Governor Andrew Cuomo of New York put himself squarely in the camp of corporate reform with a proposal for merit pay based on value-added metrics.
He proposes to pay a bonus of $20,000 to teachers who are rated “highly effective” on the state’s controversial and unproven value-added evaluation program.
The fact that merit pay failed in New York City, where schools were offered a bonus for raising test scores, is of no consequence to Governor Cuomo. But, to be fair, maybe he doesn’t know that.
The fact that merit pay failed in Nashville, where teachers were offered individual bonuses of $15,000 to raise test scores is of no consequence to Governor Cuomo. But, to be fair, maybe he doesn’t know that.
The fact that merit pay has been tried for a century and has never worked anywhere is of no consequence to Governor Cuomo. But to be fair, maybe he doesn’t know that (I suggest that he read Reign of Error, chapter 12).
The good news is that Mayor Bill de Blasio disagreed with Governor Cuomo, even though he needs the Governor’s support to pass his millionaire’s tax to fund his pre-K program.
De Blasio said that he favored paying extra to teachers in work in struggling schools and to teachers in math and science, but that he doesn’t believe in merit pay.
The Murdoch-owned New York Post says that de Blasio is echoing the teachers’ union line, but in fact he is reflecting what research has proven again and again: Paying teachers to produce higher test scores does not work. And even if it did produce higher test scores, it would fail because it would mean that the scores were produced by test prep, rote learning, and incentives, while sacrificing the qualities that constitute a sound education.
Bottom line: Merit pay doesn’t work. If only there were some relationship between research and experience on one hand, and what policymakers believe on the other.
Diane Ravitch's blog 
After the nightmare of Bloomberg and Obama, it’s disorienting to observe Bill De Blasio: what are we to make of a politician who hasn’t immediately attacked or betrayed us?
I am cautious about De Blasio also, Michael.
So far, no bad news is no bad news . . . but that does not equate to a presence of good news . . . .
Let’s wait, watch, see, and keep on top of our elected officials.
New York teachers, PLEASE sign this petition rejecting Cuomo’s divide and conquer proposal of merit pay. We need to foster collaboration, not competition between teachers. This proposal demeans and demoralizes us.
https://www.change.org/petitions/new-york-state-legislature-reject-governor-cuomo-s-proposal-of-merit-pay-for-public-school-teachers
I’m curious whether any research has been done on the impact of merit pay on attracting new teachers. I believe that most of the studies done so far focus on measuring the impact on test scores over a relatively short period of time, but haven’t addressed the larger question.
Can anyone point me to research on this direct point: Does merit pay attract a “different personality”- someone with a different approach? My colleagues in education often say that they don’t want to mirror corporate America in how their classroom is run, and to a large extent I agree with that. One of the most important principles of public education is that we serve all students, and we can’t just “cut” the bottom 10% during a “layoff”. However, if we look at all students, some may respond better to a different personality type than is typically drawn to education. Folks like myself work in the private sector because we like the notion that if we do our job better than someone else, we’d be compensated differently. I enjoy the work in and of itself, but I also like the notion that if I am better than the person next to me, i’ll be paid more.
So the question is, are people like me less likely to enter public education as a career based on compensation? And would people like me make a meaningful difference in classroom for some students?
The one point I disagree with above is the suggestion that the only reason test scores increase is because someone teaches to the test or encourages rote memorization. Ms. Ravitch recently posted a wonderful challenge to TFA, in which the author challenged the TFA to embrace the “merit-based” system they said they support. I say that the same is true for all educators. We test students every day to see if they’ve learned their spelling homework, or if they’ve improved their writing. If we believe that it is OK for teachers to ask students to take tests to see if they understand the material, why is it that we think we can’t likewise test the teacher’s ability to teach? If we are to have an honest dialogue about improving education, we have to acknowledge that we would like to evaluate in some way the effectiveness of the work we do.
I would appreciate if anyone can point me to research about the impact of merit pay in recruiting. I would assume those studies would need to be from outside the US, because the impacts would be over a longer period of time.
I don’t know of any study or research showing that merit pay attracts recruits to teaching. Anyone who wants to teach in hopes of getting rich is demented.
I completely agree, under the current system. I’m asking that question though- would we attract different folks into the profession if there was at least an opportunity to be financially compensated for being among the best in your peer group? I’m not trying to compare an inner-city school with a suburban school. I’m asking if, within the same school or within the same district, if in those circumstances we could find a way to recognize and financially reward the best teachers, would it change the types of people who are attracted to the profession.
As a simple comparison, trim carpenters (who install cabinets, baseboard, and crown molding) make more than framing carpenters. Folks who aren’t carpenters might think that silly, but trim carpenters will tell you that the job requires greater attention to detail, and the skill is harder to find. The increased compensation is desirable to deal with the homeowner who expects that their cabinets line up correctly.
I’m just wondering if someone might study the problem and see if we could attract an additional group of folks to the profession under those circumstances.
Doug Smith, the most fervent opposition to merit pay comes from teachers, not teachers’ unions. They don’t want to compete with one another for bonuses. Historically, the bonuses reflected the principals’ favoritism. Currently, the bonuses reflect test scores. Teachers don’t like either way of judging their quality as teachers. Test scores do not show who is the best teacher. They show who taught the easiest or the most challenging classes.
Your carpenter example seems off. I see a trim carpenter as a specialist, with additional training and skills. A frame carpenter is like a basic frontline builder.
That would be like a “regular” classroom teacher and a “special ed” teacher. A special ed teacher would require additional training and skill. But you wouldn’t necessarily want special ed teachers filling all your classrooms.
Why not find a way to raise the salary of your teachers relative to surrounding districts? That might attract more and better applicants to choose from. Or alternatively, possibly stabilize your finances to survive economic downturns and provide better job security for everyone?
wdf1,
Why don’t we get far more of our public schools paid for by opur federal tax dollars? Why do we spend so much on war campaigns instead of financially stabilizing our schools?
We do NOT have to be a world leader; it costs far too much.
Rendo, I agree with you. But my reference to creating a more “stable” budget long term was in reference to the fact that California school districts (maybe other states?) have some discretion as to how much of the budget to bank away in reserve funds. Some districts accumulated a larger reserve fund and survived some of the more devastating cuts (layoffs) that hit other districts. Of course that strategy means making some present day sacrifices that may or may not be worthwhile.
Except I do have reservations about federal funding. That will inevitably come with inane strings attached, like NCLB. And those policies, being yet again one level further removed from the classroom, will likely have the least relevance to ground level education. State level funding would be safer, IMO, than federal.
Robert, the United States actually is the world leader in education, or at least, that’s how it was before the reforms. It’s just how you look at the data. Unfortunately, in our ignorance, we are trying to adopt failed policies of other countries, but our adaptions don’t include the good things about their programs. And the “we” is the ed reformers and the government officials they have brainwashed.
wdf1,
You are concerned about federal funding and the strings, but why not change to a paradigm that says that it’s OUR money tnat WE pay to the federal government, which is made up of officials who WE vote in and whose salary, benefits, and pensions WE pay for.
Therefore, with federal funds fueled by OUR tax dollar, why should there be ANY or SO MANY strings attached?
It’s unacceptable that corporate America pays far less in taxes than most of us do, yet is dominating the crap out of educational policy . . . . . .
Just because the status quo has become institutionalized or normalized does NOT mean that it is fair or just . . . . .
This is an interesting question. I have two kids in public schools in New York State, so it is also a question of vital importance to me. I live in a “focus” district (what used to be called “failing schools,” I think), so our tests are scrutinized much more closely than those of high performing districts. I would definitely not tie merit pay to test scores, especially across an entire state where you have very different demographics district to district. I have seen the stress that this has put on all our teachers, including the excellent ones. Many are leaving as soon as they can. I also see it resulting in the tossing around and even greater neglect of our neediest students. For instance, no teacher in our high school wanted to take the classes that were made up of English Language Learners because they knew they would be graded on the Regents pass rate, which would probably be low. Teachers are graded on three years worth of scores, so a teacher that only had three years left before retirement took the class. In this case, both teacher and students are very happy with the outcome, but obviously that might not always be the case.
But I do think there should be merit pay of some sort. From what I hear, teachers in my urban district actually work much harder than those in wealthier districts. Even within my district, there are teachers that are consistently there until 6:00 pm, calling homes on weekends, attending student games and plays, etc. And then there are those who do an adequate job – nothing they should be fired for – but don’t do this above and beyond work. Yet the main thing that determines pay is length of service. In my district, a teacher with years of experience makes about 2.5 times the pay of a new teacher. There should definitely be some bonus just for sheer experience, but this type of difference in pay for essentially the same job, especially when the lower paid teacher is one of the ones giving the job their all, can also be demoralizing.
My problem is that I have never been able to figure out a good way to determine merit pay because, even if the field ends up attracting a different sort of person once merit pay is introduced, the K12 environment is much different, with different goals (at least I hope so) than corporate America.
In simple economic modelling, you would think that money would be enough to do the trick.
But the shortcomings of economic theory is that it seems to work best with money and quantifiable tangible goods. But it does not account for personal meaning or professional satisfaction that a person feels, or a feeling of community. We are not only individuals who might compete with each other sometimes, but we are people who want connection, meaning, and community. Stuff you can’t model very well with economics.
Susan, teachers are people with families and other commitments outside the school in which they work. When I began my career in middle school, I was young, single and had few responsibilities. I could run an after school basketball program, tutor kids, or sew costumes for the school play.
When I married and had my first child, there was less time for those activities after school (for one thing, child care charged by the hour and for every minute late, there was a $10 fee). Middle school was also draining while getting little sleep, so I transfered to high school. When my second child turned out to be twins, my husband (also a teacher) and I had to consider how to restructure our schedules so we could work without going broke paying for child care. I worked an early schedule, he worked a late one, and we carpooled with neighbors so everyone could get where they needed to on time. Forget about taking on extra-curriculas! Once my own kids were older, I was once again able to go to my students’ games, tutor after school, mentor student teachers and take on clubs.
I certainly was a better teacher in the classroom later in my career than when I began – experience matters. People should be paid for their experience.
Maybe those doing an “adequate job” are at that point in their personal lives where something has to give – children, an ill parent, a medical issue. Just the actual teaching is all consuming – you’re on stage all day. Then there’s always work to take home and there are required courses and after school PD and parent evenings. This isn’t an issue only for teachers, of course, but there seems to be little support in our society for the notion that work shouldn’t be all that matters.
Christine – you are so right. When people cry “what about the children?”, they never think to ask, “what about your children? And why are teachers just expected to give up their free time to support their students. It’s a wonderful gesture, but not a part of the job. Once again, the teacher is expected to be Mother Teresa, and not a mother or father with their own family to support. Teachers don’t take a vow of poverty when they sign up to work in education, but that’s what the politicians and the general public seem to expect.
Student test scores do not measure a teachers ability to teach. There are too many variables that are out of the teachers control. e.g., If student (a) is safe and warm at home in an environment that encourages project completion and studying, odds are this student will test well or most likely test better than student (b) whose mother is in the hospital from an overdose, the father is “sneaking” drugs into the hospital to the mother and student (b) is left at home taking care of his/her two siblings. How does teacher evaluation based on data from these two students verify a teachers skills. Now, in the world of manufacturing this is more objective. Worker (a) builds 10 computers and none if them boot up. Worker (b) builds 10 computers from the same stock as worker (a) and 10 of them work. Clearly there is a discrepancy between the workers skillsets. The teacher in the first scenario has no control of the child’s home life making any VAM evaluation process that is based on student scores invalid. In the second scenario, the manager can determine the computers are not the problem since worker (b) has successfully built 10. So there is a clear and objective connection between worker (a)’s skillset and the computers that did not work. Since the stock pile is validated by worker (b), the computers have no affect on the final product (the assembled computer). Thus the problem lies with worker (a). However, students, as opposed to computers, have a huge impact on the final product, test scores. Students may have migraines, computers don’t. Students may be distracted for any number of reasons. Computers don’t. So all the money in the world cannot correct an invalid evaluation tool that does not measure teacher skills but only measures a snapshot of a students recall on a given date. My suggestion is to evaluate teachers using a portfolio system. More on that subject later.
Hi Jeff- Thanks for your comment.
Although the case you cite is valid, there are many other examples in private industry that are closer to teaching as a comparison. I run a professional services team in a software company. My folks deal with all of our clients. Some clients are well organized and come to every meeting and have very skilled developers on staff. Other clients are disorganized, don’t track to the schedule, and have inexperienced programmers. I have to evaluate my team, though, and decide who is most effective. I’ve figured out how to do that and take into account the challenges of the individual clients. Many of my colleagues in a variety of industries address the same challenge in measuring the effectiveness of employees.
In addition to rewarding our best teachers, there’s also the question of the public’s perception. Would the public be more willing to support schools if they felt that there was a difference in comp for the very best teacher their child had? I believe that in my community that answer would be yes.
To be clear, we have a superb relationship with our staff. They have been highly collaborative with us, and have adopted many important changes to their contracts. I am very pleased with our relationship with staff. I’m pointing out, though, that the sentiment of the tax payers includes those who want to see some sort of reward for the very best teachers.
“. . . the sentiment of the tax payers includes those who want to see some sort of reward for the very best teachers.”
That’s called projection, Doug. Look it up. Your views aren’t everyone else’s.
And I’ve not heard many teachers express that opinion.
And I’ll add another thought to the list – how about the support people, the music and art teachers, the gym teachers, the librarians, the computer teachers, the resource teachers, the guidance counselers, etc? How to include them in the mix? Do you like the idea that the total school scores are an indicator of their effectiveness? We are talking about more than the classroom teacher when we talk about rewarding educators. Or, don’t they count?
Ellen,
Was that reply to me or to Doug?
Duane
I think you know what I’d say, mainly I agree with your questions except that “total school scores” are as bogus as individual student test scores and VAM prognostications.
Doug Smith:
“My folks deal with all of our clients. Some clients are well organized and come to every meeting and have very skilled developers on staff. Other clients are disorganized, don’t track to the schedule, and have inexperienced programmers.”
I think this example is also notably imperfect in comparing to public school in the U.S. Your clients self-select if they want to come see you or not. Children within your district’s attendance boundaries are not deciding whether or not they want grade school education.
In your business you are dealing, at face value, with fully mature adults and providing them with a service that they request. In the public schools, you’re helping those kids mature so that they might be your future customers.
@wdf1: While I understand the point you’re making, there are many nuances in my world also. It is not uncommon to have executives select my company’s product, then hand it off for implementation to their technical staff. I can’t even count how many times that technical staff has been the exact same folks who wrote the system we are replacing. Sometimes they’re excited about the change, and sometimes they aren’t.
I do understand what you’re saying though. Education isn’t simple and clean cut. The idea I was advancing was that the voting population- the same folks who decide how much funding will be available for schools- many of those people would support increased funding if they felt it could be tied to measurable outcomes. Many high-net-worth individuals are pushing this agenda because this is what works in their world. Organizations like Netflix are laser focused on measuring the outcomes of changes to their price plans, their web sites, etc. They also evaluate folks and pay their top performers more than they pay other employees. It has been successful in their world, and they’re using their energies to try to apply that to education. One reaction to that can be to fight it completely and absolutely: No way! Every teacher should get paid exactly the same. But of we want to win support from these folks and help them focus in places where it would be more useful, we might think about how to meet them partway.
Our District has been using technology in the classroom for well over a decade. We had some of the first “Apple Certified Educators”. We are partners with the likes of Google and we are also the original district to work with Sal Khan to develop and refine Khan Academy. Some of our teachers invested an incredible amount of energy in learning how they might use tech, and developing new ways of teaching to leverage these tools. As those tools were picked up by other teachers, those early adopters were then asked to help teach their peers. In private industry, we would have given that teach a $10K bonus to say thank you for their work. We can’t do that in public education, despite having people who are willing to write the checks and *add* to the available funding to continue to drive this type of change. That’s a real shame. I and other members of the Board and administration have repeatedly thanked these teachers, but it sure would be nice to also recognize their work financially.
We also have a negotiated evaluation process and comp model that is well ahead of what the State of CA requires. As a simple example, our teachers don’t move step/column without a satisfactory evaluation. We’re quite proud that our teachers were active partners in developing that process, and there is broad agreement that the process is a good one. Yet, we still can’t give any additional money to the teachers that are consistently at the top of the heap. That strikes me, and many many other folks who work in private industry as very strange. It’s OK to say that Education is different, and that it shouldn’t be part o the same model, but I wish folks would realize that taking that stance has consequences- it erodes public support for improved funding. I also think it causes people to be less receptive to feedback from the educators- the very folks they should consult.
Did you not pay those individuals who went to in services to learn about the new technology? Did you just expect them to develop the curriculum on their own time? Shame on you! Those teachers should have been compensated financially per hour for that extra work, plus been paid to in service other teachers. It sounds like your staff is being abused. There should be a set dollar amount per hour for additional work outside the school day. They shouldn’t need bonuses as pay back for extra hours – that money should have been paid up front or you should have a system in place to permanently increase their pay after so many hours of extra work. And if they are considered “lead” teachers, there should be a pay bump for that, too. Your teachers have either a lousy contract or an abusive school board or both.
Duane – my thoughts on support staff was just a general comment for Doug and Jeff to consider. Your answer, of course, was the conclusion I hoped they would figure out. However, they just don’t get it.
Doug,
“. . . but I also like the notion that if I am better than the person next to me, i’ll be paid more.”
Having worked in the business sector til I was 39, I believe I have a bit of insight into the two very different realms. Those who are motivated by money can do well in the business sector. But public education isn’t anything at all like the business sector which has it’s own raison d’etre that is quite different than public education.
Money as a motivating factor to teach is probably one of the worse concepts because it puts the “egotistical, self serving” teacher, whose goals are to make as much money as possible in the position to trump the needs of his students because his pecuniary personal concerns override the students’ interests. To helll with those that are at the bottom or top, I’m only going to focus on those whose “metrics” will determine that I can get more money.
Yeah, great concept.
@Duane- As an elected trustee, I spend a tremendous amount of time talking to taxpayers. I can assure you that I’m relaying what I hear from them.
I’m not trying to proscribe the formula by which this is all determined. I believe that test data should make up a portion of the process, but certainly not all of it. But to suggest that we can’t reward our top performing teachers is, by extension, questioning the ability of *anyone* to assess whether a teacher is effective. That mindset saps support from the public.
No one is trying to suggest that a culture driven by the cash compensation would be what we want for our kids. However, as we struggle to find enough qualified math and science teachers, we have to think about why that is the case. In part, we have to recognize that people with those talents also have the option to work in private industry where salaries are higher if they are very good at what they do. I believe we are better served by trying to identify the best way to address this challenge by examining what forces are at play, and how we might best address them. I have said that I think a bonus for the top performing teachers is one way to do so (while leaving wide open how to assess who is “top performing”.) In my community, with the voters I represent, I believe that would increase support for funding for public education. That’s all it is- no more or less complex than that.
Doug,
See Diane’s post today “Teachers in Lee, MA Return Merit Pay” for what I believe to be most teachers thoughts, attitudes and actions regarding “bonuses” for doing their job.
And my reaction:
Diane likes to talk of “heroes” of education. I balk at the term because I think it takes away from what I consider “real” heroes who literally risk their own life to help others (not just their livelihood). In this case I believe that a new “award” be part of this blog: The Lionheart Award and the first winners of it are those teachers of Lee, MA who “gave back” the money so that it may be better used for the students.
I love it- really. It’s a win:win. The school got a lot more money to fund programs they wanted to fund. The foundation was willing to put that money in. And the teachers did what they wanted to do with the money. Frankly, I don’t care if a teacher decides to spend the money on a trip to Aruba or on supplies for their classroom. The result is exactly what I described- that an outside entity was willing to spend more money on education because this was part of the discussion. It’s a big win for the kids.
Still don’t get it, eh!?
No, I get it- we just prioritize differently. To me, it’s a higher priority to increase funding. You believe it’s a higher priority to compensate everyone the same. Just different views of how things could work. It makes for an interesting discussion, at least
I have no problem with increasing funding and never said anything that could be misconstrued to suggest I did. I didn’t say anything about compensating everyone the same. And those are two differing aspects of employee compensation and should not be confused and conflated as you have done with your response. These are interesting discussions when each side understands what the other is saying.
So, I say, “you still don’t get it” in that, from my experience in both the business and educational realms, the vast majority of teachers are not motivated by competitive higher compensation schemes which is what you are arguing for and that there has never been any system of teacher effectiveness evaluation that has ever come close to being just and fair. Like Diane said, read her chapter on merit pay.
Realize those “facts on the ground” in your attempt to increase funding (for which I applaud you-just change the focus by listening to what the teachers have to say).
Doug – the way teachers are currently being treated, you are eventually going to have to offer signing bonuses to get any teacher to teach in your district, and perhaps additional bonuses to get them to stay. Do you really want to treat education like a business where teachers get to negotiate their individual salaries? That worked well for my daughter who now gets double that of many teachers after she was stolen by one company and then “bought” back again for a significant pay raise. And everyone in the company gets bonuses, some just get more than others. Yes, bring it on. Do pay those teachers a competitive salary for their education and experience, because right now, by business standards, they are both underpaid and undervalued.
In my opinion it’s wishful thinking for taxpayers to reason that they’d be willing to pony up more taxes if they could be assured of certain results ‘like in the business world’– if any taxpayers actually do that;) Sounds more like something ‘outside entities’ are already doing, in exchange for dictating methods that will assure them said outcomes [profits].
All the talk about education being different than producing widgets, and teachers teaching for different reasons than businesspeople market products is off the mark in my opinion. Am I just dense? Public education is not a business. Public education is labor-intensive, has no sale price, and will never make a profit. It is a public good; the public will tax itself in proportion to their understanding of the value of that general good, not according to some set of purported business stats.
The rest is just political-speak to disguise the steady lowering our standard of living– i.e., the public goods for which we can afford to tax ourselves– to match our failing economy.
And Doug, there should be avenues for those excellent teachers to earn more money. Reward them financially for attending in services, teaching their colleagues, taking leadership roles. There are all sorts of ways to compensate without resorting to a bonus system which will set one teacher against another. Do you really want to build resentment between staff members? That won’t lead to a positive environment in a school building – especially now, when morale is at an all time low. Instead, use the bonus money to increase school salaries. At least compensate the teachers for all the grief they have suffered with these new policies jammed down their throats.
So glad I’m retired but so sad that the UFT doesn’t take a strong stand to defend its members.
Can I ask why math and science is ALWAYS more important than history, literature, music and art? Frankly, I got a heck of a lot more out of those humanities type courses in high school and college than I ever did in those others. Don’t get me wrong, I don’t dislike or ignore the importance of either math or science. In fact, I love math, and it was the most fun for me to teach. However, the person I am today, had nothing to do with math or science. It was the reading of literature, the study of history, and the beauty of art and music that meant more to me, to my husband, and to my children. But these subjects are constantly shoved aside for STEM. Why give $ incentives to ONLY math and science teachers? Do they work harder? I just don’t get it.
One would assume that the answer to your question would be the ability to find Math and Science Teachers. A financial incentive may encourage students to pursue a degree in Math or Science.
“Can I ask why math and science is ALWAYS more important than history, literature, music and art?”
Not a full answer, but in part because we currently live in a culture that values more highly what is quantifiable and objective, as opposed to what is more qualitative and subjective.
Perhaps it is a symptom of our diverse citizenry and our democracy. By addressing issues on an objective and quantitative level, then you can avoid having to address nuances of background, culture, ethnicity, religion, etc.
One thing that can feel empty about education and society today is that lack of appreciation for subjective/qualitative perspectives.
Would that people who support and believe implicitly in the news organizations owned by Rupert Murdoch really understood who he is and what he stands for. What a difference it might make in their belief system.
Here’s an interesting angle on the merit pay issue.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/kensundheim/2013/11/26/what-really-motivates-employees/
This article from Forbes Magazine is entitled, “What Really Motivates Employees”. Of course this article is targeted for business manager types, the ones who often seem inspired by certain “education reform” initiatives, like merit pay, or incentive pay. But plenty of these suggestions seem to work against a number of popular reformist strategies, like VAM and merit pay. What I wonder is why these sensible business management strategies don’t necessarily apply to education. Here are some excerpts:
“2. Employees who are attempted to be motivated by the fear of losing their job will have less energy and drive to complete daily tasks. This will have the opposite of the desired effect.
“3. Rather than money, studies have shown that how creative an employee feels when working on a project is the strongest and most pervasive driver. Rewards that are strictly monetary will stifle the creativity of a project and an employee’s unique approach. Pure monetary gain takes the “interesting factor” out of a job.
“5. Imposing too many laws, rules and formal processes will often impede the ability to motivate staff. The more set a process is, the less likely it is going to get done correctly.
“6. Low compensation can not only hinder motivation and performance, but can actually create vengeful employees. When human beings feel they are being inadequately paid, they will tend to shift the majority of their focus on the unfairness of the situation.
Although money is nice, I would have appreciated a pat on the back and some comments such as “good job”. Also, being able to leave a little early or arrive a little late (without begging or taking half a day) to take care of doctors appointments or meet with my child’s teacher would have been appreciated.
Do you think Cuomo’s $20,000 bonus has anything to do with Christie’s $15,000 bonus merit pay for teachers? Are they playing one up man ship?
I say – use the money to improve the life of children in poverty. Not reward teachers for scores which have little to do with talent. Or fatten the pay of inner city teachers who do much with little for lower pay.
This is typical political posturing by Andy. He knows full well that this idea has NO CHANCE of becoming policy. After effectively firing 20,000 teachers statewide and eviscerating the budgets of the neediest districts, now he wants to pretend to be an advocate of the profession. Cuomo is a vile, repugnant, and self-serving political hack with ZERO chance to win the presidency..
Merit pay based on a completely unreliable and invalid measuring instrument (APPR) would prove to be an utter disaster for our profession. We all know it which is why we will all reject it. This is one can of worms that no one should open.
While a little late to the party if not irrelevant, NYSUT is calling for a vote of no confidence in NYSED commissioner King, one of Cuomo’s minions. Apparently, Cuomo’s arrogance (or ignorance) has left him tone deaf to the growing protest in NY.
We should call for a vote of no confidence in Iannuzzi. When he signed on to APPR he lost all credibility as a union leader.
Cuomo’s finger is still in the wind on CC. If the opt-out movement is large enough his political cage just may finally be rattled enough for a change of heart.
I am not supporting Ianuzzi, but I believe he went along in the hopes he could somehow have some control over the inevitable. This obviously backfired and there has been a lot of pressure from local unions, such as the BTF, to fight back. I just hope it is not too late.
I supported Cuomo in the last election. I won’t do that again. He continually disappoints me in regard to education. He is just as bad as Arne Duncan.
And what Cuomo and others are NOT saying is that there will be an incentive for LEAs to cut everyone’s salary by $20,000, and if teachers want to restore their compensation to its previous level, they will have to “compete” and get their students to perform well on standardized tests.
This can all be characterized by a simple algorithm:
Junk science = junk learning = junk career = junk education = garbage society
Let’s offer Mr. Frog Face Cuomo a bonus if he performs well as governor . . . .
He’s worth AT LEAST 27 and half cents in my book . . . . . . .
Reblogged this on Transparent Christina.
I really like my daugher’s teachers. However, there is something very creepy about them getting money based upon my child’s sucess on a standardized test that they did not write, they did not vet, they did not approve, and they will never see (forget about the fact that I will never see it). It’s perverse, at best. If anyone should be getting the money, it is my child, in the form of scholarship money for college.
Deb – interesting concept. Take the money set aside for teacher bonuses and give it to the students instead. If the students got some in cash and some in scholarships, they might take the tests seriously. Their parents might even encourage their offspring to pay attention in school. Of course, that doesn’t address the issue of bogus test questions lacking right or wrong answers.
I was saying this more tongue in cheek. The whole notion is creepy and unhealthy and fosters stress amongst teachers and kids. Treats our children as commodities rather than little human beings. Either way, the scheme is sure to lead to more incentive to cheat — both on the part of desperate teachers and the kids.
I wasn’t being serious either. Just an interesting idea. All this pressure to succeed is not healthy for anyone involved.
This has actually been tried. The results were mixed at best.http://www.nea.org/home/42011.htm
Christine, thanks for sharing. It looks to me that for some of the same reasons that merit pay doesn’t work for teachers, money for grades doesn’t work for kids.
I tried rewards for kids. I gave points to the most cooperative classes with the best class getting a party complete with cake and ice cream. The better classes continued to be good, the more challenging classes continued to be challenging. In fact, when those difficult classes realized they couldn’t win, their behavior got worse.
For my son instant feedback was the best. He had a page filled with turtles, five for each hour of the day. If he wasn’t on task, the teacher told him to cross out a turtle. The goal was not to cross out more than three turtles each hour. I was supposed to reward him with a prize, but he internalized the process and his reward was when he could get through an hour without crossing out a single turtle. (This was in second grade.)
I guess the goal should be what works out best for each child.
Sometimes a reward system does have some interesting consequences. I used to give out the Shush award in the library. I cut out an SH from some metallic paper and would pin it to the quietest student (in the hopes that the students would be motivated to be a little less noisy), It didn’t do much to keep the boisterous kids quiet, but I boosted at least one child’s confidence. This one dear little first grader never said “boo”, so I pinned the SH award to his shirt. His father, the school psychologist, thanked me. This shy little boy was so proud of his award, he insisted on wearing it every day until it fell apart. It did a lot for his ego to be singled out, especially when, in his shyness, he was rarely recognized. For that alone, the program was a success.
Here again, the reward must fit the child’s need. One size fits all doesn’t do it.