Archives for category: Merit pay
« Older Entries
Newer Entries »

EduShyster’s Holiday Meal: Reform Turducken

By dianeravitch
November 28, 2013 //
5

EduShyster has a great idea for a splendid holiday meal; she calls it “reform turducken.” What, you may ask, is that?

Here is her definition:

“Oe reformy idea stuffed into another and into another, all clad in an innocuously glistening exterior.”

In this case, the meal starts with the acknowledgement that great teachers matter; that teachers are underpaid; and that great teachers should be paid more.

How to pay great teachers more when the size of the pie is the same?

Ah, here is the secret:

“In fact the hater at the table (OK, it’s me) might point out that the entire thrust of our years-long-reform-a-thon is to figure out how to pay the majority of teachers less so as to free up dough for extra *stuffing*: the ever-expanding schmorgasboard of gizmos, test-preppery and achievement gap closure devices that our students so fiercely and urgently need. And don’t forget the gravy. A reformer can’t live by stuffing alone!”

Categories Merit pay, Teacher Evaluations, Teachers and Teaching

New Study Proves High Value of Experienced Teachers

By dianeravitch
November 27, 2013 //
19

Mathematica Policy Research released a study that proves that experience matters.

Some readers thought the study was about merit pay, but it was not. Merit pay has never worked.

Merit pay studies usually compare one group of teachers matched to a similar group. One group is offered a bonus if they can raise test scores, the other is not. The bonus is supposed to incentivize the teachers to push their students to achieve higher test scores.

But that is not what happened in this study.

In this study, the the bonus was awarded for transferring to the low-performing school for two years, not for getting higher test scores.

What the study demonstrates is that if you offer a bonus of $20,000, you might attract the top talent in the district to teach in low-performing schools, and these older, experienced teachers will get better results than regular teachers, many of whom are brand new to teaching.

In her story about the study,  Dana Goldstein noted:

It’s also worth pointing out that these transfer teachers were far from the Teach for America archetype of a young, transient Ivy League grad. Their average age was 42, and they had an average of 12 years of experience in the classroom. They were also more likely than control group teachers to be African-American, to be homeowners, and to hold a master’s degree. In short, they were stable adults with deep ties to the cities in which they worked.

Audrey Amrein-Beardsley, one of the nation’s leading scholars of value-added measurement, points out the dissimilarity of the experimental group and the control group:

The high value-added teachers who were selected to participate in this study, and transfer into high-needs schools to teach for two years, were disproportionately National Board Certified Teachers and teachers with more years of teaching experience. The finding that these teachers, selected only because they were high value-added teachers was confounded by the very fact that they were compared to “similar” teachers in the high-needs schools, many of whom were not certified as exemplary teachers and many of whom (20%) were new teachers…as in, entirely new to the teaching profession! While the high value-added teachers who choose to teach in higher needs schools for two years (with $20,000 bonuses to boot) were likely wonderful teachers in their own rights, the same study results would have likely been achieved by simply choosing teachers with more than X years of experience or choosing teachers whose supervisors selected them as “the best.” Hence, this study was not about using “value-added” as the arbiter of all that is good and objective in measuring teacher effects, it was about selecting teachers who were distinctly different than the teachers to whom they were compared and attributing the predictable results back to the “value-added” selections that were made.

What the study really shows is the foolishness of the many states that are changing salary scales to discourage experienced teachers, removing stipends for masters degrees, and making other policies that discourage the very teachers that this study salutes. States like Tennessee and North Carolina, among others, are enacting laws to discourage or push out the very teachers that are considered “the best” in this study.

As Amrein-Beardsley observes:

Related, many of the politicians and policymakers who are advancing national and state value-added initiatives and policies forward are continuously using sets of false assumptions about teacher experience, teacher credentials, and how/why these things do not matter to advance their agendas forward. Rather, in this study, it seems that teacher experience and credentials mattered the most. Results from this study, hence, contradict initiatives, for example, to get rid of salary schedules that rely on years of experience and credentials, as value-added scores, as evidenced in this study, do seem to capture these other variables (i.e., experience and credentials) as well.

The takeaway? Blogger Steve Strieker of Wisconsin put it this way in an email to me:

Experience, education, age, and teacher willingness to participate seemed to matter in this case. The program also seems to have eyes on the eight ball.  Teacher accountability and stack-ranking evaluation systems are not part of the program. Unlike other merit pay studies, this was a low-stakes study. Testing scores were not connected to the bonus payout. Teachers chosen were paid the bonus for their service regardless of student performance.

If we want to see improvement and results, we should have policies and extra pay to recruit top teachers to work in hard-to-staff schools, and we should place high value on experience and education.

Categories Merit pay, Teachers and Teaching

Rhee Vs. Ravitch in Philadelphia

By dianeravitch
September 27, 2013 //
27

As it happened, Michelle Rhee and I nearly crossed paths in
Philadelphia. This
article describes our contrasting visions for the public
schools of Philadelphia. She spoke on September 16, in a panel that
included George Parker, the former head of the Washington Teachers
Union, who now works for Rhee, and Steve Perry, ex-CNN commentator.

Governor Tom Corbett cut $1 billion from the schools in 2011, while cutting corporate taxes. He later added back a small part of the cut, but he left many districts in terrible fiscal trouble.

Philadelphia public schools have a deficit of $300 million, and
thousands of staff have been laid off, including teachers, guidance
counselors, social workers, librarians, and many others. Bear in mind that the Philadelphia public schools have been under state control for more than a decade. During that time, Superintendent Paul Vallas launched the nation’s most sweeping privatization experiment, which failed, according to independent evaluations.

According to this article (and in an op-ed published in the Philadelphia
Inquirer), Rhee saw the fiscal crisis as an opportunity to
introduce performance pay. How that would close the budget deficit
was unclear.

In my presentation at the Philadelphia Free Library, I read the language of the state
constitution, which unequivocally assigns responsibility to the
state of Pennsylvania to support a thorough and efficient education
for every child. That is not the case today. Governor Tom Corbett
expects the state-controlled School Reform Commission to squeeze
savings out of the teachers’ contracts, cutting salaries, benefits,
and laying off more teachers. That is not the way to go.

Someday the children of Philadelphia will be the voters of Pennsylvania or
some other state. They must be educated to choose their leaders
wisely. Someday these children may sit on a jury where YOU will be
judged. Just hope that they have the wisdom, knowledge, and
compassion to judge you fairly. My view: The children of
Philadelphia are as worthy of a good education as the children in
the nearby suburbs. They need small classes, experienced teachers,
arts programs, well-maintained facilities, guidance counselors,
libraries staffed by librarians, up-to-date technology. They need
what the parents in the suburbans want for their children. And they
deserve nothing less.

Categories Education Reform, Merit pay, Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Rhee, Michelle

What Works Clearinghouse: Merit Pay in NYC Failed

By dianeravitch
September 25, 2013 //
3

Yesterday I mistakenly reported that the US Department of Education had closed down the “What Works Clearinghouse,” which reviews research and reports on the results. I corrected my error as soon as I learned about it. In fact, it was a different website that was closed down, the “Doing What Works” site, where educators might find practical advice.

The What Works Clearinghouse is still open, and that is a very good thing, because it just released three reviews of New York City’s “merit pay” plan. All three agreed that it failed. It failed to improve student achievement. It failed to increase teacher retention.

This latest evidence of the failure of paying teachers to raise test scores continues an unbroken stream of failures that have been documented for nearly 100 years.

Will the U.S. Department of Education immediately suspend the Teacher Incentive Fund? Will it use those hundreds of millions for a “Reducing Class Size in High Needs Fund.” Will Michelle Rhee stop saying that the way to save deficit-ridden districts like Philadelphia is to offer performance pay?

Let’s cross our fingers and hope for the best.

Categories Merit pay, New York City

Paul Thomas: Shame on You, State Superintendent Zais!

By dianeravitch
August 27, 2013 //
3

Paul Thomas here describes how Mick Zais, state superintendent of South Carolina, misleads the public about the condition of education in his state, about how schools succeed, and what is needed to help them improve.

Having found a high-poverty district that has higher-than-expected test scores, Zais uses this district to push the corporate reform agenda: Success is all about merit pay and “no excuses.”

A great teacher can supply 18 months of “knowledge” in only one academic year, as measured by standardized tests, which we know are great ways to assess “knowledge.”

This is the usual reformy nonsense, which has never stood up to scrutiny.

Paul Thomas taught high school for 18 years in South Carolina and is now preparing teachers at Furman University in South Carolina.

He is an amazingly prolific scholar, and his deep experience informs his scholarship.

 

Categories Administrators, superintendents, Corporate Reformers, Merit pay, Teachers and Teaching

The Ethics of Loss Aversion

By dianeravitch
August 20, 2013 //
20

I recently received an email from a parent in North Carolina who told me that the legislators there want to adopt merit pay for teachers. They are very impressed with the Chetty-Rockoff-Friedman study that claimed that a great teacher could have lifelong effects on students, like raising their lifetime earnings by about $500 a year. And they are impressed by the Roland Fryer study claiming that teachers get higher test scores from their students if the technique called “loss aversion” is applied to them.

For starters, the Chetty-Rockoff-Friedman study was not a study of merit pay. It was an analysis of school records from the 1990s in a big city where there was no merit pay. The best conclusion one can draw is that some teachers are more effective than others, but there is no clear indication in their work about how to identify them or whether you can get more of them by offering bonuses.

The Fryer study is, in my view, ethically problematic. Fryer, be it noted, is an economist who is obsessed with using money as a lever to change behavior. A few years ago, he created a plan to pay students if they got higher grades or test scores, but concluded that it didn’t work.

Fryer is at Harvard, where his work is subsidized by the Broad Foundation.

The “loss aversion” theory goes like this: Instead of paying teachers a bonus if their students get higher scores (which has consistently failed for nearly a century), offer them a bonus upfront, then take it away if the scores don’t go up. The theory is that the teachers won’t want to lose the money they were already paid.

Bruce Baker was less than impressed with this study. See here and here.

Suppose we took loss aversion seriously?

What if we said to teachers, raise test scores or we cut off a finger. Every year the scores don’t go up, we cut off another finger.

That would surely produce test score gains.

What if we said to economists, make accurate predictions about the economy or we confiscate your computer.

What if we said to lawyers, if you lose any cases, we take away your license.

You can see the possibilities.

We might get test scores gains by threatening to take away something that mattered, but wouldn’t that make teaching less attractive as a profession or even a job?

Categories Accountability, Merit pay, North Carolina

The CAN Vulture Arrives in North Carolina

By dianeravitch
August 12, 2013 //
10

Supporters of public education in North Carolina are reeling as a result of the sustained assault by the Legislature in this session, but in comes a Gates-funded project to claim that defeats are actually victories and to lobby for merit pay.

The CAN idea is supported by hedge fund managers and Gates to promote charter schools, evaluating teachers by test scores, awarding higher pay to those whose students get higher test scores (merit pay).

CAN is closely aligned with the ALEC-style effort to privatize public education and to dismantle the profession of teaching.

Below is their triumphant letter, saluting the “victories” in the recent legislative session, where public schools and teachers were pummeled by extremist elements who control the Legislature.

Important to bear in mind that over the past century, merit pay has been tried again and again and again. It has never worked.

In recent years, it failed to produce results in New York City. It failed in Chicago. It failed in Nashville, where the bonus offered for higher scores was $15,000.

The Raj Chetty study cited below had nothing to do with merit pay. It established only that some teachers are able to produce higher test scores than others, and that students with higher test scores have slightly higher lifetime earnings. But there was no merit pay involved.

Here is what CAN said on its arrival in North Carolina, where the very future of public education hangs in the balance and where the Legislature is busily eradicating the profession of teaching and funding Teach for America while defunding the North Carolina Teaching Fellows:

 

A great teacher for every student.

That was our vision when CarolinaCAN launched its “Year of the Teacher” campaign—an effort to elevate the teaching profession through research-backed policy recommendations and, in turn, help our state recruit and keep great teachers. Because we know that’s the most important factor in schools to helping our students succeed—and it’s what all kids deserve.

At the heart of our campaign were three goals:

  • Giving teachers regular, meaningful evaluations that recognize excellence and provide them the feedback they need to improve their practice
  • Freeing districts from outdated salary schedules so they can invest meaningful financial awards in excellent teachers and other staffing priorities
  • Reforming “tenure” laws to award contracts based on excellence
How did we do? The short answer is that CarolinaCAN went three-for-three in our first legislative session: a proud feat for which we thank you—our partners and fellow advocates—and the lawmakers who supported much-needed reforms for the Tar Heel State.

To learn more about our policy wins, I encourage you to visit our website and read our blog series about North Carolina’s 2013 budget.

As always, the long answer is more complicated. These laws create a foundation of sound policy to build on—but we must build on them, to make them meaningful to teachers and enable local leaders to recognize excellence. As these and other policies from the 2013 budget go into effect in our schools, we need to make sure they’re carried out with integrity, in a way that’s best for kids.

Because right now, the landscape of North Carolina public schools remains dire. See for yourself by reading our inaugural State of North Carolina Public Education report.

Our work has just begun. Our dedication to North Carolina’s kids—and to great teachers—runs deep. And we’re busy planning already for the next legislative session, when CarolinaCAN will continue to champion smart solutions to tough problems.

I hope I can count on you to join us.

Sincerely,

 

Julie Kowal
Executive Director
CarolinaCAN
 
 
 

http://www.ascd.org/publications/educational-leadership/oct08/vol66/num02/When-Merit-Pay-Is-Worth-Pursuing.aspx

 
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2012/07/23/does-teacher-merit-pay-work-a-new-study-says-yes/
Categories ALEC, Corporate Reformers, Education Industry, Merit pay, North Carolina

Arne Gets Angry at Georgia

By dianeravitch
July 31, 2013 //
70

http://www.ajc.com/weblogs/get-schooled/2013/jul/30/state-school-chief-responds-us-doe-plans-withhold-/

A few days ago, Georgia announced that it was dropping out of PARCC, the Common Core testing consortium funded by the U.S. Department of Education. State officials said the state could not afford the technology or the cost.

The U.S. Department of Education was swift to respond. It wrote Georgia to warn that it is withholding $10 million from the state’s Race to the Top funding. Maybe the timing was a coincidence. Maybe not.

The state says it needs more time to fix its educator evaluation system before it can be implemented, but the Feds insist that Georgia must start evaluating teachers and principals based on test scores without further delay.

Now for a dose of reality. Research does not support any part of Race to the Top. Research shows that tying educator evaluations to test scores produces narrowing the curriculum, gaming the system, teaching to the test, cheating, and score inflation. The most “effective” teachers teach the most affluent students in the most affluent schools. The least “effective” teach the poorest. Research shows that over 100 years of trying, merit pay has Never worked. Teachers are doing the best they know how; they are not holding back and hoping for a bonus or a biscuit.

Race to the Top will someday be remembered in the history books as a Grand Detour, when ideologues gained control of federal policy and used an economic crisis to dangle money in front of the states so they would agree to implement failed policies.

All of this will change, but not until there is wiser leadership in Washington, wise enough to banish Race to the Top and recover a common sense approach to education reform based on what children and schools need, not what misguided politicians demand.

Categories Duncan, Arne, Georgia, Merit pay, Race to the Top, Teacher Evaluations

Monica Ratliff Responds to Critics

By dianeravitch
June 16, 2013 //
10

Since she upset the heavily-funded favorite in the recent Los Angeles school board runoff, many eyes are on Monica Ratliff.

Some of her supporters were concerned when she appeared at an event where the Gates-funded Educators for Excellence presented a report on teacher evaluation. The event was attended by Superintendent John Deasy and school board president Monica Garcia, an ally of Deasy.

Immediately the tweets began to fly claiming that Ratliff supported paying teachers by student test scores. Some worried that she had crossed over to the side that opposed her in the election.

Whoa!

I wrote Monica Ratliff, we had a candid conversation, and Monica advised that we should judge her by her votes as a board member, not by tweets that did not come from her.

She wrote:

“Dear Diane,

“When I advocate for fixing the LAUSD teacher evaluation system and professional development system, I am NOT advocating that we link test scores to monetary gain for teachers or administrators.

“Across LA, there are public schools where scores have been rising over the years sans any monetary gain for teachers or administrators. If we link test scores to monetary gain, I have no doubt that we will see some increases in test scores but at what cost and by what means?

Sincerely,

Mónica Ratliff

Categories Education Reform, Los Angeles, Merit pay, Teacher Evaluations

Teacher: Why I Oppose Merit Pay

By dianeravitch
June 1, 2013 //
20

Merit pay is a zombie idea. It fails and fails and fails again, but legislators just want more of it.

This teacher explains why he doesn’t want it.

There are many reasons to oppose merit pay.

1. It doesn’t work. It failed just in the past few years in Nashville, where the bonus for higher scores was $15,000. It failed in New York City, it failed in Chicago.

2. It has never worked. It has been tried and failed repeatedly for nearly 100 years.

3. Modern social science says that it will never work, that when you pay people a bonus to do what they want to do you actually decrease their motivation.

A short reading list:

Dan Ariely, Predictably Irrational

Edward Deci, Why We Do What We Do

Daniel Pink, Drive

The National Research Council, Incentives and Test-Based Accountability

Categories Merit pay
« Older Entries
Newer Entries »