Editorial Facts and Common Sense: Plan B Less Money for Teachers?

"How do you fill a $55.6 million hole in your grand strategy to reshape the education world?

It's a good question, but not an insoluble one. The answer will require the help of all the people who have brought the district this far in the process. The Tulsa philanthropic community will be called on for bigger donations. The state will need to give more, too. The teachers' union may need to consider taking a bit less. The district will have to scour its budget looking for other ways to reallocate the tax resources it has."--Tulsa World Editorial

The Tulsa School District found out it was not one of the schools selected for foundation money from Bill Gates. These excerpts from the world let you know how difficult it is to put these plans in place. There isn't enough money to do this kind of plan so the "teacher;s union" needs to take less.

Another broken promise in the performance pay debate. This isn't unusual. Performance pay plans fail because there is never enough money as they collapse under their own weight. Teacher's "buy in" to a program while changing aspects of their bargained contract. What do they get for it--broken promises and a weaker contract. It takes money to fund these programs and Tulsa has its work cut out for it to fund what they wanted to do.

2009 RA Sights & Sounds--Anthony Mullen, Teacher of the Year

"America's teachers and education support professionals live in very challenging and stressful times. Incredibly, many of the nation's economic problems are now directed at unions. We have become easy targets for some misguided government officials, economists, and media talking heads who believe it is time for us to give back and to share the pain. Well, teachers and education support professionals have burdened the pain of being underpaid and overworked for too long.

And since we have been given very little, we have nothing to give back. Teachers did not leave their classrooms and abandon children when the best deal in town was to work in the financial services sector. We did not join the legions of people that became wealthy by sitting in front of a computer and selling stocks and managing hedge funds. We did not envy friends and neighbors who prospered during the 1980s and 1990s and bought McMansions and took trips to Bali. No, we stayed with our students because we believe that education and our nation's children are too valuable to be abandoned for a new sports car. So we accepted our meager raises. We worked harder to narrow the achievement gap and did more with less to help our nation prosper. And now, some of the very same people who once asked me how I could live on a teacher's salary, are now asking me what I can do to help the economy. What my union is going to do to help the economy.

And I tell these people two things: One, teachers did not crash the economy. Greed and corruption by people entrusted with our country's financial health collapsed the economy.

And two, unions are helping to recover the economy by protecting the rights of their members. Unions are making sure that what has made our country great, the middle class, will not be sacrificed for the decadence of Wall Street."--Anthony Mullen, 2009 National Teacher of the Year

2009 RA Sights & Sounds--Arne Duncan

"The President and I have both said repeatedly that we are not going to impose reform but rather work with teachers, principals, and unions to find what works."-Secretary of Education Arne Duncan

Live Debate on Education and the Next President

While education hasn't received the attention as other domestic issues, both candidates have addressed some of their beliefs about my profession. Here is your opportunity to learn more about what education would be like in either an Obama or McCain presidency.

Education and the Election
Two must-see events on edweek.org
Live Debate: Education and the Next President
Exclusive webcast, Tuesday, October 21, 7 p.m. to 8:30 p.m. Eastern time
Live from Teachers College, Columbia University: "Education and the Next President," a debate between Linda Darling-Hammond, education adviser to Democratic nominee Barack Obama, and Lisa Graham Keegan, education adviser to Republican nominee John McCain.
Register now to watch the live debate.

Do You Believe In Me?-Dallas ISD Opening Speech

This is the essence of what teaching is all about. There are so many great parts in this presentation. One of my favorites is "You better not give up, because as you know, in some cases you're all we've got."

How do you measure that on a standardized test. How do you reward "not giving up" with merit pay?

Merit Pay/Pay for Test Scores: Understanding What Works

If you haven’t read any of Wayne Greene’s editorials on merit pay for teachers, you’re missing out on some great analogies and humorous pieces. Teachers and schools have a supporter in Mr. Greene and the Tulsa World. Make sure you read his work and check out the Tulsa World newspaper too.

Thank you Mr. Greene!

OEA Press Release on Merit Pay/Pay For Test Scores

Promised Base Pay before Merit Pay

OKC – The Oklahoma Education Association was both encouraged and concerned with Speaker Lance Cargill’s announcement yesterday of his plans for a merit pay system for Oklahoma teachers.

“We have always said we are open to discussing merit pay if it is available to all teachers and is fair and properly funded,” said OEA President Roy Bishop. “But before we do anything like that, we have to get our base pay right.

“Governor Henry got it right yesterday when he announced a plan to give teachers an average $1,200 to get Oklahoma teachers to the regional average. The governor and the legislature made a promise four years ago to raise teacher pay to the regional average by 2008, and he is making good on that promise.”

The OEA has a long history of taking a pro-active look at alternative pay plans, including the Association’s proposed Accomplished Teacher Project in 2002, a proposal that did not receive legislative funding. Last April, OEA members approved a list of principles they believe are needed in any proposed pay-for-performance plan. The Association was excited to hear many of those principles repeated in the speaker’s proposal.

“As for Speaker Cargill’s plan, we are encouraged that it requires teacher input into the development of the local plan, includes a professional development component, and allows for both teachers and support professionals to qualify for any proposed performance pay,” Bishop said.

However, Bishop was quick to point out that the Speaker’s plan would be very expensive to districts already strapped for funding. The speaker’s plan has no funding source identified. One of our OEA performance pay principles is local districts should not be burdened with additional cost. We cannot support a plan that might add more unfunded mandates on school budgets. Bishop reiterated OEA’s call to “keep the promise” of getting Oklahoma teacher pay to the regional average before implementing any alternative pay plans.

Teacher Salary Comparisons

I'm sure the supporters of merit pay/pay for test scores will say that if teachers were paid on the mythical business model of pay, that pay would be comparable.

Oklahoma earns a 'C' in Education Week report
By Susan Simpson

Oklahoma teachers earn 82 cents for every dollar earned by workers in 16 comparable occupations in the state, according to Quality Counts, an annual report by Education Week.
The report compares teaching practices, educational achievement and policies of 50 states, with Oklahoma earning an overall grade of C, the same as the national average.

The pay parity survey compared teacher pay with that of accountants, clergy, computer programmers, insurance underwriters, occupational therapists and other jobs with similar skill demands, which include knowledge, supervisory duties, complexity, physical demands and personal contacts.

Oklahoma pay was the 6th lowest in the comparison. The national average of teacher pay is 88 cents per dollar earned by other occupations.

“The importance of teachers is not adequately reflected in either their salaries or their career trajectories over time, and it is clear that states could be doing far more to address the issue,” said Christopher Swanson, director of the Editorial Projects in Education Research Center.

Merit Pay/Pay for Test Scores & the Ice Storm

I drove through the Oklahoma City metro area to get a good look at the damage from the ice storm. It reminds me of the destruction I saw in northeastern Oklahoma around Muskogee. There are trees and utility lines down all over the place. Some neighborhoods have power, others don't. Oklahoma Gas and Electric says there are over 643,000 people without power. My wife and I are very lucky--we still have power.

There are a number of schools that are closed. Some of them may be closed for a number of days. Even if they do open, some of the patrons may not have power at their own homes. While this is still in the early stages of reconstruction, one has to wonder what type of impact on student learning this will have on children.

What will happen to the testing that will take place later in the school year? Since we are so committed to testing our kids, they can fall behind when teachers lose a week of quality teaching and learning. Will the state decide to move the testing back so that teachers will have a chance to catch up? And what impact will no heat and power have on kids when they do get back? Will this adversely impact their learning ability and put them further behind?

These are examples of "challenges" in which teachers and kids have no control over. How do you measure the effect of this storm on children's learning and testing? How do you reward teachers
with a pay for test score/merit pay plans when events like this happen?

Does anyone have something to say besides soundbites to sell to Oklahoma parents and teachers?

Pay for Test Scores/Merit Pay: Test Scores Dropped

Error forces test scores to be tossed
By The Associated PressWASHINGTON — The reading scores of U.S. students on an international test are being tossed out due to a problem with how the test was printed, federal officials said Monday.
Scores on the Program for International Student Assessment, or PISA, are due out next month. Fifteen-year-olds in more than 50 countries took the test. It focused on science this time but also included math and reading questions.
Only the reading portion is being set aside, and only for U.S. students, said Mark Schneider, Commissioner of the National Center for Education Statistics, part of the Education Department.
The problem has to do with a printing error made by North Carolina-based RTI International, the federal contractor hired to administer the U.S. version of the test.
The printing mistake made the test confusing by telling students to view the "opposite” page, though the information was not found there.
Schneider said the test was taken in the fall of last year, but the problem was not discovered until this past summer when the test results were being analyzed.
"There's a lot of shared culpability,” Schneider said, calling the incident "an embarrassment.”
Schneider said the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development, which runs the test, decided last month that the U.S. scores should be tossed out because they were invalid.
"We deeply regret that this happened,” said RTI spokesman Patrick Gibbons. RTI project manager Patricia Green said the company has subsequently stepped-up its review of tests.
In addition, the company has reimbursed the government $500,000, Schneider said.
He added that this was the first time an error like this had resulted in invalid U.S. scores on the assessment exam or on similar international tests.

Merit Pay/Pay for Test Scores-The Business Model

One of the programs constantly cited by legislators supporting pay for test scores is the business model. It is not uncommon to hear that "lawyers and doctors" are paid on merit. I'm continually amused by the doctor/ lawyer argument. These are people in private practice who pick their own clients. School teachers teach everyone who walks through the door-rich, poor, black, white, Hispanic, Native American, Asian, special needs...everyone. Plus, have you ever heard of these professionals not getting paid on whether they cure someone or lose a case? This comparison is laughable and equates to nothing more than a sound-bite.

Now more on the business model. The business model of pay is being used by politicians, the business community, and other so-called teacher organizations to justify paying only a few teachers and ignoring the underfunding of our schools--which in Oklahoma equates to $844M. (I'll be writing about that in a future post.)

According to the Department of Labor, only 7% of employees are in some type of merit pay program. I don't know for sure, but I would venture a guess that many are commissioned salespeople.

That means that 93% of the American workforce is not in a merit pay system. If this is such a great plan, why hasn't it been more widely accepted by our economic system?

In research done by Jeffery Pfeffer and printed in the Harvard Business Review entitled "Six Dangerous Myths about Pay, advocates need to pay attention to myth 5 and 6. Myth 5 is "Individual incentive pay improves performance." However, "Individual incentive pay, in reality, undermines performance--of both the individual and the organization. Many studies strongly suggest that this form of reward undermines teamwork, encourages a short-term-focus, and leads people to believe that pay is not related to performance at all but to having the "right" relationships and an ingratiating personality."

Undermines teamwork. Short term focus? It sounds like claims made by the OEA.

Myth 6 is that "People work for money". While the reality is, "People do work for money--but they work even more for meaning in their lives. In fact, they work to have fun. Companies that ignore this fact are essentially bribing their employees and will pay the price in a lack of loyalty and commitment."

This is just what our schools need. A business model that will produce teachers with only loyalty to money instead of kids, schools and communities.

New York City Merit Pay Plan

Supporters of the concept of merit pay/pay for test scores have been talking about how teachers in New York City have agreed to some type of plan to enhance their salaries. Imagine a group of teachers in Oklahoma being told what teachers in New York City have done. The image is reminiscent of those cowboys sitting around the campfire eating a bad brand of picante sauce. When they ask the cook where it's from and he says "New York City", everyone of those cowboys respond, in disbelief, "New York City???"

That's exactly the response you'll get from Oklahoma teachers when we are compared to teachers in New York City. To begin with, pay us a starting salary of $42, 512 ( $10,912 raise) for the beginning teacher. After 22 years NYC teachers top out at $79,810. We top out at $42,325 after 25 years.

Teachers with Masters start at $46, 503 compared to our $32,800. They finish at $85,141. For Oklahoma it's $43,950. At the Doctorate level they start at $53,521 and end at $93,419. We start at $34,000 and end at $46,000.

The average teacher salary is $63,000 compared to our $42,124. Their starting salary is above our average salary.

New York City??? The comparison is worthy of an old fashioned Bronx cheer.

Interim Study on Merit Pay Concluded

The Oklahoma House Education Committee concluded its interim study on merit pay/pay for test scores recently and you have to wonder where we are headed with this idea.

One of the more encouraging aspects of this "study experience" has been the overwhelming support for basic core principles to be addressed in putting together this type of program. Expert after expert has testified that this can't be done in place of raises, it must be fair and open to everyone, objective, supported by a large majority of teachers, and it must be developed by and with teacher input just to name a few of the most important building blocks to the development of this kind of program.

On the other hand, what is coming out in the form of press releases and sound bites, is either different or taken totally out of context then what has been said at the interim study. A variety of people aren't sure they've even been in the same study chambers based on some of the releases. One of the better articles on the subject was written by Ben Fenwick of the Oklahoma Gazette. You can read Ben's complete story in the October 3rd issue of the Gazette, or a partial of it on-line at http://www.okgazette.com/p/12776/a/1119/Default.aspx?ReturnUrl=LwBEAGUAZgBhAHUAbAB0AC4AYQBzAHAAeAAslashAHAAPQAxADIANwAyADkA. The printed article is the better read. You can call the office and we'll make sure you get the information.

The supporters of pay for test score plans say they don't have any preconceived ideas, but based on those press releases and soundbites, is it any wonder teachers question the fairness of this study?

Merit Pay:Repeating Mistakes of the Past

This is a rather long article that was in Education Week. Ms. Olson does a great job of talking about the issues involved in Merit/Performance Pay. Many of these issues are being ignored by either various members of the legislature and/or some of their supporters.

Based on the issues raised in the article, you would have thought Ms. Olson was at our presentation on September 11th. Reading the article, you will find that she wasn't, and quotes regarding our same concerns, came from a variety of experts across the country. It is my hope that our elected leaders will benefit from this article and not make the same mistakes that were made 20 years ago.

You can check the orange high-lighted areas for specific references you may find interesting.

NCLB Debate Focuses Attention on Performance Pay for Teachers
By Lynn Olson Education Week


The debate over linking teacher pay to student test scores that ignited on Capitol Hill last month underscores the growing momentum—and continued controversy—behind tying what teachers earn to what students learn.

Both the National Education Association and the American Federation of Teachers came out swinging against language in a draft bill for reauthorizing the No Child Left Behind Act that would encourage districts to experiment with performance-based pay for teachers.

But across the nation, experimentation with such efforts is mounting, as states and districts start to crack open the traditional salary schedule by providing teacher bonuses based at least in part on student test-score gains.

At least half a dozen states have statewide or pilot programs that provide financial incentives to teachers based on achievement growth at the classroom or school level. And hundreds of districts are experimenting with such programs, including Denver, Houston, and Nashville, Tenn. The U.S. Department of Education has spent nearly $100 million to promote the idea through the federal Teacher Incentive Fund, which supports the development and implementation of performance-based pay in high-need districts. With the exception of Denver, though, few districts have entirely eliminated pay increases based solely on years of experience and course credits.

“Each year, it seems like there’s more going on than the previous year,” said Allan R. Odden, a professor of educational administration at the University of Wisconsin-Madison who studies teacher compensation, “so the momentum is building.”

‘Critical Juncture’
The past is littered, however, with largely short-lived and unsuccessful efforts to redesign teacher-pay systems.

During the 1980s, states experimented with merit-pay plans that tied teachers’ salaries, in part, to evaluations of their performance, and with career ladders that paid some teachers more for taking on extra roles and responsibilities. But teachers often complained that the evaluations were too subjective, and that the limited pots of money available for such programs encouraged unhealthy competition between colleagues. And when tight budget times came, such initiatives were often the first to go.

“I think we’re really at a very critical juncture,” said William J. Slotnik, who has provided technical help to a number of districts working on pay-for-performance plans, “because we’re now 25 years beyond the failed merit-pay experiments of the early 1980s. And if we replicate the same mistakes that burdened that movement, we’re going to lose a generation of compensation reform.”

Research about the effectiveness of performance-based pay is scarce. A 2007 research synthesis by the federally financed Consortium for Policy Research in Education concluded that such plans “have met with some, but limited, initial success. Evidence of a substantial positive impact on either student achievement or teacher performance is lacking, and teachers report a wide variety of both positive and negative reactions to local plans.”

More recent studies have found a generally positive relationship between financial incentives for teachers and improved student achievement.

“We don’t think the literature is sophisticated enough to say, ‘This is the right way to do it,’ ” said Michael J. Podgursky, a professor of economics at the University of Missouri-Columbia, who conducted a recent synthesis of such studies with Matthew G. Springer, the director of the National Center on Performance Incentives at Vanderbilt University. “But we think it’s strong enough, at this point, to say districts and states ought to go out there and seriously think about experimenting and attempting to innovate in this area.”

The surge of interest in such experimentation is bolstered by research findings that some teachers are far more effective than others in raising student achievement. Compensation changes that reward talented teachers so that they stay in the profession, and encourage ineffective ones to improve or leave, potentially could have a large impact on student learning.

Learning From Experience
But despite a growing consensus that compensation systems for teachers need to be altered, said Brad Jupp, a senior academic-policy adviser to the superintendent of the Denver public schools and one of the creators of the district’s performance-based pay plan, “there’s no clear consensus about what the best way to pay people, other than the single-salary schedule, is. We’re in that period of time after the old paradigm has gone and before the new paradigm has finally evolved.”

Under the single-salary schedule, the long-dominant approach, teachers are paid based on uniform pay steps that reward years of experience and education coursework completed.

For states and districts willing to wade into an overhaul of how they pay teachers, experts offer a number of pointers based on experience. For starters, they suggest, the basic salary and benefits package needs to be competitive before policymakers embark on a performance-pay plan. Experts also suggest the rewards should be substantial—such as 5 percent of base pay—if they’re going to motivate teachers.

Stable and adequate funding is also a necessity—and one of the hardest issues for school systems, given the sizable costs of such programs. In 2005, the Denver school board persuaded voters in the 73,400-student district to raise their taxes by $25 million a year to support the ProComp Plan, which pays teachers more if they improve student achievement, acquire and demonstrate new knowledge and skills, choose to work in hard-to-staff schools and positions, and receive satisfactory job evaluations.

In contrast, many of the programs launched under the Teacher Incentive Fund are running almost entirely on federal money, with little guarantee they can be sustained without that aid.

Pay increments also need to be open to all teachers, not just those in state-tested subjects or an arbitrary percentage of the teaching force, advised a blue-ribbon panel of teachers, the TeachersSolution group, that called last year for overhauling how teachers are paid. ("Teacher Panel Calls for Overhaul of Pay," April 11, 2007.)

In addition, compensation changes need the early engagement and broad public buy-in of teachers and their unions, people who have studied the issue say.

“Too many times in the past, these programs have been imposed, and you can’t force people to do it,” said Lewis C. Solmon, the president of the Santa Monica, Calif.-based National Institute for Excellence in Teaching, which last year issued recommendations on creating a successful performance-compensation system for educators.

Union concerns about performance-pay policies have been evident in the response to the recent NCLB-reauthorization draft, released by leaders of the House Education and Labor Committee. ("Unions Assail Teacher Ideas in NCLB Draft," Sept. 19, 2007.)

In a Sept. 20 letter to U.S. Rep. George Miller, the California Democrat who chairs the committee, AFT President Edward J. McElroy reiterated his union’s opposition to having the federal government “mandate” the use of student test scores to evaluate teachers.

“The AFT does believe that the decision to use or not use student test scores as part of a teacher -evaluation system should be made at the local level by the district officials and teachers who are directly affected by and most knowledgeable about the differential compensation plans that will work in their schools,” he wrote. “The AFT believes that compensation is a mandatory matter of collective bargaining subject to state and local, not federal, law.”

The Denver plan was crafted in collaboration with the Denver Classroom Teachers Association, an NEA affiliate. Philadelphia, in contrast, had to scale back its pilot compensation program this school year to a handful of charter schools because it could not reach an agreement with its local AFT affiliate about how to implement the program in district-operated public schools.

Denver also permitted veteran teachers to opt into the program, rather than forcing them to participate.

“I never felt pressured to join it,” said Elizabeth G. Douma, a humanities facilitator at the 650-student Hill Campus of Arts and Sciences, a Denver middle school. “I can’t say enough about the fact that the district has let veteran teachers enter at their own pace, and really given us a lot of advice about where to enter.”

As of this fall, almost half of Denver’s teachers, including Ms. Douma, are taking part in ProComp.

Experts say there’s no such thing as “overcommunication” when it comes to explaining performance-pay plans to teachers and making their provisions clear. Denver’s ProComp has its own Web site and a salary calculator so teachers can determine the payout they’ll receive for various accomplishments.

Equally important, such plans need to rest on a strong measurement system for evaluating teachers, particularly if they hope to gain teachers’ trust and be seen as fair. Both national teachers’ unions remain opposed to financial incentives tied solely to student test scores, such as Houston’s ASPIRE Awards program.

In Denver, teachers can earn annual salary increases for student growth on both state tests and on classroom objectives teachers themselves set in collaboration with their principals. An evaluation of Denver’s pilot program found students whose teachers set higher-quality objectives achieved higher scores on state tests than did pupils whose teachers set lower-quality learning goals.

“I feel it has pushed staff to look at their own practice and how it impacts student growth,” Marcia W. Cornejo, a school psychologist and social worker at Swansea Elementary School, said of ProComp. The 17-year veteran, who had been at the top of the salary ladder under the traditional pay schedule, received an extra $10,000 last year through the program.

Not Pay Alone
The good news, said Mr. Podgursky of the University of Missouri, is that states and districts are rapidly developing data systems that permit them to estimate teachers’ effectiveness based on their students’ test-score gains over time. Much debate remains about the accuracy of those measures, particularly when it comes to rewarding individual teachers. But Mr. Podgursky also argued that states and districts don’t have to rely on a single measure of teacher performance. Evaluations by principals can also be a reliable guide for identifying high- and low-performing teachers.

“Any single measure has faults,” Mr. Podgursky said, “but by combining a set of independent measures, you get a better fix on true effectiveness.”

One of the most widely used innovations in teacher compensation—the Teacher Advancement Program, or TAP, started in 1999 by the Milken Family Foundation—provides bonuses to teachers who increase students’ academic growth and who demonstrate their skills through classroom evaluations that are conducted four to six times a year by multiple evaluators whom TAP trains and certifies.

The first broad evaluation of the program, released this year by the National Institute for Excellence in Teaching, which operates TAP, found that teachers in schools that participate in the program are more likely to significantly raise student achievement than similar teachers in other public schools.

But Mr. Solmon, the president of the institute, emphasized that TAP is a comprehensive program that includes more than performance-based pay. It also gives qualified teachers opportunities to take on more responsibility and get paid for doing so. And it provides teachers with school-based professional development during the day to help them develop their knowledge and skills. Critics argue that performance-based pay plans are unlikely to raise student achievement without a clear path for teachers’ to actually improve their skills.

Indeed, one of the key lessons coming out of the research is that financial incentives alone are probably not enough to dramatically change the teacher-talent pool or improve student learning. Studies have found that teachers’ working conditions—including school principals’ leadership, teachers’ opportunities for advancement, the availability of materials and resources, student behavior and discipline, and the chance for teachers to influence decisions and work with others—are strongly linked to satisfaction and turnover.

One of the biggest mistakes of the past, said Mr. Slotnik, the executive director of the Boston-based Community Training and Assistance Center, which provides help to a number of performance-pay efforts around the country, was that changes in compensation policy were viewed as separate from the other factors that lead schools to be effective.

“People see it as being a tack-on, or in addition to, what they’re doing, instead of seeing that it’s fundamentally changing what they’re doing,” he argued. “This is a systemic reform. It’s going to affect virtually every part of the organization”—from how teachers are selected and evaluated to how they are supported and encouraged to hone the skills the compensation system rewards.

“When you see all these stipend efforts that are providing more money but aren’t touching other parts of the organization,” Mr. Slotnik said, “it’s going to run into problems.”

Your Opinion Needed on Performance Pay

Lance Cargill, Speaker of the House of Representatives and Tad Jones, House Education Committee Chairman would like your opinion on the issue of performance pay for teachers. They are currently conducting an interim study on the topic of performance pay and they are hearing testimony from many experts who are sharing their experiences and knowledge on the subject. They would also like to hear from you. Please click on the link and give them your opinions: http://www.okhouse.gov/survey/index.aspx

Reporting on the Interim Study

Here are links to columns/articles/news reports from people who attended the merit pay study and their reporting on our presentation.

http://newsok.com/article/3123982/1189574833

http://www.normantranscript.com/localnews/local_story_255000528.html

http://okspeaker.blogspot.com/2007/09/minnesota-teachers-union-official.html

http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/article.aspx?articleID=070912_1_A5_spanc00440

Didn't I Just Hear That Presentation??

The second round of the House of Representatives interim study on merit pay was held with 3 of the four morning participants agreeing on the importance of professional development in the creation of any incentive based plan.

On behalf of the nearly 40,000 members of the Oklahoma Education Association, executive directors Joel Robison, Dr. Dottie Caldwell, and I represented OEA's position on the subject. http://www.okea.org/LPO/Pay/index.htm. Many thought we would be totally opposed to any proposal, but the OEA has always been the leader in looking at enhancements to the salary schedule. You can't ignore OEA's leadership in this area: we were instrumental in getting the National Board process started in Oklahoma, National Board Certified Teachers developed the OEA Accomplished Teacher Project that was presented to OBEC leaders, and we have supported a number of areas that enhances teacher pay that makes a difference in the effectiveness of our teachers as well as documented student success.

After our presentation, Education Minnesota presented a program that strongly supported the concepts of what our presentation was about. EM's presentation was followed by Granger Meador, a Bartlesville teacher, who also talked about the importance of professional development and making all teachers the best they can be.

What appeared to be unified presentations included remarks from Keith Ballard, Executive Director of the OSSBA, as well as a variety of administrative representatives who were all discussing the importance of funding, teacher buy-in, local control, professional development, and getting teachers to the regional average in pay.

We received positive reaction from many of the legislators who appreciated our input and thanked us for being open to presenting the OEA position. Many of the legislators were encouraged by the OEA presentation and we look forward to continued discussions with our elected representatives.

Senator Gumm on Merit Pay

Not all of our elected representatives favor merit pay.

Senator Gumm’s “Senate Minute” Column for September 4-10, 2007

OKLAHOMA CITY – Hello again, everybody! As children, we learn about the game known as “chicken.”This is a game most of us learn on elementary school playgrounds, but it is also played in politics. A big game of “chicken” with serious consequences for Oklahoma’s children is underway.

Leaders in the House of Representatives declare there will be no more teacher pay raises without so-called “merit pay” being in the mix. They have the power to back up their threat because they can stop any teacher pay raise by bottling it up in a committee.

Many of us believe teachers have been historically underpaid. We have made progress in raising teacher salaries during the past few years, but we still have a ways to go.

For those of us who believe teachers are underpaid, their declaration is no different than the schoolyard bully running at another child as fast as he can, daring him or her to “chicken” out. Sadly, though, the consequences of this game are far greater than a few bumps and bruises.

I do not like most merit pay plans out there. “Merit pay” – more often than not – uses standardized test scores as a key component of determining “merit.” We already over-emphasize standardized tests when evaluating schools.

At their core, merit pay plans that use tests are misguided and do not truly reflect teacher performance. Test scores fail to take into account one fundamental fact: school kids are different, each with different gifts, abilities and challenges.

Some students might have to endure difficult home lives; some might face challenges many of us can only imagine. Those challenges will affect performance.

Public education is the only institution that has to educate all children. Teachers should be able to focus on helping children become what God intended for them to become rather than just pushing for a high test score. How do we quantify when a teacher goes above and beyond the call of duty to help a student work through obstacles?

Those who support merit pay suggest that competition among teachers for merit pay dollars would improve performance. I do not believe that would happen. The real competition will be for high performing students – those who test well and, as a result, give the impression one teacher might be better than another.

We can, and we must, do better by our children and those to whom we entrust them – our teachers. We hear a lot about “no child left behind”; merit pay increases the chance that children who test poorly will be left behind as the focus shifts to those students with test scores high enough to boost teachers pay.

So-called “merit pay” plans will not make schools better. Those who advance merit pay hold hostage our teachers’ financial futures and our children’s education just to advance an agenda that is more about looking good than doing good.

Thanks again for reading the “Senate Minute,” have a great week, and may God bless you all.
-30-

Merit Pay...Concerns, Flaws, & Where to Send the Bonus

I've given you information from Texas, now here's the latest from Alaska where many teachers have donated their bonus to charity.

Anchorage Daily News: Incentive pay goes to some teachers, but worries linger (Becky Stoppa, News, Alaska)“The Alaska Public School Performance Incentive Program is in the first of three pilot years. It provides bonuses to eligible staff members at schools whose students show significant improvements from the year before or whose students continue to achieve at high levels, according to the Alaska Department of Education and Early Development… Many felt the incentive program failed to recognize the hard work of teachers in other schools and seemed to suggest that without cash incentives teachers might not work as hard as they could, Sather said.”

"Encouraging Mediocrity"...More on Merit Pay

"We should be rewarding success, not punishing it by encouraging mediocrity."-Speaker Cargill after a legislative hearing on the presentation of a merit pay system on August 21st.

Does this mean he believes Oklahoma teachers are mediocre?