*This is the first in a series of short posts to elaborate on my personal thoughts regarding Question 2 in a manner that informs, hopefully persuades, and doesn't jam up the social media timelines of my dear friends.*
Today's Quick Thought: Follow the Money
For a variety of reasons, I am against Question 2, which would raise the charter school enrollment cap in Massachusetts. I find that, on surface, it is an irresponsible way of going about a cap lift. And deeper down, I have serious concerns about the motives of those who fund the movement.
Let's talk funding.
If you've never visited the Commonwealth's Office of Political and Campaign Finance website, it's a super nerdy way to kill time, and it can be really fascinating when you dig into the donations and expenditures for candidates and interest groups. Oh, you're not that nerdy? That's OK. :)
With regards to the ballot questions, each side sets up a ballot campaign committee that organizes people for the vote and promotes their side. The bumper stickers, campaign ads, rallies, and election night party food spread are all paid for by these campaigns. But where do they get their money? That's where the OPCF website is most useful.
In many cases (but not all cases, as some groups use "dark money"), you can see where the money comes from in regularly filed reports. The next reports don't come out until September 9th, but let's look at the end-of-year report for the pro-charter group Public Charters for Massachusetts:
As this excellent blog post points out, there's some serious cash flowing into this campaign from just a handful of donors. In fact, 14 investors donated $475,000 (or 96% of all contributions). Of those 14, thirteen are hedge fund/venture capital investors, and one is a shady super PAC.
By the way, this question will blow the lid off of state election spending records. The pro-charter side alone will spend more than all of the money spent on both sides of the 2014 casino question combined.
It makes you wonder: is this really a grassroots effort of parents and community members? There are no doubt some wonderful people with good intentions who are working to pass this measure. But the money trail suggests that the funders and the volunteers might not be approaching this for the same reason.
Now, before you say it, I'll get out ahead of you: yes, there's big money on the other end. The Massachusetts Teachers Association and AFT-MA have committed to roughly $11 million in funding to defeat this measure. And if you're decidedly anti-union, then I will probably not change your mind here. But I leave you with this thought:
MTA, a democratically run interest group, is committed to contributing $9 million from the collective contributions of over 100,000 educators. Great Schools MA's supporters have pledged $18 million and so far it mostly comes from 13 individuals and one Super PAC. What does that narrative say to you?
Keep following the money.
Tuesday, July 26, 2016
Sunday, October 26, 2014
Flawed Policy: Proposed Licensure Changes in MA
The MA DESE recently released model options they may use to overhaul the licensure system for teachers. The options are generating a lot of dialogue already, if only because each of the proposed models would tie license renewal to the educator evaluation system in some way. This has many teacher understandably concerned. While there are some good ideas regarding career advancement and educator preparation, I am against these models. I'd like to share some thoughts in this post.
The best way to approach such a loaded document is to start with the overarching principles which guide the proposed changes. They are as follows:
The four guiding principles deal with the two traditional phases of licensure, entering the profession and maintaining credentials, in addition to teacher leadership and processing.
When it comes to entering the profession, few will argue against reforms that require more training and practice before a teacher enters the classroom. Currently, it is possible for a teacher to begin teaching in their own classroom simply because they have a bachelors degree in the subject and passed the appropriate MTEL. I actually think the proposed models do a good job in emphasizing that training matters. In the proposal, there are two ways in which one can enter the profession. The first is through a traditional educator prep program. The second is a year-long teaching residency. This model is similar in format to programs such as the Boston Teacher Residency, which requires participants to receive on-the-job training by working for a year with a master teacher before beginning in his or her own classroom. This change would be difficult for mid-career entrants to the profession considering the time necessary to devote to such a residency. However, if our common goal is to elevate the profession, we must ask those who desire to educate children that they commit to a rigorous training process.
The Pathways to Leadership principle is also commendable. While Massachusetts is the leader in most way when it comes to education, we are far behind others when it comes to giving classroom teachers a chance to take on meaningful leadership roles. We have a very traditional path to leadership: teacher, building administrator, central office. The proposed models begin to lay the groundwork for a more dynamic career path by offering endorsements that can be earned by classroom teachers in various areas such as data specialist, curriculum and instruction, technology integration, etc. This could very well lead to a more dynamic leadership structure in districts large and small.
And nobody will argue that creating a more efficient processing system for licensure is a welcomed principle!
Despite these good ideas, the heart of the document has major issues. The largest problem is the concept of tying license renewal to the educator evaluation system. Under all of the models, license renewal is dependent, to varying degrees, on the educator's summative performance rating. In two of the models (A & C), student impact ratings are a criteria as well. One could see the well intentions of such models. In an era filled with mandates and reforms, it makes sense to streamline where it's possible. However, this proposal is inappropriate for many reasons, specifically:
1. The educator evaluation system is barely off the ground, and not working well enough and consistently enough throughout the state. In a perfect world, with a perfect system, it would make sense to tie teacher effectiveness to licensure, but the reality is far from perfect. Every single district (and even schools within districts) is implementing the system in different ways with varying degrees of success. Proficient in one building can look fundamentally different than another. It can even vary across evaluators. Licensure should be a constant; something that means the same thing everywhere in the Commonwealth. The educator evaluation system, which hasn't even been fully implemented yet, is just too new, too inconsistent, and too unreliable to connect with licensure.
2. Tying licensure to the educator evaluation system compromises the intent of the system itself. We have been told as educators that the purpose of the evaluation system is to provide high quality feedback and promote professional growth. We are already struggling to reconcile this notion with the reality of being so ratings focused. To tie the ability for an educator to practice in Massachusetts to this system further undermines that intent. Instead of being about feedback and growth, this system will increasingly be about trying to keep your license. For administrators, it will mean evaluations and rating decisions will be tainted by the prospects of ruining one's career. Most districts don't even have the supports necessary to help teachers labeled Needs Improvement to improve their practice. Can we really sleep at night knowing that educators could be permanently shut out of a career because they were never appropriately supported to begin with? I can't.
It also bears noting that licensure is a sensitive topic for many. Whether or not you agree with the idea of "lifetime certification" many well-qualified educators who received such credentials in the past have been though the ringer of reform over the years. This proposal takes that lack of trust and deserved skepticism to a new level. And what about those of us who invested lots of time and money into graduate degrees only to find that the new proposal only values such work as above and beyond (an option for license B under only one model)? Relationships must be considered when making such large policy changes.
For these reasons, educators must speak out in opposition to this proposal. Anyone who knows me knows that I am all about consensus and finding common ground. The teacher leadership and educator prep aspects of this plan are viable and could be great in the long run. However, the core proposal of tying licensure to educator evaluations is a non-negotiable. If implemented, we will be permanently affixed to an unproven system, and the fundamental nature of licensure will be compromised. If we want to create a licensure system that is more dynamic than what we currently have, we need to go back to the drawing board. And this time, we need practicing classroom teachers at the table from day one.
The best way to approach such a loaded document is to start with the overarching principles which guide the proposed changes. They are as follows:
The four guiding principles deal with the two traditional phases of licensure, entering the profession and maintaining credentials, in addition to teacher leadership and processing.
When it comes to entering the profession, few will argue against reforms that require more training and practice before a teacher enters the classroom. Currently, it is possible for a teacher to begin teaching in their own classroom simply because they have a bachelors degree in the subject and passed the appropriate MTEL. I actually think the proposed models do a good job in emphasizing that training matters. In the proposal, there are two ways in which one can enter the profession. The first is through a traditional educator prep program. The second is a year-long teaching residency. This model is similar in format to programs such as the Boston Teacher Residency, which requires participants to receive on-the-job training by working for a year with a master teacher before beginning in his or her own classroom. This change would be difficult for mid-career entrants to the profession considering the time necessary to devote to such a residency. However, if our common goal is to elevate the profession, we must ask those who desire to educate children that they commit to a rigorous training process.
The Pathways to Leadership principle is also commendable. While Massachusetts is the leader in most way when it comes to education, we are far behind others when it comes to giving classroom teachers a chance to take on meaningful leadership roles. We have a very traditional path to leadership: teacher, building administrator, central office. The proposed models begin to lay the groundwork for a more dynamic career path by offering endorsements that can be earned by classroom teachers in various areas such as data specialist, curriculum and instruction, technology integration, etc. This could very well lead to a more dynamic leadership structure in districts large and small.
And nobody will argue that creating a more efficient processing system for licensure is a welcomed principle!
Despite these good ideas, the heart of the document has major issues. The largest problem is the concept of tying license renewal to the educator evaluation system. Under all of the models, license renewal is dependent, to varying degrees, on the educator's summative performance rating. In two of the models (A & C), student impact ratings are a criteria as well. One could see the well intentions of such models. In an era filled with mandates and reforms, it makes sense to streamline where it's possible. However, this proposal is inappropriate for many reasons, specifically:
1. The educator evaluation system is barely off the ground, and not working well enough and consistently enough throughout the state. In a perfect world, with a perfect system, it would make sense to tie teacher effectiveness to licensure, but the reality is far from perfect. Every single district (and even schools within districts) is implementing the system in different ways with varying degrees of success. Proficient in one building can look fundamentally different than another. It can even vary across evaluators. Licensure should be a constant; something that means the same thing everywhere in the Commonwealth. The educator evaluation system, which hasn't even been fully implemented yet, is just too new, too inconsistent, and too unreliable to connect with licensure.
2. Tying licensure to the educator evaluation system compromises the intent of the system itself. We have been told as educators that the purpose of the evaluation system is to provide high quality feedback and promote professional growth. We are already struggling to reconcile this notion with the reality of being so ratings focused. To tie the ability for an educator to practice in Massachusetts to this system further undermines that intent. Instead of being about feedback and growth, this system will increasingly be about trying to keep your license. For administrators, it will mean evaluations and rating decisions will be tainted by the prospects of ruining one's career. Most districts don't even have the supports necessary to help teachers labeled Needs Improvement to improve their practice. Can we really sleep at night knowing that educators could be permanently shut out of a career because they were never appropriately supported to begin with? I can't.
It also bears noting that licensure is a sensitive topic for many. Whether or not you agree with the idea of "lifetime certification" many well-qualified educators who received such credentials in the past have been though the ringer of reform over the years. This proposal takes that lack of trust and deserved skepticism to a new level. And what about those of us who invested lots of time and money into graduate degrees only to find that the new proposal only values such work as above and beyond (an option for license B under only one model)? Relationships must be considered when making such large policy changes.
For these reasons, educators must speak out in opposition to this proposal. Anyone who knows me knows that I am all about consensus and finding common ground. The teacher leadership and educator prep aspects of this plan are viable and could be great in the long run. However, the core proposal of tying licensure to educator evaluations is a non-negotiable. If implemented, we will be permanently affixed to an unproven system, and the fundamental nature of licensure will be compromised. If we want to create a licensure system that is more dynamic than what we currently have, we need to go back to the drawing board. And this time, we need practicing classroom teachers at the table from day one.
Thursday, December 19, 2013
Charter Schools - Part 1: What are they?
One of the questions I get most from friends who are not educators is, "what is a charter school?" While charter schools are a contentious issue within the education community, the fact is that few people really understand what they are and how they function. Hopefully, I can present a crash course that is balanced and accurate.
For most of the modern era, students have had two options. They either attend their local public school, or they go to a private school such as Catholic school or some other private institution. Local public schools are operated and overseen by the local community. For example, the Plymouth Public Schools in Plymouth, MA, operate as a town department with an elected school committee that oversees policy and and recommends a budget to the town. For some, their children attend a regional school district. This has a similar structure, but since there are multiple towns involved, the nature of the school committee and how the funding is apportioned varies. Local public schools are funded with a combination of state education money and local contributions.
Since a major piece of legislation was passed called the Education Reform Act of 1993, Massachusetts has offered another kind of public school: charter schools. Charter schools are similar to traditional public schools in that they are funded with taxpayer money. However, most charter schools (called Commonwealth Schools in MA) operate outside of the jurisdiction of traditional public school systems. For example, if a charter school opens in your hometown, it is probably operating outside of the control of your local school committee. It has a separate board of trustees, and a separate administration. There are some charters that operate within a school system, called Horace Mann charters, but there are more of the other kind here and in most other states.
But, why?
The history of charter schools begins in a state most would not name when asked to guess: Minnesota. Minnesota opened the first charter school in 1993, during a time when many states were beginning to explore the idea. Massachusetts passed the legislation in 1993 that paved the way for charters, as did states like California in 1992. Many would say that charters were originally designed as an experiment. Could small, locally managed public schools, become centers for trying new education methods that, if successful, could be brought to scale in entire districts? That was what many early proponents of charters wanted to find out.
Ways in which charter schools could operate differently than a traditional school include the length of the school day, what courses are offered, different instructional methods, etc. One could call them "laboratories of best practice." A charter school can be proposed by a wide variety of stakeholders: teachers, community members, etc. Charters must show that they offer an educational program that is substantially different than the one being offered in a traditional public school. Some charters offer an emphasis on a particular subject, like the performing arts. Conservatory Lab Charter School in Boston incorporates learning stringed instruments into the regular education curriculum. Sturgis Charter School in Hyannis operates on the International Baccalaureate program that is used in most European countries.
The oldest charter schools in Massachusetts go all the way back to education reform in 1993. Some schools, like Boston Collegiate Charter and Academy of the Pacific Rim, have been around for most of that time. Many schools, however, are much newer. The reason is that there was a renewed push for charter schools in the early 2000s as a possible solution to failing schools under the landmark No Child Left Behind legislation passed by Congress in 2001. Massachusetts currently has a limit on the amount of charter schools allowed to operate, but pro-charter organizations are trying to lobby the legislature to raise or remove that cap.
That's the basics of what they are and how they started. As you can imagine, this quickly turns into a debate about competition for resources, equity, union busting, and more! I'll cover the politics of charter schools in my next post.
For most of the modern era, students have had two options. They either attend their local public school, or they go to a private school such as Catholic school or some other private institution. Local public schools are operated and overseen by the local community. For example, the Plymouth Public Schools in Plymouth, MA, operate as a town department with an elected school committee that oversees policy and and recommends a budget to the town. For some, their children attend a regional school district. This has a similar structure, but since there are multiple towns involved, the nature of the school committee and how the funding is apportioned varies. Local public schools are funded with a combination of state education money and local contributions.
Since a major piece of legislation was passed called the Education Reform Act of 1993, Massachusetts has offered another kind of public school: charter schools. Charter schools are similar to traditional public schools in that they are funded with taxpayer money. However, most charter schools (called Commonwealth Schools in MA) operate outside of the jurisdiction of traditional public school systems. For example, if a charter school opens in your hometown, it is probably operating outside of the control of your local school committee. It has a separate board of trustees, and a separate administration. There are some charters that operate within a school system, called Horace Mann charters, but there are more of the other kind here and in most other states.
But, why?
The history of charter schools begins in a state most would not name when asked to guess: Minnesota. Minnesota opened the first charter school in 1993, during a time when many states were beginning to explore the idea. Massachusetts passed the legislation in 1993 that paved the way for charters, as did states like California in 1992. Many would say that charters were originally designed as an experiment. Could small, locally managed public schools, become centers for trying new education methods that, if successful, could be brought to scale in entire districts? That was what many early proponents of charters wanted to find out.
Ways in which charter schools could operate differently than a traditional school include the length of the school day, what courses are offered, different instructional methods, etc. One could call them "laboratories of best practice." A charter school can be proposed by a wide variety of stakeholders: teachers, community members, etc. Charters must show that they offer an educational program that is substantially different than the one being offered in a traditional public school. Some charters offer an emphasis on a particular subject, like the performing arts. Conservatory Lab Charter School in Boston incorporates learning stringed instruments into the regular education curriculum. Sturgis Charter School in Hyannis operates on the International Baccalaureate program that is used in most European countries.
The oldest charter schools in Massachusetts go all the way back to education reform in 1993. Some schools, like Boston Collegiate Charter and Academy of the Pacific Rim, have been around for most of that time. Many schools, however, are much newer. The reason is that there was a renewed push for charter schools in the early 2000s as a possible solution to failing schools under the landmark No Child Left Behind legislation passed by Congress in 2001. Massachusetts currently has a limit on the amount of charter schools allowed to operate, but pro-charter organizations are trying to lobby the legislature to raise or remove that cap.
That's the basics of what they are and how they started. As you can imagine, this quickly turns into a debate about competition for resources, equity, union busting, and more! I'll cover the politics of charter schools in my next post.
Tuesday, December 17, 2013
Teacher Pensions - A Dying Benefit?
I am not sure what this space will really become, but I felt the need to park some thoughts on education issues away from my Facebook timeline. I'd love for this to become a blog for both those who are in education and those who are outside the biz. Talking pensions right off the bat is probably not the best way to bring 'em in the door.
But we'll do it. Because it's on my mind.
For those of you who aren't teachers - and those of you who are teachers but don't know anything about it - teachers, administrators, and support staff in Massachusetts pay into the Massachusetts Teachers Retirement System (MTRS). Teachers pay anywhere from 9% to 12% of their gross salary into the system. Every year you get a statement in the mail that makes it seem like you're rich (or poor, depending on how you view it) by showing what you've paid in to date. The idea is that when you hit your magic number combination of years served and age, you'll get 80% of the average of your last five years of salary.
Compared to a 401k, I'm told this is pretty good. Compared to Social Security, this is awesome. Pensions are especially awesome because, unlike a 401k, they are insulated from market downturns. If the bottom falls out of the economy again, you're hypothetically OK. Alas, nothing gold can stay, can it? Pensions, like many social safety net programs, are facing issues regarding solvency. While Massachusetts is one of the better state governments when it comes to having our fiscal house in order, we are just like many others in that we have grossly underfunded our public pensions. According to a recent study, the unfunded liability on the MTRS is somewhere in the neighborhood of $22 billion. There will be a reckoning someday on either the taxpayer side, the beneficiary side, or both.
While I offer no fiscal policy solutions to this issue, I've been thinking a lot this week about a recent piece by Teach Plus CEO Celine Coggins regarding how pensions affect millennials in education. You should absolutely give it a read. She is absolutely correct to point out that, with a teaching force that is increasingly younger and more mobile, pension reform is an important issue that is not being discussed by the "new majority" of educators. She does a great job explaining how salaries have not kept up with cost of living, making it more difficult to achieve the middle class dream of our parents, and putting more pressure on the need for a shorter-term compensation solution to bridge that divide. And sadly, as Celine predicts, any future modifications to account for mobility and a changing work force will probably result in a loss of benefits in some way.
This has me thinking. If the purpose of a pension for the baby boomer generation was to reward long-term employees for decades of service, why can't that still be the case? I realize that teachers don't last as long in the field today and they are likely to move around much more, but shouldn't that be all the more reason to reinforce the concept of a pension plan? In other words, shouldn't we be looking for more incentives that keep great teachers in the classroom (preferably the same one) for the bulk of their careers, and not catering to the current trend of mobility? Critics will say pensions cause ineffective teachers to overstay their welcome so they can cash in on the retirement, but that's an accountability issue, not a benefits issue.
I think the conversation around pension reform could be a great chance for us to reconsider what it was that kept our fantastic baby boomer educators in the classroom for so long, and what it will take to replicate that with millennials. It will need to be some combination of financial incentives (such as a pension plan that young teachers can actually care about) and non-financial incentives like teacher-leadership opportunities.
Either way, I don't believe that rolling new teachers into 401k-style plans and/or tying yet another aspect of compensation to arbitrary and unreliable performance ratings systems is the best path forward. I'm not opposed to flexibly compensation or rewarding great teaching, I just don't think we have the capacity to do those things correctly at this time.
Celine's post has left me with more questions than answers, but if nothing else, I think I've discovered that I'm old for 29.
But we'll do it. Because it's on my mind.
For those of you who aren't teachers - and those of you who are teachers but don't know anything about it - teachers, administrators, and support staff in Massachusetts pay into the Massachusetts Teachers Retirement System (MTRS). Teachers pay anywhere from 9% to 12% of their gross salary into the system. Every year you get a statement in the mail that makes it seem like you're rich (or poor, depending on how you view it) by showing what you've paid in to date. The idea is that when you hit your magic number combination of years served and age, you'll get 80% of the average of your last five years of salary.
Compared to a 401k, I'm told this is pretty good. Compared to Social Security, this is awesome. Pensions are especially awesome because, unlike a 401k, they are insulated from market downturns. If the bottom falls out of the economy again, you're hypothetically OK. Alas, nothing gold can stay, can it? Pensions, like many social safety net programs, are facing issues regarding solvency. While Massachusetts is one of the better state governments when it comes to having our fiscal house in order, we are just like many others in that we have grossly underfunded our public pensions. According to a recent study, the unfunded liability on the MTRS is somewhere in the neighborhood of $22 billion. There will be a reckoning someday on either the taxpayer side, the beneficiary side, or both.
While I offer no fiscal policy solutions to this issue, I've been thinking a lot this week about a recent piece by Teach Plus CEO Celine Coggins regarding how pensions affect millennials in education. You should absolutely give it a read. She is absolutely correct to point out that, with a teaching force that is increasingly younger and more mobile, pension reform is an important issue that is not being discussed by the "new majority" of educators. She does a great job explaining how salaries have not kept up with cost of living, making it more difficult to achieve the middle class dream of our parents, and putting more pressure on the need for a shorter-term compensation solution to bridge that divide. And sadly, as Celine predicts, any future modifications to account for mobility and a changing work force will probably result in a loss of benefits in some way.
This has me thinking. If the purpose of a pension for the baby boomer generation was to reward long-term employees for decades of service, why can't that still be the case? I realize that teachers don't last as long in the field today and they are likely to move around much more, but shouldn't that be all the more reason to reinforce the concept of a pension plan? In other words, shouldn't we be looking for more incentives that keep great teachers in the classroom (preferably the same one) for the bulk of their careers, and not catering to the current trend of mobility? Critics will say pensions cause ineffective teachers to overstay their welcome so they can cash in on the retirement, but that's an accountability issue, not a benefits issue.
I think the conversation around pension reform could be a great chance for us to reconsider what it was that kept our fantastic baby boomer educators in the classroom for so long, and what it will take to replicate that with millennials. It will need to be some combination of financial incentives (such as a pension plan that young teachers can actually care about) and non-financial incentives like teacher-leadership opportunities.
Either way, I don't believe that rolling new teachers into 401k-style plans and/or tying yet another aspect of compensation to arbitrary and unreliable performance ratings systems is the best path forward. I'm not opposed to flexibly compensation or rewarding great teaching, I just don't think we have the capacity to do those things correctly at this time.
Celine's post has left me with more questions than answers, but if nothing else, I think I've discovered that I'm old for 29.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)