A valued friend, Bob Holdsworth, publishes a blog called Virginia Tomorrow. Recently, I responded to one of Bob’s posts concerning pay-for-performance for public school teachers. My reaction to Bob’s post was clear and direct. I do not subscribe to nor agree to the concept that pay-for -performance is an effective strategy for public school educators. Bob published my remarks (with permission) and I would like to take the opportunity to address my comments in more detail.
A recent publication (Education Week, March 11, 2009) by Donald B. Gratz summarized the issue this way. “To believe that teachers will try harder if offered a financial incentive is to assume that they aren’t trying hard now, that they know what to do but simply aren’t doing it, and that they are motivated more by money than by their students’ needs. These are unlikely and unsupported conclusions, which teachers find insulting rather than motivating” (p.40). I couldn’t agree with Donald Gratz more. As I interact with and collaborate with the fine teachers we employ in the Dinwiddie County, VA, School Division, it is apparent that they are not here for the money. Rather, a profound dedication to children and young adults motivates each and every one of our teachers to do the best they possibly can, even in an era of increased accountability and shrinking resources.
The fact that a child in any school in America is required to take standardized tests does not give rise to the validity or reliability that such tests are predictors of student needs later in life. Nor are such tests indicative of the multi-faceted and profound influence of teaching on the social, emotional, physical and intellectual development of our youth. The purpose for schooling as it relates to our nation’s history according to Jefferson, Emerson, Dewey and other leaders is not limited to measurable cognitive knowledge. In fact, the broader purpose for school is to provide children with the skills, knowledge, and disposition to succeed as citizens, workers, and members of our democratic society. In 21st century terms we may need to reconsider what outcomes are valued. The four areas of skill most sought according to Grantz are: professionalism and work ethic; oral and written communications; teamwork and collaborating; and critical-thinking and problem solving. Do standardized test account for these qualities?
Return now to the concept of pay-for-performance for teachers. Since children at any point in their educational continuum have multiple teachers, to which specific teacher do we attribute any measurable gain the cognitive, social, developmental, emotional, artistic, or intellectual development of a child? What measurement will best determine when the child gained the skills or knowledge? Will this decision be based upon a single source test? What skill sets or specific knowledge do we value most? How about student growth? What about the role of good parenting in the development of the child?
I had a neighbor who was the CFO of a respected corporation and earned a very comfortable income. He could not wait to retire so he could fulfill his lifelong desire to teach math. When he did retire, he accepted a job at a middle school in Virginia. After two years he reported back to me that he never worked so hard, under such pressure, and with such limited support as he did in the teaching profession. Undoubtedly, he finally did retire with a profound respect for those who choose a career in teaching. Do teachers deserve higher pay? Absolutely! If we value teachers and the contribution they make to American society then we need to provide more value in their paychecks. But so many variables exist in the development of a child’s intellect, social and emotional growth that it will be impossible to attribute these to any one moment in time or to any one specific person. Let’s decide to invest in public schools as a whole, and not attempt to demoralize the teaching profession any further by instituting pay-for-performance until we understand what it is we are trying to measure and value in the first place.
Wednesday, April 8, 2009
Friday, April 3, 2009
AASA Study Confirms Impact of the Economic Downturn on Public Schools
When it became apparent in 2008 that an economic downturn was upon us the American Association of School Administrators (AASA) took the lead in studying and analyzing the impact that changes in economic conditions would have upon school divisions nationwide. A study was conducted on the economic downturn that revealed measures were underway in most school divisions in response to shrinking budgets. The study also suggested that the economic downturn could threaten gains in student achievement and progress in narrowing the achievement gap and the capacity of schools to deliver essential services.
Two additional studies were conducted by AASA in December and in January 2009. These new surveys analyzed the potential impact of the continued economic downturn on schools nationwide. One of the revealing areas of interest was the fact that almost three-quarters of school leaders planned to eliminate jobs in the 2009-2010 school year. The reality that many schools would have to operate with fewer academic instructors, support staff and student services staff was a major concern.
The latest surveys indicate that the adjustments administrators made prior to the 2008-2009 school year were moderate when compared to the cuts schools are being forced to consider for the 2009-2010 school year. Some summary results are listed below:
• In the recent studies, 75 per cent of respondents described their districts as “inadequately funded”.
• A quarter indicated they were facing short-term borrowing to meet payroll and accounts payable, with two percent facing non-performance on bond repayment schedules and one percent facing insolvency.
• The top five “high priority” items were: classroom technology, school modernization, safety and security measures, connectivity, and professional development.
• The top five “priority” uses were: classroom equipment/supplies, software, supportive technology for students with needs, professional development, and textbooks.
• The top five “low priority” items were: health equipment, new career/technical programs, art education equipment, physical education equipment, and music education equipment.
Education represents a large share of the states’ general fund budgets. With state deficits expected to total more than $350 billion over the next two years, it will be very difficult for states to avoid damaging cuts to education as the recession continues. While the $100 billion included for education in the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act should help backfill some of the identified budget cuts, it is unlikely that the federal money will be enough to allow states and schools to completely reverse the proposed cuts in educational spending. The temptation for state governments and even local funding agencies to further reduce educational funding by using ARRA funds to bolster funding categories for other services (roads, building projects, social services, tax relief, etc.) presents a daunting challenge for school districts depending upon additional funding to survive the economic downturn.
All local school divisions must continue to articulate their needs to the local and state funding authorities in order to survive the immediate impact of reduced funding for the next fiscal year or two. The real challenge may be to plan for the 2010-2011 budget cycle that may be absent any additional federal stimulus funding and necessitate even deeper cuts to local school budgets. The immediate future for public educational funding will be at best difficult times for public education. Let’s hope we can avoid a catastrophic event for the sake of the children we serve.
Two additional studies were conducted by AASA in December and in January 2009. These new surveys analyzed the potential impact of the continued economic downturn on schools nationwide. One of the revealing areas of interest was the fact that almost three-quarters of school leaders planned to eliminate jobs in the 2009-2010 school year. The reality that many schools would have to operate with fewer academic instructors, support staff and student services staff was a major concern.
The latest surveys indicate that the adjustments administrators made prior to the 2008-2009 school year were moderate when compared to the cuts schools are being forced to consider for the 2009-2010 school year. Some summary results are listed below:
• In the recent studies, 75 per cent of respondents described their districts as “inadequately funded”.
• A quarter indicated they were facing short-term borrowing to meet payroll and accounts payable, with two percent facing non-performance on bond repayment schedules and one percent facing insolvency.
• The top five “high priority” items were: classroom technology, school modernization, safety and security measures, connectivity, and professional development.
• The top five “priority” uses were: classroom equipment/supplies, software, supportive technology for students with needs, professional development, and textbooks.
• The top five “low priority” items were: health equipment, new career/technical programs, art education equipment, physical education equipment, and music education equipment.
Education represents a large share of the states’ general fund budgets. With state deficits expected to total more than $350 billion over the next two years, it will be very difficult for states to avoid damaging cuts to education as the recession continues. While the $100 billion included for education in the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act should help backfill some of the identified budget cuts, it is unlikely that the federal money will be enough to allow states and schools to completely reverse the proposed cuts in educational spending. The temptation for state governments and even local funding agencies to further reduce educational funding by using ARRA funds to bolster funding categories for other services (roads, building projects, social services, tax relief, etc.) presents a daunting challenge for school districts depending upon additional funding to survive the economic downturn.
All local school divisions must continue to articulate their needs to the local and state funding authorities in order to survive the immediate impact of reduced funding for the next fiscal year or two. The real challenge may be to plan for the 2010-2011 budget cycle that may be absent any additional federal stimulus funding and necessitate even deeper cuts to local school budgets. The immediate future for public educational funding will be at best difficult times for public education. Let’s hope we can avoid a catastrophic event for the sake of the children we serve.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)