Title: Trickledown Education
1Trickle-down Education?
- How Governor Pawlentys Pay for Performance
education funding proposal has potential to widen
Minnesotas academic achievement gap
Prepared by Steve Kotvis Citizens Committed to
Terrific Teaching January 2009
2Governor Pawlentys Pay for Performance
proposal for education . . .
- 50 million per year (average 62/pupil)
- Rewards school districts that demonstrate growth
in student achievement - A great idea. After all, its important to build
on public educations strengths.
3Uses MDEs Growth Model
- Growth Model shows distribution of student body
1) proficiency and 2) growth. -
- Uses Minnesota Comprehensive Assessment (MCA)
scores in Math and Reading in multiple grades.
Minnesota Department of Education
http//education.state.mn.us/ReportCard2005/index.
do
4Pay for Performance awards bonus funds for growth
1 funding bonus for share of students achieving
medium growth. 2 funding bonus for share of
students achieving high growth.
1
2
5Does the Pay for Performance plan widen the
Achievement Gap?
Closing the Achievement Gap is explicitly
expressed as a state and local public education
priority. Bonuses awarded without distinction
of proficiency. Will districts with already
large shares of proficient students get more?
Will districts with higher concentrations of
students at the bottom of the achievement gap get
less?
1
2
6What if we applied the proposed formula today?
- Analyzed where most of the funds will go.
- 38 school districts with at least 5,000 students
(amcpus) - Represent 494,660 students (about half of state
total) - Applied proposed bonus formula to percentages in
each cell of math and reading Growth Model matrix
for each district. - Ranked school districts by percentage proficient
in Reading and Math - Charted regression trend line to identify
correlations. - For bonus awards by district, go to
http//education.state.mn.us/mde/index.html
Governor Tim Pawlentys Proposed Budget click on
Find out what the Governors budget proposal
means for your school district
7Tested some hypotheses . . .
- Does the Governors Pay for Performance proposal
most reward school districts that are already
experiencing high levels of proficiency? - Does the proposal put districts with the most at
the bottom of the Achievement Gap at the back of
the funding line? - Does this proposal represent an investment in
closing the states achievement gap? - Does this proposal have the potential to widen
the achievement gap?
8Key Findings
- Highest bonuses are awarded to school districts
with highest shares of Proficient student bodies.
- These districts also tend be the districts with
the lowest levels of poverty, highest shares of
students with English Language Proficiency and
white students (Edina, Wayzata, Minnetonka) - Lowest bonuses are awarded to school districts
with highest shares of Not Proficient student
bodies - These districts also tend be the districts with
the highest levels of poverty, lowest shares of
students with English Language Proficiency and
non-white students (Minneapolis and St. Paul)
9(No Transcript)
10(No Transcript)
11Conclusions
The proposed Pay for Performance rewards already
successful districts that have a large share of
students who are proficient. It does not reflect
an investment in districts who have the largest
share of populations who are not presently
proficient and are in the most need. The
proposed Pay for Performance may widen the
achievement gap by spending more on those at the
top and less on those at the bottom of the chasm.
12Recommendation
Rewarding growth strategically to invest in
raising the bottom of the achievement gap. Focus
bonuses on districts achieving growth with large
shares of low proficiency students Consider the
1 and 2 originally proposed, which would
significantly reduce the 50 million annual
investment, or consider intensifying the focused
by maintaining the 50 million investment.
13- Contact
- Steve Kotvis
- 612.385.6407
- Citizens Committed to Terrific Teaching
- www.CitizensCommittedtoTerrificTeaching.org