Washington State is taking a serious look at the way schools are funded. In fact, the "Basic Education Finance Joint Task Force" is currently discussing five separate proposals, each of which would dramatically change our state school system.
I like the proposal put forth by the Full Funding Coalition a lot. I think it's pretty good for a number of reasons. I don't care so much for the status quo. I think it's bad. And there's one proposal on the table that just plain frightens me. That's the one proposed by the chair of the Task Force, Dan Grimm.
Before I get all specific with you, I need to claim a caveat: my experience has not prepared me to pass judgment on all aspects of these five very detailed proposals. But I do know what I'm talking about on certain topics, including teacher professional development time, class size, and performance pay. So I'll stick to those.
Here we go, round one: Teacher Professional Development. This is a big deal to me. I spend my day surrounded by eight-year-olds. I desperately want to grow as a teacher, but every minute during the school day that I don't spend teaching is spent correcting work or preparing for lessons. I have found again and again that the only way to improve as a teacher is to work, share and study with other teachers. And the only time to do that is on scheduled, non-student professional development days. The status quo gives teachers two days a year for professional development. That's a good start, but it's not enough. (My district ponies up for an additional three or four days, but that has to come from levy funds.) The Full Funding Coalition proposes 3.2 days next year and 4.3 beginning the year after that. That's not bad at all, and it would take some of the pressure off districts that are paying for additional days. The Grimm proposal provides zero. Nothing. Nada. Zilch. That's unacceptable.
Round two: Class size. I look at class size this way: I get paid to work as hard as I can all day long. And I do. I would work just as hard and be just as tired at the end of the day whether I worked with three kids or thirty. The difference, of course, is what it means to those kids. The fewer the kids, the more of my attention they're going to get, and consequently the more they'll learn. As far as I'm concerned, class size has a direct correlation to student learning. Right now I have 26 students. Except during math, when I have thirty. That's too many. I honestly can't say that I get a chance to work individually with every kid, every day during math. And that's not good. The Full Funding Coalition would gradually lower my class size to 16.5 within three years. That would make a huge difference, and as I said, directly impact student learning. Grimm's proposal would lower my class size to 21 students, which would also be an improvement over what we have now.
Round three: Performance Pay. Currently, the State pays a bonus of $5090 to teachers who have achieved National Board Certification. This is done by compiling a portfolio and taking a written test, demonstrating that you've met a set of very rigorous standards. In my experience,this is performance pay at it's best. The Full funding Coalition agrees and they've included this as part of their proposal. Mr. Grimm, on the other hand, has proposed an incentive program that involves principals rewarding teachers on an individual basis, based on student achievement scores and student retention rates. As I've discussed on a previous post, this is a horrible idea.
So if you've been keeping score, you know that it's Full Funding Coalition: 3; Status Quo: 2; and Grimm: 1. Of course, that's just my view. I encourage everyone to tune into this discussion, and soon. I know there's a lot going on right now around the world, but decisions will be made, perhaps as early as next month, that will affect how teachers teach and students learn for a long time.
It reminds me of what happened seven years ago at the national level: our nation was reeling from the events of September 11th, and before we knew what was happening, No Child Left Behind was the law of the land. Don't let something like that happen again.
Tom—I think we agree on much more than we disagree. Here’s a few responses to your points.
I strongly believe two things about any pay based on student performance. First, it should only be in the form of an additional bonus, much like bonuses that are given meeting performance goals in other professions. Second, it should only be part of a “portfolio” of elements that make up compensation.
As for Denver, you were wise to get out of there six years ago as there have been a lot of rocks thrown in the subsequent years. They tried to do way to much too fast. The result, however, while still a work in progress, has been a system that has been amended four times since adoption and was overwhelmingly approved by both sides this year. The learned by jumping in, and others can benefit.
But while I like that Denver has teacher and student performance elements in a “portfolio,” I like the Task Force’s recommendations better for Washington, now, where we’re at, as a good first step. It rewards leadership for mentors and peer coaches, rewards ProCerters for demonstrating evidence of meeting standards, and provides for bonuses in hard to staff areas. This overdue move to a differentiated model should open up changes for the future. Anything would be better than the current system that essentially rewards only time (teaching, sitting in classes) while we’re holding students accountable for meeting standards.
Although you didn’t comment, I assume from your other comments that you would agree that we could do better on rewarding teacher performance than Denver, which has settled for three consecutive satisfactory evaluations. It seems to me, if done properly, outstanding teachers could also be identified as well and rewarded, maybe using both evaluator and peer review, following a National Board style format.
You and the others have done a great job on the blog—thanks!
John! Welcome to the blog! Three things:
1. The sabermetrics analogy holds for merit pay based on student performance. Every teacher, school, district and state should be collecting data continuously, but it shouldn’t be used as a basis for pay. Furthermore, we have a whole body of research out there (which I know you’re familiar with) that tells us which teacher “performances” will lead to student learning. And which ones won’t. It makes sense to pay teachers for their own performance. Paying for student performance isn’t fair and is problematic at every level. It isn’t fair because there’s so many classroom situations in which the data is too either hard to collect or meaningless. It’s problematic because paying for test scores will yield those test scores, and little else. Right now, National Board Certification is the best way I know to pay a teacher who is doing those things that research tells us will lead to student learning.
2. Denver. Good Lord. I was out there in 2002 to interview teachers and union leaders who were trying to implement the new scheme. I give them credit for trying, but I have never seen anything so complicated. It’s all about trying to score a $300 bonus here for doing X or a $250 bonus there for doing Y. Our team took a good look at it and got out of there as fast as we could. I would much rather see a merit pay system that simply articulates “Proven Teacher Behaviors” and then pays for them. Again, National Board.
3. Professional Development Time. We had a whole day of it today. I spent the morning learning how my students can make their electronic schoolwork available for their parents to view online at home. Very cool. I spent the afternoon working on report cards. Not exactly “Professional Development,” but it was nice for my district to acknowledge that working on report cards takes awhile and teachers shouldn’t have to do all of it on their own time.
I’d like to suggest that there is a middle ground in this argument that we should strive for. Tom is a good friend and nobody appreciates his sabermetrics reference more than me—I’ve used that analogy in trainings more times than I can count—but I disagree that measuring student learning is so slippery that it shouldn’t be considered. We have a lot of ways of collecting data on where students are in September and again where they are in June.
Similarly, Travis’s statement, “Base my performance pay on my performance, not someone else’s…student’s have their own performance to which to live up” ignores that basic tenet that is driving all school reform—it doesn’t matter what the performance of the teacher is if kids aren’t learning.
We also need more than National Boards. Before I explain that I want to make it clear that I believe National Boards is one of the best pay for performance model out there. I was certified in 2002; it was the best professional development I ever had, and it changed my professional life. It is an effective process precisely because it doesn’t rely on any one way of measuring a teacher’s ability to improve student learning; it looks at evidence of goal setting, best practice, learning, leading, teaching, knowledge, reflection and more.
So when we discuss pay for performance I believe the Denver program has the right idea. They have struggled mightily, as most pioneer programs do. If you aren’t familiar with the Denver pay for performance issue a good summary can be found here.
http://denverprocomp.dpsk12.org/stories/storyReader$33
Multiple measures—the portfolio approach—is, in my opinion, the direction in which we should be heading.
Now back to my statement. National Boards was the best professional development at the time for me but is not the best professional development system—nor does it claim to be. Research is becoming clear on this; the best professional development is teachers collaborating on a regular basis focused strictly on analyzing student work and data to collaborative design and implement subsequent learning for all students. National Boards proves that a teacher was accomplished and has the ability to be accomplished, but does not prove that they are performing in an accomplished manner today, yesterday, or last week. In addition to the National Board bonus, we need to use the same tenets that make up the National Board process, a “portfolio” of data on leadership, collaboration, scholarship, instructional strategies, student engagement, and student learning now to determine additional compensation for a teacher.
As for Nancy’s point that “And when you distinguish between bad PD (expensive one-size-fits-all speaker) and good PD (unstructured time with colleagues to work on local issues)–it kind of makes it sound like teachers just want another paid day without the kids”: If this is true (I think I can safely say that in my district it isn’t) then we have nobody to blame for our woes than ourselves—it is up to us to communicate with the public about what works to improve learning and why they should support those practices.
All just my humble opinion—comments welcome.
Bob: Performance pay based on student test scores certainly sounds like an elegant and efficient solution. Until you start to think about. In reality, paying teachers based on their students’ test scores is problematic and unfair at so many levels that it doesn’t even make sense to pursue a way to make it work. For one thing, how would you make it work for an elementary music teacher? Or a preschool teacher working with developmentally disabled students? Another problem is that teachers are human. They will quickly figure out which areas in the curriculum will be measured and focus on those areas to the detriment of others. And by the way, this is exactly why Teachers’ Unions are staunchly opposed to performance pay based on student test scores. Not because they’re afraid that their members will “look bad” when faced with hard data.
A far better approach would be to borrow from modern baseball statistics. (Sabermetrics) Basically, the idea is to measure players based not on the outcome of the performance (wins, batting average, RBIs) since those are subject to luck and uncontrolled variables. Rather, players are measured based on what they actually do: hit line drives, field balls within their expected range, pitch strikes at variables speeds, etc.
The way this would work in teaching is actually pretty simple. We have a vast and growing body of research that tells us what teachers should be doing if they expect their students to learn. (I assume from a lot of your comments that this is your area of specialty) If we want to pay teachers for their performance, we watch them teach and measure the extent to which they do those things that research tells us will produce results.
As far as paying teachers for their performance, one practical way to do this already exists: National Board Certification. Our state, with the full support of the WEA, currently supports this view. Let’s hope that the Task Force doesn’t recommend any changes to that policy.
Travis, you left out any reference to increasing student learning in your criteria for performance pay. Since the purpose of public schools is to increase student learning and for all students to reach at least minimums as set by state standards, why should anyone pay any teacher any more than another, if their students do not learn more?
Travis: It sound to me like the Task Force will be meeting through the rest of this month and voting on a recommendation in early December. I don’t know of any upcoming public forums.
Merit pay. Won’t work. Oregon worked on passing such a measure that would leave the decision of what was considered “merit” up to the legislature, Dept. of Educ., and school boards. Far too many people, differing ideas and agendas, to make on site decisions.
Performance pay. Sure. Pay me for my performance. Base my salary on how involved I am in developing my skills professionally; my outside learning; the action research that I perform for the benefit of my students; the strength and skill that I put forth in my classroom; the connections that I make with my students; the lives I change; the skills I share (yes, they leave knowing what an appositive is as well as other wonderful writing skills); and, to just end this list, my strength with involving parents in the process of educating their child. Base my performance pay on my performance, not someone else’s. Student’s have their own performance to which to live up.
Great post Tom. As always, spot on. I read the Coalition document and liked the statements between pages 13 and 23, big ideas on improving the system of education. However, it does look like there are other options out there for vote.
And sometimes a complete break-down of a system is necessary before a stronger one can be built; you can only place band aids over gapping wounds for so long.
Tom, where do you think the proposals will go over the next couple of months? I have read a bit of Grimm (grim) and some of Hunter’s thoughts. I would love to sit down in a room with these people, for a whole day, and just talk. Talk, don’t fall back on prepared thoughts or speeches. Just talk. I wonder what would come of that.
Any takers? You can email me.
Bob, two things:
1. When you said, “States through districts hire public school educators to increase student learning beyond what they would otherwise achieve. Teacher effort, time, etc. are union, not public school, points in the hire.” I honestly don’t know what you’re talking about. I read that sentence at least ten times and I still can’t comprehend it. Would you mind restating your point, please?
2. Your point about teachers implicitly conducting experiments in their classrooms in an attempt to monitor and improve their practice is true to a certain extent. However, I wouldn’t consider it a “lab experiment.” For one thing, we don’t use a control group. When we get an idea, we try it with our whole class. If it works, we adopt it. If it doesn’t, we don’t. Furthermore, I think you give me far more credit than I deserve. I need to be around other teachers to get new ideas. I have certain talents, as we all do, but being creative is not one of them. In order for me to try a new idea with my students, I have to have a new idea. And if I can’t come up with it, someone else has to. Hence professional development time.
Another throughful post, Tom. Glad to read that performance pay may continue for WA teachers.
Kudos, Nancy. She stated a view I also hold better than I would have said it.
A couple of word choice quibbles, Tom, that may distract readers from what I think you mean.
States through districts hire public school educators to increase student learning beyond what they would otherwise achieve. Teacher effort, time, etc. are union, not public school, points in the hire.
For decades, probably longer, teachers with students who learn the most have implicitly adapted lab experimental designs (e.g., ABA, 4-cell) to monitor their own classroom instruction. They don’t, and I think teachers should not, rely on other teachers or “professional development days” for identifying changes in order to increase student learning.
Squabbling over whether professional development for teachers does any good is one of those Catch-22 things. Lots of teachers will freely admit that most professional development is not tailored for their needs. So when policy-makers say that they’re not willing to fund professional development for teachers, it’s hard to cry foul. And when you distinguish between bad PD (expensive one-size-fits-all speaker) and good PD (unstructured time with colleagues to work on local issues)–it kind of makes it sound like teachers just want another paid day without the kids.
I agree with everything you said. But I do understand why policy-makers, looking for a place to cut, start with professional development monies–we’ve led them in that direction.