Ohio’s Coshocton City Schools has taken performance pay in a whole new direction--offering elementary school students as much as $100 for solid test scores ($15 for each “proficient,” and $20 for each “accelerated” or “advanced” on the state’s five tests).
Ohio’s Coshocton City Schools has taken performance pay in a whole new direction--offering elementary school students as much as $100 for solid test scores ($15 for each “proficient,” and $20 for each “accelerated” or “advanced” on the state’s five tests). Entire grades of elementary students are selected by lottery each year to participate in the incentive program, funded by the foundation of local businessman Robert E. Smith. The program, now in its third year, is a hit with district students and teachers, and Coshocton has maintained its “Effective” rating (the state's second highest rating) under Ohio's accountability system. Critics, however, contend that paying students to perform will kill their internal motivation for success and love of learning. But Coshocton superintendent Wade Lucas maintains that “if we can make a difference for our kids and give our teachers another motivating tool, then I think it’s a program worth continuing.” A study to be released this summer will help determine the program’s impact and future. If the findings are positive, proficiency (and the increased focus on academics that hopefully comes with it) in Coshocton might just be worth the price.
“Calculating the Cost of Paying for Grades,” by Scott Stephens, The Cleveland Plain Dealer, January 21, 2007.
“Ohio District Tests Performance Pay--for Students,” by Debra Viadero, Education Week (registration required), January 17, 2007.
The latest report from the Center for Reinventing Public Education (CRPE) addresses the notion (often voiced by critics of choice initiatives) that low-income parents don’t make informed school choice decisions. Researchers asked 800 low- to moderate-income parents in Milwaukee, Washington, D.C., and Denver how they gathered information and made decisions about available schooling options. Survey results showed that low-income parents engaged in a significant amount of information gathering, and considered school performance as an important factor when making decisions. Low-income parents also relied on multiple sources of information and were generally satisfied with the school choice decisions they make (much like the more affluent parents surveyed).
Yet large numbers of low-income parents still preferred and trusted “soft data” (word-of-mouth, school observations, culture, etc.) more than test scores as an indicator of academic quality. And the lowest-income parents (those with incomes below $20,000 per year) gathered less information about options, reported lower levels of satisfaction with their choices, and believed they would benefit the most from access to a paid counselor or parent information centers. (Parents in Dayton have Greatschools.net, which publishes My School Chooser, a user-friendly guide to area school programs, and also trains parent leaders to help low-income parents through the school choice process.)
CRPE’s findings reveal that low-income parents, while far from uninformed consumers, still need greater access to information and resources to select the best options for their children. Ohio policymakers looking to assist them can start by reading the report, available here.
School safety is one issue that brings together all educators, regardless of their affiliation with charter, district or private schools. This point was proved in Dayton last week, when over 120 school leaders, administrators, staff and concerned citizens attended a school safety seminar hosted by Fordham and the University of Dayton’s School of Education and Allied Professions. Featured speakers included Kenneth S. Trump, president of the National School Safety and Security Services and nationally recognized advocate for emergency preparedness planning and crisis prevention.
Participants heard a number of good reasons to take school safety seriously: aggressive behavior is on the rise; funding for school safety is on the decline (despite the violent tragedies in places like Littleton, Colorado and at the Amish West Nickel Mines School in Pennsylvania); and just 57 percent of students feel “very safe” at school, according to a December 2006 poll (see here). With roughly 20 percent of America’s population (including students, teachers, staff and parents) in schools everyday, school safety can be compromised by a host of both internal and external threats (gang violence, terrorist attacks, disturbed individuals, etc.).
These facts may send some school administrators on shopping sprees for high tech surveillance cameras and metal detectors--and perhaps rightly so. Yet Mr. Trump emphasized that threats to school safety can also be contained, and even prevented, by smart planning, comprehensive preparation, and continuous practice. Indeed, it’s sometimes the low-tech measures that may ultimately keep children safe from harm: training staff (including cafeteria workers and bus drivers) in emergency procedures; conducting “table top” drills of school safety plans to ensure effectiveness and expose potential problems; practicing “lockdown” drills with students; clearly numbering school buildings and classrooms for easy identification; and creating efficient schoolwide communication networks. Couple these and other measures with ongoing student involvement and the result can be schools that are safe places for children to learn.
Also featured was Dayton Police Department’s Lieutenant Robert Chabali, who explained how officers react to violent threats and what to expect from police units should a school crisis occur. Dayton Public Schools Superintendent Percy Mack discussed the importance of listening to students, who often know about threats before adults. And Centerville City Schools Coordinating Principal Eileen Booher spoke to the importance of school safety plans being “living documents”--constantly revised and updated to reflect a school’s changing circumstances. For those in attendance, the Dayton seminar was a clear reminder that creating safe and secure learning environments is critical to helping students achieve academic success.
Ohio’s Coshocton City Schools has taken performance pay in a whole new direction--offering elementary school students as much as $100 for solid test scores ($15 for each “proficient,” and $20 for each “accelerated” or “advanced” on the state’s five tests). Entire grades of elementary students are selected by lottery each year to participate in the incentive program, funded by the foundation of local businessman Robert E. Smith. The program, now in its third year, is a hit with district students and teachers, and Coshocton has maintained its “Effective” rating (the state's second highest rating) under Ohio's accountability system. Critics, however, contend that paying students to perform will kill their internal motivation for success and love of learning. But Coshocton superintendent Wade Lucas maintains that “if we can make a difference for our kids and give our teachers another motivating tool, then I think it’s a program worth continuing.” A study to be released this summer will help determine the program’s impact and future. If the findings are positive, proficiency (and the increased focus on academics that hopefully comes with it) in Coshocton might just be worth the price.
“Calculating the Cost of Paying for Grades,” by Scott Stephens, The Cleveland Plain Dealer, January 21, 2007.
“Ohio District Tests Performance Pay--for Students,” by Debra Viadero, Education Week (registration required), January 17, 2007.
