The cover story of this week's Time Magazine titled “Should Schools Bribe Kids?” describes recent research findings that demonstrate the effectiveness of financial rewards in raising student performance. The controversial study by Roland Fryer Jr, Professor of Economics of Harvard University, found that carefully designed financial rewards programs could significantly boost student scores on basic skills tests. The study found that when cash contributions were made to student's educational savings accounts based on performance of specific education tasks, along with school recognition of such students at frequent intervals, many of the previously low performing students made dramatic progress in academic courses and on state tests. It seems that until money was offered, such students had never been adequately motivated to succeed in school. Many “education purists” both within and outside the education establishment were appalled that such a crude tactic would be attempted even on an experimental basis. Supporters of the study have pointed out however, that most adults show up at work every day primarily because of the expectation of a paycheck. Also it was pointed out that the experimental study produced dramatic results at a much lower cost per student than most of the currently favored programs designed to close the achievement gap.
Some of my readers might ask, “Why are you arguing in favor of pay for performance for students when last week's post consisted of a rant against teacher performance pay?”
Fair question. First of all I'm not arguing that we should pay students cash for good grades. I'm just pointing out that this experiment demonstrates that our present programs for motivating a large percentage of Louisiana’s students are not working. Second, as I explained in last week's post, paying teachers for student performance would only work if teachers were the sole cause of success or failure of each student. As we see from this study, student motivation and his/her environment often have more to do with academic success than the dedicated efforts of his/her teachers.
One does not have to buy into this specific system of direct pay to students for good grades to come to the conclusion that our present methods for motivating students are not working. This experiment shows that many more students could succeed in school if they could be motivated to do so. Could it be that most of our school turnaround efforts both in Louisiana and at the national level do not effectively address the issue of student motivation? Why have we assumed in Louisiana that all students automatically want to make good grades, and score well on the LEAP and graduation tests? To put it bluntly, why do mostly white middle class adults who set all the course and testing requirements for public schools believe that many of our students who come from totally different environments will embrace these goals? Its very clear that fully 42% of public school students in Louisiana are not buying what we're selling! That's how many students leave our public schools each year without a diploma. Yet our education officials do not see the need to reconsider the structure of the curriculum we offer uniformly to all students. It seems our policy makers have forgotten that the primary customers of the educational system are the students, and that they all have different needs and aspirations.
I've carefully read every single word in the 45 page Duncan/Obama Blueprint for Reform: The re-authorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act and found almost no mention of the need to design a varied curriculum and set of tangible incentives that will properly motivate low performing students. There were news releases accompanying the "Blueprint" declaring that raising expectations of students and encouraging the adoption of uniform curriculum standards by states will somehow boost the graduation rate both at the high school and at the college level. This pronouncement is just one more example of the disconnect between education policy makers and many public school students. If large numbers of students are dropping out and failing in school with the present supposedly lax standards, why would anyone expect more rigorous academic standards to motivate these students to succeed? As I've said before, we've already tried the “raise the bar” scheme in Louisiana. Instead of jumping higher, many of our students have just stopped jumping altogether.
When I attended school many years ago, a varied school curriculum with much attention to student motivation was the norm. We had music teachers in elementary school, art, drama, and a truly comprehensive high school teaching both academics and CTE courses. I developed a lifelong interest in cabinetmaking because of the fine program offered in my high school. Later I was motivated to pursue science because of participation in an exciting science fair. When I became a new teacher in 1966, our schools received federal funding for state-of-the-art science labs and students were taught using an investigative/laboratory approach.
Now, little effort is spent by our education system identifying the unique talents and interests of our students. The system has determined what is important for all students to learn, and there is little opportunity for educational choices. Because of state and federal mandates, schools are mostly becoming places where students are rehearsed for Accountability testing.
A lot of kids today would be thrilled if public schools would focus on training them for modern careers so they could go out and earn a good living just like some of the successful adults they know. That's why the most effective program we have in Louisiana for motivating low performing students is the Jobs for America's Graduates (JAG) program. This week's Time Magazine article makes it clear that many of today's students are not buying the idea that making good grades in school and going on to college is in their future. These kids may be under-achievers, but they are not stupid! They know that only the top 25% of the class can ever hope to go to college assuming they can find the money to pay for it. The rest of the students would be very happy to receive a career focused education that provides them a much more realistic chance of success. Yet our State Department of Education has done everything possible to discourage the proper implementation of the Career Diploma program. Even an expanded JAG program will fail if there is no alternative to the "college prep for all" curriculum we have in this state.
Thursday, April 15, 2010
Thursday, April 8, 2010
Value Added Teacher Evaluation
The latest “Great Idea” in the never ending barrage of reforms of American education is the value added teacher evaluation. This scheme is seen by some as the ultimate solution to truly improving education this time! This plan proposes that teachers should be evaluated in part on the educational gains of the students taught by each teacher. To the business model advocates for improving education this could be the holy grail of education reform. Forget about trying to improve teacher education programs, or encouraging teachers to attain National Board Certification, or establishing systems for mentoring teachers, encouraging best practices etc. etc... None of those efforts are necessary. Just evaluate, reward and dismiss teachers based on the test measured performance of their students! The testing industry loves this. Now they can be paid millions more to further develop state testing schemes that will pre-test and post-test all students in each teacher's classroom, link student scores with the teacher's ID, help devise complex expected performance targets for each classroom of students according to socioeconomic factors and Bingo! The teacher can then be classified as highly effective, effective, needs-improvement, or unacceptable. All the highly effective teachers get bonus pay, needs-improvement teachers get a little time to improve their student value added scores and the unacceptable teachers are summarily dismissed.
This system would be so simple and straightforward, that Colleges of Education and much of the bureaucracy in education may be found to be mostly unnecessary. States could save money by phasing out teacher salaries based on experience and degrees. Just open teaching positions to any unemployed person possessing a bachelor's degree, provide these new recruits with an eight week briefing about the basics of teaching (understanding GLE's, test prepping etc.) and put them in the classroom. Then let the value added testing and evaluation system work its magic to determine who the effective teachers are and replace the ineffective ones with new recruits.
As you can see from the sarcasim above, my opinion on this new reform scheme is that it can never be made fair, it will further divert funds from instruction to paying for the testing experts and their tests, it will drive some of our most effective and dedicated teachers from the profession, but most importantly it is just another ill conceived “reform of the day” that will do more harm than good to the education of our students. Don't take my word for it, just review the following letter by Diane Ravitch, a true expert on education who wrote to the Florida legislature concerning their proposed value added legislation.
To: The Honorable Members of the Florida Legislature
From: Diane Ravitch
Dear Members,
I wish that I could be in Tallahassee to address you personally but prior commitments make it impossible to do so.
I am a historian of American education at New York University. I served as Assistant Secretary of Research and Improvement in the administration of President George H.W. Bush. I was a founding member of the Koret Task Force of the Hoover Institution. I was also a founding trustee of the Thomas B. Fordham Foundation. I have been studying and writing about American education for 40 years.
I write to oppose SB 6/HB 7189.
I understand that this bill would prohibit districts from paying teachers in relation to their experience and education, but would base teachers' salaries mainly on student gains on standardized tests. I further understand that it is the law's intent to develop new tests for every subject area, paid for by reducing operating expenses by 5 percent in the schools.
I strongly believe that this bill will have very negative consequences for the children of the state of Florida. I believe that it will dumb down their education. I believe that it will cause many of your best teachers to leave the profession or the state because this legislation is so profoundly disrespectful towards the education profession.
I urge you not to pass this bill.
My new book, The Death and Life of the Great American School System, demonstrates that pay-for-scores schemes don't work. The main reason they don't work is that the measures were not intended for that purpose. Standardized tests are intended to evaluate whether students have learned what they were taught. They are not designed to assess teacher effectiveness or teacher quality. The more that teachers focus on these measures, the more they rob children of time for instruction and for the activities that engage children in their education and promote comprehension.
Teachers are not solely the cause of student progress. If students fail to make progress in their studies, there are many reasons for their failure. The causes of academic success or failure include the students' own effort; the students' regular attendance or lack thereof; the family's support or lack thereof; the family's poverty and its effects on the student's health and well-being; the school's resources; the district's oversight or lack thereof; and the quality of the test itself, which may be subject to random variation. It makes no sense to hold the teacher alone accountable when student performance is affected by so many different influences.
Should the teacher get a bad evaluation if students have a poor attendance record? Should the teacher be harshly judged if her students don't speak English or move frequently from school to school? Should the teacher get an F if the student has poor eyesight or suffers from other undiagnosed health problems? Should the teacher be considered a failure if the student's family offers no support for his learning?
Since the 1920s, American schools have experimented with merit pay plans. None has ever demonstrated success. Teachers will bend their efforts to raise test scores, but achievement nonetheless lags. The reason for this is that teaching-to-the-test does not yield good education. The students may learn test-taking skills, but they don't learn how to generalize what they have learned to new situations. Thus, even when state reading scores go up, in response to intensive coaching, national test scores remain flat. As the national tests become more demanding—in 8th grade—the scores don't rise at all.
Our nation has now had eight consecutive years of rising reading scores at the state level, yet the national scores for 8th grade students have not budged from 1998-2009. The reason for the discrepancy is that students are learning test-taking skills, but they are unable to understand complex materials or to demonstrate their progress on a test that is not the state test.
Test scores do not identify the most effective teachers. A teacher who produces big score gains one year may produce none the next year, depending on which students happen to be in his or her class.
The legislation now under consideration will not improve education in Florida. It will harm kids and their teachers.
I urge you to stop and reflect. The research on teacher effectiveness does not support the policies of SB 6/HB 7189. Please defeat this legislation.
Yours truly,
Diane Ravitch
Note: Louisiana's Value Added legislation is similar but not identical to the Florida legislation. Just pull up HB 1033 at the Louisiana legislature web site to see how Louisiana intends to implement Value Added Teacher Evaluation.
This system would be so simple and straightforward, that Colleges of Education and much of the bureaucracy in education may be found to be mostly unnecessary. States could save money by phasing out teacher salaries based on experience and degrees. Just open teaching positions to any unemployed person possessing a bachelor's degree, provide these new recruits with an eight week briefing about the basics of teaching (understanding GLE's, test prepping etc.) and put them in the classroom. Then let the value added testing and evaluation system work its magic to determine who the effective teachers are and replace the ineffective ones with new recruits.
As you can see from the sarcasim above, my opinion on this new reform scheme is that it can never be made fair, it will further divert funds from instruction to paying for the testing experts and their tests, it will drive some of our most effective and dedicated teachers from the profession, but most importantly it is just another ill conceived “reform of the day” that will do more harm than good to the education of our students. Don't take my word for it, just review the following letter by Diane Ravitch, a true expert on education who wrote to the Florida legislature concerning their proposed value added legislation.
To: The Honorable Members of the Florida Legislature
From: Diane Ravitch
Dear Members,
I wish that I could be in Tallahassee to address you personally but prior commitments make it impossible to do so.
I am a historian of American education at New York University. I served as Assistant Secretary of Research and Improvement in the administration of President George H.W. Bush. I was a founding member of the Koret Task Force of the Hoover Institution. I was also a founding trustee of the Thomas B. Fordham Foundation. I have been studying and writing about American education for 40 years.
I write to oppose SB 6/HB 7189.
I understand that this bill would prohibit districts from paying teachers in relation to their experience and education, but would base teachers' salaries mainly on student gains on standardized tests. I further understand that it is the law's intent to develop new tests for every subject area, paid for by reducing operating expenses by 5 percent in the schools.
I strongly believe that this bill will have very negative consequences for the children of the state of Florida. I believe that it will dumb down their education. I believe that it will cause many of your best teachers to leave the profession or the state because this legislation is so profoundly disrespectful towards the education profession.
I urge you not to pass this bill.
My new book, The Death and Life of the Great American School System, demonstrates that pay-for-scores schemes don't work. The main reason they don't work is that the measures were not intended for that purpose. Standardized tests are intended to evaluate whether students have learned what they were taught. They are not designed to assess teacher effectiveness or teacher quality. The more that teachers focus on these measures, the more they rob children of time for instruction and for the activities that engage children in their education and promote comprehension.
Teachers are not solely the cause of student progress. If students fail to make progress in their studies, there are many reasons for their failure. The causes of academic success or failure include the students' own effort; the students' regular attendance or lack thereof; the family's support or lack thereof; the family's poverty and its effects on the student's health and well-being; the school's resources; the district's oversight or lack thereof; and the quality of the test itself, which may be subject to random variation. It makes no sense to hold the teacher alone accountable when student performance is affected by so many different influences.
Should the teacher get a bad evaluation if students have a poor attendance record? Should the teacher be harshly judged if her students don't speak English or move frequently from school to school? Should the teacher get an F if the student has poor eyesight or suffers from other undiagnosed health problems? Should the teacher be considered a failure if the student's family offers no support for his learning?
Since the 1920s, American schools have experimented with merit pay plans. None has ever demonstrated success. Teachers will bend their efforts to raise test scores, but achievement nonetheless lags. The reason for this is that teaching-to-the-test does not yield good education. The students may learn test-taking skills, but they don't learn how to generalize what they have learned to new situations. Thus, even when state reading scores go up, in response to intensive coaching, national test scores remain flat. As the national tests become more demanding—in 8th grade—the scores don't rise at all.
Our nation has now had eight consecutive years of rising reading scores at the state level, yet the national scores for 8th grade students have not budged from 1998-2009. The reason for the discrepancy is that students are learning test-taking skills, but they are unable to understand complex materials or to demonstrate their progress on a test that is not the state test.
Test scores do not identify the most effective teachers. A teacher who produces big score gains one year may produce none the next year, depending on which students happen to be in his or her class.
The legislation now under consideration will not improve education in Florida. It will harm kids and their teachers.
I urge you to stop and reflect. The research on teacher effectiveness does not support the policies of SB 6/HB 7189. Please defeat this legislation.
Yours truly,
Diane Ravitch
Note: Louisiana's Value Added legislation is similar but not identical to the Florida legislation. Just pull up HB 1033 at the Louisiana legislature web site to see how Louisiana intends to implement Value Added Teacher Evaluation.
Thursday, April 1, 2010
Legislative Move to Restructure MFP
HCR 20 introduced by Rep. Carter and key members of the House and Senate Education Committees could be a major push inspired by State Superintendent Pastorek and supported by the Governor to radically restructure the Minimum Foundation program for state funding of public schools. While Concurrent resolutions do not have the force of law and are often ignored, local superintendents and school boards had better not make the mistake of ignoring this one.
HCR 20 urges BESE to make the following changes in the MFP for the coming school year:
Beefing up the JAG program without providing a true career oriented training and graduation system for the non-college prep students would be just as much a failure as the GED Options program has been. Pastorek is still not willing to accept the fact that students are all different. They are not made of a uniform raw material like steel or plastic that can be molded into a neat stack of quality controlled widgets!
Implementation of this resolution by BESE would further tie the hands of local Superintendents and School Boards to use funding in the most efficient manner based on the particular characteristics of the local school system. School-based funding is inherently inefficient. It would force school principals who now have their hands more than full in providing instructional leadership to teachers, working for parental involvement, and insuring that their school performs its best in the accountability system to divert their attention to purchasing goods and services and filling out state and federal forms that are much better done at the Central office. Principals are not trained for these mundane but critical chores, and in many cases each school would end up having to hire an accountant or supervisor of finances, causing diversion of funds from instruction.
Concerning the 80% instructional requirement, some of the most successful school systems in the state as measured by the accountability system are now funding instruction at approximately the 70-72% level. Yet the state would disrupt a program that is working well to impose yet another mandate. Some rural school systems or those with court ordered busing have extra non-instructional expenses beyond their control. In addition, the state mandates busing of students to parochial schools.
My advice to Superintendents, School Board members and other professional educators is take the time to discuss this matter with your legislators and remind them that the Governor has proposed reducing the restrictions and mandates on local school systems, not increasing them. This resolution would just add more impractical mandates. If the State Superintendent wants to reform something, let him reform his own Recovery District, which has proven very weak at handling finances, has the lowest graduation rate in the state, and in 2009 had one of the smallest increases in average school performance scores. If this is the model for site based funding, he's proven it does not work.
HCR 20 urges BESE to make the following changes in the MFP for the coming school year:
- Implement a school-based budgeting model with 80 percent of the MFP being dedicated to instruction
- Include students in the custody of the office of juvenile justice in the MFP for funding of educational services provided by the state for these students.
- Phase out by 2012 the pre-GED/Skills Options program and require local education agencies to redirect MFP dollars to dropout prevention programs modeled after the Jobs for America's Graduates program
- Require that a portion of any increase of the MFP per pupil funding be used for dropout prevention.
Beefing up the JAG program without providing a true career oriented training and graduation system for the non-college prep students would be just as much a failure as the GED Options program has been. Pastorek is still not willing to accept the fact that students are all different. They are not made of a uniform raw material like steel or plastic that can be molded into a neat stack of quality controlled widgets!
Implementation of this resolution by BESE would further tie the hands of local Superintendents and School Boards to use funding in the most efficient manner based on the particular characteristics of the local school system. School-based funding is inherently inefficient. It would force school principals who now have their hands more than full in providing instructional leadership to teachers, working for parental involvement, and insuring that their school performs its best in the accountability system to divert their attention to purchasing goods and services and filling out state and federal forms that are much better done at the Central office. Principals are not trained for these mundane but critical chores, and in many cases each school would end up having to hire an accountant or supervisor of finances, causing diversion of funds from instruction.
Concerning the 80% instructional requirement, some of the most successful school systems in the state as measured by the accountability system are now funding instruction at approximately the 70-72% level. Yet the state would disrupt a program that is working well to impose yet another mandate. Some rural school systems or those with court ordered busing have extra non-instructional expenses beyond their control. In addition, the state mandates busing of students to parochial schools.
My advice to Superintendents, School Board members and other professional educators is take the time to discuss this matter with your legislators and remind them that the Governor has proposed reducing the restrictions and mandates on local school systems, not increasing them. This resolution would just add more impractical mandates. If the State Superintendent wants to reform something, let him reform his own Recovery District, which has proven very weak at handling finances, has the lowest graduation rate in the state, and in 2009 had one of the smallest increases in average school performance scores. If this is the model for site based funding, he's proven it does not work.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
