Mayor Frank Jackson's plan to revamp Cleveland schools still needs legislative support

COLUMBUS, Ohio -- Mayor Frank Jackson wants to make it easier for the city's public school brass to fire or re-assign ineffective teachers to help turn around low-performing buildings.

 

The Democratic mayor also wants the school system to share school revenue raised through tax measures with high-performing Cleveland charter schools, a holistic schooling approach aimed at reversing the city's dismal record for educating children.

 

"We're past this fight about whether or not you are a public or charter school. We're past that," Jackson told The Plain Dealer. "We're focusing on quality education for Cleveland children, and it doesn't matter to me whether you are a public or a charter."

 

http://www.cleveland.com/open/index.ssf/2012/03/bad_teachers_funding_charter_s.html

Charter schools have gone from being laboratories of innovation to being a money grab for private corporations and a way for conservative politicians to put teachers in their place.  Reading more about Jackson's plan and hearing from actual teachers in the district, I'm quite skeptical of what he's trying to do.

There seems to be a lot of mis-information about teachers unions in this thread, especially regarding merit pay. While hts has done a great job detailing some of the negatives, there a lot more.  if there is interest I would be happy to clarify further.

 

While i am not a member of CTU, I do sit on the board of directors for the states largest teacher union, the Ohio Educational Association (OEA), and locally on the North Eastern Ohio Educational Association (NEOEA).  I have been a "union" leader for 3 years and currently running for reelection.  I represent ~5,000 teachers locally.  There is no aspect of the "union" I am not familiar with.  I sit on several committess within the organization (internal political action, information systems, local leadership and development, new member orientation and a couple smaller ones )  I am also a 10 year vetern in the classroom. 

 

There seems to be a lot of mis-information about teachers unions in this thread, especially regarding merit pay. While hts has done a great job detailing some of the negatives, there a lot more.  if there is interest I would be happy to clarify further.

 

I'd like to hear your opinion on the negatives of merit pay, eliminating LIFO/seniority, and tenure.  These are changes that are often called for by "reform" advocates, but I'm not sure what the research shows on those measures. 

Cleveland Mayor Frank Jackson's school plan gets show of support from bipartisan group of lawmakers

COLUMBUS, Ohio — A bipartisan cast of Statehouse lawmakers stood with Mayor Frank Jackson Wednesday and pledged to move forward soon with a dramatic reshaping of Cleveland public schools through legislation.

 

While the lawmakers, including two Cleveland Democrats -- Sen. Nina Turner and Rep. Sandra Williams -- stopped short of fully embracing Jackson's school plan, they sounded ready to shake up the status quo.

 

Williams, who heads the Ohio Legislative Black Caucus, told reporters at the Statehouse news conference that she agreed with most of Jackson's plan but still had a few reservations about the bill's collective bargaining provisions.

 

http://www.cleveland.com/open/index.ssf/2012/03/jacksons_school_plan_gets_show.html

Cleveland residents back Mayor Frank Jackson's plan for city schools, poll shows

CLEVELAND, Ohio — Cleveland residents aware of Mayor Frank Jackson's plan to improve schools in the city support it by a 2-to-1 ratio, according to a poll sought by Jackson and the Greater Cleveland Partnership.

Sixty percent of those people said they have a positive opinion of the plan.

 

The poll by the Triad Research Group in Rocky River also shows support for Jackson's plan rising to 75 percent after respondents were questioned about issues the Cleveland School District faces and about parts of the mayor's plan.

 

http://www.cleveland.com/metro/index.ssf/2012/04/poll_shows_overwhelming_number.html

A nice try but a worthless effort, and we all know it in our hearts.

A nice try but a worthless effort, and we all know it in our hearts.

 

Wow, such defeatism. Sorry, but no effort is ever worthless. Even some of the most horrific crimes against humanity had some worth, such as in lessons learned.

A nice try but a worthless effort, and we all know it in our hearts.

 

Worthless?  The only "worthless" effort is none!  The economy has changed in Cleveland its become a white collar city.  Now that people WANT to live in Cleveland and perceive that the school system is its worst asset, he needs to make a change with a LTP!  Seems like this plan has a good buy in with current residents and set the foundation for future residents.

 

But of course, you have a better plan for the schools, right? ::) ::) ::)

In moving forward with this plan, it seems a lot of assumptions are being made about the ability to accurately and fairly judge "performance," whether it be of individual teachers or entire schools. 

 

A lot of what passes for education "reform" these days is nothing more than the implementation unproven right-wing ideas rooted in "market" forces that are supposed to magically improve everything.  Unfortunately you're now starting to see a lot of Democrats, like Jackson in this case, being snookered into implementing these ideas because they're desperate in trying to improve something for which there is no magic bullet.

Kjp, there may be some value in the effort on an emotional level, but it doesn't come close to addressing the root problems of our academic failures, because we are unwilling to address reality and instead come up with feel-good, politically correct band aids that have failed miserably for over 40 years. I find all these efforts and plans and political self-congratulations pointless and cliche.

 

You want to fix public education? It cannot be done in today's inner city communities, not on any grand and meaningful scale unless we make some radical changes to federal and local laws that would never ever happen. School closings, teacher reviews, union compromises, etc, have nothing to do with our academic failures,  yet we focus on those because we're too afraid to attack the real culprits: kids and parents, for various complex reasons, who just don't care and challenge attempts at reform on every level. Not all of them, but enough to destroy any attempts at an education comparable to our western and eastern friends overseas.

 

Personally I believe we need to rethink the idea of what an American citizen is defined as, and tie it in with education on some level..... which of course would never happen. And yet it would make a world of difference if our  governments had the balls to pass such reforms.

 

No initiative, however wonderful, ever accomplishes everything you want. There is always compromise to satisfy divergent stakeholders. I've seen some real progress in the school district over the past decade, with some schools (School of the Arts, Alcott, Whitney Young, John Hay, MC2STEM, etc.) performing as well as if not better than suburban counterparts. Another 20 schools are performing as well. You take every little bit of progress you can get, work to maintain it, and bring up the others that aren't progressing. But you NEVER EVER STOP TRYING when it comes to children. If you're going to stop trying, then how are you any better than the students, parents, teachers, administrators or policymakers you fault?

No initiative, however wonderful, ever accomplishes everything you want. There is always compromise to satisfy divergent stakeholders. I've seen some real progress in the school district over the past decade, with some schools (School of the Arts, Alcott, Whitney Young, John Hay, MC2STEM, etc.) performing as well as if not better than suburban counterparts. Another 20 schools are performing as well. You take every little bit of progress you can get, work to maintain it, and bring up the others that aren't progressing. But you NEVER EVER STOP TRYING when it comes to children. If you're going to stop trying, then how are you any better than the students, parents, teachers, administrators or policymakers you fault?

 

I hope you realize what a lot of those success stories (including almost all of the ones you mentioned specifically by name) have in common.

 

I don't really buy the idea that change for the sake of change is always a good thing, especially as that idea pertains to education, and in particular changes that are meant to hammer teachers.

^^I would argue that we have long given up trying to fix education. Our avoidance of the real issues are evident that we, law makers,  society in general,  are not really willing to fix these problems. We just distract ourselves with these side issues that ultimately have no bearing on uncaring students and their families' apathy.

 

I'm trying to understand your suggestion, TBideon.  Are you advocating that we do away with natural born citizenship and transform into a society in which you have to somehow earn citizenship status?

 

Also, what changes in laws at the federal and state level would have the effect you desire?  I know specific would be difficult, but how about just a blueprint?

Citizenship via military service or high school  graduation, ala Robert Heinlein, would be a start.

 

The rest of your question is going to eventually result in this board getting locked down, so i'll just leave it at that.

I'd like to hear your opinion on the negatives of merit pay, eliminating LIFO/seniority, and tenure.  These are changes that are often called for by "reform" advocates, but I'm not sure what the research shows on those measures.

 

Well I'll start with the easy ones.  LIFO based on seniority was pretty much eliminated.  Current law says that seniority can only be a determining factor when two employees have the same evaluation scores.  Also LIFO ONLY deals with RIF (reduction in force) situations.  Those are layoffs dealing with MONEY ISSUES ONLY.  Without those provisions anytime time money issues arise (real or not) you would eliminate the top earners.  It is completely subjective, period.  Given everyone is equal (they can fire anyone during the first 7 years anyway, see below), what else could you base firings off of other than seniority?  How can you argue that a 4 year teachers is more important than a 20 year teacher that have the same evaluations?  You cannot, you can only equate them to dollars and cents and that is the reform driven money, not education.  I think it is a perfect example of reform done by people who don't understand education. 

 

Before I tackle the next questions, I want to cover a couple of tenure basics. First, tenure only deals with instruction, tenure or not, the state can yank your license at any time and that is far more common than firing.  Next, Tenure is supposed to identify why good teachers are having issues and correct them.  It takes 7 years of POSITIVE EVALUATIONS until tenure can be granted and up until that time all education employees are "at will" employees (i.e. can be fired at any time). 

 

So what exactly is tenure? Under the old system, tenure granted you a continuing contract, due process, and the ability to only be observed on a 4 year track, that is it.  Under 153 (Budget Bill), they instituted a new evaluation system and starting July 1, 2013 every teacher has to be observed at least twice a year, except for people at the tippy top of evaluations, they get to go every other year.  So one of those provisions have been eliminated.  Due process can best be explain by an example.  Lets say a teacher has 15 years of positive reviews or 15 years of good teaching, but then receives 1 or two bad reviews over a course of a year.  Due process enables that employee to be eligible to have a remediation plan (principal works with the teacher to correct their teaching).  That is ALL the protection tenure offers.  If after that plan is implemented and no improvement is gained that teacher can be fired.  Tenure teachers do get fired pretty regularly around the state.  Tenure only works if ADMINISTRATION and TEACHERS both do their jobs.  I always say if you have bad teachers in a building you have bad administrators as well.  They go hand in hand.  Also, Tenure year is not guaranteed.  There are plenty of school districts in Ohio that have no employees that are tenured.  That is a local decision. 

 

I believe tenure year is important.  It is one stop gap from keeping education becoming a revolving door, much like what LIFO is supposed to do.  Otherwise teaching becomes a revolving door were older more expensive teachers are let go for younger cheaper ones. 

 

Merit pay is another complicated subject.  Most people don't even understand what it is.  For this conversation lets define it is supplemental pay, meaning I have a guaranteed base salary and "bonuses" are awarded for different bench marks being achieved.  That is what they are usually talking about in regards to merit pay.  Also, student data tracking has been going on FOREVER, we know what the trends are.  Under those guidelines it becomes an unfair system pretty quickly.  Some examples are: Teachers with better classroom management are often targeted, for good reason, to work with difficult students, which often puts their scores towards the bottom.  Teachers with AP classes are going to have an advantage over teachers who teach remedial courses.  How do you define merit?  Is it a test or is getting a student to just come to class and not fail out?  Which is worth more? How do you determine how specials (art, music, shop) are graded?  Is merit then tied solely to ability?  I could go on and on, but I'll sum it up with a story as old as time in education:

 

At a reform conference a very successful business leader came to talk to the teachers at a failing school.  He preached about efficiency and how the business model is more of a successful approach to reform.  After the speech was done, an old lady from the back row raised her hand and asked what business he was in.  He replied saying he was in the ice cream business and how people from Portland to Portland know his product.  She then asked, how have you become so successful?  He replied quickly by saying we only ship the best product.  She then asked, how do you get the best product?  Again, he quickly replied by saying I use only the freshest produce and dairy.  She then replied how that applies to education.  She said, If I have a bad student, I cannot toss them out like a moldy piece of strawberry.  If my product doesn't meet requirements I cannot pull students from another community like a farm.  I have to use all my ingredients, whether they are moldy, spoiled, or to old and I am expected to produce a flawless product.  That isn't how any business works, yet those are the requirements teachers are held to. 

 

That is honestly how I view merit pay.  It is subjective issue and never the same.  We control our product for 52 minutes a day at best.  If you think dangling a couple of extra bucks in front of a teacher is the answer, then you have never been around education. 

 

Are there places to reform? Yes, absolutely, but changing pay structure and LIFO isn't it.  Also, even by the most extreme studies the believe only 3-5% of the teacher workforce is what people consider a "bad teacher."

 

 

 

 

One item that rarely makes it into the discussion anymore is EXTENDING the school day and the school year.  America is one of the last few industrialized nations that doesn't have year-round schooling.  2-3 weeks off in summer should be plenty.  Keep the students at school till at least 4pm also, even if it includes an hour of supervised recess or study session, making sure they get their homework done before going home, or extra tutoring for those who need it.  I see Cleveland kids hitting the streets before 2:30pm in some areas.  That is just not enough school day for students who are already behind in standardized tests of reading, math, etc

I would be in favor of extending the school day, as long as it also started later (maybe around 9am) with before school activities offered so parents who need to can still drop their kids off on their way to work.  You know the phrase "nothing good happens after 2am"?..... my HS principal used to say that "nothing good happens between 3pm-5pm"

 

I'm not in favor of cutting summers.

I'd like to hear your opinion on the negatives of merit pay, eliminating LIFO/seniority, and tenure.  These are changes that are often called for by "reform" advocates, but I'm not sure what the research shows on those measures.

 

Well I'll start with the easy ones.  LIFO based on seniority was pretty much eliminated.  Current law says that seniority can only be a determining factor when two employees have the same evaluation scores.  Also LIFO ONLY deals with RIF (reduction in force) situations.  Those are layoffs dealing with MONEY ISSUES ONLY.  Without those provisions anytime time money issues arise (real or not) you would eliminate the top earners.  It is completely subjective, period.  Given everyone is equal (they can fire anyone during the first 7 years anyway, see below), what else could you base firings off of other than seniority?  How can you argue that a 4 year teachers is more important than a 20 year teacher that have the same evaluations? 

 

 

Good Remarks. In response to above your quote, does the evaluation regard if they teach any unique subjects, expertise, or other factors like extracurricular support ? .For example, if the 4 year teacher is the only one in the dept. who has taught AP Calc; Or faced with 2 English teachers being laid off, the younger being the moderator of the drama club [not sure if CPS actually still has them because of budget cuts...], why shouldn't that also be considered in a decision of who to keep ?

I'd like to hear your opinion on the negatives of merit pay, eliminating LIFO/seniority, and tenure.  These are changes that are often called for by "reform" advocates, but I'm not sure what the research shows on those measures.

 

Well I'll start with the easy ones.  LIFO based on seniority was pretty much eliminated.  Current law says that seniority can only be a determining factor when two employees have the same evaluation scores.  Also LIFO ONLY deals with RIF (reduction in force) situations.  Those are layoffs dealing with MONEY ISSUES ONLY.  Without those provisions anytime time money issues arise (real or not) you would eliminate the top earners.   

 

So not true.  What organization engages in this practice?  Accounting firms?  Law firms?  Architecture firms?  Once schools and teachers embrace the same practice as other professions, schools can attract and retain as many high-priced teachers as they want.  Schools would have to pay a premium to keep the best teachers.  Schools that only hired & retained the "cheapest" staff money could buy would quickly be exposed and labeled as bargain basement education.  Just the same, schools that attracted & retained the best staff would earn a reputation for doing so.  Same as any other organization. 

 

If the levy doesn't pass, the superintendent goes to his top earners & says "I need you to forego your raise this year & take a 5% cut".  If they don't like it, they can see what else is available in other school districts.  That same superintendent can go back to the tax payers and say "we didn't pass the levy & we lost 5 of our best teachers."  As it stands now, taxpayers just hear about pink slips to the newly hired teachers and it doesn't seem to matter.

 

Trust me, it could work.  Don't think so?  Ask yourself why and who really stands to lose by trying.

^Sounds like a plan for further exasperating the disparity in education quality between high income and poorer districts.

really?  You think poorer districts get less money for education?  Wanna back that up with some hard data?

No, I'm saying that they won't be as easily able to raise new money to compete for high priced teachers as high income districts.

One item that rarely makes it into the discussion anymore is EXTENDING the school day and the school year.  America is one of the last few industrialized nations that doesn't have year-round schooling.  2-3 weeks off in summer should be plenty.  Keep the students at school till at least 4pm also, even if it includes an hour of supervised recess or study session, making sure they get their homework done before going home, or extra tutoring for those who need it.  I see Cleveland kids hitting the streets before 2:30pm in some areas.  That is just not enough school day for students who are already behind in standardized tests of reading, math, etc

 

One of the proposals in the Transformation Plan is a move to year-round schooling (four ten-week sessions separated by two-week vacations.)  I've been to three of the public meetings that have been held so far, but I'm still unclear if year-round schooling is going to be an option for some schools or if it's intended to be applied to the whole district.  Both the mayor and superintendent did stress that their intention is to eliminate "summer loss" and help students catch up by effectively adding a month to the school year, as well as help out working parents who might worry about finding supervision for their kids for two and a half or three months.

^Sounds like a plan for further exasperating the disparity in education quality between high income and poorer districts.

 

Here's a fun little data source I found, basically shows a number of urban inner city school districts receiving much much more funding per pupil than other suburban or rural districts.

 

East Cleveland in the Top Ten.  Shaker Heights & Cleveland Heights right near the top also.  Cleveland Municipal schools in the top 20, spending over $15k per pupil.  Districts at the bottom spending less than half as much per pupil....

 

http://stateimpact.npr.org/ohio/2012/01/17/see-how-much-each-ohio-school-district-spends-per-student/

One item that rarely makes it into the discussion anymore is EXTENDING the school day and the school year.  America is one of the last few industrialized nations that doesn't have year-round schooling.  2-3 weeks off in summer should be plenty.  Keep the students at school till at least 4pm also, even if it includes an hour of supervised recess or study session, making sure they get their homework done before going home, or extra tutoring for those who need it.  I see Cleveland kids hitting the streets before 2:30pm in some areas.  That is just not enough school day for students who are already behind in standardized tests of reading, math, etc

 

One of the proposals in the Transformation Plan is a move to year-round schooling (four ten-week sessions separated by two-week vacations.)  I've been to three of the public meetings that have been held so far, but I'm still unclear if year-round schooling is going to be an option for some schools or if it's intended to be applied to the whole district.  Both the mayor and superintendent did stress that their intention is to eliminate "summer loss" and help students catch up by effectively adding a month to the school year, as well as help out working parents who might worry about finding supervision for their kids for two and a half or three months.

 

I hadn't known about that plan to go year-round.  I'm encouraged to see that people in public roles are finally having the nerve to put that openly on the table.  The long holiday to let kids work on their parents' farms during the summer is a relic of our agrarian past and serves no purpose in today's world.  Summer loss is a serious concern.

^Sounds like a plan for further exasperating the disparity in education quality between high income and poorer districts.

 

Here's a fun little data source I found, basically shows a number of urban inner city school districts receiving much much more funding per pupil than other suburban or rural districts.

 

East Cleveland in the Top Ten.  Shaker Heights & Cleveland Heights right near the top also.  Cleveland Municipal schools in the top 20, spending over $15k per pupil.  Districts at the bottom spending less than half as much per pupil....

 

http://stateimpact.npr.org/ohio/2012/01/17/see-how-much-each-ohio-school-district-spends-per-student/

 

I wouldn't call SH urban and I'd even hesitate to put CH-UH in that category either (even though the actual student body in the latter comes very close to fitting the bill). 

 

Ultimately I think if a plan like yours is put into place, we're much more likely to see a race to the bottom in terms of teachers' compensation (and classroom conditions), especially in regards to median salaries.  I don't think this is in the best interest of public education on a larger scale. 

Breakthrough charter schools play central role in Cleveland school district's plans

Sunday, April 29, 2012

By Patrick O'Donnell, The Plain Dealer

 

CLEVELAND, Ohio -- Charter schools were once the bad guys in the minds of school district officials, who considered them a horde of profiteers out to pillage students and dollars from traditional public schools.

 

Not anymore. At least not when it comes to the Cleveland school district and its chosen charter partner, Breakthrough Schools ...

 

... More available at http://www.cleveland.com/metro/index.ssf/2012/04/breakthrough_charter_schools_p.html

 

 

Some charter school supporters urge opposition to Cleveland schools reform legislation

Sunday, April 29, 2012

By Reginald Fields, The Plain Dealer

 

COLUMBUS, Ohio -- Some charter school backers say the Cleveland school reform legislation would unfairly limit school choice options in the city and are taking their concerns directly to state lawmakers.

 

The plan would allow Mayor Frank Jackson to appoint a Transformation Alliance panel that could block future charter schools from opening in the city unless they meet a set of academic criteria the panel would later develop.

 

As lawmakers begin this week to deliberate over two companion bills -- House Bill 525 and Senate Bill 335 -- objections from charters are threatening to be a major sticking point. Jackson wants a new law in place soon to help start a fall levy campaign, and legislators are expected to go on summer break by Memorial Day with or without an agreement on the plan ...

 

... More available at http://www.cleveland.com/open/index.ssf/2012/04/cleveland_schools_legislation.html

I'm really optimistic that this will all be good news for CMSD in the end ... Particularly with the backing of the city, the teachers' union, Democratic and Republican lawmakers, the governor and at least some charter school operators and advocacy groups. If nothing else, it starts to steer more public funding toward high-performing schools. I'm not completely sold on charter schools, but creating a local system for holding both public and charter schools to a greater degree of accountability assuages some of my concerns ... And fingers crossed, increases the odds of CMSD passing a much-needed levy in November.

 

Most immediately, here's the result of the alliance with Breakthrough:

 

- As of the 2010 - 2011 school year, 4 CMSD high schools (John Hay Early College, John Hay Architecture and Design, John Hay Science and Medicine and MC2 STEM), 2 elementary/middle schools (Louisa May Alcott and William C. Bryant) and one combined school (Whitney Young), serving approximately  2,045 students, had a state designation of Excellent.

-An additional 3 CMSD high schools (Cleveland School of the Arts High, Design Lab and Garrett Morgan School of Science) and 12 elementary/middle schools (Ben Franklin, Clark, Cleveland School of the Arts Lower Campus, Daniel E. Morgan, Denison, Douglas MacArthur, Early Childhood Development, Garfield Elementary, Louis Agassiz, Riverside, Tremont Montessori and Valley View), serving approximately 4,859 students, had a state designation of Effective.

- Campus International had not yet been rated because it was so new, but early indicators suggest it will end up in one of these two categories.

- Collectively, that means that approximately 8,107 of the district's 43,202 students (18.8%) are being taught in schools that the state considers the strongest. Not an extraordinarily high number, but probably higher than a lot of people assume for CMSD.

- All 3 Breakthrough charter schools that were rated as of 2010-2011 (not including 3 newer schools and 3 about-to-open schools) were rated Excellent.

- If we assume all 9 Breakthrough schools will be Excellent or Effective when they hit full capacity, that's an additional 3,163 Cleveland kids in strong school buildings.

- Collectively, that moves us to 32 strong public and quasi-public schools teaching 11,270 kids. It bumps up the percentage of kids in these schools in ratio to all students in CMSD and Breakthrough (46,365) to 24.3% ... About a one-third increase without opening a single new CMSD school.

 

When you consider that CMSD would now be including Breakthrough data in its own state assessment, this could be huge for how the district fares against its suburban counterparts. More importantly, if the Transformation Alliance is effective in steering more and more students toward the most strongly performing schools, this could be a real game-changer.

 

Even without any more schools moving into these top two categories, though, the idea that there are 25 elementary/middle schools and 7 high schools performing with or outperforming suburban school districts would probably be a big surprise for those who don't think raising kids in the city is an option. And that's before you get to our other excellent charter schools, parochial schools and other private schools!

Not to get off-topic, but here's some food for thought.  Should judges get merit pay?  Why or why not?  How about appointment...... is it better when judges are elected (Ohio) or tenured (federal)?

 

I bring this up because when I try to think through those questions, I come accross many of the same concerns I have when asking whether teachers should be paid based on "merit" and whether they should be "at-will" employees subject to the whims of management (i.e. whoever the current administration has appointed to run the schools).

 

 

Not to assist you in getting off topic (haha), but I would think that one of the clearest differences is that it seems that it might be easier (not easy, but easier) to come up with a clear set of indicators in education and less so in judicial review. When I think of education, clear standards in my mind are how students are performing, how many students are retained, how many students graduate, how many students go on to college. There are clearly a lot more, but I think these would all be pretty universally accepted, particularly if you provide some leeway for districts where poverty/homelife/etc. present particular challenges. When I think of judicial review, it's unclear to me what indicators I want judges to be evaluated on. Case load they're able to work through? Number of cases settled? Total annual damages / prison years awarded (as either a positive or negative)? Third-party evaluation of impartiality? While I could get behind having a review panel with the power to remove judges for gross negligence, it's harder for me to imagine public consensus around merit pay because I don't think the general public has consensus around how they want the judicial branch to function. With education, at the end of the day, all parties are concerned with the outcome of a community's children. With criminal and civil law, the very nature of the process is adversarial, and it seems like some people would be advocates for defentants and some for plaintiffs. Does that make sense as a distinction?

You could argue there are plenty of indicators for judges - how quickly and efficiently does the docket move?...... do cases just languish or are they resolved expeditiously?...... how many times has the judge been found on appeal to have committed error? prejudicial error? abused his/her discretion?...... what is the rate of recidivism and parole violations?...... how often does the judge find one of his/her cases up against the speedy trial deadline?..... how often has the deadline been overlooked?..... is the judge able to balance being respectful and courteous with being authoritative?.......  just to name a few

 

I am not saying there aren't distinctions.  They are very differenet professions.  I just see a lot of similarities in terms of the pitfalls you encounter when evaluating "merit"

Fair enough. But until you have judges undergoing something akin to standardized testing, it seems like it would be difficult to standardize what "quickly", "efficiently" and "courteous" mean. Whereas whether a student does well on standardized instruments against peers statewide or graduates high school seems more cut-and-dry. Moreover, attributing parole violations to a judge, potentially 10, 15, 20 years after the fact seems a lot different than judging a teacher on whether a student graduates ... Even over the three-year time frame for the teacher of a 9th grader.

 

I'll back down now, so we don't completely hijack the thread. Haha. But interesting parallel ... And just when my ultra-liberal mind was finally making peace with education reform. Haha.

Moreover, attributing parole violations to a judge, potentially 10, 15, 20 years after the fact seems a lot different than judging a teacher on whether a student graduates ... Even over the three-year time frame for the teacher of a 9th grader.

 

Well..... first off, I should have said probation violations.  My bad.  I was thinking more in terms of when a judge orders probation and suspends the jail sentence.  Judges have to make that call all the time.  They have to judge who will be a danger if not locked up and when our tax dollars should be saved.

 

And second, I don't see how you can blame a teacher or indict his/her techniques when/if a student does not graduate high school.  Especially if the failure to graduate is due to the inability to pass a basic proficiency test.  In those situations, the student is primarily to blame, with the parents coming in a close second, the entire school system/community a very distant third and one individual teacher who maybe had the student for one class one year bringing up the rear.

 

 

Not to get off-topic, but here's some food for thought.  Should judges get merit pay?  Why or why not?  How about appointment...... is it better when judges are elected (Ohio) or tenured (federal)?

 

Judges should not get merit pay.  The difference is that I see almost no parallels between judges and teachers.

 

You could argue there are plenty of indicators for judges - how quickly and efficiently does the docket move?...... do cases just languish or are they resolved expeditiously?...... how many times has the judge been found on appeal to have committed error? prejudicial error? abused his/her discretion?...... what is the rate of recidivism and parole violations?...... how often does the judge find one of his/her cases up against the speedy trial deadline?..... how often has the deadline been overlooked?..... is the judge able to balance being respectful and courteous with being authoritative?.......  just to name a few

 

It's certainly true that there are better judges and worse judges.  I don't argue with many of these criteria, though I dislike the notion that a judge might have a financial incentive to deny both parties making a joint motion for a continuance, just in order to clear cases more quickly.

 

The argument for equal pay for all judges isn't based on the inability to distinguish good judges and bad judges.  Rather, it's the overwhelming political argument that trumps all ordinary rules about paying people based upon their merit.  There is, in my mind, a very strong presumption in favor of merit pay in all professions--and the judiciary is one of the extremely few professions in which that presumption is refuted, because of the necessary role of the judiciary of checking the very political branches that appropriate the money to pay them.

 

Or, as someone else once complained: "He [the executive] has made Judges dependent on his Will alone, for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries."

 

I liken teachers more to practicing lawyers or doctors than to judges.  Again, judging their relative merits isn't easy, but the fact that something is difficult doesn't make it impossible and certainly doesn't make it unimportant.  It also doesn't make for a valid basis to argue against merit pay within that profession.

If there are four 5th grade teachers, and three of them have students that consistently pass with good grades but one teacher has a class where a large portion fail and others do poorly, year after year, then thats how you can blame a teacher, for part of the issue at least.

The fact that so many people simply accept the validity of standardized tests and the growing role they're playing in the public schools is mind-boggling to me.  These are one week tests that are so questionable and subjective on so many levels that they cannot possibly be as important as they're made out to be.  And yet now it's being proposed that these tests should be used as the basis for a significant portion of a teacher's salary?  Maddening. 

Standardized tests are what they are.  Tying them into teacher salaries are one thing, tying them to student performance is another. 

 

Interesting points raised on evaluating judges also.  I think if you had a legit form to evaluate judges or any other profession, on a peer basis, a supervisor basis, and a subordinate basis, you'll come arrive at a pretty accurate evaluation.  I don't see what's so hard about that.

 

 

If there are four 5th grade teachers, and three of them have students that consistently pass with good grades but one teacher has a class where a large portion fail and others do poorly, year after year, then thats how you can blame a teacher, for part of the issue at least.

 

In that situation, all things being equal, the school would have just cause to terminate the employment relationship.

I wouldn't advocate performance reviews based on standardized testing...alone anyway. I think you need to establish benchmarks in any number of criteria, both qualitative and quantitative. I'm certainly not in a position to say what those benchmarks should be. But, to be clear, I do believe that teachers, and any profession, should be held to a measurable standard for purposes of evaluation. The argument that 'it's too difficult to do' holds absolutely no water with me. Just because something is hard doesn't mean you can't, or shouldn't do it.

 

Now, how much of that is tied to 'merit pay' increases is largely irrelevant to me. Make sure you have the best people in the classroom. How you handle compensation is an internal discussion between teachers and their supervisors. Presuming you've got the best people in the classroom, then you can make the argument that I'm getting the best 'value' for my educational dollar.

 

To be equally clear, I'm not stating that I don't think the current teachers aren't capable / competent. I just chafe at the notion that there's no way to effectively evaluate that.

I don't think anyone has suggested that you can't and/or shouldn't evaluate teachers.  They do get and always have been evaluated one way or another.  I also don't think anyone has suggested that bad, ineffective teachers should be allowed to continue teaching.  That seems to be a common strawman thrown into the mix whenever totally separate issues such as "merit pay" or "layoffs" are discussed.  Different policy considerations at play as I see it.

 

If you are a bad teacher, you should be fired.  All who disagree with that, please speak up.  If all agree, then we don't have to go down that path again.

Standardized tests are what they are.  Tying them into teacher salaries are one thing, tying them to student performance is another. 

 

I'm not sure I follow what you're saying here.

In discussing/debating educational topics with some other posters on other threads, I thought it might be interesting to try to get an education thread going to talk about some of the innovative and interesting educational news and trends occurring in urban areas around the country.

 

Some possible lines of discussion:

 

*School reconfigurations (districts going back to K-8 and/or trying specialized 7-12 or even other formats)

*Charter schools

*Distance education for K-12

*District consolidation

*Efficacy of programs like Teach For America

*Cleveland's transformation plan (including the important upcoming levy)

 

I guess talking about Cleveland's upcoming levy request is as good as any place to start.  The city is asking for a huge increase.  Will it pass?  If it doesn't, how successful can the plan be with limited funding?

I think the academic problems in the Cleveland Municipal School District (CMSD) are largely a cultural and have less to do with bad teachers or lack of funds. From my time working with the school construction project and interacting with principals and teachers it seems like a lack of parental support is at the root of the problem. Parents arent making sure their children study, do homework or even actually attend school! Teachers can only do so much. A lot of education has to start or be reinforced in the home.

 

The question then is how do you get these parents, who in some cases are still kids themselves, to make sure their kids value their education.

 

On the K-8 issue I think the current K-8 elementary schools are a mistake. That said if the district is going to stick with this format they should be building larger buildings so they can consolidate more students and further save money.

On the K-8 issue I think the current K-8 elementary schools are a mistake. That said if the district is going to stick with this format they should be building larger buildings so they can consolidate more students and further save money.

 

I agree with for the most part on your first point so I won't even bother quoting it.

 

On the above point, I don't know.  My gut reaction about K-8 schools was always that they're not a good idea, either.  However in reading some articles about the issue, it seems that there are some potential benefits of such a grade configuration, including community-building, mentoring and support opportunities for middle school-aged students, giving students one less school transition (at a difficult time period, no less), etc.  Additionally some studies have shown that kids in K-8 schools achieve more in the middle school grades than their 6-8 peers, but I don't think there is any conclusive evidence on that.

 

Other urban districts in Ohio have gone the K-8 route, such as the Warren district, and the Cleveland Heights-University Heights district has discussed it as part of their facilities master plan but residents haven't been thrilled with it.  Overall this is a trend that has yet to make much headway in suburban districts, for whatever that piece of information is worth.

I haven't thought about K-8 vs. K-5/6-8 much.  My feeling is that the far more important reforms that need to happen, whether via public or private action, are longer school days and longer school years, though there is strong evidence both for (South Korea) and against (Finland) the <a href="http://www.greatschools.org/students/academic-skills/2427-South-Korean-schools.gs">the latter proposition</a>.  The South Korean primary school system is one of the best in the world and their students go to school about two months more per year than we do.  The Finland school system is competitive with South Korea's, though and the Finns only go to school about two weeks more per year than we do.  Everyone is trying to figure out <a href="http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,2062465,00.html">Finland's secret sauce</a>, and everyone thinks they have the answer and everyone has a different one.

 

As for longer-term changes to the education system, including some driven by potentially transformative technology, I found this TED Talk very intriguing:

 

http://www.ted.com/talks/lang/en/sugata_mitra_the_child_driven_education.html

I don't think the K-8 discussion is an extremely important one, either.  I just find it interesting and there has been some research on the issue.

 

A lot of charter schools have longer school days or even school years and some keep teachers on call well into the evening.  I'm not sure what the data concludes about how this affects student performance (mostly positive, I'd guess), but I have heard/read some things about how it can negatively affect teacher burnout and attrition, which I think has to bring up some questions about whether such a thing is realistic on a large scale.

 

What's going on in Finland is intriguing to me, though I'm not sure it's instructive (i.e. I don't know how much can be repeated in the United States).  From what I understand, they certainly don't spend as much time worrying about standardized testing or teaching to the test, they have a lot of social support for students that need it (meals/medical care), the teaching profession is regarded as being prestigious (and on a number of levels it's treated as such), they don't track kids by ability, but perhaps most important of all, IMO...the population is incredibly homogenous compared to ours.  So I'm not sure how much of their model translates to us, though there are definitely some good ideas there.

 

Thank you for those TED videos, I will check them out as I have not seen them yet.  TED introduced me to education innovators like Sal Khan (and Khan Academy) and many others, but I had not heard of Sugata Mitra. 

I think it is worth noting that the highest ranking public high school in Ohio is Walnut Hills in Cincinnati. Yes, there is a test to get in, but it's just to make sure a student is functioning at grade level. It has a diverse student body, lots of lower income and minority students, and yet it rocks not only the wealthy suburban districts, but also Cleveland and Columbus schools which have a larger pool of students from which to pull good students, so it's not just a numbers game (an argument made by many a suburbanite in Enquirer comments sections).

 

Not that I think this model could be repeated for all inner city districts in the city or the state, but it is proof of principle for high functioning public schools which are not very selective.