In some ways, it looks like charter schools are delivering on their promise to innovate when it comes to merit pay for teachers. Economist Michael Podgursky’s analysis of data from the U.S. Department of Educations suggests that charter schools are more likely to pay extra for particular skills or qualifications than are traditional public schools. Thirty- eight percent of charters offer teachers incentives or bonuses for “excellence in teaching,” compared to only six percent of traditional public schools.
Charter schools are also more likely to offer extra incentives for teachers with hard-to-find skills or working in hard-to-hire subjects like science and math. Even though 62% of charters are still using traditional salary schedules, they do not work in the same way that they do in traditional public schools, because of the absence of teacher tenure. Charter schools are more likely to dismiss teachers early in their careers, and if these dismissals are due to poor performance, charter school salary schedules may, in effect, reward both experience and performance. However, charter schools could do even better when it comes to performance pay. Only 35% of them use merit incentives, and a low 15 % use subject-area incentives. It seems that state policy and institutional context constrain non-traditional approaches toward compensation. So, for charter schools, the challenge is to overcome traditional thinking and make full use of their autonomy to attract and retain the highest-quality teachers. For policymakers, the challenge is to make sure that laws and regulatory environments support innovation.
I have always wondering what it is like to get paid the same as others, when you do more work and harder work. I have two children, and I know they can be wonderful and sweet, and exhausting and frustrating. I can only imagine what it is like to be surrounded by dozens of them. Initially, I am sure teachers enter the profession because it is an underlying passion of theirs. Eventually, there may be teachers who are burnt out and not willing to try as hard as they used to, but on the contrary, there will be those teachers who keep working hard day after day, looking for the special tricks that work. I feel those teachers should be rewarded! The teachers who are more productive in educating the children should be rewarded for their efforts.
The teacher unions seem to fight this plan relentlessly, but I ask myself why? Is it because some of them realize they will have to work harder for their keep or do they fear their coworkers will make more than them?
An article in the Columbia Tribune discusses Republican gubernatorial candidate Kenny Hulshof's plan to increase salaries for science and math teachers. In a way, this coincides with merit pay (in a skewed sense), but it strives to accomplish the same goals. The plan is to pay $15,000 bonuses to new science and math teachers, in hopes to entice more people to enter those areas.
Hulshof's plan sets a goal of getting 1,500 new teachers into Missouri math and science classrooms over five years by paying them a gradually increasing annual bonus.
Hulshof describes his own proposal as building upon a 2007 law sponsored by Democratic state Sen. Jeff Smith, of St. Louis, which offers up to $21,000 over five years to new teachers who go to work in unaccredited districts, such as the St. Louis School District.
Although Hulshof's plan would reserve 150 subsidized math and science slots for such districts, the rest of the bonuses could go to teachers anywhere in the state.
Missouri officials have sought for several years to place a greater emphasis on math and science, with an eye toward building a work force for technology-based businesses.
Gov. Matt Blunt organized a summit on the subject in April 2006 and subsequently appointed a panel that recommended ways of getting more youths interested in careers in the math and science fields.
Earlier this year, a House committee endorsed a bill that would have offered a $5,000 bonus to math and science teachers hired by school districts that lack full state accreditation or are financially poor because low property values have held down their tax revenues. But that plan, which was part of a larger package intended to boost teacher salaries, never cleared the House.
Blunt approved an audit of the Jennings School District after over two years of serious concerns with the ‘fiscal and administrative mismanagement.’
The north county district is just one of many schools throughout Missouri that have increased spending while test scores fall. And unfortunately, in many cases, these funds are not being used for student benefit at all.
For example, the former Jennings superintendent Kay Royster spent almost $1 million extra on administrators and $1.5 million more on a Palm Pilot program that has yet to actually be implemented. The district then wasted another $230,000 to buy out Royster’s remaining contract for her termination.
This state audit is at least a step toward bringing the much-needed transparency and accountability to the blatant mismanagement of resources that is unfortunately severely crippling many of our public schools.
This uncovering is a shining example of cutting unnecessary costs without demanding more money or effecting education quality.
I have children and for some time, I chose to stay home with them. Once I decided to return to work, I chose a nanny over a childcare setting. I have my personal reasons for this, but my point is, I chose. Now, I know not every mother (or father) has the means to make these decisions, but I fortunately did. I am happy I had those choices for my children. Once my children enter school, I will have the choice to send them to the pricey private school or I can chose to send them to the public school down the road, which happens to be a very good school. What if I were the parent on the other side of town, without the resources to chose private, forced to send my children to the public school that has record low grades? How would I feel? Frustrated and angry that parents on the other side of town can still get a free education but it is better, much better? Annoyed that the school in my neighborhood is ranked below all the others? Yes. Now, is that fair?
The Wall Street Journal posted a piece, The Greatest Scandal, about the presidential candidates and their views on educational choices. There were several strong arguments I would like to share.
The profound failure of inner-city public schools to teach children may be the nation's greatest scandal. The differences between the two Presidential candidates on this could hardly be more stark. John McCain is calling for alternatives to the system; Barack Obama wants the kids to stay within that system. We think the facts support Senator McCain.
"Parents ask only for schools that are safe, teachers who are competent and diplomas that open doors of opportunity," said Mr. McCain in remarks recently to the NAACP. "When a public system fails, repeatedly, to meet these minimal objectives, parents ask only for a choice in the education of their children." Some parents may opt for a better public school or a charter school; others for a private school. The point, said the Senator, is that "no entrenched bureaucracy or union should deny parents that choice and children that opportunity."
Mr. McCain cited the Washington, D.C., Opportunity Scholarship Program, a federally financed school-choice program for disadvantaged kids signed into law by President Bush in 2004. Qualifying families in the District of Columbia receive up to $7,500 a year to attend private K-12 schools. To qualify, a child must live in a family with a household income below 185% of the poverty level. Some 1,900 children participate; 99% are black or Hispanic. Average annual income is just over $22,000 for a family of four.
A recent Department of Education report found nearly 90% of participants in the D.C. program have higher reading scores than peers who didn't receive a scholarship. There are five applicants for every opening....
Congressional Democrats have refused to reauthorize the D.C. voucher program and are threatening to kill it. Last month, Philadelphia's school reform commission voted to seize six schools from outside managers, including four from Edison. In L.A., local school board members oppose the expansion of charters even though seven in 10 charters in the district outperform their neighborhood peers.
It's well known that the force calling the Democratic tune here is the teachers unions. Earlier this month, Senator Obama accepted the endorsement of the National Education Association, the largest teachers union. Speaking recently before the American Federation of Teachers, he described the alternative efforts as "tired rhetoric about vouchers and school choice."...
Mr. Obama told an interviewer recently that he opposes school choice because, "although it might benefit some kids at the top, what you're going to do is leave a lot of kids at the bottom." The Illinois Senator has it exactly backward. Those at the top don't need voucher programs and they already exercise school choice. They can afford exclusive private schools, or they can afford to live in a neighborhood with decent public schools. The point of providing educational options is to extend this freedom to the "kids at the bottom."...
My point exactly! I already have choices, but the children on the other side of town do not. We are in the position to give those children and their parents choices. What are we waiting for? Are the teachers unions that strong? Parents need to fight for their children and overcome the strength of the unions.
“Choice” is too often the last word parents associate with their child’s education. The truth is that there are many school options in
Magnet schools are another option though the SLPS district. These schools have no geographic boundaries and offer unique curriculum. For acceptance to a magnet school, families must apply and are then chosen by a lottery system. Early childhood and elementary have 12 schools specializing in math-science-technology, international studies, visual/performing arts, gifted education or general academics. The 12 middle and high schools offer similar special programs plus a military academy.
Charter schools are independent public school alternatives created by teachers, parents or citizens with a common education mission. Charter schools enrolled 10, 342 in their 22
Inter-district voluntary transfer programs have offered thousands of African-American students from failing public schools in the city the opportunity to attend public schools in the county. The Voluntary Inter-district Choice Corporation (VICC) possesses the related application and information. The county school available depends on the specific location of the city student.
K-12 Virtual schools are a SLPS effort that began in the 2007-08 school year. Courses are offered using web-based methods as a form of distance learning. Interested families must submit an application—which are available online.
Technical and Career Academies are open to city students. Imagine
Catholic and Lutheran Private Schools provide another option. These religiously affiliated schools are located throughout the city, however they require tuition payments. The Today and Tomorrow Education Foundation offers scholarships for city families in need and are currently accepting applications.
Independent Private Schools also offer a non-public tuition education, however theses schools do not have religious ties. Interested parents should apply at the specific school.
Homeschool is yet another education option. Parents may choose to teach their children at home based on state laws. Homeschool families can often receive support from different religious and secular organizations.
The $12 million raised by TTEF was 6 times last year’s funds! This is extremely encouraging growth. The $2,000 private scholarships that will be given to 600 students will undoubtedly have a significant positive impact on these struggling families and the city, while preventing the closing of successful private schools.
Currently, there are 18 Catholic, six Lutheran, six Christian and four private schools to choose from. Parents should have this constitutional right of choice—in the face of continually failing public schools—despite their economic situation.
Thanks to the donations from the Sinquefield Family Foundation, the Lay Family Foundation, Eugene and Evie Williams and Emerson Technology Company, local children will receive the education they deserve and concerned parents can finally shake the sense of helplessness they have come to know all to well.
However, most importantly, TTEF growth will begin to force a vital change to the current failing status-quo of the public school system.
*Information from: http://www.stltoday.com/stltoday/news/stories.nsf/education/story/BF496B7C2F792273862574410012B616?OpenDocument
The superintendent of Springfield, Norm Ridder recently met with Rex Sinquefield, a school choice advocate. Many people know Rex as someone who cares deeply about the children in the state of Missouri and their education. Although some people may have negative feelings about him, they must just be uninformed. He is working so hard to help fix the troubled public school system in our state. A retired business man, is using his money and his time to do something constructive for the children. While he may face opposition, mainly coming from the teachers unions, his ideas may be reaching some. Norm Ridder, who has previously worked in districts with some form of choice, realizes Sinquefield has a business intelligence that has some merit. Ridder says "What's to gain? A lot. What's to lose? Nothing."
According to KSMU Online "Ridder says he had a fruitful conversation with Sinquefield about how to bring more talented people into teaching. Ridder says it’s possible he’ll meet with Sinquefield again."
Finally, people in the public education sector are opening themselves up to Sinquefield's ideas. Although Ridder may not be completely sold on the school choice idea, he at least acknowledges something has got to give. While many think we should simply keep on going with our schools the way they are, many others, myself included, know big changes need to be made if we want to see the improvement we all hopefully want. Of course, it may be hard for people all over Missouri to understand the devastation some of the schools face when their schools are great. But what about the horrible schools, what about the schools that are deemed unaccredited? I know I would never want my children to attend those schools.
I thank Ridder for being open and I thank Sinquefield for trying to create changes here.
Last night I spoke with a woman whose friend (we’ll call her Bonnie) was in her final year of teaching special education.
Before Bonnie retired, another special ed. teacher moved into the area and the school hired her to take Bonnie’s position, knowing she’d be leaving the next year. They moved Bonnie to a classroom with severely disabled children, some with behavioral disorders, most of her class was non-verbal and many needed physical assistance throughout the day.
Bonnie was qualified to teach them. She knew how to work on communication skills and understanding and behavior, but she felt completely unable to handle the physical side, which was very important. She was an older woman and physically could not restrain children or lift those children who needed help getting to the restroom.
This wasn't at all fair to her as a teacher or to the students who needed that assistance but weren't receiving it--or as much as they needed--through no fault of the teacher.
House and Senate Democrats in Missouri are saying that instead of giving students with disabilities a choice to find a school that truly helps them, we should just pay for more teacher training, but Bonnie's experience is exactly why that approach would not work. She is not going to be able to receive training in her last year of teaching, not to mention her obstacle is not teaching--it's the lack of an assistant like many private facilities have who is able to care for students physically.
Students who are not getting that kind of essential service should have the right to transfer immediately out of a situation that is not working, rather than wait, losing precious developmental years, while the state trains their teacher.
Teachers should have the right to work in an environment they're comfortable with, and relieving schools from the burden of having to educate every student whether they have the capacity to or not it the way to do it.
The Turner Report says that public schools cannot turn around low graduation rates on their own, citing problems at Joplin public schools. By now, with statistics that over one million kids are dropping out, we have an obvious problem that can’t be ignored and isn’t going away. If we’ve ever turned away from this issue, or tucked it under a rug, that luxury is gone. It’s far too big to ignore and our schools need critical attention, and as the Turner Report notes, we have to do everything in our power to keep them in school.
Oh, except extending more choice to students. That would be going too far. The blog brings up the staggering problem, then immediately takes swings at the idea of school choice that many believe will offer some relief for the students who are in danger of failing.
It is not “ridiculous” to believe that offering more choices in education will help improve graduation, because it has already happened in other states that have passed legislation providing more educational options. And while there are many factors that keep children from succeeding, and they take a community effort, helping children get paired with the right education environment is one part of that effort.
I think that having a seamless support network that catches children before they slip through the cracks—or drop out—is a huge part of the solution. As a community, however, we have an obligation to make choices more plentiful for the next generation; help them be more likely to succeed. The current Missouri legislation aimed at giving more choices to special needs children is neither taxpayer funded nor detrimental to public schools, but it can give students with special needs the connection to a service that will help them learn.
Ignoring the potential benefit that school choice programs can have to combat the staggering dropout rate is painfully short-sighted. Deciding to forgo even the discussion that school-choice proponents are generating flies in the face of “doing everything we can to keep students in school.” I don’t think we can afford to not give it our all when so many children’s futures are at stake.
I’ve been giggling lately at how often we use computer metaphors. I try to imagine someone from another century trying to understand what “reboot the system” might mean. That’s exactly what some Georgians want for their state’s character program.
Georgia has been implementing a character-building curriculum called Character First! Since 2000, but there is a public outcry that the program is not going the distance. Critics say the push for character stops at the doors of some schools, and that the programs aren’t being followed through with in the classrooms.
It seems from the quotes in the Augusta chronicle that character building gets an initial, emotional response, but the pressure to sustain that momentum is quick to die away. It’s easy to see how the pressure of test scores and evaluated programs can usurp something vague and unable to be tested like “character”.
Tony Warenzak from Richmond County is offering his own model that he hopes to bring into schools in a much more meaningful, long-lasting way.
"For us, character is more than just a word on a marquee. It's a way of life. It's a paradigm that everybody buys into, with one voice."
There is more than just an epidemic of bullying in schools at stake when children learn values like respect, fairness, honesty and compassion. These are the seeds of the inheritors of our democracy, and to sustain it (let alone make it greater) requires a view that looks beyond one’s individual needs and wants and sees a greater good, a society that benefits from honesty, a neighbor who benefits from compassion, or a business that thrives because of an employer’s fairness.
Making a program, however, that instills good character traits is not as simple as planting a seed or passing a test. I particularly like Mr. Warenzak’s “inside out” approach of letting classrooms and teachers and schools develop their own words and ways of conveying them—a way to own the process as children will eventually be responsible to their communities and actions therein.
In the end, character building programs do not really build character—only people can do that. And there are times to be meek or defer to an adult, and there are times when we should stand up for ourselves or someone else. It can, though, help kids recognize when they have a choice between something right or wrong. That is until they go to college and take a class on moral relativism.
