Performance Pay at the Highest Levels

http://www.edin08.com/blogentry.aspx?id=3292&blogid=28
Last week, Adam Thibault, ED in ‘08’s senior policy analyst, attended a panel on NCLB reauthorization up on Capitol Hill and returned with some interesting perspectives about steps that individual districts have been taking to make school reforms and accountability work. A lot of important figures in American education were present, including Secretary Tommy Thompson and Governor Roy Barnes, Co-chairs of the Commission on No Child Left Behind, and several key congressional staffers.

Adam spoke to me about one panelist in particular, Deborah Jewell-Sherman, who is the current Superintendent of Richmond (VA) Public Schools.

In 2002, Deborah Jewell-Sherman signed a performance-based contract when she was hired as the new superintendent in Richmond, against the advice of colleagues and friends. While many teachers have supported performance-based incentives as part of larger compensation plans, it is less common to see principals and district administrators taking on that kind of accountability. To me, what is even more interesting is that that the goals being assessed in Jewell-Sherman’s contract were to be reached within her first year on the job – a short time to turn around a struggling district.

Jewell-Sherman was required to meet three goals in her first year:

• To double the number of the district's 55 schools with 70 percent or more of their students passing the state tests. (That number went from 10 to 23.)
• No more than 12 schools would rank in the lowest achievement category. (Under Jewell-Sherman's guidance, that number fell from 23 to 9.)
• At least 70 percent of the third-graders in 16 low-performing schools would pass the state reading test. (This goal was not met.)

For making such extraordinary gains and exceeding two of the three goals, the school board awarded her $24,000, in addition to her $133,500 base salary.

What I appreciate about contracts like Jewell-Sherman’s is that they send clear messages of expectations and accountability for school leaders, yet back those messages up with professional incentives, not unlike those received by business leaders. Now a school is not the same as a business, and shouldn’t be mistaken for one, but as a former district leader myself I am convinced that in order to attract (and retain) talented educators, districts must be prepared to offer them contracts that respect their professional abilities, and hold them accountable for delivering what was expected.

You can read more about performance-based incentives at our ED in '08 Issues page.

Homework Question: No More Zeros?

http://blogs.edweek.org/edweek/motivation/2008/02/no_more_zeros.html
This AP story details an innovative, and effective, program to get students to finish their homework. At Glenpool Middle School, teachers don't give out zeros for incomplete homework assignments. Instead, they send the students to a lunch study hall, where they are expected to complete the originally assigned work. If the work still isn't completed by the end of the lunch period, their parents are contacted to make arrangements for the student to finish the assignment before or after school hours.

I think this is a really good idea for a number of reasons. First of all, zeros pull down a student's average in a frighteningly quick and devastating way. Even if the student had all A's on every other assignment, one zero could conceivably bring his or her overall grade down to a C, or worse. Second of all, if students don't do their homework assignments and take a zero instead, they still have not learned whatever the assignment was designed to teach. This program tackles both of those problems by making it very difficult for students to receive zeros on homework assignments and making them do the work whether or not it's completed on time. Also, I imagine that losing out on lunch is extra motivation for students to finish their homework at home.

What do you think? Is forcing kids to finish incomplete homework assignments during lunch a good idea, or does it eliminate the consequences of not getting it done, and let them off too easy?

Miller's "Kill All the School Boards" - Just a Provocative Title?

http://www.openeducation.net/
Matt Miller, a senior fellow at the Center for American Progress, recently penned a piece for The Atlantic with the most provocative of titles, First, Kill All the School Boards. To juxtapose nicely with his bold and controversial assertion, the writer subtitled his piece, A modest proposal to fix the schools.

It is always difficult to read something that does not match up with one’s experience. So forgive us if we take exception to his proposal. The author of The Two Percent Solution: Fixing America’s Problems in Ways Liberals and Conservatives Can Love (2003), Miller has generally been described as an immense writing talent with a propensity to see the middle ground. In First, Kill All the School Boards, Miller instead takes an extreme position.

Those seeking to try to follow his argument should check the link we published above. He begins with Horace Mann, moves to Prussia, back to Horace, then follows the evolution of our current system of schools to make his case that local school boards are the problem with education.

Somehow, Miller associates local control with stunted research and development, argues that school boards are beholden to or simply overpowered by the more organized teacher unions, and then concludes that local control and school boards are at the root of all education problems.

It should be noted that Miller’s focus seems to be on the urban, inner city school boards. Perhaps that is why so much of what he writes is inconsistent with the State of Maine and our experiences working with local school boards.

Correct in One Regard
He does eventually get to the fundamental issue facing our country today, our overall educational performance. Miller noted that though the United States spends more per child than nearly every other nation, our performance pales in comparison. Miller notes the results of one specific 2003 assessment where out of 29 developed countries, the U.S. ranked “24th in math and in problem-solving, 18th in science, and 15th in reading.” He also reiterated that despite such expenditures “half of all black and Latino students in the U.S. don’t graduate on time (or ever) from high school.”

Essentially, his answer to improving education is to eliminate all local control, i.e., “Kill All the School Boards.” He states that the time has come to implement a national, federalized system.

It is interesting to note that Miller cites the last 30 years as particularly negative in education and that despite continuous calls for improvement, little progress has been made. Of course, we would note that just happens to be the period of time that the federal government began to expand its reach into public education.

No Child Left Behind
Surprisingly, Miller arrives at his conclusion for greater federal oversight despite acknowledging that the biggest federal attempt to date has been a dismal failure. But there again, the flawed law that President Bush refers to as his signature achievement, the 2001 No Child Left Behind Act, is essentially a failure because of local control, at least according to Miller.

Miller writes, “NCLB required states to establish standards in core subjects and to test children in grades 3–8 annually, with the aim of making all students ‘proficient’ by 2014. But by leaving standards and definitions of ‘proficiency’ to state discretion, it has actually made matters worse.”

Though most educators would agree with Miller that the law has made things worse, far worse in fact, many would contend that the law is precisely the reason that the federal government should stay out of local affairs. In fact, we would strongly contest that the law fell apart at the point of implementation because it was so poorly constructed.

Miller Correct in a Second Regard
We do agree with Miller, the time has indeed come for a standards based education. It is also long past time to have measures of accountability in place that determine progress towards those standards.

In fact, the vast majority of educators would welcome national standards if they were research-based, reasonable, and clearly articulated. But those are three big ifs.

In addition, the vast majority of educators would welcome accountability if a reasonable definition of proficiency were determined and an appropriate goal for student success set forth. But those are another two big ifs.

End the Politicization of the Issue
Of course, if you label something with a catchy phrase such as No Child Left Behind you cannot use a goal of 85% or 90% of students reaching the standard. You must make it 100% because of your title. Yet no where within those 29 other countries is 100% proficiency expected or obtained.

Furthermore, if you label the law the “No Child Left Behind Act” you immediately have to begin to rethink what is meant by proficiency for fear that by setting reasonable, base standards, you have again done a disservice to someone.

We noted in a previous post that experts see the law as immensely flawed. We quoted Columbia Teacher College researchers who insist that “proficiency is not attainable by all, or even nearly all, at any time.” Not by 2014, as NCLB states, in fact, not ever. The researchers contend that not even 100% of middle-class students could reach a truly rigorous standard, thereby rendering the fundamental tenet of NCLB, ‘proficiency for all’ an oxymoron. We also noted that “closing the achievement gap is one thing, but that ‘not only is it logically impossible to have proficiency for all at a challenging level,’ not even ‘the highest-performing countries come close to meeting the No Child Left Behind Act’s standard of proficiency for all.’”

NCLB a Dismal Failure
We agree with Miller, NCLB has been a failure, especially if the intent of the measure was to improve our public schools. However, we strongly disagree as to the reasons for that failure.

More importantly, if the most recent trip into federalizing education is an example of what educators can expect, then we cannot in any way support Miller’s solution. In fact, we would argue that without local control this flawed law would have done an even greater disservice to our students and our schools than it has to date.

S.C. Senate candidates split over school vouchers

http://www.heraldonline.com/109/story/350660.html
By Matt Garfield · mgarfield@heraldonline.com
Published 02/08/08 - 12:00 AM |
INDIAN LAND -- The upper reaches of York and Lancaster counties are among the most reliably Republican parts of South Carolina. Hoping to make inroads, Democrat Mandy Powers Norrell is pinning her bid for the state Senate on a lightning rod issue that she hopes will transcend party lines: school vouchers.

Norrell opposes them. Her opponent, Republican state Rep. Mick Mulvaney, voted for a voucher bill last year. That's a contrast that will be hotly debated as these young, charismatic candidates jockey to replace the retiring Republican Sen. Greg Gregory in District 16.

There's at least one more thing Norrell wants voters to know about her opponent: He sends his children to private school in Charlotte.

"It's difficult to support our public schools, or even know what's going on in them, if they're not good enough for your own children," she said earlier this week.

Mulvaney, who is Catholic, makes no apologies for sending his triplets to St. Matthew Catholic School in the Ballantyne area. Finnegan, James and Caroline are in second grade.

"How that's relevant is up for voters to decide," Mulvaney said. "My wife and I made a decision a long time ago to send our kids to Catholic school, and that's where they're going to go. I don't pick my kids' schools based on whether it's good or bad for me politically."

The exchange offers an early glimpse into a contest likely to grow more intense as the November election approaches. It pits "old Lancaster" in Norrell against "new Lancaster" in Mulvaney, who lives in the northern, suburban-minded Indian Land area just across the state line from Charlotte.

A real estate developer, Mulvaney, 40, won election to the state House last year. Since then, he's aligned himself with Gov. Mark Sanford and has earned praise from state Speaker Bobby Harrell as an up-and-comer in GOP circles.

Norrell, 34, is a bankruptcy lawyer who has never held elected office. She grew up in Lancaster as the daughter of two former Springs employees, Carl and Beverly Blackmon Powers. Her children, Teddy and Emma, attend Lancaster public schools.

When then-presidential candidate John Edwards visited town last month, Norrell earned some praise of her own. She was introduced as the "Daisy Duke of Lancaster" by former Georgia Rep. Ben Jones, famous for playing Cooter on TV's "The Dukes of Hazzard."

Do vouchers sway voters?
The race should help to determine whether so-called school choice is a galvanizing political issue in Fort Mill, where many locals are fierce advocates for their highly-regarded school district.

Opponents contend that vouchers divert money from public schools and mostly benefit parents who already are sending their children to private schools.

Supporters counter that competition forces all schools to improve. They argue the state's education system is in need of major changes and say tuition tax credits -- another term for school choice -- offers a fresh direction.

In explaining his position, Mulvaney said that a half-dozen votes on school choice bills were taken last year. He supported all except one. It was the only proposal that he believes would've been bad for Fort Mill -- an open enrollment plan that required, in part, for children outside district boundaries to be provided slots in local classrooms. The bill was defeated.

"For some people, vouchers are the be-all and end-all of the debate," Mulvaney said. "Those people are doing a great disservice to the parents and teachers in this state. It cannot be the only issue."

Norrell said she considers the voucher concept as a threat that can't be ignored.
"That's the reason I decided to run," she said. "This is a threshold election because the voucher proponents have really gotten a toehold in the Legislature. To me, it's a no-brainer."

Norrell held a kickoff event last month at Discovery School on Dunlap Street, where her children attend. Mulvaney is planning his own event in the next few weeks.

Matt Garfield • 329-4063

District Three Work Session on Monday, February 11

WORK SESSION  -  5:30 Pm
Northside Elementary School
1 Presentation by Northside - Linda Crute, 30 minutes
2 Sig Huitt & Jane Peeples on Public Relations - Lynn Moody - 30 minutes
3 Comprehensive Salary & Staffing Study  - Dale Holden & Dan Cobb - 45 minutes
4 Sunset Park Calendar  - Tammy White, Rich Melzer & Caroline Massengill - 60 minutes
5 School Bus Advertising - Luanne Kokolis - 20 minutes
6 Stadium Scoreboard/Turf Update  -  John Hair -10 minutes
7 Policies: GBEC-R, IJOB, IJOC, & KGBA -  Elaine Baker & Luanne Kokolis - 5 minutes
EXECUTIVE SESSION
Student Matter
LOCATION: Northside Elementary School of the Arts
LEADER: Bob Norwood
START: 5:30 p.m.

Demanding Better Public Schools from Aspiring Leaders

To the presidential candidates, we say, 'Look to the public schools -- that's our future.'
by James Daly
published 1/14/2008
The quadrennial circus known as the presidential election kicked into warp speed this month. Already, we've had the New Hampshire primary and a handful of state caucuses. The majority of primaries -- the real money states -- are scheduled for the frozen first week in February, and within a month it's likely we will know which candidates will represent the major parties in November's election.

Though the current election has more in common substance-wise with Dancing with the Stars than with the Lincoln-Douglas debates, it's clear there is one issue the candidates should be pressed on: improving the state of public education.

It's easy to feel despondent during a presidential election year. One politico seems as much of an empty suit as the next -- in a nation this extraordinary, these are the best candidates we can come up with?

But our choice of elected representatives and the free and fair elections that bring them to power do matter; one only has to look back to the stolen presidential election of 2000 and consider what might have been if the vote-counting process had run its due course.

One of the most encouraging signs for public education this election year is the recent launch of Strong American Schools, a $60 million nonpartisan public-awareness and public-action campaign aimed at taking the issues surrounding our public schools to the top of the presidential-campaign agenda.

The Strong American Schools campaign (using the siren call of "Ed in '08") will employ a cross-media approach that includes television and radio ads, as well as an interactive e-campaign. Strong American Schools will not endorse specific presidential candidates, but will instead focus on three components the group believes form the building blocks of better schooling: a call for stronger, more consistent curriculum standards; lengthening the school day and year; and improving teacher quality through merit pay and other measures.

"The American dream is slipping away, and unless our leaders dramatically improve our public schools, our standard of living, our economy, and our very democracy will be threatened," says Eli Broad, founder of the Broad Foundation and a key backer of the campaign. "Our country's education system is no longer the best in the world. We need every American to demand better schools and specific policy solutions from presidential candidates. Our future depends on it."

The Strong American Schools project has quickly proven itself both ambitious and timely. One PSA features hip-hop singer Kanye West; it zoomed to a place among the top twenty most-viewed YouTube videos when it was released last September. Another ad, this time in print, shows a student writing "A histery of Irak" on a blackboard. "Debating Iraq is tough," the copy reads. "Spelling it shouldn't be. America's schools are falling behind. It's a crisis that takes leadership to solve. So, to all presidential candidates, we say, 'What's your plan to fix our schools?'"

We know the answers won't come in a snappy sound bite. Our public education system is extraordinarily complex, and reflects the radical changes in this country over the past few decades. Nowhere is the change more evident than in public school classrooms. Though once predominantly white, we are now increasingly multi-hued. More and more of us were born in other nations, speak different languages, and carry various cultural traditions with us than ever before. Our family structures are changing -- many of us marry older, and many don't marry at all. Some groups of us have many children; some groups have none or few.

If candidates continue to talk in airy platitudes about public education, they are dodging questions about the future. We must all be willing to address education as an American challenge rather than as a narrow political issue. The music and rhythm of politics can be an awfully powerful thing, and it's time those skills are taken to bear on public education. Look to the schools -- that's our future. Without an educated and skilled workforce, America's competitiveness and security begin to spiral downward very quickly. We can't let that happen. A strong America depends on strong American schools.

James Daly
Editor in Chief

Source URL:
http://www.edutopia.org/editors-note-schools-2008-election

Civics Unrest: On Teaching Kids to Love Democracy

With a presidential election on the horizon, teaching about our country takes on new importance.
by Richard Dreyfuss
published 1/12/2008
I believe America is a verb, not a noun. America is the greatest opportunity for people to live in fairness and decency, but only if you accept the idea that America is an ongoing activity, rather than a done deal. America as an evolving concept has meaning; our country offers more potential for human freedom and mobility of mind than any other sovereign nation created in the last 10,000 years. But if America is just a noun, a static object, it should be treated as any other nation. Nothing special -- simply a place that is south of Canada and north of Mexico.

One of the fundamental tenets of our democracy is that we allow and share disparate opinions. That principle must be honored. If we do not honor disparate opinions -- if we heap scorn and contempt on those whose ideas differ from our own -- and if we humiliate dissenters for exercising their right to dissent, we are being fundamentally antidemocratic.

This is an important point to teach our children, and this is why it is critical that we continue to teach our children both civics and civil debate as a key part of our schools. If we no longer teach these skills and we expect our children to inherit this great nation, it's like giving someone the keys to the car without requiring them to first obtain the skills needed to drive.

The expertise needed to understand Western enlightenment and civil liberties is not something you are born with. You have to learn it. Unless we teach our kids the ideas that make America -- the government -- a miracle, it will go away in their lifetime. We must find the time and creativity to teach civics in school. If we don't, we will lose it to fundamentalists of every stripe and to stupidity and the darkness.

A great example of this danger is our modern excuse for debate, particularly televised debate. We don't show that complex issues require time to understand. We don't reason things through. We don't applaud rumination and taking your time.

Instead, we watch the Bill O'Reillys and Sean Hannitys and call it discourse. But is this really debate? Of course not. Politics and news have been hijacked as mere sources of entertainment. We confuse the melodrama of incivility with how public issues are meant to be discussed. Is this the way we want our children to behave: insulting, annoying, and loud? Is this something our kids should emulate? Instead, we need to teach our kids the tools of reason, logic, clarity, dissent, civility, and debate. We must teach them that it's OK to keep asking new questions. Those things are the nonpartisan basis of democracy.

What has happened in America is that we have confused confrontation and opposition with discussion. We have turned debate into entertainment. And we have created a system where dissent -- the essence of a democracy -- is considered antipatriotic, when in fact the opposite is the case.

Democracy is hard work. It requires our attention, because if we don't use it, we lose it. Democracy will not go away in a single dramatic event. No one will ever say that this is the day it died. But this is the state of things now: Unless we are careful, America will turn into a legend, a story, a fable. All it takes is some inattention. It takes a belief that we don't count. It takes cynicism in our country. Cynicism is probably the least attractive thing ever created, and it always comes from a broken heart. The only reason people get cynical is because of love gone sour: At one time, there was an America we loved, and now it's gone sour.

This country, the idea that we are responsible for our own government, represents a tiny twinkle of light in a long world history of monarchy and theocracy and oppressive darkness. If our form of representative democracy lasts longer than our lifetime or our kids' lifetime, it's only because we put some effort into teaching the ideals of opportunity, mobility, freedom of thought, and assembly.

America in its imperfection may be unsatisfying, but it is alive. And it is up to us to make sure America keeps on living. Kids must be reminded of the great parts of this country -- the parts that aren't always so easy to see or hear. Unless we give them something to fall in love with, why should they be in love?

Richard Dreyfuss is an actor who has appeared in more than forty films, including every teacher's favorite: Mr. Holland's Opus. This column is based on remarks he made at the 2007 Teaching & Learning Celebration conference, held in New York.

Source URL:
http://www.edutopia.org/civics-unrest-teaching-kids-to-love-democracy