Performance Pay Update
Districts and Charter Schools have turned in their plans to implement performance pay measures. Those proposals can be viewed here. They are all over the map – and that is a great thing! Utahns don’t lack ideas to improve public education (or passion about those various ideas), and this initiative provides a great opportunity to experiment with some of those ideas.
After the voucher vote, I’ve had many people tell me how happy or sad they were that vouchers failed. But, regardless of their position on vouchers, they often express a strong desire to figure out a way to pay the best teachers more money. Matching that desire with an appropriate and fair way to actually to do it is a huge and complex task.
Rather than have one group come up a plan, Utah will now run more than 87 separate experiments. WOW! The appropriation for performance pay measures was fairly small ($19,000,000) and very loose, intentionally providing local education leaders tons of flexibility to come up with a plan they think might work. We’ll monitor those experiments, collect the results and determine next steps.
Recently, the Utah Foundation matched parents’ gut-level reaction (“Forget vouchers. If you want to improve public education, pay the best teachers more.”) with actual data, concluding that funding increases for public education don’t produce improvement, unless those increases are tied to performance pay incentives.
The Washington County plan is quite extensive. In an off-the-charts-cool approach to this experiment, the Beaver School District had each individual school come up with an individual plan.
posted by steve u. at 7/12/2008
Subscribe
4 Comments:
Hold your horses Steveu, the jury is still out on the benefits of performance pay for teachers. Consequently, the Utah Foundation, didn't have "actual data" to conclude "that funding increases for public education don't produce improvement unless those increases are tied to performance pay incentives," as Steveu's researcher asserts. Oh, those pesky details
In the interest of full disclosure, I unsuccessfully ran against Rep. Urquhart in 2006. Starting as an outsider with virtually no name recognition and little money, while also contending with the fact that only 7 percent of the voters in Washington County are registered Democrats, I only garnered about 23 percent of the vote.
Pesky Utah Foundation details
Nevertheless, hold your horses Steveu, while the Utah Foundation reported that "Educational researchers generally find greater promise in alternative salary schedules that incorporate student achievement or demonstrable teaching skills into the determination of salary, . . . " But the Foundation also continued: "Such innovative salary systems are relatively new and utilized by relatively few states and districts, and the research on their effect on student achievement is therefore limited."
And the Foundation reported that study results suggest that states and districts should be implementing pilot programs, but that the current research cannot even begin to prescribe how the salary systems should be designed.
This is a far cry from providing actual data to conclude that funding increases for public education don’t produce improvement, unless those increases are tied to performance pay incentives for teachers as asserted.
Moreover, the Foundation's report segment headed Does Money Matter points out: "All researchers acknowledge that additional funding could make a difference."
The Foundation's report continues by noting that the existing research “shows clearly that . . . holding school district characteristics constant, a higher level of student performance requires higher spending per pupil.”
Again, the Utah Foundation didn't conclude that funding increases for public education don’t produce improvement unless those increases are tied to performance pay incentives. Why? Because the jury is still out on the benefits of performance pay for teachers. On the other hand, according to the Utah Foundation: "All researchers acknowledge that additional funding could make a difference."
Oh, those pesky details.
Don L. Miller
Don L. Miller:
What is your issue here? Are you complaining that there is not conclusive data at the START of the experiment? I thought the point of an experiment is to gather data.
Steve:
Thanks for keeping us in the loop.
I think it is exciting to see so many kinds of experiments going on all over the state.
I think it is very responsible of the legislature to run SO MANY experiments using so little money. Way to go!
Hi Steven,
What would you say to this artical?
http://deseretnews.com/article/1,5143,700242949,00.html
Reread the report, Don. Additional funding "could" make a difference. That is a conditional verb. So, what is the condition? It could make a difference, if tied to accountability measures. That's why I fight for additional funding and accountability. As you state, details are pesky, but they are worth addressing.
Get down and sit on a bench:
Thanks for pointing me to the John Florez column. I get a big kick out of his work. He's consistently the guy who interrupts a discussion to restate everything that has been said earlier in the conversation. He's a perfect example of a newspaper man who gets his news from the news. My earlier posts answer your question: I see lots of politics and little bravery in this kerfuffle.
Post a Comment
<< Home