WASHINGTON (Reuters) – The Obama administration will name former Justice Department official Alan Bersin to oversee its policy on illegal immigration and drug-related violence along the U.S. border with Mexico, Politico reported on Tuesday.
Choosing which error you prefer is critical. In medicine, we prefer Type I errors: if you are testing for cancer, better to get a few initial diagnoses that are incorrect than to miss a case where cancer is present. In law, we have generally established that we prefer Type II errors: better to have some criminals go free than to jail innocent men (and DNA tests are improving this tendency).
The DPS/DCTA teacher evaluation system is designed for Type II errors: the grievance process and collective bargaining agreement reduce the possibility that some teachers are dismissed unfairly – with the consequence that teachers that should be dismissed are not. All other things being equal, average teaching quality is lower with Type II errors.
A teacher evaluation system set up for Type I errors would dismiss more teachers who are poor performers – but with the consequence that some teachers might be dismissed unfairly. All other things being equal, average teacher quality is higher with Type I errors.
An evaluation system designed for Type II errors favors teachers (less likely to lose your job); a system designed for Type I errors favors students (less likely to have a bad teacher).
We have the correct results for the system that we have decided to use.
A first-of-its-kind study tracking Denver Public Schools’ students six years after high school graduation shows just 56 percent enrolled even briefly in college and far fewer earned a degree of any kind.
For Hispanic students and those from poor families, who make up the majority of DPS’ graduates, the numbers are worse.
Only 45 percent of low-income students who graduated from Denver high schools went on to any college and only 39 percent of Hispanic students did. Of those, more than half in each group dropped out within six years. […]
The study found that all DPS graduates who entered college were less likely to obtain a degree than similar districts nationally. Of DPS graduates who entered community college, 49 percent were still in school after 3 years and 6 percent graduated.
Unfortunately (to me anyway) the study does not appear (confession – I skimmed it) to link proficiency data. Here is recent 10th grade DPS data (the percent of students at or above proficiency). The annual increase is 1.1 points:
2006: 43.6%
2007: 42.7%
2008: 45.8%
To me, the reaction to the study comprises more hand-wringing than it should. While I’m sure we will enter into the same cauldron of social factors, it’s pretty clear that most DPS graduates are not prepared for college, which in my mind is probably a (the?) primary reason why they both don’t attend and don’t finish.
Mr. Duncan made a wise move by requiring states to finally publish data on their teacher evaluation systems — and to show how student achievement is weighted in those evaluations.
If properly spelled out and enforced, this provision would allow parents to see that most teacher evaluation systems are fraudulent and that an overwhelming majority of teachers are rated as “excellent” even in schools where the children learn nothing and fall far below state and national standards.
I don’t know if summary data on teacher evaluations (i.e. what percent ranked “excellent”) are available in Colorado or Denver. I doubt they are. I do know how Denver weights student achievement in their teacher evaluations. The DCTA contract does not allow it:
10-5-2-2 Student Growth Objectives. The evaluator shall not use the outcome of a teacher’s student growth objectives as a data source.
This is growth data, not status (and its availability is fairly new). Even if it is not used in evaluations, do teachers want to know? Have any teachers requested achievement data on their students? Good, bad, or indifferent?
“Our school day is too short,” Duncan said. “Our school week is too short.”
Duncan says reform proposals coming from the Obama administration will include longer school years, plus Saturday school and longer days.
Duncan says some of the time could be optional but that American students are falling behind because of the traditional school calendar.
“If you don’t help them catch up,” said Bennet, who was DPS superintendent until he was appointed to the Senate in January, “they’re going to be lost.”
Um, duh. 172 instructional days a year here in Colorado. As I’ve written:
Imagine trying to qualify for the Olympics by running a four-minute mile. Except you have to do it in 3:08 while the people in each adjoining lane can run an extra 52 seconds. That is what we are now asking our students to do when competing in a world economy when they go to school 172 days while other countries get 220.
The silence on this issue speaks for itself.
I’ll start with one (not the most controversial) that has always baffled me: the School Leadership Team (SLT). Here is the language from the DCTA contract:
5-4 School Leadership Team.
Each school will have a School Leadership Team (SLT) consisting of the principal, theassociation representative, a teacher appointed by the principal, and a minimum of 3 teacher representatives who should represent a cross section of the faculty including grade levels, specials, department chairs and special service providers. These (SLT) members are elected annually by a majority of the faculty voting by secret ballot. The SLT will seek to operate in an environment marked by mutual support and respect.
The SLT will make decisions by consensus. A consensus is either a unanimous decision or a majority decision that the entire SLT, including the dissenters, will support. If consensus cannot be reached, the matter shall be referred to theInstructional Superintendent who shall consult with the Association prior to making a decision. The SLT will meet regularly. […]
The decisions the SLT is in charge of extend (page 11 of the DCTA agreement) to school improvement, professional development, and instructional policies and practices. Major policies of a school are at the purview of a six-person committee, of which five members are usually teachers. Decision-making is required to be unanimous (I don’t see how a dissenter supporting a decision is different, although I admire the lingual construct).
At the heart, I think this structure essentially eliminates accountability from governance. The principal, nominally in charge of the school, has 1/6 of the voting power. The vaulted appeal to other “stakeholders” does not include parents, external experts, community groups, etc. Students have essentially no voice.
Second, all decisions are consensus and unanimous. I believe in consensus when possible, but anyone involved in them knows difficult decisions are rarely unanimous. Government, school boards, universities, non-profit organizations – I know of no other body that requires that decisions be supported by all elected members. Even ESOPs (employee-owned companies) have a decision-making hierarchy. This is a recipe for avoiding any controversy or hard choices.
The only other institutions I know with similar structures are essentially political in nature (the UN comes to mind). Even these tend to make decision by majority vote, and dissension is regarded both as essential to the process, and not reason enough to derail action. In addition, these institutions have little to no operating authority at the communal level – but a school is fundamentally an operating entity. Even the UN, when it embarks on a peacekeeping mission, puts someone in charge.
So, is an SLT the best governance model by which to run a school?
A report urging reform of the public-pension benefits given to Colorado educators was skewered Wednesday by the chairman of the House Education Committee, himself a retired teacher.
Rep. Michael Merrifield, D-Manitou Springs, drew applause from a standing-room only crowd when he closely questioned Michael Mannino, a University of Colorado professor who helped write the report. (You can read the report here)
“Is it possible that your phrases like drastic tax increases and meltdowns could be fear-mongering on your part … in support of your political agenda?” Merrifield asked […] Reaction to Mannino’s testimony at the weekly meeting of the House and Senate education committees prompted the Senate Education Committee chair to calm the audience, made up largely of retirees.
Current retirees, of course, have the least to fear – their pensions are relatively safe. However, if you are still teaching, depending on how much time you have before you retire, a little fear and self-interest might be a really good idea.
Of course, one of the first tactics of someone with a political agenda is often to claim that their opponents have a political agenda, so let’s look around at some other sources. To start the ghoulish truth, here is a paper by the non-partisan National Bureau of Economic Research, written before the economic crises, highlighting the problem at the state level:
The value of pension promises already made by US state governments will grow to approximately $7.9 trillion in 15 years.[…] We conservatively predict a 50% chance of aggregate underfunding greater than $750 billion and a 25% chance of at least $1.75 trillion (in 2005 dollars). Adjusting for risk, the true intergenerational transfer is substantially larger.
Here is that deeply subversive magazine The Economist, also written before the credit crunch:
The result may be that many employees face retirement with an income well short of their expectations. An employee who pays into a DC [note: defined contribution] scheme for 40 years may get only half the retirement income he could have expected…
What is wrong, fear or accusations of fear-mongering? Here is an informative website on pensions (see the breakout for public employees and start reading the headlines). Here’sanother article from Bloomberg about how many pension funds are intentionally fudging the numbers:
Public pension funds across the U.S. are hiding the size of a crisis that’s been looming for years. Retirement plans play accounting games with numbers, giving the illusion that the funds are healthy. […]
The misleading numbers posted by retirement fund administrators help mask this reality: Public pensions in the U.S. had total liabilities of $2.9 trillion as of Dec. 16, according to the Center for Retirement Research at Boston College. Their total assets are about 30 percent less than that, at $2 trillion.
Oh, and here is John MacPherson, described as a watchdog for DPS retirees:
Perhaps most importantly, MacPherson expects both DPS and PERA will soon be making changes to their pension plans, already hit hard by the economic recession.
State law protects retirees’ benefits from cuts. But it’s less clear what protections are offered for the benefits of existing workers.
Back to the lede. After the Chair of the House Education Committee gives teachers reason to believe they should fear nothing more than fear itself, and after its executive director then mocked the study, PERA went ahead and set the record straight:
PERA spokeswoman Katie Kaufmanis said preliminary results as of March 20 show the value of PERA’s investment portfolio is $28 billion, down from $41 billion as of Dec. 31, 2007 – not a 50 percent drop.
Only the most cynical of fear-mongers would gain reassurance that PERA has lost not 50%, but only $13 Billion in 15 months (which is a loss of between 32% and 46% depending if you start at the bottom or top). Oh, and PERA was badly underfunded well before the market downturn, by some 25%. It’s a pretty safe bet that currently PERA is a lot closer to being 50% funded than 100%. Still feel like everything is ok?
Since an honest attempt to discuss pensions, and to calculate the value of current retirement compensation, gets categorized as political fear-mongering, let me be really explicit about my beliefs:
If you are a Colorado teacher with 5 years or less experience (25 years to full retirement), in my opinion, your chances of receiving pension benefits equal or greater than those received by today’s retirees (in real dollars) are zero.Zilch, zip, nada, nah-nuh, won’t happen. And that is the bet with 99% confidence; if you have more than 5 years experience I would not get too comfortable. In coming years, weather it is 5 or 25, benefits are going to be reduced, and/or contributions raised. Anybody telling you otherwise is deeply misguided, intentionally deceptive, or simply irrational.
If you are a teacher, ignore these at your peril, but go ask your college economics professor, or local public policy wonk. Ask anybody who is disinterested, then decide if it is a political conspiracy or if you should have some concerns.
Those of you who think I am wrong can opine in the comments. But to make this more meaningful than the political benefits of elected officials chirping to their constituencies, hopefully you’ll be prepared to back up your words with a willingness to bet. Of course if you are a Colorado teacher – particularly early in your career — you are already betting, substantially and with your own money.
Ooms With A View 