Must we go to school longer?

                We, as a nation, have fallen behind our international peers. Former Dallas ISD Superintendent Linus Wright has made that point many times. He says it is because foreign nations that score higher attend school for longer hours of the day and more days of the year. We have examined that closely, and found that more hours don’t always mean greater success. That some countries attend school for fewer hours and have greater success, at least based on PISA scoring.

                So when Wright says that he wants to restructure schedules and curriculum, you might ask yourself, “How is that going to help?”

                His fourth point states:

4. Restructure elementary, middle and high schools to accommodate (a) flexible scheduling that is parent-friendly, (b) flexible curriculum to meet the needs of students as they achieve at different rates, and (c) longer school days and longer school years.

                There are a few things to notice here.

                First, we’ve talked about how important parent involvement is for student achievement. I would think what Wright means by a parent-friendly schedule is one that starts before their work day starts and ends after their work day ends. This would, mostly, eliminate the need for busses and allow parents to pick up their children on the way home from work. While picking up their children, they could stop in once or twice a week, every other week, a couple times a month, etc., and chat with teachers to see how their children are doing, what problems need to be addressed, what insight can they give the teachers to help them teach their children?

                Second, I think most who have attended public school in the last couple of decades can agree that the quickest learners get bored and the slowest learners get left behind as curriculum and teachers attempt to teach at an average, moderate pace that fails to challenge many of its students. There are methods, such as Montessori, that have disputable success stories, and that allows the student a chance to move at his or her own pace. The Kahn Academy also promotes at-your-own-pace student learning that reverses homework and class work.

                The problem with these methods is your risk students graduating with two different skills sets -- a student who worked hard and learned entire textbooks, etc. and a student who didn’t work hard and learned only several lessons. You can imagine the many scenarios, and you get the point.

                But let me give you an example of something that I believe could work, and that isn’t a radical, costly or risky change. Instead of cramming students, especially elementary students, into blocked periods of limited required math time, the school day is more fluid. Teachers teach lessons at the highest level, and then allow students to complete assignments, asking questions as they need. Students who complete the homework correctly and prove they fully understand the material are allowed to attend fluid classes were they learn hands on skills, the arts, etc. or occasionally get extra recess time.

                You might mention that this seems to favor the quickest learners. That slow learners will not learn hands on skills or the arts, etc. To counter this, teachers could release the slowest learners at a certain point, telling them to finish their assignment as homework. If, as I assume Wright is suggestions, students went to school from, let’s say, about 8:00 to about 5:30, there would certainly be time to fit all the classes in, add hands on learning, extended recesses and a time for meals. And students would learn new skills that would prove beneficial both for daily tasks and the development of their minds (problem solving skills, confidence, etc.).

                Finally, as we’ve mentioned before, longer school days and a longer school year could work, but only if the way we use our time is improved. The amount of wasted learning time and expected time of waste (last week of school, anyone?) is a hindrance, and adding hours and days of this wasted time is, in and of itself, a waste.

                Why waste our children’s futures?

The school board's goal

We live in a society run by professionals. Many feel they need a college degree to get a job, positions ask for degrees and a certain years of experience and most have dealt with the frustrating you-need-experience-to-get-a-job,-but-you-need-a-job-to-get-experience dilemma.

So when I tell you that the group of individuals who run our local schools should be amateurs, you may balk – and I wouldn’t blame you. When I hired people to work for the university newspaper, I looked for experience. Training someone new is a fun challenge, but it’s also a time-consuming, costly challenge that may not work out.

But we have to keep in mind that a school is not a business (despite what popular culture conveys.) Therefore, we should not rely on business practices to dictate how we manage schools.

Linus Wright’s third point states:  

3. A governance model must be developed which includes required qualifications for school board members along with term limits.

His point is vague, but to be fair, he chooses to be vague in order to keep his document under five pages … it’s more likely that the Texas legislature will read and act if it’s brief. Because he is vague, I’ll fill in the gaps on what we should require from our school boards

            To Wright’s notions, I say this. The state and communities do lay out specific qualifications (such as age, etc.) that school board members must adhere to. This is logical. If, by qualifications, he means that they must have taught for so many years, etc. I would have to disagree, for reasons I’ll state below.

            As for term limits, I’m not sure what he plans to accomplish with this. Until more voters take an interest in school boards, this idea will only complicate elections. In many communities, there are few enough citizens willing to serve. If the state limits terms, then some communities may be limited to partial boards or a lack of a board. Surely this isn’t what Wright wants.

In Texas, school boards trustees are elected. The elections have low voter turn out and the federal and state governments have attempted to decrease school board’s power as of late. But, in its purest form, the school board has a lot of influence and power over school policies. Naturally, their priority should be student learning and development.

School boards responsibilities include:

Create policy (this includes setting policies on academics, finances, student conduct and discipline, student transportation, curriculum and textbook approval and personnel)

Manage funds and resources

Appoint superintendent

Evaluate schools, personnel and policies

Handle legal matters

Tax

Hold meetings

            This is a brief, over-arching look at the many complicated tasks the school board oversees. At this point you might ask why amateurs should run such complex matters. But if we look at the purpose of a school board, I think you’ll come to agree.

            A school board is, as some call it, one of the last examples of grassroots democracy.  Individuals that are well-known in their community are elected by people who trust them. School board members are leaders from all walks of life – businessmen, educators, church leaders, farmers, parents, etc. They hail from the days of Congressman Sam Rayburn, who welcomed constituents into his home to hear their issues and problems. They represent the people who elected them, and not the Texas Education Agency or federal education department. I realize there are school board members who abuse their power and don’t adhere to these standards, but a properly functioning school board member would adhere.

Howard Good, a former school board member from New York, puts it this way:

What some consider a major weakness of school boards – that they are directed by well-meaning amateurs – Davies and Hosler (authors of a book on school boards) considered a major strength.

These well-meaning amateurs are considered a strength because of their direct contact and influence with the community. 

            The school board relies on their superintendent and principals to provide details on curriculum and other decisions. This keeps the school board from micromanaging and allows the superintendent to do his or her job while reporting to the board. Of course, this requires the school board to be made of informed individuals who can make decisions. Otherwise you’re left with a superintendent who is forced to run the school board while also answering to them, or a school board who willingly accepts every suggestion from the superintendent, without consideration.

            But a well-informed group of leaders who can represent their community, think critically, juggle the necessary duties, work closely with their superintendent and principals and prioritize student learning and development, regardless of their background, will lead their district to a higher level of learning and achievement.

Isn’t that our goal?

           

So how much should a teacher get paid? Part 2

         

I think of a teacher’s worth (in pay, at least) this way. As my wife puts it, there are six things that people need – food, clothing, shelter, education, medical care and legal protection. Restaurants are a booming industry that gets paid well. The fashion industry makes tons of cash. Construction is a money-making and thriving business. Naturally, doctors are known for their wealth, as are lawyers. So why is it that educators, one of the six are paid so little?

         Most think this is an unfair balance. When reports do suggests that teachers are overcompensated, others generally find them faulty. For example, last November the American Enterprise Institute published an article that suggested that teachers overcharge taxpayers $120 billion each year, and that teachers earn 52 percent greater than fair market levels. It doesn’t take long to realize this is based on unfounded claims, though. I first strongly doubted their report when they suggested that teachers are less intelligent than other workers, and therefore deserve less pay. The National Education Policy Center finds that claim unfounded, as well. NEPC also disagrees with AEP’s conclusions that teachers’ benefits calculate at 100.8 percent of pay (The Department of Labor puts it at 32.8 percent, which NEPC calls almost identical to the private sector), that time off is 28.8 percent shorter than the private sectors work year (NEPC says closer to 12 percent shorter), that pension costs are valued at 32 percent (NEPC says closer to 8.4 percent) and that job stability is valued at 8.6 percent (NEPC doesn’t give an alternative, but says the argument is not sustained). In short, NEPC disagrees strongly with AEI, and says AEI’s report is “built on a series of faulty analyses.” NEPC values teacher under compensation at 19 percent.

            NEPC isn’t alone in stating that teachers are undercompensated. The New Republic states that high school teachers in the U.S. earn 65 percent of what their fellow university graduates make after 15 years of work. TNR compares this to countries like Finland, where, after 15 years, teachers make 102 percent of what their fellow university graduates make.

            We’ve established that teachers are underpaid. But why?

            Some attribute the U.S. low teacher salaries to pay schedules. All teachers are familiar with this program, where the years of experience combined with the years of education dictate payment. Michael Podgursky of the University of Missouri-Columbia suggests that if education paid teachers like the private sector pays its employees, teachers would be paid more fairly. He implies that pay should be based on the field (special education would get paid more than English, for example) and success as a teacher. While there is strong logic behind his argument, I am wary to support this idea. We’ve seen over the past couple of decades the effects of the education system simulating business practices (No Child Left Behind, anyone? How about the accountability movement?). So far, it really hasn’t worked. Would Podgursky’s ideas be any different?

            Last week I discussed merit-based pay. But what other options have you heard of? Do you support them (or any of these)?  Do you have ideas of your own?

            All in all, I think most can agree teachers should get paid more. Whether you side with the reports mentioned above, which suggests raising the average teachers pay anywhere from 19 to 35 percent, you agree with the six-essentials theory (that suggests teachers should get paid a lot more) or you agree with any number of other theories not mentioned here (and there are a lot out there), the point is, teachers don’t get paid enough. What are the steps needed to improve the situation?

So how much should a teacher get paid? Part 1

So how much should a teacher get paid? That’s the question I asked myself when I set out to write this blog post. And that answer, I found, requires a rather extensive answer. So, this week, I’ll be looking at merit-based pay because it’s a widely popular silver bullet program. Next week, I’ll look at salary schedules and what a teacher should be worth.

           Merit-based pay has a lot of supporters. Entire states are trying their hand at merit-based pay. It seems to go hand-in-hand with the accountability movement. It’s promoted by such people as Bill Gates, who, in defense of merit-based pay, said in the Washington Post, “The United States spends $50 billion a year on automatic salary increases based on teacher seniority. It’s reasonable to suppose that teachers who have served longer are more effective, but the evidence says that’s not true. After the first few years, seniority seems to have no effect on student achievement.”

            If that’s the case, merit-based pay could be an answer, some say. Others disagree. They fear that merit-based pay will promote favoritism, because there is not clear definition of what a good teacher is. So far, implementations have based this pay on standardized testing. This is a mistake, in my opinion. Those tests are neither an accurate portrayal of a teacher’s ability or an excellent (or even good) standard to base student learning on.

           Some research also suggests merit-based pay doesn’t work, at least in the realm of standardized testing. Vanderbilt University’s George Peabody College of Education found that student scores did not rise if a teacher knew he or she could earn a bonus. Matthew Springer, executive director of the National Center on Performance Incentives put it this way:

We sought a clean test of the basic proposition: If teachers know they will be rewarded for an increase in their students’ test scores, will the test scores go up? We found that the answer to that question is ‘no.’

As the Knowledge Center reports:

National Education Association President Dennis Van Roekel said the report’s findings were not surprising. ‘Extra money is not a silver bullet,’ he said. ‘It must be part of a comprehensive system that invests in things that make a difference in teaching and learning, such as experience, knowledge and skills. You have to start with a base of strong, competitive professional salaries and then reward teachers for professional growth and offer mentoring, support and solid feedback to help them improve their craft.’

                I would add that there are no silver bullets in education, and we should be wary when someone says they have found a quick fix. Merit-based pay seems to fit that standard.

               There are reports that show how merit-based pay does improve student test scores. But if we stick to our conclusion that there are no silver bullets, we know that it can’t be merit-based pay alone that improves those test scores – other factors are involved (perhaps the most talented teachers in a school where offered the merit-based pay, and the control group was made of mediocre teachers, etc.) Also, if we remember that standardized testing is a poor way to judge what students learn, then we can conclude that merit-based pay based on standardized testing is an unfair way to decide who gets bonuses.

             

             There are also ethical matters involved with merit-based pay. Take, for example, the scandal in Georgia last year where desperate educators helped their students cheat on standardized testing in order to get the best school ratings and highest pay. Georgia was caught. How many schools cheated that weren’t caught? Is this preventable if we make merit-based pay the system standard?

            I also object to the merit-based pay because it’s based on a business model. We’ve seen over the past couple of decades the effects of the education system simulating business practices (No Child Left Behind, anyone? How about the accountability movement?). Why would merit-based pay be any different? I have doubts. Education is a for-profit business. Its practices are not tangible methods you can use in every location and get the exact same results. If education is not a business, why are we trying to run it as one?

            What is a better alternative than merit-based pay? Van Roekel touches on that. And what should a teacher get paid? We’ll pick up on those thoughts next week, and focus more on our end goal (looking at Linus Wright’s 10th point [Determine proper compensation and benefits for all public school employees as compared to similar positions in the private sector] in “Restructuring Public Education for the 21st Century.”)