University of Exeter

A study examining the just-completed first year of a new performance-pay plan in Britain has been released by University of Exeter Professor Ted Wragg. He analyzed responses from a sample of 1000 primary and secondary head teachers (principals) who were charged with implementing government-mandated performance pay in their schools. Teachers were judged in five areas: knowledge and understanding; teaching and assessment; pupil progress; wider professional effectiveness; and professional characteristics. External auditors assessed head teachers' decisions on these applications, but rarely disputed their conclusions (though the auditors based their own analysis almost entirely on paperwork, not classroom observation). The study reports that three-quarters of head teachers surveyed felt that performance pay had little or no effect on what teachers did in the classroom. The main effect of the new pay package, said the head teachers, was to increase teachers' record keeping rather than to improve classroom practices. Head teachers also reported that evaluating teachers made an awful lot of work for them! Wragg's report is full of procedural details as well as opinions and observations-mostly negative-by primary and secondary teachers. One may fairly wonder whether this is the best way to conduct this kind of evaluation. Still, if you are interested in the nitty-gritty of one form of performance pay, contact the Teachers' Incentive Pay Project, School of Education, University of Exeter, Heavitree Road, Exeter EX1 2LU, United Kingdom; telephone 01392 264826; email [email protected].

The discipline problems that many of today's teachers-even elementary school teachers-have to deal with may shock delicate readers. What's wrong with kids today? See "Schools Awash in Bad Behavior," by Linda Perlstein, Washington Post, July 11, 2001

In this working paper on the misalignment between consumer demands and the pedagogy of teacher professionals, J.E. Stone (a professor of educational psychology and the founder of the Education Consumers ClearingHouse) takes a close look at teacher training in Texas, starting with Learner-Centered Schools for Texas, A Vision of Texas Educators, the document that guides teacher training in the Lone Star State. This document emphasizes pedagogy that "implies teaching fitted to the learner's unique characteristics" rather than methods that achieve learning outcomes. Stone argues that the focus on learner-centered instruction is based on ideology rather than evidence, and that it interferes with students' acquisition of the knowledge and skills prescribed by the curriculum. He offers value-added assessment as an alternate way of measuring whether teachers use instructional methods that boost student achievement. Value-added assessment measures teacher effectiveness while taking into account student differences, and has been adopted by several districts in Texas as well as the state of Tennessee. While Stone tends to lump all learner-centered teaching into a general category of ineffective teaching practice, he does a good job of demonstrating how Texas teacher certification tests and training programs undermine the public's expectation: high student achievement as measured by standardized tests. He also urges state policymakers to examine how fads and failures enter the educational community and the cost to the public. To view or obtain a copy of the report go to http://www.independent.org/tii/WorkingPapers/TeacherTraining.html or call the Independent Institute at 510-632-1366. To browse the Education Consumers ClearingHouse, go to http://www.education-consumers.com/

As Congress wraps up the ESEA reauthorization process, standards-based reform has taken center stage. Soon, the debate over "adequate yearly progress" and other exciting details will end, and a timeless question will re-emerge: motivated by these new incentives, how should schools transform themselves in order to increase student achievement? According to Uncommon Wisdom, a report by Mass Insight, the answer lies not in the halls of Congress, but in the schools and districts that are already making large gains. Aiming to identify specific "best practices," the report profiles nine Massachusetts schools (and one district) that outperform their demographic peers on state tests. The snapshots result in suggestions ranging from improved teacher collaboration to increased classroom time to enhanced use of student-level test data. However, school culture transcends all. In each of the high-achieving schools, the report observed a "common focus - a laser-like focus on higher standards for students - and a readiness to take on even the most intractable barriers to change." Mass Insight has only released the executive summary of the forthcoming report, slated for publication this fall. View the summary online at http://www.massinsight.com/meri/Building%20Blocks/e_bb_press.htm or request a hard copy by calling 617-722-4160.

The National Education Association (N.E.A.) would rather die than let parents choose their children's schools-but this week it voted to let them decide whether or not their kids will take tests! What's the difference? It seems the country's largest teacher union is willing to empower parents so long as the empowering coincides with the self-interest of teachers, in this case by crippling state and national testing programs that can be used for student (and perhaps teacher) accountability.

Self-interest is the key. It's the one constant in nearly every action of the N.E.A. and most of the actions of its rival/partner, the American Federation of Teachers (A.F.T.) Adult self-interest, to be accurate. Teacher self-interest, to be yet more precise. The educational well being of children may be invoked. But it's usually a decoy, a bit of spin meant to garb the adult self-interest in something less naked.

Self-interest isn't a bad thing. It's the essence of capitalism. It's the core of most countries' foreign policies. (It's also what makes packs of wolves bring down caribou and thieves snatch purses from old ladies.) What's hypocritical is self-interest that pretends to be something else. And patterns of self-interest that lead organizations to profess one thing and do another.

The teacher unions don't always work against quality education for children. The A.F.T., in particular, has a distinguished record of studies, reports and journals (especially its outstanding quarterly, American Educator, whose departing editor, Liz McPike, will be much missed) that press for high standards, sound pedagogy and worthy content. Indeed, a new report is expected from the A.F.T. in early September that, we understand, will rigorously appraise the quality of state academic standards and tests.

Well and good. Let us be grateful for the legacy of the late Albert Shanker. But let us also speak the truth about how the unions-both unions, alas-usually behave when the national spotlight is turned off and their swarming lobbyists descend upon legislative chambers and the rooms where school boards engage in collective bargaining. With the rarest of exceptions, the unions' behavior pattern in those settings is to stonewall serious education reforms of both the standards-based and competition-based genres. Insofar as they cannot fend these off entirely, union agents strive to keep the changes minimal, to shackle the reforms with as many old-fashioned restrictions as possible and, when the reformers' attention is elsewhere, to soften, muddy, or reverse the unwanted innovations.

The state and local backroom operators are not too visible at the unions' national conventions, such as the 9000-delegate conclave that the N.E.A. just concluded in Los Angeles. (The A.F.T.'s "quest" conference starts soon.) Most evident in those big gatherings are housekeeping issues pertaining to officer elections, dues structures and suchlike, and a parade of resolutions that place the organization on record for and against various things.

The N.E.A. has a habit of adopting resolutions that have little to do with K-12 education and much to do with contemporary politics, nearly always with a leftward bias. This year, for example, delegates came out foursquare against a national missile defense shield. Sometimes, though, they tiptoe into education reforms where it's too embarrassing-hence against their self-interest-to stonewall. Considering the popularity of "performance pay" for teachers, it was awkward for the N.E.A. last year when convention delegates unexpectedly rejected a leadership proposal to accept some very limited experiments with alternatives to uniform pay scales. (Uniformity, please note, may itself work against the self-interest of some union members, such as math and science teachers who could earn a lot more in other lines of work but whose public school pay is identical to that of their colleagues in social studies, art and home ec.) This year, the delegates went along, meaning that the N.E.A. is now on record as open to some pallid forms of non-uniform pay-so long as they're collectively bargained and not tied in any way to student achievement.

This year's prize for throwing sand in the education reform gears goes to the resolution supporting (federal and state) legislation to let parents opt their kids out of tests. Attached was a promise to oppose mandatory federal testing requirements, such as those contained in President Bush's "no child left behind" proposal and the pending E.S.E.A. reauthorization. Parents, it seems, should be in the driver's seat on testing. The spin was easy: "If you want to know how your child is doing, you don't wait seven months to get the results of a standardized test," said the California math teacher who sponsored this resolution. "You ask your kid's teacher."

But the N.E.A. still doesn't want parents driving any other education vehicles. Keep your eye on the bouncing self-interest. If enough parents opt their kids out of state tests, those tests won't be valid and their results can't be used for high-stakes accountability for schools or school employees. The teachers' self-interest is served. If enough parents were to opt their youngsters out of public schools, however, that self-interest would be compromised. So no vouchers. (And no charter schools except under the most severely cramped circumstances.)

One other interesting tidbit to emerge from the N.E.A. convention, thanks to the indefatigable Mike Antonucci, editor of the Education Intelligence Report. (If you don't get it and would like to, e-mail him at [email protected].) This was the results of the N.E.A.'s post-election poll of its members. From it we learn that 34 percent of N.E.A. members voted for Bush/Cheney; that 31 percent describe themselves as political "moderates" and 30 percent as "conservative." And just 38 percent regard vouchers as an issue on which it's "important" for the N.E.A. to "speak out." A striking 39 percent said vouchers are "not at all important." But don't expect that to alter the self-interest calculation anytime soon.

"What Teachers Really Think," The Wall Street Journal, July 6, 2001

"NEA Members Denounce High-Stakes Testing," by Jeff Archer and Julie Blair, Education Week, July 11, 2001

Since 1994, high schools in Los Angeles have been able to name as many valedictorians as they like rather than singling out one top student. To avoid making any good students feel bad, some schools had 30, 40, and even 90 valedictorians this year. See "We're All Number One!" by Jill Stewart, New Times Los Angeles, July 5, 2001

This report by the Southern Regional Education Board looks at one of our education system's biggest challenges: convincing new teachers to stay on. According to the National Center for Education Statistics, a quarter of beginning teachers leave the classroom during the first five years. "Reduce Your Losses" asks why many young teachers want to change careers soon after entering the classroom. One reason is poor training in pre-service programs. Another is lack of help and advice from veteran teachers. Yet another is the tradition of shoving new teachers into some of the toughest classrooms in subjects for which they're unprepared. The report notes that the overwhelming majority of teachers who leave the profession do not give low pay as the main reason. The states represented by the Southern Regional Education Board have launched a range of initiatives to retain new teachers, including mentoring support, assessments of beginning teachers, and regulations prescribing where a teacher can be placed (for example, not placing a teacher trained in English into a math classroom for the year). The Southern Regional Education Board sells copies of the report for $.50 and can be reached at (404) 875-9211. For a free copy go to http://www.sreb.org/main/HigherEd/ReduceLosses.asp

Why do conscientious school board members act like cranky five-year-olds, and what can we do to make school boards more effective? Jay Mathews has some ideas in "The Freedom of Choice," by Jay Mathews, Washingtonpost.com, July 10, 2001

New Frontiers for a New Century: A National Overview is the title of the latest issue of Thinking K-16, published quarterly by the Education Trust. Authors Kati Haycock, Craig Jerald and Sandra Huang argue that we need to consider bold solutions to reduce the achievement gap that has plagued American education for decades. To assist educators and policymakers in doing this, Ed Trust has since 1996 biennially published Education Watch, a book of national and state data on student achievement and opportunity. This issue of Thinking K-16 is a guide to the online version of Education Watch, which surveys a decade's worth of data. By highlighting dramatically different NAEP scores earned by students of similar socioeconomic backgrounds in various states, the authors aim to dispel the pervasive myth that "student achievement has much more to do with a child's background than with the quality of instruction he or she receives." One staggering finding is that, on the 1998 NAEP 8th grade writing test, black students' average scale scores ranged from 121 points in Arkansas to 146 points in Texas--a difference equivalent to approximately 2.5 years of instruction! There are similarly shocking results for other ethnic groups and subjects. States that get superb test results (relative, at least, to their counterparts) are designated "frontier states." Ed Trust concludes from their success that state and local education policy is a strong determinant of classroom achievement. If minority students everywhere scored as high as in the frontier states, Ed Trust argues, the national achievement gap would shrink rapidly, if not nearly disappear. Which is not to say that the frontier states are perfect models. A frontier state may lead the nation in Latino scores on 4th grade reading, for example, yet still have a wide gap between its Latino and white students. Ed Trust notes that the frontier "is not a final destination, but rather the farthest point anyone has reached yet." What can we do to ensure that all students achieve at high levels? Ed Trust offers some advice: 1) Set clear standards for what all students must learn; 2) Implement assessment and accountability systems capable of providing accurate information and signaling needed improvements; 3) Design rigorous standards-aligned curricula; 4) Place a highly competent teacher at the head of every classroom (which Ed Trust considers the single most important factor in ensuring that students learn); 5) Provide extra time and instruction for those who need it; and 6) Close funding gaps between districts with high and low concentrations of poor students. All these elements, taken together, would go a long way toward obliterating the achievement gap within the next decade. Encouraging, informative, and full of useful charts and tables, this report is worth reading. View it online at http://www.edtrust.org/or order a printed copy from The Education Trust for $2.50 shipping and handling by calling them at 202-293-1217.

The Detroit Public Schools are short more than 1000 certified teachers, but the district has 440 such teachers performing administrative tasks as department heads, curriculum leaders or staff coordinators, and often not teaching, reports Peggy Walsh-Sarnecki in the Detroit Free Press. While these teachers-who cost the district about $90,000 per year-have contracts that require them to teach up to three classes (depending on the number of teachers they supervise), a survey conducted by the Detroit Federation of Teachers found that 60 percent taught no classes and 36 percent taught one or two. According to a spokesperson from the state's largest teacher union, the Michigan Education Association, most department heads in other Michigan districts teach more than they do in Detroit; many, in fact, teach full time. Last year, Detroit superintendent Kenneth Burnley ordered 400 administrators back into the classroom, but observers say little has changed. If the existing teacher corps were more effectively deployed in Detroit and other urban districts that are said to have the same problem, we might not have acute teacher hiring and class size crises in these districts year after year.

"Schools' use of teachers questioned," by Peggy Walsh-Sarnecki, Detroit Free Press, July 9, 2001