-
Jan
23
2012
I know Bryan Aukerman. He’s a good teacher, and a good coach. And if Governor Daugaard has his way with our public school system, he’ll drive Aukerman and his talents out of South Dakota:
I’m a young teacher in the state who looks at this horribly misinformed Governor and his plan (which has already proven to be a failure to promote student success in other states) and say in all seriousness that I am likely to move out of South Dakota if it passes. I do not want to work in a toxic work environment where the Governor creates an incentive for me to look at my coworkers as competition. I want to work in a school that encourages collaboration and the proliferation of best teaching practices and a state that supports that mindset, because that mindset is what will help our kids be prepared for the future.
In my consideration of past semester test scores (and I say this based off of my department’s test scores, from my school), students have consistently gone up. I disagree with the Governor’s toxic language that THE STATE’s educational progress has flatlined. If specific districts are having issues, the Governor owes his constituency the time and care they are due to develop a plan that affects those districts that need help and only those. For heaven’s sake, we are a state that spends the money on six football devisions, but the Governor expects us to believe we can’t handle a few different funding plans?! If Sioux Falls is not hurting for math and science teachers and this plan would only prove to create hard feelings between those who get extra pay (regardless of performance?!) and those who do not.
Teachers have a dramatic effect on student success, for better or for worse, but this interview shows that Daugaard picks and chooses which facts he will consider (or maybe he is simply misinformed and hasn’t put in his due-diligence in researching). Other states have tried merit pay for teachers and the best that they can say for it is that merit pay has not improved student performance. I am concerned for South Dakota’s kids if the Governor creates a cut-throat environment for teachers where they horde their best practices, rather than proliferate their best work so that other classrooms can benefit beyond their own.
It might be politically profitable to create the specter of a “bad teacher” to vanquish, Mr. Daugaard, but don’t assume that parents will take your ill-founded statistics and join your witch hunt. I implore parents, grandparents, and anybody who has an investment in the future of South Dakota’s youth to ask your student’s favorite teacher what they think of this Governor’s plan. Ask the teachers, whose lives it will affect. I would love to stay in South Dakota and continue to be an effective teacher who does much more than “flatline” our student’s success, but I hope you can understand why I am hesitant to stay on a sinking ship [Bryan Aukerman, comment, "Daugaard, Assess Teachers by Progress of Students During School Year," that Sioux Falls paper, 2012.01.21].
I have yet to hear one teacher substantiate the Governor’s claim about his education plan that “There are some teachers who have heard it and understand the program very well who support it.” Absent such expressions of support, Aukerman’s declaration shows Daugaard’s plan would be a net loss for South Dakota. Misguided competitive merit bonuses, mandatory and misused state evaluations, and elimination of tenure seem more likely to drive our best and brightest away than draw them to South Dakota’s K-12 system.
33 Responses to “Guest Column: Pass Daugaard’s Plan, Lose at Least One Good Teacher”
Great column. It would be a shame to lose such what I would guess is a great teacher. I’ve talked to several teachers and a couple of principles and none of them are in favor of merit pay.
Funny, you never see the Governor at a school trying to explain this plan.
What he should have done is sat down with teachers and ask them what they would do to improve education. Seems like working together would have been a good place to start.
sitting down with teachers—that’s a deeply frustrating part of this plan. Daugaard’s 2010 campaign statement on education said he would do exactly that. The state has worked with teachers and administrators on the plan to use the Charlotte Danielson framework statewide to evaluate teachers, but never were the participating teachers told that the framework would become a tool for high-stakes pay/bonus decisions.
My wife is heading to Pierre Friday night to learn more about the Charlotte Danielson plan. I’ll see what she says when she gets home.
I hear you Cory. I think Hunhoff put it right. War has been declared on educatrion.
Cory, I have read misinformed editorials from teachers. Yet the one I read understood that the increased cost was the standards and programs they were forced to implement. Daugaard is simply adding to that problem with his plan to force Common Core Standards with a bonus system that is tied to testing based on the Common Core Standards. What has not been discussed is what exaclty is the “merit” that the bonuses will be based on. Once we undestand that they are the international based Common Core Standards aimed at providing human resources for the global economy, then the discussion should not be solely based on whether merit pay is good or bad. I support merit pay, but not this one.
Steve, I would like to think the editorials from teachers you have been reading on this blog are better informed than the arguments the Governor himself is offering for his plan.
Cory, could you imagine trying to judge this in a debate round. The Neg. stands up and says “Here is every major study on the issue of merit pay for teachers, they all support my position that it is a failed policy.”
The Aff. stands up and says, “Yeah, but I’ve been thinking about it… and I think it’s really going to, you know, maybe be good.”
Filling out my RFD with time to spare.
Cory, there is propaganda on both sides. I can’t say which side has less or more. What I can say is that I agree with your position of opposition to the Governor’s plan, but not for the same reasons. Sadly, you want me to stifle the specific reasons why I oppose the Governor’s plan. The biggest fallacy to your argument is that this plan puts South Dakota teachers at a disadvantage to other states. This plan is not a South Dakota plan, it is a global plan. I can’t more fully explain that unless I mention the “T” word. What we are now seeing is the centrally planned economy being tied in with the centrally planned education system. So since I can’t use the “T” world, I hope at least I can say “monopoly”.
South Dakota is aging at the country’s highest rate: expect collapse.
Rewild the West.
Wasn’t it Alec Baldwin who said if Bush was elected President he’d move to Canada?
Threatening to walk away is childish.
You ain’t helping your cause Cory. Just talking to a smaller and smaller circle. There will be reform in education. Whether you and your allies are at the table are your choice.
Troy, I think Cory’s point perhaps is that if you don’t have some outstanding teachers at the table, you’ll be missing an opportunity to make even more meaningful reforms. As in all things, if you’re going to explore any given wilderness, it’s good to bring someone along who knows the territory.
“Threatening to walk away is childish.”
Troy, isn’t, they will walk away if we don’t, the entire argument for economic development subsidies?
Troy, I don’t hear anyone getting an invitation to the table. And I don’t want an invitation to a coronation for a plan this bad. Matt is dead right: all the evidence is on Neg. Aff has nothing but wishes and hopes.
And Troy, when the governor’s plan is aimed at recruiting good teachers, I think it is perfectly valid and instructive to point out that the plan will actually drive good teachers away.
I just started Daniel Pink’s book DRIVE this afternoon. I’ll have it knocked out late tonight.
So far a couple of thoughts:
1. Teachers don’t teach to make more money.
2. Rewards definitely make a positive difference BUT only in the short term. Over the long haul, financial incentives produce negative outcomes.
3. The governor is proposing a plan that will worsen performance and will cost the taxpayers a bunch of money.
Troy,
I too find the threat to leave a bit hollow. There are few places to go, and certification issues plague teachers moving from one state to another.
That being said, I have seen no evidence that there will be room at the table for anyone other than the people who support merit pay.
If this were an open table, teachers would have been asked to attend. Schools doing the pilot programs for the Danielson evaluation would not have been told that they could use the framework to create their own models and then told that they was going to be a one-size fits all plan. They might have been told about the Governor’s merit pay proposal’s last fall, long before the January announcement.
You want reform suggestions. Cory disagrees with me about this but I think the school year should be longer. I don’t think the Governor would back that reform; tourism and ag leaders will scream bloody murder.
I keep coming back to the same questions:
Where is this grand, open table?
Who has been invited?
Where is the Governor’s research that merit pay works? Pink, Ravitch, and many others say it doesn’t. Just because you happen to dislike Pink’s methodology doesn’t mean his research is wrong.
What happened to the small government, local control rhetoric that the South Dakota Republican party is famous for? This is Pierre control pure and simple. (With a little more alliteration and rhyme, I could turn that last sentence into a tongue twister.)
Where are the rampaging hordes of terrible teachers who show up every day with the expressed goal of getting a paycheck and destroying students lives. They must be legion if 80% of a district’s teachers aren’t worth more pay.
If there are so many terrrible teachers, why are the state’s ACT scores above the national average even thought the state has a larger percentage of its students than many other states take the ACT.
Why is STEM the most important thing in a school’s curriculum? When I was a kid in Sunday school, I had to memorize “where your heart is there your treasure will be also.” People spend on their priorities, so STEM must be way more important than anything else if the Governor wants to spend money on it.
Am I seriously supposed to believe that this proposal would have been floated if teachers as a block leaned Republican and expressed this level of opposition?
It’s obvious that GDD has little or no support for his merit plan. So why is it still “breathing”? Will the legislative leaders have the courage or fortitude to deliver “it’s a no-go” message to GDD? If not, are these same leaders really willing to use students and teachers as collaterial damage in a political war?
Finished the book. I have lots to digest.
While Daniel Pink shows us that merit pay does not work, he does believe in paying teachers enough so that money is not an issue. You might find it surprising that he advocates making it simpler to get rid of bad teachers.
“You might find it surprising that he advocates making it simpler to get rid of bad teachers.”
Despite my earlier rant, I don’t believe that anyone wants to protect bad teachers. I just don’t think South Dakota has that many of them. Besides South Dakota principals have 4 years to get rid of a teacher for any reason they want.
Merit pay is not just wrong but it is a serious threat to the quality of our education system. Spending more money for a negative outcome is bad government.
Thank you, Michael, for looking into the issue. I’m glad you found Pink persuasive!
I went over to the school and dropped it off with Carl so he could look at it for a couple of days.
Fiscally conservative Republicans should be lining up in opposition to the merit pay proposal.
LK,
Let’s put this in perspective. All of it.
1) The amount of money injected into this plan is way under 1% of the total salaries for teachers.
2) Opponents who say it is the end of teaching as we know it and will be the downfall of education are basically sayign the psyche of teachers is so sensitive they can’t handle such a small change. If they are professionals, this assertion is ludicrous. If they aren’t professionals, they are overpaid.
3) Proponents who say it will change education by itself are over-promising and will under-deliver. Those who have read by Pink and Danielson know this. It is only one tool in the arsenal to motivate and get better results/address needs.
4) I’m appalled by the reaction of some school board members and administrators. This isn’t being forced on any school district. My understanding of the bill is school boards are free to forego the money and not have a pay for performance plan. Tenure is in state law. There is nothing preventing a local district from having their own tenure-like policies. If a school board or administrator wants to make a local case for tenure and no pay for performance to the local community, let them make it. One size never fits all.
5) Teachers can be at the table. They can voice their views to their local administration regarding whether there should be pay for performance and tenure. The local school board can then do their job (weighing the views of teachers against the views of parents) and make the decision.
P.S. regarding #3, pay for performance as a compenent of a total package and policy can have positive effect. Pink’s analysis is too static and narrow. Danielson’s is broader and takes into account how management can nurture a total body of employees to get better results.
Troy, have you read the book DRIVE?
I know that his claims sound counter-intuitive but if the studies repeatedly support his view, it might be that Pink is right.
No I haven’t. I might. I’ve though read a synopsis focusing on Pink’s methodology which I reject its narrowness because I’ve read dozens of management books about how pay for performance is a critical tool for nurturing internal motivations of high performers as well as giving feedback to poor performers over time (and this is virtually not explored in Pink’s book. He is focusing on one component of the workforce).
If you were to take any single management tool for affecting performance, nearly all in isolation would get the same results as Pink does. They are effective as part of a total plan focusing on a broad spectrum of types of employees.
Here is a large fundamental problem with regard to motivation/management in education: It is virtually wholly reliant on internal motivation of individual teachers and with tenure it protects even the un-motivated. Such a system is inherently going to under-perform.
Proportionally, we have added more “administration” expense per student over the last forty years than we have “teacher” expense but we have incomplete management tools for which these people can manage. If we aren’t going to have administration manage, let’s get rid of thousands of administrators. To keep them is a total waste.
But, if we are going to keep them, let’s have a full complement of available tools. I don’t believe pay for performance is the “magic bullet.” Nothing is. But, to not have it inherently makes the system inadequate.
This is so well-written. Please try to share it in as many publications as possible to get this point of view out to the public. I think the public is so misinformed as to the present state of education and the types of supports that would help all educational programs to do well.
Troy,
Interesting perspective.
Nearly every school district in SD has pled poverty for years. There is no political reality imaginable that will allow them to turn down any money from Pierre. If you want me to give Daugaard props from a brilliant political play, I’ll be happy to do it. He is skilled politician; in fact, far more skilled than I had previously thought.
I appreciate your divide and conquer element of your number six as well; let’s set parents and teachers against each other. I take it you’ve been coaching the Governor to improve some of his skills. I may run off a few of your recent posts on this issue and use them with my debaters. The subtle ground shifting is something they need to learn to develop in rounds. It is, and I do mean this sincerely, very well done.
The last I heard, the bill had not been filed. I take it you’ve seen an advanced copy. Everything that we have been sent with DOE stamped on it says that the evaluation component will be done as directed from Pierre.
My psyche is fine. I sympathize with the administrators who will have parents in their office screaming that their students cannot be put in a class taught by one of the 80%.
I certainly agree with your number 3 analysis.
Troy, the book was less than $15.00 through Amazon including delivery.
Lots of good insights even if you don’t agree with everything.
Let’s back the merit pay solution by GDD into present day. Has education grown stagnant and is not serving the needs of students/parents because: (1)teachers have tenure(2)math and science teachers do not receive extra pay in salaries(3)20% of all teachers do not receive merit bonuses. If you can honestly answer yes, then show the proof and facts. Can GDD guarantee merit pay funding in 3 years anymore in a solid proof fashion than how he failed to fund the state portion of the school funding formula for 2011-2012?
I would invite Bryan to apply at our school where teachers can earn up to $3305 in performance pay, based mostly on rewarding all teachers if the students in the building or district achieve to a certain level, however we need to cut $800k from the budget and won’t be hiring.
Nertz! No escape for us! I guess we’ll just have to stand and fight to fix our own system.
And Julie, I agree. Copy that URL, send that text to everyone you can think of, Facebook and Tweet the heck out of it.
I have no information beyond what has been in paper. I am basing mu comments by inferring from what has been said
Leave a Reply