I just got a note from Alexander about a shout out to my blog, and I have to say I panicked. I was trying to grab some lunch before I go down to the television station to start blogging about the election... and I haven't put content up in ... hours.
That doesn't mean that I don't have anything to say. On the contrary, it has been meetings practically every day, from Spellings on Friday to The Council on Monday. And we have SBEC on Friday, where it appears they're going to argue whether we need standards at all for teacher training.
Because, of course, teaching is not a skill; it's just a gift like, say, a Yalie in your classroom for two years as a generous public gift or Obama's oratory abilities as he exhorts us to get to the caucuses on Tuesday night. (What is the plural of caucuses? Cauci?)
But let me talk about the teacher incentive pay article in EdWeek. I don't want to miss that one because it is our study that is referenced in the story.
That doesn't mean that I don't have anything to say. On the contrary, it has been meetings practically every day, from Spellings on Friday to The Council on Monday. And we have SBEC on Friday, where it appears they're going to argue whether we need standards at all for teacher training.
Because, of course, teaching is not a skill; it's just a gift like, say, a Yalie in your classroom for two years as a generous public gift or Obama's oratory abilities as he exhorts us to get to the caucuses on Tuesday night. (What is the plural of caucuses? Cauci?)
But let me talk about the teacher incentive pay article in EdWeek. I don't want to miss that one because it is our study that is referenced in the story.
And it is our good friend and fellow Edwonk Chris who was on that study, among others.
Let me dash off a couple of quick poorly formed thoughts here, and I hope I don't sound completely ignorant to those of you who are more familiar with this area.
First, I think I initially was very resistant to this study. We've got a bunch of researchers out of Vanderbilt who are quoting a bunch of incentive-friendly research and then reviewing our program. It just didn't seem extremely balanced to me. I mean, it is called National Center for Performance Incentives, right? We do know their bias.
And, second, I couldn't quite figure out what this study said. I found the executive summary to be so vague that I was uncertain exactly where we were going with this.
And ... there is a third... I was at the NCSL Ed Finance Conference with Allan Odden only a week before this study was released, and I thought a lot of what he said made sense to me. And it is the kind of program, if I understood it correctly, that works in Denver.
The differences are between an incentive pay model and a compensation model. The Vanderbilt study dismisses the compensation model, which is based more heavily on experience, skills and training. The business community says experience-based models -- say, like the Texas teacher salary schedule -- do not reflect how businesses operate. But as one teacher group rep pointed out to me, "Uh, no. That's exactly how most of us are paid in the real world, based on experience."
So, I suppose this Utopian pay model is not intended to be what actually IS in the Real World (say, how I was reviewed and reward in my last TV job) but what we HOPE the world should be. And, I suppose, based on your particular circumstances and the kids in your class, you could have a great big Utopia or a rather paltry Utopia. Just depends.
The point is we never really had the full discussion of which model we should choose. Yes, the teacher groups said there needed to be sufficient pay before we considered incentive pay, (Shout out to TSTA.) but we never discussed it this way, as a choice. Which model makes sense? How can it be structured in a way that performs? What reinforces our values?
I had a long e-mail conversation with Odden and scraped myself off the ceiling. The bottom line is that there were choices that could have been offered on the front-end of this program that weren't. So should I be unhappy that Vanderbilt did this study... Vanderbilt, which has chosen to buy into the model that we are using? Or unhappy that we seem to charge into one choice over the other without fully weighing the benefits of each?
Those are general thoughts. These are specific conclusions that I think many of us who follow Texas policy would understand from the global side of this report:
A second incentive program, called DATE, was rolled out this year. This program encourages a broader range of considerations for incentive pay. It also requires Central Office training and support. I think even teacher groups admit the need for administrator support is key to make incentive pay work, especially when that incentive pay is a year in the making.
Despite everything I just told you about TEEG and DATE, a lobbyist told the state's superintendents that it would be TEEG and not DATE that would be renewed. This had both the superintendents and teachers wondering what's up.
Let me dash off a couple of quick poorly formed thoughts here, and I hope I don't sound completely ignorant to those of you who are more familiar with this area.
First, I think I initially was very resistant to this study. We've got a bunch of researchers out of Vanderbilt who are quoting a bunch of incentive-friendly research and then reviewing our program. It just didn't seem extremely balanced to me. I mean, it is called National Center for Performance Incentives, right? We do know their bias.
And, second, I couldn't quite figure out what this study said. I found the executive summary to be so vague that I was uncertain exactly where we were going with this.
And ... there is a third... I was at the NCSL Ed Finance Conference with Allan Odden only a week before this study was released, and I thought a lot of what he said made sense to me. And it is the kind of program, if I understood it correctly, that works in Denver.
The differences are between an incentive pay model and a compensation model. The Vanderbilt study dismisses the compensation model, which is based more heavily on experience, skills and training. The business community says experience-based models -- say, like the Texas teacher salary schedule -- do not reflect how businesses operate. But as one teacher group rep pointed out to me, "Uh, no. That's exactly how most of us are paid in the real world, based on experience."
So, I suppose this Utopian pay model is not intended to be what actually IS in the Real World (say, how I was reviewed and reward in my last TV job) but what we HOPE the world should be. And, I suppose, based on your particular circumstances and the kids in your class, you could have a great big Utopia or a rather paltry Utopia. Just depends.
The point is we never really had the full discussion of which model we should choose. Yes, the teacher groups said there needed to be sufficient pay before we considered incentive pay, (Shout out to TSTA.) but we never discussed it this way, as a choice. Which model makes sense? How can it be structured in a way that performs? What reinforces our values?
I had a long e-mail conversation with Odden and scraped myself off the ceiling. The bottom line is that there were choices that could have been offered on the front-end of this program that weren't. So should I be unhappy that Vanderbilt did this study... Vanderbilt, which has chosen to buy into the model that we are using? Or unhappy that we seem to charge into one choice over the other without fully weighing the benefits of each?
Those are general thoughts. These are specific conclusions that I think many of us who follow Texas policy would understand from the global side of this report:
- This report measures TEEG. This program was hastily funded and poorly implemented. Schools had, maybe, three weeks to come up with a program. To think we're getting a thoughtful product would be a bit naive and undersells the possibilities for incentive pay.
- Also, in the same vein, administration and rule-making on this program should have been key. In my mind, TEA should have "picked off" the highest-ranking person off the Denver program, offered him/her an obscene amount of money, brought him/her to Texas to run what is touted as the incentive program in the nation and let that person do the job.
Instead, we hired a novice think tank person with no contract experience. Bad idea.
- Barbara Knaggs has said this recently, and so did Odden at the conference: Technical support is key the success of these programs. I remember highlighting, in my notes, Odden's comment that he couldn't conceive of a program without proper technical assistance. And I find it inconceivable, too. Schools, and even districts, don't know the pitfalls on this thing. It's only with expert assistance that things work... and our biggest districts are taking a year to two years to implement their full incentive programs.
- The ability to create incentive pay ought to be a consideration during the overhaul of the state's accountability system. Since we seems so hot to do it. This is simply one of the arguments about making our state accountabilty system and NCLB what I call more three-dimensional (addressing systemic issues) than its current two dimensions (addressing student test scores as the be all and end all of accountability). And, of course, we need to start looking at the ways to encourage teachers to take on tougher classrooms through both incentive pay and support. (Shout out to Ed Trust.)
- Getting any conclusions off preliminary data -- other than the most basic administrative feedback -- is ridiculous. Can you come to a conclusion that teachers stayed because of incentive pay? I think HISD is saying "yes," but I've yet to see that study. Maybe you can define that factors. Other factors? I think it takes a number of solid years.
A second incentive program, called DATE, was rolled out this year. This program encourages a broader range of considerations for incentive pay. It also requires Central Office training and support. I think even teacher groups admit the need for administrator support is key to make incentive pay work, especially when that incentive pay is a year in the making.
Despite everything I just told you about TEEG and DATE, a lobbyist told the state's superintendents that it would be TEEG and not DATE that would be renewed. This had both the superintendents and teachers wondering what's up.
Leave a comment