida, Governor Crist, Merit Pay for Teachers, test scores