I love doing the Park Rag for a number of reasons but perhaps the most important is because I am always learning. A case in point is the letter I received from the co-chairs of the Park City Education Association (PCEA). I had written an article about teachers contracts that contemplated whether we should pay teachers with master’s degrees more (when research says the same teacher with or without a masters degree is just as effective at teachings kids) and asked whether we should be looking for a better way to figure out how we pay the best teachers what they are worth. Ed Mule and Jim Fleming of PCEA wrote a very nice letter that concluded the “Park City School District’s new licensed employee contract may not be perfect but it is a good compromise between a more traditional teacher contract and an incentive based contract.”

They also point out that while research doesn’t support master degrees as a means to ensure more effective teachers, the National Board Certifications do. I always like to fact check statements (as best I can) and in this case what Mr Mule and Fleming said is spot on (per research). Consistently research finds that National Board Certified teachers perform better than average in schools with a higher than average socioeconomic class. In less advantaged areas, that’s not necessarily the case. Yet, we are talking about Park City, which has higher incomes on average, so the research would support the national board certification as a way to define teachers that are more effective.

Yet, I delved into a 2015 study from Washington State which seems to further support my previous “Moneyball article” on figuring out a different way to compensate the best teachers. While the study begins by providing an overview of previous research on National Board Certifications, it dives deep into the fields where the certifications produce the most effective results. For instance it says, “we estimate that NBCTs [National Board Certified Teachers] produce annual learning gains that are about 4-5% of normal learning gains at the elementary school level, about 15% of annual learning gains in middle school math, and about 4% of annual learning gains in middle school reading.” They later talk about the 15% gain in math effectiveness and equate that to an additional 1.5 months of learning. Holy crap!

What this tells me is that Park City should compensate not only for National Board Certifications but we should be compensating more for national board certifications where there is so much more learning by students — and that gets into the Moneyball aspect of being strategic about how we compensate teachers. Therefore, middle school math teachers should see larger gains in salary based on passing the certification than middle school English teachers (who should still be compensated more, but maybe not at the level of math teachers taking the test). There may be other research based ways to determine how to incent English teachers who are more effective.

Further delving into this study, it marks a difference between teachers who pass the National Board Certification on the first try, rather than subsequent attempts. They say, “Except in middle school mathematics, we do not find evidence that teachers earning certification through a retake are more effective than non-NBCTs [non National Board Certified Teachers” So, except in middle school math, if a person doesn’t pass the certification on the first try, they aren’t generally found to be more effective. That appears that it should be factored in as well.

I understand that what I am suggesting isn’t easy — in negotiations or practice. It’s hard to tell a language teacher who has passed a National Board Certification on the first try that they aren’t getting the same incentive pay as the math teacher but appears to be what the science says. I suppose it’s not that different though than a state like Utah telling it’s teachers to teach Darwinism instead of Intelligent Design. Sticking to research is often harder than appeasing the masses.

In this case, though, it’s important. While the subject we are discussing are teacher salaries, the impact we are really considering is educating our children. Mr. Mule and Mr. Fleming said in their letter to Park Rag, “You will hear us argue that they [higher degrees and endorsements] can’t hurt and should be encouraged in the teaching profession.” I’m not sure if that’s true. If we pay one dollar extra for things like masters degrees that don’t seem to have any impact on student outcomes, that is one dollar less that can be paid to teachers that pass their National Board Certifications on the first try. I believe those decisions do matter.

It really is a zero sum game. Every dollar we spend on something that doesn’t matter, is a dollar less we spend on something that does. I hope in two years, when the next round of salary negotiations take place, both the school administration and teachers focus on the one thing that really matters. RESULTS. Perhaps passing the National Board Certification isn’t the end all and be all, but it seems like the most scientifically proven piece of data that indicates whether a teacher will better educate our children. I think that’s something that Mr Mule, Mr Fleming, probably the school board, and I would agree on.

I hope on the next teacher contracts, we can take a different approach and focus less on the things that sound good and more on what provides the best results for our children…. even if the process is a little painful.

I received a very thoughtful letter from Ed Mulick and Jim Fleming, co-presidents of the Park City Education Association, in relation to my post on recent teacher contracts. Their letter provides information on research and their perspective on salaries.

Dear Park Rag,

As a teachers for over 25 years and most recently Co-Presidents of PCEA, you will not hear us arguing against your recent statements regarding the direct correlation, or lack thereof, between higher degrees and effective teaching, nor will hear us argue that endorsements always lead to more effective teaching. But you will hear us argue that they can’t hurt and should be encouraged in the teaching profession.

Good teaching is a combination of many variables. Some can be taught, but others are innate. It’s a cross between science and art. A good teacher needs to have many skills, a blue-collar work ethic, the mind of a scholar, the motivational skills of a good coach, and above all the heart of a understanding counselor. For many teachers, it’s a calling as much as a career.

Having said that, there may be one program out there that more reliably produces better teaching than any other, that is National Board Certification. There have been several studies that seem to indicate that obtaining a National Board Certification actually correlates directly into better teaching, whether you are a novice teacher or a master teacher. Under our current contract Park City teachers can earn more money can if they obtain this endorsement.

Please see the following link to learn more about this endorsement, http://www.edweek.org/ew/articles/2015/04/01/board-certified-teachers-more-effective-new-studies-affirm.html

It is important to remember, since the passage of SB 64, teachers don’t automatically advance onto their next step each year, unless they pass their educator evaluations. Park City Teacher Association supports SB 64. Park City School District’s new licensed employee contract may not be perfect but it is a good compromise between a more traditional teacher contract and an incentive based contract.

Thank you,

Ed Mulick and Jim Fleming, Co-Presidents of PCEA

Park City School Superintendent Ember Conley often champions the idea of using research to determine how to best serve students’ needs. I’ve been a big proponent of Dr Conley in the past and think she has our students’ best interests at heart.

Yet, it gives me pause when I read last week in the Park Record that “The Park City School District and its teachers should be commended for agreeing to a salary package that encourages teachers to strive to become better educators….The agreement, which was ratified with overwhelming support by the Park City Education Association (which represents the teachers) and unanimously approved Tuesday by the Park City Board of Education, gives raises to teachers for tenure and pays them more for having a Master’s Degree.”

The problem is that research doesn’t backup the claim that teachers with a Master Degree are better educators than those without the degree. A 2014 Brookings Institute paper says, “The fact that teachers with master’s degrees are no more effective in the classroom, on average, than their colleagues without advanced degrees is one of the most consistent findings in education research.  In a study published in 2011, Paul Peterson and I confirmed this finding by comparing the student achievement of the same teachers before and after they earned master’s degrees, and found no impact.”

Let’s look at that 2011 study’s highlights. They say:

• Majoring in education is not associated with teacher effectiveness.
• University attended for college is not associated with teacher effectiveness.
• Acquiring a master’s degree is not associated with teacher effectiveness.
• Teachers become more effective with a few years of teaching experience.
• Teachers may become less effective later in their careers.

Wow. It sounds like the real world.  Just because a person gets an MBA (Masters in Business), doesn’t make them better at running a company. It gives them information but what they do with that information is what matters. My wife is a Physical Therapist. She happens to have a Doctorate in Physical Therapy (the highest level of education for PTs) but she’ll be the first to tell you that a practitioner with a master’s degree ( a “lesser” degree) can be just as good. Success depends on the person.

I don’t mean this as any sort of attack on teachers and salaries. I think we all could agree that teachers who educate our children better should get paid more than teachers that don’t. Yet, it appears that Park City’s teacher contracts are based on:

• Educational degree
• Certifications
• Endorsements
• Professional Development
• Research Project

What do any of these have to do with outcomes? These factors could be a big differentiator, depending on the person, but they are not an indicator of teaching effectiveness.  A bad teacher could get a masters degree, a certification, an endorsement, attend professional development courses, and complete a research project. It’s really just a cost benefit analysis:

• How much will it cost to do these things?
• How much time will it take?
• How much more salary will I get?
• How much longer will I teach?

It’s a math formula; not an indication of teaching aptitude.

I would never claim to be an education expert, but I do understand logic. It seems our School District negotiated contracts based on easy to verify stats, instead of REAL teacher effectiveness. Perhaps they can’t be blamed because 96% of schools do it the same way?

Yet, I expect more. If we want to truly be one of the best school districts in the country then we need to be different than the “96%”. If we are going to pay our teachers more than every other school district in the state, then let’s make sure we are paying the right teachers.

I’m a baseball fan and baseball already struggled with this. There’s a book called Money Ball about Major League Baseball and how most major league teams “looked at a baseball card” to determine their roster. Home Runs, walks, strike outs, and of course the player’s picture, were all influential in how most teams built their lineups.  Yet, the General Manager of the Oakland Athletics decided to use real data in order to build a successful team. He built one of the best teams, at a good price, and now the concept is copied by most clubs.

Could this work in our schools? Yes. There is already a paper published on it.

I guess I am a little disappointed in hearing that we built our educational team based on factors that seem like a simple baseball card. How many years have you worked? Do you have a Masters? Did you do a project?  Imagine the Kansas City Royals baseball team building a team around people who have played a specific number of years, attended a requisite number of hitting camps, and wrote a paper on baseball. It’s frankly crazy.

Instead, shouldn’t we find a way to determine which teachers impact our students the most? Shouldn’t we use research based on student data to build the best team? Shouldn’t we reward those teachers on outcomes and not inputs? I know it’s likely not easy but being the best never is.

I truly hope there is something I’m missing. I hope that Dr. Conley is doing something differently. I hope salary decisions aren’t just based on years and school. I hope both the School Administration and teachers have come up with a way to use data to ensure that teacher effectiveness is the only priority.

I would rather pay the next great teacher (a rookie) far more to join my team (and has 20 years of baseball teaching ahead of them) than the veteran who is washed up and is just cashing checks.

Unfortunately, I’m not sure that’s what our new teacher contract accomplishes.