Indiana Law Gets it Right

State lawmakers “got it right” in Indiana on Saturday, when Governor Mitch Daniels signed one component of his comprehensive education reform package into law. The bill overhauls the way teachers are evaluated and incorporates merit pay into the education lexicon in the state of Indiana. According to WISH-TV, “among some of the provisions, teacher performance is now a factor in hiring, promotion, salary and dismissal.”

Under the new law, students would not be required to have an “unsatisfactory” teacher for more than one year, without parent approval. Additionally, the educators that rank in the bottom two of the four categories used for evaluation would be ineligible to receive automatic pay increases, and all new, incoming teachers, would be ineligible to receive tenure. Under Indiana’s current system, 99% of teachers are rated effective educators, but nearly 25% of the state’s children fail statewide examinations. It’s clear that 99% of Indiana’s teachers are not effective at what they do.

One important factor to note is the way in which Indiana will evaluate its teachers. The evaluation scheme for educators in the state will incorporate “objective student performance” or test scores into the assessment criteria, but it will not be the sole component of any scheme. In addition, performance reviews will become an annual occurrence, teachers will be evaluated based on how well and how often they use their best available resources, and peer and principal reviews will be incorporated into the overall assessment model.

Work with unions has been essential to the bill’s success, and will make the overall bill more effective than measures in other states. The previous union contracts, for example, prohibited yearly reviews of the state’s teachers. In addition, Indiana unions can see the collective bargaining big picture: it’s vital to both ensure good teachers are paid well and to produce high academic achievement for America’s children. The ABA, as well as the AMA, promote the welfare of their members, but they also make certain that their associates achieve the profession’s loftier goals and regulate the profession.

Daniels’ bill does take some collective bargaining rights away from the teachers’ unions in Indiana, but they don’t remove the organizations’ abilities to negotiate for wages and benefits. What is no longer in the purview of union negotiations is educational curriculum, classroom size, and other components of the general education system. These components do not drastically affect the working conditions of the teaching profession, but are vital to the success of public school children. In addition, many of the subjects now outside of the realm of negotiation, like classroom size, impact students and teachers in the same way. A smaller class size is a calmer environment for teachers and increases student performance (and in the case of the new bill, should increase teacher pay as well). Other state and federal teachers’ unions must emulate the union response in Indiana.

Finally, opponents cite two problems with the reform bill. First, they fear that any evaluation metric will fail to fairly grade teacher performance; and second, they claim that teachers are not in the education field for the money. While the first concern is always a valid one when a new metric is introduced, the Indiana bill goes as far as any can in producing a fair evaluation. The system incorporates both concrete, quantitative measures, as well as objective peer and administrator teacher review. In addition, the four levels of performance are much more expansive than what many other states currently use when evaluating performance (either effective or ineffective, or a third, middle category). When a choice is between lower student performance and a pay scale that rewards teaching longevity rather than performance, or higher student performance and a scale that, may somewhat imperfectly, reward the best teachers, I’ll choose the latter.

The second argument against the bill, even if a valid concern, demonstrates why this legislation was so necessary. According to Senator Earline Rogers, "I don't think teachers are in it for the money. If they had been in it for the money, they would have chosen another profession." This is precisely the problem. Although we would never discourage passionate individuals from becoming teachers to help children, the low salary of the teaching field dissuades many from ever giving it a shot in the first place. Some of the most highly qualified individuals and some of the most academically successful students would never dream of entering the teaching field, because the pay is so much lower than what they could earn at another job. Why would anyone strive to be a high quality teacher when they could succeed in finance, law, or medicine, and make five times the salary? What’s more, Senator Rogers is implying that the joy educators get from being a high quality educator and the impact they have on their students are more motivating than financial rewards. If this is true, then most, if not all, public school teachers should get the most out of their children, and American students should all be passing their standardized tests. That, however, is not the case.

The Indiana bill shows the considerable progress that we can make in education reform efforts if government bodies and teachers’ unions work together. Merit pay systems for public school teachers not only reward educators for high quality work, but they raise the level of all teachers, and in turn, improve the academic performance of America’s students.

For more information, visit Governor Daniels' website at: http://www.in.gov/portal/news_events/69879.htm.

Teachers Matter

At this point if you’ve been reading the blog, you know the daunting and unsettling statistics that rank American student test scores towards the bottom of the developed world. Our group has argued that among other reform measures, the United States has to end teacher tenure and increase teacher salaries in order to improve its education system. Higher teacher salaries would encourage higher achieving college students to enter the teaching profession, and it would reward quality teachers for stellar performance. The logic goes that if the monetary incentives are strong enough to both recruit (academically successful) teachers, and then retain only those who perform the best, teaching would become a prestigious and financially rewarding career, and, in turn, American students would be more successful. While it must be a part of a larger solution, we firmly believe that it is one of the most important factors in any large scale, education reform package. And a brand new paper written by education experts with McGraw-Hill agrees.

The paper, written by former West Virginia Superintendent of Schools, Dr. Steven L. Paine and the Director of the OECD’s Program for International Student Assessment, Andreas Schleicher reach two conclusions. First, teacher quality is more important than any other factor in predicting and increasing student performance. Second, the prestige of the teaching profession must be strengthened to recruit high quality teaching candidates. Their study, “What the U.S. Can Learn from the World’s Most Successful Education Reform Efforts,” examined education systems in Singapore, Canada, and Finland, and found opportunities for the United States to improve its own education practices, as well as surmount many of the possible barriers to those reforms.

To begin, the paper argues that America needs to increase the number and quality of the individuals applying to become teachers. Finland, for example, only accepts 10% of applicants for teaching positions. Some opponents may argue that upon further analysis of the study, Finish teachers make about the same amount as American teachers ($39,000), which is true. What they fail to note however are the distinct cultural and economic differences between the Scandinavian state and the US. In Finland the teaching profession is just as highly respected as medicine or law, but in the United States, about half of all teachers graduate in the bottom third of their college classes. In a country like the United States where both wealth and high levels of education usually garner significant respect, the low pay, and sometimes lower quality of the teaching pool leaves room for drastic improvement. It’s impossible to radically increase the prestige associated with teaching overnight, but what reformers in the United States can do rather quickly is increase teacher salaries in order to recruit high performing college students into the education field.

Educational success throughout the world also shows us how to overcome some of the problems that develop when trying to implement successful reforms. In particular, other reform movements prove that teachers’ unions and the government can work cooperatively and effectively to both improve student performance and ensure equitable and competitive working conditions and benefits for teachers themselves.

Teachers’ unions and the government must work closely to align each party’s incentives. The lawyer’s job is to defend his client or prosecute a criminal; a doctor’s job is to heal the sick; and a teacher’s job is to effectively educate children. The teachers’ union and government officials used this logic to improve student performance in Ontario, Canada. According to the report, “The educators, through their union, agreed to accept responsibility for their own learning and the learning of their students; the government agreed to supply all of the necessary support.” The Ontario example proves that high teacher benefits and compensation and a strong union are not principles that diametrically oppose student success or rewards for high quality teachers.

The McGraw-Hill report should give us all hope. Not only does it shed light on concrete practices that have proven effective in global education reform efforts, it demonstrates that changes to the educational system are indeed possible. A strong union of educational professionals does not preclude education reform initiatives from incorporating measurements of teacher quality. In fact, success for America’s students will be the most profound and dramatic when government initiatives are combined with a strong teachers’ union devoted to the academic success of this country’s youth.

Measuring performance...

The governor of Ohio signed a new merit pay law on March 31. The bill provides merit-pay bonuses for effective teachers, while poorly performing teachers will not be able to renew their contracts.

Although we are very excited that another state has adopted a merit pay scheme, we are also troubled by one aspect of the law. According to the bill, teacher performance will be measured by “in-class observations and class performance on a yet-to-be-developed test.” The test doesn't have to be developed until July 1, 2012, over a year from now. The article can be found here.

One of the reasons why even wonderful teachers are uncomfortable with a merit pay scheme is because they don’t know how they will be evaluated. Replacing a dependable tenure system with an uncertain and “yet-to-be-developed-test” is understandably concerning for America’s teachers. Passing merit pay laws without a clear sense of how they will be implemented is ultimately unfair. And in order for teachers to support this policy, they need to be evaluated fairly and transparently.

Of course, this is easier said than done. The most challenging aspect of the merit pay debate is how to measure teacher performance. Unlike in the business world, where an objective metric like profits can easily determine who is successful in their career, the education world is not so simple. There are countless challenges in the classroom that vary among regions, schools, and individual students. There is no easy way to measure a teacher’s competence. Standardized tests, for instance, have a lot to do with a student’s home life, individual intellect, and previous educational background.

That is not to say, however, that measuring performance isn't possible. Other professions also struggle with objective evaluation but still manage to create standards and reward competence. The key to solving this issue is combining many forms of evaluation and using them comprehensively and consistently to measure teacher performance.

This is a major issue that districts and states should work out before passing merit pay legislation. It is unfair to teachers when governments ask them to accept a new policy without even specifying what that policy entails. Several districts and states have figured out evaluation systems that are working so far. Those systems will the subject of future posts, but it is important to create a fair evaluation scheme before passing merit pay legislation.

Dartmouth Events

The two education related events that occurred over the past few days at Dartmouth were fantastic. As I wrote last week, I would encourage all of our readers to check out “Waiting For Superman.” My hope was to be able to post Geoffrey Canada’s Dartmouth lecture directly to this blog. Unfortunately, Mr. Canada’s lecture at Dartmouth was not video recorded, but if you have a few moments, please watch the clip below. It’ll make you want to watch all of “Waiting for Superman,” and it gives people great insight into the work that Mr. Canada is doing and the charisma and passion that come across whenever he talks about education. Enjoy!