Sparring with a union charter advocate

Over at the Edwize Blog, union and charter advocate Leo Casey has a post criticizing conservative educational reformers. Leo's a smart guy and ed reform needs smart folk on all sides of many aisles—that's why I engaged in the comments on that site. I'm having fun sparring and learning as we go.

Here's my latest response to Leo's comment. For full context, visit the comments section of the post above as well as the original post from Diane Ravitch (at a reform website no less) and another post by Leo at EdWize.

==========================================

Leo, I thought this comment thread was dead, but I'll chime back in. You are welcome to have the last word. I'm hopeful we'll continue to dialogue and debate in other settings. I’ll cross-post my reply on my blog so more folks can extend the discussion.

1. I It is ad hominem (and silly) to characterize me among "those on the ultra-right." You are attempting to impeach my credibility by using a shortcut label. That isn't a response to my argument, but to me as a person—that's exactly what the conventional (not liberal) interpretation of "against the man" means. Whether you did it thoughtfully or reflexively, your introductory salvo remains ad hominem. Your writing and public testimony is full of loaded language like "privatize" “dismantling” etc. When those you support have a plan, you call it a “proposal”, when you oppose a plan you call it a “scheme”. Your use of language is nuanced and persuasive, but don’t pretend it doesn’t reveal a heavy bias. In the circles where you live, work, and publish, labeling someone “ultra-right” demonizes them.

2. Thanks for the primer on inferential statistics. Ravitch does cross the line from correlation to causation, and she does so explicitly. Why else would she reference both Finland’s rate of unionization and their high performance on PISA? In fact, Ravitch explicitly offers her analysis in response to the argument “teachers’ unions were no help to education reform.” That phrase “no help” is a causative argument, not a correlation. It may be subtle, and it may be poorly warranted, but Ravitch is attempting to refute a causative argument (of her own straw-man phrasing) with a correlational argument. Are you suggesting that Ravitch thinks unions are neutral? She is both making a rebuttal argument and claiming that no argument can be made.

3. Here you make a legitimate argument about which changes are driving improved performance in MA. I don’t know that answer, but like many dynamics in education, there are probably multiple causes. That will take much more rigorous research than currently exists. (It is disingenuous to pretend that I have advocated some increase in the number of standardized tests, or that the reforms in MA are just about testing—please substantiate or drop that line of [reasoning]) What is obvious though, is that improvement in MA has occurred in an environment of reform, and that the reforms in MA happened over the robust objections of the unions. I am convinced that if the type of charter school you advocate elsewhere had been proposed in MA 15 years ago, the union would have opposed it, calling it a “scheme” of the “ultra-right” to “cherry-pick” students, “drain resources” “privatize” public education etc.

Ultimately, the existence of charter schools will make public education better. The presence of healthy and balanced assessment systems will make public education better. The healthy checks and balances of teacher unions will make charter schools better. Teacher resistance and potential for decertification will make unions better. What won’t improve the situation is muddled argumentation and attacks on messenger with whom you disagree.

========

This is in response to Leo's re-comment

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

Peter:

1. You have a rather liberal notion of ad hominem argument.

2. You also don’t seem to understand the distinction between correlation and causation. Yes, Ravitch says there is a correlation between high academic performance and strong teacher unions in Massachusetts. Both exist at the same time and in the same place, which is what qualifies as correlation.

What she doesn’t say is that there is a causal relationship, that strong teacher unions cause high academic performance. That is a different claim, with an entirely different status. There are many correlations that clearly do not qualify as causal.

Lots of things are correlated with high academic achievement. Take geography, for one example. On the whole, northern states have a higher academic performance than southern states. But no one would seriously argue that the geography is causal. Rather, there are historical reasons why northern states are better performers.

3. Massachusetts was always a high performing state. What changed in the last decade was that it went to the very top of the pack. You leave out of your account a number of very plausible reasons why that might have happened. For example, Massachusetts had a successful adequacy lawsuit, supported by teacher unions and opposed by the sort of privatizing reformers you so admire, which dramatically increased the revenues and resources going to public schools, and especially those schools serving the neediest students. As an explanation for moving from the top 5% of states to the very top, that is a whole lot more plausible than your claim for increasing the numbers of standardized tests.

Leo

Quaking in Their Leg Irons

Slouching Toward Accountability: 4-3

In what passes for courage in the LA Unified School District, the board has voted (4-3) to adopt a draconian resolution “making it a district priority” to “suggest” “changes in legislation” to “expedite” termination of teachers accused of “serious crimes.”

That’s a lot of qualifiers for one resolution.

•Lot’s of district priorities never make it to legislation.

•With the union influence over state politics, it is likely the district’s suggestion will be ignored.

•”Expedite” is a weasel word. Does that mean terminating criminals before they finish their sentence and return to the classroom?

•”Serious crimes” leaves a lot of room for debate.

And even with all those qualifiers and nuances, (drum roll please)

The Union opposed the resolution. (They weren’t consulted enough.)

Criminally accused teachers in LA must be quaking in their leg irons over this.

Avoiding the Ratchet Effect with Merit Pay

Back in my days as a commercial fisherman in Alaska, we worked with a variety of winches, catches, pulleys and cams. Being a simple guy, I like simple machines and the come-along winch is one of my favorites. By combining simple leverage with a strong pulley, a single person can exert much more power than their muscles should allow. But that leverage can be dangerous. Especially in a running tide or against a strong wind, winching against the upstream side can unbalance the system and start filling the boat with water. Unless the winch has a reliable and immediate way to release tension it can sink the boat. Why would any captain want something on the boat that could sink it?

As a former captain, I lived by an important rule: “Keep the water under the boat."

Winches can break that rule.

Winching increases power. Increased power increases tension. 

Stay with me.

In charter schools, merit pay is like a winch. It lets school leaders, especially principals. amplify the impact of below-market salary pools. By customizing pay systems according to hard-to-staff positions, special leadership responsibilities, sustained performance, and other strategic priorities, charter school leaders can pull teachers into the staff and hold them even when the currents of competition with higher-paying schools sweep into play.

So merit pay increases staffing power. But increased power increases tension.

Unless the merit pay system includes a way to release tension by dialing some teachers back, it can sink the financial ship of any charter school. If a merit bonus (whether performance, positional, leadership, longevity) cannot be taken away, it is dangerous. A healthy strategic compensation system must include teachers whose pay oscillates depending on their value added to the school. If pay can only move up, then the budget balance can only move down. After a few hiring cycles, the ship will start sinking and desperation will take hold. The release catch on the merit pay ratchet is a willingness to decrease teacher pay when indicated. Otherwise, merit pay is out of balance and soon to capsize.

Charter School Missionaries—Another Way to Explain Charter School Dynamics

One of the common explanations for charter schools is that they combine an educational mission with a corporate sensibility. I have used this analogy many times to explain the way that market pressures keep us frosty. I live and work in a small corner of charter school market; but even there we have seen several charter schools close because they couldn’t retain enough students. Even the most successful charter schools can fail quickly if test scores or school budgets get out of balance. Even more to the point—parents who choose charter schools have already demonstrated their willingness to shop around. Every new school in the neighborhood puts pressure on the charter school ecosystem. The free-market model makes intuitive sense and matches the empirical evidence. It also accounts for the proliferation and emerging contraction in the for-profit sector of charter school management companies.

Still, the market model is limited. It doesn’t account for the reality that great educators consistently choose to join and stay with charter schools that pay well below market rates. In a market model, charter schools would have to settle for teachers in the low range of the performance band. Fortunately, charter schools defy market wisdom. The invisible hand is supplemented by a visible heart.

Here enters a second metaphor. Those who work at charter schools are less marketers than missionaries. Just as succeeding waves of Jesuits, mainline Protestants, and modern Evangelicals expanded the reach of Christendom, waves of founders, teachers, and leaders are pressing the cause of charter schools. If you are a selfless, student-centered educator with an abiding heart for helping students, you may find a great home in traditional or public charter schools. There are many mission-minded saints in all types of schools. If you are a self-serving pseudo-professional looking to lock in a gig with no real pressure to improve after year three years, you might find a home in a traditional public school. You will be surrounded by excellent and passionate teachers who resent your stagnation, but you will not be fired. In the traditional system, you will find a safe haven.

That is not true in the charter school ecosystem. The market pressures, lower salaries, and lack of long-term stability tend to weed out those who teach for their own benefit. Even those who must choose stability and increased financial prospects will self-select away from charter schools. That leaves us with a higher percentage of teachers who are motivated by idealism, altruism, relationships, and quality of life. On average, charter school teachers are still a much less experienced and younger population. In Colorado, the average experience of a charter school is about 55% as substantial as traditional public school teachers. (In fairness—this is partly a statistical artifact of the fact that the charter school universe is so young that there are no charter school teachers with 20 years of experience in charter schools. By contrast, many public school systems have an average teacher experience rating over 20 years.)

So, it is correct to note that charter schools blend educational and free market forces. But it is equally true to observe that charter school workers blend educational and missional characteristics. They are the closest things that education has to modern missionaries.

Does School Choice Siphon the Best Students?

Teacher Tom, writing at the Stories from Schools blog is worried that choice schools siphon off the best students and leave the neighborhood schools with too many low-performing students.

This is a variant of the "cherry-picking" argument addressed by Karin Piper on her blog, and points to a basic disagreement within the reform community.

As Tom describes it, students are in "piles" and if good students leave, the good piles shrinks. As I see it, teachers are the primary determinant in which pile a student calls home. There are other factors, but schools like the Harlem Zone and KIPP are showing that powerful reform models with committed teachers can overcome those obstacles.

I see the same potential dynamic with offering honors classes or AP. Does the existence of a preferred option automatically mean that those left behind will wither? Or is it just possible that a teacher can always bring 1/3 of the class into the "got it" pile if they expect that of themselves and their students? I think Tom has good questions and I encourage you to check out the blog for some insightful conversation.