Archives for the month of: August, 2012

In the early 1990s, I attended a meeting where the issues of education were debated.

One of the attendees was Albert Shanker.

I don’t remember where or when this meeting occurred. I can’t document it.

But I remember what Al Shanker said that day about merit pay.

After another member of the group predicted the great improvements that would occur if teachers could compete for merit pay, Shanker said the following:

“Let me get this straight,” he said. “The kids will work harder and get higher test scores if their teachers compete for a bonus?” 

Suddenly, it all seemed so clear. It is the students who need to be incentivized, if you want their performance to improve.

But now we know that offering cash prizes to students doesn’t work either.

It was tried a few years ago in New York City, D.C., and Chicago.

Professor Incentive (aka Roland Fryer) both proposed the program and evaluated it. He concluded that it didn’t work.

What did seem to work was to pay kids to read more books. But that was all.

Paying kids to get higher test scores was ineffective, and the three cities–after handing out lots of cash–abandoned that effort.

The assumption behind merit pay is that teachers are not trying hard enough.

The assumption is that a cash bonus will make them care and prod them to work harder and get those test scores up.

For 100 years, school boards at the state and local level have tried merit pay and it has always failed to produce higher test scores.

There are many reasons for this.

One is that merit pay is intrinsically insulting. It presumes that it takes a cash prize to incentivize lazy teachers.

But when there are two groups, one offered merit pay, the other not, they seem to get the same results.

That’s because the teachers in both groups are doing the best they can to get their students to learn.

As one teacher commented today:

Yup, once i’m eligible for merit pay I’ll bring out my really good lesson plans, until then, they’re staying in my desk!

Carly Berwick writes about K12’s plan to establish a virtual charter school in New Jersey. It was turned down, but only temporarily, to provide a year of “planning” time.

The poor academic results of K12 cyber charters are well known. They were written about in the New York Times and the Washington Post. They were reviewed negatively by the National Education Policy Center. The most startling statistic –of many–is that K12’s Colorado Virtual Academy had a graduation rate of 12 percent in 2010, compared to 72 percent statewide in regular public schools.

And let’s not forget the money! K12 had revenues of $522 million last year, and its CEO was paid $5 million of taxpayer dollars.

What’s to like?

Yet the “reformers” continue to demand more of these for-profit schools despite their poor academic performance. They continue to insist, despite the evidence, that they are a good choice for children.

Berwick raises an important point: If virtual charters take hold in cities like Newark and Jersey City, what will it do to urban life? Schools are now the center of their community, a place not only for children during the day, but for athletic events and community activities in the afternoons and evenings.

Will it weaken cities to turn their schools into vacant lots? Of course it will.

When will our public officials think of what is good for society and for our shared future?

The only beneficiaries of a new virtual charter in urban New Jersey, as she points out, would be the investors, not the residents of cities struggling to make a comeback.

I have often noted that merit pay has been tried again and again for nearly a century. It never works and it never dies.

There is a materialist strain in American culture that is certain that everyone will respond to a cash reward.

Advocates claim that the chance to win extra money will make teachers work harder and produce higher test scores and even make the teaching profession more attractive.

When these expectations fall flat, the believers simply won’t accept the results.

Teachers don’t like merit pay because they don’t want a bonus for doing what they do without a bonus.

Teachers don’t want a reward dangled in front of them for raising test scores because it is inherently insulting, as if they aren’t already doing their best and needed that carrot in front of them to try harder.

Teachers want higher pay, but they don’t want to compete with one another for the annual prize. That destroys teamwork.

This post in the Shanker blog by Eleanor Fulbeck summarizes the state of research.

Advocates of merit pay say that it increases teacher retention, but Fulbeck points out the the record is uncertain at best.

This is worth reading.

Chicago Public Schools have a large deficit. Mayor Rahm Emanuel is responding to the deficit by encouraging the growth of charter schools to carry the burden of educating the city’s children.

One reason for the growing deficit is declining enrollment, caused in large part by the CPS promotion of charter schools. The  more students leave the CPS system to enroll in charters, the less state aid CPS gets. As more charter schools open, the financial crisis gets worse. Thus, Mayor Emanuel’s policy makes the deficit worse by stimulating the exodus of students from the school system and reducing its revenues.

One of the mayor’s favorite charter chains is UNO, which is based in the Latino community. UNO just leased a historic Roman Catholic school, St. Scholastica Academy and is set to increase its enrollment. It is sad to see Catholic schools close in urban areas, especially one with such a long history of serving its community.

Both the city and state are pumping money into charter schools, both for operating costs and capital costs. This money is diverted from public schools to privately managed charters. UNO received a state grant of $98 million to expand, and the city adds to its capital costs. In effect, both the city and state are paying charters to drain students and revenues out of the public school system.

Mayor Emanuel is one of those new conservative Democratic mayors who attack the teachers’ union and work to privatize public education in his city. He is following the trail blazed by Arne Duncan in Chicago. If it was a successful policy, Chicago should be one of the nation’s top performing school systems. It is not. How many years will it take before the politicians begin to understand the futility of privatization and the harm they are doing to one of society’s important public institutions?

Call or write CNN and tell them that their coverage of U.S. education is one-sided and misinformed.

While you are at it, tell CNN that their education “expert” is biased against teachers and unions and public education. That’s the unrenowned “Dr.” Steve Perry.

Thanks to Linda, a regular commenter, for this information:

CNN
One CNN Center, Box 105366, Atlanta, GA 30303-5366
Phone: 404-827-1500
Fax: 404-827-1906

Here is the CNN feedback site:

http://www.cnn.com/feedback/

A science teacher read the post about the textbooks used in some of Louisiana’s voucher schools. As we know, Governor Jindal is eager to pay public money to send children in Louisiana to religious schools that teach creationism as fact. So is Republican candidate Mitt Romney, who looks to Jindal as an education expert and who praises vouchers for religious schools. The teacher writes:

Hopeful Monster Theory!!!!! Since when is there any such thing outside of the creationists imagination.  The Flying Spaghetti Monster perhaps but that was created to point of the fallacious arguments made by Intelligent Design.
Romney giving Jiindal the time of day for any education position is beyond ridiculous.  This is like giving the president of Exxon the position of EPA director.

Who do you think should be required to teach? We are watching the entries in the teacher survivor contest, and here is another strong contender:

Im a fourth grade teacher in Texas.

My contestants would be George W. Bush, Rick Perry, my micro managing principal, Bill Gates, President Obama, M. Rhee, and Duncan. They would be assigned a fourth grade class in a so called low performing school. Living in the community on a teacher salary would be a must. Each contest would be responsable for getting their classroom ready and weekly lesson plans. Contestants would learn how they have narrowed the curriculum when 25 kids walk in that have no idea that Texas is our state not a country or how to write a complete sentence since their only focus in previous years has been reading and math, but they will take the Writing STAAR in March. Each contestant will have a variety of ELL, Sped, GT, RTI, and learning impaired students. Oh and dont forget students with behavioral and emotional issues. Contestants will have to differintiate their teaching for the above, on,and below level students. They must make note how they are doing this in their weekly lesson plans. After each benchmark the contestants with the lowest % of passing students will be placed in the middle of town to answer for their bad teaching and then fired. The contestants that make it past the first round will be required to tutor after school and on Saturdays for free. They will need to turn in lesson plans for this in addition to their weekly ones.

A reader wrote this morning to complain about a biased and ill-informed CNN program.

Teachers, parents: When you see shows like this, call the network’s 800 number and tell them you want to complain. Be specific. Next time Rhee is on a program complaining about the “failure” of U.S. schools, tell the network to ask about the cheating scandals in D.C. and the achievement gaps in D.C.

They take notes. If they get hundred of calls, they listen:

This morning, CNN devoted two segments on how American education is failing compared to the rest of the world. Of course, Michelle Rhee was interviewed and the segment was completed one sided with no counter arguments presented. I wish they would have had you on to debunk Rhee’s false claims. I wrote the following complaint to CNN:
This morning 8/4/12 you had a completed one-sided story about US education which included Michelle Rhee. The entire premise of the segment is that the US is failing in education compared to the rest of the world. You even used a biased chart of nation rankings in education from the American Legislative Exchange Council or ALEC. Rhee, other corporate “reformers” like Bill Gates, and ALEC has one mission-to privatize public education. Rhee’s organization, Students First demonizes teachers and wants to set up more charter schools which perform in many cases no better than public schools. Rhee and other “reformers” never talk about how the US has one of the highest poverty rates of all the industrialized nations. Research indicates poverty has the greatest impact on student performance. So instead of dealing with poverty issues in America, Rhee looks to blame teachers and unions. Moreover, when controlling for poverty, the US ranks in the top 10 of nations in education. In fact American schools have been improving not failing. The National Assessment of Educational Progress shows steady gains in reading and larger gains in math over the years. Why doesn’t CNN act like a responsible news organization and do some actual research about education before having someone like Rhee on the air? Why not have someone to counter her false claims about education like Diane Ravitch? Shame on you CNN for not doing your homework!

The contest: Nominate someone who should be a teacher and see what it is like. Here is a strong contender:

I would nominate my superintendent. He would have to teach according to his allotment of minutes per subject area that he sends out every September. The only problem with his schedule is that it allows no time for snack, transitioning between subjects/ specials, sharing, and sometimes just having fun (I should whisper that last word: fun left the curriculum years ago). I currently teach second grade. One kid coming in upset or eager to share the news of a new baby in the family can put the whole day’s schedule off. Children aren’t machines that can be turned on/ off when it suits our purposes. When did learning to be a human being leave the curriculum?