A wrong turn down the road to merit pay

Now that the U.S. Department of Education has announced that eight Louisiana school districts will split $36.5 million to experiment with merit pay for teachers, does that mean it's already too late to talk about whether or not merit pay really makes a difference in the classroom?

Hopefully, not. Because the data, while not yet conclusive, tends to show that there is little if any connection between performance-based pay and student achievement.

As Sarah Sparks writes here, the Department of Education is spending money before there is evidence that it is well spent. Says Sparks, "More than ever, the department needs a large, rigorous, comprehensive evaluation to dig into the details of whether and how performance-pay programs work."

Within a week of the Department's announcement of the grants, she notes, two different studies in Chicago and Nashville "have found few benefits for student achievement in merit-pay programs."

Despite a lack of evidence that these incentives accomplish their goal, the U.S. Department, as well as state and local education agencies around the country, are bound and determined to ram them down the throats of classroom teachers.

Why?

Education curmudgeon Diane Ravitch hits on an answer to that question in this article.

The problem is that merit pay has been touted loudly and long, albeit without evidence, by conservative advocates. After some 30 years, it is taken as an article of faith that it must work.

Ravitch says that the almost religious belief in merit pay is based on a business model: "They believe in competition, and they believe that financial rewards can be used to incentivize better performance, so it seems natural for them to conclude that merit pay or performance pay would incentivize teachers to produce better results."

While that may seem a rational conclusion, it is not empirical - the data just don't back it up.

So the conservatives rely on another article of faith, based on their generally low opinion of people in general. As Savitch puts it,

(T)hey assume that most people—in this case, teachers—are lazy and need a
promise of dollars to be incentivized to get higher scores for their students.
It never seems to occur to them that many people are doing their best (think
people who play sports, always striving to do their best without any expectation
of payment) and continue to do so because of intrinsic rewards or because of an
innate desire to serve others. Teachers should certainly be well compensated,
but not many enter the classroom with money as their primary motivation.

Her conclusion? "Ideology trumps evidence. The enduring puzzle is why the Obama administration clings so fiercely to the GOP philosophy of incentives and sanctions as the levers for change, despite lack of evidence for their efficacy."

"Merit pay" may not raise student achievement

Giving teachers incentive pay for raising student test scores does not result in student achievement, according to a new study from Vanderbilt University's Peabody School of Education.

The study, authored by the National Center on Performance Initiatives, was conducted in partnership with the prestigious RAND Corporation. It followed 296 Tennessee middle-school math teachers as they prepared students for the state's high-stakes exam.

Half of the teachers were in control groups, and half were eligible for bonuses if their students scored higher than expected on the test.

The study found that students whose teachers were eligible for the bonuses "progressed no faster than those in classes taught by the 146 other teachers."

Here is a story about the study by reporter Christopher Connello in Politics Daily.

EdWeek commentary: Is merit pay the answer?

Educator/author Kim Marshall has some food for thought about teacher merit pay in this Education Week commentary.

The piece offers good reasons to slow down on the lurch toward performance-based pay for teachers. It creates an understanding of why the organic approach favored by the Department of Education's Race to the Top application is better than Gov. Bobby Jindal's intent to pass laws mandating performance based pay (in this context, organic simply means that the concept should be allowed to grow and, if necessary, change and adapt if it does not work as planned).

One important argument offered by Marshall is that standardized tests can be "instructionally insensitive" or, as he puts it, "better at measuring students’ family advantages and disadvantages than the school’s or the teacher’s value-added effect."

The Department of Education's resident testing expert, George Noell, admitted as much when he told a joint Senate and House Education Committee last week that our current high-stakes tests are not well suited to a value-added evaluation system, but that they can be tweaked to suit the purpose.

To help resolve that issue, LFT insisted on including a "learning environment index" in the state's Race to the Top plans. That index takes factors outside of a teacher's control into account then measuring student achievement.

What is Marshall's alternative to test-based measures of value-added accountability?

In many of America’s most effective schools, principals make frequent
unannounced visits to classrooms and give informal feedback on what students
are learning and how instruction can be improved. Teacher teams in these
schools collaboratively design curriculum units, give common assessments to
their students every four to six weeks, immediately huddle to discuss what
worked and what didn’t, share best practices, reteach what wasn’t mastered, and help struggling students.

By frequently checking for understanding and fixing learning problems
before they snowball, these schools draw on teachers’ and administrators’
collective wisdom and keep everyone’s focus on the most important questions: Are
students learning, and, if not, what’s our next move?

In schools which operate on that model, Marshall says, "...students in these schools are making dramatic gains, and achievement gaps are being closed. Small wonder that teachers in these schools are continuously improving their craft."

Is Race to the Top a bum's rush with no basis in research?

Before U.S. Secretary if Education Arne Duncan and our own Superintendent of Education Paul Pastorek wax too enthusiastic about the charter schools and merit pay that comprise too much of the federal Race to the Top plan, they should read this article in Education Week (free registration required).

The main thrust of the article is that, for leaders who pride themselves on basing programs on facts and research, Race to the Top comes up short on both counts:

“What is extraordinary about these regulations is that they have no credible
basis in research. They just happen to be the programs and approaches favored by
the people in power,” writes Diane Ravitch, a research professor of education at New
York University, in her blog, Bridging
Differences, which is hosted by edweek.org.

Ravitch and several other experts quoted in the article all agree that "two priorities at the heart of the program...lack research evidence: evaluating teachers based on students’ standardized test scores and promoting the growth of charter schools."

Before Louisiana's schools get hustled into yet another bureaucratic bum's rush, shouldn't we ask the intelligent questions, and then base policy on real research and data?

Teachers don't like linking pay to student test scores

ASCD, a professional education leadership organization, posted a back-to-school survey on teacher opinions about education issues.

The report that over half of teachers do not believe it is fair to link teacher pay to student test scores; better than 50% of teachers support the idea of national curriculum standards; and over 40% believe that "pressure on students and teachers to improve test results" is the biggest obstacle they face going into the new school year.

The survey results are posted here.

Consultants wrong on teacher pay

“We know that getting a degree is not related to student achievement.”
-Education consultant Tabitha Grossman

If this is the best consulting the state can come up with, teachers and their students are in trouble.

The Blue Ribbon Commission for Educational Excellence is supposedly exploring better ways to, as this article by Advocate reporter Will Sentell puts it, "pay teachers to make them more effective and to aid students."

What sort of great ideas did the state-paid consultants come up with? Here's one: cut the state teacher salary schedule by 10% in order to give some teachers bonuses of between $3,000 and $6,000.

And how can we justify such a radical reordering of the salary schedule? According to the consultant, advanced degrees mean nothing, and after five years in the classroom teachers stagnate and don't do anything different.

Those are extremely radical propositions that are very difficult to defend. Other consultants might have come up with other, proven solutions, like smaller classes, extended school days and years, placing the most qualified teachers in the most challenged schools, etc.

But you get what you paid for. And the people who paid for these consultants definitely got what they paid for - an assault on the professional educators who are dedicated to the children in their classrooms.

Fortunately, LFT President Steve Monaghan is a member of the Blue Ribbon Commission. Steve responded with this comment:

"We will never tell teachers who have invested time, money and effort in
earning advanced degrees that they labored in vain. And we simply reject the
contention that teachers stagnate after five years. Teachers are by nature
life-time learners. Good teachers continuously learn new skills and approaches
that they can bring to their classrooms.

"We hope that over the next few months the commission will hear from
other experts who can provide very different perspectives."

A second consultant told the commission about the success of a performance-based teacher pay plan in Denver, Colorado.

But as Monaghan pointed out in this press release, there are big differences between Denver and Louisiana.

A state (Louisiana) comprises many school districts with varying needs and resources, while a single urban school system (Denver) can focus more narrowly on its specific needs.

But the more important difference is that Denver has a collective bargaining agreement with its teachers. Every change in the way teachers are paid was negotiated, and teachers voted on the plan before it could go into effect.

A plan like Denver's won't work until Louisiana has a statewide collective bargaining law.

The Blue Ribbon Commission has until May to prepare a report for Gov. Bobby Jindal, the Board of elementary and Secondary Education and the Board of Regents. Let's hope some better ideas emerge before then.

Are merit pay and career ladders in Louisiana's future?

While the federal government presses ahead with plans to judge teacher performance based on student test scores, a Louisiana commission is looking at ways to impose an unpopular merit pay scheme on teachers in the state.

Houma Courier reporter Daniel McBride is on top of this story, reporting that the state's Blue Ribbon Commission is considering a pay plan with different categories, including career ladders, merit pay and the traditional lane-and-step pay scale.

Most teachers object to tying teacher salaries to student test scores for obvious and valid reasons. As McBride's article points out, factors beyond a teacher's control play a part in student test scores. And as professional educators like to note, a single high-stakes test does not necessarily reflect a student's achievement.

Teachers may be more willing to experiment with career ladders, which reward them for taking on additional responsibilities: "The career ladder approach would advance teachers from classroom to mentor to master designations. Each level would include new administrative duties and increased pay."

It's all a non-starter unless teachers are involved in the process, however. As LFT President Steve Monaghan tells McBride, "You cannot expect the teachers to trust the process again if they’re not included in the development. These kind of programs look very much like they’ve been designed by the top, for the top.”

Poll: Teachers say DON'T teach to the test!

An editorial in last Friday's Advocate quoted State Superintendent of Education Paul Pastorek as saying, “Teaching to the test is a good thing, because what students need to learn is on the test.”

That comment raises some eyebrows at the LFT office - we felt that most teachers believe teaching to the test is not the best way to impart knowledge, develop critical thinking skills and imbue in students a lifelong ambition to learn.

So we posted a one-question survey that simply asked, "Do you believe that "teaching to the test" is an appropriate way to improve student performance in Louisiana?"

Very quickly, some 633 teachers responded. Five hundred twenty-one, or 82%, said "no"; 112, or 18%, said "yes."

That response was so encouraging that LFT decided to establish an ongoing, non-scientific survey of teacher and school employee opinion during the upcoming legislative session. Each week, we will post a question about issues at the capitol. We're calling it the "Pulse Poll." Be on the lookout for the new Pulse Poll every week of the legislative session!

A tale of two commissions

Most people are probably not even aware that Louisiana has one commission called the Blue Ribbon Commission for Education Excellence, and another one called the Accountability Commission. They have no power to make law or set policy, but they are factories for ideas that can eventually become part of the state’s education laws and policies.

The two commissions don’t always know what the other is up to, and since the news media rarely cover meetings of either one, the public is usually unaware of their activities.

A lot of mischief can be achieved in the dark.

Recently, the Blue Ribbon Commission decided to apply for a $25,000 grant from the National Governor’s Association to fund the search for a “new model for teacher compensation.” The Department of Education will kick in another $25,000 to complete funding for a seven-member research team. Part of the charge to the team will be to develop "policies or identify laws that need to be added or changed and present them to the boards and/or governor."

By May of 2010, this new model will be presented at a joint meeting of the Blue Ribbon Commission and the Board of Elementary and Secondary Education.

The Blue Ribbon Commission, by the way, no longer includes members from any of the state’s professional teacher organizations. We can expect little, if any, input from classroom professionals in the creation of this “new model for teacher compensation.”

And just what sort of new model might be envisioned by the project?

This is where one of the budget items in the Department of Education’s consultant wish list comes into play. Superintendent of Education Paul; Pastorek wants to spend $580,000 on exploring the frontier of “Value Added Assessments.”

That’s code for paying teachers based on how their students perform on standardized tests.

Which brings us to the other commission, the Accountability Commission. This one does include representatives of the teacher organizations. The Accountability Commission members have been asked to recommend “growth models” and “value added assessments.”

But the Accountability Commission was not aware of the Department of Education’s request for a $580,000 consultancy fee to find the same information.

And where to all these seemingly unconnected threads of story weave together? Check out the editorial in today’s Advocate. As far as the capital city’s newspaper of record is concerned, the fight over basing teacher pay on test scores is over, and test scores have won: “The reality,” says the editor, “is that an anti-testing agenda, from unions or others in education, is dead.”

Well, as Mark Twain once famously observed, “The rumors of my death are greatly exaggerated.”

"Teaching to the Test" and Merit Pay

Baton Rouge's own Gray Lady, The Advocate, published an editorial today supporting the concept of basing teacher pay on the results of standardized tests taken by students.

In a recent EdLog post, we described that particular version of merit pay as a "well intentioned bad idea," based on available research. In order to get maximum results on standardized tests, it is necessary for teachers to focus on the answers to the questions printed on bubble sheets.

The Advocate editorial quotes State Superintendent of Education Paul Pastorek as saying “Teaching to the test is a good thing, because what students need to learn is on the test.”

That comment is certain to raise eyebrows in the education profession, where "teaching to the test" is a controversial subject.

If you are a classroom teacher, we'd like to know what you think. Please click here and give us your answer to a one-question survey: Do you believe that "teaching to the test" is an appropriate way to improve student performance in Louisiana?

Results will be published in an upcoming EdLog post.

Merit pay a well-intentioned bad idea

Here is one great rejoinder when the subject of merit pay for teachers comes up: just call it a "hardy perennial in the overgrown garden of well-intentioned bad ideas. "

That jewel comes from the keyboard of Philadelphia Daily News columnist Elmer Smith, whose essay questions the logic behind President Barack Obama's belief that merit pay should be a key element of education reform.

Smith is not opposed to any type of performance-based supplements. He notes that teachers in some places -specifically mentioning Denver and Cincinnati - are experimenting with contractual incentives. There are two very important distinctions between these examples and the common understanding of merit pay.

First, those examples are proceeding under the mutual understanding of collective bargaining agreements. Teachers are defining the incentives in partnership with their school boards.

Second, those incentives are not based purely on student achievement. As Smith puts it, "Fact is, nobody has ever devised a fair and equitable way to base teacher pay on student performance. Nobody. Ever."

Smith recounts several reasons why basing teacher pay on student performance is a bad idea. But the most compelling may be the unintended consequence to challenged schools.

"Even more troubling," Smith writes, "is the likelihood that teachers will opt out of the schools with the hardest-to-teach student populations."

Smith concludes his column with the observations of a teacher union president:

How do you attract good teachers to hard-to-staff schools if their pay is
based on getting the best results from the most-challenging students?

"It won't happen,'' said Philadelphia Federation of Teachers President
Jerry Jordan. "The equitable distribution of qualified teachers would get a lot
harder."

I'd raise teacher pay across the board. But I'd do it in a way that would
not discourage the best teachers from taking on the toughest challenges.

Obama's education plan: It's not anti-teacher or anti-union

Those who dislike teacher unions are tickled pink over what they believe is an anti-union slant to President Barack Obama's education reform speech, delivered this week to the Hispanic Chamber of Commerce. This example in the Politico blog says that Obama "for the first time confronted a powerful constituency in his own party: teachers’ unions. "

True, the president voiced support for performance-based pay. But that's not exactly the same as test-score based merit pay, as much as some would like to conflate the two. As American Federation of Teachers President Randi Weingarten says here, there is much that is good to say about "innovative ways to reward teaching excellence."

Note that in this Washington Post report on the president's speech, reporter Scott Wilson writes that he is proposing increases in education spending (the federal No Child Left Behind Act was never fully funded, even though its mandates were fully implemented). He also wants to explore national academic standards, an issue that Weingarten herself strongly supports.

It is true that the AFT and LFT will have policy differences with President Obama. We are not in his pocket, nor are we in his. The important difference between now and the past eight years is that this president has promised to make changes WITH teachers, not TO them.

There is one thing that we in the South need to understand about President Obama's background. He was raised in Hawaii and his public service career was nurtured in Illinois. Both of those states have collective bargaining laws for teachers and school employees. He comes from a culture of collaboration with teacher organizations.

So when the president talks about education reform, he automatically assumes that educators will be in on the discussion and policy decisions.