For this week's post, I prepared a vodcast. Through the video you'll learn where I obtained the information I already know and where I plan to head in the future.
Below, you'll find my reading list. If you know of any additional information that may prove useful, please be sure to send it my way!
Reading List
A, T. (2008). The missing link: estimating the impact of incentives on effort and effort on production using teacher accountability legislation [Scholarly project]. In Duke University Working Paper.
Aaronson, D., Barrow, L., & Sander, W. (2007). Teachers and student achievement in the Chicago public high schools. Journal of Labor Economics, 25(1), 95-135. doi: 10.1086/508733
Ballou, D. (2001). Pay for performance in public and private schools. Economics of Education Review, 20(1), 51-61. doi: 10.1016/S0272-7757(99)00060
Burden, P. R. (1987). Establishing career ladders in teaching: a guide for policy makers. Springfield, IL: Thomas.
Cissell, G. (2010). Kentucky and education reform: the issue of pay-for-performance. Journal of Law & Education, 39(1), 119-127.
Dee, T. S. (2004). Does merit pay reward good teachers? Evidence from a randomized experiment. Retrieved May 17, 2011, from http://www.eric.ed.gov/ERICWebPortal/recordDetail?accno=EJ759285
Defraja, G., & Landeras, P. (2006). Could do better: the effectiveness of incentives and competition in schools. Journal of Public Economics, 90(1-2), 189-213. doi: 10.1016/j.jpubeco.2004.11.009
Denver Public School Professional Compentation for Teacher (Rep.). (n.d.). Retrieved May 16, 2011, from Denver Public Schools website: http://denverprocomp.dpsk12.org/
Figlio, D. N., & Kenny, L. W. (2007). Individual teacher incentives and student performance☆. Journal of Public Economics, 91(5-6), 901-914. doi: 10.1016/j.jpubeco.2006.10.001
Fisher, T. H., Fry, B. V., Loewe, K. L., & Wilson, G. W. (1985). Testing teachers for merit pay purposes in Florida. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 4(3), 10-12. doi: 10.1111/j.1745-3992.1985.tb00454.x
Fryer, R. G. (2011, March). Teacher incentives and student achievement: evidence from New York City public schools [Scholarly project]. In NBER Working Paper Series. Retrieved May 17, 2011, from http://www.nber.org/papers/w16850
Glewwe, P., Ilias, N., & Kremer, M. (2003, April). Teacher incentives [Scholarly project]. In NBER Working Paper Series. Retrieved May 17, 2011.
Goldhaber, D., DeArmond, M., Player, D., & Choi, H. (2008). Why do so few public school districts use merit pay? Journal of Education Finance, 33(3), 262-289.
Goorian, B. (2000). Alternative teacher compensation. Eugene, OR: ERIC Clearinghouse on Educational Management, University of Oregon.
Hanushek, E. A., & Lindseth, A. A. (2009). Schoolhouses, courthouses, and statehouses: solving the funding-achievement puzzle in America's public schools. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Hess, F. M. (2004). Teacher quality, teacher pay. Policy Review, (124).
Johns, E. (2009). Is it "merit pay" if nearly all teachers get it? Minneapolis Star Tribune.
King, R. A., Swanson, A. D., & Sweetland, S. R. (2003). The Dallas school accountability and incentive program: An evaluation of its impacts on student outcomes. Economics of Education Review, 18, 1-16.
King, R. A., Swanson, A. D., Sweetland, S. R., & Swanson, A. D. (2003). School finance achieving high standards with equity and efficiency. Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon.
King, R. A., Swanson, A. D., Sweetland, S. R., & Swanson, A. D. (2003). School finance achieving high standards with equity and efficiency. Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon.
Lavy, V. (2007). Using performance-based pay to improve the quality of teachers. The Future of Children, 17(1), 87-109. doi: 10.1353/foc.2007.0007
Lavy, V. (2007). Using performance-based pay to improve the quality of teachers. The Future of Children, 17(1), 87-109. doi: 10.1353/foc.2007.0007
MacPhail-Wilcox, B., & King, R. A. (n.d.). Personnel reforms in education: Intents, consequences, and fiscal implications. Journal of Education Finance, 14, 100-134.
Milanowski, A. (n.d.). The varieties of knowledge and skill-based pay design: A comparison of seven new pay systems for K-12 teachers (Rep.). Retrieved May 16, 2011, from Consortium for Policy Research in Education website: http://www.cpre.org/Publications/rr50.pdf
Milanowski, A. (2004). The Relationship Between Teacher Performance Evaluation Scores and Student Achievement: Evidence From Cincinnati. Peabody Journal of Education, 79(4), 33-53. doi: 10.1207/s15327930pje7904_3
Milanowski, A. (2007). Performance pay system preferences of students preparing to be teachers. Education Finance and Policy, 2(2), 111-132. doi: 10.1162/edfp.2007.2.2.111
Odden, A., & Kelley, C. (2002). Paying teachers for what they know and do: new and smarter compensation strategies to improve schools. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
Odden, A., & Kelley, C. (2002). Paying teachers for what they know and do: new and smarter compensation strategies to improve schools. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
Podgursky, M. J., & Springer, M. G. (2007). Teacher performance pay: a review. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 26(4), 909-950. doi: 10.1002/pam.20292
Podgursky, M. J., & Springer, M. G. (2007). Teacher performance pay: a review. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 26(4), 909-950. doi: 10.1002/pam.20292
Professional pay. (n.d.). Retrieved May 16, 2011, from http://www.nea.org/pay/teachermyths.html
Protsik, J. (1996). History of teacher pay and incentive reforms. Journal of School Leadership, 6(3), 265-289.
Rice, J. K. (2003). Teacher quality: understanding the effectiveness of teacher attributes. Washington, DC: Economic Policy Institute.
Rosenholtz, S. J. (1987). Education reform strategies: will they increase teacher commitment? American Journal of Education, 95(4), 352-389. doi: 10.1086/444325
Sawchuk, S. (2010). Study casts cold water on bonus pay. Education Week, 30(5), 12-13.
Sojourner, A., West, K., & Mykerezi, E. (2011, April 19). When does teacher incentive pay raise student achievement?: evidence from Minnesota's q-comp program [Scholarly project]. In REPEC Working Papers. Retrieved May 17, 2011, from http://repec.org/opt/redif/repec/hrr/papers/0111.pdf
Sorenson, B. (2007). Credentials versus performance: review of the teacher performance pay research. Peabody Journal of Education, 82(4), 551-573.
Stevens, L. P., & Piazza, P. (2010). Dear President Obama and Secretary Duncan: you are looking through the wrong window. Journal of Adolecent & Adult Literacy, 53(6), 512-515.
Storey, A. (2000). A leap of faith? Performance pay for teachers. Journal of Education Policy, 15(5), 509-523. doi: 10.1080/026809300750001667
What's a teacher worth? (2005). Education Next, 5(1), 60-3-65-7.
Woessmann, L. (n.d.). Cross-country evidence on teacher performance pay. Economics of Education Review, 30(3), 404-418.
Monday, May 23, 2011
Tuesday, May 10, 2011
Quest to become the 'Master of my Domain'
Teacher pay for performance recently became law in the State of Florida . This topic has been on the Florida legislative agenda since the late 1990s. Pay for performance, of course, is not a new idea but one borrowed from business models. It reached education a while ago and has taken many forms. The best example in the United States I'm currently aware of is the Denver Public Schools implementation of pay for performance, approved in 1999 by both the school board and teacher union and slowly implemented over the next decade. The system is still in use today.
Different types of pay for performance plans have developed for public schools. It can be as simple as tying test scores to pay scales or as complex as setting forth various objectives teachers must accomplish in order to increase their yearly salary with each action worth a specific dollar amount.
From the current Florida press coverage, a dichotomy seems to have developed. Teacher Unions cast pay for performance plans as trecherous to public education whereas legislators and business leaders see it as the necessary reform to improve the failing status quo. In the end, who's right?
To become a more informed participant in the debate, I plan to delve deep into the topic through current legislation, committee hearings and research articles that focus on what's been done, what's been adopted through Florida Senate Bill 736 (now Florida law), and how education stakeholders have reacted to the change. This blog will chronicle my findings, thoughts and reactions through linked articles, summaries, rants and raves with text and other forms of media over the course of the summer.
Feel free to comment and connect me to relevant information. Happy blogging...
Different types of pay for performance plans have developed for public schools. It can be as simple as tying test scores to pay scales or as complex as setting forth various objectives teachers must accomplish in order to increase their yearly salary with each action worth a specific dollar amount.
From the current Florida press coverage, a dichotomy seems to have developed. Teacher Unions cast pay for performance plans as trecherous to public education whereas legislators and business leaders see it as the necessary reform to improve the failing status quo. In the end, who's right?
To become a more informed participant in the debate, I plan to delve deep into the topic through current legislation, committee hearings and research articles that focus on what's been done, what's been adopted through Florida Senate Bill 736 (now Florida law), and how education stakeholders have reacted to the change. This blog will chronicle my findings, thoughts and reactions through linked articles, summaries, rants and raves with text and other forms of media over the course of the summer.
Feel free to comment and connect me to relevant information. Happy blogging...
Monday, May 9, 2011
2011 Florida Class Size Bill (SB2120)
From a voter initiative in 2002, Florida altered the state constitution and added a class size reduction amendment regulating class size to 18 for K - 3, 22 for 4 - 8, and 25 for grades 9 - 12. Schools were eased into the changes and afforded time to make the necessary adjustments based on the following timeline:
The cost to meet these requirements (based on Florida Department Education’s estimate) were $18.7 billion. In 2010, the legislature recommended an amendment to alter the current constitutional language in an effort to make the reform budget-friendly. This would have loosened the requirements to school wide averages as opposed to individual classrooms. Ultimately, this referendum received 55% of the vote, but failed to meet Florida’s 60% voter approval requirement.
During the 2011 legislative session, representatives modified the original language in order to provide school districts with increased flexibility in meeting the voter mandate. SB2120 removed the cap requirements for students enrolled in college credit courses among many others. In addition, districts will be granted permission to exceed the cap by 3 students per classroom when the district determines an emergency situation is present and the increase will not impede the learning environment of the students. Emergency situations, although, are not clearly defined nor is a timeline for action provided.
Many school and district administrators feel the 2011 bill affords increased flexibility in meeting the class size mandate and reduces the stress of facing significant financial penalties from the Department of Education. Opponents of the bill voiced concerns that legislators are out of touch with the citizenry and this is simply a way to circumvent a voter driven mandate. Since the modifications stand to affect only 304 classes (versus the original 849), some have argued this piece of legislation appears to be a way of circumventing voter intent. In addition, legislators have not yet provided sufficient funding needed to meet the remaining requirements leaving many school districts to question whether this legislation is feasible.
- School years 2003 - 2006, school district averages were used to determine compliance.
- School years 2006 - 2009, school wide averages were used (this was extended during the 2010 legislative session through 2009 - 2010 school year).
- Beginning in 2010 - 2011, schools were required to meet the mandate at the classroom level.
The cost to meet these requirements (based on Florida Department Education’s estimate) were $18.7 billion. In 2010, the legislature recommended an amendment to alter the current constitutional language in an effort to make the reform budget-friendly. This would have loosened the requirements to school wide averages as opposed to individual classrooms. Ultimately, this referendum received 55% of the vote, but failed to meet Florida’s 60% voter approval requirement.
During the 2011 legislative session, representatives modified the original language in order to provide school districts with increased flexibility in meeting the voter mandate. SB2120 removed the cap requirements for students enrolled in college credit courses among many others. In addition, districts will be granted permission to exceed the cap by 3 students per classroom when the district determines an emergency situation is present and the increase will not impede the learning environment of the students. Emergency situations, although, are not clearly defined nor is a timeline for action provided.
Many school and district administrators feel the 2011 bill affords increased flexibility in meeting the class size mandate and reduces the stress of facing significant financial penalties from the Department of Education. Opponents of the bill voiced concerns that legislators are out of touch with the citizenry and this is simply a way to circumvent a voter driven mandate. Since the modifications stand to affect only 304 classes (versus the original 849), some have argued this piece of legislation appears to be a way of circumventing voter intent. In addition, legislators have not yet provided sufficient funding needed to meet the remaining requirements leaving many school districts to question whether this legislation is feasible.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)