Teachers, the New Piñata

A lot of "reforms" center on teacher quality as the critical factor in fixing our education system.  While I think teacher quality is important, I have argued on this blog that teacher quality and success are two different things.   Great teachers may not have the same connection and success with an entirely different class, and thus their success will vary across years.  I have also noted that I don’t think teacher quality is the largest part of why education in America is failing.  That said, it is important, and if we don’t start sending a message that teachers are respected, we risk losing the good ones we have and not being able to replace them.

The Problem

According to nearly every reformist’s model, you would think teachers are the problem with education.  If we just had better teachers, our kids would be fine.  You listen to them and hear about “the evil teacher unions” who favor bad teachers at the expense of children, you hear about the impossibility of firing bad teachers, you hear praise for programs that put 22 year olds with no real qualifications in the classroom, you see teachers being graded publicly for the results of their students’ test scores on one day and having their employment status and pay hanging in the balance.  Does this sound like a desirable job to you?  Yet so many great teachers go in day after day with low pay and decreasing job security. 

To illustrate this differently, imagine you were a foreman on the Ford assembly line.   Imagine that your right to unionize for a safe workplace and reasonable hours was being threatened.  Imagine that far cheaper kids in vocational school were starting to replace other foremen in your plant.  Imagine that your pay was determined by how well your team built cars on one arbitrary day of the year (and imagine that one team mate just got divorced and another’s dad just died and think how productive they might be).  Imagine that your boss did not want you to focus on quality or to innovate, but wanted you to focus on only a few bare-bones basics that were beneath your standards as someone with 25 years experience making quality cars.  That’s what it must feel like to be a teacher.

In summary, teachers are:

n      Unprotected:  Increasingly, teachers unions have come under attack as protecting bad teachers at the expense of student learning.  There are surely corrupt unions and bad teachers, and both are bad things.  That said, this idea that groups that protect teachers are simply unjustifiable is unwarranted.  In Texas, for example, a very powerful conservative group would sit in the back of classrooms and see if a teacher taught anything “controversial.”  Teachers do need protection from arbitrary firing.  Further, they are employed by the government, which means they can be used as a political football.  Given that the ultimate source of power is the government, a union serves to check that power.  Worse, in an era of increased firings and a new evaluation system every year that has real consequences, teachers deserve to have informed representation.  Many great teachers that I know (union affiliated) made the point that it is not in a union’s interest to keep bad teachers: it makes it harder to win gains for all teachers when you harbor a lot of bad teachers and it demoralizes really stellar teachers who may not want to be part of such a union.

n      Losing Job Stability: Because they are paid with taxpayer dollars and almost every level of government is struggling with debt, teachers are at the front-line of those job cuts.  Further, when you look at school leaders making headlines, many have fired teachers immediately upon getting a poor rating on a new evaluation system based largely on tests (Michelle Rhee fired 4% of DC’s teacher force in July 2010, Providence, RI, Mayor Tavares fires nearly 2,000 employees in February 2011, etc.).  Worse, a new trend in closing ineffective schools has teachers fearful that they may not even have a position from year to year, even if they are a great teacher in a bad school.

n      Paid or fired based on things out of their control:  The argument for using tests to judge teachers is that they teach a student, so if a student cannot perform well on a test, it must be the teacher’s fault.  That said, there are so many complications, including the weather and how a student is feeling or how well a student takes tests (not to mention whether the test contains worthwhile knowledge in the first place).  Nevertheless, that one high-stakes day can be used to determine the bulk of a teacher’s rating, their pay, and increasingly their employment status.

n      Denied creativity:  By basing scores on tests, many teachers feel like they run a test-prep program and are increasingly forced to waste time on practice tests and test-taking techniques rather than imparting knowledge or concepts.  Some districts (NYC, San Diego) suffered through the micromanagement of Anthony Alvarado who developed an exact reading curriculum that every teacher had to follow, down to having kids identify what kind of reading they were doing when they read a sentence (it had a mixed effect on scores at certain levels, and it did introduce a system of peer coaches for teachers that would have been good if they were encouraging all-around good teaching, not enforcing a model).  Many teachers have begun to question if they should remain teaching in a system that prioritizes teaching students what to think over how to think.

n      Paid poorly for a tough job: You are likely pretty highly-educated.  You have to work a full day, then go home and grade papers and plan lessons (and any good teacher will tell you that takes longer than delivering the lesson).  You may have to reach out to parents, attend school events, and supervise an extracurricular activity.  On top of that, you have to be accountable for the success of 30 students (some of whom are going through puberty) who change every year and may not be compatible learners to your style of teaching.  Then you have to be accountable to some 60 parents, and the local school board, and your principle, and the board of education.  Then you take home a whopping $40k ($45k if you have a Masters, maybe).  The majority of early childhood educators are not even clearing the poverty line.

n      Denied respect:  A special education teacher who was recently rated as “bad” in New York City (and publicly so at that) based on his special education student’s test scores not matching other students wrote a really hard hitting Op-Ed on the experience.  He notes that by virtue of teaching kids, everything he does from how he dresses to how he teaches is immediately critiqued by his students.  Worse, programs like Teach for America send the signal that any blind ape can teach.  We’re just going to throw these college grads into the worse environments after training for six weeks at a summer camp and let them figure out how to teach for two years before they go to business school.  Sending the message that you are easily replaceable and that your profession is merely a means to an end is a great way to increase people’s job satisfaction, right?  Sadly no: a recent survey of teachers found that in the last couple of years, teacher satisfaction dropped substantially (15 percentage points fewer teachers now feel very satisfied with their job) while the number of teachers that will likely leave the profession nearly doubled to 1/3 of all teachers!

n      Suffering from the pressure: As teachers are forced to pay the price for student outcomes on high-stakes tests or as they are expected to maintain high performance even as class sizes increase or budgets get slashed, it creates a high-stress environment that sets the teacher up for failure, an inability to give personal attention, and very little sleep. As the aforementioned Special-Ed teacher noted, his teaching became secondary to implementing the rather arbitrary requirements of his administrator (who controls his employment).  It isn’t an environment that supports good teaching.  It is an environment that punishes falling short of perfection.

The Implications

These are not all the problems, but even these few have some really devastating implications:

n      High turnover: As more teachers become too stressed, are fired because of a bad testing day, lose faith in the system, or are replaced by Teach for America members that largely leave after 2 years, more money is wasted finding and teaching new teachers.

n      Lost benefits of experience:  A teacher does not continue to become amazing after two to three years of teaching, but if experienced teachers feel unrecognized and leave and the new crops of teachers last (or are expected to teach) only two years, they leave right as they are getting their sea legs.  It is widely known that teachers gain the most in teaching quality in their first two or three years.  That means you have a perpetual crop of teachers stumbling to find their way that leave right as they get good and students are much less likely to benefit from a teacher who is excellent.

n      Lower-level thinking:  If your child’s teacher is teaching to a test (or as is often the case how to take a test), how much is your child learning?  Is it important that your son or daughter select the least bad summary of the topic in a poorly written essay?  That they can calculate the angles of a triangle in 45 seconds?  Some parents and many employers would like a well-rounded student that is able to work in groups, think through problems critically, and be well-rounded.  Very few of life’s problems or workplace tasks come with multiple-choice answers.

n      Exposure to fewer topics:  What is tested is what gets funded and taught, so if your child is not going to grow up to be a calculator, a dictionary or a test designer, they are severely disadvantaged by the push to have teachers teach to the test.

n      Greater inequality:  As the lowest performing students are subject to the whim of random reforms, teachers under fire, and school closures, they suffer from the problems they bring to school and a lack of stability and coherent instruction in the classroom. If they are getting a worse experience, they are more likely to perform poorly, become disengaged, and drop out.  My guess is that this is contributing to the widening inequality we see in our society.

n      Destruction of community:  When school closure based on testing or “poor teaching” is exercised, students lose the bonds they have formed with their peers, their teachers, and their community.  

Act on it!

n      Monitor your child’s homework and see what is being taught.  If you notice that the work is not very enriching and is more test-oriented, speak with the teacher.  If instructions come from higher, speak to the principal or go to a local school council meeting.

n      Don’t fixate on your child’s test scores.  If they do poorly, find out what concepts they find challenging and work with them.  If they are a bad test-taker, they may very well respond to a far different style of teaching and learning.  Worse, you are unnecessarily stressing them in a way that doesn’t encourage improvement.  Tests should extend learning, and these tests don’t.

n      Attend town hall meetings when school administrators want to close schools, punish teachers on untried evaluation systems, or fixate only on test scores.

n      Write to your member of Congress to repeal No Child Left Behind and to reign in Secretary of Education Arnie Duncan’s arbitrary use of discretionary authority to implement similar reforms.

People with the education level of many teachers can take their talents elsewhere.  If we make the profession appear so undesirable, those who might do really well and impact a whole new generation of kids will decide it is not worth it.  I already watched a friend who is amazing with kids, highly educated and organized, and a trained teacher leave the profession because it was too stressful and she was not supported.  I know scores of Teach for America alums who taught two or three years, were probably pretty great by the end, but who have now left the profession.  This doesn't fix our system, and it is unfair to our kids.

 

Speak out!

Tell me about a really great or bad teacher you had.  What made them good or bad?

Some Think Brown v. Board of Education Is A Good Policy, Not a Court Ruling

Previously, I blogged about an article by a Philadelphia man who wrote that poor black kids should be doing more to pull themselves up by their bootstraps.  But what if when they reach for their bootstraps, their teachers are more likely to punish them for not paying attention than their white peers?  What if they are more likely to be sent to prison for possibly reaching for drugs or a knife?  What if they are given thinner bootstraps that break more easily?  The metaphor may get old, but it is not far from the reality. Data released by the Department of Education (covering 42 million students in 72,000 public schools) today showed that minority students are more likely to be punished, sent into the correctional system, and to get fewer educational resources than their non-minority peers.

The Problem

According to an article in the New York Times and a post at Education Weekly, the civil rights issues that students face fall into three broad categories:

1. Minorities are punished more.
2. Minorities are referred to law enforcement more.
3. Minorities face fewer resources and lower expectations.

Minorities are punished more

While only 18 percent of the students studied were Black, they represent 35 percent of those suspended one time, 39 percent of those expelled, and 46 percent of those suspended twice or more.  That is to say, Black students were nearly four times more likely to be suspended or expelled than their White counterparts.  Where “Zero Tolerance” policies are in effect, Black and Hispanic students were 56 percent of those suspended or expelled, but only 44 percent of those schools’ student bodies.  In general, the rates of suspension doubled in all K-12 schools from 1973 to 2006 with the rise of Zero Tolerance policies.

Minorities are referred to law enforcement more

While 18 percent of students studied was Black, over 70 percent of those arrested or referred to law enforcement in school were Black.  Apparently seclusion and mechanical restraints are sometimes used for some students with disabilities.  That said, 21 percent of disabled students were Black, while 44 percent of disabled students put in mechanical restraints were Black.  These punishments go beyond the disabled; however, as 42 percent of non-disabled, Hispanic students were punished with seclusion even though they made up only 21 percent of the non-disabled populations.

Minorities face fewer resources and lower expectations

It turns out, high-minority schools also pay teachers less, an average of $2,251 less per year than their low-minority school peers.  Not surprisingly, given the rise of programs like Teach for America, minority students were twice as likely to have teachers with only one or two years of experience.  Most studies show that teachers make the greatest gains in teaching quality after two to three years of teaching. 

Over half of low-minority schools offered calculus, while only about a quarter of high-minority schools did.  Even for less advanced courses like algebra, a disproportionately low amount of Blacks were enrolled and a disproportionate amount failed compared to their White peers.  Minorities accounted for 44 percent of students studied, though only 26 percent of the population in gifted programs.  Half of Black and Hispanic students did not pass federal reading tests, double the failure rate for Whites.  56 percent of 4^th graders held back were Black, while 49% of 3^rd graders held back were Black.  This meant that Blacks were three times likelier than Whites to be held back (Hispanics twice as likely).  The higher rate of retention of Black students occurs in all grades three through ten (they may not occur later in high school because of higher dropout rates among minorities).  Experts note that retention leads to a higher likelihood that a student will drop out.

Pockets of Problems

It should be noted that all of these three problems are not uniformly distributed across the U.S.  Major cities like New York, Philadelphia, Chicago and Los Angeles suffered from much larger disparities in punishments of minority students and in pay levels for teachers in low-and high-minority schools.  Nearly all of Illinois 3^rd graders that were held back were minorities, as opposed to half nationwide. 

The Implications

n      If minority students spend more time being punished, out of school on punishment, or out of the system from dropping out of being sent to jail, then this obviously reduces the amount of time spent learning and widens gaps between White and Minority performance (which we see in the results).

n      We see that minority students are more likely to have a new, inexperienced, and poorly paid teacher.  This may be a direct result of programs like Teach for America, charter schools, and a more pervasive assault on union rights of teachers.  If schools with high minority populations have less experience and lower pay, it may make them less attractive to the best teachers needed to overcome the gaps between Whites and minorities.

n      If minorities are less likely to be exposed to a diversity of content, the amount of opportunities available to them (and likelihood of finding subjects that they enjoy or excel at) is greatly reduced.  Students also tend to fulfill the expectations you set for them, so setting low expectations may be a self-fulfilling prophecy.

n      Greater levels of punishment may make minorities feel less welcome at school and affect performance and student retention rates.

n      The cumulative effects of almost every aspect of the educational experience being tilted away from minority students demonstrate that there are some severe systemic inequalities in the very design of the education system that need to be addressed.  My guess is that many of these design flaws stem from incorrectly dismissing the impact of income, parental education levels, home situation, and discrimination on student achievement.

Some Ideas for the Future

1. At the very least, districts ought to equalize resource levels among high- and low-minority population schools and reassess some of the gaps identified in this post.
2. I reiterate a reform to Teach for America that I made earlier that would place these new teachers in schools with high-performing students and allow high-quality teachers to rotate into schools with greatest need.  This would likely improve teacher retention among TFA alums and would also ensure that those kids who most need help are getting access to experienced, quality teachers.
3. Use charters as they were intended to identify unique solutions to problems in the public school system.  In this case, use charters to identify new models and pedagogy for kids that are more likely to score poorly, be placed on a lower track, be reprimanded, be sent to prison, or be held back a grade.
4. We need to use incentives to get and keep good teachers in the most lacking schools.
5. It would be ideal to find a productive substitute to suspensions and expulsions that pull the most troubled students out of classes and make them fall further behind.  Perhaps we assign them to a community service project or to a special program like the design program I identified in my post on the “hands on classroom.”

Speak out!

1. What are some ways you see that inequality is present in the schools system?  How does it affect students? What solutions do you see to policies that entrench inequality?
2. What alternative programs can you think of to Zero Tolerance policies that might improve student discipline without compromising their learning?

Reverse Robin Hood: Poor Districts Pay More, Get Less

Sometimes there are some really egregious local issues that deserve national attention.  This one comes from Pennsylvania, and I hope some of you will take some action.  There is a convenient narrative that poor districts pay less in taxes, so their schools get less funding.  There is another narrative that per pupil spending on education is too high.  Both can be true, but neither is the whole story.  In Montgomery County, Pennsylvania, the story is quite different (Montgomery is right outside Philly, where the author of "If I were a poor black kid" that inspired this post was writing).  According to an article in the Pottsdam Mercury, low income districts are absorbing some of the largest budget cuts. 

The Problem

The article discusses a recent report released by the Education Law Center (ELC) that advocates for low-income students in PA.  The report has analyzed funding, which was cut to the tune of $1.5 billion since 2008.  According to their analysis "school districts with a low income population and high property tax rate, like Pottstown, have absorbed up to 10 times more of the $1.5 billion in cuts to state education funding than wealthier districts."  Worse, more cuts are slated and the most recent budget proposal calls for them to hit districts like Pottstown.  

The ELC analyzed Montgomery because the county is home to some of the best and worst in the state. Half of the ten districts with the smallest cuts and "all but one of the districts faring the best under Corbett’s budget are located in southeast Pennsylvania and read like a who’s who of wealthy locales." Not surprisingly, these districts also are among the lowest in student poverty concentrations in PA. 

Why It Matters

What is interesting about this policy is that districts have many low-income students, but some very high property tax rates.  An argument that I hear a lot, "It is not fair for the wealthy to subsidize students in schools their kids can't use," thus doesn't apply here.  Even if you buy into this argument and it applies, these allocations serve to entrench systemic inequalities:

• Low income parents have fewer resources to provide educational opportunities and programing for their kids after school, which leads to decay of previous learning and less overall time spent learning (in and out of school). 
• Low income parents tend to work more hours, be more likely to be single parents, and have less time to allocate to their children's education (as say to putting food on the table or trying to get a table) 
• Low income families tend to have fewer ties to the education system and the benefits of education, thus reducing resources to their schools can send very negative signals.  If you already doubt the value of school and see that your schools are not well funded or effective, then you are more likely to feel like your beliefs have been reaffirmed. 
• Lower budgets cut the amount of time that schools can offer programming and the amount/types of alternative programs they can offer.  That means that poor children are exposed to fewer things, are less likely to find topics that engage them, and are more likely to be routed into an unfilfilling career or track. 

Are these guaranteed outcomes? Absolutely not.  All the same, we should be very concerned as a nation when some of our most disadvantaged students are forced to face even more barriers to success than those that poverty and societal scorn already place upon them.   This is not an argument for higher per pupil expenditures. This is an argument about being fair in how difficult cuts need to be made.  This is an argument for allocating resources and talent in ways that maximize the outcomes at a systemic level.  You can't deny that investing more in students whose parents already provide a lot of support for education and extracurricular programming is somewhat wasteful in a budget-scarce environment.

Act on it!
 

• Write Governor Corbett and ask him to justify and reconsider this regressive policy
• Email: Governor@pa.gov
• Call: 717-787-2500
• Submit an Inquiry Online: http://www.portal.state.pa.us/portal/server.pt?open=514&objID=1072219&parentname=ObjMgr&parentid=11&mode=2.
•  Contact the PA representatives who might change the coming budget:
• Senate Education Committee: http://www.legis.state.pa.us/cfdocs/cteeInfo/cteeInfo.cfm?cde=23&body=S
• Senate Finance Committee: http://www.legis.state.pa.us/cfdocs/cteeInfo/cteeInfo.cfm?cde=25&body=S
• Montgomery County's General Assembly Members: http://www.legis.state.pa.us/cfdocs/legis/home/findyourlegislator/county_list.cfm?CNTYLIST=MONTGOMERY 
• Write your local school board or legislator or mayor/governor and inquire about how funding is distributed and how they make cuts when they face budgetary scarcity.  I guarantee this is not isolated to Montgomery County, PA. 

Speak Out!

• Post some ideas for letters you might write to these officials to ensure more equitable funding for schools. 
• Have you seen this in other areas in the US? Call them out!  

It Ain't Easy Being Upwardly Mobile and Poor

As you may recall, I grew up poor and ended up going to college.  Surely, that’s success, right?  My investment in education and motivation behind this blog stem from the belief that by writing about these issues we can craft a better system that ensures that more people go from poor to more.  I have to say, though, that I read a rather disappointing article in Jezebel that highlights a Cornell study.  The study shows  that poor people who go to college are less likely to marry than rich people who go to college or poor people who don't get advanced degrees.  Especially guys (oh boy...is it stuffy in here or is that just my college degree laughing at me?).  This post will be less study-based and a bit more of a personal reflection on some of the largely unconsidered barriers to poor people succeeding.  It is no small task providing the ideal system that promotes equitable advancement through education, but even if you did that, it is no guarantee that people will (or perhaps should) jump to take advantage of it. 

There are a lot of impediments to a poor person that make you really give pause as you move up the educational ladder.  One of the big ones is that a lot of the information you learn has no relation to your background.  As my European History teacher said, “this class is the story of DWG” (dead white guys).  One of my favorite poems "Prière d'un petit enfant nègre" (Prayer of a little black boy) from Haiti provides the thoughts of a young Haitian boy who laments going to the French schools that talk about history from places he will never know and that take him from walking under the mangroves with his dad.  If you are not wealthy and white, it is really hard to connect.  It’s not that you can’t relate to or learn from people that are unlike you, but when everyone you learn about is remarkably similar to each other but completely different from you…well, it sends a signal.  It says that history doesn’t remember your kind.  School reinforcing your smallness while you are trying to escape it is not the greatest encouragement that you are going to go far.

Even if you, as I and many others have, get past your historical absence from textbooks, you then have to deal with a feeling of extreme guilt.  Every time you mess up, it is wasting all the sacrifice of your family.  When I went to Stanford, I was suddenly in an upper-middle class environment that I wasn’t paying for.  Even as I lived relatively frugally, I’d get to go on ridiculous things like ski trips and wine tasting that I wasn’t paying for.  It is hard to not feel guilty when you are skiing in Tahoe (and trying not to mow down defter six year olds on the slopes) while your single mom is heading to work at the crack of dawn to make ends meet.  Guilt is a powerful impediment to enjoying your success and to even viewing it as success.

There is also the intense separation of points of views that creates big tension between your past and future relationships.  As you get more educated, people start to resent you for being condescending or “thinking you are better.”  It is funny because they encourage you to get an education, but once you try to encourage them, it sounds like meddling or judgment.  To have friends or relatives think you are some out-of-touch, paternalistic know-it-all is a strong disincentive.  In minority communities, this can manifest itself as “being too white.” Meanwhile, you start to resent them for their stubbornness, for refusing to acknowledge that studies have shown that “x” will make their lives so much better.  In this, you and the person who once encouraged you both start to question the wisdom behind upward mobility.

The separation is not just the tension of your differing educational levels, but also of your changing interests.  Typically, you are educated outside of your community if you are an upwardly-mobile poor person (my high school was 12 miles from home in Chicago, my grammar school about 6).  My education got me excited about languages and foreign countries, and conscientious travel is not all that big where I come from.  I really care about buying local.  My mom and I have constant spats about it because she’s very right when she says, “It’s nice that you can afford to buy at small places, but I need to go to Target.”  Likewise, I’m right when I say, “Yes, but places like Walmart are shown to kill jobs in Chicago and you are hurting people just like you.”  It’s an awful catch-22, and it’s an impediment.  What the hell do you talk about at Thanksgiving that won’t provoke a fight?  I thought that was the job of a drunk uncle, anyway.

It is also really hard when people you knew can’t understand what you are doing with your life.  You are an “international something or other” major who wrote a very long paper on “something to do with Arabs.” “Yes, I did write my honors thesis in International Relations on Iraqi refugees.”  “Right, and what is this diplomat thing again? I know you’ve told me, but I can’t remember.”  Then try explaining to people “I work on promoting the labor provisions of free trade agreements.” (blank stares abound).  The thing is that people suspect you are successful, but all the people you really want to impress can’t understand well enough to be fully proud because they get what you’ve accomplished.  It's even worse because they expect you to be knowledgeable about EVERYTHING, and you suddenly get questions like "The doctor says I should get a biopsy, but I don't know...what do you think?"   Try responding, "Ask me about the Democratic Peace Theory, not medicine."

What’s worse is that in the end, you are changed but you don’t fit into your new life so well either.  Your middle class friends talk uninformedly about how to help the poor—your people, what YOU yourself once were—or what poor people need.  People laugh at you when you say that you were on welfare as a kid and were attacked by gangs on the way to school because “what? You went to Stanford, give me a break!”  Worst of all is that gnawing feeling that you’ve changed.  You know you can’t go back, but you can’t fully buy into your new class.  You will buy expensive coffee and think with disgust, “damn, when did I become such a bougie tool?” And when you don’t fit in, that means it is harder to find someone to relate to where you are coming from or where you are heading to, and that is why the Jezebel article notes the upwardly-mobile poor have such a hard time marrying.  

So, to be poor and then successful, you need to overcome leaving your neighborhood, inviting a widening gap between you and everyone you knew, learning new things that you can’t use to help those who once encouraged you, feeling perpetually out of place, and constantly questioning yourself.  Put that way, it doesn’t feel like success.  Plus, if it is success, then why do those who encouraged you have such a hard time with so much of it?   If you are just changing to fit society’s model of success, are you not just a pawn like all the other poor people who feel they lack any control in their government or society?  

These questions don’t get raised in policy circles because poor people rarely get that entry and because these are frankly hard emotions to just put out there.  Class makes people very uncomfortable, so they also don’t often want to hear these kinds of things.  Worse yet, because you escaped and so many others did not, you may not be the best voice for those other poor…maybe you too are different?  

So the next time you offer a voucher to a parent who doesn’t take it, the next time you hear about high drop out rates in charter schools with great results, kids who reject scholarships to stay close to home or not go to college…maybe you’ll understand why.  Maybe you will also get why the battle to improve our education system is not just logistical, political, and systemic…it’s also psychological.

Why Empowering Parents May Often Fail

Last week, certain segments of the education policy community celebrated what was dubbed “National School Choice Week.”  The core underlying theory of the school choice movement is in theory quite noble and good: create more choices for parents as to where they send their children to use the power of the free market to eliminate bad schools and thus improve the entire education system.  To achieve this end, several policies that have limited effectiveness (and that I have lambasted in this blog) are employed:  increase teacher accountability through merit pay, measure school progress transparently using standardized test scores, allow private individuals to develop charter schools to compete with failing public schools, and fund vouchers to parents to choose where to send their children instead of wasting large per pupil expenditures in the public system.   The name of the game is to empower parents, which is good.

My problem with the push for parental choice is that the movement leaves its fundamental assumptions unquestioned:

1.     Parents need empowerment.

2.     Parents, once empowered, will act on their newfound ability to choose.

3.     Parents are able to make good choices about education.

4.     That a child has parents that actively make choices related to their education.

5.     That the locus of blame for poor educational outcomes is the school.

6.     That the locus of blame for poor educational outcomes is unrelated to the parent.

It is my personal belief (a belief supported by many facts) that all of these assumptions sometimes (or often) prove false.  The purpose of this post is not, as you may expect, to say that parent choice needs to be abolished (although I think compelling arguments could be made for this argument).  Rather, I will seek to show that you need to understand the role of parental and family factors to understand which segments of the population parental choice can benefit.  From there, I think it is easier to understand some of the qualms one might have about making parental choice the guiding framework of our education policy.

The Parental Rainbow

The fundamental issue I have with empowering parents is that not all parents are the same, not all need empowerment, and not all those who are empowered will react in the best interests of their children as students (sometimes intentionally, sometimes not).   To better illustrate what I mean, I identify various types of parents and organize them by whether parental choice might benefit their kids:

Students whose parents have the following characteristics will not do better than they do now as a result of parental choice:

·      Enough money to send their kids to a private school

·      Work too many hours to be involved in decisions related to their child’s education

·      Not involved in their child’s life (dead, incarcerated, abandoned their child, etc.)

·      Not aware or unsure how to become aware about the school choices available for their kids.

·      Do not see the value of education and do not support their children’s education

·      Unable to evaluate different options presented and choose the best option for their child.

·      Bad at parenting or simply do not care about their children

·      Afraid/Unwilling to send children outside of neighborhood school

Students whose parents have the following characteristics might do better as a result of parental choice: 

·      Cannot afford private school for their kids

·      Value education for their kids

·      Can on their own or with help make informed decisions about where to send their child

·      Have or make time to make decisions related to their child’s education

·      Are open to and able to provide a means for their child to transit to a new school, if necessary.

·      Are alive and involved in raising their children

Parental wealth, knowledge, and involvement are the three main factors that determine whether parental choice can potentially improve children’s outcomes.  Unfortunately, as you can see above, some of the children who are worst off are most likely to remain unaffected by parental choice: those who have one or fewer parents, those whose parents work too much to be involved (this is not bad parenting, as you need a child to have a home or to eat before they can be educated, right?), those whose parents don’t care or are not involved in their lives.  To put it in plain language, low- to middle-income parents who value education, can be involved in decisions related to their child’s education, and who are willing to send their child to a different school that may be far away are the only group that could potentially benefit from parental choice.

Outside factors that might further limit any benefits of parental choice

Because children spend some 70% of their waking hours outside of school, the parental choice movement’s willingness to discount or ignore factors outside of school that affect learning outcomes is perhaps the largest weakness of the movement.  [update: The Washington Examiner, DC's conservative paper, published an article on January 30, 2012, that there is an even distribution of "effective" or "highly effective" teachers across good and failing schools, which could show the failure of the rating system or could just as easily show that a teacher's ability to make a difference is severely limited by some of the outside factors I list below.]

·      Family Income – One of the strongest predictors of student achievement is their family’s income.  Poor kids tend to perform poorly in school (which makes sense for a variety of reasons: parent is likely to be working and less able to be involved, student may arrive malnourished, student may live in or travel through a violent or difficult neighborhood to get to school, etc.).

·      Parent’s Education Level  - Parents who have had more schooling tend to produce children who do better and are more educated.  This is usually related to a parent understanding the value of education, being better able to make decisions related to their child’s education or help their child make educational decisions, and their having higher incomes to support a child’s education outside of school.

·      Child’s Previous Track Record – A child’s previous educational success or failure is another huge factor in their future success.  Because “tracking,” or assigning kids to different levels (regular, honors, advanced placement/IB, etc.) based on their “intelligence,” is quite common place, many kids who are on a lower track will stay there regardless of their school.  That’s to say, children who were already shafted by the schooling they received have a much lower likelihood of being helped even if their parent is involved and values education.

·       Student motivation – It is hard to place a lot of blame on kids for not getting the right education and parents play a big role in this regard.  If a kid is not guided and supported in making sound choices to do well in school, they will likely do worse even in a great school with great teachers.

·      Impractical or Bad Parental Choice Options – As many pro-charter/voucher movies have shown, there are not enough slots for most kids, so they are subject to a lottery to get into a great new charter.  Competition severely excludes kids with fewer parents with less motivation, so the worst off are still unlikely to be helped at all.  Further, as the Stanford CREDO study showed, many parents believe that charters are better than public schools when in 80% of the cases they are at the same level or worse in terms of student achievement.  That is to say, parents perceive bad options to be good (which belies the assumption that empowering parents leads to better outcomes because they make good choices).  Finally, many vouchers do not cover the full cost of enrollment for kids, so even the most involved and educated parents might not be able to afford the best choice.

·      Extracurricular Learning – The ability and willingness of parents to provide stimulating, educative activities after-school, on weekends, and during vacations is key.  Kids who reinforce learning during gaps in schooling are more likely to succeed.  You’ll recall that children without summer programs lose about 3 months worth of previous learning over the summer compared to those whose parents keep their kids engaged.  This has to do with both parental income and motivation in many instances.

·      Learning Disabilities – It is somewhat unrealistic to expect teachers with students that have learning disabilities and much greater needs to get all their students to the same level as students that lack such challenges and the need for support.

There are indeed some school factors that impact student achievement that parental choice could (but may not) improve, such as teacher quality.  There are other school factors that do not impact kid’s learning much like class size or materials that I don’t include for that very reason.  That said, the willingness to place ALL of the blame for student’s not doing well on teachers or schools without any consideration of the disadvantages children bring into the classroom is quite unfair.  It is also potentially dangerous and could deepen inequality in this country.

The Sinister Implications of Parental Choice

There is an unaddressed tension in the parental choice movement between the belief that teacher quality is the key to all students succeeding and punishing teachers/schools that have low performing students:  poorer students tend to be clustered in undesirable schools.  As the best students from these schools with the most motivated parents are siphoned off by charters, the worst students are left ghettoized in these schools.  This makes the school more of a failure (I mean, come on: take the good students from a bad school and it will “get worse” even if the quality level hasn’t changed).  Further, it makes the school less desirable to teach at, which means that the worst students are not getting access to the best teachers (which is probably necessary, and hence the tension).  These children then get shuffled around and ignored.   Worse, these students are losing the potential peer pressure effect to do well because their peers are doing well, as their successful peers will have gone.

Additionally, it could have sinister implications on teaching quality.  Parental choice policies hinge on standardized tests to measure and rank students.  Students in these environments, however, have no real connection to the facts on these exams.  Further, these students most need the ability to think critically and make tough decisions (as they have much more inertia impeding their success), which they don’t get as teachers are forced by legislation like No Child Left Behind to teach to a test or be potentially fired and see their school closed.  Many states have lowered their standards to comply with the provision that all students be at level on reading and math by 2013: where student achievement has seemed to go up, it actually was the result of state’s lowering the standards they held children to.  That is not progress.

Worst of all, this policy shifts the blame from policy makers and parents to teachers.  It is no longer society’s fault that we have such great social inequality perpetuated by our school system.  It is all in the hands of parents and students whether they sink or swim, even if they start off drowning without a raft.  Further, it makes teachers the scapegoats for social inequality: suddenly teachers are at fault if their students are too poor and hungry to focus or if they come in from the summer 3 months behind their wealthier peers.  LET ME BE CLEAR, there is no excuse for poor children to be written off (I was one!).  That said, the blame lies sometimes with their parents, sometimes with their government, sometimes with society, sometimes with themselves, and sometimes with their teacher and/or school.  To misdirect all blame to one of those is not just and will not empower the vast majority of those kids who could benefit from a great educational experience. 

In short, policies should not center around making kids successful at taking tests, ghettoizing the lowest performers, and punishing teachers for a child’s background.  Improving teaching quality is key, but unless these policy makers will do something that also addresses socioeconomic disadvantages, they will never improve the system. 

Act on it!

So long as parental choice is ascendant, we need to make sure that the poorest parents can make the right choices.  We also need to support those kids whose parents don’t care, are too busy to be involved, or who simply aren’t present. Here’s how:

1.     Serve as a local school council liaison for overwhelmed parents in your community and fight for their kids (their success may save you taxpayer dollars, so you even have an incentive beyond altruism).  Particularly, fight the temptation to segregate students by “intelligence” or test scores, as a child put on a low track is likely one to end up there.  Support school feeding programs three times a day so that kids are fully nourished and ready to learn.

2.     Provide guidance to a working parent you know to help them truly understand the choices they have to advance their child and encourage them to do as well as possible in school.

3.     Serve as a mentor to the poorest or least supported kids in your community so that they don’t get lost in the parental choice struggle for lack of a parent.

4.     Help afterschool or on weekends or in the summer at a school to provide all kids a chance to continue learning during those large hours when they are not receiving instruction in a classroom.

5.     Help register low-income parents and get them to the polls so that they can vote for politicians that support policies that improve public schools rather than letting them atrophy.

6.     Create or support third spaces (libraries, tutoring centers, safe parks, etc.) that allow kids to remain engaged outside of the classroom.

Speak out!

What other categories do you think impact a parent’s ability to be empowered by choice programs and improve their child’s educational achievement?

What policies or volunteer opportunities might help students to succeed if they are not able to benefit from policies like those promoted by the parental choice movement?

Should Teachers Be Paid for Performance?

Paying teachers for performance should be a great idea, right?  In the corporate world, paying based on merit seems a great way to incentivize someone to do a better job.  For some reason, however, most teachers are against so-called “merit pay.”  I have to say, I was very surprised by this reaction.  My thoughts were similar to many critics, “Well, if you are doing a great job, you should have no worries and should welcome the recognition of your work.  So, it seems like the worst teachers would be the biggest critics, not being able to perform or having to work harder.”  I started to realize that a lot of teachers were quite against merit pay.  Not only that, but unions, who traditionally fight hard for increases in teacher pay, were also against it.  In this post, I hope to identify the arguments for and against merit pay to better understand whether it is a way to improve student achievement and teacher retention, among other things.

The Arguments for Merit Pay

Teachers are often severely underpaid and underappreciated, and the position is not attractive to people with large student debt.  There are some very compelling reasons why merit pay could strengthen public education:

1. After Michelle Rhee implemented bonuses for teachers being rated “highly effective” for two years or more, one such highly effective teacher who was considering leaving the District to teach elsewhere decided to stay. 
2. Paying good teachers more should make the profession more attractive to more highly educated individuals.
3. The private sector has, for years, used merit pay to improve efficiency and allow people to advance for performance rather than simply for working a long time or taking shallow credentialing.
4. Merit pay can be adjusted to reflect the goals we want to elicit out of the system: you can design the weight that standardized tests have in determining performance; what kinds of training or activities are deemed best practices, etc.
5. The way teachers are currently rewarded (premiums for having an advanced degree) has not been shown to correlate with gains in student achievement.
6. Being paid for performance has the potential to encourage teachers to be more creative in how they teach, trying to improve outcomes to earn these incentives.

The Arguments against Merit Pay

While rewarding and retaining quality teachers seem like pretty strong arguments, I have to give pause to some of the incredibly strong arguments against merit pay:

1. What if merit pay doesn’t work? According to a Harvard study of a New York City merit pay program, merit pay did not affect teacher behaviors, student achievement (in the areas measured: English and Math tests) actually declined, and made only negligible improvements in other measures like student attendance, behavioral problems, graduation exam scores, and graduation rates.  Fryer, the economist who conducted the study and was initially supportive of merit pay, noted that the literature was mixed on the effects in other countries, but that NYC’s $75 million investment was not worth it.  Research on performance pay continues to show that it does not work, not even for CEOs in the private sector.
2. How do you measure merit? In a letter to the editor of St. Louis Today, it was noted that measuring merit is usually largely determined by test scores.  As I noted in my post on standardized testing, this is not a measure of real learning or of good teaching, but of shallow learning and uninspired teaching.  The more test scores are used to determine pay, the more we are incentivizing mediocre instruction.  
3. Is merit consistent across all teachers? The St. Louis Today letter also noted that just because a dermatologist performs better than an oncologist in terms of number of deaths, you would still not want the dermatologist to treat every illness.  Likewise, a kindergarten and Junior Math teacher need two very different skill sets in terms of subject matter expertise and classroom management skills. 
4. Are the student’s entering competency and personal challenges accounted for? Just as it is more likely for someone treating cancer to have more patients die than a podiatrist, it is more likely for a teacher in a poor district to have lower test scores because students enter with lower test scores.  It is unreasonable to expect a teacher in a rich, suburban district to end up at the same place as someone from a poor, urban or rural district.
5. Are teachers (good or bad) offered the assistance needed to improve? The Washington teachers’ union criticized merit pay (the IMPACT program) in DC because it is used more as a stick (to fire bad teachers or simply offer a cash bonus to teachers who do well) rather than to provide tools to facilitate a teacher’s improvement.
6. Do teachers want merit pay? According to a survey of American Federation of Teachers members, there is limited support for merit pay based on improvements in portfolios of students’ work, but virtually no support for merit pay based on test scores.  Teachers were far more inclined to think that experience or taking on additional responsibilities are better reasons to extend a bonus to a teacher.
7. Is it redundant? Studies show that more experience tends to make teachers more effective in the first five years of teaching, so wouldn’t the natural increase in teacher’s salary for tenure that is in place already reward improved performance? Further, most teachers I know aren’t really in it for the money, so there is the question of whether it would elicit more performance or dedication from someone who took such a grueling job that pays so little in the first place.
8. Is bad teaching is the root of all problems in the American education system? As I noted in my post on some rather bombastic solutions for how poor kids can help themselves succeed, there are many problems that go beyond the ability of a good teacher.
9. Does merit pay serve as a self-fulfilling prophecy?  Psychology shows us that people respond more to positive feedback than to extrinsic rewards, and this article in the Washington Post raises good concerns about whether merit pay undermines the intrinsic value teachers have for their craft and if the pressures of constant focus on testing improving might make a good teacher perform worse.

Different Ways of Structuring Merit Pay

To be honest, I was surprised in writing this post to have my opinion changed so fully.  Merit pay seems like a brilliant way to infuse the system with new creativity, to get rid of those bad apples, and to reward actual work.  That said, the most salient point for me was that it simply hasn’t worked all that much, even in the private sector.

That said, I think teachers who do have a proven track record do deserve recognition.  I would urge that some of the following points be considered in structuring merit pay programs:

1.     Merit pay should be designed on improvement during the time the teacher is with the student. It is unfair to say “your students still read below grade level” if they entered two or three grade-levels below average in the first place. 

2.     As a corollary, teachers should be rewarded for taking on the most challenging classrooms, as that is where gains really need to be made.  If you just base merit pay on testing, teachers are incentivized to work in the classrooms where kids already start at or above level, which effectively entrenches or worsens the problem of teaching quality in the most struggle student populations.

3.     Merit pay should compare apples to apples.  Comparing an art teacher to a math teacher or a 1^st and 11^th grade teacher is not fair, as the positions require different skills to be successful.

4.     Merit pay should not be informed greatly by standardized tests.  We already have seen the deleterious effects of tests in my last post, and to reward teachers for producing bubble-filling automatons that have not learned any significant skills is an awful idea.

5.     Merit pay should be linked to programs to help teachers improve and work together.  An interesting model was one that rewarded a whole school’s teachers for improved performance, thus creating a sense of teamwork to improve all kids’ education.  Nobody thinks bad teachers should be in the classroom, but if the system offers only back-handed financial rewards and creates competition, it is not creating a healthy environment for students.  Further, students spending 6-8 years in a school will need all their teachers, not some of them, to be good, so creating whole schools with great teaching is key.

6.     Merit pay can include experience for the first five years to incentivize teaching retention, but this factor should lose weight after 5 years, as most studies agree that there are no benefits to experience after that point.  

7.     Merit pay should not be viewed as a panacea, as teachers—particularly in the poorest environments—are not going to be able to overcome the gaps in basic needs like proper nourishment and parental support that many kids bring to the classroom.

Speak out!

What are your thoughts on merit pay? Do you have an experience with merit pay (in teaching or elsewhere) you can share? In your opinion, what are the limits of merit pay?

What ideas do you have for how to structure merit pay in an effective manner for teachers so that quality teaching is rewarded and students are given access to the best quality teachers possible?