The ignorance of merit pay

Sarcasm often leads to the lowest form of humour, and now after reading Randall Denley's article on teacher merit pay, I can see that it can also lead to the lowest form of reasoning.

Here's how Denley starts his article:

Have you ever heard anything crazier than this? A guy called Kevin Falcon, who is running for the B.C. Liberal leadership, has suggested that people who are really good at their jobs should get paid more than those who are just average.

Needless to say, this bold assertion has caused outrage, but only because the people Falcon is talking about are teachers. The head of the teachers' federation in B.C. is appalled and the president of the Ontario Secondary School Teachers' Federation is on the same page.

Falcon has attacked one of the most cherished myths of the education industry, the contention that all teachers are equal and should be paid accordingly. If teachers are all equally skilled at their jobs, then our schools would be the first workplace to demonstrate this surprising development.

To someone unfamiliar with the education sector, and likely more familiar with business, Denley probably hits a home run. I mean, why wouldn't someone who is better at their job get paid more? This logic seems so innocuous that to disagree with it would be prima facie evidence that you wish to reward mediocrity, protect lazy-ass teachers, or you are a latent Lenin-loving Communist who should rot-in-hell.

But why take my word for it when you can get it straight from Denley:

The union opposition to a scheme that would actually pay some teachers more is superficially puzzling, but the real fear is a merit system would replace the lax, experience-driven pay-increase system that we have now. Don't be fooled into thinking that the teachers' opposition to merit pay is driven by some kind of altruistic approach that values accomplishment over money.

I wish it were as simple as Denley makes it sound: pay good teachers more - pay bad teachers less. Problem solved. And if you disagree, you're a heretic.

Just one problem.

How do Denley and other market-based "reformers" plan on filtering the good teachers from the bad?

Despite Denley's cavalier tone, even he doesn't ever really say how this will be accomplished. Other than, near the end of his diatribe, he seems to place great faith in the all-mighty standardized test.

His assumptions are ripped straight from the market-based education reform play-book, which might read something like this:

Test scores are accepted on faith as a proxy for quality, which means we can evaluate teachers on the basis of how much value they've added -- "value" meaning nothing more than higher scores. That, in turn, paves the way for manipulation by rewards and punishments: Dangle more money in front of the good teachers (with some kind of pay-for-performance scheme) and shame or fire the bad ones. Kids, too, can be paid for jumping through hoops. 

So do standardized tests assess what matters most about teaching and learning? If not, then the entire premise behind merit pay is built on, at best, superficial foundation. Many experts on the subject of standardized testing will put it this way  "test results primarily tell us two things: the socioeconomic status of the students being tested and the amount of  time devoted to preparing students for a particular test."

But even if you do find standardized tests credible, intelligent educators and business-people alike should realize that it is unwise to place so much importance on a single indicator or measurement. Rick Ayer's writes:

But our education MBA's have taken the lazy route. They should be broadening assessments to understand what students know and are able to do -- looking at qualitative evaluations, performance and portfolio and project based assessments, and learning in multiple modes that include creative and arts fields. Instead, they have narrowed the assessment -- really to only one measure, the standardized test. And that way lies disaster. Because, as anyone in business can tell you, a single metric bends all the efforts to polishing up that one measure, to the detriment of other important factors and even to the derailing of the whole enterprise.

If you need more on this, I suggest you acquaint yourself with Campbell's Law:

Campbell's law stipulates that "the more any quantitative social indicator is used for social decision-making, the more subject it will be to corruption pressures and the more apt it will be to distort and corrupt the social processes it was intended to monitor. Campbell warned us of the inevitable problems associated with undue weight and emphasis on a single indicator for monitoring complex social phenomena. In effect, he warned us about the high-stakes testing program that is part and parcel of No Child Left Behind.

Error rates in measuring teacher and school performance based on student test score gains has led experts to caution against reliance on test scores in teacher evaluations.

Even in his article, Randall Denley admits there is no consensus around merit pay, nor is there research to support the implementation of merit pay based on a value added model, but it would appear he doesn't really care:

Newspaper editorialists have agreed with merit pay in theory, but not in practice because there is no proof that it will produce miraculous improvements in learning. Probably not, but it makes more sense than paying people more money every year for a decade simply because they continue to show up for work.

The point of merit-based pay would be to reward those who have done an exceptional job. Giving merit pay to weak teachers won't make them better, but then they wouldn't be getting it, would they?

The really big argument against merit pay for teachers is that the system is so great now we shouldn't consider changing it.

Denley's argument here is essentially this: "I don't know if merit pay works, but it has to be better than what we do now." He's prepared to throw caution to the wind because merit pay would appear to be a courageous challenge to the failed status quo.

Yet he couldn't be more wrong.

Look, I'm all for changing school. In fact, I find myself agreeing with those who suggest we need a learning revolution, but not like this. There is a big difference between focusing reform on real learning and teaching rather than on data and accountability. Philip Weinberg, a high school principal in New York put it this way:

Our attention needs to be on improving schools rather than on improving systems. Ask us to answer the tough questions: “How we can teach better and what we should teach?” Our concentration on statistical outcomes has caused us to be less effective educators than we might have been. It distracts us from the truly important questions of what, and how, young people learn.

Help us unlearn shorthand such as, “That school’s an A” or, “New York City’s test scores rose by X percent” because such language obscures the real question of whether or not kids are learning well. Instead, try to engender an honest dialogue about the best ways to get kids to think for themselves and the best ways to help young people develop the skills and the habits of mind necessary to become good citizens.

Please ensure that the public discourse is not about demonizing teachers or their union. A leader can effect change without manufacturing an enemy.

However, demonizing teachers is exactly the premise behind merit pay. The whole idea that teachers and students are simply not "motivated" enough to perform is as arrogant as it is ignorant. Kohn explains:

The premise of merit pay, and indeed of all rewards, is that people could be doing a better job but for some reason have decided to wait until it's bribed out of them. This is as insulting as it is inaccurate. Dangling a reward in front of teachers or principals—"Here's what you'll get if things somehow improve"— does nothing to address the complex, systemic factors that are actually responsible for educational deficiencies. Pay-for-performance is an outgrowth of behaviorism, which is focused on individual organisms, not systems—and, true to its name, looks only at behaviors, not at reasons and motives and the people who have them.

Even if they wouldn't mind larger paychecks, teachers are typically not all that money-driven. They keep telling us in surveys that the magical moment when a student suddenly understands is more important to them than another few bucks. And, as noted above, they're becoming disenchanted these days less because of salary issues than because they don't enjoy being controlled by accountability systems. Equally controlling pay-for-performance plans are based more on neoclassical economic dogma than on an understanding of how things look from a teacher's perspective.

Randall Denley concludes his article this way:

Fundamental questions need to be asked about how we run our schools, but the vehement reaction to Falcon's modest proposal from teachers, unions and the public shows that we aren't ready for change.

You're right, we do need to ask fundamental questions about how schools are run, and you're article might have been a good place to start. It's too bad you are so distracted by "reforms" like merit pay and standardized testing which "really [are] just an intensification of the same tactics that have been squeezing the life out of our classrooms for a good quarter-century now."

Diversity is the norm

For too long teachers have resigned themselves to identifying children that are "different" and referring them elsewhere.

Exclusion is the most efficient way to artificially limit diversity.

Diversity is only the exception when we artificially limit its existence. We need to start understanding diversity as inevitable & necessary because being different is normal.

And we are all better for it.

Conduits and Buffers

Unfortunately, most teachers have come to see the standardized testing movement as a good part of their job description; and therefore, have resigned themselves to being mere conduits for the tests. In other words, many teachers have become agents of the state who are externally imposed to facilitate testing.

And yet by definition the best educators are those who act as a buffer to protect their students from the harmful effects of standardized testing.

So what's the difference between being a conduit and a buffer?

I have a couple thoughts:

Conduits tend to come in two flavours: either they are ignorant to the harmful effects of testing or they are apathetic towards doing anything to influence change. Sadly, there are some teachers who are products of our testing culture - their education was saturated with testing and so they know no other way.

Yet, there are many teachers who remember a time when testing was but a shadow of its present form; however, these veteran teachers have been worn down by a kind of bureaucratic friction that has eroded their opposition to standardized testing. For many of these veterans, self-preservation in this top-down, test and punish accountability scheme has brought on an acute case of apathy.

If even half the teachers in these testing bureaucracies refused their cooperation to save their students from the tests, we could make change over night.

So why hasn't this happened yet?

We don't lack the research and logic to oppose standardized testing - rather, we lack the courage to do so.

Failing our kids

When assessment is more about data, ranking & sorting, judging, accountability, measuring, filtering, evaluating, gate-keeping, rewarding, punishing, competing, raising the bar, closing the gap, norm referencing, bell curving, number crunching...

...we fail our kids more than we could ever imagine.

Culture of Compliance

I remember a friend of mine telling me about how they started to blog about education and shared links to their blog with colleagues via e-mail. Their district even had a Professional Development folder on e-mail that allowed for teachers to send information and links pertaining to Professional Development.

However, when my friend wrote a blog post that was critical of Robert Marzano, they were asked to stop posting links for their blog to the district Professional Development folder. They were told that the criticisms of Marzano were not supportive of the district's professional development.

Such a story leaves me disheartened.

It also leaves me with a question: who owns a teacher's professional development?

And under what circumstances would the answer to the above question ever be someone other than the teacher?

I don't care if your favorite author is Alfie Kohn or B.F Skinner. Either way, for professional development and life long learning to thrive, we must provide a forum for open dialogue.

Authority figures need to be very careful how they react to teachers who choose to openly and actively reflect upon the teaching profession.

They need to be careful, because teachers are watching.

Stanley Milgrim's shock experiments tell us that most people's default is to defer to authority; in other words, administrators need to go out of their way to nourish sharing and collaboration. If teachers are not given the ability to influence administration without appearing to be troublemakers, other teachers who are less apt to speak out will get the message.

School districts that try and frame (or even discourage) teachers from talking, reading, writing and sharing about their own profession are responsible for creating cultures of compliance where optimism is mandated and creativity and ingenuity are stifled.

Race to Nowhere

On January 12, I will be in Calgary, Alberta for a viewing of Race to Nowhere followed by a moderated discussion. You can get tickets here.



Click on the picture below to see the event's details and how to acquire tickets.

Sir Ken Robinson: A Public Dialogue

I am pleased to work with a group of teachers who are organizing a public dialogue with Sir Ken Robinson.

Who: Sir Ken Robinson

When: February 9, 2010. 6:00-9:30 pm

Where: Westerner Park. 4847A 19 Street. Red Deer, Alberta.

Tickets: $10

For tickets contact Jen Bahler at jbahler@rdpsd.ab.ca or 403-505-5889. Seating is limited.

Click on the picture below to view more details about this event.

For more on Sir Ken Robinson, check out these links:

Sir Ken Robinson - Learning Revolution

Why teaching is not like making motorcars

Standards and Standardization

Sir Ken Robinson takes on standardized tests

The Culture of Public Education

Human capacity or Human captivity?

Ask Sir Ken Robinson

Sir Ken Robinson and ADHD

Trivial educational reform

Principal Seeks to Replace Student Body, Improve Scores

Here is a satirical post by Mr. Teachbad on the lunacy of present day school reform:

Principal Seeks to Replace Student Body, Improve Scores:

We have changed everything else here. And all it’s done is branded some good people as bad teachers. People have been demoralized and simply left the profession because of how much they have been told they suck. And that’s all for the good, perhaps. But perhaps not.

But let’s think outside the box. Let’s change the other side of the equation. I challenge you to give me students from the highest performing school in our district and we will see if my lazy-ass, ineffective teachers can keep the scores at J.C Harmon down. I mean, this is what we do, right? Low-Scores-R-Us. If we can bring scores down to regular J.C Harmon-type levels in two to three years, the entire teaching and administrative staff will resign. Let us show you how ineffective we can be, no matter who you put in our classrooms.

Framing the reality of grading

I have written extensively on how and why teachers need to abolish grading, and I believe that teachers, students and parents should fight like mad against those who wish to externally impose the "need" to grade. I am fortunate enough to work in a school district that, for the most part, trusts their teachers to both teach and assess their classrooms based on their students' needs. Because I am trusted, I am provided with the professional latitude to abolish grading almost entirely from my classroom (only on three report cards a year am I mandated to place a grade).

However, I am aware that not all teachers are fortunate enough to be trusted to be a professional. Many teachers are prisoners to external prescription and standardization. I am not ignorant to the challenges many teachers would face if they were to attempt to abolish grading. Here is but a small list of obstacles:

• School districts mandate the use of on-line report cards along with a prescribed number of grades that must be updated on a daily, weekly or monthly basis.
• Departments in schools often mandate a kind of school-based standardization requiring teachers to have a set number of graded assignments or exams.
• Provinces or states mandate high-stakes standardized tests to be a part of the students' grade.
• Most parents only ever experienced an education with grading, so they assume to understand what grades mean. For some parents, the absence of grading might lead them to assume there is an absence of learning.
• Teachers who are compelled to teach far too many students in a day, week, semester or year resort to reducing children to grades because they can't feasibly assess any other way.

The obstacles for abolishing grading are as abundant as they are real.

When I talk to teachers about the idea of abolishing grading, they typically provide two reactions. Firstly, they (for the most part) agree that the pitfalls of grading are prevalent; however, they are quick to list off all the reason why nothing can be done about it. 

So what is to be done?

What would you think of a teacher or parent who reconciles to the reality that nothing can really be done about bullying?

It wasn't that long ago that some parents or teachers saw bullying as "boys being boys" as if bullying was this rite of passage. Today, our society has taken quite a different take on bullying. 

So what happened? How did we progressive from such apathy to action?

I won't profess to know the answer, but I bet it has something to do with the fact that we started to openly and actively ask provocative questions about bullying. Rather than framing the reality of bullying as something we must resign ourselves to, we started to see it as a problem to be solved. 

It's time we did the same for grading - and I suggest we start with the bulleted list above.