I have no problem with school-wide bonuses. In fact, I praised Denver and Houston, which provide schoolwide bonuses when a school performs well. But I also believe that in such schools a teacher who is exceptional should get paid more than a teacher who is average or below average.

That is not a right or left issue as Chris cutely tries to suggest, while staking out the “center” for himself. D.C. Mayor Adrian Fenty and D.C. Superintendent Michelle Rhee are making the case for individual merit pay and neither are right-wingers.

And as for his reference to school-based labor-management committees being free to award merit as they see fit, Chris knows the union position on this issue and thus the outcome of that process.

The real issue is why is the Mayor — with $12 billion in his pocket, a Type A personality, and the election all but won — being timid? This is the time to swing for the fences.

The Mayor has done much that is admirable on education, and as Chris Cerf knows I have praised the Mayor repeatedly for his accomplishments. But, the 165-page contract as written is the number one constraint that will stop Joel Klein and Michael Bloomberg from taking reform to the next level — not because this will make wonks happy but because it will enable them to do right by children.

The Mayor fought hard to get mayoral control. But the Mayor is not really in control if he can’t pay good teachers better than bad teachers, has to corral incompetent teachers in rubber rooms, and pay teachers who aren’t teaching indefinitely in Absent Teacher Reserves (ATRs). These are contractual issues. And that’s why this round of negotiations matters.

Since we’re already on “schoolwide progress,” I’d be interested in your views on the School Progress Reports (SPR) on which I understand they are based, and on which City Council Member Robert Jackson’s Education Committee is holding a hearing this Friday, October 30. Timely.

Do you have an explanation for how 87% of schools got A’s, and another 11% got B’s, this cycle?
Holy smokes! Are the schools really THAT good? Were your policies (while at DOE) THAT productive?
Will 87% of those schools get bonuses?

How is it that 98% of schools in 2008-2009 can get A’s or B’s… but 1,500 teachers got an “Unsatisfactory” rating? (Look up “Scarlett Letter” in the GS “search” box.)
Is there even the slightest bit of correlation between which schools those 1,500 teachers teach at… and their school’s grade?

Last year, 2007-2008, 83% of schools got A’s or B’s. Have our schools gotten 15% better in one year?

The inaugural year, 2006-2007 60% of schools got A’s or B’s. Have our schools gotten 38% better in two years?

At the other end, what were the policies that caused the percent of the schools getting D’s or F’s to shrink from 13% to 5% to 0.6%? Or is that a manifestation of school closings? How many schools were only in the D/F cellar ONE year?

Do you have an explanation for how a school’s SPR grade in one year has ZERO predictive value toward its grade the next year? Do schools really fluctuate that much?
What did the ones who swung UP by more than one letter do RIGHT? What did the ones (albeit a rare few this year) who swung DOWN do wrong?

Tying the last few points together, how can DOE justify closing ANY school… when next year it could get an “A”?

Amidst rampant grade inflation on the “performance” metric (already two-fold between the tests getting easier and the cut scores getting moved), isn’t weighting 60% on “progress” simply double-counting “acceleration”?

Does anyone really believe 98% of our schools deserve A’s and B’s? This is random money being assigned by a random letter generator. If anything, it is hush money to discourage DOE employees from declaring the Emperor’s New Grading Scheme deserves an “F”. Snicker in private, collect the golden goose-egg.

Last, would you rather your own kids were in a “B” school on a citywide spectrum (25% of the weight in the overall grade), or an “A” school on a randomly-chosen peer group spectrum (75% weight)?

I’ve heard of roosters taking credit for the sunrise. But only in NYC do they take credit for digitally-enhanced Photoshop versions thereof. And roosters aren’t even running for office, so their incentive to paint glowing pictures isn’t quite as clear.

$85M buys a lot of crowing. And those bogus basis bonuses are calculated to mute any clucking.

Given the rampant manipulation of facts and data by the Bloomberg administration (from overcrowding to student performance to school progress), how will Bloomberg — if re-elected — possibly come clean?

Or… will our kids have to suffer four more years of spin over substance?

Keep it spinning, New York.

Eight is more than enough. And when it comes to class sizes, so is TWENTY-eight. Or more.

http://www.wnyc.org/shows/bl/episodes/2009/10/26/segments/143146

**

Just listened to the Thompson and Cerf segments.

Thompson focused on meaningful testing, meaningful data, and overcrowding. Nuts and bolts.

Cerf focused on teacher quality, technology. Smoke and mirrors. The “Standards Movement” has nada to do with skewing the break points in the tests and School Progress Report Grades! Is the new standard: “Everyone gets an A” until election day?

Cerf talking about reducing class size under Bloomberg and Klein? Bloomberg reduced overcrowding? And up is down! Where’s the fact-checking on this hooey?
http://www.wnyc.org/shows/bl/episodes/2009/10/26/segments/143147

Then there’s the silliness of DOE not resetting the spectrum limits, and a good number of schools scoring OUTSIDE the “ranges.”