ExxonMobil Cash Incentives Not So Rewarding
Dom
YOUR VIEW: JOHN YRCHIK
School Cash Incentives Not So Rewarding
December 11, 2009
Project Opening Doors is a misguided experiment launched at nine
schools across Connecticut in 2008. Funded in part by Exxon Mobil and
administered by the Connecticut Business and Industry Foundation, the
program offers cash incentives to teachers and students with the goal
of improving the performance of low-income and minority students on
Advanced Placement exams.
The insistence that cash bonuses be paid to teachers whose students
receive a passing score on AP exams, with or without the agreement of
the local teachers association, goes against more than four decades of
public sector labor law in Connecticut.
That is why teacher unions have objected to the introduction of the
program in Connecticut school districts and why litigation challenging
the project continues in six of the school districts where it
currently operates.
School districts' motives for risking strained labor relations are not
difficult to guess. As school budgets have been battered, all courses
outside the core curriculum, including AP courses, have become
vulnerable to the budget ax. This has made districts increasingly
willing to accept funding with strings.
Besides its insistence that cash incentives be incorporated into the
program, Project Opening Doors requires districts to provide local
taxpayer funds as a condition of receiving a grant. The amounts are
not insignificant. The Stamford Board of Education provided $51,000
for the program at Westhill High School last year. New London's
program cost the district roughly $40,000, and East Hartford was close
behind with a contribution of around $36,000.
We must ask whether the acceptance of a great deal of money with so
many strings is in the public interest. Because some of the funding
comes from local school board budgets, it becomes necessary to take a
good look at whether the project represents the best approach to
improving AP results.
Between the money contributed by the project and the contributions of
school districts, more than $1 million was spent in the 2008-2009
school year on Project Opening Doors at nine school sites.
Recently, the project announced its first results. In the first year,
the number of AP exams passed in Project Opening Doors sites went up
12 percent from 522 to 586, an increase of 64 exams passed. The
percentage of students who passed at the program's schools,on the
other hand, tumbled from 61 percent to 43 percent.
Where there was success, it was limited to a few subjects. Ten of the
20 new courses offered at Project Opening Doors sites were in
environmental science and statistics. These two courses were
responsible for 97 percent of the increase in additional exams passed.
Pass rates declined in all subjects, including these two. Of more
concern, however, is that the total number of exams passed in
calculus, computer science, physics and English literature declined.
This is hardly the stunning success portrayed by the program's
backers.
Regarding the high failure rates, Project Opening Doors proponents
claim that exposure to a challenging curriculum such as AP is
important in and of itself. This is true. Mere exposure, however, is
not a measure of absolute effectiveness. Increased participation does
not have to be accompanied by diminished pass rates.
Conard High School in West Hartford, one of our state's true AP
success stories, has seen overall participation climb while average
scores also increased. The school's participation rate is the highest
in the state. Participation for black and Hispanic students taking AP
exams has increased 30 percent in the last three years alone. The pass
rate on the 961 exams taken by Conard students is a stunning 70
percent.
Conard's experience shows that AP success does not have to be tied to
largely untested mechanisms such as cash incentives. More effective
programs can be created.
Rather than surrendering our schools to the dictates of private
business, we should give genuine authority and real decision-making to
the education professionals. Let teachers and administrators design
what they believe to be the best possible programs to be implemented
at the best possible times in our students' lives.
That, however, would require adequate funding from the state. There's
the rub.
•John Yrchik is executive director of the Connecticut Education
Association.
Rowley
Martin
Dom wrote:
> http://courant.com/news/opinion/editorials/hc-yrchik-ap-exams.artdec11,0,4088946.story
>
> YOUR VIEW: JOHN YRCHIK
> School Cash Incentives Not So Rewarding
> December 11, 2009
>
> Project Opening Doors is a misguided experiment launched at nine
> schools across Connecticut in 2008. Funded in part by Exxon Mobil and
> administered by the Connecticut Business and Industry Foundation, the
> program offers cash incentives to teachers and students with the goal
> of improving the performance of low-income and minority students on
> Advanced Placement exams.
>
> The insistence that cash bonuses be paid to teachers whose students
> receive a passing score on AP exams, with or without the agreement of
> the local teachers association, goes against more than four decades of
> public sector labor law in Connecticut.
With or without? Is this saying that some teachers aren't eligible to
participate or just can't be paid?
> That is why teacher unions have objected to the introduction of the
> program in Connecticut school districts and why litigation challenging
> the project continues in six of the school districts where it
> currently operates.
Hmm... if this was going to be controversial or a problem contractually
- wouldn't it have been better to try this somewhere those issues didn't
exist? Who's idea was it to do this in Connecticut?
> School districts' motives for risking strained labor relations are not
> difficult to guess. As school budgets have been battered, all courses
> outside the core curriculum, including AP courses, have become
> vulnerable to the budget ax. This has made districts increasingly
> willing to accept funding with strings.
>
> Besides its insistence that cash incentives be incorporated into the
> program, Project Opening Doors requires districts to provide local
> taxpayer funds as a condition of receiving a grant. The amounts are
> not insignificant. The Stamford Board of Education provided $51,000
> for the program at Westhill High School last year. New London's
> program cost the district roughly $40,000, and East Hartford was close
> behind with a contribution of around $36,000.
>
> We must ask whether the acceptance of a great deal of money with so
> many strings is in the public interest. Because some of the funding
> comes from local school board budgets, it becomes necessary to take a
> good look at whether the project represents the best approach to
> improving AP results.
Looking before you leap is usually a good thing to do...
> Between the money contributed by the project and the contributions of
> school districts, more than $1 million was spent in the 2008-2009
> school year on Project Opening Doors at nine school sites.
>
> Recently, the project announced its first results. In the first year,
> the number of AP exams passed in Project Opening Doors sites went up
> 12 percent from 522 to 586, an increase of 64 exams passed. The
> percentage of students who passed at the program's schools,on the
> other hand, tumbled from 61 percent to 43 percent.
Personally I think that trying to do a simple comparison of the results
from different classes, different years, different schools, different
programs is a bad thing to do - course I ain't no statistician..
> Where there was success, it was limited to a few subjects. Ten of the
> 20 new courses offered at Project Opening Doors sites were in
> environmental science and statistics. These two courses were
> responsible for 97 percent of the increase in additional exams passed.
How do they explain that happening?
> Pass rates declined in all subjects, including these two. Of more
> concern, however, is that the total number of exams passed in
> calculus, computer science, physics and English literature declined.
> This is hardly the stunning success portrayed by the program's
> backers.
I noticed that the numbers stated;
"..the number of AP exams passed in Project Opening Doors sites went up
12 percent from 522 to 586.."
only seems to be the number of exams passed... I'm curious as to just
how many exams were taken? Compared to the previous year.. Was a result
of this Project that more students attempted the tests than in previous
years? If so what was the percentage of pass/failures based on tests taken?
Martin
> Regarding the high failure rates, Project Opening Doors proponents
> claim that exposure to a challenging curriculum such as AP is
> important in and of itself. This is true. Mere exposure, however, is
> not a measure of absolute effectiveness. Increased participation does
> not have to be accompanied by diminished pass rates.
>
> Conard High School in West Hartford, one of our state's true AP
> success stories, has seen overall participation climb while average
> scores also increased. The school's participation rate is the highest
> in the state. Participation for black and Hispanic students taking AP
> exams has increased 30 percent in the last three years alone. The pass
> rate on the 961 exams taken by Conard students is a stunning 70
> percent.
>
> Conard's experience shows that AP success does not have to be tied to
> largely untested mechanisms such as cash incentives. More effective
> programs can be created.
>
> Rather than surrendering our schools to the dictates of private
> business, we should give genuine authority and real decision-making to
> the education professionals. Let teachers and administrators design
> what they believe to be the best possible programs to be implemented
> at the best possible times in our students' lives.
>
> That, however, would require adequate funding from the state. There's
> the rub.
>
> �John Yrchik is executive director of the Connecticut Education
> Association.
Bob LeChevalier
Dom <DR...@teikyopost.edu> wrote:
>http://courant.com/news/opinion/editorials/hc-yrchik-ap-exams.artdec11,0,4088946.story
...
>We must ask whether the acceptance of a great deal of money with so
>many strings is in the public interest.
Private funding usually has strings. The amount of money involved
here is noise level compared to the combined budget of several school
districts, and not a "great deal of money", and thus the "public
interest" argument is silly.
>Because some of the funding
>comes from local school board budgets, it becomes necessary to take a
>good look at whether the project represents the best approach to
>improving AP results.
Indeed. That is why they are doing the program at a relatively small
number of schools. It is an experiment in ONE approach. Time will
tell if it is even a *good* approach, much less the "best" one. That
is the point of experimenting. And it is a self-regulating experiment
- either the private sector source of funds or any of the school
districts can decide that the experiment hasn't worked, and pull the
plug.
>Between the money contributed by the project and the contributions of
>school districts, more than $1 million was spent in the 2008-2009
>school year on Project Opening Doors at nine school sites.
Like I said - noise level, especially since most of the money is
private, and some of the money is obviously going to have more
students take more classes, and thus is not going for incentive pay
(which is probably only a small part of the project budget).
>Conard's experience
for which no costs are given, of course. How much you wanna bet that
it costs more than the $51,000 that was the largest amount identified
in the article paid by one of the participating school districts?
>shows that AP success does not have to be tied to
>largely untested mechanisms such as cash incentives.
The point is to make them NOT "largely untested", by testing them.
>More effective programs can be created.
Not necessarily for the same price.
>Rather than surrendering our schools to the dictates of private
>business,
[yawn] Boring old argument, which failed in arguing against Channel 1,
and seems even less relevant here.
>we should give genuine authority and real decision-making to
>the education professionals.
Of course. But that isn't relevant.
>Let teachers and administrators design
>what they believe to be the best possible programs to be implemented
>at the best possible times in our students' lives.
Grant money exists. Go for it. But don't bite a gift horse in the
ass while you are designing an alternative.
>That, however, would require adequate funding from the state.
Which of course would cost a helluva lot more than a million dollars
for 9 school districts. Small wonder why the argument is ignored in a
time of recession when state budgets are pared.
lojbab
---
Bob LeChevalier - artificial linguist; genealogist
loj...@lojban.org Lojban language www.lojban.org
John Gilmer
>Project Opening Doors is a misguided experiment launched at nine
schools across Connecticut in 2008. Funded in part by Exxon Mobil and
administered by the Connecticut Business and Industry Foundation, the
program offers cash incentives to teachers and students with the goal
of improving the performance of low-income and minority students on
Advanced Placement exams.
It's too bad that Exxon Mobil (XOM) doesn't look at the bottom line results
the research studied in "A Nation Deceived."
The most cost effective way of help kids get ahead is simply "skipping" them
and letting them graduate early.
Let them take college courses in college and let them enter college one,
two, or three years ahead of their age peers.
The community colleges aren't exactly models of efficiency but the total
cost of a full time student in a CC is about that same as a full time high
school student.