Ten years ago, the idea that excellent teachers might be paid bonuses was considered scandalous. Now, it’s a national imperative.
Thanks to President Obama’s support of Secretary of Education Arne Duncan, some $4.3 billion is being spent for an education “stimulus,” with another $1.35 billion planned for next year. Their stated mission is to introduce accountability for performance throughout the public school systems: students, teachers and staff. Prominent among several specific suggestions are bonuses for highly regarded teachers.
The teachers’ union is adamantly opposed to the idea, yet it hardly seems contrary to the union’s ideals. After all, every union’s purpose is to secure better pay and benefits for its members through collective bargaining. More pay should be welcomed, and is there anyone who doesn’t think the most effective teachers should be paid more?
Moreover, standardized tests hardly seem contrary to sound educational practice. Don’t we all want our high school seniors to have the opportunity to attend state college? The data shows that less than half now qualify. Doesn’t it seem reasonable to assess growth in student achievement in earlier years, to see which students are falling behind and to provide additional resources to help them keep up? Of course it does.
Incidentally, that data tells us the failing students fall behind very early, so failure at high school should not be a surprise. This is why we’ve pushed for early intervention and for a commitment by the schools to keep all students at grade level.
New Superintendent Louann Carlomagno continues to echo the Obama themes. As she put it in her first press release, it’s “a new day in the life” of Sonoma schools, and she acknowledged in an interview with the Sun that “the most pressing issue for us is focusing on academic achievement.” Actually, as we’ve noted before, Carlomagno was ahead of her time, having years ago used the phrase, “If it’s not measured, it doesn’t get done.”
The school board trustees met in closed session at 7 a.m. last Saturday to discuss, according to the agenda, the contract for Carlomagno. The board president reported that, after meeting for more than two hours, no action had been taken, which would suggest that the contract has not been finalized. Presumably, they’re figuring out what “it” is they want done, how “it” will be measured, and what incentives to put in Carlomagno’s contract.
We look forward to renewed focus on the schools’ basic mission. We’ve suggested before that it would be helpful to have a simple, measurable goal: Every student at grade level. Unfortunately for the half of our students who are not, that goal seemed to resonate only with Trustee Gary de Smet.
We suggest now a few more simple, measurable goals, in the hope, perhaps vain, that the school board adopts one or several as incentives in the superintendent’s contract: percentage of graduating students eligible to attend state colleges; percentage of high school juniors proficient at U.S. History; percentage of native Spanish-speaking students passing the Advanced Placement classes. As we noted above, though, this puts the focus toward the end of the 12 years that students spend in our schools; earlier attainment of grade-level proficiency would be better.
The three previous superintendents have lasted, counting backward, only 1 1/2, 3 and 3 1/2 years. In our view, the trustees chose well in their selection of Carlomagno; let’s hope now that they negotiate a contract that will keep her for at least the sum of those years, if not beyond.
