Join the conversation

Pay for performance schemes assume that, in Linda Perlstein's words, staff have "reserves of greatness they are withholding from children simply because they don’t have good enough reason to share it." True for some teachers, perhaps, but all or even most?

------

Claus,

I certainly would stipulate that the answer to the question you posed above is "no". As one of my colleagues likes to say, "You don't know what you don't know."

Perlstein's quote makes me think of Dick Elmore who has said the same thing about NCLB-style accountability in education. It presumes that schools and districts are withholding something from children and if only we kick them in the pants, gosh darn, they'll do better. But, of course, as we know, unless you address capacity building, whether of individual educators or systems such as schools and districts, you're not going to get markedly different results.

The Problem with the "Business Model..."

Claus,

Thank you for this post.

People who advocate running schools according to a business model assume that educated children are the product. In reality, test scores are the product. We are treating students like employees at a test score factory.

The forced shift in priorities is turning our schools into test-obsessed "Twilight Zones" and doing lasting psychological damage to kids.

We are also scaring teachers away from the kids who need the most help. What non-teacher policy-makers don't realize (and every teacher knows instinctively) is that many of the kids who are way, way behind are there because outside factors have always caused them to learn at a slower pace. Making "one year" of progress with a level one reader is much more difficult than making a "year" of progress with a kid who's already on grade level, comes to class, reads on his own, does homework, understands explanations the first time, etc.

I realize this is a long reply, but what can I say... you hit a nerve.

Keep up the good work.

Liam--The real question, then, is how the policy makers can help build capacity, short of just sending money or prescribing practices. One option might be to support structured plans to develop process improvement strategies. Others?

Thanks for the kind note, Roxanna. I'm also a bit leery of the business language when it goes too far. The thinking behind the NCLB model, which does make some sense, is that if students can't ace simple bubble tests that measure mostly low-level skills, then we have a big problem. It is hard to disagree with that point. But the challenging next step is to figure out how to get to a system that doesn't remake itself in the image of those tests.

I'm all for paying the teachers who are doing a great job (in multiple capacities, using multiple indicators) much more--simply because they deserve it. Teaching is complex, skilled work, and teachers are underpaid.

The current salary schedule doesn't incent the right things-- or make best use of scarce resources. The trick is tying extra pay to demonstrable excellence in engendering student learning (measured using a variety of means), accepting (or creating) leadership roles, and--possibly--filling a hard-to-staff position.

And--that's what good businesses do; it's how they pay employees (based on need, merit and extra contribution) and push them to expand their capacities while on the job. While I agree wholeheartedly that under current strict accountability policies, test scores have become our de facto "product," there are still lots of teachers who work around onerous testing and focus on individual student growth (way beyond the tests). Just as successful businesses focus on the needs of customers and clients, while using data to identify areas of weakness, schools can learn from businesses.

It's all about taking smart business practices and avoiding the temptation to focus on the short-term growth. We are right now watching what happens when a phenomenally successful business (Toyota) lost the big picture and let their culture focus on the short-term numbers.

"One option might be to support structured plans to develop process improvement strategies."

Good idea!

"Structured plans" have strong precedent in business and in other sectors of life. Compulsory "assurances" that subordinate echelons will implement the whims of high government officials and external corporate plutocrats have no precedent. Tragically, the US is currently on Path A rather than Path B.

There is a methodological literature on such applications in education called "Planned Variations. The methodology was developed and tested in the 1960's-70s. It was not pursued because the findings were counter to the ideological beliefs of federal government officials and private foundations at the time.

Not all structured plans works. But they all provide transparent information of how they work. There is no reason to repeat the failures, and the successes provide a basis for replication. The methodology doesn't put all of the nation's el-hi assets in the same risky basket. There is no better way to build educational capacity.

That is the case IT is such a great story I believe those kids will make the change