making

What teachers are telling the Governor: Day 4

Previous days comments can be found here:

Day 4 in our series has representatvive comments from Republican teachers

Subject: Input on merit pay
Dear Governor Kasich,
I am responding to your request about input for merit pay. First of all, I want you to know that I am a registered republican voter, as well as a high school math teacher. Next, I want to let you know that my input on merit pay is that I will be voting for the referendum to revoke Senate Bill 5 in November. Also, I want you to be aware that you will NOT get my vote, nor any of my family members votes at the next election due to your involvement with the Senate Bill 5.
Sincerely,

This next letter is longer, has some confusion, but a number of interesting sentiments, and is again from a Republican teacher

Dear Governor Kasich,
First of all, I want to state that I have always believed myself to be a Republican. I value honesty and fiscal responsibility, but I also see the need for compromise and rationale decision making. Know that teachers understand that changes need to be made for the good of all tax payers (who are taxpayers as well).

Now in regards to merit pay, my true feeling is that it should be stripped from the budget bill. It is not a solution and I will share why I feel this way below. There are better ways to make these decisions and each district should be allowed to do what is best for their employees and communities. The state should not be forcing their policy on local communities. SB5 did enough stripping the collective bargaining rights away from teachers and communities don't need more policy thrown at us. I am okay with a more fair salary system. I agree that step increases are not the best way to go. But why give teaches the right to negotiate salary and then take it away with merit pay legislation.

As I sit here watching teachers being made the primary focus, and then see company after company getting tax breaks, I get frustrated at the lack of fairness in it all. History shows that giving benefits and breaks to those in power with the hope of that trickling down to the middle class does not work. Look at the Great Depression and the 80's as examples of this failed policy. The jobs it will provide us will never out weigh any tax money generated to help provide strong schools for our communities. We are being held hostage by companies looking to line their own pockets.

Merit pay should not be any where near the drastic cut to 50% of teachers pay being proposed. For someone making $50,000 right now that means you will only give them $25,000 of certainty. You are now placing teachers near the poverty level. This putting teachers who have gone to college and have many student loans to repay in a lose lose situation. Pay certainty should at minimum be 90% of current salary. I can't think of one white collar professional position in any industry where 50% of your income is unknown from year to year. We are homeowners, purchasers of goods and services, parents, and tax payers. My wife and I have been teachers for 11 years and there will be no recovery from this. We have lived at the same level for the last 12 years. We do not live the high life, but if you cut the salary you make all we have worked so hard to attain unsustainable. We will lose our home. There will be no doubt about that. We will be forced from not only our jobs but our profession. We will foreclose like many others and public assistance will be needed. Is that what this state needs? The affects would be dire. We have built our simple life around hard work, but no one can sustain a double hit like this.

I like the word bonus better then merit pay since I think that does a better job of describing the hard work a teacher does day to day. I am all for freezing salaries at current levels so districts have costs certainties from year to year. There is no reason why salaries need to go up and up year to year once we reach a certain level. From that point on teachers can attain bonuses (like in the business world) based on performance like we see the business world does. The problem is though when we tie performance to a test grade is that you no longer have control over what happens. Say a student came into school hungry the day of the test. They got into a fight with the parents. Their parents work after hours and can't be there to help their child with their work at home. They don't speak English as a first language at home. Their home life is in flux due to the economy. These are all factors outside of a teachers control and unique to our profession.

Other professions who receive bonuses have you complete control over their success. The harder you work the more you are rewarded. Merit pay as it is being discussed now allows for all that hard work possibly It talks to Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs. If a person's basic needs can't be met, learning cannot take place. Then to tie someones bonus "merit pay" to something so unpredictable as to one test is asking for economic disaster to the families that give so much to their profession. What if we said to state representatives, senators, and the governor you will make $25,000 but we will give you merit pay based on your constituents evaluations of how you are doing, how many jobs you bring into your community, etc...? Does that sound fair?

Merit Pay should include the following...
1. Multiple assessment data points (OAA scores should be just one assessment factor)
2. Teacher evaluations by parents are fine as long as 1 bad review doesn't end the chances of a teachers ability to be awarded.

On a side note, I do feel that the true indicator of success is the level of parental involvement in their child's schooling. My parents always were there to help my sisters and myself. They were the ones solely responsible for making sure their children were brought up right, followed the rules, worked hard, and they never allowed us to make excuses to poor performance. Unfortunately seem to have lost that sense of responsibility. Student success is being thrown squarely on the shoulders of teachers who are now the sole bearer of responsibility. Parents need to parent! When do we hold parents accountable for what their children do and not do?

So I propose that parents need to be responsible for getting their child to school, making sure their work is brought in each day, their child listens and obeys the rules of the school so they are not distracting themselves or others. Parents should not take kids out for week long vacations in the middle of the school year for vacations forcing the teacher to make up the content lost while others are moving on. Should we have absentee parents or those who allow their children to do as they please, this should be factored into a teachers overall evaluation for "merit pay".

3. Increase the school year. Make teachers and students go 200 days a year like other countries. No extra money given to teachers for the additional time, we already are paid. Though many of us work summers anyways there really is no difference to most of us whether the year is increased. It is better for the students. Trust me parents would like this to since it takes away the need for day care and that added expenses.

4. Do not decrease salaries... just don't increase them. Let districts call for pay freezes for five years or more so they can get their houses in order. Cost certainty for district and financial stability for teachers.

5. Teachers who have state tests should be held to a different level. I give three major tests every year, others do not give any assessments. This is a major flaw of merit pay and needs to be addressed. There is no fair way to address this.

Thank you for your time in listening to my thoughts. I really would like to talk to someone in the Governor's office more on this issue or even the Governor himself. I am a citizen of Ohio, a teacher, a parent, and a Republican and I have a vested interest in making sure this process works out for all involved in a common sense way.
Sincerely,

The Gates Foundation Exposed. Part II

In Part I, we discussed the size and scope of the Gates Foundation, and it's subjective approach to reform. In this part we'll take a closer look at his current effort to promote corporate education reforms.

Gates is now moving on to his next article of faith in his quest to reform public education - attacking teacher seniority and professional education requirements. If it's not the school structure, it must be the teacher to blame goes the new thinking.

The Gates agenda is an intellectual cousin of the Bush administration's 2002 No Child Left Behind law, which required all public schools-though not individual teachers-to make "adequate yearly progress" on student test scores. Some opponents of No Child Left Behind questioned its faith in data; are scores too narrow a gauge of how well kids are learning? Gates sees nothing wrong in relying on quantitative metrics. "Every profession has to have some form of measurement," he said in a late June interview with Bloomberg Businessweek. "Tuning that, making sure it's fair, getting the teachers so they're enthused about it" are the keys.

After the Small Schools Initiative debacle, Gates hired a new leader, Vicki Phillips, who in turn hired Tom Kane. Kane had authored a study using high stakes testing results, which concluded that "Teachers who ranked in the bottom quarter after their first two years in the classroom should be fired."

Gates, with this flawed study in hand, set about deploying his checkbook to cash strapped school districts prepared to take a gamble. One such district is Hillsbrough County Public Schools in Florida. Hillsbrough agreed to, among many other provisions, "Empower principals in the recruitment and dismissal of teachers based on performance".

The corporate reform doesn't stop there however, the distrcit also hired 2 outsiders, at some expense to assist with the 7 year reform implementation

The new positions being considered today will cost $223,202 in salaries and benefits for two years; a $100,000 grant from the Gates Foundation would pay for about half that, while the school district would pick up about 25 percent. The other 25 percent would be paid by The Broad Foundation, an entrepreneurial philanthropic group that offers residencies for experienced private industry executives interested in a career switch to public education.

The two candidates being recommended are Jamal Jenkins, a former Chrysler executive who worked in human resources and has experience as a recruiter, and Donald Dellavia, a former plant manager for the H.J. Heinz Co.

If you're wondering what an executive from a bankrupt car company, and a ketchup plant manager can offer public education, you're probably not alone.

In our final Part, we'll take a look at some of the other efforts the Gates Foundation is making, including those in Ohio.

Measuring Teacher Effectiveness: Are We Creating an Education Nightmare?

We seem to be setting ourselves up for disaster education. Efforts are underway not only to adopt value-added models to rate the effectiveness of individual teachers, but to use these models to identify those at the very bottom who might later lose their positions and those at the very top who might then be eligible for merit pay. Yet in all the policy discussions and public commentary, there's been little focus on learners and on how, precisely, we define the qualities of a good teacher.

The movement to revise methods for teacher evaluation to include such models came about in an effort to undermine current evaluation systems that tend to rate most teachers as satisfactory (Hull, 2011).

Educators are concerned because their evaluations will be tied to results of their students’ standardized testing, which are used in value-added calculations, while other factors, such as experience and training, are diminished. There's concern that the increase in testing that will be required to use those models to rate all teachers might come at the expense of learners, taking the joy out of learning and making it boring, as President Obama pointed out ("Remarks," 2011). And there's concern about our lack of agreement on what it means to be an effective educator.

[readon2 url="http://thejournal.com/articles/2011/06/08/measuring-teacher-effectiveness-are-we-creating-an-education-nightmare.aspx"]Continue reading...[/readon2]

Gutting education for a cup of cheap coffee

It has been repeated often by the Governor and Republican legislators that raising income taxes is not a solution to the budget problem Ohio faces, but instead, draconian cuts to education are the way forward. Consequently we face almost $3.1 billion in education cuts over the next 2 years as a result of this policy preference.

But how much of an impact do the 2005 income tax cuts have on take home pay? We thought it would be interesting to look at this question from a teachers perspective.

According to Ohio's Legislative Services Commision (LSC), the average teacher earned $54,656 in 2009, and about $47,500 in 2004, the year before the income tax cuts were phased in.

Ohio average teacher salaries

The Ohio Department of taxation has produced this handy guide to tax rates for each year since 2004. Let's see how much tax a teacher making average salaries in 2004 and 2009 would have paid to the state.

Comparing tax bills for average salaried teachers

Average Teacher in 2004 Average Teacher in 2009
Average Salary $47,500 $54,656
Tax Forumla $1,337.20 + 5.201% of excess over $40,000 $1,112.50 + 4.327% of excess over $40,000
Taxes Paid $1,727.28 $1,746.67

The difference between 2009 and 2004 being $19.39 per year, a nickel a day MORE today.

Republicans would have us believe that for a nickel a day MORE in tax, we have to gut public education, or Ohio would be too uncompetitive to survive. Draw your own conclusions. Perform your own calculations using your own salary and the tax tables to see your "savings".

For those wondering, or thinking it fairer, what tax would be paid on $54,656 if the tax code had not changed

2004 Tax Rates 2009 Tax Rates
Tax Forumla $1,337.20 + 5.201% of excess over $40,000 $1,112.50 + 4.327% of excess over $40,000
Taxes Paid $2099.46 $1,746.67

Which equates to about a buck a day savings ($352.79 per year). A cup of cheap coffee a day.

Value add high stakes use cautioned

The American Mathematics Society just published a paper titled "Mathematical Intimidation:Driven by the Data", that discusses the issues with using Value Add in high stakes decision making, such as teacher evaluation. It's quite a short read, and well worth the effort.

Many studies by reputable scholarly groups call for caution in using VAMs for high-stakes decisions about teachers.

A RAND research report: The esti- mates from VAM modeling of achieve- ment will often be too imprecise to support some of the desired inferences [McCaffrey 2004, 96].

A policy paper from the Educational Testing Service’s Policy Information Center: VAM results should not serve as the sole or principal basis for making consequential decisions about teach- ers. There are many pitfalls to making causal attributions of teacher effective- ness on the basis of the kinds of data available from typical school districts. We still lack sufficient understanding of how seriously the different technical problems threaten the validity of such interpretations [Braun 2005, 17].

A report from a workshop of the Na- tional Academy of Education: Value- added methods involve complex sta- tistical models applied to test data of varying quality. Accordingly, there are many technical challenges to ascer- taining the degree to which the output of these models provides the desired estimates [Braun 2010]
[...]
Making policy decisions on the basis of value- added models has the potential to do even more harm than browbeating teachers. If we decide whether alternative certification is better than regular certification, whether nationally board cer- tified teachers are better than randomly selected ones, whether small schools are better than large, or whether a new curriculum is better than an old by using a flawed measure of success, we almost surely will end up making bad decisions that affect education for decades to come.

This is insidious because, while people debate the use of value-added scores to judge teachers, almost no one questions the use of test scores and value-added models to judge policy. Even people who point out the limitations of VAM ap- pear to be willing to use “student achievement” in the form of value-added scores to make such judgments. People recognize that tests are an im- perfect measure of educational success, but when sophisticated mathematics is applied, they believe the imperfections go away by some mathematical magic. But this is not magic. What really happens is that the mathematics is used to disguise the prob- lems and intimidate people into ignoring them—a modern, mathematical version of the Emperor’s New Clothes.

The entire, short paper, can be read below.

Mathematical Intimidation: Driven by the Data

SB5 would set us back

Submitted by Bexley Superintendent, Mike Johnson

Public negotiations take two parties to carve out outcomes based on mutual interests to add value and ultimately benefit the community. These mutual interests provide opportunities to serve the common good. The common good principle is a concept that assures everyone will share in the benefit of a service, independent of the wealth and status of any individual community member.

These benefits, whether they are in the form of public education, safety, health, welfare or transportation, are always provided by loyal and dedicated community servants. Community servants allow each of us to have access to a world-class education; provide peace of mind in knowing that our properties are safe and secure; and ensure that the basic needs of the poor, the disabled, the unemployment and the underemployed are met.

Public servants have one negotiation chip, their service. They do not have capital, land or money to bring to the table. They only have their willingness to labor and to serve the public and thereby benefit everyone. The only power that a public servant or public employee can exercise in negotiations is the ability to ultimately withhold services.

In the case of the services provided by fire and police, withdrawal of services would threaten our property interest and personal safety. Therefore, third party arbitration provides for a balance of power during negotiations. Fire and police personnel are secure in knowing that if negotiations are at impasse that a neutral third party will hear the facts and render a decision, while public and private safety are maintained.

If the United States and the state of Ohio are to become leaders in a knowledge economy, then educators must be invited and remain at the table as equals. Educators are knowledge workers and if we are to overcome some very serious national and international challenges, then we will need our teachers to assist all of us in making decisions, designing the best possible research driven solutions and implementing those decisions over time. The full value of our knowledgeable and professional teaching staff will not be realized in an environment where they are on the receiving end of a power shift.

It strikes me as a case of very poor timing to suddenly develop laws to truncate the advantages, negotiations provides for those responsible for growing our economy. In Ohio, we will need to rely more on our intellectual capacities and assets and less on physical inputs or natural resources. I cannot think of a greater source intellectual capacity, than can be found within our K-16 public education community. As Powell and Snellman (2004) state, that an upsurge in knowledge production is associated with the emergence of new industries.

We need to make sure before making any final decision on SB5, that we will achieve the intended ends. Personally, I believe that we are going to experience some adverse unintended consequences as a result of passing such legislation. It is going to take some creative, collaborative, and systemic decision making to keep Ohio at the forefront nationally and internationally.