Fair teacher pay?: What is it?

With all of the concerns about merit pay for teachers and how it's either not effective or not fair, I thought I'd just make a note or two.

Having implemented a "strategic compensation" system for teachers, I know that it's a tough mental and emotional transition.  However, there are a couple of things to consider.

When we say "fair," what to do we mean?  As I've read about this issue over the past five years or so, it seems that the complain it always made by teachers or teacher unions about the way teachers view merit pay or any change to the traditional step and lane system.  None of the detractors ever ask if it's fair for students, districts or tax payers.  No detractor ever asks if society is getting its money's worth. 

Because most of these systems are done by districts or even states, they tend to be top down, bureaucratic, and poorly communicated. 

1. Top down means not including teachers in the discussion about what might be effective or appropriate reasons for distinguishing between teacher compensation.
2. Bureacratic means that the system is either a compromise between political factions in order to get votes or else it's an easy to implement system that requires only completing a couple of check boxes to determine who gets the additional money.  (Of course, it's always additional money--no reductions for inadequate teachers.)
3. Poorly communicated means that the government agency simply tells teachers, "Here's the system, deal with it."  There is no sense of community.  There is no real attempt to explain the strategic nature of the system.  There is no attempt to gain teacher buy in. 

In other words, many of the systems are not fair to teacher because they do not treat teachers as valuable human beings.  They do not clearly reward the attributes necessary to great teaching.  The main problem with fairness has little to do with the attempt to reward better teachers more than average or even poor teachers. 

Vigor or rigor: Why not both?

I just read a piece by Joanne Yatvin on Valerie Stauss’s Washingon Post blog "The Answer Sheet."  The title is “What schools need: Vigor instead of rigor.”  At first glance, I really liked the piece and agree that vigor is a great word for what should happen in education.  Then I thought again about her other point—the point about rigor not being a good word for what we want in education, and they I realized that she is absolutely wrongheaded o this one.   To begin with, the two words are NOT antonyms.  The two are not mutually exclusive as Yatvin suggests.  They can coexist.

Yatvin emphasizes the meanings of rigor that imply opposition and death (e.g., rigor mortis).  Rigor also means good things like exactness, consistency, and accuracy.   I find it difficult to believe that a grammar nut (self-described) like Yatvin wouldn’t agree that those are all great things for education.  Having taught college courses for years and graded numerous papers where I had to note issues with grammar, spelling, and word choice, I have an appreciation for Yatvin’s holding on to grammatical correctness.  I too cringe when I hear or read myself used in place of me or I.  I too smile inside when someone attaches “ly” in the wrong places.  I even hold onto the use of the subjunctive case.  

In mathematics, perhaps even more than grammar, exactness, consistency and accuracy is key.  Logic demands accuracy and precision.  As both an accountant and an ethicist (yes, it’s true), I know the need for precision in logic and formulae.  When I create a formula in a spreadsheet, it had better end with an accurate result.  When I make an argument about an ethical issue, exactness and precision are important.  In fact, in teaching ethics, one of my greatest pains was listening to students deliver general and lazy arguments supporting their views, assuming that people would agree with them.  

Some antonyms for rigor are flexibility (generally a good thing), but also laxness and leniency. If leniency means not ensuring that students are learning and students being lenient on themselves when it comes to trying to understand a difficult concept or dealing appropriately with an idea that may contradict their existing beliefs or practices, then leniency is awful.  If we are lax in our feedback to students, telling them they are doing a great job when they are really not understanding a subject or producing good work, then that's awful too.

So, why can’t there be vigorous rigor or rigorous vigor in the classroom?  Why can’t there be lively, exciting and exact and careful and diligent discussion of issues?  Shouldn’t science projects be fun, exciting, interesting, mind expanding, but also difficult and challenging, requiring the greatest of consistency and accuracy in both the method and the examination of results?  You can see that this notion of both rigor and vigor can be applied to any subject in school.  Even in art, where creativity is a key component, we can also teach precision in brush strokes or molding or carving clay.  Then we will be allowing students to pursue their gifting in a way that leads to a life of both blossoming and self-discipline.

A sign of more scrutiny on for-profit management companies?

In Pennsylvania and Ohio two management companies have been seeing declines, both from local school boards and from state governments.  Imagine and White Hat are finding more people asking questions about charges and that the state of Ohio has begun to deny White Hat more schools. 

It appears that the old "proof is in the pudding" concept is at work and that some are asking more questions than before, especially when schools aren't performing.  This is as it should be.  If these organizations were producing schools that were "knocking the ball out of the ballpark"  (should I see how many old cliches I can get into this blog?), then there would be few complaints.  The amount of money spent (assuming that it was within the normal state allocation of per pupil funding) would be worth it.  The fact that many of these management companies do not ensure success in their schools shows that they may not be worth their fees.

I haven't seen recent statistics nationwide, but in Colorado, the best charter schools are all independently founded and run.

We'll see where this goes, but as states begin to figure out that a for profit management company does not ensure a good education and possibly not a good investment of public funds, they will surely create additional regulations for the use of state money and for profit management company transparency. 

Charter schools cream students?

OK, so I thought I'd bust a myth.  I often see blogs, comments on news articles, and tweets stating that charter schools take the best students or they cream off the top.  I know what happens in a few states with which I work, but then I got to thinking.  That can't be true in any state.

First, Federal requirements for start up grant funds include that a school must have a lottery system for students when enrollment exceeds space available.  In other words, far from choosing, the system is completely random.  Any student has the opportunity to enroll.

I check the California Charter School web site and they put it like this:

MYTH: Charter public schools accept only the "cream of the crop" and reject underperforming students.
REALITY: Unlike exclusive private schools, charter public schools do not recruit and select "the best" students. When enrollment requests exceed the number of seats, charter schools are required by law to hold a public lottery to determine who will attend. Because they are free and open to all, charter public schools do not engage in selective admissions policies.

 Almost every school that I know of has a lottery system for filling available seats.  If the school is not full, then for financial reasons, I'm willing to bet that they aren't turning students away (nor can they, by law.)

I hope that clears up that myth and that this gets tweeted and retweeted throughout charter school and ed reform folks everywhere.  It's that important.

Teaching to the Test: one teacher doesn't think it's so bad

On the one hand, I hate the idea of teaching to the test.  A well rounded education should give a child the ability to pass a good test.  Note that I said, "a good test."  Also, what is on the test may or may not be what allows a person to be successful later in life.  Sure, everyone needs to read.  Everyone needs to do basic math, but I've known very successful people with doctorate degrees who struggled with basic algebra.  Successful test results do not mean that a person will or won't be successful in life.  There are too many important personality traits involved for a test to predict long term success.

On the other hand, many things on the existing, even the not so good, standardized tests are important.  It's not as if educators came together and said, "Let's think of the stuff that kids least need to know and put it on the test."  In other words, standardized tests are indicators of a student's learning on some key areas.

On yet another hand (just kidding)...

So, I stumbled upon this article by a teacher outlining what he thinks are both the merits and the faults of teaching to a test.  I thought I'd share it. 

Unions and Education: Are they right for each other?

I liked this article so much that I almost copied and pasted the whole thing, but alas, I don't have the author's permission.  This editorial on the place of unions and teachers in reforming education is one of the best thought out editorials that I've seen.  The author, Mark Sass, is a teacher and his reflections come from the heart of a teacher who seems to really care for his students and for improving education.  I do not know Mark, but his writing makes me think I'd like him.  Bravo, Mark.

Is Ryan good for charter schools?

I admit that I have not yet spent a lot of time looking at Romney and Ryan's history with regard to education spending, but I'm not completely ignorant.  Here are a few thoughts as the election comes nearer.

First, Paul Ryan is definitely a fiscal "conservative"  (liberal in the terms used back in the day when Adam Smith was considered a "liberal" because he was open to change and allowing the markets and not kings or parliament or guilds to determine quantities and qualities of products).  Ryan advocates deep cuts in government spending.  This includes some education programs.

Second, Ryan is opposed to teachers' unions.  The NEA has already come out against Ryan. 

Third, Ryan favors choice in education.

While items two and three favor charter schools, spending cuts to already strapped schools could be harmful.  Charter schools serving low income students rely on Title I funds.  If those funds are cut or are gone, that hurts charter schools for low income kids. 

With regard to education as a whole, the problem is that Federal funds really don't make much difference for the average student.  However, Special Education funding could also be cut.  As those of us who have had to develop school budgets know, Special Education funding does not cover the costs of Special Education services in any school.  Often the funding covers only about half of the real cost of services.  If that is cut, then Special Education will be even more difficult to handle. 

The good news for charter schools is that Ryan values results as the measure of a good education and education that is worth supporting.  For example, he is in favor of reducing federal compliance under NCLB if states show success in student achievement.  In other words, results are valued over check boxes.  This has long been the desire of charter school advocates.  It also means that there could be more accountability for charter school success and closure of charter schools that do not perform.  That's a good thing.  Charter schools that don't perform provide fuel for the anti-charter school fire and often inhibit finding charter school models that really work. 

Overall, it seems that while program cuts could hurt charter schools, Ryan's philosophy of education policy should provide support for charter schools and pressure on states to encourage forms of innovation and reduction of bureaucracy. 

What is an efficient school?

Here is a link to an interesting Ed Week article about measuring the efficiency of schools.  So, what does it take to provide a quality education for all at the least cost.  Certainly, schools can complain about not having enough money, but what does tell us when a school is using money wisely and most efficiently.  What are best practices in using money well and providing good outcomes for students?  Read the article and see what you think.

New ideas about creating classroom rules

These aren't mine, so I'll just direct you to the site where you can find some interesting ideas about creating rules for the classroom.  The overall premise of the article is that the teacher really doesn't "control" the classroom.  The teacher manages the classroom, which is a collaborative effort with the students.  I found it helpful. 

If you are starting a charter school...

So, you want to start a charter school.  You go to your state association or the state department of education and find the application and the application instructions. You spend hours following it, then you actually get approval.

We know that it's not that easy, but let's say you've gotten a charter signed and ready to go.  Here is something that most people won't tell you.  You are responsible to account for and probably have an audit on all of the receipts and expenditures made in the fiscal year prior to opening.

I'm not sure how many times I've seen people taken aback when the authorizer says, "and your audit is due by ________________."  The look of shock is scary.  Often schools have done no bookkeeping.  Fortunately, they usually kept a list of expenditures or at least the receipts and bank statements.  It's usually mixed whether or not they've been paying people correctly. 

There is a good solution to this.  Make sure you have someone who knows what they are doing keep books for you all along the way.  This can be expensive, so at first it might be just getting a copy of Quick Books and having someone with some bookkeeping experience take care of the few expenditures that go on.  As you receive your charter and begin receiving donations and grants and expending larger sums of money, you need a professional.  In most states outsourcing companies (such as the one I work for) and individuals are available who have experience in this area.  Getting them on board early is important and you can usually pay for their services with grant money. 

This way when you get to that first audit before school has even begun, you will be ready and have everything in order.  So, now you know, if you are starting a charter school, get your books in order because that audit is closer than it appears.

Using the Olympics to discuss life issues with kids

What can a charter school parent do with the Olympics other than just watch and cheer?  Here are a few ideas, even if you aren't a sports fan.
Character lessons
Dealing with disappointment - All of us know that life can be disappointing sometimes.  This topic can be dealt with appropriately at any age.  Many athletes go to the Olympic Games expected to win.  Even a silver medal is a disappointment for them.  Dealing with disappointment well is extremely difficult.  At any age, not obtaining goals can be difficult.  Dealing with losing a friend or not getting to play with certain friends is tough.  Not getting the grades expected or at a later age, perhaps, even a job that was expected.
Dealing with winning - Winning can be fun.  Everyone likes to be a winner, but dealing with being a winner can be difficult.  Who are your real friends?  How do you appropriately relish in your high accomplishments without bragging or seeming arrogant?
Life goals - What is an appropriate life goal?  How does one decide how much time to put into something like sports or other hobbies?
Risk - Olympic athletes have risked a lot of their lives in order to compete in the Olympics.  Most will never win a medal.  Many will not benefit financially from the Olympic Games.  Injury could wipe out an Olympic career.  What is appropriate risk in life and how do we choose?
Rewards - What is the real reward of life?  Is a gold medal everything?  Is money and fame everything?  How much of competition is about the competition itself?  Is the journey part of the reward?
Those are not all easy topics, but as parents looking to assist our kids in becoming good citizens, the Olympic Games can be more than an event to watch with our families.  They can be a setting for encouraging our kids to be better and to be good, even if they won't ever compete for an Olympic gold medal, then can become the best at being who they are.

Holy Toledo, Batman, Let's stop that charter school!

So, did you see this one?  Apparently some Toledo folks really didn't want this charter school. 

A charter school tried to open in a downtown location, but was denied because it would be too close to a number of convenience stores.  WHAT?  Yes.  That's right, apparently, convenience stores pose a threat to students. 

Now, it is true that Toledo does have a law that prohibits convenience stores of locating near schools.  It doesn't have a law prohibiting schools being close to convenience stores.  It also has an exception in the law that applies to specific areas of the city, which applies to the area where the charter school would be located.

In other words, there is NO legitimate reason to stop the charter school.  Of course, the fact that one of the persons voting against the charter schools is a former school official and his wife is on the board of the local teachers' union has nothing to do with it, right?

Read more here.  

Spotted on Twitter this morning about charter schools

carollewis Jul 31, 8:36pm via HootSuite

RT @pndblog: Charter Schools Initiative 1240 Bankrolled by #Tech Millionaires bit.ly/MPTmVV @seattletimes #edreform #WA

OK.  I'm really tired of tweets like this that imply that just because someone with lots of money supports a charter school or charter schools there must be something wrong or devious about the schools.  Many wealthy people got that way for a reason--or more than one reason.  Often they are really smart.  They have usually persevered through tough circumstances or overcome great obstacles.  They've pursued a vision to make it a reality.  I'm not at all convinced that the fact that millionaires supporting charter schools isn't a good thing.  Of course, if you believe that millionaires got that way due to luck or by ripping off other people, then I suppose I can see why their support of charter schools would be a bad thing, but if you believe that, the you are ignoring the evidence about who millionaires are.