A fellow teacher yesterday said he finds Governor Daugaard's merit pay plan appalling. He says limited merit bonuses will turn teacher against teacher, hurt mentorship, and not improve student achievement. He says the current merit bonus plan would just promote the same sort of in-house cronyism and corruption that he sees rife in Pierre. (My interlocutor happens to be a Republican.)
Now this teacher says he is not against competition. But he would rather direct the Governor's proposed "investment" toward rewards for the top school districts. View each school district as an integral unit. Recognize those districts whose teachers work together to produce the best student results. Let districts compete to be the best, and reward those schools that produce the best results.
Now I'm not sure school-to-school competition is much better than teacher-vs.-teacher competition. But if you dig that sort of thing, you should note that South Dakota already offers a nicely market-based system that rewards those schools that offer parents the best results for their students. When parents open-enroll their kids in other districts, those districts get more funding. If you buy the value of competition in education, you should dig that, right?
Alas, the Senate Education committee voted last week to reduce those market-based incentives for school districts. Senate Bill 85 eliminates open-enrolled students from calculations of the small-school adjustment, the statutory recognition of the fact that small schools simply cost more to run per student, regardless of where those students come from. Small schools remain welcome to offer opportunities for students from out of town, but those school districts will only receive small-school adjustment money based on their resident students, not on the students whom they are able to recruit from larger neighboring districts.
The proponents of this bill, including Madison superintendent Vince Schaefer, insist that SB 85 is not about open enrollment. But it is. SB 85 is another sour-grapes response, just like last year's law restricting bus routes for open enrollers, by which big schools seek to punish small schools that successfully compete for students.
Governor Daugaard has gotten the support of the state's school administrators' association for a merit bonus plan that pits teachers against teachers. But administrators like Vince Schaefer clearly oppose policies that promote competition between his district and neighboring districts... especially when those districts cause Madison to suffer an open-enrollment deficit. The big schools just can't stand competition, and they're using SB 85 to punish those schools that can compete.
This says it all: "A fellow teacher yesterday said he finds Governor Daugaard’s merit pay plan appalling. He says limited merit bonuses will turn teacher against teacher, hurt mentorship, and not improve student achievement. "
Over a few thousand bucks teachers will refuse to work together, not mentor.
Such teachers are too immature to entrusted with kids. They need to do something else.
Troy,
Let's stipulate that all teachers should show up to do their job to the best of their ability every day.
I'm confused by the logic of your attack, however. You assert a "few thousand bucks" shouldn't be enough to discourage anyone. If that's true, why should it be enough to encourage all teachers to work their hardest to get it even though the odds of ever seeing a penny in bonus money are over 4-1 against them.
Troy, I thought you were the guy who was all about protecting trade secrets. If we create a capitalist/competitive environment in the school system, why in the world would any self-respecting entrepreneur voluntarily reveal tricks of the trade to someone who may end up swiping their bonus next year?
A few thousand bucks may not mean much to you, but to a person earning $35k a year or so, $5k is some pretty serious cashish, my friend.
The thing that hasn't been discussed enough here in my opinion is the disposition of the kids and their parents. In the final analysis, depending on the methods used to evaluate success, they are going to be the ones who deliver the data used to evaluate the teacher.
This makes the teacher vulnerable not only to other teachers, but also to the whims of the kids being taught and their parents.
They are litterally being put in a position of giving a teacher the thumbs up or the extended middle index finger. The irony is, the smarter the kids, the more such an effect becomes possible.
"When parents open-enroll their kids in other districts, those districts get more funding."
That is not real competition. Public schools follow the same set of standards set up by the New Age Theocracy. Real competiton is when you include private schools and home schools.
Sibby wants to restrict what kids learn in schools to readin', cypherin', bible school and whatnot. He don't like no trainin' on them dang computers and suchlike. Sports neither. An' fer sher nothin' that will make a feller any money. It just ain't the 'Mer-kun way, dad-gummit. (I read your paper, Sibby. What a complete joke.)
LK & Bill:
Simple: If out of envy a person would do harm to kids and not collaberate to prevent another teacher from getting a bonus, this person is petty.
There is an adage: It takes a little to get a person to do what they ought and more to get them to do what they ought not.
Okay Troy, then you've painted yourself into a corner, haven't you? In such an enlightened environment, what logic says that incentive pay to individuals is a good idea? If you want the group to function better collectively, give them all an increase if the group does well, not just a select few. And if they slip, bust everybody's chops.
I just realize my post may not be entirely clear.
A teacher is hired to teach. Signed a contract for a certain amount of pay. But, because another might get a bonus, they will refuse to do what they were hired to do (teach, mentor, cooperate, collaberate). Wow.
Troy,
I agree one should always do one's best. I'm not arguing that point. You said the money was a minor thing to get upset about. If it's so minor, why is it enough to motivate if the odds of getting it are less than 1 in 5?
"Sibby wants to restrict what kids learn in schools to readin’, cypherin’, bible school and whatnot."
Not so. You have a lot in common with the SDGOP leadership...distortions from the truth.
"If you want the group to function better collectively, give them all an increase if the group does well, not just a select few. And if they slip, bust everybody’s chops."
That's enlightened? No that's socialism. Ask the Russians how well that works. Ask the European socialists how well they are doing nowadays. Heck just look at how that is not working in America today!
LK,
If a teacher is willing to throw kids under a bus, not do their best, not mentor, and not collaborate/cooperate because their colleague may get a bonus, that is petty and motivated by envy.
But I get the use of the word "few" does create a connotation I didn't intend. I was thinking of the adage I referenced above. Mea Culpa.
My problems with the Governors education plan are two fold. First what happens if you have a person that has graduated Magna Cum Laude with a double major in history and English? They come into a system that is giving $8000 to a first year science teacher that got a teaching position with a 2.8 GPA. Somehow that doesn’t work for me and I suspect the teacher that graduated with honors. Wouldn’t this just be bonuses for morons?
A teacher is hired to teach. Signed a contract for a certain amount of pay. But, because another might get a bonus, they will refuse to do what they were hired to do (teach, mentor, cooperate, collaberate). Wow.
Troy it is impossible to mentor someone that has already been judged to be better then you by the pay that they are receiving and that leads to my other bitch with this plan. How did our legislators vote for something in the blind. They haven't even figured out a way to determine who the top teachers will be and yet they follow the governor. Wouldn’t it have been better to at least see how this was going to be accomplished before voting on it?
The Blindman
Troy, how about the kids and parents being willing to throw the teacher under the bus? It could work both ways.
Would this include foreign exchange students?
Good employers defend good employees.
I know a principal with SF public schools who tells all her teachers: If you get confronted by a parent questioning the job you do, I want you to not answer them and send them to me. She then listens to their complaint, talks to the teacher, and responds. Teachers have nothing to fear with such a boss.
If we have a management problem, this will quickly resolve and expose this issue as well.
Not to pile on, but . . .
Danielson says her model is probably not the right model for determining pay, but SD is going to use it anyway.
To get pay, under the proposed but not adopted rules, one must be a distinquished teacher under the Danielson model. Danielson says that it takes 3 years to earn that title. The merit pay plan, I believe although I may be wrong, isn't supposed to being until 2013-2014 so the first of the merit pay money won't go out until 2017-2018. Will the money still be there?
No one has shown that it will increase student achievement which is the purported goal.
Blindman (love your handle, LOL),
Personally, I would have been willing to have no guidance from the state except to say it can only go to 10% or some other similar low percentage of teachers and not exceed x dollars and left it to the school boards/superintendents/principals to subjectively determine who gets the bonus' for whatever reason.
However, it is my experience introduction of bonuses into a new environment begins with objective measures and graduates to subjective measures.
Troy, the evidence says that merit pay for teachers doesn't produce results. In fact the studies say that paying people extra for creative task produces negative results.
I think that teachers will still work together if bonuses are put in place. It may cause some gnashing of teeth.
Show me the studies that say merit pay for teachers increases test scores for students over the long term. It should be easy to find.
Michael,
I've already discussed what is wrong with the studies you call "evidence." They are flawed and do not measure consider integration of merit pay with general accountability and management practices.
Hey, so you disagree with all the teachers who have been writing letters to the editor and posting on blogs they will not work together, collaberation and cooperation will stop? So why do you agree with them performance won't improve.
At the end of the day, the irrational response of opponents to this (including admitting they are so petty they won't work together anymore) has only demonstrated why major reform is needed (administration and teachers).
Our response is not irrational, Troy. The Legislature's is. They can't even coherently explain the problem, let alone define a specific response to it. From the black board to the corporate board room, merit pay does not work. It is the wrong solution.
"major reform is needed"
Troy, yes it is. But the plan is more of the same standard-based central planning of education that has created the problems. Merit pay will not work if it is tied to common core standards.
Hello Troy,
The legislation sets up an incentive. The incentive says the "best" get some more dollars. However, the incentive doesn't say anything about student achievement. This means that there are many possible routes to be the best. One option would be to work very hard and hopefully be identified for that work. I tend to think that the legislature thinks that this must be the only possible outcome and that for only paying 20% of teachers a bonus they can get all 100% to work harder/teach better to compete for that bonus.
However, now that the teachers are in direct competition with each other for those bonuses, what incentive do they have to work together? I imagine those that aren't receiving the bonuses might band together to help share the workload and move them up all together but those that are in the 20% that are receiving bonuses have zero incentive to help those that aren't receiving bonuses. In fact, by helping others they would be hurting their chances to receive future bonuses.
A second option to be the "best" would be to work the system. Figure out what metrics are going to be used and only perform actions that lead to those metrics. While you call out that any teacher not collaborating on their daily duties as too immature to be a teacher, I will retort that this incentive disincentives that behavior because this is a relative measurement.
If one actually wanted to incentive achievement and achievement alone it would simply set a bar for a test. If the students you taught met a certain level of achievement on that test you get the money. If not, you don't get the money. Not capped at 20% of teachers. This would create a clear incentive for student achievement without disincentivizing collaboration.
Interestingly, such an incentive would allow for different teaching approaches to be directly compared to one another.
Tony,
There are some assumptions that have to be true for your fears to be realized:
1) They are unwilling to give their best every day regardless of whether they don't get the bonus. So much for them to be motivated for the kids.
2) Your second option assumes that those who are making the determination are unable to see through manipulation. But, if the administration designs good metric, then one should be rewarding for meeting the metrics. This is the point of incentive pay: to get people to hit performance goals.
3) Your final comment on a test. This requires this to be the only measure. Throughout this debate, I keep hearing how teaching to a test is not necessarily the best measure of a good teacher. I'm confused.
Cory, if it isn't irrational, your response is grounded in a principle teachers are petty and don't really care about students. I guess if that is your point (they are petty), this merit pay will bring these teachers into the light so we can get rid of them.
Let's take your assumptions one by one:
1) They are unwilling to give their best every day regardless of whether they don’t get the bonus. So much for them to be motivated for the kids.
-------------------------------------------------
That's already assumed by offering the bonus as an incentive isn't it? It's thus an insult to those who have been working as some of the lowest paid teachers in the nation. I'm guessing there are those who always have and always will do their best, regardless of what they get paid. Those are your best teachers. What are the chances they'll be the ones getting the bonuses? Any guarantees around that, Troy?
2) Your second option assumes that those who are making the determination are unable to see through manipulation. But, if the administration designs good metric, then one should be rewarding for meeting the metrics. This is the point of incentive pay: to get people to hit performance goals.
---------------------------------------------
The teachers don't hit the performance goals, the students do. Judging teachers for the performance of their students is like holding parents responsible for the actions of their offspring. The student is the one who is responsible for achieving excellence. I can lecture you till I'm blue in the face, Troy, but I'll still probably not be able to make a good progressive thinker out of you. I certainly don't want to be blamed for your obstinance. LOL.
3) Your final comment on a test. This requires this to be the only measure. Throughout this debate, I keep hearing how teaching to a test is not necessarily the best measure of a good teacher. I’m confused.
-----------------------
...obviously. ;^)
Bill,
Teaching Troy to become a progressive may be easier than getting high school students to give a damn about tests that won't go in the grade book or on a transcript.
Troy,
Until a little over 10 years ago, I would have fallen for arguments like yours. I spent many years in various parts of the country gushing about the overall quality of life in South Dakota and the hard-working people who live here. I bragged about the quality education available in SD public schools: consistently high scores despite lowest in the nation teacher pay. The fact that some of my dearest friends were former teachers left some to wonder what in the world I could be talking about. I made comments about families and friends, even strangers, pulling together to assist each other in times of need, which seemed far too often. "Sure the winters are cold and, for the most part, only modest incomes are available. Still, it's a wonderful place to grow up, to live and raise a family." I'd say. That enthusiasm, advocacy, and sense of pride is fading. Common sense seems to be in the rear view mirror much too often.
"There is an adage: It takes a little to get a person to do what they ought and more to get them to do what they ought not." Troy, I wish supporters of the governor's plan could find it within themselves to take a step back and spend some time reflecting on input from the general public and the experts: educators. In the meantime, fear mongering by a few purporting to look out for the best interests of the many runs rampant. It's disturbing, really.
Incentives, bonuses or low base pay, I firmly believe SD teachers will continue to work long and hard for our students. The question: Why should they stay?
Talked to some college professor's today who are more than conservative and neither like this bill. All of us like Dennis Daugaard but those professors and I do not care for this bill.
Samantha: interesting question! Foreign exchange students over the age of 16 are considered residents of the state after 30 days. Foreign exchange students would likely be considered residents if they are staying in a home in the district. I'm unclear, however, whether SB 85 changes their status in the actual funding count.
Troy, so you say studies like the ones cited by Daniel Pink are flawed. So let's look at it a different way.
Can you give me a few examples where merit pay for teachers gave increases in student scores?
We need someone to show us that spending this much money on merit pay will give us higher test scores. If it's not going to do so, then we need to spend the money in a different way or not at all. The $15 or so million that this legislation will cost needs to be justified before I am willing to support it. This is being fiscally responsible.
Big reason for Troy's support of HB1234 is that he is being loyal to a republican governor.
I thought that being a good Republican meant being fiscally responsible.
Our governor cut funding for schools last year because we had a structural deficit. We had spent more money than we had coming in. Let's spend our money wisely and only if the plan has been proven to work.
Honestly, I don't think the legislature or the governor have any idea where the money is to come from? Does Sen. Jean Hunhoff, head of appropriations know?