Article

The People's Road Trip

People’s Road Trip to Kick Off from Cincinnati, Events to Encourage Ohioans to Vote NO on Issue 2 to Stop Senate Bill 5

Tomorrow, We Are Ohio will launch the People’s Road Trip in Cincinnati, with trip stops planned all across Ohio. Workers who will vote NO on Issue 2 to stop SB 5 will speak at each stop to encourage Ohioans to vote early. Doug Stern, the Ohio firefighter featured in the first television ad for We Are Ohio will join the People’s Road Trip and will speak at all the stops.

“Issue 2 will affect the safety of not just fire fighters, but our communities as well,” said Doug Stern, Cincinnati firefighter. “The heart of this bill takes away firefighters' professional voices. Issue 2 supporters keep putting forth pension and health care provisions. But the reality is those are nothing more than the magician’s pretty assistant, designed to distract voters from the real issue. The truth is Issue 2 will strip public employees like me from having any real input on safe working conditions and proper staffing levels."

People’s Road Trip Schedule:

Tuesday, October 4

10:50 AM: Hamilton County Board of Elections, 824 Broadway, Cincinnati

1:00 PM: Dayton Cultural Center, 40 S Edwin C Moses Blvd, Dayton

3:00 PM- (TENTATIVE) Regional Proud Ohio Worker press conference

5:00 PM: Lima We Are Ohio Office, 43 Town Square (near Main and Market)

Wednesday, October 5

10:00 AM: (Near) Lucas County Board of Elections, 12th Street (near the corner of 12th and Washington), Toledo

NOON- (TENTATIVE) Regional Proud Ohio Worker Press Conference

3:15 PM: AFL-CIO, 3250 Euclid Ave., Cleveland

6PM-8PM: Community Forum- Bethany Christian Church, 3940 Martin Luther King Drive, Cleveland

Thursday, October 6

10:15 AM: Mahoning County Board of Elections, Oakhill Renaissance Place, 345 Oak Hill Ave Youngstown

2:20 PM: Steubenville Fire Department, 115 South Third Street, Steubenville

2:45 PM: March to the Jefferson County Board of Elections, 117 North Third Street, Steubenville

4:30 PM: (TENTATIVE) Regional Proud Ohio Worker Press Conference

Friday, October 7

10:00 AM: Washington County Board of Elections, 205 Putnam Street, Marietta

12:30 PM: (TENTATIVE) Regional Proud Ohio Worker Press Conference

4:00 PM: Franklin County Board of Elections, 280 East Broad St., Columbus

A Nationally Board Certified Teacher on Merit Pay and SB 5

This is a guest column from a Nationally Board Certified Teacher.

Ten years ago I undertook the daunting task of applying to become a Nationally Board Certified Teacher. I wanted to prove to myself that I had what it takes to be an outstanding teacher. According to the Ohio Department of Education (ODE), fewer than 3,000 out of the 100,000+ teachers in Ohio have attained this status. It is the pinnacle of achievement for a teacher. As ODE states, “National Board Certification is the highest credential in the teaching profession.”

This is what merit pay is all about, right?

Originally when I started the process, the state of Ohio supported these tasks. The assessment fee to submit your materials for consideration is $2,500. I was able to have the state pick up all of the costs for applying by attending some professional development sessions ODE provided.

Today the State of Ohio provides ZERO funding for teachers wishing to prove their ultimate teaching merit. There is now a federal subsidy that is available for Ohio teachers, but it covers only half of the assessment fee. Ohio lawmakers turned their backs on teachers seeking to prove their merit.

The process I undertook was indeed rigorous. I have heard others aptly describe the National Board process as considering all the work for Master’s Degree that may take three or more years and compressing it into a semester. It was very true.

  • I had to submit lesson plans, but not simple sketches of the day’s activities. Lesson plan submissions included detailed descriptions of objectives, processes, activities, sequencing and assessment.
  • I had to submit video tapes of these plans in action. This was not a few minutes of a lesson that an administrator might wander in and observe, but full period lessons in action.
  • Student sample work was also submitted, but of all types of learners and not just cherry-picked straight-A student work.
  • I submitted reflective writings that showed that I not only delivered a lesson, but reviewed how it went and how I would make it better.
  • And finally I took a lengthy examination over the content of my teaching field that took several hours to complete.

Notice that at no time was my candidacy for the highest achievement in education based upon student results of a single two-hour standardized test. This does not prove teacher merit. I can personally attest to how socio-economic factors play greatly into student test results and why the state should NEVER consider this for teacher evaluation.

In 1997 I taught in a school were my students were struggling learners from homes that generally did not support the school through activities, PTA (there wasn’t one) or tax levies (11 failed levies in 7 years). That year I was fortunate enough to be selected as the Outstanding Educator of the Year, but my state test results were not very much different than my colleagues in the same area.

The following year I changed school districts, thanks in part to a resume that now included Teacher of the Year. My new district is a wealthier, suburban school that has not failed any levies in my time and has active parents in the schools. Essentially I taught the same content in my final year at the old school and first in the new, but the test scores of my students went up by dramatically large percentages. Did I suddenly become an excellent teacher? No. Ohio’s standardized testing simply does not assess the merits of teachers in the classroom.

Regarding Senate Bill 5 I have had a few people say to me: “I would think you would love this idea because you could make so much money being such a great teacher.” While nice to hear, I have no trust that Ohio really wants to “reward” their best teachers through a merit system. Why do I feel this way? Because Ohio lawmakers turned backs on me several years ago.

One of the incentives for attaining National Board status is that Ohio was one of several states that rewarded their NBCT’s with an annual stipend. When I applied for NBCT status, Ohio said they would give NBCT’s a $2,500 stipend each year of the 10-year certification. A few years after becoming an NBCT, Ohio reduced that amount for any new NBCT’s to $1,000. Two years ago Ohio completely de-funded the program, removing all stipends for all NBCT’s at the same time they quit subsidizing the application process.

So when I hear TV ad’s that say that Ohio wants to get rid of the bad teachers and to “reward” their good teachers, I shake my head. By their own standards, I am supposed to be one of their best teachers. So how will they reward me?

By removing experience (seniority) as being important to salary, it will encourage my school – or any other school – to disregard my degrees and certification. Ask yourself, if you were going into surgery would you prefer your doctor was experienced with this procedure or not? Will it matter to you if the doctor is excellent, but has little experience with this procedure? So why is acceptable then to ignore experience with your children’s education?

Issue 2 proponents like to argue that SB 5 does allow for negotiating salary. This is deliberately misleading, because while my union can make an offer on salary in whatever form it likes, SB 5 mandates that if the two sides disagree that the Board of Education’s final offer becomes the contract. Why would any school then take any salary negotiations seriously? Consequently, don’t look for the salaries of “best” teachers to rise. They may be the best salaries within their schools, but SB 5 allows a local Board of Education to reduce salaries by whatever they please. 10%? Yes. 25%? They could. 50%? SB 5 doesn’t stop this.

The Governor is contending that all SB 5 is really about is getting us to pay 10% of pensions and 15% of insurance costs. I have paid 10% of my pension costs for as long as I can remember. My health care contributions have gone up well over 15% from the first contract I signed in my current school district. So campaigning on these two accounts are deliberately misleading as to what the entire bill does.

But the bottom line is really this. If we want the best teachers in our classrooms, there is already a process to do that with National Board Certification. If we want premier teachers in the classroom, then we need to provide evaluations that mirror what the best system does.

Despite a resume that looks really good, I only became a Nationally Board Certified Teacher (NBCT) by less than 5 points. A colleague that I considered my mentor and an incredible teacher failed to meet this mark three times, coming as close as within two points. There are only seven National Board Certified teachers in my district and only three in my building. I was the last to attain this honor, nearly 10 year ago. My district does not reward NBCT’s with supplemental. Only 36 of the 600+ school districts in Ohio offer “merit” rewards for their NBCT’s, with only 11 (less than 2%!) offering continuing stipends. If SB 5 passes, do you really think schools will include such incentives for their best teachers? I doubt these 11 schools would keep what financial incentives they have now for NBCT’s.

So when you hear the ads that SB 5 would reward the best teachers, remember this. Ohio has already neglected their best teachers and few local districts have stepped in to provide real “rewards” for the best teachers they have now. What trust do you have that suddenly now they will live up to their word?

Jay Wise, NBCT (2002-2012)

No one is watching Better Ohio ads

Better Ohio, more aptly described as Bitter Ohio by the tenor of their campaign, has just launched a new ad featuring a teacher. The same teacher who appeared in a Teachers for Kaisch ad during the gubernatorial campaign. While watching that latest propaganda we thought it interesting to check the viewing stats for Issue 2 ads on each of the campaign's Youtube channels.

Let's start with We Are Ohio ads

That's a total of 1,319,579 views.

Now let's take a look at Bitter Ohio

That's a total of 17,353 views. Ouch!

The Bitter Ohio campaign is generating only 1.3% the advertising views that We Are Ohio is able to generate. It's easy to see from this transparent accounting where the interest and grassroots support lies

Here are some ads that got more views than Bitter Ohio's efforts

A Model for Teacher Effects From Longitudinal Data

This paper from the Journal Of Educational And Behavioral Statistics takes a look at longitudinal individual teacher effects

One of the most challenging aspects of modeling longitudinal achievement data is how to address the persistence of the effects of past educational inputs on future achievement outcomes. In this article, we are concerned primarily with the effects of individual teachers and how best to model the accumulation of those effects across a longitudinal series of student achievement measures. For example, if a teacher improves student reading comprehension by teaching comprehension strategies, then we might expect the strategies to be useful for improving achievement in both current and future years. However, it is less clear how much the effects will persist and how the effects on future achievement will relate to the effects for the current year. The utility of comprehension strategies might diminish over time as students develop other methods for reading comprehension and the teacher’s effect on future scores might decrease and eventually fade to zero.

Results from these kinds of studies continue to raise concerns

As the prospect of using longitudinal achievement data to make potentially high-stakes inferences about individual teachers becomes more of a reality, itis important that statistical methods be flexible enough to account for the complexities of the data. The increasing frequency of tests that are not developmentally scaled across grades, as well as the concerns about the properties of developmental scales, suggests that longitudinal data series may need to be treated as repeated correlated measures of different constructs rather than repeated measures of a consistently defined unidimensional construct. Coupled with the inherent complexity of the accumulation of past educational inputs,models that assume equality or otherwise perfect correlation between proximal and future year effects of individual teachers may be inappropriate and run the risk of leading to misleading inferences about teachers. The GP model developed in this article tackles these issues head-on by generalizing existing value-added models to handle both scaling inconsistencies across repeated test scores and potential decay in the effects of past educational inputs on future test scores.

The results of our empirical investigations suggest that the assumption of perfect correlation between proximal and future effects of individual teachers is not entirely consistent with the data.

Journal of Educational and Behavioral Statistics-2010-Mariano-253-79

ODE subject matter contact info

The Ohio Department of Education (ODE) has just released this contact information document by subject matter expertise. We thought it might be useful to share with our readers if you;re trying to find the right perosn for the the right topic. Feel free to download it, or just book mark this page.

ODE Contacts by Topic

Why Pay for Performance Should Get the Sack

The following article discusses the problems with perfoamcne pay in the financial sector, the heat of capitalism. Extrapolating this compensation gimmick to educators as corporate education reformers are seeking to do continues to be proven problematic

By Bruno S. Frey, Professor of Economics at the University of Zurich and Margit Osterloh, Professor (em.) for Business Administration and Management of Technology and Innovation, University of Zürich; and Professor, Warwick Business School. Cross posted from VoxEU

As the bonus culture in the financial sector once again comes under attack, this column rubbishes the typical defence that banks need to pay top dollar to attract the best talent.

Scientific literature has extensively dealt with variable pay-for-performance. Despite the fact that serious problems linked to this approach have thus become obvious, many authors continue to support compensation according to predetermined performance criteria because they are committed to the traditional concept of the ’homo oeconomicus’.
Overall, there has been a marked change of opinion in academia (see for instance Bryson and Freeman 2008 on this site). The idea that people are solely self-interested and materially orientated has been thrown overboard by leading scholars. Empirical research, in particular experimental research, has shown that under suitable conditions human beings care for the wellbeing of other persons. Above all, they are not solely interested in material gains (see eg Frey and Osterloh 2002). Recognition by co-workers is greatly important. Many workers are intrinsically motivated, ie they perform work for its own sake because it is found challenging and worth undertaking. This applies not only to qualified employees but also to persons fulfilling simple tasks. They often are proud of their work and performance.

There are four major arguments against variable pay-for-performance:

  • In a modern economy, it is practically impossible to determine tasks that are to be fulfilled in the future precisely enough so that variable pay-for-performance can be applied. In a society continually faced with new challenges, superiors oftentimes find it impossible to fix ex ante what an employee will have to do in the future.
  • It would be naïve to assume that the persons subjected to variable pay-for-performance would accept the respective criteria in a passive way and fulfil their work accordingly. Rather, they spend much energy and time trying to manipulate these criteria in their favour. This is facilitated by the fact that employees often know the specific features of their work better than their superiors. The wage explosions observable in many sectors of the economy can at least partly be attributed to such manipulations, eg when managers are able to contract easily achievable performance goals.
  • Variable pay-for-performance results in employees restricting their work to those areas covered by the performance criteria. In the literature, this is known as the ’multiple tasking’ problem. This may induce employees to spend considerable time and energy during their work trying to find a better-paid job with another firm. They therefore neglect their tasks insofar as they are not contractually fixed by the performance criteria.
  • Variable pay-for-performance tends to crowd out intrinsic work motivation and therewith the joy of fulfilling a particular task. However, such motivation is of great importance in a modern economy because it supports innovation and helps to fulfil tasks going beyond the ordinary.

[readon2 url="http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2011/09/why-pay-for-performance-should-get-the-sack.html"]Continue reading...[/readon2]