Comprehensive improvement theory could be an important school lesson By JON KEILER Special to the Blade-News
Public schools systems in America, like other government-run bureaucracies, have twin and related personnel problems at the core: inadequate accountability and inadequate reward. Marginal employees are rarely held accountable, while good ones are infrequently rewarded in meaningful ways.
But things may be changing in Prince George's County, thanks to Superintendent John Deasy, and courtesy of gazillionaire Michael Dell's charitable foundation - funded no doubt in part by the laptop I am using to type this. The new concept is dubbed wanly "Toward a Comprehensive Theory of Improvement for an Urban Public School District." But the dull "eduspeak" title belies some interesting ideas within the 13-page document. In the words of Deasy, the new concept seeks to replace a system based on compliance with one based on performance. Put another way, although the plan does not say this outright, it means treating schools more like private businesses, and less like, well, government-run holding pens, where hopefully, nothing really bad happens.
Dell and his even wealthier fellow entrepreneur, Bill Gates, have been putting up parts of their fortunes to benefit America's public schools. But, like good businessmen, they are not just giving the money away. Rather, through Gates' support of smaller academy-style schools, or Dell's backing of this new performance concept, they are trying to instill within bloated education bureaucracies some inkling the accountability and reward that to fuel private sector success.
To be sure, Bowie High is not going to be run like Microsoft any time soon, if ever, nor will its staff (sadly) be compensated anything like Microsoft's flush stock-optioned executives. A good way of doing things doesn't have to be adopted in full for it to have positive effects. Like trickle-down economics, trickling-down accountability and reward can raise the overall level of a school system.
So what specifically are the concepts behind the "… Comprehensive Theory of Improvement …"? Well, first you have to cut through the usual education jargon, and the unfortunate attempt (complete with apology) to indoctrinate all employees to the new way of thinking, even as the Comprehensive Theory promises to "empower" them. And within this new, quasi-free market regime, there is a full dose of good old socialism in that the document says very clearly that equity is not equality. This means that limited resources will not be distributed equally, but according to need. All this is evidently some systemic imperative. What is different is the underlying structure which seems to say that teachers and administrators will be given equal opportunities to succeed - or fail - under transparent systems of accountability, and the promise of reward through professional autonomy and performance incentives.
This means that Prince George's County is coming around to paying teachers for performance rather than basing compensation only on seniority and/or the number of (often useless) master's credits. This is a controversial idea, often opposed by teachers and their unions because it introduces an element of competition within a profession that has largely eliminated that concept as a way of measuring pay or worth. Beyond the philosophical differences, teachers rightly fear that incentive pay will be unfair, with bonuses given out based on how much the principal likes you, rather than actual ability. This is a legitimate concern, but the proposal seems reasonable, promising that the incentives will be based on evaluations "… coupled with demonstrable evidence of impact on student achievement …" That means test scores.
Where the "… Comprehensive Theory of Improvement …" falls short is its failure to demand corresponding measures of accountability and performance from students and parents. True, the school system doesn't employ students and parents, and so cannot put the same demands on them as it does its own employees. But neither are students and parents true customers of public education. It is, after all, free - don't tell me that you pay taxes, so do I, so do people without kids. In reality, students and parents are partners with the system. Stakeholder is the current phrase in vogue, but semantics aside, it means everybody has responsibilities and that there are consequences for not holding up your end.
But this is really a quibble. Most parents want their children to succeed and most students want it for themselves. Encouraging a culture of accountability, professionalism and innovation, goosed with a bit of economic incentive, is not a bad start.
---
The writer is a National Board Certified teacher at Bowie High School.
