Post a comment about the budget cuts at your school on our interactive comment map. more »
GothamSchools — daily independent reporting on NYC public schools
race to the race to the top
November 12, 2009
Confident state ed officials press forward on Race to the Top
Brushing aside criticism that current state laws could jeopardize New York’s chances at Race to the Top Funds, state officials say they will enter the contest in round one.
On Monday, the State Education Department will release a comprehensive plan to overhaul teacher training, Board of Regents Chancellor Merryl Tisch said today. Tisch called the proposal a “very aggressive package” that will be a major element of New York’s Race to the Top application.
The strength of a state’s teacher training program is a heavily weighted component of the final Race to the Top criteria unveiled today. At a speech in New York City last month, Secretary of Education Arne Duncan called for states to better prepare new teachers.
But even with a new teacher training initiative, it remains to be seen whether two controversial state laws — one that bans the use of student test scores in teacher tenure decisions and another that caps the number of charter schools allowed in the state — could derail the state’s application.
In a conference call with reporters today, Duncan emphasized that states with such policies will be at a distinct disadvantage compared to states that are “vigorously challenging the status quo” by eliminating such caps and barriers. Some states are changing their laws to improve their Race to the Top chances, but New York has not.
Duncan also made clear that he wants states to use teacher evaluations to make personnel decisions. ”These evaluations have to drive decisions about tenure and placement,” he said. And he said states whose local districts have policies, as New York City does, prohibiting student test scores from being used in teacher evaluations would “put themselves at competitive disadvantage.”
But Tisch insisted, as she has before, that the state’s current teacher evaluation practices hew to the spirit of Race to the Top’s requirements. “There is no barrier to using student data in teacher evaluations in the state of New York,” she said, adding that the state law applied only to teacher tenure decisions. “We evaluate teachers on the basis of student achievement every year in New York.”
Much of New York’s hope in the competition rides on the promise of the strong reputations of Tisch, new state education commissioner David Steiner and new deputy education commissioner John King, as well as that of a charter school movement considered one of the strongest in America.
Tisch has frequently pointed out that state education leaders’ priorities match the Obama administration’s goals on issues ranging from teacher training to raising academic standards and overhauling testing. Changing the tenure law and lifting the charter cap might not be necessary, officials have argued.
But critics say that new leadership and vision may not be enough to spring New York ahead of the pack in a highly competitive field.
State Assemblyman Sam Hoyt, who last month introduced a bill designed explicitly to align state law with Race to the Top’s priorities, said it is too risky to leave the laws unchanged.
“If in fact [the tenure law] is interpreted as not meeting the criteria that Arne Duncan set forth, it would be tragic if we lost that money,” Hoyt said. “So why risk it? Let’s address it now. So then there isn’t any risk involved at all.”
Hoyt’s bill, which the Assembly and Senate have not yet taken up, calls for broad changes in state education law, including an immediate repeal of the teacher tenure law and a lift of the charter cap.
Joe Williams, head of the lobbying group Democrats for Education Reform, said New York will have to change its laws to compete against states that have already changed theirs. But he said he is not confident that there is political will to overhaul state law.
“It seems like the mood is just to go with what we’ve got and to put our trust in Steiner and Tisch,” he said. “And I love what they’re talking about with teacher training, but I just can’t imagine that we’re going to win with all of these other states making big moves.”
-
November 12th, 2009 9:27 pm
The reform agenda embraced thus far by Regents Chancellor Merryl Tisch and State Education Commissioner David Steiner is necessary but not sufficient.
Given what is going on in other states, New York will need, at a minimum, to: commit in the application to allowing the “data firewall” to expire as slated in April 2010 (if not repealing it earlier); and, develop an aggressive agenda to encourage the growth of high-quality charter schools. Both require statutory changes.
Given the current dysfunctional leadership in New York, I fully understand why Tisch and Steiner are trying valiantly to avoid hinging their plans on legislative changes, but it will be unavoidable.
Two other key issues to watch, which I think Steiner and Tisch are all over, are: turnarounds and testing.
They need to develop a coherent strategy for turning around the state’s lowest performing district schools, a task the state on which the state does not have an impressive track record (think SURR schools, state’s failed takeover of Roosevelt district).
Lastly, the state has a huge black eye for gaming its scoring of state assessments to inflate test-score gains. The scoring of state assessments, including Regents exams, need to be made more rigorous and consistent from year to year. To their credit, Tisch and Steiner have spoken openly and candidly about the state’s past practices.
-
November 13th, 2009 2:30 am
The Board of Regents gave NY’s public education system another black eye at their last meeting when they approved a motion to allow “credit recovery.” After State Ed. crafts regulations, which will never be enforced, it will mean that any principal in any school can pressure staff to go along with bogus credit recovery scams designed to give kids who haven’t actually mastered coursework high school diplomas. NY’s graduation data, already highly questionable, will be - rightly - looked at through laughing eyes. NYSED, of course, failed to actually study or audit to see how many kids have already received what are, essentially, bogus diplomas via “credit recovery” scams which were not legal at the time.
Then there’s the new USDOE OIG audit of NYSED’s programs, procedures and policies to insure that eco. stimulus funds are handled, and reported on, properly. This audit, made public today, basically says that NYSED audits and verifies nothing districts report re what they’ve done with Title 1 and IDEA funds … and that NYSED claims it will use the same programs, procedures and policies for ARRA oversight and reporting purposes. This audit can be found at: http://www.ed.gov/about/offices/list/oig/auditreports/fy2010/a02j0006.pdf.
What it means is that USDOE - and the public - will not be able to rely on anything NYSED reports re RttT funds and how they’re used, or misused.
Why USDOE would give money to a state ed. dept. with this kind of horrible and well-documented record of failing to insure that any federal funds are spent properly is an open question.
-
November 13th, 2009 7:37 am
Mr. Carroll….
Please tell us what is your expertise on education in general and teacher quality in particular. All we keep getting from you is the same garbage…merit pay, use flawed tests to evaluate teachers, Principals, schools. Instead of continuing to write your garbage which makes little sense, please tell us how you have come to be such an expert. How many days did you spend in educaton? How many courses have you taught? How much supervision have you done of teachers to put yourself in a position to be able to tell who is an excellent teacher deserving of a bonus and who is a mediocre teacher who should be fired on the spot without any due process? You write quite a bit on these subjects as I saw articles you wrote in the Post and in the News. Just answer one simple question, if two teachers have students of completely different abilities, and the one with the students from stable homes where parents work with the kids and explain to the kids that they have to do their school work and do what the teacher tells them to do while another, unfortunately, lives in a broken home where none of these things is present and the teacher of the former gets higher results than the teacher of the later, are you able to tell us the first teacher is better than the second teacher? Your silly articles, full of mis-information show you just don’t have a clue but it sure sounds good. And since I know you read this particular web site, your failure to respond to these questions will be an indication of your total inability to answer the questions. Therefore, you should just not continue with your lies and half truths and nonsensical suggestions that have nothing to do with the real world of education.
-
November 13th, 2009 8:03 am
Jeff S.,
What specific sentence in my post above do you find offensive? Wondering what produced your harsh response.
-
November 13th, 2009 8:08 am
The Washington Post weighed in today on New York’s “data firewall” and the argument that it does not need to be changed:
“Others seem more interested in gaming the system. Here, New York comes to mind with its ridiculous argument that it should qualify because its union-inspired law banning the use of student performance data applies to tenure and so technically is not a ban on use for evaluations — as if tenure were not the ultimate evaluation.”
The full editorial may be found at: http://bit.ly/qaNPd
-
November 13th, 2009 9:12 am
Mr. Carroll:
It’s the tone of all your writings. All I read is merit pay this, merit pay that from you along with evaluating teachers with the use of standardized tests. Now merit pay sounds like a wonderful thing. And I am speaking after 32 years of service as an educator in the New York City school system (retired several years ago), the last 20 as an Assistant Principal. Merit pay sounds great but is there really any way to fairly evaluate teachers based on well based on what? Test results? Let me give you an analogy. We have two factories turning out widgets. Factory A has a higher percentage of turning out defective widgets than Factory B. So the workers at Factory B deserve merit pay, right. Well then you investigate further and find the raw materials furnished to Factory A are inferior and in reality the workers at Factory A are doing a better job in keeping the number of defective widgets as small as possible. So they deserve merit pay?
As a school supervisor, I had my own ideas as to which of my teachers were best and over the years I found that in almost all cases, it really made no difference in Regents results as a whole. Of course there are some, not as many as the public might be led to believe based on writings such as yours, who should be terminated and I along with my Principal followed the 3020 procedures. It can be done. As a supervisor, I would hate to be put into a position where it is my word that determines which teachers gets a significant bonus. Can you imagine what that might lead to? We also have seen at Lehman High School how the pressure to preserve her image as a master Principal has led to friction between the Principal and the faculty (until all the evidence is in, I’m not willing to say she has done anything wrong; possibly she has but we have to wait for all the facts to be in).
Like I said, sir, in all due respect to you, until you’ve been in the trenches and dealt with the problems such a merit pay system produces, especially basing it on exams that everybody knows are totally flawed and are set up to make the politicians look good, not to see just how much students know. You know that and I know that.
Let’s face it and let’s be real. The most important variable in education is the students, has always been the students and always will be the students. Students who value education will do well even with the most mediocre of teachers. As a supervisor, I saw that all the time (mediocre doesn’t mean incompetent, not everybody is superior, some teachers just like some educational reformers are mediocre). And I’ve had the most dedicated of teachers who I know are outstanding educators, highly motivated, highly trained who have had some classes where only a few students were able to achieve stellar results. Do you think the teachers at the Bronx High School of Science who usually get 100% passing on the Algebra Regents are really better teachers than the teachers say at Kennedcy where the passing percentage might be 50% (I have no idea what the passing percentage is at Kennedy so forgive me Kennedy people, I just reached for this figure?).
Until the day comes that all classes are created equal and exams can be produced that can truly meausre the effectiveness of an individual teacher or Principal, and even you I am sure will agree we haven’t reached that day yet, then using test scores to evaluate teachers and make decisions regarding tenure is obscenely wrong. You have to count on the competence of the Principals with the help of their Assistant Principals, based on a myriad of factors, to make the proper decisions on these matters and also not to trample on anybody’s due process rights. I went through several 3020 hearings and yes they are not pleasant and the union reps did everything in their power to make me look like the bad guy, but I didn’t take that personally. That is their job. But I knew how to dot the i’s and cross the t’s and most cmpetent Principals can. But to continue with this garbage that 1) it is imjpossible to rid the schools of bad teachers, 2) that we need merit pay and 3) teachers should be evaluated on the basis of student results on flaw exams doesn’t make any sense. Again in all due respect to you.
-
November 13th, 2009 9:16 am
I’m all for merit pay. For Chancellors.
NAEP scores are flat and a record number and percent of nominal grads need remedial classes, even at junior college.
What makes anyone think that the same brain trust that gave 98% of the schools A’s and B’s to make themselves look good before an election would EVER run a fair game in any other venue?
-
November 13th, 2009 1:03 pm
Nice way to leave out a critical detail there, MM. RECORD numbers of NYC public school students are now attending college for the first time, whereas previously tons of them just dropped out in junior high and high school. So it stands to reason that their performance in college wouldn’t start out great, again, these are scores of students who are going to college, and even being encouraged to go to college, for the first time. There are also record numbers of students taking the PSAT and SAT for the first time. You really do specialize in snatching defeat from the jaws of victory.
-
November 13th, 2009 3:57 pm
Note folks….
Mr. Carroll has responded to something else since I put my answer to his challenge as a response. The answer is obvious, isn’t it. He has no response because what I’m saying is the truth and destroys all his arguments of how the city has to play hard ball with the UFT and insist on provisions in the new contract allowinging merit pay. Sorry Mr. Carroll, you can continue to put your view ponts on wherever you wish but your failure to respond to me, in all due respect, is an indication you have no answer. Sometimes, unfortunately, the truth hurts big time.
-
November 13th, 2009 6:12 pm
Jeff S.,
You apparently are upset that I responded to another writer before you, and thus concluded: “The answer is obvious, isn’t it. He [that's me] has no response.”
In reality, I simply didn’t have time to respond, with the thoroughness I wanted, during a busy afternoon.
I did respond to your first comments with the question of why you were challenging me on merit pay when my post said absolutely nothing about merit pay. You’ve decided, I guess, that you would like to respond to something I wrote in another venue at another time. That’s fine; I just wanted to have that clarified.
Let me first answer your question about education. I have helped found 11 schools, 8 of which are open and three which will open next year. Schools that I have helped found are the top-rated schools in the City of Albany in math, English language arts, and science at the elementary, middle, and high school level. I don’t claim that this makes me an expert in anything, but there’s your answer.
I happen, by the way, not to agree with you that only educators are allowed to comment about education. I think parents, taxpayers, and many others can contribute to the debate as well.
Now as to your specific points about performance pay, let me try to clarify my position by making several points:
1. All teachers are not of equal competence.
2. It’s not fair to pay a better teacher the same as a teacher with less talent.
3. The current salary schedule, which values passage of time and accumulation of college credits, bears no relationship to the job a teacher does in the classroom.
4. If you agree with the above, then you have two options: a) say “so what? salary should not bear any relation to merit,” or b) try to figure out a way to pay good teachers better than bad teachers. I chose option b, and freely admit that reflects a value judgment.
5. Once you agree talent varies and if you agree compensation should be varied by talent, then the difficult question is figuring out a way to capture the difference.
6. The challenge of paying teachers based on talent or performance is to do so in a way that meets several criteria: a) is perceived as fair and not subject to the whims of management, b) actually measures differences in results that are valued.
7. Performance should be measured by some growth or value added measure(s) to reflect that not all students start at the same place.
8. State assessments, as currently administered, are not reliable or consistent enough to be used for performance pay systems.Now, if you accept the above, you reach a fork in the road. One fork leads you down the path of figuring out an answer that reflects the above other assumptions. The other fork leads you to throw up your hands and say either (a) it can’t be done, or (b) it shouldn’t be done.
I would take the first fork. I suspect you would take the second fork and probably believe (a) and (b). If that’s true, you are left defending the current compensation system. I have never been able to figure out the intellectual rationale for the current compensation system but would be happy to let you try.
Let’s try to continue this dialogue without name calling, and without assuming that delays in responding relate to anything other than the many demands of our respective lives.
This is an important debate. And, even if we don’t agree, I think it is important to think through and debate the various issues involved.
Thank you for your patience in awaiting my response.
-
November 13th, 2009 6:53 pm
Thank you Mr. Carroll…your response is quite interesting and as I said several times I do really respect opinions but right at the end we come, as you say, to the fork in the road. You champion merit pay and my point was and remains we can’t have merit pay, whether it be on an individual level or, as it exists to a degree a school wide basis, until we can come up with a definition of merit and just how to measure it. We both agree, I think, we must rid the system of incompetence and I think that’s a big problem. There are many Principals who don’t know how to do a 3020 case properly and look on the insults that will be thrown out by the UFT reps as something to avoid at all costs. So leaving that aside, we have teachers who range from fair to superior. My point, and I will stick to it, is that much of this so called difference in teacher ability ultimately does not play a large role in a student’s education. When I went to high school, I had some putried teachers, believe me I did. But that was no excuse. I went out and did my work to make sure I could do well on the Regents exams and the class exams. I don’t think any teacher, and they did range in abilities, affected my ultimate grade. So just how do you propose we decide which teachers are deserving of merit pay. Believe me this is an eternal question and we’ve tried to come up with an answer. Joel Klein aka Michael Bloomberg, neither of whom has any real understanding of education, think they have the answer with meaningless reams of paper showcasing results on the exams you agreed with me are very flawed. Then they issue report cards primarily based on these results and carry on about how they’ve improved the scores. And what has that led to? Improved education?
We’ve also seen, again assuming what has been charged is true, a person who were told was an exemplary Principal that turned a school around, be accused of changing grades to make herself look good. Let me emphasize I am not prejudging this. As a former retired department head, I often worked with students and the Principals when we thought grades should be changed. It was usually done on a collegial basis but there was a time or two where the Principal had to use his power as the chief rating officer to properly grade a student. So, as I said, I am not prejudging the situation at Lehman. Nevertheless, it does illustrate what this whole system of bonuses, of merit pay can lead to, eh. Also I am sure you will agree that merit pay should not be based on the opinions of administrators. I mean I took supervision courses and then had some on the job training and listened to some of my colleagues talk about such things as to how important it was to write the aim of the lesson in the form of question or to make sure teachers asked questions in the form of saying “Tell us etc.” instead of saying “Tell me…” Frankly the most important thing I looked for when observing a teacher was whether the mathematics being presented was correct and on a level that should be understandable by the students. Thankfully I retired before the in thing became these alternative math courses where kids were required to sit in groups (remember this was a high school) and people actually thought the IMP program and programs liked that properly met the needs of students preparing for post secondary education. But my point is that many would say that is a way to determine who should get merit pay.
The point is, and remains, this is an eternal argument and while in a perfect perfect world you might be correct i.e. that teachers should be compensated on the basis of ability, nobody has yet to come up with a fair, objective way of measuring that.j Failing that, I’m afraid and until somebody can come up with a fair method to all concerned of evaluating and separating great teachers from good teachrs from fair teachers (I think we call come up with the definiton of an incompetent teacher and I would agree then it becomes a question of the administrator doing what he or she is paid and supposed to do, but I reject the notion that there are thousands of incompetent teachers in the system as Joel Klein wants us to believe), I’m afraid all these great sounding ideas are simply not fair to anybody be it teachers, administrators or even students.
Now, if you have a way of fairly evaluating teachers, and I don’t think Ms. Rhee’s methods make any sense, then I would be glad to discuss them with you.
Thank you for your response and have a pleasant weekend.
-
November 13th, 2009 6:56 pm
BTW..there are some typos in my response. putrid not putried I just picked up but unfortunately there is no way to edit a post after it is posted so don’t judge my ability to write bu any of these errors or erros in agreement. I never write perfectly on the first shot until I can see the whole thing. That is why I prefer bulletin boards with an editing function after it has been posted.
-
November 13th, 2009 8:07 pm
Mr. Carroll - Perhaps you know - are there any charter schools in NYS, or anywhere else in the United States for that matter - which pay teachers based on student outcomes? If so, what are the systems used to evaluate these teachers - what criteria do they use?
-
November 13th, 2009 8:37 pm
QP,
Nothing wrong with my citing both record number and percent. Your rebuttal only deals with number. Percent still holds. Nice try. Thanks for playing. -
November 13th, 2009 8:40 pm
QP neglects to tell the readership that the record numbers going to college (I’ll take the statement as fact) are doing so in part because they are being given diplomas they don’t necessarily deserve — as the RECORD NUMBER AND PERCENT of kids needing remedial, etc., etc. Blah. Blah.
Not per me. Per C-U-N-Y.
-
November 13th, 2009 8:54 pm
Dee Alpert,
Many charter schools include in their compensation package for teachers a portion that is driven by student performance. Either a few thousand dollars or a percentage of their overall compensation is based on “merit.” Typically, it is based on a number of factors, including student test score gains. Gains are usually measured by comparing beginning and end-of-the-year nationally normed assessments. I am not aware of anyone who bases teacher merit pay on New York State exams.
The use of nationally normed assessments is better than the state test alternative, but still has it limitations, notably that such assessments are not perfectly aligned with the educational goals of particular charter schools.
The ideal, not realized, is to have alignment of standards, curriculum, assessment, and compensation. Also, it would be ideal if such assessments tested more than math, ELA, and science to reflect other important disciplines such as performing arts, visual arts, American and world history, etc.
The other issue to be worked through is how to design a system that provides incentives and encouragement for teachers to provide very high quality services to students requiring special-education services, children often forgotten in the broader debates about education policy.
Much energy is focused on arguing about performance pay in the abstract. I would prefer to harness all that energy and focus it on conquering the very real difficulties in designing a fair compensation system based on the features I have outlined.
Some think it impossible and just throw up their hands. I understand that. Others ideologically oppose standardized testing for any purpose. Still others tolerate testing but oppose differential pay for teachers, forgetting that the current system already provides differential pay — just based on longevity and ed school credits, perhaps the most inane approach.
Perhaps, I am being too idealistic that we can work this all out. Nonetheless, I think it’s worth a try.
-
November 14th, 2009 8:38 am
I’m vaguely recalling some readings I did re industrial relations and incentive pay systems in the ’20’s. Does Western Electric and William White (Whyte?) ring a bell? If I’m remembering right, there was tremendous opposition from workers to incentives paid to individuals who were more productive. I’m also recalling something about less objections to group incentives.
The education industry is strident in maintaining the fiction that it is so unique that research and practice findings from other industries are not applicable to it. This is clearly error, but it’s a serious barrier and one which is extremely difficult to overcome at this time.
Nevertheless, some meaningful review of the literature re industrial compensation systems, especially in areas where workers are what one might call “semi professional,” might be useful, just as industrial relations studies describing unions’ positions and conduct are actually quite relevant.
The same overarching problem applies to issues re how to teach children with disabilities humanely and effectively. There is much good research showing what works - but it’s for children with specific diagnoses, not special ed. classifications - and since it typically comes from non-education fields (psychology, psychiatry, speech-language pathology), resistance to incorporating it into educational programs is high - despite some indicia that where these are done properly, they work very well.
Leave a Reply
Mapping the Budget Cuts
17 Comments
Subscribe to comments with RSS or TrackBack