Thursday, February 12, 2009
Tuesday, February 3, 2009
A Hangingon Contest!
While it ain't quite time for the revival of the hangies, it is time for some reader participation in these parts. So we're having our first online contest, stolen, in true blogger form, from elsewhere.
I've long been a fan of Barbara Wallraff's Word Fugitives in the Atlantic. (I actually prefer Word Court, but have grown to enjoy Fugitives nearly as much.) Word Fugitives is a contest for readers to create a new word.
And I am in search of a word.
The other day at work I was explaining to my boss how our organization is suffering from . . . "the opposite of synergy." Unlike effective organizations where different people's work seems to enhance the value of other people's work, building upon one another toward a common goal, our organization seems to have lots of people working really really hard and achieving less and less. A lack of focus, vision and discipline means we're achieving less than the sum of our work. So . . . what's this called? What's your nomination and explanation for a single word encapsulating this thought? Use the comments link (yes, tis a shameless plug for comments) and feel free to submit multiple nominees.
I've long been a fan of Barbara Wallraff's Word Fugitives in the Atlantic. (I actually prefer Word Court, but have grown to enjoy Fugitives nearly as much.) Word Fugitives is a contest for readers to create a new word.
And I am in search of a word.
The other day at work I was explaining to my boss how our organization is suffering from . . . "the opposite of synergy." Unlike effective organizations where different people's work seems to enhance the value of other people's work, building upon one another toward a common goal, our organization seems to have lots of people working really really hard and achieving less and less. A lack of focus, vision and discipline means we're achieving less than the sum of our work. So . . . what's this called? What's your nomination and explanation for a single word encapsulating this thought? Use the comments link (yes, tis a shameless plug for comments) and feel free to submit multiple nominees.
Monday, February 2, 2009
Why School Reform Fails: A Case Study
A valuable article in Sunday's Strib about Q Comp, Governor Tim Pawlenty's "performance pay" system for teachers. The article notes that 99% of teachers in districts that participate in the Q Comp program receive the financial incentive it awards. It also notes that the districts participating in the program have shown no discernible improvement in their achievement levels due to the system. There is much we can learn from this simple tale of reforming a-go-go.
A GOOD IDEA . . .
Q Comp was supposed to reward highly effective teachers. Who doesn't like the sound of that? The idea was to begin moving away from the current system, which rewards teachers based on two criteria--their own educational achievement (coursework and degrees) and experience (number of years teaching). Unfortunately, these two criteria haves no correlation to the results toward which we want teachers to strive like quality instruction or student achievement. Creating a system that does reward these results, if only partially, is one of many areas reformers seek to change in our public education system.
RUN THROUGH THE POLITICAL PROCESS . . .
Even the Governor cannot simply dictate such changes. Public education is, after all, still public, which means that systemic changes are run through the sausage factory of legislators, school boards, unions and bureaucracies before being enacted. Many times, such as this one, the results of the factory no longer resemble the original intentions. While Q Comp started off as a way to reward highly effective teachers, it became an enhanced version of the compensation system we already have in place. Teachers are rewarded in Q Comp for taking more classes, sitting through more professional development, discussing more books and generally spending more time focusing on things that ultimately do not improve the quality of education, well-intentioned they may be.
DOESN'T CREATE CHANGE . . .
The culture of education permeates more than just schools. What I mean by this is that public schools believe nearly every challenge we face can be solved by . . . more education. Professional Development is a way of life for teachers and school districts, even if the results are non-existent. When faced with poor performing schools, teachers or principals, the first reaction is always to provide more training. (Whether or not training is the problem.) Q Comp, as it currently exists, helps feed this culture of focusing on inputs and training rather than on outputs and results. The system rewards performance--but essentially that performance is jumping through additional professional development hoops, not changing behavior.
OR THE INTENDED RESULTS . . .
Needless to say, it should not be a surprise that Q Comp is failing to have any impact on student achievement. Even if Q Comp did, in fact, reward those teachers who demonstrated great practice and high quality instruction, it is pretty doubtful that a single change to the compensation system alone would have a meaningful impact on student results.
THEREBY PROVING REFORMS DON'T WORK.
See? What did all this hard work and reform get us? Nothing. Teachers unions can now say with confidence and well documented data that performance pay doesn't work. Conservatives and anti-school folks can look at Q Comp and show how we're pouring even more money into schools without getting anything in return. Reformer-types can claim the program was so water-downed as to be worthless. School districts can blame the state for creating a new program that didn't do what it was supposed to.
Meanwhile back in classroom after classroom . . . .
A GOOD IDEA . . .
Q Comp was supposed to reward highly effective teachers. Who doesn't like the sound of that? The idea was to begin moving away from the current system, which rewards teachers based on two criteria--their own educational achievement (coursework and degrees) and experience (number of years teaching). Unfortunately, these two criteria haves no correlation to the results toward which we want teachers to strive like quality instruction or student achievement. Creating a system that does reward these results, if only partially, is one of many areas reformers seek to change in our public education system.
RUN THROUGH THE POLITICAL PROCESS . . .
Even the Governor cannot simply dictate such changes. Public education is, after all, still public, which means that systemic changes are run through the sausage factory of legislators, school boards, unions and bureaucracies before being enacted. Many times, such as this one, the results of the factory no longer resemble the original intentions. While Q Comp started off as a way to reward highly effective teachers, it became an enhanced version of the compensation system we already have in place. Teachers are rewarded in Q Comp for taking more classes, sitting through more professional development, discussing more books and generally spending more time focusing on things that ultimately do not improve the quality of education, well-intentioned they may be.
DOESN'T CREATE CHANGE . . .
The culture of education permeates more than just schools. What I mean by this is that public schools believe nearly every challenge we face can be solved by . . . more education. Professional Development is a way of life for teachers and school districts, even if the results are non-existent. When faced with poor performing schools, teachers or principals, the first reaction is always to provide more training. (Whether or not training is the problem.) Q Comp, as it currently exists, helps feed this culture of focusing on inputs and training rather than on outputs and results. The system rewards performance--but essentially that performance is jumping through additional professional development hoops, not changing behavior.
OR THE INTENDED RESULTS . . .
Needless to say, it should not be a surprise that Q Comp is failing to have any impact on student achievement. Even if Q Comp did, in fact, reward those teachers who demonstrated great practice and high quality instruction, it is pretty doubtful that a single change to the compensation system alone would have a meaningful impact on student results.
THEREBY PROVING REFORMS DON'T WORK.
See? What did all this hard work and reform get us? Nothing. Teachers unions can now say with confidence and well documented data that performance pay doesn't work. Conservatives and anti-school folks can look at Q Comp and show how we're pouring even more money into schools without getting anything in return. Reformer-types can claim the program was so water-downed as to be worthless. School districts can blame the state for creating a new program that didn't do what it was supposed to.
Meanwhile back in classroom after classroom . . . .
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)