Listen on Spotify

Listen on Apple Podcasts 

Listen on SoundCloud

Produced by Show-Me Opportunity

The post Bloated Bureaucracy and Failing Kids The Case for School Choice with Christopher Talgo appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

The post The Economics of Teacher Tenure appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

What does this mean?

·         Missouri does not base tenure decisions on demonstrated teacher effectiveness

·         Missouri does not ensure that districts use teacher evaluation results when selecting professional development activities.

·         Missouri does not pay better teachers more.

·         Missouri does not specify that ineffectiveness is grounds for dismissal for teachers or principals.

·         Missouri does not require that teacher effectiveness be taken into account when teachers are looking to renew their licenses.

·         Missouri does not make evidence of teacher effectiveness the basis for granting Missouri licenses for teachers with licenses from out of state.

·         Missouri does not place its student teachers in classrooms with teachers that have demonstrated effectiveness.

I’ll be the first to say that student test scores should not be the sole measure of a teacher’s effectiveness. An over-reliance on standardized tests has led to many unintended and unfortunate consequences.  But two course corrections working in tandem—rethinking what tests we give children and how we use the results, and rethinking how we help recruit, reward, and retain great teachers—have a great deal of potential for improving Missouri’s education system.

If we’re going to have policies like licensure and tenure, they should be based on teacher effectiveness, not simply how long someone has been in the classroom.  If districts are going to spend millions of dollars on professional development activities, the money should be in areas where teachers are struggling to improve student achievement.

Ultimately, a move towards a system with greater school choice would diminish the need for heavy-handed, centrally-driven teacher evaluation policies.  Individual school leaders would be responsible for putting together the best possible staff so families would want to send their children to that particular school. Parents, who have access to detailed information both about their child and how well he or she is doing, would be the ultimate arbiters of teacher quality. But until such a system is in place, we must work harder to identify great teachers, recruit them into our schools, and then do what is necessary to keep them here.

The post New NCTQ Report Highlights Holes in Missouri Teacher Policy appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

Ms. Friedrichs is a 27-year veteran teacher who currently works in Buena Park, California. According to an interview with the Daily Caller News Foundation, she first encountered the teachers union when she tried to get her school to deal with a colleague who had been abusive to students. As she said, “They couldn’t get rid of her because of teacher tenure. . . . There was absolutely nothing, from my perspective and what I was told, that I could do.”

Friedrichs tried to work with her union, volunteering within it and working to convince her colleagues to be more amenable to some education reforms (like school vouchers) that might give more opportunities to her students. And what, according to Friedrichs, was the union’s response? “They punished me for standing up. . . . For that whole year, for that whole fight, I was treated like dirt.”

Teachers are too important to be treated like that.

Ultimately, what is at issue in this case is very simple: the right of free association, a right protected by the First Amendment. Ms. Friedrichs and thousands of public servants like her do not want to be forced to support a union that does not represent their interests or values.

As James Sherk of the Heritage Foundation points out, for much of the history of the American labor movement, private unions supported that right for public employees. In 1959, the AFL-CIO’s Executive Council wrote “In terms of accepted collective bargaining procedures, government workers have no right beyond the authority to petition Congress—a right available to every citizen.” Why? “It is impossible to bargain collectively with the government.” That was George Meany, President of the AFL-CIO, in 1955.

The issues associated with public unionism are clear. Institute researchers and scholars have written about the dangers of allowing government unions to elect their bosses and thus sit on both sides of the table during negotiations over salaries and benefits, pensions, hiring and firing procedures, and a variety of other policies (like school vouchers) that might only tangentially affect their membership. You can find a small sample of our work here, here, and here.

A victory in the Friedrichs case would strike a blow for individual freedom; it would recognize the millions of teachers and other government workers across the country not simply as interchangeable widgets who all think the same way, but as individuals with independent ideas and preferences.

This kind of fight is worth fighting. We’re happy to join it.

(Click on the link below if you would like to read the full text of the amicus brief.)

The post Why We Joined Rebecca Friedrichs’ Fight appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

(1) Amendment 3 will mandate more standardized tests.

Analysis: False.

Here’s what the ballot language says:

The majority of such evaluation system shall be based upon quantifiable student performance data as measured by objective criteria.

The St. Louis Post-Dispatch claims:

. . . the worst thing about Amendment 3 is that it imposes an untested experiment on all local school districts in the state, requiring them to devise a new standardized test for students that becomes the primary evaluation tool for teachers. Don’t our children take enough standardized tests these days?

This is a tremendous overstatement. With the state tests that students already take and the multitude of internal assessments that districts already administer, there is no need for additional tests under this amendment. Moreover, there are other types of performance data, such as districtwide common assessments, which could fit within the Amendment 3 language.

(2) Amendment 3 takes away local control.

Analysis: Both true and false.

If we were moving from a neutral system to an Amendment 3 system, it would be a loss of local control. Of course, we are not moving from a neutral system. Current Missouri tenure laws grant teachers a permanent contract after five years within the same school district and prescribe the exact steps that districts must undertake to remove a tenured teacher. This is a clear loss of local control. Amendment 3 would remove these centrally imposed mandates and would also remove the disastrous “Last in, first out” provision.

Under an Amendment 3 system, contracts would be capped at three years. Amendment 3 would also mandate that districts make staffing decisions based on teacher evaluations. A majority of such evaluations must be based on student performance data. Aside from this provision, districts would largely get to shape their evaluations.

(3) If there is a problem with the new system, Amendment 3 would make it difficult to change policies in the future.

Analysis: True.

How much of a teacher’s evaluation is tied to quantitative data should not be in the state constitution. Ideally, policies such as this would be determined as close to home as possible. That is, authority to determine contract length and evaluation practices should be devolved to the local school district or set in state regulations that could be changed when necessary. Even statutory changes would be preferable to a constitutional change.

Final thoughts:

Proponents argue that Amendment 3 will lead to better teacher evaluations and more recognition for great teachers. Ultimately, they hope this will create an improved teacher workforce. There is just one fundamental problem with that argument—when it comes to teacher quality, we have what is known as a principal-agent problem. That is, we as citizens (the principal) want great teachers in our schools and we hire school administrators (the agent) to make sure this happens. If the agent does not do his or her job, there is little we can do about it. Ultimately, we are dependent upon the school administrator for hiring the right people, evaluating them effectively, and retaining the most effective teachers. If a school administrator lacks the will to remove low-performing teachers, there is little that parents can do about it. Amendment 3 does not change our fundamental principal-agent problem. It may remove tenure restrictions, but if school administrators lack the will, then nothing will change.

The only way to change this dynamic is through greater school choice. With school choice, a parent does not have to depend on an administrator to remove an ineffective teacher. The parent can simply choose to go somewhere else. This places pressure on school administrators to take a more active role in managing the teacher workforce. School choice is the answer to our principal-agent problem. School choice is the answer for improving the overall quality of the teacher workforce.

James Shuls contributed to this post.

The post Our Take on Amendment 3 appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

Now, there are good and compelling arguments on both sides of this issue. Ironically, however, one of the main arguments against Amendment 3 is that it constitutes a loss of local control.

Amendment 3 is a top-down mandate will shift local control away from parents, teachers and local school districts. #MoNoOn3

— Protect Our Schools (@LocalSchoolsMO) October 14, 2014

There is some truth to that claim, but it is important to ask the question, “As compared to what?”

Under current state statutes, Missouri public school districts are forced to enter into an “indefinite contract” when teachers receive tenure and that it shall last for an “indefinite period.” Talk about top down!

What’s more, state statutes mandate a specific process for removing a tenured teacher. This is illustrated in the graphic below (from my paper, “The Power to Lead”).

It is perfectly fine for opponents of Amendment 3 to call it a “top-down mandate” that will strip away local control. I just hope that after November 4, these groups will continue to support local control and oppose top-down mandates for teacher tenure.

The post Support Local Control? Oppose Teacher Tenure Mandates appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

Public sentiment against teacher tenure may have risen due to the highly publicized Vergara v. California case, in which Superior Court Judge Rolf Treu ruled California teacher tenure laws violate the state’s constitution in regards to equality of education.

Tenure laws vary across states. A teacher is tenured in Missouri after teaching in the same district for five years. Tenure laws encourage a system in which school districts undergoing layoffs must keep low-quality, tenured teachers and fire high-quality, non-tenured teachers. This is an ineffective system, as research shows teacher performance has a strong correlation with student achievement.

In a 2013 StudentsFirst poll, Missourians overwhelmingly favored tenure reform—74 percent of those surveyed reported that they would favor a system in which teachers had to demonstrate performance in order to earn or keep tenure. Show-Me Institute Distinguished Fellow James Shuls found that even Missouri superintendents are in favor of teacher tenure reform.

If Missouri wants to be among the top 10 performing states by 2020, tenure reform should be a priority. Teacher tenure may protect good teachers, but it also protects bad teachers. To ensure every child receives a quality education, student welfare must take precedent over the interests of low-performing school employees. This is what the Vergara lawsuit taught the nation.

The post Will California Teacher Tenure Lawsuit Affect Missouri? appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

Several representatives saying they’d like to see intervention even earlier when a school’s scores are dropping #moleg #MOTransfers

— Alex Stuckey (@alexdstuckey) April 9, 2014

There is a lot of talk these days in Jefferson City about being proactive in public schools. Currently, when a school drops below a set performance mark, the district becomes unaccredited. Students are then able to transfer out of the district to a nearby accredited one. Many view this as a reactive, nuclear option. What we need, they say, is early intervention. We need to be proactive when a school starts to struggle. I hate to get tied up in semantics, but by definition, targeting schools that are struggling is reactive, not proactive. It is a reaction to their declining performance.

Lawmakers have their hearts in the right place, but they place too much confidence in their ability to dictate solutions from Jefferson City. After I testified before the Missouri House Elementary and Secondary Education Committee about the student transfer issue, one representative asked me what lawmakers should do to help those struggling school districts.

“What advice would you give us?” she asked.

“I would tell you that you cannot mandate excellence and you cannot dictate innovation,” I said.

“You would have us do nothing?” she asked.

“No, I would have you get out of the way,” I said. “Remove unnecessary restrictions and burdensome regulations. Free the local schools to innovate.”

Missouri could:

Reform teacher tenure policies; remove Last In, First Out provisions; and reform teacher pensions so schools have more flexibility in staffing decisions.

Change seat time and class restrictions that inhibit some blended learning and online learning models.

Try something like Kentucky’s “Districts of Innovation,” where school districts can become “exempt from certain administrative regulations and statutory provisions.”

Responding to government failure with more government action is not being proactive. Policies like the ones cited above are proactive. They put the power into the hands of the school leaders on the ground. A proactive system is one that gives school leaders the freedom to be innovative and gives parents the ability to choose.

The post Proactive Is The New Reactive appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

The post Conversations With Lee Presser: Education Policy appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

The discussion about teacher tenure reform often focuses on the negative aspects, such as getting rid of bad teachers. What most Missourians don’t realize is that our current tenure law also has important implications for rewarding exceptional teachers.

In 2001, the Sherwood-Cass R-VIII School District attempted to give small bonuses to seven teachers. The district wanted to entice these good teachers to sign two-year contracts instead of typical one-year contracts. The Sherwood National Education Association (NEA) challenged the district’s actions.

The courts ruled in favor of the Sherwood NEA, determining that the state’s Teacher Tenure Act does not allow this “commitment pay.” The Missouri Court of Appeals in Sherwood National Education Association v. Sherwood-Cass R-VIII School District said:

The principle[] … is that teachers cannot be compensated for their teaching duties in an amount other than what is set forth in the salary schedule without running afoul of the Teacher Tenure Act. Sherwood, 168 S.W.3d 456, 460 (Mo. Ct. App. W.D. 2005) [emphasis added].

The law has been interpreted to say teachers in Missouri cannot receive performance or merit pay of any sort. The decision in Sherwood establishes precedent for other courts and is a strong deterrent to other school districts considering forms of merit pay.

Teacher tenure laws may make it harder to fire teachers, but in Missouri, they have been interpreted to also prevent districts from incentivizing the good ones to stay. As it stands, school districts are discouraged from using basic forms of merit pay to try to prevent attrition of good teachers. Nor can they use merit pay to reward exceptional teachers for a job well done.

All the more reason to say “it is time for teacher tenure reform.”

The post Teacher Tenure Reform: Not Just About Bad Teachers appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

The post Mark Reardon Interviews James Shuls, Ph.D., About Teacher Tenure Reform appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

Read the essay: The Power to Lead.

The post James Shuls, Ph.D., on Teacher Tenure Reform appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

Read the essay: The Power To Lead: Analysis Of Superintendent Survey Responses Regarding Teacher Tenure

The post The Power To Lead: Analysis Of Superintendent Survey Responses Regarding Teacher Tenure appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

As Dr. Leo Marvin (Richard Dreyfus’ character) tells Bob about baby steps, “It means setting small, reasonable goals for yourself. One day at a time, one tiny step at a time — doable, accomplishable goals.”

Bringing Saint Louis’ tenure laws in line with the rest of the state was a very “doable, accomplishable goal.”

As we have documented, the laws governing teacher tenure were much more restrictive in Saint Louis than they were in the rest of the state. In a presentation at the Show-Me Institute, Saint Louis Public Schools Superintendent Kelvin Adams said it took 100 days to remove a low-performing teacher. Throughout the rest of the state, administrators only have to provide teachers 30 days to improve.

I am glad that the legislature was able to achieve this baby step in the right direction. As a result, ineffective teachers will be removed from Saint Louis classrooms more rapidly. Yet, in the grand scheme of things, this is a very modest improvement, especially when much more could have been accomplished.

Twice, teacher tenure reform bills were defeated on the House floor. In my opinion, the bills simply went too far —replacing the current teacher tenure mandates with new prescriptive mandates for teacher evaluations.

We do not need overly prescribed teacher evaluations any more than we need antiquated tenure laws. What we need are school leaders who actually have the power to lead.

So instead of celebrating true tenure reform, we are left to celebrate the baby step of Saint Louis teacher tenure laws falling in line with the rest of the state. Baby Steps.

The post Baby Steps On Teacher Tenure Reform appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

“Won’t Back Down” highlights the important message that every child deserves good teachers. Parents do not have to let their children suffer in failing schools.

The movie follows single mother Jamie, who works two jobs and wants desperately for her daughter Malia to have a second-grade teacher who cares about teaching. But Malia’s teacher at the local public school, like many others, is focused on passing the time before she can collect her pension and get the heck out of there.

When we are unhappy with a service in the private market — our dry cleaner, for example — we can easily choose to stop bringing our clothes to that location. We have other choices. I realize that schooling is a bit more complicated than dry cleaning, but the point is this: with schools, parents often do not have the choice to send their kids to a different location that will provide a better education. Sure, your child can go to a private school if you have the money. But many Americans cannot afford it.

Almost all parents pay taxes to support public education. Why should they be forced to pay for and send their children into a system that is not working? Parents need more choices.

In “Won’t Back Down,” Jamie works tirelessly to fight for a better education for her daughter, and she succeeds with the help of caring teachers. Here in Missouri, parents face many of the same obstacles. Jamie shows us that parents do not have to accept a failing school. Change is possible.

To learn more about education issues, watch these videos: Teacher Tenure: Time for a Change, Charter School Benefits and Research, and Can We Improve Urban Schools?

The post We ‘Won’t Back Down’ For Educational Options appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

One of the challenges of our schools is attracting and retaining great teachers. Top-performing teachers generate learning gains almost double that of a teacher in the bottom 20 percent, equivalent to almost six months of learning (see study). Unfortunately, institutional rules and burdensome legislation make it difficult for schools to hire and retain great teachers or to remove low-performing ones. In fact, a recent study revealed schools retain teachers from the top and bottom at “strikingly similar rates.”

Part of the problem is schools treat teachers like they are interchangeable. In reality, teachers vary wildly in terms of performance and have markedly different opportunities based on their expertise.

Bold Solution 1:

Empower schools to attract and retain the best teachers and promote a system that equips schools to remediate or remove the worst.

Schools need to be able to hire the best person for the job, regardless of certification, and they should be equipped to pay each teacher what they are worth based on their performance and market options. To do this, schools need control over their compensation system, including the retirement package they offer to their employees. Additionally, schools must be able to identify and remediate or remove poorly performing teachers.  One way of doing this would be to actually evaluate teachers based on their performance and make tenure decisions based on their ability to impact student achievement (see here for an example).

Some teachers are great and some are not so great, some have a lot of other employment options and some do not. We need to be smart in how we staff schools and stop relying on an antiquated system that treats teachers as if they are all the same.

The post Stuck In The Middle: Empowering Schools appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

This means that when school administrators and board members consider layoffs and teacher termination, many of them may have fresh memories of serving as a teacher. Many may also have friends who continue to serve as teachers in the district. As a result, people who consider layoff and termination decisions in Missouri’s school districts may consider the impact on teachers more carefully than the long-term impact on students.

Though Missouri law technically allows for teachers to be terminated on the basis of “incompetency,” we have shown here that districts rarely fire teachers. For example, the Parkway School District, which employs more than 1,200 teachers, has terminated just five in the past 10 years. Though state law is part of the problem, school leadership certainly plays a role.

Education expert Rick Hess writes about school administrator’s lack of leadership triggering similar teacher tenure reform efforts in Massachusetts. He writes:

Given the freedom to craft sensible, quality-sensitive evaluations that thoughtfully give some weight to seniority, the state’s school boards and superintendents have . . . punted.

Hess’ observation is likely relevant to Missouri. In our collection of teacher tenure data, we have also requested some districts’ termination policies. Frequently, those policies follow state law, with little added.

So, even though Missouri law states that teachers “shall be retained on the basis of performance-based evaluations and seniority . . .” during layoffs, districts can, in practice, choose to favor teachers who have seniority.

This is why a legislative fix is needed. Missouri House Bill 1526 would require that a teacher’s individual performance be the “most heavily weighted factor” when layoffs are considered. School districts, which receive a tremendous amount of state funding, should not be allowed to make decisions that favor teachers at the expense of students.

The post Lack Of Leadership From Schools Requires State-Level Policy Changes appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

This may have a marginal positive impact, allowing school districts more time to weed out ineffective teachers before they gain tenure. But frankly, I am skeptical that this provision will do much. Many of the school districts we highlighted on this blog earlier this week that had terminated just one or no teachers since the year 2000 also reported low non-renewals of teachers who have not attained tenure status.

For example, the Belleview School District, which reported not terminating a single teacher since the year 2000, reported only three non-renewals. The DeSoto School District, which reported terminating one teacher, reports zero non-renewals since the year 2000. The Potosi School District, which employs about 170 teachers and has not terminated a single teacher since the year 2000, reports 10 non-renewals.

However, I do think a provision in the Teacher Multiyear Contract Act may give school districts the latitude needed to terminate poor-performing teachers when needed. Under existing law, if a school district needs to lay off teachers due to budgetary concerns, the district is required to lay off its newest teachers.

The Multiyear Contract Act would change that. The legislation states:

Seniority or years of service shall not be used as criteria for reduction in force; effective teacher performance shall be the deciding criterion.

This provision would allow districts facing financial distress to keep the best teachers — not those who have stayed on the longest. This would certainly help struggling school districts prioritize providing a good education to students, instead of being required to provide employment to those who have been there the longest.

The post Some Progress on Teacher Tenure Reform appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

Adams said:

It takes 100 days to remove a teacher after you give a teacher a plan. In every other city or county in the state of Missouri, it takes 30 days. So if there’s a bad teacher in the classroom, I have to work with that teacher for 100 days with a detailed plan, called a PIP, a professional improvement plan, to remove that teacher . . . I’m not talking about the hearing process, I’m just talking about getting them out of the classroom. No other place has that in the state of Missouri but Saint Louis.

You might find Adam’s statement difficult to believe. But he is correct. According to state law, if a teacher is doing a poor job, that teacher cannot be dismissed quickly. Instead, in Saint Louis City, the teacher needs to be notified in writing at least one semester before the superintendent can even present the charges against the teacher.

Actually, after looking over the statute, I think that Adams is being kind. One school semester is 87 days (half of the 174 required school days), and the law requires a 30-day notice before any hearing can occur. Once you start counting weekends, holidays, and everything else, it looks like it takes a lot more than just 100 days to remove a bad teacher from the classroom.

The city school district is struggling to boost student academic performance. It is one of the small number of unaccredited school districts in the state. And, it is common knowledge that teachers can have a large positive (or negative) impact on their students’ education. That is exactly why laws that severely limit districts’ ability to remove bad teachers hurt students.

Just think: Thanks to state law, an ineffective teacher could continue teaching students for more than 100 days. That teacher might have a little more job security, but those students will continue to receive a mediocre education. It is time to focus on helping students, instead of teacher job security.

The post 100 Days Of Bad Teaching (Or More) appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

LoMonte writes:

But there can be no debate on how ending tenure will impact the teaching of journalism in public schools. It will effectively end it.

As a graduate of the University of Missouri’s journalism school, I cannot help but sympathize with LoMonte’s fear. But I am not sure that it is grounded in much reality.

Free speech is already limited in schools. LoMonte does not mention this, but high school newspapers are not forums for free speech. The U.S. Supreme Court (in a case that originated in Hazelwood, Mo., no less)  ruled in 1988 that school administrators could censor drafts of the high school newspaper if they can demonstrate that there is an educational purpose for the censorship. Currently, students cannot freely report on any topic they wish.

Administrators already can (and do) punish journalism teachers. LoMonte lists several ways that journalism teachers can be punished for encouraging students to question the operations of their schools. He writes that teachers can be fired, demoted, or transferred as punishment. But arguing that these options will become available if teacher tenure reform is passed is incorrect. Demotion and transferal are already available to school administrators if they want to punish teachers. Firing is as well, though it is very difficult.

The following cases that LoMonte recounts are deplorable:

Teachers like Darryl Adams, who was stripped of his journalism duties after his principal questioned his loyalty for refusing to censor an editorial critical of the school’s random student searches. Teachers like Teri Hu, who was reassigned — and whose students were threatened with discipline — after the newspaper accurately revealed that the school was out of compliance with district regulations on the use of teaching assistants.

But they are all possible under Missouri’s existing teacher tenure law.

Journalism teachers are a small fraction of the total teaching force in Missouri. Perhaps some marginal number of journalism teachers will be fired if teacher tenure reform passes. And, perhaps their firings will be due to encouraging students to pursue meaningful and contentious journalism. I agree that this is a disturbing possibility. But many of our smallest districts likely have no student paper. Elementary, middle, and high school math teachers, for example, certainly outnumber journalism teachers significantly.

In life, there are always difficult trade-offs. And we have to consider whether preserving the jobs of a few good journalism teachers is worth keeping teachers who have a track record of failing students in the classroom.  I would argue that illiterate students and students who cannot do simple arithmetic are problems that we need to address first.

Student speech exists outside of the classroom. Sadly, LoMonte ignores the possibility that students can exercise their right to free speech openly and outside of the classroom. When I was in high school, I was part of a group of students that started a monthly print newspaper during our free time — because we knew that the student paper could, thanks to that Supreme Court decision, be censored.

We wrote about high school dropouts, janitors who had been hired despite having a criminal record, and other topics that likely would have been tough to have printed in the official school newspaper. Given the rebellious nature of most teenagers, and the ease of online publishing, I trust that students will continue to express their right to free speech, even if they cannot do it within the pages of a district-financed paper.

The post Fear Of Censorship Has Little To Do With Teacher Tenure Reform appeared first on Show-Me Institute.