There Is No Free Money

Good article in the Spokesman Review today (link to come when I can find one) about Idaho's application for Race to the Top. Money quotes:

The grant application is due Jan. 19, and Idaho's proposal will include a plan to lift the cap on charter schools and pay teachers based on performance. These are both types of education reform Idaho public schools chief Tom Luna supports but has not been able to get approval for in the past.

"Many of the things called for in the grant are things we've been working on for some time," Luna said. "With this money we'll just be able to get it done sooner."

------------

The union, however, does have concerns about what happens when the grant funding runs out, Wood said, adding that she is skeptical Idaho lawmakers will be willing to pick up the tab for a pay-for-performance plan when that happens.

As a wise man (not Tom Luna) once said, "Duh."

This is one time money. It's going to go away. Any state that pushed through a merit pay plan solely for the purpose of getting this money would be a state run by idiots, because they're going to have to pay every last cent the bill themselves as soon as the RtT cash is used up.

And let's say you use some of this one-time money to pay for the work that needs to be done to make these systemic changes--any money spent is that much less money you have to run the new programs going forward.

In three years, there's going to be a lot of states looking back on 2009 and 2010 and wondering what the hell they were thinking.

Read more here, if any.

Because Business is Good With Money!

Hey, did you see how Governor Butch Otter in Idaho wants to teach his department heads to cut costs?

Otter has ordered the Idaho Transportation Department to immediately cut its administrative expenses by 6 percent. Because the department receives no state general funds, it wasn't subject to Otter's recent midyear cuts in the state budget. The governor also wants a group of business leaders to advise the department on efficiency, and he is looking for savings pursuant to a legislative audit that's soon to be completed.

This is clearly a great idea, because there's no recent news that would suggest that trusting our business leaders with large sums of money would be anything less than a great idea.

Read more here, if any.

Coeur d’Alene Teachers: Please Hang Up During Class. Students: WAAAAAAAAAAAH!

My eyes rolled:

Coeur d'Alene School District 271 is considering a policy change that would ban students' use of cell phones from the moment they walk on campus until the final dismissal bell, including during lunch and breaks.

A draft of the proposed policy is making the rounds among the 17 schools in the district.

"Nothing has been decided yet," said Harry Amend, district superintendent. "The district's policy advisory committee is looking at our policy. It's out in the buildings for input right now as part of that process. It will be out there for 30 days."

Some students are very upset about the proposed change.

"I think the school and the school board is being ridiculous with how many policies they are instituting – the school is a strict environment as it is," said Deanna Dotts, 18, a senior at Coeur d'Alene High School. "A kid using a phone in class is not distracting anyone but that student. It's the teacher bringing attention to it that takes away time from the 29 other students in class."

Deanna, sweetie, the fact that you’re distracted matters too. And as a teacher, the idea of the kids texting or talking away during my lessons is just insane.

It gets even more peculiar when you consider that CDA High is an open campus for lunch, so the kids who need their cell time could go off and get it then. Until then, though, asking them to leave the phones in their backpacks or lockers doesn’t seem unreasonable.

Read more here, if any.

The Schoolyard Bully

From the tone of this article, you'd have to think it's the NEA and the AFT.

A piece from the article that doesn't work:

Or consider performance-based pay. Forty percent of teachers leave the classroom within their first five years on the job — in some measure because they don’t stand to gain the same performance-based pay raises available to their private-sector counterparts. Merit pay would help public schools retain good teachers by paying them more.

Let's note first that "in some measure" is a wonderfully inexact phrase; it could be one teacher, it could be all of them. Let's note too that as long as teaching is a government function there's a built-in incentive to keep costs vis-a-vis payroll down, so this idea that there's an untapped funding source out there just waiting to go to teachers is a figment of the imagination.

I'm taking a school law class now taught by a former superintendent who now does a ton of work for school districts locally as a hearing officer, investigator, and superintendent search consultant. He looked kindly on the proposed merit pay plan out of Idaho that would have given teachers raises of about $3,000 in return for giving up tenure; if you extrapolate that same number into Washington, with 80,000 teachers, you'd be looking at a cost of $240,000,000. It's not doable.

I think that if you do it right merit pay could work, under the perfect conditions and appropriate reasons. We can't pretend, though, that merit pay is a way to solve the salary gap, and it has to be acknowledged that (as with most things in life) it's impossible to do in a completely fair manner.

I do enjoy the discussion, though.

Read more here, if any.

Idaho: We Squeeze a Nickel ’til the Buffalo Poops.

From the December 19th Education Week:

Ninth graders will no longer take the Idaho Standard Achievement Tests because the state board of education can’t cover the costs, the board announced last week.

High school students must pass the 10th grade version of the test before they may graduate, and the standardized tests are used to determine if schools are succeeding under the federal No Child Left Behind Act. But state board members said the 9th grade version had to be axed because with a price tag of about $1.1 million, it was too expensive and the board had to balance its budget.

It would be interesting to see a study that laid out what it costs each state to administer the testing required under NCLB. The last number I saw for Washington was around $200 million; imagine what a place like California or Texas must cost.

Read more here, if any.

Performance Pay in the Spud State

Idaho is working on a statewide merit pay proposal, according to the Spokane Spokesman-Review:

A sweeping proposal from state Superintendent of Schools Tom Luna that would give substantial pay raises to teachers who give up tenure, work at high-performing schools, assume leadership roles or take difficult-to-fill positions drew praise from local school leaders Thursday for its innovation.

The North Idaho school administrators who gathered in Coeur d'Alene on Thursday to hear about the plan raised questions that underscored part of the reason Luna was there: He's seeking input early on what will help the plan win the Legislature's approval next year.

The plan will never be perfect, he said, but "I would encourage you to get behind this, support it, help make it better."

Because the proposal would create two contracts for teachers to choose from – one with tenure and one without – some school leaders questioned how the contract would compare in the instance of forced layoffs. Others wondered how the plan would appeal to school employees like counselors, who under the current proposal wouldn't be eligible for every extra pay incentive, such as more cash for taking on leadership activities.

"Some of those are trials that have yet to be worked out and some are details that could be tweaked," said Melissa McGrath, spokeswoman for the state Department of Education. "People really support the plan and like it, they may have a few questions here and there but it's mostly about details."

Luna's proposed budget for the 2008-09 school year calls for a 7.9 percent increase over the previous budget – with about half, or $60 million, going to the performance pay program. Teachers who keep existing contracts with tenure could get increases as high as $6,000 if their schools show growth or proficiency on the ISAT. But teachers who forgo tenure could get added pay for things like certification in multiple subjects.

Key points of the proposal include:

•$2,400, one-time pay increase for all certified staff in a school that's in the top 25 percent statewide and shows improvement on the spring Idaho Standards Achievement Test; $1,200 if the school scores in the 50th to 25th percentiles; $1,200, one-time pay increase for certified staff at a school that performs in the top quartile overall.

•$2,400 per person annually for positions deemed difficult to fill by the school district. •$2,400 annually to give up tenure.

•$2,400 annually for non-tenured teachers who take on extra leadership activities like supervising after-school programs.

•Up to $2,400 for non-tenured teachers who earn additional expertise certificates.

A six-step procedure would be in effect for teachers who choose to forgo tenure for more pay.

"Some teachers already do this when they go into administration," Luna said. "We want to give them the opportunity to take this and remain in the classroom."

The current starting salary for Idaho teachers is $31,000. If the Legislature funds Luna's proposal, a first-year teacher who forgoes tenure and fills an in-demand position would make nearly $5,000 more.

"That's what it's going to take if we're going to attract the best and brightest," he said. "… We're never going to get teacher pay where we want it if we're just going to add 2, 3, 4 percent on the base pay each year."

Though most had questions about the details and suggested changes, school leaders commended the overall plan, saying it is bold and well thought-out.

Post Falls School District Superintendent Jerry Keane asked what the proposal could mean for administrative salaries, which are already closely aligned with top teacher salaries. "That gap is getting smaller as a result of this," he said. "I know you can't take on the whole world … but it's something to think about."

Calling it "a great start," Coeur d'Alene School District Superintendent Harry Amend said the proposal works to address a number of issues "that we have been hammering on in Idaho for a number of years" such as higher pay and attracting teachers to in-demand subject areas like science and special education.

"The point is, it's significant dollars for teacher salaries," said Chuck Kinsey, superintendent of the Lakeland School District. "The window's right to pass it."

Skyway Elementary School third-grade teacher Paula Marano, president of the Coeur d'Alene Education Association, said local educators have questions about the proposal such as how the Legislature will be able to sustain such a substantial increase in the education budget. The union will hear from state union leader Sherri Wood at its next meeting regarding Luna's proposal.

"It's controversial," she said.

In what's becoming my modus operendi, here's a couple of thoughts:

1. Right message, wrong messenger? Tom Luna isn't the most respected politician in the state of Idaho. His degree has been called into question, and his bona fides on education are sketchier than you'd like to see in the person in charge of all education in your state.
   
   
2. The option to have a tenured or non-tenured contract is interesting--I don't know that I've seen that in any other proposal--and it also begs a question of whether a teacher could switch between the two, or whether they're locked into one for life.
   
   
3. The statement from his spokesperson seems odd; it doesn't speak well of anyone that they would support a plan without knowing the details. It means they either don't care about the details, or they're thoughtless. Neither is attractive.
   
   
4. I emphasized the first bullet point because I'm either misreading it or the reporter doesn't understand percentile rankings, but if you give a bonus to those schools in the highest (75th to 99th) percentiles, then a different bonus to those schools in the 25th to 50th percentiles, you've oddly skipped the schools from the 51st to 75th. I can guess what the plan is, but the reporter worded it very awkwardly.
   
   
5. Note that all of the support statements are from superintendents, who have absolutely nothing to lose from this. It'll be interesting to see how the IEA, toothless as they are, respond.

Read more here, if any.