The New America Foundatoin gives a summary of Obama and McCain's planned educational spending. While Obama plans to spend $18 billion on educaton, it's not clear how education reform will benefit. The first $10 billion will go to "to improve the quality and availability of childcare, preschool, and Head Start programs." The other $8 billion is not earmarked, but Obama has talked about improving teacher quality. This begs the question of whether or not Obama sees a fundamental flaw in the current education system. It appears that he doesn't. It is unfortunate that with such a large increase in the budget, and the clear underfunding of charter schools that have been the best value in education today, Obama does not appear prepared to increase funding for innovative education reform.
McCain, on the other hand, does not have plans for large budget increases in education. He wants to wait and see what works. He has some small scholarship programs and approximately a $3 billion budget for recruiting and for performance pay for teachers.
So, it's still unclear which of the candidates will financially support charters or reform as a whole. The fear about Obama is that spending that much more money on traditional education may indirectly harm charters and may even be a move against charters. That is yet to be seen. Until the two candidates' positions on charters become clearer with regard to funding, the issue is still unclear.
http//www.newamerica.net/blog/ed-money-watch/2008/let-funding-debate-begin-5484
Wednesday, July 30, 2008
What is the Triangle of Tension?
Jim Woody the former CFO at The Classical Academy introduced the term “Triangle of Tension” at a board retreat a few years ago to describe the trade-offs that almost all charter schools face.
In this model there are three factors that charter schools have to balance to make their financial model work. The biggest single factor in a school’s financial model is its enrollment. This is even more important if a school focuses on small class size. Enrollment is the primary element in determining a charter school’s revenue. The smaller the school, the less money that is available. A school may appear top heavy because there are not enough students to support the necessary administration. In addition, when small class sizes are emphasized, there is less money to pay teachers because the school may not reach a point where there are good economies of scale.
Salaries and Facilities are the two main components of a charter school’s budget. A school that has purchased or built a building with financings will often spend 90% or more of its revenue on Salaries, Benefits and Facilities.
This means that when a school wants to increase salaries without changing the other two points on the triangle, the triangle is no longer symmetrical. If the triangle falls flat, then it’s no longer a triangle, but a line. The line represents a fallen school, not to be seen again. How an administration or board avoids a fallen school is to carefully balance these three and not take chances with any one of them. When one is changed more than the others, the school places itself at an increased risk of failure.
School leaders need to make sure that when they introduce changes to one of these factors, the also make changes to one or two of the others. For example, in order to sustain an increase in salaries, it is highly likely that a school will either need to increase over school enrollment or else reduce staff and increase class size.
One final implication that may not be obvious is that it is almost impossible to offset any substantial increase in salary by decreasing other expenses. The reason is that most other expenses are so much smaller than salaries that it would take a 10% cut in other expenses to affect a roughly 1.3% increase in payroll . The other thing to recognize is that once you increase payroll, you have shifted your triangle permanently. Salary increases every year. In order to restore cuts to other expenses in later years, a school would then have to reduce payroll or the increase in payroll relative to the overall budget increase. In other words, an increase in salary is a permanent change tot he triangle.
The message is that you need to balance the pyramid and to look at the long term implications of both salary and facilities, while considering ways to maximize enrollments without violating your mission statement and core values.
In this model there are three factors that charter schools have to balance to make their financial model work. The biggest single factor in a school’s financial model is its enrollment. This is even more important if a school focuses on small class size. Enrollment is the primary element in determining a charter school’s revenue. The smaller the school, the less money that is available. A school may appear top heavy because there are not enough students to support the necessary administration. In addition, when small class sizes are emphasized, there is less money to pay teachers because the school may not reach a point where there are good economies of scale.
Salaries and Facilities are the two main components of a charter school’s budget. A school that has purchased or built a building with financings will often spend 90% or more of its revenue on Salaries, Benefits and Facilities.
This means that when a school wants to increase salaries without changing the other two points on the triangle, the triangle is no longer symmetrical. If the triangle falls flat, then it’s no longer a triangle, but a line. The line represents a fallen school, not to be seen again. How an administration or board avoids a fallen school is to carefully balance these three and not take chances with any one of them. When one is changed more than the others, the school places itself at an increased risk of failure.
School leaders need to make sure that when they introduce changes to one of these factors, the also make changes to one or two of the others. For example, in order to sustain an increase in salaries, it is highly likely that a school will either need to increase over school enrollment or else reduce staff and increase class size.
One final implication that may not be obvious is that it is almost impossible to offset any substantial increase in salary by decreasing other expenses. The reason is that most other expenses are so much smaller than salaries that it would take a 10% cut in other expenses to affect a roughly 1.3% increase in payroll . The other thing to recognize is that once you increase payroll, you have shifted your triangle permanently. Salary increases every year. In order to restore cuts to other expenses in later years, a school would then have to reduce payroll or the increase in payroll relative to the overall budget increase. In other words, an increase in salary is a permanent change tot he triangle.
The message is that you need to balance the pyramid and to look at the long term implications of both salary and facilities, while considering ways to maximize enrollments without violating your mission statement and core values.
Tuesday, July 29, 2008
Arizona asks The Classical Academy to Present on Strategic Compensation
After our New Orleans presentation, Peter and I have had many questions and contacts about our work on compensating teachers in a way that aligns with a school's strategic vision and values.
Arizona's Charter School Association has asked us to present our Strategic Compensatoin session along with our session on the Triangle of Tension (Enrollment, Facilities, Compensation). In addition, we may be able to present a session on the Lifecyle of Charter Schools, in which we analyze charter schools using current research in business lifecycles to see if charters experience a similar lifecycle.
This is exciting work as we consider opening The Classical Academy consulting arm to assist schools nationwide. If you are interested in having us speak at your event, let us know. dhering@asd20.org
Arizona's Charter School Association has asked us to present our Strategic Compensatoin session along with our session on the Triangle of Tension (Enrollment, Facilities, Compensation). In addition, we may be able to present a session on the Lifecyle of Charter Schools, in which we analyze charter schools using current research in business lifecycles to see if charters experience a similar lifecycle.
This is exciting work as we consider opening The Classical Academy consulting arm to assist schools nationwide. If you are interested in having us speak at your event, let us know. dhering@asd20.org
Saturday, July 26, 2008
Harvard Conference - Final Day
The conference ended with a half day of Bob Fogel who will be moving this fall to Babson College from Harvard. Babson is known especially for it’s entrepreneurship program, which may be the best in the nation.
While Bob suffered a little from not knowing when he had closed the sale, (Almost every session went overtime and not necessarily for good reason as far as I could judge. I also bumped this off of a few other participants who agreed with me.) he was an outstanding presenter in every other way with a great command of both his content and his presentation style. In fact, I tend to be a bit enamored with myself as a presenter, and Bob taught me a number of things. At one point while telling a story about a conditioning experiment involving a group of gorillas, Bob told the story while he waddled around the room doing a very good gorilla impersonation. He was engaging, funny, and effective.
Bob led discussions of two cases. One involved the U.S. Navy and the reluctance to change weapons systems on ships back in 1898. The Navy rested on its laurels and taking the “if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it” strategy. A gunner on a ship suggested changes based on information he learned about emerging British technology. Naval leaders failed to act until the president stepped in. The seaman was promoted and eventually made admiral. Why didn’t the Navy change? There are so many possible reasons—many of them make plenty of sense if we are on the administrative side. The seaman was uneducated, probably not the “best of the best.” The Navy wasn’t in trouble. There was “no reason” to change. No one was complaining. The list could go on. How often do we school administrators find ourselves there?
The second case examined the changes made in the NYPD when William Bratten was appointed commissioner. The changes in mission statement and vision, technology, emphasis on result rather than effort, empowerment of street cops, breaking down of silos between precincts, making data more available to all levels when necessary, and leaders taking all of that seriously and not simply instituting changes at the lower levels all made the NYPD a better place, which in turn made NYC the old NYC that Annie and Daddy Warbucks sang about. Tourists returned and residents felt safer. Why? Because change was made that created a new vision—a vision that people could imagine and feel and take hold of. It aligned the strategies with the values and then measured whether or not progress was made. It wasn’t just pie in the sky.
What is your mission? Do you need to change? Do you have a great school, but are resting on past results? Are their opportunities that you are missing at your school because you are so focused on what you’ve done that you are emphasizing your strategies and tasks rather than your mission and objectives? Are you taking into account information about project based learning? Are you keeping up on the power of online education?
For example, one of my concerns for our school is that we may not be ready for a world in which 50% to 60% of high school education will be online. What if the trend moves faster than it is now? Will we have a high school that is viable?
What are the questions that you aren’t asking? What is the future for your school? Change is inevitable. Are you ready for it? As Tom Peters says, “If it ain’t broke, break it.” Do you need to break something at your school?
While Bob suffered a little from not knowing when he had closed the sale, (Almost every session went overtime and not necessarily for good reason as far as I could judge. I also bumped this off of a few other participants who agreed with me.) he was an outstanding presenter in every other way with a great command of both his content and his presentation style. In fact, I tend to be a bit enamored with myself as a presenter, and Bob taught me a number of things. At one point while telling a story about a conditioning experiment involving a group of gorillas, Bob told the story while he waddled around the room doing a very good gorilla impersonation. He was engaging, funny, and effective.
Bob led discussions of two cases. One involved the U.S. Navy and the reluctance to change weapons systems on ships back in 1898. The Navy rested on its laurels and taking the “if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it” strategy. A gunner on a ship suggested changes based on information he learned about emerging British technology. Naval leaders failed to act until the president stepped in. The seaman was promoted and eventually made admiral. Why didn’t the Navy change? There are so many possible reasons—many of them make plenty of sense if we are on the administrative side. The seaman was uneducated, probably not the “best of the best.” The Navy wasn’t in trouble. There was “no reason” to change. No one was complaining. The list could go on. How often do we school administrators find ourselves there?
The second case examined the changes made in the NYPD when William Bratten was appointed commissioner. The changes in mission statement and vision, technology, emphasis on result rather than effort, empowerment of street cops, breaking down of silos between precincts, making data more available to all levels when necessary, and leaders taking all of that seriously and not simply instituting changes at the lower levels all made the NYPD a better place, which in turn made NYC the old NYC that Annie and Daddy Warbucks sang about. Tourists returned and residents felt safer. Why? Because change was made that created a new vision—a vision that people could imagine and feel and take hold of. It aligned the strategies with the values and then measured whether or not progress was made. It wasn’t just pie in the sky.
What is your mission? Do you need to change? Do you have a great school, but are resting on past results? Are their opportunities that you are missing at your school because you are so focused on what you’ve done that you are emphasizing your strategies and tasks rather than your mission and objectives? Are you taking into account information about project based learning? Are you keeping up on the power of online education?
For example, one of my concerns for our school is that we may not be ready for a world in which 50% to 60% of high school education will be online. What if the trend moves faster than it is now? Will we have a high school that is viable?
What are the questions that you aren’t asking? What is the future for your school? Change is inevitable. Are you ready for it? As Tom Peters says, “If it ain’t broke, break it.” Do you need to break something at your school?
Wednesday, July 23, 2008
Harvard Charter Conference – Day 3
Harvard Charter Conference – Day 3
What a day of phenomenal education. Today we began with a session on Financial Management of a charter school. While I didn’t learn much and could have taught the session, the presenter did a wonderful job and showed that financial people don’t have to be nerds. Sabrina Philson was bright and enthusiastic and used a lot of visuals and only a few charts with number to make her point. It was a financial type at her best. I was proud to be a financial geek after experiencing her presentation. Some key points to remember were to create internal controls, create understandable reports for constituents, make sure principals understand that they have a role in the financial process, and to have good communication and accountability.
The second session, while not applicable to The Classical Academy was extremely interesting as Sally Bachofer led a case study about a school facing renewal. We took various roles and had to decide whether to renew or close the school. The facts of the case were such that there were some difficult trade-offs. The past five years had shown moderately poor performance compared to district schools, but there were some signs that there could be improved performance in the future. Questions such as what are the criteria? And who has the authority to close a school? were discussed. For example, if there is a chance that the school will succeed in the future and the parents like the school, is that enough reason to keep the school open?
We then discussed an out of sector case. Stacy Childress of the Harvard Business School led a discussion of Southwest Airlines. Once we really dug into the strategy, culture, resources, and leadership, we then compared Southwest’s strategy and approach to business with charter schools. We found that there are many similarities such as the upstart finding a way to succeed where bigger and older organizations have failed or had mediocre performance. We also talked about creating a culture that lasts and in which people want to work hard and are willing to take less pay. We also talked about transition and how hard transition is in charter schools. Perhaps it’s my business person bias, but I thought that Stacy was absolutely amazing. She made me want to go to Harvard B School.
Conference leader, Kay Merseth, led a case study on what is it that makes a charter school public and who the money belongs to, especially if there is any left at year end. The case involved a Denver charter that was saving money for a down payment on a building. A parent found out after about three or four years when the fund balance hit about $2.6 million in a school with revenue of about $5 million. The saving was board approved, but the parent and many teachers wanted the money spent now. There were many complicating factors in the case, but the ultimate question is what is fair to current staff and students? Can a school withhold money from the current allocation to spend on a future building? Kay did a great job getting at the issues of finance and the problem in charter’s. She finished with a discussion of what it means for charters to be public schools. The one complaint that I have (and Kay, if you are reading this, I’m just ribbing you a little) is that she didn’t let me get my last point in before we closed.
For dinner Vance and I joined James and Nicholas for dinner. We had a great discussion about issues in education, social order, politics, and economics. It was quite stimulating. We disagreed on many issues, but we found that we all share a huge passion to make the world a better place. It was a lot of fun, and I hope that I made some good friends.
Tomorrow is a half day, then we’ll be off to home. This has been a great experience. There are many things we can take back to our school. As always, if you have questions, feel free to sent me an email at dheringcma@msn.com.
What a day of phenomenal education. Today we began with a session on Financial Management of a charter school. While I didn’t learn much and could have taught the session, the presenter did a wonderful job and showed that financial people don’t have to be nerds. Sabrina Philson was bright and enthusiastic and used a lot of visuals and only a few charts with number to make her point. It was a financial type at her best. I was proud to be a financial geek after experiencing her presentation. Some key points to remember were to create internal controls, create understandable reports for constituents, make sure principals understand that they have a role in the financial process, and to have good communication and accountability.
The second session, while not applicable to The Classical Academy was extremely interesting as Sally Bachofer led a case study about a school facing renewal. We took various roles and had to decide whether to renew or close the school. The facts of the case were such that there were some difficult trade-offs. The past five years had shown moderately poor performance compared to district schools, but there were some signs that there could be improved performance in the future. Questions such as what are the criteria? And who has the authority to close a school? were discussed. For example, if there is a chance that the school will succeed in the future and the parents like the school, is that enough reason to keep the school open?
We then discussed an out of sector case. Stacy Childress of the Harvard Business School led a discussion of Southwest Airlines. Once we really dug into the strategy, culture, resources, and leadership, we then compared Southwest’s strategy and approach to business with charter schools. We found that there are many similarities such as the upstart finding a way to succeed where bigger and older organizations have failed or had mediocre performance. We also talked about creating a culture that lasts and in which people want to work hard and are willing to take less pay. We also talked about transition and how hard transition is in charter schools. Perhaps it’s my business person bias, but I thought that Stacy was absolutely amazing. She made me want to go to Harvard B School.
Conference leader, Kay Merseth, led a case study on what is it that makes a charter school public and who the money belongs to, especially if there is any left at year end. The case involved a Denver charter that was saving money for a down payment on a building. A parent found out after about three or four years when the fund balance hit about $2.6 million in a school with revenue of about $5 million. The saving was board approved, but the parent and many teachers wanted the money spent now. There were many complicating factors in the case, but the ultimate question is what is fair to current staff and students? Can a school withhold money from the current allocation to spend on a future building? Kay did a great job getting at the issues of finance and the problem in charter’s. She finished with a discussion of what it means for charters to be public schools. The one complaint that I have (and Kay, if you are reading this, I’m just ribbing you a little) is that she didn’t let me get my last point in before we closed.
For dinner Vance and I joined James and Nicholas for dinner. We had a great discussion about issues in education, social order, politics, and economics. It was quite stimulating. We disagreed on many issues, but we found that we all share a huge passion to make the world a better place. It was a lot of fun, and I hope that I made some good friends.
Tomorrow is a half day, then we’ll be off to home. This has been a great experience. There are many things we can take back to our school. As always, if you have questions, feel free to sent me an email at dheringcma@msn.com.
Tuesday, July 22, 2008
Harvard Charter Conference Update - Day 2
Today began with small group discussion led by Amanda Taylor, a fourth year grad student in the Harvard School of Education. Amanda has a great personality and was wide awake and kept us moving through discussion of the previous day’s topics. We have an energetic group with people from Kansas City, Los Angeles, Chicago, and Philadelphia.
Our discussion today began with Peter Frumkin from U of Texas leading a case study about MATCH charter school in Boston. The discussion dealt with a decision of how to deal with an empty floor. The case study was really about how to make a major decision in a way that honors the three main elements of strategic alignment—support, value and capacity. Dr. Frumkin was an outstanding facilitator. The point was that if we view the three elements as overlapping circles and see the place where they all intersect as the optimal balance, then we ought to make decisions based on getting ourselves and our organization into the sweet spot. We also talked about what happens when a leader can’t see that we aren’t in the sweet spot. A leader needs to recognize when the organization isn’t in the sweet spot and then try to get there or else the elements need to be changed to change the overlap.
Michael Goldstein, of MATCH led a discussion of the replication model of Christo Rey and how that began. The discussion revolved around how you make a replication decision and how far you can or should stray from your core focus to replicate. In Christo Rey’s case there were some complicating factors, but they ultimately stuck to their core and have bee pretty successful. At the end we talked about MATCH and why they have made the decision not to replicate for now. The case illustrated just how tough it can be to effectively replicate. You need to find vision alignment as well as good leadership and staff, as well as to determine how much control to keep over the new schools.
The last facilitator led session with Chris Wilkens looked at how to improve special education in charter schools. He also talked some about special education laws and how charters must act to meet special needs. I got a lot out of a conversation with a special education administrator from Los Angeles at break in talking about how to handle my son with regard to evaluation issues and a possible 504. One of the great things about this conference so far is the great presenters as well as all I learn from other participants.
The final session was an informal discussion with Ted and Nancy Sizer, long time charter leaders and prior to charter laws innovators in education. This session went so well that Dr. Merseth finally had to interrupt the questions to end us for the day.
Afterwards, Vance Brown (one of our board members) and I got into a discussion with some other participants on the value of progressive educational philosophy versus our use of E.D. Hirsch’s content rich core knowledge curriculum. The discussion became spirited at time, but what we really came away with for TCA is the fact that while we do believe in some core curriculum, we also want to be student focused. We don’t buy the progressive approach completely, but it has merits. The key is to figure out what really is essential and how much of the direction of method and content should be directed by children and at what ages. We still believe that the amount of control of education to be given to students must be based at least partially by their age and developmental level.
Overall it was a great day. All of the presenters were engaging and were content experts, but perhaps the greatest experience was the end of day discussion that challenged my way of thinking and forced me to rethink what I believe about education and the role of charter schools. It also made me appreciate the value of freedom to educate and explore new methods based on what really works and is good for students, not just on what the government says we need to learn.
Our discussion today began with Peter Frumkin from U of Texas leading a case study about MATCH charter school in Boston. The discussion dealt with a decision of how to deal with an empty floor. The case study was really about how to make a major decision in a way that honors the three main elements of strategic alignment—support, value and capacity. Dr. Frumkin was an outstanding facilitator. The point was that if we view the three elements as overlapping circles and see the place where they all intersect as the optimal balance, then we ought to make decisions based on getting ourselves and our organization into the sweet spot. We also talked about what happens when a leader can’t see that we aren’t in the sweet spot. A leader needs to recognize when the organization isn’t in the sweet spot and then try to get there or else the elements need to be changed to change the overlap.
Michael Goldstein, of MATCH led a discussion of the replication model of Christo Rey and how that began. The discussion revolved around how you make a replication decision and how far you can or should stray from your core focus to replicate. In Christo Rey’s case there were some complicating factors, but they ultimately stuck to their core and have bee pretty successful. At the end we talked about MATCH and why they have made the decision not to replicate for now. The case illustrated just how tough it can be to effectively replicate. You need to find vision alignment as well as good leadership and staff, as well as to determine how much control to keep over the new schools.
The last facilitator led session with Chris Wilkens looked at how to improve special education in charter schools. He also talked some about special education laws and how charters must act to meet special needs. I got a lot out of a conversation with a special education administrator from Los Angeles at break in talking about how to handle my son with regard to evaluation issues and a possible 504. One of the great things about this conference so far is the great presenters as well as all I learn from other participants.
The final session was an informal discussion with Ted and Nancy Sizer, long time charter leaders and prior to charter laws innovators in education. This session went so well that Dr. Merseth finally had to interrupt the questions to end us for the day.
Afterwards, Vance Brown (one of our board members) and I got into a discussion with some other participants on the value of progressive educational philosophy versus our use of E.D. Hirsch’s content rich core knowledge curriculum. The discussion became spirited at time, but what we really came away with for TCA is the fact that while we do believe in some core curriculum, we also want to be student focused. We don’t buy the progressive approach completely, but it has merits. The key is to figure out what really is essential and how much of the direction of method and content should be directed by children and at what ages. We still believe that the amount of control of education to be given to students must be based at least partially by their age and developmental level.
Overall it was a great day. All of the presenters were engaging and were content experts, but perhaps the greatest experience was the end of day discussion that challenged my way of thinking and forced me to rethink what I believe about education and the role of charter schools. It also made me appreciate the value of freedom to educate and explore new methods based on what really works and is good for students, not just on what the government says we need to learn.
Monday, July 21, 2008
Harvard Conference Update
I’m at the Charter Schools: Charting the Course for the Next Decade at Harvard University. It’s an expensive conference, but so far seems worth the money.
On day 1, Eric Premack began with a session about how charter legislation that began in an attempt to allow freedom and innovation has ended up restricting schools. Court and district interpretation in many states have almost neutered the effectiveness of these laws. NCLB has further restricted charter schools, but requiring teachers to meet the “highly qualified” definition that does not consider classroom effectiveness as would a business or other organization. The Classical Academy, where I work, had to let go of a couple of teachers because of Federal regulations imposed on the state.
Then Kay Merseth and a team of grad student researchers presented a cross-case analysis of 5 low income, high performing charters schools in the Boston area. The analysis is somewhat preliminary, but there were some significant similarities between the schools. These schools had clear mission and vision, which as supported at all levels. In addition, they focused on maximizing teacher time on task, as well as personal relationships with each student.
After lunch we discussed organizational management and a CEO model versus a democratic model. I closed the discussion, which was tending toward the democratic model, with a note that the democratic model works best with a small population of similarly qualified people who have a high degree of maturity as well as mutual respect due to the fact that the democratic organization requires clear and thoughtful criticism of each others’ views.
We ended the day discussing the expansion by Achievement First with Dacia Toll. Dacia presented many of the key factors that she has seen that bring success to new additions in the Achievement First model.
If you would like any information about these sessions, feel free to contact me. Dheringcma@msn.com.
On day 1, Eric Premack began with a session about how charter legislation that began in an attempt to allow freedom and innovation has ended up restricting schools. Court and district interpretation in many states have almost neutered the effectiveness of these laws. NCLB has further restricted charter schools, but requiring teachers to meet the “highly qualified” definition that does not consider classroom effectiveness as would a business or other organization. The Classical Academy, where I work, had to let go of a couple of teachers because of Federal regulations imposed on the state.
Then Kay Merseth and a team of grad student researchers presented a cross-case analysis of 5 low income, high performing charters schools in the Boston area. The analysis is somewhat preliminary, but there were some significant similarities between the schools. These schools had clear mission and vision, which as supported at all levels. In addition, they focused on maximizing teacher time on task, as well as personal relationships with each student.
After lunch we discussed organizational management and a CEO model versus a democratic model. I closed the discussion, which was tending toward the democratic model, with a note that the democratic model works best with a small population of similarly qualified people who have a high degree of maturity as well as mutual respect due to the fact that the democratic organization requires clear and thoughtful criticism of each others’ views.
We ended the day discussing the expansion by Achievement First with Dacia Toll. Dacia presented many of the key factors that she has seen that bring success to new additions in the Achievement First model.
If you would like any information about these sessions, feel free to contact me. Dheringcma@msn.com.
Thursday, July 17, 2008
National Charter Conference A Success
Peter and I returned from the National Association for Public Charter School Conference after a successful presentation on Strategic Compensation. Our proposal, currently used at The Classical Academy in Colorado Springs, aligns teacher pay structure with the strategic values and goals of the school. This is more that merit pay. It's a structured approach, not negotiated individually with teachers, to paying people according to the value they provide to the school.
The approach is merit based, market based, and value based. The pay formula first rewards longevity, teaching duties taken on, alignment with and ability to promulgate the school's values and effectiveness in the classroom. The formula then multiplies that result by a market factor.
In most year's a teacher will not change their ranking, but they will receive a longevity increase. However, with additional teaching skills or taking on additional assignments a teacher can move up in the grid system. Teachers that are higher in the grid system receive a greater reward for their longevity.
The structure seeks to reward teachers that are hard to hire as well as those that are effective teachers in the TCA framework. So far this method has proven effective. We have been using it for three years and the next three years will provide even more data as to how effective this program will be. Stay tuned because we think this system could be the next step to a great way of rewarding teachers in all schools.
The approach is merit based, market based, and value based. The pay formula first rewards longevity, teaching duties taken on, alignment with and ability to promulgate the school's values and effectiveness in the classroom. The formula then multiplies that result by a market factor.
In most year's a teacher will not change their ranking, but they will receive a longevity increase. However, with additional teaching skills or taking on additional assignments a teacher can move up in the grid system. Teachers that are higher in the grid system receive a greater reward for their longevity.
The structure seeks to reward teachers that are hard to hire as well as those that are effective teachers in the TCA framework. So far this method has proven effective. We have been using it for three years and the next three years will provide even more data as to how effective this program will be. Stay tuned because we think this system could be the next step to a great way of rewarding teachers in all schools.
Wednesday, July 16, 2008
Charter Schools Are Tipping Over
In The Tipping Point, Malcom Gladwell points out that there is often a definable moment when cultural phenomena reach a critical mass of mindshare or marketshare. Charter schools have done both and today was a significant moment for our movement. The National Alliance for Public Charter Schools marked this signal change in a post at the Alliance charter blog.
Today, in a speech before the NAACP, Republican presidential candidate John McCain referenced charter schools as a preferred option for parents, saying, "Some parents may choose a better public school. Some may choose a private school. Many will choose a charter school. No entrenched bureaucracy or union should deny parents that choice and children that opportunity." (Quote in Context) His matter-of-fact identification of charter schools as worthy of our support was an applause line with an audience that wasn't eager to cheer McCain.
On the other side of the aisle, the ascension of charter schools is just as evident. Earlier in the campaign, when asked where he might deviate from the Democratic party line, the presidential candidate for that party, Barack Obama indicated, "I've been very clear about the fact--and sometimes I've gotten in trouble with the teachers' union on this--that we should be experimenting with charter schools. We should be experimenting with different ways of compensating teachers." (Quote in Context)
When the presidential candidates of the two major parties identify charter schools as a trustworthy and preferred option, then charter schools have tipped over. Charter schools may still innovate (and they must) but the concept of charter schools is no longer an innovation. We are now seen as the experimental incubator of the public school system. For better or worse, we are a piece of the mainstream establishment—sort of the R & D division. Now, if president McBama can convince the ten remaining states that don't allow charter schools to join the modern era, we might be able to focus our movement's energy on issues of quality and equity.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)