I don't like your acountability system, either. Let's start with this so-called "Acountablity Index." You plan to use it to identify which schools are to receive "recognition, support, assistance and intervention." This index is to be based on "multiple measures and indicators." Yet you haven't figured out what they are yet. And isn't that the most important part of an accountability system? The measurement tools? Since we don't know what they are, we'll have to assume they'll be test scores. Reading and math scores, most likely, because those are the easiest things to measure. You'll use those scores to decide which schools get "Team-based Recognition Bonuses."

And what might that look like? Let me tell you about a school in Washington, DC called Phoebe Hearst Elementary School. They have eight classrooms, preschool through third grade. In August they won a similar "Team-based Recognition Bonus" because they raised their reading and math scores significantly. Good for them. But here's the thing: they only had sixteen third graders in the whole school, which in DC, means only sixteen test-takers. Ten percent of the student body. And because Mr. Rope, the 3rd grade teacher, was able to get his sixteen kids to score 25 percent higher than the kids he had in the previous year, the whole faculty got a combined bonus of $132,000. I have no reason to doubt that Mr.Rope is a fine teacher, but I'll bet there's more than a few teachers in DC that weren't cheering too loudly for him and his colleagues. Is that the kind of nonsense a cash-strapped state should be paying for?

Of course, we might not have to worry about that problem. You've got a caveat stating that your bonuses will only be paid "to the extent funds are appropriated." Which certainly won't be next year. Or the year after that.

You also have, in your accountability system, a way to deal with schools that don't do so well on your "multiple measures and indicators." They get to undergo a series of increasingly severe corrective measures and interventions. But they don't get more resources until they've spent three years on "Academic Watch" and only then "to the extent funds are appropriated." That's bad policy. Schools don't fail because they have a staff of teachers who need to be watched. They fail because of things like overcrowding, high mobility, a population of high-risk students and a lack of resources. You don't "watch" schools that need more resources. Like it or not, you fix them by giving them more resources.

Nor do I like what you've done to Initiative 728. You repealed it. An initiative for which the citizens of this state voted overwhelmingly. Districts have come to depend on that money to lower class sizes and pay for professional development. In my district alone, I-728 pays for dozens of teachers and paraeducators. Take away their salaries and you raise class sizes. Do that, and you diminish student learning; which, correct me if I'm wrong, is not why you were written.

But here's the thing I really don't like about you. It's your motivation. Your backers are pushing you though the legislature months before the state goes on trial, accused of underfunding basic education. If they're clever enough, they can claim that by passing you, they have done what they can to define and fully fund education in this state, without increasing spending by one dime. Everything about you that should cost more money has a built-in provision to get more money, when and if that money becomes available. It's the perfect loophole.

So even though you've got a lot of backers and stand a very strong chance of becoming law, I don't care for you, Mr. HB 1440/ SB 5444. You don't have any money and you don't play fair. Go away.

Comments

Sorry for not being a very active player in the comment section of my own post, but I was called away to the lovely town of Kennewick for a few very busy days. I finally had some time this morning to comment, but then my comment morphed into its own post, which is now posted.

@John, love the courtroom narrative :O)
No, I do not believe I misconstrued what you wrote. I believe I read exactly what the words stated, or guessed at. Now, from what I have read in your return response, I can see more of what you mean. Thank you for that clarification. As for being in Tom's group. I don't think he has a group. I think Tom is more dynamic and pragmatic that that, and myself as well. I would not want to be in any group as that would place upon me the belief of others that whatever that camp believes, I believe it too. While I did enjoy my master's and I received a great deal of professional growth from it, I could have received that growth in other ways. (Much like my bachelor's. I was meant to be a teacher and I possessed the desire to hone my skills through practice. My bachelors...I could have done without.) Anyway, other was to receive the professional growth I wanted, however, were not available or cost effective so I could not pursue them. Much of what Michelle Rhee does rubs me the wrong way, but that is only because I am concerned with how what she does will be taken to the extreme in the future. Honestly, I like the ideas behind man of her statements and actions. Again, my concern comes from how I think other people will take those ideas and the extreme to which those ideas will be taken and how far into the future they will be taken. John, you and I probably have more in common than not. Thanks for the further information.

First, a postscript: Tom got his wish and HB 1410 and SB 5444 have officially “gone away” along with SB 5607, and all that remains is HB 2261 and SB 6048, the “intent to fund” bills. I’m curious what impact this will have on the lawsuit. I can see it going like this:
Judge: The plaintiff has a point—you have failed in your duty to honor the primary obligation of the state, to fully fund basic education.
State: We had a committee that wrote great recommendations, and we turned them into comprehensive bills.
Judge: Which died in their respective houses.
State: The state's broke, your honor. We passed two bills that say we’ll do better next time.
Judge: Are you serious?

Hey Travis,
Your point is well taken—the poor way in which I wrote the part you referred to made it easy to misconstrue my point, and my overall impression of teachers. I believe teachers, like any profession, fall somewhere on a continuum of excellence. I’ll use the top of the pay scale to try to illustrate this through some composite teachers.

Teacher A: (MA + 90 + 20 years) I believe that the majority (that’s about as well as I can quantify it) of teachers are here, the “Tom” example from my previous post: reflective, dedicated, life-long learners that take all opportunities to learn and refine their craft; teachers dedicated to doing what it takes to achieve student learning; teachers who’s dispositions lead them to get better each year with experience and with classes/workshops/degrees.

Teacher B: (MA + 90 + 20 years) A teacher who does an adequate job in the classroom, is fairly content to teach the way they were taught and are reluctant to change, put in their required time, but if it were a different system might be replaced by someone in the Teacher A category. They got their Master’s but were not concerned with how it impacted practice, and it doesn’t. They get underwhelming results from their students.

These two teachers represent points along a continuum—many fall in between.

I have seen teachers in this "B" category in every education stop I’ve made, but they are a small minority. I base this on first hand experience (100+ classrooms in primarily 2 districts) and second hand from staff development colleagues. I'm not disparaging teachers--my job is centered on working with teachers, and I am amazed by what many of them do every day for kids.

My point is that with the current system of compensation these two teachers are paid the same and I believe that does our system, and kids, a disservice. There is no way to differentiate your outstanding teacher and pay them more, and to provide external incentive to reach that level. (Again, many teachers reach the Teacher A level with internal incentives). This is why the Michelle Rhee’s of the world are trying to pay teachers $100K a year to give up tenure—this compensation system is, in her view, and mine, part of what keeps our system from reaching its potential and achieving better results.

I take it from your post that you are in Tom’s camp believing that the Master’s incentive is worth keeping and that, for now, the current compensation system should remain in place, at least until he is convinced there is something better (I hope I paraphrased Tom’s position accurately). While I disagree with it, I respect that view, and would love to hear more from you on the subject. I have written more than my share on the topic and will leave it now for others.

@John, outside of your main content of your last comment, I was drawn to one sentence. Without taking the thread of this discussion too far off track, I still feel it necessary to bring to the table my thoughts as the discussion may evolve.

You state: I’m not going to guess at percentages, but what I’m going to suggest is that there is a significant percentage of teachers do not have the same dispositions as you do, and therefore do not get the same benefit from time in a seat or on the job.

If you are not going to guess at the percentages, why not just make the statement? What is significant? How can you suggest, but not guess, at the percentage of teachers that do not have the same disposition as Tom? The mere suggestion is a guess.

Sadly, your suggestion takes on an almost power of truth because you stated it as so. When someone reads your comment, they immediately guess at what that percentage is, which, in turn, makes it appear to be true.

So, to the point--why do you think that there is a significant number of teachers that do not have the same disposition as Tom? What is the basis for this? Again, you are making a statement, a suggestion, as you suggest, that is not a guess, but does not have any numbers or research. Are you basing this on your own experience? If so, what is the nature of that experience? Can you draw conclusions about a nation of teachers based on one school, or even twenty?

I say this because, I would have the opposite suggestion to make--I feel that there is a significant number of solid teachers who get the most out of their advanced degrees. But my definition of significant is probably different that yours and the people with whom I teach may be stronger than those you know.

Cheers,

It appears that SB 5444, as well as the Full Funding Coalition bill, SB 5607, are all dead. They are replaced by a very short "intent to fund" bills. I guess the disconnect between the expensive proposals and the lack of money got all the parties to the table for a Plan B. It is unclear whether or not HB 1410 is also dead on the house side. Anyone know?
http://blog.educationvoters.org/

Tom—we bring two varying perspectives to this and I want to respond to keep the thread going in hopes that others will chime in to offer other perspectives.

It’s not surprising that you got a lot out of your Master’s program, or that you have felt that the service time/seat time compensation model has served you well. I would contend that any compensation model would serve you well. It is your nature to constantly striving to get better. Your service time increases your expertise because you are reflecting, learning, growing. You have gotten your NB certification, take on multiple leadership roles such as this blog, NB Jumpstart, and others. Tom, if this were baseball, you’d be a tier one free agent, and probably wind up in the Bronx with the Evil Empire, even though your district would have to forfeit two promising novice teachers and a student teacher to be named later.

I’m not going to guess at percentages, but what I’m going to suggest is that there is a significant percentage of teachers do not have the same dispositions as you do, and therefore do not get the same benefit from time in a seat or on the job.

In addition, I would suggest that you are underpaid now, and 15 years from now when you are approaching retirement, if the compensation model remains the same, you will be grossly underpaid. The fact that many teachers reach the end of the salary chart maze (including the NB bonus) by, in my case, age 40, eat the cheese, and then say, “Now what? Only 25 more years at the same salary, except when the legislature throws me a token percentage point raise or two. I can’t contain my excitement.”

With no track to reward leadership such as the one HB 1410/SB 5444 model includes there is no way to differentiate you and all you bring from one who is simply doing what’s necessary to get by…or even a good solid teacher, but not a standout. In the private sector teachers fitting your profile would be in demand; in education they are taking moonlighting jobs.

I’m also going to challenge your examples of “things you do…that can’t be quantified.” Why not? You gave examples of social skills that you teach your kids. Don’t you know whether or not they are learning those skills? Number of rude comments your students utter? Number of people in the lunchroom hurling as a result of something one of your kids did? If you can’t quantify it, even informally, how do you know if you are succeeding? I think this notion that teaching is somehow “squishy” and therefore we can’t really decide who is great/good/mediocre/weak and therefore everyone who puts in their time should be paid the same is…hogwash.

The 1410/5444 tiered scale may not be perfect but it starts moving us in the right direction. It rewards teachers for meeting standards rather than seat time (the bump from the residency tier to the professional tier) and it begins to answer to the “now what?” question (master tier).

OK, I tried to provoke. I await my counterpunch.

John-
Thoughtful comment, but describing an example of someone who had content knowledge but no teaching skills doesn't prove the worthlessness of graduate school. In my previous post "In Defense of the Master's Degree" I took pains to underline the importance of keeping current in regards to skills. I think at least 80 percent of professional development should be job-imbedded and skill-oriented. But...

We still need a teaching force that knows the theory and history behind the skills. There's a value to that which I think we need to preserve. Unlike business or baseball, there are things you do in the classroom that can be qualified but cannot be quantified. And if we reduce professional development to only those things which are proven to increase student learning, we're ignoring a lot of what happens in classrooms. I teach my students how to make friends. I teach them how to visit in the lunchroom without making other people sick. I teach them about acceptance. How to disagree without arguing.

In my master's program (SPU during the Fouts years) there was a heavy focus on statistics. One of the things we learned was that a 2-point difference in a standardized test really isn't a difference. Yet we have a state testing system that completely ignores this principal when it sets a arbitrary cut score between those who have "met standard" and those who haven't.

As for the Full Funding Coalition, I can't find their salary scale, but I believe it does preserve the two-axis salary scale. And personally, I can honestly claim that my knowledge, skills and dispositions increased as I moved from the "upper left-hand corner" to the "lower right-hand corner" of that scale. Was the increase due to time on the job and getting my masters? Who knows. But it was definitely a factor.

I understand the test-score-increase-per-dollar-spent idea. I understand how that would make total sense to people who make policy decisions. Such quantification, to me, would (and does already) do more harm than good in our society which expects instantaneous results.

First off...let's say some wondrous reform takes place which enables me to achieve tremendous professional development, thus impacting my students' learning. Plus, the monies provided capacity for greater individualized instruction--so I was able to diagnose and prescribe exactly what my students needed...and had time to do so because my class sizes were reduced by a third. These financial investments impact my students' learning so much so that I am able to raise my students' reading levels no less than SIX grade levels in just one short year! Talk about bang for your buck!! Unless, of course, you realize that these kids were mainstream 9th graders entering with comprehension at a 3rd grade level (evidence of the failure of the school system which prompted the above reform)...and yes, I boosted them to 9th grade level, but perhaps that was not enough for 100% of them to pass the state test at 10th grade level.

From the outside, from the factory model, the money was as good as flushed down the toilet. From the inside, the payoff of the investment rang true and clear...kids have progressed from Judy Blume and Shel Silverstein to Harper Lee and Homer. But alas, test scores do not reflect this, policymakers and taxpayers complain further about the failure of our schools, and funding is yanked...class sizes swell and individualized diagnosis and prescription is lost in favor of blanket lessons which hope to serve as many as possible...and now we're back behind square one thanks to another "Failed" reform. The pendulum swings once more.

Now is not the time to undertake a reform which will have uncertain funding and which operates in even more uncertain parameters. Sure, the spirit of what is detailed in the bill and the report which precipitated it would likely result in improvements to the system if given full funding and the time to do so...but the present language is too vague, there are too many uncertainties. Now is simply not the time to undertake this change. Those who support it today, if it were to pass, would likely be leading advocates for the next pendulum swing in six years or so... touting the failures of the system once more.

Great post as usual, Tom. I agree with your points about accountability and full funding. It won't be a surprise from previous posts that I will be a pest when it comes to the issue of compensation.

Tom wrote, "Put simply, people want smart teachers; and you get smart by going to school."

I had a brilliant 11th grade history teacher--Mr. V. He was a published Civil War scholar. Strangely, nobody left his class knowing much more than they knew going in, except that he was always "freshening" his coffee, and clung to his mug like A-Rod to his syringe. Mr. V's instructional strategies? Rambling lecture and uh, um, make that strategy, singular. I'm guessing we all know a Mr. V.

What parents want are teachers who are smart enough to know the content of the standards of their grade/subject. Beyond that, they want a teachers that can get Johnny to learn.

So we know that professional development that is embedded in practice (lesson study, writing and analyzing common formative assessments, article and book studies, collaboration on differentiating instruction, etc.--all driven by what's best for these students in this setting at this time) has been shown to improve student learning--unlike the Master's degree, which is largely learning out of the context of a teacher's current practice. Why not reward what works?

What? Some teachers aren't given the time and support to do that type of collaborative work? I would bet my document camera that if compensation was tied to it, and the best teachers would go where the time and support were, these practices would spread like butter...and that would be good for kids.

I believe the Full Funding Coalition support the same-old on compensation, time served and time sitting in classrooms/workshops (even though after year six of time served there's no correlation to performance) because it's clean. No fuss, no muss.

As a profession, we should demand more.

Yes, keep legislative feet to the fire with simple facts the media can tout, not just emotion. That's a technical task.

Legislators know the importance of schooling and how to diffuse normal teacher arguments for it.

Assume legislators agree with you on whatever point you want to make (such as steady funding).

Then present the persuasive fact(s) to get what you want (steady funding). In this case, show how they can have lower cost per student per test score or other dependent variable teachers are legally expected to meet.

That seems like an unexpected move by teachers in negotating for funding in a bill on behalf of student learning.

I don't know who can call themselves policy makers, Travis.

Anyway, keep up the good work. I appreciate the thought that goes into the posts on this site.