There were no real surprises this morning as the Public Employees’ and Retirees’ Benefit Sustainability Commission voted in favor of recommendations to the General Assembly that would reduce educator benefits and shift pension costs to the local level. Be on the lookout for a more detailed analysis in the coming days.
The following statement was just released from AFSCME, AFSCME 67, AFT, SEIU, and MSEA.
Today’s Recommendations of the Public Employees’ and Retirees’ Benefit Sustainability Commission:
Joint Statement by Maryland Labor Organizations
AFSCME Maryland, AFSCME 67, AFT Maryland, the Maryland State Education Association, and SEIU Maryland are deeply disappointed in today’s recommendations by the Public Employees’ and Retirees’ Benefit Sustainability Commission, which would saddle hundreds of thousands of Maryland’s working families with the responsibility for covering up the shortcomings of Wall Street and the State’s broken funding promises. The Commission’s recommendations are frighteningly short-sighted and would be detrimental to the stability and quality of Maryland’s public schools and public services. The Commission’s recommendation to shift the cost of teacher pensions to local school systems in particular would have a devastating impact on local funding, resulting in layoffs, additional cuts in local services, critical dollars out of the classroom, and seriously jeopardizing our children’s education and future.
State workers keep us safe, maintain our roads, and provide quality services for children and families. Despite under-staffing, pay cuts, and furloughs, these dedicated employees work hard every day to provide the vital services that keep moving Maryland forward. Haphazardly slashing our already modest benefits will burden the State with massive recruitment and retention issues, as well as dooming many retirees to a future with insufficient retirement funds and healthcare coverage, creating additional long-term problems for state and local governments.
Despite the challenging fiscal climate, there are viable solutions worth investigating together that have not been adequately addressed by the Commission. We urge the General Assembly and the Governor not to make the same mistakes when they take up this issue in January.
Maryland’s public employees have kept their promise by increasing their contributions to the system and by providing outstanding public schools and services. We will work with the General Assembly and the Governor to ensure that elected officials keep their promise of a secure retirement for employees, exceptional public services for our citizens, and world-class public schools for our children.
Monday, December 20, 2010
Thursday, December 16, 2010
The Superintendent’s Recommended FY12 Operating Budget
• MCEA supports the recommended operating budget. We know that the budget is inadequate to meet the needs of our students or to adequately compensate staff. But we also know that in these challenging fiscal times, it is unrealistic to expect more. Even funding this recommended budget will be a challenge. Public services across the county, the state and the nation are facing huge cutbacks.
MAINTENANCE OF EFFORT
• The proposed budget simply maintains the same per-pupil spending. That is what is meant by a “maintenance of effort” budget. Next year, there will be more than 3,300 additional students in MCPS. The county is expected to “maintain its effort” if it wants to get increased state aid. Next year, MCPS anticipates $27 million in additional state aid. The state simply says to the counties that if you want increased state aid for education, you cannot then decrease local aid for education. You can’t use increased state education aid to supplant local dollars that the county government wants to spend on other things.
• It has become fashionable among some county politicians to condemn the maintenance of effort law and call for changes. This is misguided. How can Montgomery County ask the state for increased aid for education but expect the state to allow the county to essentially use that increase in state education aid to cover non-education expenses?
• Montgomery County continues to be the 10th wealthiest county in America. Our local elected officials complain that the county doesn’t get enough state aid. What kind of credibility do we have when virtually every other county in Maryland has still been able to meet maintenance of effort, despite the severe recession, but Montgomery County claims it can’t afford to meet the same requirement?
THE COUNTY’S ERODING SUPPORT FOR PUBLIC EDUCATION
• The other “inconvenient truth” about county funding for MCPS is that, as a percentage of the county’s locally generated revenues, the percentage spend on MCPS has been dropping for almost a decade.
o From FY02 to FY11, the county government’s local tax supported revenues increased 59%
o From FY02 to FY11, the county’s spending on MCPS increased only 37%
As student enrollment has continued to steadily increase, the county government’s contribution to the school budget has grown in absolute dollars but – as the above numbers indicate - the county’s contribution to our schools has actually shrunk as a percentage of the county’s revenues. Most of the growth in the school budget has been funded by increases in state and federal aid for education. If the county were still providing MCPS the same share of local revenues that they did in 2002 – MCPS would be receiving $240 million more per year. Given that the county’s spending binge has been in other areas, and not on public education, the county should not now target MCPS for a disproportionate share of budget cuts.
SPENDING CUTS IN MCPS
• Over the last three years, MCPS has reduced spending by more than $300 million, eliminating 400+ positions, increasing class sizes, and foregoing employee cost-of-living adjustments and salary step increases. The central office has been shrunk by 20% in the last three years, including the elimination of 187 fulltime positions.
• Some on the county council call for increasing the cost of health insurance to MCPS employees, arguing that we should pay 20% of the premiums just like county employees. They choose to ignore the fact that – according to the Council’s own recently released report – the county government pays less for health insurance for each MCPS employee than they do for each county government employee; despite the fact that the county only pays 80% of their costs versus an average of about 93% in the school system. This budget maintains the current premium cost-sharing formulas.
• It is wrong to believe that the county can cut its way out of the current budget crisis. Yes, there will have to be additional cuts in programs and services. And yes, employee compensation will have to absorb some cuts. (Let’s not forget that the deferral again of the 5.3% COLA we had negotiated for FY10 will save the county another $78 million). But cuts alone cannot solve the problem. The county needs to find a balanced solution that raises revenues, cuts back on capital spending, as well as reduces programs and services. County Council members need to be honest with voters that the county cannot maintain programs and services in these times without increased revenues.
• The county cannot fund continuation of programs and services that tax-payers expect by continually reducing the salaries and benefits of public employees. That is not sustainable.
NEXT STEPS
Wednesday January 12th, MCEA will be testifying at the Board of Education’s public hearing on the proposed FY12 operating budget.
Concerned education voters can and should be writing personal emails to county council members urging them to seek a balanced solution – including revenue increases – and not to balance the budget simply by cutting employee compensation. Go to www.mcea.nea.org/action for links to email your council members.
Stay informed, by regularly checking the MCEA Blog – School Notes.
MAINTENANCE OF EFFORT
• The proposed budget simply maintains the same per-pupil spending. That is what is meant by a “maintenance of effort” budget. Next year, there will be more than 3,300 additional students in MCPS. The county is expected to “maintain its effort” if it wants to get increased state aid. Next year, MCPS anticipates $27 million in additional state aid. The state simply says to the counties that if you want increased state aid for education, you cannot then decrease local aid for education. You can’t use increased state education aid to supplant local dollars that the county government wants to spend on other things.
• It has become fashionable among some county politicians to condemn the maintenance of effort law and call for changes. This is misguided. How can Montgomery County ask the state for increased aid for education but expect the state to allow the county to essentially use that increase in state education aid to cover non-education expenses?
• Montgomery County continues to be the 10th wealthiest county in America. Our local elected officials complain that the county doesn’t get enough state aid. What kind of credibility do we have when virtually every other county in Maryland has still been able to meet maintenance of effort, despite the severe recession, but Montgomery County claims it can’t afford to meet the same requirement?
THE COUNTY’S ERODING SUPPORT FOR PUBLIC EDUCATION
• The other “inconvenient truth” about county funding for MCPS is that, as a percentage of the county’s locally generated revenues, the percentage spend on MCPS has been dropping for almost a decade.
o From FY02 to FY11, the county government’s local tax supported revenues increased 59%
o From FY02 to FY11, the county’s spending on MCPS increased only 37%
As student enrollment has continued to steadily increase, the county government’s contribution to the school budget has grown in absolute dollars but – as the above numbers indicate - the county’s contribution to our schools has actually shrunk as a percentage of the county’s revenues. Most of the growth in the school budget has been funded by increases in state and federal aid for education. If the county were still providing MCPS the same share of local revenues that they did in 2002 – MCPS would be receiving $240 million more per year. Given that the county’s spending binge has been in other areas, and not on public education, the county should not now target MCPS for a disproportionate share of budget cuts.
SPENDING CUTS IN MCPS
• Over the last three years, MCPS has reduced spending by more than $300 million, eliminating 400+ positions, increasing class sizes, and foregoing employee cost-of-living adjustments and salary step increases. The central office has been shrunk by 20% in the last three years, including the elimination of 187 fulltime positions.
• Some on the county council call for increasing the cost of health insurance to MCPS employees, arguing that we should pay 20% of the premiums just like county employees. They choose to ignore the fact that – according to the Council’s own recently released report – the county government pays less for health insurance for each MCPS employee than they do for each county government employee; despite the fact that the county only pays 80% of their costs versus an average of about 93% in the school system. This budget maintains the current premium cost-sharing formulas.
• It is wrong to believe that the county can cut its way out of the current budget crisis. Yes, there will have to be additional cuts in programs and services. And yes, employee compensation will have to absorb some cuts. (Let’s not forget that the deferral again of the 5.3% COLA we had negotiated for FY10 will save the county another $78 million). But cuts alone cannot solve the problem. The county needs to find a balanced solution that raises revenues, cuts back on capital spending, as well as reduces programs and services. County Council members need to be honest with voters that the county cannot maintain programs and services in these times without increased revenues.
• The county cannot fund continuation of programs and services that tax-payers expect by continually reducing the salaries and benefits of public employees. That is not sustainable.
NEXT STEPS
Wednesday January 12th, MCEA will be testifying at the Board of Education’s public hearing on the proposed FY12 operating budget.
Concerned education voters can and should be writing personal emails to county council members urging them to seek a balanced solution – including revenue increases – and not to balance the budget simply by cutting employee compensation. Go to www.mcea.nea.org/action for links to email your council members.
Stay informed, by regularly checking the MCEA Blog – School Notes.
Friday, December 10, 2010
An Inconvenient Truth
The County pays less for health insurance for each MCPS employee than they do for each county government employee; yet the County Council appears intent on cutting funding for health insurance for MCPS employees.
Earlier this week the County Council’s Office of Legislative Oversight issued a report entitled “Achieving a Structurally Balanced Budget in Montgomery County: Options for Long-Term Fiscal Balance”. While the report was a data rich compilation of information about the county budget, it was woefully imbalanced. Of the report’s more than 200 pages, only seven pages were devoted to analyzing the county's revenue issues and only three pages are devoted to the county's burgeoning debt service expenses.
So what's the rest of the report about? Employee salaries and benefits. In contrast to the paucity of options concerning county revenues and county debt expenses, the report contains dozens of recommendations for cutting employee salaries, cutting employee health insurance, and cutting employee retirement plans.
Many members of the County Council seem obsessed that MCPS employees generally pay 10% of their health insurance premiums while county government employees generally pay 20%. But those numbers obscure a more important fact buried in the very same report.
The fact is that the Montgomery County Government pays more per participant for employees in the county government’s health plans than the school board pays per participant for MCPS employees.
The MCPS premium structure is a 90/10 split on the point-of-service plans as well as the dental, vision and Caremark drug plans. The split on the HMOs is 95/5. This was done intentionally in order to provide an incentive for participants to enroll in lower cost, more tightly managed health care plans.
The good news is that this voluntary incentive has worked. Approximately 60% of MCPS employees participate in one of the HMOs.
The Council’s own staff report confirms that the county pays less for health insurance for each MCPS employee than it does for each county government employee:
NOTE: Bold = Plan with highest enrollment
Source: Montgomery County Council, Office of Legislative Oversight, “Achieving a Structurally Balanced Budget in Montgomery County: Options for Long-Term Fiscal Balance”, page 108, December 7, 2010.
That's right. Even despite the fact that the county only pays 80% of their costs versus an average of about 93% in the school system, the per capita employer costs for health insurance within MCPS are lower. The county typically pays $500 more per month per family for health insurance.
Why? That's the question the county government should be asking.
Part of the answer is because for 20+ years the MCPS unions have worked in partnership with the school district to promote cost containment (not cost shifting). We have created a number of incentives in the plan to encourage the use of the most cost effective health care options: incentives for generic drugs and mail order drugs, disincentives for emergency room use, incentives to enroll in lower cost, more tightly managed HMOs.
To increase the employee share of HMO premiums to a flat 20% would eliminate the incentive for enrolling in these lower cost, more tightly managed health care plans. Eliminating that incentive would likely increase overall plan costs.
Such a change would also have a disproportionate impact on employees in the HMOs. Quadrupling the cost of their share of insurance premiums would cost them an additional $2,343 a year. For a bus driver earning $25,000 a year – that’s almost a 10% cut in pay.
As the old saying goes - people who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones. MCPS - in partnership with the unions here - have done a much better job of controlling the overall cost of health care than the county government has. The County Council should be encouraged to find out why the county government's insurance is costing the county more than MCPS' insurance. That's the real question.
Earlier this week the County Council’s Office of Legislative Oversight issued a report entitled “Achieving a Structurally Balanced Budget in Montgomery County: Options for Long-Term Fiscal Balance”. While the report was a data rich compilation of information about the county budget, it was woefully imbalanced. Of the report’s more than 200 pages, only seven pages were devoted to analyzing the county's revenue issues and only three pages are devoted to the county's burgeoning debt service expenses.
So what's the rest of the report about? Employee salaries and benefits. In contrast to the paucity of options concerning county revenues and county debt expenses, the report contains dozens of recommendations for cutting employee salaries, cutting employee health insurance, and cutting employee retirement plans.
Many members of the County Council seem obsessed that MCPS employees generally pay 10% of their health insurance premiums while county government employees generally pay 20%. But those numbers obscure a more important fact buried in the very same report.
The fact is that the Montgomery County Government pays more per participant for employees in the county government’s health plans than the school board pays per participant for MCPS employees.
The MCPS premium structure is a 90/10 split on the point-of-service plans as well as the dental, vision and Caremark drug plans. The split on the HMOs is 95/5. This was done intentionally in order to provide an incentive for participants to enroll in lower cost, more tightly managed health care plans.
The good news is that this voluntary incentive has worked. Approximately 60% of MCPS employees participate in one of the HMOs.
The Council’s own staff report confirms that the county pays less for health insurance for each MCPS employee than it does for each county government employee:
NOTE: Bold = Plan with highest enrollment
Source: Montgomery County Council, Office of Legislative Oversight, “Achieving a Structurally Balanced Budget in Montgomery County: Options for Long-Term Fiscal Balance”, page 108, December 7, 2010.
That's right. Even despite the fact that the county only pays 80% of their costs versus an average of about 93% in the school system, the per capita employer costs for health insurance within MCPS are lower. The county typically pays $500 more per month per family for health insurance.
Why? That's the question the county government should be asking.
Part of the answer is because for 20+ years the MCPS unions have worked in partnership with the school district to promote cost containment (not cost shifting). We have created a number of incentives in the plan to encourage the use of the most cost effective health care options: incentives for generic drugs and mail order drugs, disincentives for emergency room use, incentives to enroll in lower cost, more tightly managed HMOs.
To increase the employee share of HMO premiums to a flat 20% would eliminate the incentive for enrolling in these lower cost, more tightly managed health care plans. Eliminating that incentive would likely increase overall plan costs.
Such a change would also have a disproportionate impact on employees in the HMOs. Quadrupling the cost of their share of insurance premiums would cost them an additional $2,343 a year. For a bus driver earning $25,000 a year – that’s almost a 10% cut in pay.
As the old saying goes - people who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones. MCPS - in partnership with the unions here - have done a much better job of controlling the overall cost of health care than the county government has. The County Council should be encouraged to find out why the county government's insurance is costing the county more than MCPS' insurance. That's the real question.
Tuesday, December 07, 2010
MCEA Issues Statement in Response to County Council Report
This morning, the Montgomery County Council's Office of Legislative Oversight issued a Report entitled Achieving a Structurally Balanced Budget in Montgomery County. The report compiles a vast amount of data and information. Yet, of the more than 200 pages in the report, only seven pages are devoted to analyzing the county's revenue issues and only three pages are devoted to the county's burgeoning debt service expenses.
So what's the rest of the report about? Employee salaries and benefits. In contrast to the paucity of options concerning county revenues and county debt expenses, the report contains dozens of recommendations for cutting employee salaries, cutting employee health insurance, and cutting employee retirement plans.
MCEA released the following press statement in response to the OLO Report, and will be providing additional information in the coming weeks to the public and to the County Council in response to the clear agenda of targetting public employees to solve the county's budget problems.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Tuesday, December 07, 2010
FOR MORE INFORMATION CONTACT: Doug Prouty (301)294-6232
There is no doubt that Montgomery County, like the rest of the state and the nation, faces continuing difficult economic times. Montgomery County’s educators – like millions of other Americans – have felt this directly. Over the last two years employees of the Montgomery County Public Schools have sacrificed over $100 million dollars in scheduled cost-of-living increases and longevity steps. We have also faced increased workloads as MCPS has increased class sizes and cut back on staffing levels. We understand that everyone must share in the burden of these tough times.
It is a mistake to blame the current budget crisis on public employees. It is wrong to do so at the federal level, and it is wrong to do it here. The average benefit in the teacher pension system is just $17,484 a year – hardly an extravagance after 30 years of service to our students.
“The Montgomery County Council is misguided if they believe that the can cut their way out of the current problem”, said Doug Prouty, President of the Montgomery County Education Association. “Cuts along cannot solve the county’s budget shortfall.”
Montgomery County voters did not elect the Tea Party, and they do not expect the members of the County Council to act like the Tea Party.
It will take a fair balance of spending cuts and revenue increases to get through the current budget problems. It is time for political leadership willing to share that honest truth with county residents.
Montgomery County remains the tenth wealthiest county in the nation. Surely we have the wherewithal to find the right balance of solutions so that we are not shortchanging the next generation, nor shortchanging the poor, the elderly and the neediest amongst us.
So what's the rest of the report about? Employee salaries and benefits. In contrast to the paucity of options concerning county revenues and county debt expenses, the report contains dozens of recommendations for cutting employee salaries, cutting employee health insurance, and cutting employee retirement plans.
MCEA released the following press statement in response to the OLO Report, and will be providing additional information in the coming weeks to the public and to the County Council in response to the clear agenda of targetting public employees to solve the county's budget problems.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Tuesday, December 07, 2010
FOR MORE INFORMATION CONTACT: Doug Prouty (301)294-6232
MCEA Statement on Release of OLO Recommendations
There is no doubt that Montgomery County, like the rest of the state and the nation, faces continuing difficult economic times. Montgomery County’s educators – like millions of other Americans – have felt this directly. Over the last two years employees of the Montgomery County Public Schools have sacrificed over $100 million dollars in scheduled cost-of-living increases and longevity steps. We have also faced increased workloads as MCPS has increased class sizes and cut back on staffing levels. We understand that everyone must share in the burden of these tough times.
It is a mistake to blame the current budget crisis on public employees. It is wrong to do so at the federal level, and it is wrong to do it here. The average benefit in the teacher pension system is just $17,484 a year – hardly an extravagance after 30 years of service to our students.
“The Montgomery County Council is misguided if they believe that the can cut their way out of the current problem”, said Doug Prouty, President of the Montgomery County Education Association. “Cuts along cannot solve the county’s budget shortfall.”
Montgomery County voters did not elect the Tea Party, and they do not expect the members of the County Council to act like the Tea Party.
It will take a fair balance of spending cuts and revenue increases to get through the current budget problems. It is time for political leadership willing to share that honest truth with county residents.
Montgomery County remains the tenth wealthiest county in the nation. Surely we have the wherewithal to find the right balance of solutions so that we are not shortchanging the next generation, nor shortchanging the poor, the elderly and the neediest amongst us.
# # #
Thursday, December 02, 2010
Today's recommended reading comes from Anne Geiger, A resident of Arlington Virginia and a self described “recovering school board member”.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Messrs. Duncan and Gates- Why are you promoting a factory model for our children?
On the subject of public education, the first words out of politicians' and business leaders' mouths are "America's public schools are failing." They point to the need to raise test scores and graduation rates. They then reliably say that our children must be prepared for the 21st century. In recent speeches, Secretary of Education Arne Duncan and our shadow Secretary of Education, Bill Gates, declared that our schools must move from the "factory model" and institute a menu of business reforms that includes compensating teachers more on their students' test scores than their academic credentials or experience and using more on-line and virtual schooling. But there's a grave disconnect in their rhetoric and their ideas.
Computer programs, virtual classrooms, teachers trained to teach students how to pass standardized tests----->Teachers compensated by how many students pass tests----->Students graduate by passing standardized tests----->Students prepared for the 21st century.
Right?
Wrong.
Let's try it again.
Computer programs, virtual classrooms, teachers trained to teach students how to pass standardized tests----->Teachers compensated by how many students pass tests----->Students graduate by passing standardized tests----->Students prepared to take tests.
Students wired to think, "Is this on the test? What is the basic information I need to know to get by?
~What does "factory model" mean?
A factory is a building that employs laborers who process materials to manufacture products.
Using that definition....
~A school is a building in competition that uses technology and minimally trained teachers to process students for manufacturing good test-takers.
~What does "preparing students for the 21st century" mean?
Students who are literate and able to communicate well,
who can think intuitively, creatively, critically, flexibly and collaboratively,
who have working knowledge of literature, history, math, science, physics, geography, civics and the arts, and
who are ready to be engaged, informed citizens.
~So a school should be.....
a building linked to a community that houses well-educated teachers who work creatively and collaboratively to educate students to be literate and able to communicate well,
think intuitively, creatively, critically, flexibly and collaboratively,
have a working knowledge of literature, history, math, science, physics, geography, civics and the arts, and ready to be engaged, informed citizens.
Technology has its important role to play in this dynamic kind of learning, but so do books, rich curriculum, hands-on materials and tools, real-life experiences...
Some questions for Sec. Duncan, Mr. Gates and their alliance of corporate reformers (who are well supported so far by President Obama)....
~If you honestly and genuinely want students to be prepared for the 21st century, why are you promoting a "factory model" of educating our children?
~Why do you not facilitate in our public schools the kind of whole-child, dynamic education provided in the private schools where most of you enroll your own children?
~Why do you think it's OK for other children to be taught by a young college graduate without an education degree and trained to teach in five weeks when you would never accept that for your own children?
~Why do you misuse the examples of top-ranked Finland and Singapore who reject the factory model of education and provide ample safety nets for its citizens' families?
~Why do you stubbornly dismiss the fact that poverty affects learning most profoundly?
~Why do you insist that teachers who teach in urban and rural schools most challenged by poverty should shoulder the entire burden of reversing the conditions of poverty?
~Why do you cling to the idea that a four-year graduation rate should be the rigid (shall I say, "factory model") time frame for all students, especially those who are learning English, live in poverty, have learning exceptionalities or experience life-altering circumstances?
~Why do you promote the myth to Americans and the world that our schools are failing when that is not true?
~Why do you tell Americans that there are simple formulas for educating children and simple ways to measure the effectiveness of teachers when neither are true?
Despite their rhetoric that their reforms are "putting kids first," these corporate reformers are defining kids more as data points than unique, complex human beings. And you know why? Because education based primarily on test score data is cheaper and more replicable. Sounds more like a factory model than 21st century thinking, doesn't it?
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Messrs. Duncan and Gates- Why are you promoting a factory model for our children?
On the subject of public education, the first words out of politicians' and business leaders' mouths are "America's public schools are failing." They point to the need to raise test scores and graduation rates. They then reliably say that our children must be prepared for the 21st century. In recent speeches, Secretary of Education Arne Duncan and our shadow Secretary of Education, Bill Gates, declared that our schools must move from the "factory model" and institute a menu of business reforms that includes compensating teachers more on their students' test scores than their academic credentials or experience and using more on-line and virtual schooling. But there's a grave disconnect in their rhetoric and their ideas.
Computer programs, virtual classrooms, teachers trained to teach students how to pass standardized tests----->Teachers compensated by how many students pass tests----->Students graduate by passing standardized tests----->Students prepared for the 21st century.
Right?
Wrong.
Let's try it again.
Computer programs, virtual classrooms, teachers trained to teach students how to pass standardized tests----->Teachers compensated by how many students pass tests----->Students graduate by passing standardized tests----->Students prepared to take tests.
Students wired to think, "Is this on the test? What is the basic information I need to know to get by?
~What does "factory model" mean?
A factory is a building that employs laborers who process materials to manufacture products.
Using that definition....
~A school is a building in competition that uses technology and minimally trained teachers to process students for manufacturing good test-takers.
~What does "preparing students for the 21st century" mean?
Students who are literate and able to communicate well,
who can think intuitively, creatively, critically, flexibly and collaboratively,
who have working knowledge of literature, history, math, science, physics, geography, civics and the arts, and
who are ready to be engaged, informed citizens.
~So a school should be.....
a building linked to a community that houses well-educated teachers who work creatively and collaboratively to educate students to be literate and able to communicate well,
think intuitively, creatively, critically, flexibly and collaboratively,
have a working knowledge of literature, history, math, science, physics, geography, civics and the arts, and ready to be engaged, informed citizens.
Technology has its important role to play in this dynamic kind of learning, but so do books, rich curriculum, hands-on materials and tools, real-life experiences...
Some questions for Sec. Duncan, Mr. Gates and their alliance of corporate reformers (who are well supported so far by President Obama)....
~If you honestly and genuinely want students to be prepared for the 21st century, why are you promoting a "factory model" of educating our children?
~Why do you not facilitate in our public schools the kind of whole-child, dynamic education provided in the private schools where most of you enroll your own children?
~Why do you think it's OK for other children to be taught by a young college graduate without an education degree and trained to teach in five weeks when you would never accept that for your own children?
~Why do you misuse the examples of top-ranked Finland and Singapore who reject the factory model of education and provide ample safety nets for its citizens' families?
~Why do you stubbornly dismiss the fact that poverty affects learning most profoundly?
~Why do you insist that teachers who teach in urban and rural schools most challenged by poverty should shoulder the entire burden of reversing the conditions of poverty?
~Why do you cling to the idea that a four-year graduation rate should be the rigid (shall I say, "factory model") time frame for all students, especially those who are learning English, live in poverty, have learning exceptionalities or experience life-altering circumstances?
~Why do you promote the myth to Americans and the world that our schools are failing when that is not true?
~Why do you tell Americans that there are simple formulas for educating children and simple ways to measure the effectiveness of teachers when neither are true?
~ Pablo CasalsThe child must know that he (or she) is a miracle, that since the beginning of the world there hasn't been, and until the end of the world, there will not be another child like him (or her).
Despite their rhetoric that their reforms are "putting kids first," these corporate reformers are defining kids more as data points than unique, complex human beings. And you know why? Because education based primarily on test score data is cheaper and more replicable. Sounds more like a factory model than 21st century thinking, doesn't it?
Wednesday, December 01, 2010
Ravitch v. Gates
Diane Ravitch, a former Undersecretary of Education in the first Bush Administration, has emerged as one of the most eloquent critiques of the No Child Left Behind Act. Reprinted below - from Valerie Strauss' Blog at the Washington Post - is a column where she replies to questions posed by one of NCLB's most prominent advocates, none other than billionaire Bill Gates.
News Date: 11/30/2010
In a paean to Bill Gates, Newsweek's Jonathan Alter calls Diane Ravitch the Microsoft founder's "chief adversary."
It's the world's richest (or second richest) man vs. an education historian and New York University research professor.
Gates, through his philanthropic foundation, has invested billions of dollars in education experiments and now has a pivotal role in reform efforts. Ravitch, the author of the bestselling The Death and Life of the Great American School System, has become the most vocal opponent of the Obama administration's education policy. She says Gates is backing the wrong initiatives and harming public schools.
In the Newsweek piece, Gates poses some questions aimed at Ravitch. I asked her to answer them. Below are the questions Gates asked, in bold, and the answers, in italics, that Ravitch provided in an email.
Gates: “Does she like the status quo?"
Ravitch: "No, I certainly don't like the status quo. I don't like the attacks on teachers, I don't like the attacks on the educators who work in our schools day in and day out, I don't like the phony solutions that are now put forward that won't improve our schools at all. I am not at all content with the quality of American education in general, and I have expressed my criticisms over many years, long before Bill Gates decided to make education his project. I think American children need not only testing in basic skills, but an education that includes the arts, literature, the sciences, history, geography, civics, foreign languages, economics, and physical education.
"I don't hear any of the corporate reformers expressing concern about the way standardized testing narrows the curriculum, the way it rewards convergent thinking and punishes divergent thinking, the way it stamps out creativity and originality. I don't hear any of them worried that a generation will grow up ignorant of history and the workings of government. I don't hear any of them putting up $100 million to make sure that every child has the chance to learn to play a musical instrument. All I hear from them is a demand for higher test scores and a demand to tie teachers' evaluations to those test scores. That is not going to improve education."
Gates: "Is she sticking up for decline?"
Ravitch: "Of course not! If we follow Bill Gates' demand to judge teachers by test scores, we will see stagnation, and he will blame it on teachers. We will see stagnation because a relentless focus on test scores in reading and math will inevitably narrow the curriculum only to what is tested. This is not good education.
"Last week, he said in a speech that teachers should not be paid more for experience and graduate degrees. I wonder why a man of his vast wealth spends so much time trying to figuring out how to cut teachers' pay. Does he truly believe that our nation's schools will get better if we have teachers with less education and less experience? Who does he listen to? He needs to get himself a smarter set of advisers.
"Of course, we need to make teaching a profession that attracts and retains wonderful teachers, but the current anti-teacher rhetoric emanating from him and his confreres demonizes and demoralizes even the best teachers. I have gotten letters from many teachers who tell me that they have had it, they have never felt such disrespect; and I have also met young people who tell me that the current poisonous atmosphere has persuaded them not to become teachers. Why doesn't he make speeches thanking the people who work so hard day after day, educating our nation's children, often in difficult working conditions, most of whom earn less than he pays his secretaries at Microsoft?"
Gates: "Does she really like 400-page [union] contracts?"
Ravitch: "Does Bill Gates realize that every contract is signed by two parties: management and labor? Why does management agree to 400-page contracts? I don't know how many pages should be in a union contract, but I do believe that teachers should be evaluated by competent supervisors before they receive tenure (i.e., the right to due process).
"Once they have due process rights, they have the right to a hearing when someone wants to fire them. The reason for due process rights is that teachers in the past have been fired because of their race, their religion, their sexual orientation, or because they did not make a political contribution to the right campaign, or for some other reason not related to their competence.
"Gates probably doesn't know this, but 50% of all those who enter teaching leave within the first five years. Our biggest problem is not getting rid of deadbeats, but recruiting, retaining, and supporting teachers. We have to replace 300,000 teachers (of nearly 4 million) every single year. What are his ideas about how to do this?"
Gates: "Does she think all those ‘dropout factories' are lonely?"
Ravitch: "This may come as a surprise to Bill Gates, but the schools he refers to as "dropout factories" enroll large numbers of high-need students. Many of them don't speak or read English; many of them enter high school three and four grade levels behind. He assumes the schools created the problems the students have; but in many cases, the schools he calls "dropout factories" are filled with heroic teachers and administrators trying their best to help kids who have massive learning problems.
"Unless someone from the district or the state actually goes into the schools and does a diagnostic evaluation, it is unfair to stigmatize the schools with the largest numbers of students who are English-language learners, special-education, and far behind in their learning. That's like saying that an oncologist is not as good a doctor as a dermatologist because so many of his patients die. Mr. Gates, first establish the risk factor before throwing around the labels and closing down schools."
Gates: "If there's some other magic way to reduce the dropout rate, we're all ears.”
Ravitch: "Here's the sad truth: There is no magic way to reduce the dropout rate. It involves looking at the reasons students leave school, as well as the conditions in which they live. The single biggest correlate with low academic achievement (contrary to the film Waiting for Superman) is poverty. Children who grow up in poverty get less medical care. worse nutrition, less exposure to knowledge and vocabulary, and are more likely to be exposed to childhood diseases, violence, drugs, and abuse. They are more likely to have relatives who are incarcerated. They are more likely to live in economic insecurity, not knowing if there is enough money for a winter coat or food or housing. This affects their academic performance. They tend to have lower attendance and to be sick more than children whose parents are well-off.
"The United States today has a child poverty rate of over 20%, and it is rising. This is a national scandal. The film compares us to Finland, but doesn't mention that their child poverty rate is under 5%. Mr. Gates, why don't you address the root causes of low academic achievement, which is not 'bad teachers,' but poverty. It won't involve magic, but it would certainly require the best thinking that you can assemble. And if anyone can afford to do it, surely you can.
I don't mean to suggest that schools as they are now are just fine: They are not. Every school should have a rich and balanced curriculum; many don't. Every child should look forward to coming to school, for his or her favorite studies and activities, but those are the very studies and activities likely to lose out to endless test preparation. Schools need many things: Some need more resources and better conditions for teaching and learning; all need a stable, experienced staff. Teachers need opportunities for intellectual growth and colleagueship. Tests should be used diagnostically, to help students and teachers, not to allocate bonuses and punishments. Teachers, principals, administrators, parents, and local communities should collaborate to create caring communities, and that's happening in many places. I know that none of this is the "magic way" that you are looking for, Mr. Gates, but any educator will tell you that education is a slow, laborious process that requires good teachers, able leadership, willing students, a strong curriculum, and willing students None of that happens magically."
I also asked Ravitch about her reaction to the strange comparison Alter made in calling her "the Whittaker Chambers of school reform." She wrote:
"I wondered if Alter knows much about history. Whittaker Chambers renounced Communism and embraced American patriotism. Was Alter suggesting that Bill Gates is the Alger Hiss of school reform? I thought it was a weird analogy.
News Date: 11/30/2010
In a paean to Bill Gates, Newsweek's Jonathan Alter calls Diane Ravitch the Microsoft founder's "chief adversary."
It's the world's richest (or second richest) man vs. an education historian and New York University research professor.
Gates, through his philanthropic foundation, has invested billions of dollars in education experiments and now has a pivotal role in reform efforts. Ravitch, the author of the bestselling The Death and Life of the Great American School System, has become the most vocal opponent of the Obama administration's education policy. She says Gates is backing the wrong initiatives and harming public schools.
In the Newsweek piece, Gates poses some questions aimed at Ravitch. I asked her to answer them. Below are the questions Gates asked, in bold, and the answers, in italics, that Ravitch provided in an email.
Gates: “Does she like the status quo?"
Ravitch: "No, I certainly don't like the status quo. I don't like the attacks on teachers, I don't like the attacks on the educators who work in our schools day in and day out, I don't like the phony solutions that are now put forward that won't improve our schools at all. I am not at all content with the quality of American education in general, and I have expressed my criticisms over many years, long before Bill Gates decided to make education his project. I think American children need not only testing in basic skills, but an education that includes the arts, literature, the sciences, history, geography, civics, foreign languages, economics, and physical education.
"I don't hear any of the corporate reformers expressing concern about the way standardized testing narrows the curriculum, the way it rewards convergent thinking and punishes divergent thinking, the way it stamps out creativity and originality. I don't hear any of them worried that a generation will grow up ignorant of history and the workings of government. I don't hear any of them putting up $100 million to make sure that every child has the chance to learn to play a musical instrument. All I hear from them is a demand for higher test scores and a demand to tie teachers' evaluations to those test scores. That is not going to improve education."
Gates: "Is she sticking up for decline?"
Ravitch: "Of course not! If we follow Bill Gates' demand to judge teachers by test scores, we will see stagnation, and he will blame it on teachers. We will see stagnation because a relentless focus on test scores in reading and math will inevitably narrow the curriculum only to what is tested. This is not good education.
"Last week, he said in a speech that teachers should not be paid more for experience and graduate degrees. I wonder why a man of his vast wealth spends so much time trying to figuring out how to cut teachers' pay. Does he truly believe that our nation's schools will get better if we have teachers with less education and less experience? Who does he listen to? He needs to get himself a smarter set of advisers.
"Of course, we need to make teaching a profession that attracts and retains wonderful teachers, but the current anti-teacher rhetoric emanating from him and his confreres demonizes and demoralizes even the best teachers. I have gotten letters from many teachers who tell me that they have had it, they have never felt such disrespect; and I have also met young people who tell me that the current poisonous atmosphere has persuaded them not to become teachers. Why doesn't he make speeches thanking the people who work so hard day after day, educating our nation's children, often in difficult working conditions, most of whom earn less than he pays his secretaries at Microsoft?"
Gates: "Does she really like 400-page [union] contracts?"
Ravitch: "Does Bill Gates realize that every contract is signed by two parties: management and labor? Why does management agree to 400-page contracts? I don't know how many pages should be in a union contract, but I do believe that teachers should be evaluated by competent supervisors before they receive tenure (i.e., the right to due process).
"Once they have due process rights, they have the right to a hearing when someone wants to fire them. The reason for due process rights is that teachers in the past have been fired because of their race, their religion, their sexual orientation, or because they did not make a political contribution to the right campaign, or for some other reason not related to their competence.
"Gates probably doesn't know this, but 50% of all those who enter teaching leave within the first five years. Our biggest problem is not getting rid of deadbeats, but recruiting, retaining, and supporting teachers. We have to replace 300,000 teachers (of nearly 4 million) every single year. What are his ideas about how to do this?"
Gates: "Does she think all those ‘dropout factories' are lonely?"
Ravitch: "This may come as a surprise to Bill Gates, but the schools he refers to as "dropout factories" enroll large numbers of high-need students. Many of them don't speak or read English; many of them enter high school three and four grade levels behind. He assumes the schools created the problems the students have; but in many cases, the schools he calls "dropout factories" are filled with heroic teachers and administrators trying their best to help kids who have massive learning problems.
"Unless someone from the district or the state actually goes into the schools and does a diagnostic evaluation, it is unfair to stigmatize the schools with the largest numbers of students who are English-language learners, special-education, and far behind in their learning. That's like saying that an oncologist is not as good a doctor as a dermatologist because so many of his patients die. Mr. Gates, first establish the risk factor before throwing around the labels and closing down schools."
Gates: "If there's some other magic way to reduce the dropout rate, we're all ears.”
Ravitch: "Here's the sad truth: There is no magic way to reduce the dropout rate. It involves looking at the reasons students leave school, as well as the conditions in which they live. The single biggest correlate with low academic achievement (contrary to the film Waiting for Superman) is poverty. Children who grow up in poverty get less medical care. worse nutrition, less exposure to knowledge and vocabulary, and are more likely to be exposed to childhood diseases, violence, drugs, and abuse. They are more likely to have relatives who are incarcerated. They are more likely to live in economic insecurity, not knowing if there is enough money for a winter coat or food or housing. This affects their academic performance. They tend to have lower attendance and to be sick more than children whose parents are well-off.
"The United States today has a child poverty rate of over 20%, and it is rising. This is a national scandal. The film compares us to Finland, but doesn't mention that their child poverty rate is under 5%. Mr. Gates, why don't you address the root causes of low academic achievement, which is not 'bad teachers,' but poverty. It won't involve magic, but it would certainly require the best thinking that you can assemble. And if anyone can afford to do it, surely you can.
I don't mean to suggest that schools as they are now are just fine: They are not. Every school should have a rich and balanced curriculum; many don't. Every child should look forward to coming to school, for his or her favorite studies and activities, but those are the very studies and activities likely to lose out to endless test preparation. Schools need many things: Some need more resources and better conditions for teaching and learning; all need a stable, experienced staff. Teachers need opportunities for intellectual growth and colleagueship. Tests should be used diagnostically, to help students and teachers, not to allocate bonuses and punishments. Teachers, principals, administrators, parents, and local communities should collaborate to create caring communities, and that's happening in many places. I know that none of this is the "magic way" that you are looking for, Mr. Gates, but any educator will tell you that education is a slow, laborious process that requires good teachers, able leadership, willing students, a strong curriculum, and willing students None of that happens magically."
I also asked Ravitch about her reaction to the strange comparison Alter made in calling her "the Whittaker Chambers of school reform." She wrote:
"I wondered if Alter knows much about history. Whittaker Chambers renounced Communism and embraced American patriotism. Was Alter suggesting that Bill Gates is the Alger Hiss of school reform? I thought it was a weird analogy.
-0-
Friday, November 19, 2010
MCEA Testifies at State Pension Commission
On Monday November 15th, MCEA President Doug Prouty testified before the Maryland Commission on Employees' and Retirees' Benefit Sustainability about the importance of preserving the long-term financial health of the state pension plan. Reprinted below is his testimony.
Thank you for the opportunity to speak with you today. The members of MSEA appreciate your hard work to gain an understanding of the complexity of the issue that face us; the General Assembly, the participants in the state pension system, and those who fund it.
The Commission’s title rightly identifies benefit sustainability as the primary purpose of your work. There are some in this debate that define the problem as that of excessive benefits. The average annual benefit under the Maryland State Teachers Pension Systems was about $17,500 last year- hardly a lavish lifestyle to rely on in retirement. Nor is it the cause of the current problem.
To answer the question of sustainability, we must first understand how we got here:
• In 2000, the Maryland State Teachers Retirement and Pension Fund was fully funded, largely due to investment gains in a strong market.
• In 2002, the legislature voted to partially offset the cost of a statewide tax cut by changing the funding formula for the pension plan. The state's contribution rates were frozen at FY2000 levels as long as funded status was between 90% and 110%. That's the "corridor". And if the funding status fell below 90%, the state only had to increase its annual contribution by 1/5 of the shortfall each year – allowing the underfunding to continue to accelerate .
In the subsequent eight years, several things have happened:
• 'Corridor funding' decreased the amount that the state government put into the pension plan each year.
• In 2006, the legislature voted to improve the pension plan’s benefits; moving the Maryland plan from one of the worst in the nation to the national average. Participants increased their annual contribution to the plan from 2% to 5% of salary.
• The recession caused a massive drop in both the value of the plan's assets and its annual investment income - as was true for every other investment fund in the nation. Reports indicate that the losses in investment income and value due to the recession account for 85% of the current shortfall.
Just as it was ill-advised for the legislature to approve the “corridor funding” rule in 2002 on the heels of a bull market, it would be ill-advised in 2010 to slash plan benefits on the heels of the most recent bear market.
Chatter about eliminating the current defined benefit is a solution in search of a problem. It’s not as if$25,000 is an exorbitant annual retirement benefit. Nor was it benefit levels that caused the current shortfall in the plan; it was the recession.
Add to that the fact that changing from a defined benefit plan to any alternative is more costly for a number of years and one has to wonder why such a change would even be suggested. It is worth noting that two states- Arkansas and West Virginia- are abandoning defined contribution plans after having switched because anticipated savings are unrealized.
Any changes considered in the plan or its funding must reflect the complexity of the circumstances in which we find ourselves. What are the goals of the state pension system? Ultimately, they are to assure a reasonable standard of living upon retirement to the participants in the plan and to help attract and retain the highest quality employees to Maryland and its schools. The teacher pension system does an adequate job at achieving the first goal at present- it is average when compared to the rest of the country. It is certainly little to expect that an average system not be changed in a way that would make it worse. Any changes you may consider recommending need to have the second goal in mind as well.
Simply shifting part of the cost of the Plan from the state to the counties does nothing to address either of these goals. Nor does cost-shifting do anything to address the long term financial sustainability of the Plan, unless one believes that counties need greater ‘fiscal discipline’ to slow the growth in salaries.
If the only question being asked is “how to make the state budget look balanced”, then passing off costs to the counties makes oddly narrow sense, but does nothing to address the long-term sustainability of the Plan. It doesn’t do much for taxpayers either, since it just shifts the tax burden to local governments who will have to take the hard votes to raise taxes in lieu of the state legislature.
At least a decade ago, when the state passed off the cost of teacher social security payments onto local governments, the state granted additional local taxing authority. This time a shift would be even tougher on local governments, since there is no additional increase in taxing authority.
The ramifications of shifting part of the costs of teacher pensions to the counties are multiple, and none are good. Teachers- like all those who work in our public schools, libraries and community colleges - do incredible work with decreasing resources every day. It is the most difficult job that I have ever held and has become more so in the past decade. Over time, teachers will leave Maryland or even leave the profession. Restoring cuts in positions that have occurred around the state would also be made more difficult. There are fewer reading support teachers, for example, who assist our most at risk students. Class sizes will continue to increase.
What about the smaller and the less wealthy counties that will have the least ability to absorb these additional costs? With less ability to generate local tax revenues, will cost-shifting exacerbate the gaps between the haves and the have-nots?
Such an action will also make it more difficult to attract the best employees to Maryland’s public schools, as stagnant wages make a career in public education less attractive.
If the changes to the system being advocated by some also occur, public education, and therefore the students who benefit from this most basic right, would be damaged. The current plan encourages teachers to stay in Maryland and in the profession. Any change to a hybrid or defined contribution plan in an era when increasing attention is being paid to the importance of having an expert teacher in each classroom- indeed , research has shown that this is the most important factor in student achievement - would discourage the best and the brightest from considering our schools as a place to work.
Such a change also places those in the system at risk of outliving their savings and becoming dependent on social services, for which the funding comes from the same source- the state coffers.
Finally, it is also a solution to the wrong problem- we know that the most significant factor in the current underfunded state of the pension system is the dismal performance of the stock market.
We can fix the system to be sure that we achieve its goals without causing harm to the students of Maryland and the professionals who care for, instruct, and challenge them every day. The proposals to move away from ‘corridor funding’ and extend the period of time over which investment losses can be smoothed out are a good start.
Thanks for all of your time, energy, and hard work in helping to arrive at a solution
------------------------------------------------------------------------
TESTIMONY
before the
Maryland Commission on Employees' and Retirees' Benefit Sustainability
By Doug Prouty, President
Montgomery County Education Association
On behalf of
The Maryland State Education Association
Thank you for the opportunity to speak with you today. The members of MSEA appreciate your hard work to gain an understanding of the complexity of the issue that face us; the General Assembly, the participants in the state pension system, and those who fund it.
The Commission’s title rightly identifies benefit sustainability as the primary purpose of your work. There are some in this debate that define the problem as that of excessive benefits. The average annual benefit under the Maryland State Teachers Pension Systems was about $17,500 last year- hardly a lavish lifestyle to rely on in retirement. Nor is it the cause of the current problem.
To answer the question of sustainability, we must first understand how we got here:
• In 2000, the Maryland State Teachers Retirement and Pension Fund was fully funded, largely due to investment gains in a strong market.
• In 2002, the legislature voted to partially offset the cost of a statewide tax cut by changing the funding formula for the pension plan. The state's contribution rates were frozen at FY2000 levels as long as funded status was between 90% and 110%. That's the "corridor". And if the funding status fell below 90%, the state only had to increase its annual contribution by 1/5 of the shortfall each year – allowing the underfunding to continue to accelerate .
In the subsequent eight years, several things have happened:
• 'Corridor funding' decreased the amount that the state government put into the pension plan each year.
• In 2006, the legislature voted to improve the pension plan’s benefits; moving the Maryland plan from one of the worst in the nation to the national average. Participants increased their annual contribution to the plan from 2% to 5% of salary.
• The recession caused a massive drop in both the value of the plan's assets and its annual investment income - as was true for every other investment fund in the nation. Reports indicate that the losses in investment income and value due to the recession account for 85% of the current shortfall.
Just as it was ill-advised for the legislature to approve the “corridor funding” rule in 2002 on the heels of a bull market, it would be ill-advised in 2010 to slash plan benefits on the heels of the most recent bear market.
Chatter about eliminating the current defined benefit is a solution in search of a problem. It’s not as if$25,000 is an exorbitant annual retirement benefit. Nor was it benefit levels that caused the current shortfall in the plan; it was the recession.
Add to that the fact that changing from a defined benefit plan to any alternative is more costly for a number of years and one has to wonder why such a change would even be suggested. It is worth noting that two states- Arkansas and West Virginia- are abandoning defined contribution plans after having switched because anticipated savings are unrealized.
Any changes considered in the plan or its funding must reflect the complexity of the circumstances in which we find ourselves. What are the goals of the state pension system? Ultimately, they are to assure a reasonable standard of living upon retirement to the participants in the plan and to help attract and retain the highest quality employees to Maryland and its schools. The teacher pension system does an adequate job at achieving the first goal at present- it is average when compared to the rest of the country. It is certainly little to expect that an average system not be changed in a way that would make it worse. Any changes you may consider recommending need to have the second goal in mind as well.
Simply shifting part of the cost of the Plan from the state to the counties does nothing to address either of these goals. Nor does cost-shifting do anything to address the long term financial sustainability of the Plan, unless one believes that counties need greater ‘fiscal discipline’ to slow the growth in salaries.
If the only question being asked is “how to make the state budget look balanced”, then passing off costs to the counties makes oddly narrow sense, but does nothing to address the long-term sustainability of the Plan. It doesn’t do much for taxpayers either, since it just shifts the tax burden to local governments who will have to take the hard votes to raise taxes in lieu of the state legislature.
At least a decade ago, when the state passed off the cost of teacher social security payments onto local governments, the state granted additional local taxing authority. This time a shift would be even tougher on local governments, since there is no additional increase in taxing authority.
The ramifications of shifting part of the costs of teacher pensions to the counties are multiple, and none are good. Teachers- like all those who work in our public schools, libraries and community colleges - do incredible work with decreasing resources every day. It is the most difficult job that I have ever held and has become more so in the past decade. Over time, teachers will leave Maryland or even leave the profession. Restoring cuts in positions that have occurred around the state would also be made more difficult. There are fewer reading support teachers, for example, who assist our most at risk students. Class sizes will continue to increase.
What about the smaller and the less wealthy counties that will have the least ability to absorb these additional costs? With less ability to generate local tax revenues, will cost-shifting exacerbate the gaps between the haves and the have-nots?
Such an action will also make it more difficult to attract the best employees to Maryland’s public schools, as stagnant wages make a career in public education less attractive.
If the changes to the system being advocated by some also occur, public education, and therefore the students who benefit from this most basic right, would be damaged. The current plan encourages teachers to stay in Maryland and in the profession. Any change to a hybrid or defined contribution plan in an era when increasing attention is being paid to the importance of having an expert teacher in each classroom- indeed , research has shown that this is the most important factor in student achievement - would discourage the best and the brightest from considering our schools as a place to work.
Such a change also places those in the system at risk of outliving their savings and becoming dependent on social services, for which the funding comes from the same source- the state coffers.
Finally, it is also a solution to the wrong problem- we know that the most significant factor in the current underfunded state of the pension system is the dismal performance of the stock market.
We can fix the system to be sure that we achieve its goals without causing harm to the students of Maryland and the professionals who care for, instruct, and challenge them every day. The proposals to move away from ‘corridor funding’ and extend the period of time over which investment losses can be smoothed out are a good start.
Thanks for all of your time, energy, and hard work in helping to arrive at a solution
Monday, November 15, 2010
Diane Ravitch on "Waiting for Superman"
Diane Ravitch was Assistant Secretary of Education under President George H.W. Bush. She was an early proponent of the No Child Left Behind Act, and the focus on testing, accountability, and choice that framed NCLB. Her recent review of Waiting for Superman in the New York Review of Books is an insightful reminder that slogans and educational fads do not always match the realities in our schools.
The Myth of Charter Schools
Diane Ravitch, The New York Review of Books
November 11, 2010 —
The Myth of Charter Schools
Diane Ravitch, The New York Review of Books
November 11, 2010 —
Ordinarily, documentaries about education attract little attention, and seldom, if ever, reach neighborhood movie theaters. Davis Guggenheim’s Waiting for “Superman” is different. It arrived in late September with the biggest publicity splash I have ever seen for a documentary. Not only was it the subject of major stories in Time and New York, but it was featured twice on The Oprah Winfrey Show and was the centerpiece of several days of programming by NBC, including an interview with President Obama.
Two other films expounding the same arguments—The Lottery and The Cartel—were released in the late spring, but they received far less attention than Guggenheim’s film. His reputation as the director of the Academy Award–winning An Inconvenient Truth, about global warming, contributed to the anticipation surrounding Waiting for “Superman,” but the media frenzy suggested something more. Guggenheim presents the popularized version of an account of American public education that is promoted by some of the nation’s most powerful figures and institutions.
The message of these films has become alarmingly familiar: American public education is a failed enterprise. The problem is not money. Public schools already spend too much. Test scores are low because there are so many bad teachers, whose jobs are protected by powerful unions. Students drop out because the schools fail them, but they could accomplish practically anything if they were saved from bad teachers. They would get higher test scores if schools could fire more bad teachers and pay more to good ones. The only hope for the future of our society, especially for poor black and Hispanic children, is escape from public schools, especially to charter schools, which are mostly funded by the government but controlled by private organizations, many of them operating to make a profit.
The Cartel maintains that we must not only create more charter schools, but provide vouchers so that children can flee incompetent public schools and attend private schools. There, we are led to believe, teachers will be caring and highly skilled (unlike the lazy dullards in public schools); the schools will have high expectations and test scores will soar; and all children will succeed academically, regardless of their circumstances. The Lottery echoes the main story line of Waiting for “Superman”: it is about children who are desperate to avoid the New York City public schools and eager to win a spot in a shiny new charter school in Harlem.
For many people, these arguments require a willing suspension of disbelief. Most Americans graduated from public schools, and most went from school to college or the workplace without thinking that their school had limited their life chances. There was a time—which now seems distant—when most people assumed that students’ performance in school was largely determined by their own efforts and by the circumstances and support of their family, not by their teachers. There were good teachers and mediocre teachers, even bad teachers, but in the end, most public schools offered ample opportunity for education to those willing to pursue it. The annual Gallup poll about education shows that Americans are overwhelmingly dissatisfied with the quality of the nation’s schools, but 77 percent of public school parents award their own child’s public school a grade of A or B, the highest level of approval since the question was first asked in 1985..... continue reading the full article.
Wednesday, November 10, 2010
Understanding the Debate over Maryland Teacher Pensions
Now that the election is over, Annapolis watchers are turning their attention to the upcoming state legislative session (Jan-April) and the ongoing debate over funding teacher pensions. An MCEA member recently asked about proposals to 1) eliminate "corridor funding" and 2) pay off investment losses over 10 years rather than five. Understanding those proposals is a good way to understand the debate.
Background on Maryland Teacher Pensions
In 2000, the Maryland State Teachers Retirement and Pension Fund was fully funded, largely due to investment gains in a strong market.
In 2002, the legislature voted to partially offset the cost of a statewide tax cut by changing the funding formula for the pension plan. The state's contribution rates were frozen at FY2000 levels as long as funded status was between 90% and 110%. That's the "corridor". And if the funding status fell below 90%, the state only had to increase its annual contribution by 1/5 of the shortfall.
In the subsequent eight years, several things have happened:
The proposal to phase out corridor funding is strongly in the interest of pension plan participants. Corridor funding is an accounting gimmick that allows the state to put in less than it's share of plan contributions. (Remember - teachers have increased their contributions.)
A proposal to pay off investment losses over 10 years instead of 5 also sounds like a wise move.
Decisions affecting the long term stability of the pension plan should not be made on the basis of short-term market swings. Just as it was a mistake in 2002 - on the heels of the market boom of the late 1990s - to cut back on the state's contributions: it would be a mistake in 2010 to slash benefits because of the short-term investment losses of the recent recession.
Currently, the swings in the market are "absorbed" over 5 years. It's a means of smooting out the impact of swings in the market. Shifting to a 10 year smoothing formula lessens the immediate impact of wide swings in the investment markets.
Combining the two proposals is an intriguing concept. More importantly, it is shifting the discussion to the real issue of how to ensure the long term financial stability of the pension plan. Last year's debate in Annapolis over shifting the costs from the state government to local governments was a side show. Cost-shifting does nothing to address the underfunding of the pension plan.
A statewide "Commission on Employees' and Retirees' Benefit Sustainability" is due to issue an initial report in December, prior to the legislative session. Montgomery County is represented on the Commission by both State Treasurer Nancy Kopp and businessman Aris Mardirossian. A number of very informative briefing papers have been prepared for the Commission.
Here in Montgomery County, MCEA is meeting regularly with an "Ad Hoc Pension Work Group" designed to coordinate the County's strategy on the state pension issue. Led by State Senator Rich Madeleno, the Work Group includes state senators, state delegates, members of the county council and board of education, as well as representatives of the county executive, Montgomery College, and the school system - and college - employee organizations.
This issue will be one of several important debates in Annapolis this winter that will have serious implications for educators, public education, and taxpayers in Montgomery County.
Tom Israel, MCEA Executive Director.
Background on Maryland Teacher Pensions
In 2000, the Maryland State Teachers Retirement and Pension Fund was fully funded, largely due to investment gains in a strong market.
In 2002, the legislature voted to partially offset the cost of a statewide tax cut by changing the funding formula for the pension plan. The state's contribution rates were frozen at FY2000 levels as long as funded status was between 90% and 110%. That's the "corridor". And if the funding status fell below 90%, the state only had to increase its annual contribution by 1/5 of the shortfall.
In the subsequent eight years, several things have happened:
1. The 'corridor funding' accounting rules decreased the amount that the state goverment had to put into the pension plan each year.
2. In 2006 teachers won a significant improvement in pension benefits; moving the Maryland plan from one of the worst in the nation to the national average. Teachers increased their annual contribution to the plan from 2% to 5% of salary.
3. The recession caused a massive drop in both the value of the plan's assets and its annual investment income - as was true for every other investment fund in the nation."Corridor Funding" and Smoothing Investment Losses
The proposal to phase out corridor funding is strongly in the interest of pension plan participants. Corridor funding is an accounting gimmick that allows the state to put in less than it's share of plan contributions. (Remember - teachers have increased their contributions.)
A proposal to pay off investment losses over 10 years instead of 5 also sounds like a wise move.
Decisions affecting the long term stability of the pension plan should not be made on the basis of short-term market swings. Just as it was a mistake in 2002 - on the heels of the market boom of the late 1990s - to cut back on the state's contributions: it would be a mistake in 2010 to slash benefits because of the short-term investment losses of the recent recession.
Currently, the swings in the market are "absorbed" over 5 years. It's a means of smooting out the impact of swings in the market. Shifting to a 10 year smoothing formula lessens the immediate impact of wide swings in the investment markets.
Combining the two proposals is an intriguing concept. More importantly, it is shifting the discussion to the real issue of how to ensure the long term financial stability of the pension plan. Last year's debate in Annapolis over shifting the costs from the state government to local governments was a side show. Cost-shifting does nothing to address the underfunding of the pension plan.
A statewide "Commission on Employees' and Retirees' Benefit Sustainability" is due to issue an initial report in December, prior to the legislative session. Montgomery County is represented on the Commission by both State Treasurer Nancy Kopp and businessman Aris Mardirossian. A number of very informative briefing papers have been prepared for the Commission.
Here in Montgomery County, MCEA is meeting regularly with an "Ad Hoc Pension Work Group" designed to coordinate the County's strategy on the state pension issue. Led by State Senator Rich Madeleno, the Work Group includes state senators, state delegates, members of the county council and board of education, as well as representatives of the county executive, Montgomery College, and the school system - and college - employee organizations.
This issue will be one of several important debates in Annapolis this winter that will have serious implications for educators, public education, and taxpayers in Montgomery County.
Tom Israel, MCEA Executive Director.
Tuesday, November 09, 2010
General Assembly Reins in MSDE
The General Assembly's "Administrative, Executive and Legislative Review Committee" (AELR) deserves credit for its 12-3 vote late yesterday blocking implementation of proposed regulations on teacher evaluation drafted by State Superintendent of Schools Nancy Grasmick.
The Committee's legal counsel had prepared a detailed analysis of how the proposed regulations conflicted with the Education Reform Act of 2010, which was passed by the General Assembly last spring. She concluded that "the regulations seem to be noncompliant" with the intent of the General Assembly on four substantive matters:
1. The law required that the State Board of Education "solicit information and recommendations from each local school system and convene a meeting" to discuss the issue before proposing regulations. This was not done.
2. The law charges the State Board of Education with developing "general standards", but left the specifics to local Boards of Education. The proposed state regs go far beyond "general standards".
3. The proposed regulations conflict with the law's requirement that teacher evaluations be based on "multiple measures".
4. The State Board's "arbitrary assignment" of a 2012 implementation deadline was not consistent with the statute passed by the legislature.
There can be little doubt that the proposed regulations went way beyond what the law intended. The General Assembly very clearly put the responsibility for developing teacher evaluation systems on local boards of education. The State Department of Education was only to develop "general standards". Yet the propose regulations went into great detail to prescribe exactly what the teacher evaluation systems needed to look like in every school district in the state.
If there was any question as to whether the State Department of Education exceeded its authority, one only needs to listen to the State Board of Education. Kate Walsh, an influential member of the State Board, recently had the temerity to admit that is exactly what was intended. In an article in the fall issue of a publication called "Education Next", Walsh wrote the following:
At the same hearing, MCEA President Doug Prouty, MCPS Superintendent Jerry Weast, and Gary Bartee, Vice-President of MCAAP (the principals association) all testified about the strength of the MCPS teacher evaluation, and their concerns that the future of this successful system was uncertain in light of MSDE's proposed regulations. Prouty shared a 2005 case study that describes how student results are included in teacher evaluations in Montgomery County without "a reductionist numbers game tied to test scores". He pointed out that MCPS has been including student results in teacher evaluation for more than 10 years - long before the current fad of trying to simplistically tie teacher evaluations to student test scores.
One final observation about Race to the Top (RTTT). MSDE leaders - as well as some in the mainstream media - are claiming that changing the proposed regulation requiring that 50% of a teachers evaluation be linked to student test scores would cause Maryland to lose it's $250 million RTTT grant. Chicken Little said the sky was falling, but that didn't make it true.
The Committee's legal counsel had prepared a detailed analysis of how the proposed regulations conflicted with the Education Reform Act of 2010, which was passed by the General Assembly last spring. She concluded that "the regulations seem to be noncompliant" with the intent of the General Assembly on four substantive matters:
1. The law required that the State Board of Education "solicit information and recommendations from each local school system and convene a meeting" to discuss the issue before proposing regulations. This was not done.
2. The law charges the State Board of Education with developing "general standards", but left the specifics to local Boards of Education. The proposed state regs go far beyond "general standards".
3. The proposed regulations conflict with the law's requirement that teacher evaluations be based on "multiple measures".
4. The State Board's "arbitrary assignment" of a 2012 implementation deadline was not consistent with the statute passed by the legislature.
There can be little doubt that the proposed regulations went way beyond what the law intended. The General Assembly very clearly put the responsibility for developing teacher evaluation systems on local boards of education. The State Department of Education was only to develop "general standards". Yet the propose regulations went into great detail to prescribe exactly what the teacher evaluation systems needed to look like in every school district in the state.
If there was any question as to whether the State Department of Education exceeded its authority, one only needs to listen to the State Board of Education. Kate Walsh, an influential member of the State Board, recently had the temerity to admit that is exactly what was intended. In an article in the fall issue of a publication called "Education Next", Walsh wrote the following:
Nancy Grasmick willingly took on the Maryland legislature in order to be more competitive in Race to the Top, using her regulatory power to interpret a new state law on teacher evaluation much differently than the union-friendly legislature intended.Set aside for the moment Walsh's loaded use of the phrase "union-friendly". Walsh was bragging about MSDE intentionally interpreting state law differently that what the legislature intended. Now I learned in Civics 101 that it was the legislative branch that writes laws and it is the job of the executive branch to implement those laws. Something is amiss in Maryland if the State Department of Education thinks it can ignore the intent of the legislature.
At the same hearing, MCEA President Doug Prouty, MCPS Superintendent Jerry Weast, and Gary Bartee, Vice-President of MCAAP (the principals association) all testified about the strength of the MCPS teacher evaluation, and their concerns that the future of this successful system was uncertain in light of MSDE's proposed regulations. Prouty shared a 2005 case study that describes how student results are included in teacher evaluations in Montgomery County without "a reductionist numbers game tied to test scores". He pointed out that MCPS has been including student results in teacher evaluation for more than 10 years - long before the current fad of trying to simplistically tie teacher evaluations to student test scores.
One final observation about Race to the Top (RTTT). MSDE leaders - as well as some in the mainstream media - are claiming that changing the proposed regulation requiring that 50% of a teachers evaluation be linked to student test scores would cause Maryland to lose it's $250 million RTTT grant. Chicken Little said the sky was falling, but that didn't make it true.
Six of the twelve states that won RTTT grants did not have the 50 percent student growth requirement; they relied on a lower threshold or simply said "significant" - like the Maryland General Assembly called for. The actual scoring rubric used by the US Dept. of Education on the RTTT applications awarded up to 5 points for use student growth measures in teacher evaluations. Maryland's application earned 5 points. But Delaware's successful application earned 4.4 points on this indicator and they did not propose a 50% rule.
Overall, Maryland's RTTT application received a score of 450 out of 500. It is difficult to believe that the difference between Maryland and Delaware's proposals on this indicator (0.6 points) would change the outcome. Would a score of 449.4 instead of 450 really kill the application?
Just to be safe, the Committee's motion called on Governor to contact the US Dept. of Education to let them know that "corections to regulations proposed in order to implement Maryland’s Education Reform Act of the 2010 session need to be made and that these changes may result in the need for minor changes to Maryland’s Race to the Top application."
Montgomery County has a teacher evaluation system that has received national recognition and praise, and a record of improving student achievement that few districts can match. There is much work left to be done. But we should not allow an unproven, ideological agenda emanating from the Maryland State Department of Education to disrupt a school system that is working better than most.
Tom Israel
MCEA Executive Director.
Monday, November 08, 2010
Progress on Mathematics Reform
Two years ago, MCEA members were raising serious concerns about acceleration and sequencing in the mathematics curriculum. Discussions were held by MCEA's Councils on Teaching and Learning with representatives of the MCPS administration. As a result, the Deputy Superintendent created a "K-12 Mathematics Work Group" to explore the various and complex issues involved.
MCEA's President - first Bonnie Cullison and subsequently Doug Prouty - was a continuing participant. In addition, MCEA members were represented by six classroom teachers as well: Teresa Brown, Viers Mill ES; Karen Emmerich, West MS; Jeff Flowers, Poolesville HS; Natalie Howard, Strathmore ES; Ed Hsu, Magruder HS, and Dawn Lemon, Montgomery Village MS. Numerous parent representatives, principals and administrators also participated. They all put in untold hours researching and discussing best practices and national standards.
The Work Group Recommendations are being presented to the Board of Education on Tuesday 11/9. You can view the entirety of the Work Group's report online. The 11-page Executive Summary provides an easily accessible overview.
The recommendations were also reported on in last Thursday's Washington Post:
Tom Israel
MCEA Executive Director.
MCEA's President - first Bonnie Cullison and subsequently Doug Prouty - was a continuing participant. In addition, MCEA members were represented by six classroom teachers as well: Teresa Brown, Viers Mill ES; Karen Emmerich, West MS; Jeff Flowers, Poolesville HS; Natalie Howard, Strathmore ES; Ed Hsu, Magruder HS, and Dawn Lemon, Montgomery Village MS. Numerous parent representatives, principals and administrators also participated. They all put in untold hours researching and discussing best practices and national standards.
The Work Group Recommendations are being presented to the Board of Education on Tuesday 11/9. You can view the entirety of the Work Group's report online. The 11-page Executive Summary provides an easily accessible overview.
The recommendations were also reported on in last Thursday's Washington Post:
Montgomery County admits kids were pushed too hard in mathThere is still much work to be done. But this Report marks a significant step in responding to the concerns MCEA members began raising almost two years ago.
Washington Post, Valerie Strauss
The highly-touted Montgomery County Public School system in Maryland has just admitted that it has been pushing a lot of kids to do accelerated math when they weren’t ready for it, and now will stop it.
Many thanks to all the MCEA members who contributed to this system-wide assessment of the K-12 Mathematics program. Through surveys, focus groups, and feedback sessions, hundreds of educators helped identify the concerns and shape the recommendations.
Tom Israel
MCEA Executive Director.
Friday, October 29, 2010
Statewide Teachers Association Approves MCEA Proposed Opposition to New State Regulations on Teacher Evaluation
Earlier this month, MCEA President Doug Prouty submitted the following motion to the statewide convention of the Maryland State Education Association (MSEA). After a productive discussion of the proposed state regulations, the delegates to the convention voted overwhelming to approve the proposed motion.
"The MSEA 2010 Fall Representative Assembly takes a position of opposition to the proposed Maryland State Board of Education regulations regarding teacher evaluations and certification. These regulations, we believe, are in conflict with the Education Reform Act of 2010 and abrogate the rights of local school systems and associations to bargain evaluation systems which address the needs of their students. MSEA will work with the local associations to inform state Board of Education members, local Board of Education members, parents and other concerned community members of the deleterious effect these regulations would cause for students due to the increased in number of tests to which they would be subjected."
Rationale:
Currently, students take the HSA and MSA tests in seven of their 13 years in public schools in Maryland. These tests are administered over the course of seven days. Most students are engaged in taking the test for a half day on four of those seven days. The proposed regulations would double the amount of state testing to which students are subjected to include every grade level in elementary school. At the secondary level, the regulations would more than quadruple the amount of state testing for students in a traditional seven period day from six in middle school and four in high school to twenty one in middle school and twenty eight in high school. Although the increase in testing envisioned in these regulations is not spelled out specifically, the intent is there. The regulations call for teachers’ evaluations to include a student growth component every year. The regulations make clear that the HSA and MSA test results will be used for the teachers who teach those grades and subject areas. In order for the evaluation system to be fair, equivalent tests will have to be developed and implemented in all grades and subjects not included in the HSA and MSA tests- otherwise the evaluation system for one set of teachers will be vastly different from the rest. Such an evaluation system would be untenable. The increase is even more astounding given the fact that students do not directly benefit from the results of the HSA and MSA tests. The results are received by schools after the year has concluded and the students have moved onto the next grade. Is it conceivable that increasing testing in this way would result in anything other than even more lag time between the administration of the tests and the results being returned to schools and students?
Also at issue is the loss of instructional time that would result from such an increase in testing. Teachers, parents, and students have been alarmed by time already lost to test preparation and administration under the current regime of tests mandated by NCLB. Tests cannot and should not replace active learning time engaged with one’s peers under the guidance of a highly skilled teacher. There is a significant risk of demoralizing those students who these regulations ostensibly seek to benefit the most- poor and highly mobile students. These students already perform below their peers on such tests- an increase in the number of these tests would lead to greater disengagement from school at a time when we are focused on reducing dropout rates and when earning a high school diploma is even more critical to a child’s future.
Beyond the effect on students, many issues regarding the use of standardized tests for teacher evaluation exist. Primary among these is the fact the tests being considered for use in teacher evaluation are not intended to be used nor are they suited for that purpose. A briefing paper issued on August 29, 2010 by the Economic Policy Institute entitled “Problems with the Use of Student Test Scores to Evaluate Teachers” and coauthored by nine nationally recognized researchers on education policy states:
The paper goes on to note concerns in numerous areas including statistical misidentification of effective teachers, disincentives for teachers to work with the neediest students, and less teacher collaboration.
The proposed regulations on certification seem designed to bolster the proposed new contract for the Baltimore City Schools, despite the fact that the contract has not been ratified nor have any other school systems in the state even begun to consider such changes to their contracts. These regulations also could endanger the due process rights of MSEA members and, again, abrogate the rights of local school systems and associations to bargain salary schedules that work best for the students of each county.
Such systems exist in the state of Maryland, one such is the comprehensive Teacher Professional Growth System used successfully in Montgomery County for 10 years. Such systems document the actual classroom performance of a teacher and offer structured support to help a teacher improve. If improvement does not occur at a level sufficient to meet the rigorous standards, a teacher faces non-renewal or dismissal. This system has helped thousands of teachers improve their craft in their first year of teaching (as all novice teachers are included in the Peer Assistance and Review program automatically) as well as teachers in their thirtieth year of teaching. This system is accepted, indeed embraced, by the teachers of Montgomery County because it is perceived as fair. Given the questions about every aspect of using standardized test results in the way these regulations propose, would the new teacher evaluation system ever be perceived as fair? It is unlikely.Finally, the proposed regulations on evaluation go well beyond the Education Reform Act of 2010. It is clear that the governor and the legislature debated and rejected the arbitrary percentages that student growth is to count in a teacher’s evaluation that are included in the regulations. The Board of Education should not and cannot supersede the will of the legislature.
"The MSEA 2010 Fall Representative Assembly takes a position of opposition to the proposed Maryland State Board of Education regulations regarding teacher evaluations and certification. These regulations, we believe, are in conflict with the Education Reform Act of 2010 and abrogate the rights of local school systems and associations to bargain evaluation systems which address the needs of their students. MSEA will work with the local associations to inform state Board of Education members, local Board of Education members, parents and other concerned community members of the deleterious effect these regulations would cause for students due to the increased in number of tests to which they would be subjected."
Rationale:
Currently, students take the HSA and MSA tests in seven of their 13 years in public schools in Maryland. These tests are administered over the course of seven days. Most students are engaged in taking the test for a half day on four of those seven days. The proposed regulations would double the amount of state testing to which students are subjected to include every grade level in elementary school. At the secondary level, the regulations would more than quadruple the amount of state testing for students in a traditional seven period day from six in middle school and four in high school to twenty one in middle school and twenty eight in high school. Although the increase in testing envisioned in these regulations is not spelled out specifically, the intent is there. The regulations call for teachers’ evaluations to include a student growth component every year. The regulations make clear that the HSA and MSA test results will be used for the teachers who teach those grades and subject areas. In order for the evaluation system to be fair, equivalent tests will have to be developed and implemented in all grades and subjects not included in the HSA and MSA tests- otherwise the evaluation system for one set of teachers will be vastly different from the rest. Such an evaluation system would be untenable. The increase is even more astounding given the fact that students do not directly benefit from the results of the HSA and MSA tests. The results are received by schools after the year has concluded and the students have moved onto the next grade. Is it conceivable that increasing testing in this way would result in anything other than even more lag time between the administration of the tests and the results being returned to schools and students?
Also at issue is the loss of instructional time that would result from such an increase in testing. Teachers, parents, and students have been alarmed by time already lost to test preparation and administration under the current regime of tests mandated by NCLB. Tests cannot and should not replace active learning time engaged with one’s peers under the guidance of a highly skilled teacher. There is a significant risk of demoralizing those students who these regulations ostensibly seek to benefit the most- poor and highly mobile students. These students already perform below their peers on such tests- an increase in the number of these tests would lead to greater disengagement from school at a time when we are focused on reducing dropout rates and when earning a high school diploma is even more critical to a child’s future.
Beyond the effect on students, many issues regarding the use of standardized tests for teacher evaluation exist. Primary among these is the fact the tests being considered for use in teacher evaluation are not intended to be used nor are they suited for that purpose. A briefing paper issued on August 29, 2010 by the Economic Policy Institute entitled “Problems with the Use of Student Test Scores to Evaluate Teachers” and coauthored by nine nationally recognized researchers on education policy states:
The paper goes on to note concerns in numerous areas including statistical misidentification of effective teachers, disincentives for teachers to work with the neediest students, and less teacher collaboration.
Most secondary school teachers, all teachers in kindergarten, first, and second grades and some teachers in grades three through eight do not teach courses in which students are subject to external tests of the type needed to evaluate test score gains. And even in the grades where such gains could, in principle, be measured, tests are not designed to do so. Value-added measurement of growth from one grade to the next should ideally utilize vertically scaled tests, which most states (including large states like New York and California) do not use. In order to be vertically scaled, tests must evaluate content that is measured along a continuum from year to year. Following an NCLB mandate, most states now use tests that measure grade-level standards only and, at the high school level, end-of-course examinations, neither of which are designed to measure such a continuum.In an interesting note, the paper states that:
There is no perfect way to evaluate teachers. However, progress has been made over the last two decades in developing standards-based evaluations of teaching practice, and research has found that the use of such evaluations by some districts has not only provided more useful evidence about teaching practice, but has also been associated with student achievement gains and has helped teachers improve their practice and effectiveness.
The proposed regulations on certification seem designed to bolster the proposed new contract for the Baltimore City Schools, despite the fact that the contract has not been ratified nor have any other school systems in the state even begun to consider such changes to their contracts. These regulations also could endanger the due process rights of MSEA members and, again, abrogate the rights of local school systems and associations to bargain salary schedules that work best for the students of each county.
Such systems exist in the state of Maryland, one such is the comprehensive Teacher Professional Growth System used successfully in Montgomery County for 10 years. Such systems document the actual classroom performance of a teacher and offer structured support to help a teacher improve. If improvement does not occur at a level sufficient to meet the rigorous standards, a teacher faces non-renewal or dismissal. This system has helped thousands of teachers improve their craft in their first year of teaching (as all novice teachers are included in the Peer Assistance and Review program automatically) as well as teachers in their thirtieth year of teaching. This system is accepted, indeed embraced, by the teachers of Montgomery County because it is perceived as fair. Given the questions about every aspect of using standardized test results in the way these regulations propose, would the new teacher evaluation system ever be perceived as fair? It is unlikely.Finally, the proposed regulations on evaluation go well beyond the Education Reform Act of 2010. It is clear that the governor and the legislature debated and rejected the arbitrary percentages that student growth is to count in a teacher’s evaluation that are included in the regulations. The Board of Education should not and cannot supersede the will of the legislature.
Friday, October 22, 2010
Don't Scapegoat America's Teachers
Congratulations to Randi Weingarten, President of the AFT, for this well written op-ed piece published earlier this week in the Washington Post:
Last week in these pages, a group of school superintendents -- two of whom, Chicago Public Schools chief executive Ron Huberman and D.C. Schools Chancellor Michelle Rhee, have just announced their resignations -- laid out a "manifesto" for fixing America's schools. Although lofty in its stated aim to set a course for improving public education, the manifesto offered few concrete solutions, with one notable exception: shifting the sole responsibility to teachers. Sadly, such a view ignores both the full extent of the superintendents' own responsibilities and the reality that many factors affect children's success.
We at the American Federation of Teachers would suggest a different approach. Let's come together -- teachers, superintendents, principals, parents and community members -- and develop a joint manifesto about how to best educate all of our kids. After all, superintendents have a responsibility not only to demand excellence and accountability from others, but also to ensure that teachers have the resources to help their students succeed.
Educating children is complex work. No one approach will provide all children with the first-rate education they deserve. So we must simultaneously build on what works and fix what's broken, much as high-performing school districts and nations with high student-achievement rankings already do.
In that spirit, here is our vision for how to create great schools for all children.
Collaboration matters.
Earlier this month, the AFT brought superintendents, elected officials and teachers union leaders from 35 districts across the country to Washington to compare notes on successful reform efforts. Although such teamwork and shared responsibility rarely make headlines, they are the essential ingredients for lasting change.
In Lowell, Mass., for example, collaboration between teachers and management has significantly raised student achievement. In Hillsborough County, Fla., district and union leaders worked together to overhaul teacher development, mentoring and evaluation practices, also leading to significant achievement gains. While the tactics vary from district to district, these success stories share a common approach rooted in collaboration, or what one union president and her district superintendent call "solving problems, not winning arguments."
Great teachers can be developed.
Not everyone is cut out for the classroom, as the superintendents' manifesto rightly noted. But the manifesto missed key points: It can take new teachers time to reach their full potential, and it can take other teachers time to adjust to changing demands. The AFT has worked with experts and educators to create a framework for teacher development and evaluation that is being implemented in more than 50 school districts. Its purpose is to enable new and struggling teachers to improve, to help good teachers become great ones and to identify those who should not be in the profession. Effective evaluation systems can provide the feedback necessary to spur improvement, as well as an objective standard for high-stakes decisions about which teachers just shouldn't teach, rendering moot the issue of whether tenure protects bad teachers (as some people claim).
In focusing so intently on what we ourselves have decried as the "glacial" process for teacher disciplinary proceedings, the superintendents ignored another serious problem that has a dramatic effect on educational quality: turnover. Nearly half of new teachers leave in their first five years, a churning that costs American school systems $7 billion annually. Turnover has a steep educational price tag, as well. Research shows that teachers are most effective after they have three to five years' experience. While more must be done to prepare teachers before they step into a classroom, supporting and retaining good teachers is both an educational and an economic imperative.
Teachers need tools and support.
Educators can't do their jobs well without opportunities for meaningful professional development, an effective curriculum and adequate working conditions. The AFT and other unions try to do our part, but we are ultimately negotiating with others to secure what teachers need. That's where superintendents and principals come in. They have a responsibility to ensure that teachers have the tools to help students achieve excellence.
High standards are important, but they're just a start.
The AFT supports the Common Core State Standards Initiative, an effort coordinated by the National Governors Association's Center for Best Practices and the Council of Chief State School Officers. Thirty-six states plan to adopt this initiative. If implemented properly (no sure thing, in this time of austerity), these standards can help correct the serious problems that are a legacy of No Child Left Behind, including a narrowing of the curriculum and an overemphasis on preparation for standardized tests.
But such standards are meaningless without training and assessments aligned to them and, crucially, without time for teachers to prepare for them and for students to achieve them.
We must innovate -- and imitate.
It is essential that we explore promising new approaches. At the same time, we must replicate and expand established, proven programs. Because there are endless ideas about how to improve teaching and learning, it is crucial that we look to the evidence. Where we see success, whether in public, private or charter schools, we should learn from it. And we must follow the lead of top-performing countries, such as Finland, replicating their best approaches.
We accept and expect accountability, but we also demand shared responsibility.
Accountability is a tool, not an endpoint. Our aim should be to help all children succeed. But when accountability, rather than shared responsibility, becomes the goal, the focus shifts to how to do better on tests. In its recurring emphasis on "performance," the superintendents' manifesto missed this crucial point. Everyone with responsibility for our children's education and well-being, including teachers, administrators, elected officials, parents and students, should be held accountable.
Teachers can't do this alone.
Public schools have an obligation to help all children learn, regardless of parental engagement, native language or family income. But to succeed, educators need help. Consider the District, where three out of 10 children were living in poverty last year.
That's why "wraparound services," such as safe and enriching after-school programs, health services and tutoring, are so essential.
As Jonathan P. Raymond, the superintendent of the Sacramento public schools, wrote recently: "We have to stop blaming teachers for problems that have multiple causes, ranging from poor administrative oversight and accountability to a lack of parent engagement. I know how hard teachers work to educate every child and challenge students at their ability level. We need to work equally hard to give our teachers the tools and supports they need to be successful. Let's stop scapegoating and come together to find solutions that work."
We must keep the public in public schools.
Strong schools help create vibrant communities, and engaged communities in turn help our schools thrive. Our children's educations should not be the sole provenance of any one group, whether administrators or teachers. Parents, faith communities, business leaders and others are critical to a successful public school system. All must be partners in ensuring that every child gets a great education.
No one, least of all those of us whose life's work is public education, will be satisfied until we have helped all students prepare for the demands of our ever-changing knowledge economy. Getting to that point, particularly during one of the toughest downturns of our lifetimes, will require that we all do more -- and do it together.
Last week in these pages, a group of school superintendents -- two of whom, Chicago Public Schools chief executive Ron Huberman and D.C. Schools Chancellor Michelle Rhee, have just announced their resignations -- laid out a "manifesto" for fixing America's schools. Although lofty in its stated aim to set a course for improving public education, the manifesto offered few concrete solutions, with one notable exception: shifting the sole responsibility to teachers. Sadly, such a view ignores both the full extent of the superintendents' own responsibilities and the reality that many factors affect children's success.
We at the American Federation of Teachers would suggest a different approach. Let's come together -- teachers, superintendents, principals, parents and community members -- and develop a joint manifesto about how to best educate all of our kids. After all, superintendents have a responsibility not only to demand excellence and accountability from others, but also to ensure that teachers have the resources to help their students succeed.
Educating children is complex work. No one approach will provide all children with the first-rate education they deserve. So we must simultaneously build on what works and fix what's broken, much as high-performing school districts and nations with high student-achievement rankings already do.
In that spirit, here is our vision for how to create great schools for all children.
Collaboration matters.
Earlier this month, the AFT brought superintendents, elected officials and teachers union leaders from 35 districts across the country to Washington to compare notes on successful reform efforts. Although such teamwork and shared responsibility rarely make headlines, they are the essential ingredients for lasting change.
In Lowell, Mass., for example, collaboration between teachers and management has significantly raised student achievement. In Hillsborough County, Fla., district and union leaders worked together to overhaul teacher development, mentoring and evaluation practices, also leading to significant achievement gains. While the tactics vary from district to district, these success stories share a common approach rooted in collaboration, or what one union president and her district superintendent call "solving problems, not winning arguments."
Great teachers can be developed.
Not everyone is cut out for the classroom, as the superintendents' manifesto rightly noted. But the manifesto missed key points: It can take new teachers time to reach their full potential, and it can take other teachers time to adjust to changing demands. The AFT has worked with experts and educators to create a framework for teacher development and evaluation that is being implemented in more than 50 school districts. Its purpose is to enable new and struggling teachers to improve, to help good teachers become great ones and to identify those who should not be in the profession. Effective evaluation systems can provide the feedback necessary to spur improvement, as well as an objective standard for high-stakes decisions about which teachers just shouldn't teach, rendering moot the issue of whether tenure protects bad teachers (as some people claim).
In focusing so intently on what we ourselves have decried as the "glacial" process for teacher disciplinary proceedings, the superintendents ignored another serious problem that has a dramatic effect on educational quality: turnover. Nearly half of new teachers leave in their first five years, a churning that costs American school systems $7 billion annually. Turnover has a steep educational price tag, as well. Research shows that teachers are most effective after they have three to five years' experience. While more must be done to prepare teachers before they step into a classroom, supporting and retaining good teachers is both an educational and an economic imperative.
Teachers need tools and support.
Educators can't do their jobs well without opportunities for meaningful professional development, an effective curriculum and adequate working conditions. The AFT and other unions try to do our part, but we are ultimately negotiating with others to secure what teachers need. That's where superintendents and principals come in. They have a responsibility to ensure that teachers have the tools to help students achieve excellence.
High standards are important, but they're just a start.
The AFT supports the Common Core State Standards Initiative, an effort coordinated by the National Governors Association's Center for Best Practices and the Council of Chief State School Officers. Thirty-six states plan to adopt this initiative. If implemented properly (no sure thing, in this time of austerity), these standards can help correct the serious problems that are a legacy of No Child Left Behind, including a narrowing of the curriculum and an overemphasis on preparation for standardized tests.
But such standards are meaningless without training and assessments aligned to them and, crucially, without time for teachers to prepare for them and for students to achieve them.
We must innovate -- and imitate.
It is essential that we explore promising new approaches. At the same time, we must replicate and expand established, proven programs. Because there are endless ideas about how to improve teaching and learning, it is crucial that we look to the evidence. Where we see success, whether in public, private or charter schools, we should learn from it. And we must follow the lead of top-performing countries, such as Finland, replicating their best approaches.
We accept and expect accountability, but we also demand shared responsibility.
Accountability is a tool, not an endpoint. Our aim should be to help all children succeed. But when accountability, rather than shared responsibility, becomes the goal, the focus shifts to how to do better on tests. In its recurring emphasis on "performance," the superintendents' manifesto missed this crucial point. Everyone with responsibility for our children's education and well-being, including teachers, administrators, elected officials, parents and students, should be held accountable.
Teachers can't do this alone.
Public schools have an obligation to help all children learn, regardless of parental engagement, native language or family income. But to succeed, educators need help. Consider the District, where three out of 10 children were living in poverty last year.
That's why "wraparound services," such as safe and enriching after-school programs, health services and tutoring, are so essential.
As Jonathan P. Raymond, the superintendent of the Sacramento public schools, wrote recently: "We have to stop blaming teachers for problems that have multiple causes, ranging from poor administrative oversight and accountability to a lack of parent engagement. I know how hard teachers work to educate every child and challenge students at their ability level. We need to work equally hard to give our teachers the tools and supports they need to be successful. Let's stop scapegoating and come together to find solutions that work."
We must keep the public in public schools.
Strong schools help create vibrant communities, and engaged communities in turn help our schools thrive. Our children's educations should not be the sole provenance of any one group, whether administrators or teachers. Parents, faith communities, business leaders and others are critical to a successful public school system. All must be partners in ensuring that every child gets a great education.
No one, least of all those of us whose life's work is public education, will be satisfied until we have helped all students prepare for the demands of our ever-changing knowledge economy. Getting to that point, particularly during one of the toughest downturns of our lifetimes, will require that we all do more -- and do it together.
Friday, October 15, 2010
The Bottom Line on Teacher Pensions
It's no secret that funding for the state teacher pension plan is going to be controversial in the next session of the Maryland General Assembly come January. Last year, Senate President Mike Miller put on a full court press to shift the pension costs from the state to the counties. What he got was a study commission that is scheduled to report back out before January.
Unfortuantely, Miller is focussed on the wrong problem. His concern appears to be limited to offloading the costs from the state to balance their books - regardless of the impact on county budgets. But he misses the underlying problem of ensuring the long-term financial health of the plans.
As recently as 2000, the state pension system was fully funded. As of last summer, the funding status had dropped to 64%. Simply shifting the costs does nothing to address this funding shortfall. So what caused the drop?
It's fairly simple. There are four reasons:
1. Investment losses. To quote the well-worn cliche: "it's the economy stupid". Like every pension and retirement plan in the nation, the Maryland pension system has been battered by a drop in investment returns (-20%) and asset value (-22%) in the last year alone due to the recession.
2. Accouting gimmicks by the state. In 2002, the state mandated a "corridor funding formula" that served to reduce the annual cost to the state. No other state in the nation using this technique, and the result has been to artificially lower the State's contribution to the plan.
3. The fund is underperforming. A recent report compared the performance of the Maryland plans to those in other states, and found that the Maryland plan "has significantly trailed the median investment returns of its peers to the tune of $3 billion over the last ten years" and that the substandard results "may be the result of asset allocation decisions, manager investment selections, or both".
4. Salaries have gone up. Not in the last three years, but they are higher now than in 2000. This is in no small part due to funding incentives provided by the state (the Bridge to Excellence, etc.). Salaries are negotiated locally - but we shouldn't forget that it is the state that a) sets the benefit levels, b) uses 'corridor funding' to underfund the plan, and c) chooses the investment managers.
The state's "Benefits Sustainabilty Commission" has begun work, and there are a number of useful reports at that link for those interested in reading in more detail about these issues. It's important for them to understand how we got here as they ponder their recommendations. Simply shifting the costs to the counties does nothing to address the funding problem. Something needs to be done to ensure the long term financial health of the plans, but let's not blame the victims.
In the last few years, teachers have increasd their annual contribution to their pensions from 2% of their salaries to 5% of their salaries. We are doing our part. But we didn't cause the recession. And it's the state that is responsible for its accounting gimmicks and poor investment management.
Tom Israel, MCEA Executive Director
Unfortuantely, Miller is focussed on the wrong problem. His concern appears to be limited to offloading the costs from the state to balance their books - regardless of the impact on county budgets. But he misses the underlying problem of ensuring the long-term financial health of the plans.
As recently as 2000, the state pension system was fully funded. As of last summer, the funding status had dropped to 64%. Simply shifting the costs does nothing to address this funding shortfall. So what caused the drop?
It's fairly simple. There are four reasons:
1. Investment losses. To quote the well-worn cliche: "it's the economy stupid". Like every pension and retirement plan in the nation, the Maryland pension system has been battered by a drop in investment returns (-20%) and asset value (-22%) in the last year alone due to the recession.
2. Accouting gimmicks by the state. In 2002, the state mandated a "corridor funding formula" that served to reduce the annual cost to the state. No other state in the nation using this technique, and the result has been to artificially lower the State's contribution to the plan.
3. The fund is underperforming. A recent report compared the performance of the Maryland plans to those in other states, and found that the Maryland plan "has significantly trailed the median investment returns of its peers to the tune of $3 billion over the last ten years" and that the substandard results "may be the result of asset allocation decisions, manager investment selections, or both".
4. Salaries have gone up. Not in the last three years, but they are higher now than in 2000. This is in no small part due to funding incentives provided by the state (the Bridge to Excellence, etc.). Salaries are negotiated locally - but we shouldn't forget that it is the state that a) sets the benefit levels, b) uses 'corridor funding' to underfund the plan, and c) chooses the investment managers.
The state's "Benefits Sustainabilty Commission" has begun work, and there are a number of useful reports at that link for those interested in reading in more detail about these issues. It's important for them to understand how we got here as they ponder their recommendations. Simply shifting the costs to the counties does nothing to address the funding problem. Something needs to be done to ensure the long term financial health of the plans, but let's not blame the victims.
In the last few years, teachers have increasd their annual contribution to their pensions from 2% of their salaries to 5% of their salaries. We are doing our part. But we didn't cause the recession. And it's the state that is responsible for its accounting gimmicks and poor investment management.
Tom Israel, MCEA Executive Director
Wednesday, October 13, 2010
MCEA Reps Endorse “No Labels, No Limits” Campaign
Call on Board of Education to Eliminate the Gifted/Talented label in elementary school
MCEA Building Reps voted overwhelmingly last Wednesday in favor of endorsing the “No Labels, No Limits” Campaign to end the screening of all second grade students as either “gifted and talented” or not “gifted and talented”.
One teacher rep shared her personal story as a mother of twins. A number of years ago, both were in MCPS in second grade, and both were tested in MCPS’ “global screening”. One child was labeled gifted and talented. The other was labeled not gifted and talented. And ever since, she has seen the different expectations, different instruction, and different opportunities. The child who was labeled not gifted and talented “missed” by just one point.
Another educator who spoke was a middle school teacher who also serves as the gifted and talented program coordinator in her school. She too supported the No Labels/No Limits Campaign, explaining that from her experience the grade two labeling was not a useful or effective means of getting children the appropriate level of services.
The No Labels/No Limits Campaign is supported by a coalition of parent, educator, student and community-based organizations. It is based on shared beliefs
The motion approved by the MCEA Representative Assembly encourages reps to report back to their schools and promote ongoing discussions about the No Labels/No Limits Campaign. MCEA President Doug Prouty will formally notify the school administration, Board of Education and the public.
MCEA members interested in supporting this effort should contact MCEA’s Human and Civil Rights Committee. Committee Chair, George Vlasits (Blair HS), is helping to coordinate teacher involvement in the No Labels/No Limits campaign.
For more information on the No Labels/ No Limits campaign, go to the website of the Montgomery County Education Forum at http://www.mcef.org/ .
MCEA Building Reps voted overwhelmingly last Wednesday in favor of endorsing the “No Labels, No Limits” Campaign to end the screening of all second grade students as either “gifted and talented” or not “gifted and talented”.
One teacher rep shared her personal story as a mother of twins. A number of years ago, both were in MCPS in second grade, and both were tested in MCPS’ “global screening”. One child was labeled gifted and talented. The other was labeled not gifted and talented. And ever since, she has seen the different expectations, different instruction, and different opportunities. The child who was labeled not gifted and talented “missed” by just one point.
Another educator who spoke was a middle school teacher who also serves as the gifted and talented program coordinator in her school. She too supported the No Labels/No Limits Campaign, explaining that from her experience the grade two labeling was not a useful or effective means of getting children the appropriate level of services.
The No Labels/No Limits Campaign is supported by a coalition of parent, educator, student and community-based organizations. It is based on shared beliefs
that every child deserves and is entitled to a high quality public education and high expectations irrespective of race, class, ethnicity, language, or physical ability.Over the past couple of years, two MCPS elementary schools have piloted the elimination of the GT label. In its place, the focus is on identifying the educational needs of every child and providing challenging curriculum and instruction for all students. Teachers and parents at both Georgian Forest ES and Burning Tree ES have expressed their continuing support for the elimination of the labeling.
that the global screening of all second grade students and invariably sorts or "tracks" students, limiting the academic opportunities of many children and contributing to a culture of low expectations
that the time has come to move away from labels toward a paradigm that provides every child the appropriate challenge and support. Only through equitable educational opportunities will all children be prepared for the challenges that lie ahead.
The motion approved by the MCEA Representative Assembly encourages reps to report back to their schools and promote ongoing discussions about the No Labels/No Limits Campaign. MCEA President Doug Prouty will formally notify the school administration, Board of Education and the public.
MCEA members interested in supporting this effort should contact MCEA’s Human and Civil Rights Committee. Committee Chair, George Vlasits (Blair HS), is helping to coordinate teacher involvement in the No Labels/No Limits campaign.
For more information on the No Labels/ No Limits campaign, go to the website of the Montgomery County Education Forum at http://www.mcef.org/ .
Tuesday, October 05, 2010
Stealth Candidate for Board of Education
One of the defining features of American democracy is the right of every citizen to run for elected office - not just those who you agree with. Our electoral process is founded on a rigorous debate over ideas, with the voters making the ultimate decision.
That is why it is more than a little disturbing when a candidate running for office seeks to hide his/her real views on the issues.
Which brings us to the case of Martha Shaerr. Shaerr is a candidate for the Montgomery County Board of Education, running against incumbent Mike Durso. In a four person race, Shaerr finished second, garnering 28% of the vote to Durso' 47% - thereby grabbing a seat in the November 2nd runoff election. The following letter to the editor was published in the September 29th issue of the Gazette:
Schaerr Profile Lacked Key Information
Shaerr has every right to her opinions, and we would welcome a full and public debate over whether sex ed should be a part of the curriculum in schools. I'm confident that voters in Montgomery County would be overwhelming supportive. Too bad Ms. Shaerr has chosen to hide from voters the importance she places on taking sex education out of our schools.
Tom Israel, MCEA Executive Director.
That is why it is more than a little disturbing when a candidate running for office seeks to hide his/her real views on the issues.
Which brings us to the case of Martha Shaerr. Shaerr is a candidate for the Montgomery County Board of Education, running against incumbent Mike Durso. In a four person race, Shaerr finished second, garnering 28% of the vote to Durso' 47% - thereby grabbing a seat in the November 2nd runoff election. The following letter to the editor was published in the September 29th issue of the Gazette:
Schaerr Profile Lacked Key Information
In The Gazette's Sept. 2 profile of Board of Education candidate Martha Schaerr ["Schaerr calls for schools to engage struggling students"], Schaerr failed to reveal perhaps the most salient feature of her involvement with the Montgomery County Public Schools. Schaerr is a member of the board of directors (and her husband is board chairman) of the Family Leader Network, which brought suit against MCPS in 2007, in an unsuccessful attempt to block implementation of eighth and 10th grade health education revisions titled "Respect for Differences in Human Sexuality."Fishback knows that of which he speaks. For many years, he served as Chairperson of the MCPS Citizens’ Advisory Committee on Family Life and Human Development. He knows first hand about the battles to establish an appropriate sex education curriculum in MCPS.
None of this is mentioned on Schaerr's campaign website. The revisions of the courses (which may only be taken if parents opt into them for their children) were prepared in close consultation with a panel from the Maryland Chapter of the American Academy of Pediatrics and are based entirely on the teachings of mainstream American medical and mental health professional associations.
These revisions help make our schools safe for all of our children. The State Board of Education, without a single dissenting vote, and then the Montgomery County Circuit Court, rejected Schaerr's Family Leader Network's arguments. This baseless litigation forced MCPS to spend tens of thousands of taxpayer dollars in attorney fees.
David S. Fishback, Olney
Shaerr has every right to her opinions, and we would welcome a full and public debate over whether sex ed should be a part of the curriculum in schools. I'm confident that voters in Montgomery County would be overwhelming supportive. Too bad Ms. Shaerr has chosen to hide from voters the importance she places on taking sex education out of our schools.
Tom Israel, MCEA Executive Director.
Monday, September 27, 2010
Federal Health Care Reform Brings Changes to MCPS Plan
There has been a lot of posturing over the impact of the new federal health care legislation. The immediate changes are beginning to take shape, and it is good news for health care consumers.
Take the MCPS insurance plan for example. As a result of the federal health care legislation passed this spring, there will be a number of significant changes to the MCPS plan, effective January 1, 2011. The same is true for almost all Americans with health insurance. Within MCPS the changes include:
* expansion of coverage to overage dependents
* elimination of co-pays on preventative health care
* lowering of out-of-pocket expenses for mental health care
* elimination of lifetime caps on coverage
Overage Dependents - Young adults up to age 26 will now be eligible to remain on their parents MCPS family insurance plan - for medical and prescription drug coverage. The usual MCPS open enrollment season (when you can make any plan changes) is scheduled for October 11 - November 12. If you have overaged dependents who you wish to enroll back onto your plan, you will be able to do so during the open enrollment period, for coverage effective 1/1/11.
Preventive Health Care - In order to increase access to preventive care, the new federal health care legislation requires the elimination of co-pays on a wide range of preventive services when they are provided by in-network providers. (Co-pays for out-of-network providers remain unchanged). MCPS has already posted a list of the preventive services that will now be provided without copayments.
Mental Health Care - Plans - like MCPS' - will no longer be able to charge higher co-pays for mental health visits than they do for other medical office visits. Under the current MCPS plans, many employees have to pay 50% of the charges for mental health care visits. As of January 1st, co-pays for visits to in-network mental health providers will be limited to $10 per visit in the Point-of-Service plans and $5 per visit in the HMOs. The co-pays for out-of-network providers, under the Point-of-Service plans will improve as well. After satisfying your deductible, such charges will be treated under the same 80%/20% split as other out-of-network medical office visits.
Lifetime Maximum Coverage - Though most folks don't realize it, the current MCPS health plan - like most plans - puts a limit on the maximum amount of coverage you can receive through the plan in your lifetime. The MCPS cap has been $2 million. Just last week there was interesting news coverage of individuals with chronic illnesses requiring very expensive, ongoing treatments, who faced having to change jobs in order to maintain health insurance coverage and not 'max-out' under their employer's plan. Effective 1/1/11, federal law prohibits such lifetime caps, so the cap in MCPS will be eliminated as well. No one ever forsees needing that kind of ongoing, expensive health care. But it is reassuring to know that you wont' risk 'maxing-out' your health coverage if you or a family member face such a situation.
More details on the plan changes will be provided in the MCPS Open Enrollment materials that will be available in the next couple of weeks.
At a time when most Americans are suffering financially, it is a welcome sign of hope that health insurance protection for everyone is improving in concrete, measurable ways.
Take the MCPS insurance plan for example. As a result of the federal health care legislation passed this spring, there will be a number of significant changes to the MCPS plan, effective January 1, 2011. The same is true for almost all Americans with health insurance. Within MCPS the changes include:
* expansion of coverage to overage dependents
* elimination of co-pays on preventative health care
* lowering of out-of-pocket expenses for mental health care
* elimination of lifetime caps on coverage
Overage Dependents - Young adults up to age 26 will now be eligible to remain on their parents MCPS family insurance plan - for medical and prescription drug coverage. The usual MCPS open enrollment season (when you can make any plan changes) is scheduled for October 11 - November 12. If you have overaged dependents who you wish to enroll back onto your plan, you will be able to do so during the open enrollment period, for coverage effective 1/1/11.
Preventive Health Care - In order to increase access to preventive care, the new federal health care legislation requires the elimination of co-pays on a wide range of preventive services when they are provided by in-network providers. (Co-pays for out-of-network providers remain unchanged). MCPS has already posted a list of the preventive services that will now be provided without copayments.
Mental Health Care - Plans - like MCPS' - will no longer be able to charge higher co-pays for mental health visits than they do for other medical office visits. Under the current MCPS plans, many employees have to pay 50% of the charges for mental health care visits. As of January 1st, co-pays for visits to in-network mental health providers will be limited to $10 per visit in the Point-of-Service plans and $5 per visit in the HMOs. The co-pays for out-of-network providers, under the Point-of-Service plans will improve as well. After satisfying your deductible, such charges will be treated under the same 80%/20% split as other out-of-network medical office visits.
Lifetime Maximum Coverage - Though most folks don't realize it, the current MCPS health plan - like most plans - puts a limit on the maximum amount of coverage you can receive through the plan in your lifetime. The MCPS cap has been $2 million. Just last week there was interesting news coverage of individuals with chronic illnesses requiring very expensive, ongoing treatments, who faced having to change jobs in order to maintain health insurance coverage and not 'max-out' under their employer's plan. Effective 1/1/11, federal law prohibits such lifetime caps, so the cap in MCPS will be eliminated as well. No one ever forsees needing that kind of ongoing, expensive health care. But it is reassuring to know that you wont' risk 'maxing-out' your health coverage if you or a family member face such a situation.
More details on the plan changes will be provided in the MCPS Open Enrollment materials that will be available in the next couple of weeks.
At a time when most Americans are suffering financially, it is a welcome sign of hope that health insurance protection for everyone is improving in concrete, measurable ways.
Tuesday, September 21, 2010
Teacher merit pay fails test
This just in from non-other than the Washington Post Education Report:
A study released Tuesday found that offering teachers annual bonuses of up to $15,000 had no effect on student test scores - a result likely to inflame debate about performance pay programs sprouting in D.C. schools and many others nationwide. The study suggests that teachers already were working so hard that the lure of extra money failed to induce them to intensify their effort or change methods of instruction. The experiment, in Nashville public schools, calls into question a key aspect of market-driven initiatives to improve schools that have become the vogue in some education circles. "Pay reform is often thought to be a magic bullet," said Matthew Springer, a Vanderbilt University education professor who led the study. "That doesn't appear to be the case here. We need to develop more thoughtful and comprehensive ways of thinking about compensation. But at the same time, we're not even sure whether incentive pay is an effective strategy for improving the system itself."
» Read full article
A study released Tuesday found that offering teachers annual bonuses of up to $15,000 had no effect on student test scores - a result likely to inflame debate about performance pay programs sprouting in D.C. schools and many others nationwide. The study suggests that teachers already were working so hard that the lure of extra money failed to induce them to intensify their effort or change methods of instruction. The experiment, in Nashville public schools, calls into question a key aspect of market-driven initiatives to improve schools that have become the vogue in some education circles. "Pay reform is often thought to be a magic bullet," said Matthew Springer, a Vanderbilt University education professor who led the study. "That doesn't appear to be the case here. We need to develop more thoughtful and comprehensive ways of thinking about compensation. But at the same time, we're not even sure whether incentive pay is an effective strategy for improving the system itself."
» Read full article
Monday, September 20, 2010
A Chance to Learn from Rhee's Mistakes
Congratulations to Mark Simon, former president of MCEA and founder of the Mooney Institute for Teacher and Union Leadership, for publication of the following op-ed column in yesterday's Washington Post:
A chance to learn from Rhee's mistakes
By Mark Simon
Washington Post
Sunday, September 19, 2010
Post editors and reporters appear to have latched on to every possible explanation for the public's rejection of Mayor Adrian Fenty. Racial politics this week. Fenty's personality. Schools Chancellor Michelle Rhee's failure to communicate.
But Fenty's defeat isn't about race or personality. It's about bad decisions, particularly on school reform. His school reform strategies, as shoved through by Rhee, alienated the voters.
Rhee certainly rates as smart, charismatic and bold. But she made decisions early in her tenure that alienated every constituency she needed, and she rested her "reforms" on strategies that national education researchers have repeatedly warned against.
Over the course of her tenure, Rhee:
-- Over-emphasized standardized student testing and scores as the be-all and end-all of school and teacher quality. (See the Economic Policy Institute's Aug. 27 report "Problems with the Use of Student Test Scores to Evaluate Teachers.")
-- Failed to understand the importance of community and relationships, and marginalized dedicated and knowledgeable parent and community advocates.
-- Created churn in the workforce, with widespread teacher and principal firings, in the process instilling a culture of fear.
-- Rushed to install teacher evaluation rubrics, under her IMPACT program, that devalue teacher professionalism instead of emphasizing teacher and principal training and curriculum development.
These missteps reflected conscious decisions, not oversights. One example: Early on, Rhee rejected a staff recommendation to bring in the consultants used in Montgomery and Fairfax counties to train administrators and teachers in effective teaching practices. The reason given: Taking the route Montgomery and Fairfax followed would cost too much and take too long.
Schools are communities. Education is a complex, labor-intensive endeavor. Good teaching must be nurtured systematically. Parents understand these realities, which is one big reason they're instinctively wary of any test-and-punish approach. Under Rhee, the public senses that a profound disrespect of educators and the craft of teaching has permeated the D.C. system.
A responsible newspaper would have treated Rhee's reform strategies as controversial ideas worthy of debate. Instead, The Post seems to have taken the posture that anyone against Rhee's reforms must be for the DCPS status quo.
That simply is not the case. Rhee's critics have included veteran reformers who have studied the research and have good reason to warn that she was taking reform down the wrong path.
Vincent C. Gray, who after winning Tuesday's primary is the presumptive mayor-elect, needs to be resolute about improving teacher quality and holding schools and teachers accountable. But he also needs to take a hard look at the controversial strategies that Rhee has pursued. National experts shut out by the Rhee administration can help fine-tune more effective approaches.
And if Michelle Rhee is truly in it "for the kids," she'll muster up some humility, acknowledge her mistaken decisions and stick around long enough to transition to more experienced leadership.
The writer, a member of Teachers and Parents for Real Education Reform, is a DCPS parent, an education policy analyst at the Economic Policy Institute and a former president of the Montgomery County teachers union.
A chance to learn from Rhee's mistakes
By Mark Simon
Washington Post
Sunday, September 19, 2010
Post editors and reporters appear to have latched on to every possible explanation for the public's rejection of Mayor Adrian Fenty. Racial politics this week. Fenty's personality. Schools Chancellor Michelle Rhee's failure to communicate.
But Fenty's defeat isn't about race or personality. It's about bad decisions, particularly on school reform. His school reform strategies, as shoved through by Rhee, alienated the voters.
Rhee certainly rates as smart, charismatic and bold. But she made decisions early in her tenure that alienated every constituency she needed, and she rested her "reforms" on strategies that national education researchers have repeatedly warned against.
Over the course of her tenure, Rhee:
-- Over-emphasized standardized student testing and scores as the be-all and end-all of school and teacher quality. (See the Economic Policy Institute's Aug. 27 report "Problems with the Use of Student Test Scores to Evaluate Teachers.")
-- Failed to understand the importance of community and relationships, and marginalized dedicated and knowledgeable parent and community advocates.
-- Created churn in the workforce, with widespread teacher and principal firings, in the process instilling a culture of fear.
-- Rushed to install teacher evaluation rubrics, under her IMPACT program, that devalue teacher professionalism instead of emphasizing teacher and principal training and curriculum development.
These missteps reflected conscious decisions, not oversights. One example: Early on, Rhee rejected a staff recommendation to bring in the consultants used in Montgomery and Fairfax counties to train administrators and teachers in effective teaching practices. The reason given: Taking the route Montgomery and Fairfax followed would cost too much and take too long.
Schools are communities. Education is a complex, labor-intensive endeavor. Good teaching must be nurtured systematically. Parents understand these realities, which is one big reason they're instinctively wary of any test-and-punish approach. Under Rhee, the public senses that a profound disrespect of educators and the craft of teaching has permeated the D.C. system.
A responsible newspaper would have treated Rhee's reform strategies as controversial ideas worthy of debate. Instead, The Post seems to have taken the posture that anyone against Rhee's reforms must be for the DCPS status quo.
That simply is not the case. Rhee's critics have included veteran reformers who have studied the research and have good reason to warn that she was taking reform down the wrong path.
Vincent C. Gray, who after winning Tuesday's primary is the presumptive mayor-elect, needs to be resolute about improving teacher quality and holding schools and teachers accountable. But he also needs to take a hard look at the controversial strategies that Rhee has pursued. National experts shut out by the Rhee administration can help fine-tune more effective approaches.
And if Michelle Rhee is truly in it "for the kids," she'll muster up some humility, acknowledge her mistaken decisions and stick around long enough to transition to more experienced leadership.
The writer, a member of Teachers and Parents for Real Education Reform, is a DCPS parent, an education policy analyst at the Economic Policy Institute and a former president of the Montgomery County teachers union.
Wednesday, September 15, 2010
FAIR Grades Education Coverage
Ever wonder why the mainstream media often seems to be little more than cheerleaders for top-down education "reform" and teacher-bashing? Check out this new alert from the folks at Fairness and Accuracy In Reporting for a critical analysis of the media's coverage of public education today.
Another school year is beginning, and corporate media are ramping up their attacks on teachers and their praise for corporate-friendly education "reform." FAIR's on the case with special coverage on CounterSpin and in Extra!.
Time magazine's current cover story (9/20/10) sounds all the usual notes: the corporate-style "reform" movement is a bold attempt to run schools "according to what actually works;" the White House's Race for the Top grants are an attempt to get states to "rationalize their systems," the KIPP charter schools are "an alternate universe where things worked the way they should" and Barack Obama "is standing up to his party's most dysfunctional long-term romantic interest, the teachers' unions."
The September issue of Extra! documents how these and many other favorite media truisms about education reform deserve far greater scrutiny. The special education issue features articles on teacher-bashing, the Obama administration's "Race to the Top," media darling and D.C. schools chancellor Michelle Rhee, and interviews with author Jonathan Kozol and journalist Barbara Miner. Follow this link to read more--or to subscribe to Extra! today, with the education special as your first issue: http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=4
Grading teachers based on their students' scores on standardized tests is a popular obsession with so-called education reformers, White House policy makers and journalists. The Los Angeles Times even published test-based rankings of 6,000 primary school teachers recently, sparking demonstrations. What you wouldn't know from most media accounts of this controversial policy is that many critics think the focus on testing actually undermines student learning.
CounterSpin talked about the fetishization of testing with education researcher Diane Ravitch, a contributor to a new report on teacher ratings from the Economic Policy Institute, and the author of The Death and Life of the Great American School System: How Testing and Choice Are Undermining Education. Follow this link to listen: http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=4152
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)