From the Journal Star:
Mayor Jim Ardis said U.S. Secretary of Education Arne Duncan is pledging his department’s assistance to help Peoria turn around its schools…. Ardis, along with Lee Graves, CEO and president of ELM Group, and former state Sen. George Shadid made a whirlwind visit to Washington, D.C., this week, meeting with Duncan, a former CEO of Chicago Public Schools who once served under CEO Paul Vallas….
There’s no easy answer, Ardis admitted, noting that Duncan believed it will take a combination of Race to the Top, strong emphasis on charter schools and performance-based teaching as well as more municipal involvement to get poorly performing school districts headed in the right direction….
Ardis said he wanted to find out what’s available and what Duncan would recommend for improving school performance.
“We haven’t seen any movement by this board or past boards to go out on their own initiative to speak to with the secretary of education, or anyone else,” he said.
A couple things about this story:
First, kudos to Mayor Ardis for taking initiative and doing what he can to help District 150. It’s unfortunate that his past efforts (to bring in Paul Vallas for some consulting advice) have been rebuffed by District 150 administrators and board members. The district should be welcoming the mayor’s overtures.
Second, Secretary Duncan’s reported response is interesting: “…it will take a combination of Race to the Top [additional federal funds allocated to school districts through state governors], strong emphasis on charter schools and performance-based teaching [emphasis added] as well as more municipal involvement to get poorly performing school districts headed in the right direction….” Doesn’t this sound like the Secretary is implicitly suggesting union-busting? Performance-based teaching is a repudiation of the tenure system, and charter schools can hire teachers who are not union represented.
Well, as it turns out, teachers are catching the same vibe. In a speech to the National Education Association (NEA) in July, Education Week reported that Duncan said “[t]eachers’ unions must be willing to reconsider seniority provisions, rework tenure provisions, and work with districts to create fair ways of incorporating student-achievement growth in teacher evaluation and compensation.” As you might expect, this wasn’t well-received by teachers:
Delegates applauded Mr. Duncan’s calls for continued federal funding for education, better training for administrators, and for improved teacher-mentoring experiences. But in an indication of the challenges that the federal government will face as it pushes for reforms to compensation and evaluation, they booed and hissed through those parts of Mr. Duncan’s address.
Booed and hissed! And here I thought incivility was invented by Rep. Joe Wilson just a few weeks ago. Imagine teachers booing and hissing (the hissing is what really gets me) the Secretary of Education during a speech. One more quote from the Education Week article: “‘Quite frankly, merit pay is union-busting,’ said another delegate, to applause from her peers.”
So, my guess is that District 150 will have a similar reaction. They will likely embrace efforts to capture more federal dollars through the Race to the Top Fund, but efforts to implement performance-based teaching initiatives will be rebuffed in teacher contract negotiations. Realistically, that would mean Peoria would receive no benefit because the Race to the Top dollars are tied to just the kinds of reforms teachers unions find objectionable. As for charter schools, the only one proposed recently — the Math, Science, and Technology Academy — has yet to have its charter authorized by District 150.
However, teachers will be happy to hear that Duncan is no fan of No Child Left Behind. Here’s his assessment, according to a recent report from ABC News:
“It unfairly labeled many schools as failures even when they were making progress,” he said. “It places too much emphasis on raw test scores rather than student growth. And it is overly prescriptive in some ways while it is too blunt an instrument of reform in others.
“But the biggest problem with NCLB,” he added, “is that it doesn’t encourage high learning standards. In fact, it inadvertently encourages states to lower them. The net effect is that we are lying to children and parents by telling kids they are succeeding when they are not.”
That’s certainly been true in District 150, as recent changes to the district’s grading scale can attest.
A good start for D150 is to get rid of the administration and the school board and start from scratch. The entire district needs to be re-constituted.
I’m a fan of both charter schools and merit-based pay. But on the latter, there needs to be some system of fairness. Not all students, classrooms or schools are equal. There must be some recognition of student progress, not just student achievement. There are lots of factors in education that are outside of the teacher’s control. I do, however, think that it is fair to tie pay to evaluations — just like in the real world. An evaluation, if done properly, can take into account all of the extraneous factors and be a fair measure.
Sud O. Nym: I think teachers should be held accountable, but judging teachers on the results of their teaching will be difficult to measure because, as you say, not all students, classrooms, or schools are equal. For instance, when the reading level of students in a particular high school classroom can range from third grade to grade level, how can a teacher’s effectiveness be judged by tests that are written at grade level? Can you come up with any fair method of evaluating teachers? I do believe that some judgments can be made as to how well the teacher is prepared for each day’s lesson, how the teacher delivers the lesson, the amount of work a teacher does (preparing lessons, grading papers), how the teacher relates to students and parents, etc.). I believe that the current evaluation process does take all these things into account. However, evaluating teachers on the basis of the NCLB test or any standardized test is totally unfair. The material on the NCLB test is accumulative–meaning that every teacher that the student has had since kindergarten has played a role in how well the student does on the test. At the high school level, the junior teachers often get the blame or praise if their students fail or pass the test. That is ridiculous because all the students’ teachers have contributed to what the students know or do not know.
I think there is a very simple way to solve this problem. VOUCHERS. When teachers are selected by students and parents BECAUSE of their abilities, they are rewarded, and those lousy teachers just taking up space will find no students in their classes.
No administration is necessary. The parents simply arrange with selected teachers to take their children… 10, 15, 20 as many as they can handle. That teacher becomes responsible for those children only and their needs. So with a $8000 voucher, one parent selects a Math, English, Social Science, Music and Arts teacher… each teacher gets $1600. With 10 students that is $16,000 a year… TAX FREE. What? Not enough? OK take 20 students… $32,000 a year. What? Not enough? Take 40 students… $64,000… how many students does an average teacher have now?
As far as further education… “higher” education, the students don’t need diplomas or graduations… they simply test in like they do now.
Kcdad: When students are allowed to choose their own teachers, they frequently choose the teachers that give the highest grades–it happens all the time when students run to their counselors asking to be transferred to a different class. Does anyone believe that the teachers who give the highest grades are necessarily the best teachers? Maybe parents would be more discerning. I’ll play your game for a minute. Your system, of course, would be completely impossible to carry out. When a favorite teacher’s class is full, what choice would the rest of the students have? How would you decide which students get to choose first?
This is a fascinating development for D150 but I hope they all realize that to walk you must first crawl. Now is the time to clean house of all overpaid, incompetent and/or unnecessary admin and consultants, instate and enforce strict disciplinary procedures, have an alternative facility ready, and replace the current Superintendent ASAP. Until District 150 has even a marginal image of competency and respectibility it will be the proverbial lipstick on a pig.
Grades will become irrelevant. All that matters is whether they can pass the entrance exams… what is the purpose of grades now?
Education will actually become functional instead of programmatic. People will learn in order to survive in society, (or to pass a college entrance exam) rather than to get grades.
It would be the same as any market decision. First come first served, until the teacher’s schedule is full… then they move on to their next choice. There are plenty of fine teachers out there. There are many more ready to be fine teachers if it weren’t the horrible system in existence now.
From all the criticisms that I’ve read about the city government, etc., on this blog, I feel that their plan to get involved with District 150 might just turn out to be a case of the blind leading the blind. Frankly, I’m ready to see how this government intervention works out. I know that when Manual was constantly under the threat of a state take-over of Manual, I finally got to the point where I wished they would come in to try to work their magic. We have the perfect experiment going on at Manual right now–all new administration, mostly new, hand-selected teachers. We just have to sit back and wait for the results. First, we have to ask what will be the criteria for judging success. Since the school had to restructured by order of the federal NCLB Act, I would assume that the NCLB AYP should be the criteria. How many out there expect Manual to improve under this new regime? I wonder how many years it will take for the federal, state, and city government and the public to realize that the educational problems are not going to be solved by teachers and schools alone. The private schools have the perfect plan for success–they choose the students. The charter schools and choice schools will pick up the “good” students not able to afford the private and suburban schools. Those children truly left behind will be left for the public school and teachers–and even if the union and tenure are ended and the school administrators can change teachers every year to weed out older and “bad” teachers, I predict the students will still not be able to meet academic standards. (In reality, that’s pretty much where District 150 is right now).
Kcdad: Actually, now that I recall, Manual did try your system in the 1980s, and it worked quite well. Each teacher in the English department developed several mini-courses (8-weeks) for the upperclassmen. At registration the juniors and seniors were allowed to choose the course (and thus the teacher).
I agree the adminstration needs thorough house cleaning. Wasn’t Hinto suppose to retire already? What’s taking him so long to leave? Be gone already!
By God, at least the Mayor is trying to do something!!
Here’s hoping tht Laura Patelle will make a motion to reconsider the decision last week to close woodruff, Jim Stowell will second and let’s get another vote on this.
Laura Petelle, s.orry for the misspelling
Why would she make a motion to reconsider? She voted to close it.
“at least the Mayor is trying to do something!”
Begging for money from the Federal Government is “doing something”?
If the problem is so large that we needs the feds, why don’t we clean house here first?
I suggest Ardis is just looking for an influx of cash… same as all politicians. Money will solve all of our problems.
C.J. – I just noticed that you equated performance-based teaching with merit pay. I think performance-based teaching is just another method of teaching, isn’t it? Of course, it could be used to measure what students are learning–and thus used for merit pay.
Online definition: The performance-based approach to education enables pupils to use their knowledge and apply skills in realistic situations. It differs from the traditional approach to education in that as well as striving for mastery of knowledge and skills, it also measures these in the context of practical tasks. Furthermore, performance-based education focuses on the process pupils go through while engaged in a task as well as the end product, enabling them to solve problems and make decisions throughout the learning process.
Sharon — I may have misinterpreted what they meant by “performance-based teaching.”
PI — Only someone from the prevailing side can move for reconsideration. In other words, under Roberts Rules of Order, no one who voted against closing Woodruff can move for reconsideration of the vote. Since Laura voted for closing it, she could, if she changed her mind for some reason (say, due to new information coming to light, like lower savings projections), move for reconsideration; anyone can second the motion (whether they were on the prevailing side or not). I don’t anticipate this happening, but it could happen, theoretically.
kcdad — I think the Mayor is sincerely trying to help. He didn’t go to Washington with his hand out. Asking for more funding through “Race to the Top” was Duncan’s suggestion.
LAURA VOTED IN FAVOR OF CLOSING wOODRUFF, A “YAH” VOTE; ONLY THOSE WHO VOTED THAT WAY CAN BRING UP A MOTION TO RECONSIDER.
I am not sure why Stowell’s suggestion of using Central as a math/science magnet high school did not gain traction. The Roosevelt Magnet School has been working very well. Why not provide Woodruff as a high school site and create a combined magnet school program at Central?
Roosevelt students could be relocated to Central with the benefit of shared access to a greater campus. High school and grade school campus facilities are not uncommon. It resolves the issues of school and population location with transportation to a more central location. In theory, Woodruff could be also be that same facility. Just seems to make more sense to transport students to a location that is geographically centered.
The charter schools seem to not make economic sense. It appears to be a status issue and a leverage issue against the teacher’s union.
Not sure that any scheme of merit pay can be fair. Some teachers will be able to get test score improvements, others will be able to motivate and lead their students to ongoing progress.
The NCLB is a game of numbers. Schools, their teachers, students and parents, are people with personalities and backgrounds. Pushing numbers is a game of making the participants abstract. It has not and will not work.
PiaProgressive: What makes you say that Roosevelt Magnet has been a success? At least, I believe it stopped being a “magnet” long ago. I could be wrong, butI believe that most of the students live in the Roosevelt attendance area. However, your mention of Roosevelt brought up some questions. Roosevelt is a K-8 school and the 150 dashboard shows that Roosevelt has met AYP–in fact, Roosevelt’s AYP scores are quite good. However, Roosevelt is listed only once–shouldn’t the school have two AYP scores, one for primary and one for the middle school grades. I keep forgetting that a Roosevelt administrator lives next door–I’ll just have to ask him.
Sharon, The Roosevelt observation is really only based on the experience of acquaintances and the observation that they have not been news negative. But closing/moving the Roosevelt campus looks like a better situation for the facility utilization of Central and Woodruff.
Although I panned the merit pay ideas, some people are naturals and motivated. Others are driven by goals – and money can be a goal to achieve numbers in any field. Seems crass to put teachers on a system of competing for money when their goal is to motivate, lead, inspire – things that are not measurable even though their efforts are recognized.
PiaProgressive: Of course, I agree with your opinions about merit pay. You bring up one very good point in that merit pay puts teachers in competition with each other. Of course, those who argue that merit pay is used in business, etc., will say that competition is a good thing. I can’t see how–in any way–competition among teachers would be a good thing. First of all, if administrators would continue to be the “evaluators,” the competition would revolve around who can win the favor of the administrators, not who are the better teachers. So far no one has been able to come up with a fair way to evaluate teachers for merit pay. Certainly the NCLB AYP or student scores on any standardized test would not be the fair way to evaluate a teacher.
Sharon: I completely agree with you. I was a teacher in Dist. 150 at one time and did not seem to have the “favor” of the administrator. I worked very hard with my students, was always prepared, missed less than 3 days of school each year, and always had excellent evaluations(done by the assistants). Teachers that were the “in crowd” got to take trips (always professional conferences, ahmmmm), got the “paid” committee positions in the school, and were not always the “best” teachers in the building, but always did whatever our esteemed leader told them to do, regardless of the own consciences.
I submit to you: merit pay won’t work under these conditions…….
Actually, from my experience and observation of workers, my view is that competition and merit pay are mostly bogus gimmicks to disallow general increases and cost of living increases. Few workers do the same thing or work with the same goals and motivation.
Comparing a roofer to a framer to an electrician to a plumber in construction would be an apple and orange example.
As ‘ateacher’ observed, people who game the system will get people getting the attention they want to get the money offered. Patting themselves on the back for anything and everything, significant and insignificant. These people usually get promoted to their positions of incompetency. They may or may not have even been competent at the original position.
Young people who educate themselves to become teachers are inspired by ideals and role models – almost a spiritual calling. Young people who educate themselves to earn lots of money are not seeking the limits of spiritual calling occupations. They want to become doctors, scientist, lawyers, administrators, stock traders, developers, car dealership owners.
U.S. culture has overvalued material goals and undervalued the work required to provide a responsible, safe, intelligent and civil place to live. Ref: Vance Packard’s “Status Seekers” published 1959. It is still the rat race and the rats are still winning.
I think merit pay based on improved student performance can be done. But first there must be true acknowledgement about student abilities and that must be used as a beginning point. If merit pay is to be implemented in schools, then it must begin with student assessment first at the start of the school term. For an administrator to determine if a teacher has made academic progress with his or her class during the course of the school year, quantifiable measures must be used and realistic goals set.
I see this as a real benefit to all schools, regardless of their performance standing. I was “frustrated” that the goals set (and I use that term loosely), at my children’s primary school were not more challenging. When a quarter or more of the children entering a first grade class are reading beginner chapter books than the goal of the class should not be learning to read!!! Conversely, if the majority of students in a first grade class are still working on mastering the alphabet and sounding out words, then learning to read may be an appropriate goal. Public education can no longer afford a “one size fits all” approach because that is part of what is causing the exodus from the system.
Frustrated: I guess I haven’t asked this question before. Have you ever taught? I can’t help but believe that merit pay based on academic progress would be easier in the primary grades because skillls can be isolated and thus more easily measured. If merit pay is to be based on academic progress, then we are stuck with teaching to the test. What skills are you going to measure in a high school English class? Are you going to use standardized tests to determine merit pay? If so, teachers are only going to teach the measurable skills–and only the ones on the test. I honestly believe that education in District 150 was better before NCLB. I believe the emphasis on testing has been detrimental to learning. What will determine merit pay–the number of students in each teacher’s classes who pass the test? So in many District 150 schools that don’t meet AYP, few teachers would get merit pay. Right? Few Manual teachers get merit pay. Most Dunlap teachers get merit pay. Right? In your own child’s classroom, the children who can read chapter books before they get to first grade were taught by their parents, right? So if teachers want merit pay they will want to teach in schools where parents participate in the learning process and students are self-motivated–teachers do only part of the work and get all the credit (merit pay). You have more faith in tests than I have. For instance, the NCLB tests have repercussions for only the school and the teachers. To what extent do you believe that “you can lead a horse to water but you can’t make him drink” might also apply to teaching? I haven’t read any recent studies on merit pay. Do you know of any schools that use merit pay and what criteria is used? Who in the world is going to produce (and pay for) all these tests? Are the PE teacher and the physics teacher going to be judged the same? Wouldn’t it be easier to get kids to pass the PE test–unless you have students with physical disabilities, etc.
Sharon, I do not have all the answers. I have never taught but have read extensively about school reform. I know that the D.C. schools under their new leadership are headed that way and apparently that is what Sec. of Ed., Mr. Ducan is advocating.
With my previous post I was referring to skills based testing related to goals established by the school, not the NCLB, which I agree has accomplished nothing. I see basic skills testing in conjunction with merit pay not as a system to brutalize teachers but rather as a tool for teachers and schools to customize the curriculum delivery to best reach the students that they serve. Under such a system, teachers would strive and be rewarded for incremental progress based on goals that are reasonable for their class or school, not some ideal standard that may be unrealistic for students given the skill set they enter class with.
It will be interesting to see how Mr. Ducan squares NCLB with merit pay goals, because as you point out, it would unfair to hold all teachers to the same standard of academic class performance without consideration of other issues. Oh, that’s right, that is what is the current practice is in this country, minus the merit pay.
Ref 1: Frustrated, merit pay based on “quantifiable measures”.
Caterpillar office workers were told that “quantifiable measures” were the standard for merit pay and promotion. That would be in the early 90’s after they had been out to the factories to “Save the company” which resulted in their loss of cost of living and general increase pay.
Some figured out how to game the system to get the pay, others ignored the gimmick and just did their work. Administrators patted themselves on the back, got big increases and bonus funds. Workers got the chicken feed.
Ref 2: Sharon, you 100% got it in the last post. Grade you an A.
All schools should have this on their answering machines. Apparently, this is the actual answering machine from a high school in Australia who is being sued by parents because the district would not change the grades of their children.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7C5Rnb7J3sU