NEA: Don't Squelch the Debate!

I thought America was all about encouraging vigorous debate on important issues, but I guess not everyone agrees.

At the ABC News presidential debate in Iowa on Sunday morning, we finally began to see what a real debate on education might look like, the kind of debate we've been calling for here at ED in '08. George Stephanopoulos and David Yepsen asked the Democrats where they stand on performance pay for teachers. It was by far the most serious and substantive education question to date, and it provoked nearly nine minutes of good discussion about how to improve schools.

Just as important, it highlighted some real differences among the candidates on an important issue. That's a big, positive step forward in a primary season during which serious education debate has been virtually non-existent. Americans need to start seeing how candidates differ on critical but politically difficult issues. How else can they make informed decisions about how to vote?

But instead of celebrating the dawn of a true education debate, some groups want to end it. For example, the National Education Association released a press statement that seems to imply all the candidates answered the question the exact same way -- they were against it.

Now that's just mystifying to me. Anyone who watched Sunday's debate should have seen a difference of opinion among the candidates. Yes, two candidates came out firmly against it. But when Stephanopoulos said "no one on the stage is for merit pay for teachers," one candidate jumped in to say that he definitely is for it. A second then asked for more time to clarify that he is for performance pay under certain circumstances. And a third offered his own version of performance pay -- providing competitive salaries to compete with fields like engineering for top college students.

That's exactly the kind of education debate we should be having -- and the kind Americans deserve! Implying there was no disagreement on the stage at Drake University is like saying all the candidates agree completely on health care because they all have a plan to do something about it. Detailed debate is essential to democracy, and it hurts the political process to obscure substantive differences among candidates for the highest office in the land.

Maybe the NEA just wasn't watching closely. Maybe they simply missed the point. Or maybe they're just splitting hairs. Let's take a look at the exact words in the release: "Democrats running for president reject any mandatory pay-for-performance schemes as part of the reauthorization of the federal No Child Left Behind Act. The candidates also reject any plan to tie teacher pay to student test scores. The candidates stated their opposition to merit pay during a nationally televised debate in Des Moines, Iowa."

Perhaps the NEA is really just saying candidates are united in their opposition to performance pay if it is based on student test scores. But that still wouldn't track with what I saw on Sunday.

For example, one candidate who stated his support for performance pay said teachers "can't be judged simply on standardized tests that don't take into account whether children are prepared before they get to school or not [...]." To me, the word "simply" means he's against using test scores as the only way to evaluate teacher performance. And the words "don't take into account whether children are prepared" mean he's open to performance pay based on "value-added" gains in student test scores -- a method that takes into account how much students know when they enter a teacher's classroom.

That candidate was very careful on Sunday to say he is only for performance pay plans that get buy-in from teachers. But that is happening in many places across the country. Denver's teacher union led the effort to win support for a new performance-based compensation system for teachers there -- one that includes gains in student test scores as one measure. And just last week the New York Times published a story with the headline, "Teachers Say Yes to Pay Tied to Scores." Just because the national NEA opposes something doesn't mean that teachers in general -- or even their local affiliates -- do too.

I also take exception to the NEA's claim that there's absolutely no research showing that performance-based compensation can improve student achievement. In a December report published by the left-leaning Center for American Progress, the Urban Institute economist Dan Goldhaber summed up, "research on the small amount of experimentation with alternatives to the single-salary schedule [...] generally suggests that teacher pay reform can be an effective way to achieve policy objectives."

Again, maybe the NEA is just being very precise in its language when it says "no scientific evidence," since the word "scientific" is sometimes used to describe experimental studies using control groups. But there's very little evidence of that kind on any issue in education. There's certainly no such experimental evidence to support the NEA's familiar nostrums like uniform pay raises or a minimum wage for teachers.

Let me be clear: We might need to raise teacher salaries to attract the most talented Americans into teaching. But I believe that should be done as part of a comprehensive rethinking of how we compensate teachers -- including their performance and whether they are willing to effectively work in high-need schools or shortage areas like math and science.

With American schools needing to hire 2 million new teachers over the next decade, we should all be discussing how to attract America's best and brightest to teach our students -- presidential candidates included. Let's not squelch that important debate just as it's getting started.

Comments

[VAteacher]

I am a teacher in a high performing school in Northern Virginia and the truth of the matter is that most teachers are not opposed to accountability. We like the idea of having goals and working toward those goals with our students. The problem develops when policy makers craft bills regarding accountability without teacher input. This has happened far too many times and the result is punitive legislation that doesn’t translate into real results in the classroom. I am thankful that NEA is working to ensure that teachers have a place at the table when education policies are discussed. Teachers work with kids every day. We know what they need and how they learn. We know how to measure student progress in a fair and meaningful way. Teachers are an asset in this debate and it is time for their voices to be heard.

[Sinclair]

Performance pay for teachers is one of those ideas that sounds great in theory but, then when you go about seeing how it is implemented, you realize that it leaves a lot to be desired.

In my observation it depends on who is doing the evaluations. Generally speaking, it seems that the teachers who possess a great talent for flattering, sucking up, and kissing the asses of the evaluators (usually the school principal) will make out like bandits, irrelevent of what the students learn.

I've also heard of a rural school district where all of the merit pay was awarded to teachers who just happened to belong to the same church as the evaulator.

This is what happens in the real world and why merit pay for teachers doesn't work.

[maidinlouisiana]

Thank you Sinclair. You are one of the few on this blog who "gets it". Merit pay sounds great, but it is so subjective that good teachers are not always rewarded...those who play the "popularity" pool are the winners, and maybe they are good and maybe they are NOT! You stated this position very clearly. Other professions would not want to be under this plan, but somehow they think teachers are too dumb to see through the plan. Actually, it's a way to MAKE teachers teach whatever it is that the "elite" want ( those in power and running the schools and towns morals). If my pay depended upon teaching things I did not believe or agree with, then I would swallow my pride, teach it, learn to hate those who made me do it, and begin a plan to leave the morons who subjected me to that indignity with all due haste.

[SOZOMAN]

The N.E.A. is the problem. They are so Hell Bent on shoving the "THEORY OF EVOLUTION" down our kids throats to destroy all beliefs in God, that they say doesn't exist, that they are to busy to educate. They are pushing their own liberal, godless agenda on our kids, which leaves little room to educate our kids,as in the past. The schools in America are turning out students who can't read, write or LEARN. WHY? THE TEACHERS ARE SERIOUSLY DEFICIENT & The parents don't give a damn, so why should the teacher? Money is not the answer. What's the answer? Teachers can't teach something they don't know. I am not indicting "EVERY" teacher. I once saw an ENTRANCE Exam to get into High School from 1933! College professors were asked to evaluate it. It was the equalivent of an end of the year test for a sophmore in 'COLLEGE". We've come a long way baby, [downward]! THIS IS THE DUMBING DOWN OF AMERICA! THANK YOU FAR LEFT! The N.E.A. Making "US" all equal! All IGNORANT!

[splashy]

What is missing from the discussion is what happened back in the 90's that brought down the test scores. There were thousands of LD (learning disabled) children that were mainstreamed into public schools in order to help them learn how to act more "normal" so they would grow up to be more accepted in society.

It wasn't long before the right wingers started screaming about the average test scores going down and that the teachers weren't doing enough. Unfortunately for the teachers, they suddenly had children in class that took more time and effort to teach them. If the class sizes were reduced, those teachers could have possibly coped, but they weren't.

It takes extra training to learn how to help LD children to learn, since they are all different with differing issues. Most of these teachers did not have that training.

But, the right wingers IGNORE all that and scream about how the public schools are failing, when in reality the composition of the students have been changed. The LD students used to be segregated from the "normal" students, so didn't influence the scores.

In reality, there is NOTHING WRONG with the public schools. This is just a scam to funnel money to the private schools, many of them religious. First they will try "merit pay" which won't work, because the poor teachers are dealing with children that may NEVER be able to perform like the others. When that doesn't work, then they will push for vouchers and private schools. It's a long term scheme to get more money from the public taxes into corporations' pockets.

You can pretty much figure that ANYTHING put forth by the right wingers has that end goal - killing social programs and gaining profit while hurting the working people. They want to have everything run by corporations, and no common good social infrastructure at all, because then THEY will own everything.

[mick3]

Not a word about the home conditions of students. Some are regularly physically and/or psychologically abused, some have alcoholism in the home, some are chronically hungry, some have unaddressed physical problems. And yet all students are supposed to enter a school ready to sit (often painfully or sick) all day in a room and to learn things there. And if they just sit there, stunned, possibly already exhausted on arrival, they're considered recalcitrant or mentally incapable. Such children should be in special classes where they are given more attention (and food, for pity's sake). US society it barbaric to the core (see our prisons), and until true empathy and interest enter into the equation, teachers will be overburdened by society's failings.

[Dansden]

What saddens and alarms me is that:
THERE HAVE BEEN ONLY 17 COMMENTS IN REGARDS TO THIS MOST VITAL ISSUE OF OUR GENERATION­:EDUCATION­!

My youngest son is presntly beginning his 2nd year as a High School Principal in an academically and educationally acknowledged superior SW KS Independent School District. He has served previously as Teacher in SW KS in 3 school districts in 14 years prior to being selected as Principal of this outstanding school system. He has taught history, Psych, Advanced Studies, Coach of High School Girl's basketball. My son was not aware of the Principal position being available in this school that he had coached against for 10 years. In two years previous he served as Girl's Coach basketball; Assnt Principal @ 1A High School and Co-Principal @ the Elementary School while completing his master's of Education. His present School Superintendent, formerly the Principal where my son now works, called him personally to make him aware of the Principal position that they had open. At that time 35 educators had already applied for that Principal position before my son even knew about it. He sent in his resume' at my insistence and his reluctance because he loves COACHING! He was notified that he was in the top 3 candidates when they received his resume'.
I forgot to mention that at a previous school he was voted by the Senior Class to be their commencement speaker even though the Superintendent had already selected their commencement speaker. The senior class went to the School Board with a petition, at NO encouragement from my son, to request him to be their commencement speaker.
My point is:
teachers who care and reflect genuine leadership credentials will be selected to lead those schools where EDUCATION IS MORE IMPORTANT THAN POLITICAL OR RELIGIOUS PARTISANSHIP,
WHERE INTEGRITY /FAIRNESS IS MORE IMPORTANT THAT PERSONAL OR PRIVATE AGENDAS OF SCHOOL BOARD MEMBERS/PARENTS OR COMMUNITY LEADERS and
WHERE STUDENT'S EDUCATION IS MORE IMPORTANT THAN A TEACHER'S EGO and
WHERE A SCHOOL BOARD'S INTEGRITY IS MORE IMPORTANT THAN A WEALTHY PATRON'S PRIVATE AND PERSONAL AGENDA AND INFLUENCE!

[Troubledgoodangel]

If you are a sincere American and a good teacher with credentials, but you are a practicing Christian believing in moral values, chances are that the NEA will withhold your Teacher Certification. Spooked? Then don't read! I know that my letter will be ignored and relegated to the dustbin of history: I have been there! So why do I keep writing after 28 years of disappointments? Perhaps for the sake of the children of our Nation, for those born and not yet born. I just want to protest, one more time, even though I know that I am wasting my breath. I went up to the Supreme Court wasting all my savings in the process, to protest the banishment of good teachers by the educational establishment. I lost the lawsuit after professors and their lawyers accused me of "being a threat to the children of Alaska," only because they needed to win against mey moral stances at all cost. They found me "threatening" because I protested the moral relativism that was rampant in the 80's: I wanted more exposure of children to religion, and less to homosexuality and pornography. That was a mortal threat to the teaching establishment! The NEA would not have it. "You will never be a teacher," I was told. And here I am, still wasting my time 15 years later, in hope that America is ready to listen ... now that she needs two million teachers in a hurry. Why is morality and the search for excellence so scary to the NEA? I hope that someone from their ranks read this, and answers my question.

[maidinlouisiana]

It seems that NO ONE ever made you understand that the United States has separation of church and state. Public schools are built and supported by state and federal funds...therefore, they CANNOT teach religion. If you want your children taught a religion, then home school them or send them to a religious school of your denomination. As a parent, you should be teaching your child your beliefs about God and any of the other subjects you listed above...that is NOT public education's job. A public education is designed to educate the populace in subject areas where the students can make a better life for themselves and their families. Religion is personal to people, and there are probably thousands of religions around the world. How could public schools possibly teach ALL of these? To teach just ONE religion would make public education a religious school.

Again, public schools teach ALL children and do not discriminate against race, religion, sexual orientation, nationality, or physical and mental handicaps. THEY DO NOT TEACH RELIGIOUS DOGMA. However, they DO teach morals, because when you have large groups in society, you must have certain moral values in order for the group to exist...i.e., being polite, respecting others, not stealing or robbing, etc.

I don't know who told you you could not be a teacher, but I suspect they were right...you seem to be a wrong-way Corrigan with blinders on. I don't think you could respect and honor the diversity of every child.

[Catguy]

Merit pay sounds fair, but here is a problem with it of which I have direct experience. I teach seventh-graders in inner-city Los Angeles. Most of these kids have been "socially promoted" - that is, they have been passed to the next grade even though they have failed in the the previous one. For many of them, this has gone on for several years. On standardized skills tests, a significant majority of these kids will register as "below basic" or "far below basic". I've had to re-write the seventh-grade history book in order to make the information in it accessible. By passing them when they know they have failed, our district has sent them the clear message that their education really doesn't matter.

These children have, by the school district, been put in a situation in which their success is extremely unlikely, and in some cases impossible. To tie my pay to their success is ridiculous. The idea reminds me of when the Khmer Rouge took the teachers to the rice fields and said "You're so educated - make the rice grow faster or we will kill you." The result? A lot of dead teachers.

[rev evil]

Merit pay based on multiple factor, complex formula would probably work as long as the base pay was enough to bring the brightest and best teachers into the system. However, this debate on a national level will more than likely bring a over-simplified counter productive system in that will reward administrators greatly and create disincentives for actual performance. For proof please look at the Department of Homeland Security, FEMA devision.

My kids have had great teachers and lousy teachers. The worst have been those that have followed the "standard" curriculum to the point where they defend their actions at meetings with principals and parents by showing them that they follow the approved script and it must be my child's fault for being bored. The best have been creative, witty and have challenged my kids to excel. A simple formula, such as test scores or single principle visits would reward the worst teachers and administrators. Trying to simplify this complex equation is a bad idea, as bad as the NEAs knee jerk reaction.

[maidinlouisiana]

NEA is not having a "knee-jerk" reaction...the idea of merit pay has been around since Noah landed his ark! This is NOT a new theme to NEA. NEA is a union of American teachers banded together to improve public education.

It seems that many of you who are not in education think that NEA's sole purpose is just to get salaries raised. NEA is the major back-bone of legislation over the years that has made American public schools function as well as they do. Stop and consider...we educate EVERY child, regardless of race, religion, nationality, physical or mental handicap...even those with crazy parents! What other country does this?

[Sted]

Being a semi-retired public high school history teacher I get a real "kick" reading all of the pundits who praise performance- based pay for America's school teachers.

All of them, down to the most local of pundits, are blind to one salient fact. That fact is that our American public school is the biggest political patronage machine in the history of the US and even the world. It is not what you know or how effective you are in challenging and engaging young people. The overwhelming plurality of teaching positions are filled on the basis of, how many votes can you secure on the local board of education. If you have a majority of votes you will be hired. One will move up the educational ladder as long as one keeps their majority.
AND the process is even more political for administrative positions, not to even mention coaching, extra-curricular and co-curricular positions.
For example, Why do you think so many females are recommended by public school administrators for teaching positions. Is it because said administrators believe that females would make the better educators, especially at the elementary level. NO! I hate to disabuse anyone of that thought but the real reason is that most administrators feel female teachers are less likely to challenge the administrators' authority. That the female teachers will focus so much of their attention, energy and empathy on their charges that they will not truly focus on administrative issues.
Merit pay for outstanding teaching. Hah!
The merit pay would go to the board of education sycophants and toadies. And you can take what I write to the bank!

[alijean]

When was the last time you were in an Elementary school? Testing alone is not an accurate assessment of a teacher's nor a students competence. There are so many factors missing from the equation. My kids spend 90% of there instructional time preparing for tests. Kids get stressed out just a the thought of taking a test. How can they enjoy learning, if all they learn is how to fill in a bubble?

[dchavern]

If you don't have differentiated merit pay then you have to have a much easier means of getting rid of poor teachers. It is one or the other. There needs to be some way of holding folks accountable for their performance, just like in my job and most others.

I understand that the only thing the NEA will accept are high pay, high benefits jobs that carry absolutely risk to the people that hold them. Wouldn't everyone! But the reality is that the NEA's attitude in this is effectively holding the profession back. No one should expect big increases in pay without much larger expectations on accountability. In the absence of more accountability, there will never be broader political support for a much improved economic deal for teachers.

Like most other unions, the NEA has viewed its mandate as protecting the current economic interests of its existing membership --"Prevent Defense". And like other unions, the NEA is also undermining the long-term interests of the profession they claim to represent.

If the Democratic candidates for President are held hostage to the demands of the NEA in education reform -- because of money and political support -- then we should expect no improvement in either the economic environment for teachers or the general performance of our public schools.

[Marc Lampkin]

I'm impressed by the energy around this issue - I do want to clarify a few things though, as I’m afraid some readers have interpreted my ideas of "performance pay" somewhat narrowly.

Historically, so-called "merit pay" programs were viewed as unfair because of the measures they used. Some programs rewarded teachers based only on end of the year test scores, and some were based on a single classroom visit by the principal. Teachers were justifiably concerned about unfairness and bias.

That’s not what we’re talking about. Modern performance pay systems are very different. They look at gains in student achievement, not just one test at the end of the year. And a lot of programs use multiple measures, including as classroom evaluations – but not just a quickie visit from the principal. The TAP program has administrators and master and mentor teachers conduct multiple classroom evaluations based on a clear framework called the Teaching Skills, Knowledge, and Responsibility Performance Standards. The master and mentor teachers are constantly working with their colleagues to provide feedback and advice to help them improve.

You can read more about our thoughts on this issue here: http://www.edin08.com/Issues.aspx?id=74

[JustAnotherJoe]

Way to go Jjc2006. I worked in a school full of teachers like you! It was fantastic.

"We might need to raise teacher salaries to attract the most talented Americans into teaching" Might? Might?! The teachers aren’t even getting baby sitting wages. What’s a sitter go for these days - $12 an hour? Those who impart no learning whatsoever should at least get babysitting wages. Let’s see in a typical junior high school, teachers see about 30 kids per class and teach 6 classes per day. That’s 180 kids a day, which means they should get $2160 per day, right? Or for a 185 day school year $399,600! OK? Now, take out about 250k per teacher (in a school of 50 of them that’s a cool 12.5 mil a year) to pay for the school admins, secretaries, nurse, cafeteria workers, bus drivers and bus payments, electric bill, and building. You think you won’t have people fighting to get into the profession then?

Starting teaching salaries are competitive (about 40K a year where I live) with other fields, but don't remain so. Keeping effective, experienced people in education is perhaps more of a challenge than attracting them to the profession in the first place. The career path in education is upside down. Most teachers who show leadership abilities and do well on their yearly teacher appraisals are encouraged to get into administration where the salaries are higher. They should stay in the classroom!

Also, if you look at a typical district’s salary scale, usually only 10K separates those with 20 years of experience from those with none. Those with 40 years typically earn about 20K more than starting teachers. Also, teachers in my area of the country typically pay insurance premiums of over $500 a month (with an outrageously high deductable of $1500) for a family and don’t have districts matching 401k contributions.

We can spend billions on missile defense systems that don’t work for threats that don’t exist, but we can’t even get teachers a decent compensation package.

So it goes.

[lulabellpetunia]

Or maybe all the candidates are just making things up as they go along, not really running for themselves, but thinking about how to help the Party by evaluating different types of audience responses, and generating real-time marketing data.

Party strategists don't need to wait for polls to be conducted and results compiled by "unbiased" journalists who study such debates: plenty of people write blogs and take all sorts of miscellaneous surveys that pop up in MySpace ads. With the money these "candidates" bring in, they can do their own research, define and present the statistics however they see fit. Kind of like how local schools distort their statistics to accommodate "No Child Left Behind."

What I really don't understand about incentivised education is this: the ideology is premised on the assumptions that:

1) competition breeds innovation
2) our schools need innovation
3) innovation can be measured as "progress" statistically

But why do we want competition among entities that are supposed to be standardized? You've taken standardized tests, no? Henry Ford? It doesn't quite make sense to me how this is in the interest of the public good.

Maybe this is more of a problem for "No Child Left Behind" than it is for incentivized education in general. I guess it's a matter of who benefits from the incentives and whether the methods used to evaluate performance are valid.

But I'm generally concerned about the potential of making an economic commodity out of knowledge. If "knowledge" is "true justified belief" (as many people are taught in Philosophy classes, a definition over which statisticians seek to lord with their dark arts), competition in such a commodity market means that producers will select among multiple sources of justification, according to whichever yields the greatest return on investment. In such an environment, incentivizing education runs the risk of simply outsourcing certain ethical considerations that ought to be discussed more openly and directly now more than ever. Not to mention creating a whole new market for oligarchs to manipulate wholesale.