I think I just figured out how to fix the DC Public Schools

The entry below was inspired by an email thread on the concerned4dcps yahoogroup (more and more I am struck by how important it is to have the right economic incentives, even though I am really bad with math and graphs, and tanked in economics...)
---------------

I was told by someone that principals, in public meetings with other principals and parents, won't fess up to not having resources (including people resources) when the chancellor says "you have X, don't you?", because they don't believe that "telling truth to power" is what's sought by the question, and they fear for their jobs--given the arbitrary and capricious decisionmaking we seem to be witnessing thus far, that seems like a sound course of action to me (although I myself am not very good at denying the truth, but at least I am not a DCPS principal).

Since Harry mentions pay and Sarah Palin, it's reasonable to suggest that one way to correct these problems would be to weight a good portion of the Chancellor's salary on student retention (not to mention teacher and principal retention).

The DC Schools Chancellor gets paid far more "per capita" than most school superintendents in the U.S. and in the region. I.e., MontCo, Fairfax, and PG County schools all have about triple or more enrollment compared to DC. DC's school system is very small. Even including the enrollment of the charter schools, it's about 1/2 the size of the larger school districts in the region.

If you want to get the school system committed to student retention vis-a-vis the charter schools, I suggest weighting up to 1/2 of the chancellor's salary on student retention and enrollment increases/targets.

Taking a page from the NCLB (No Child Left Behind) metrics, weight this in terms of overall student enrollment, by elementary, middle-junior high, and senior high school tranches, and by individual school.

Similarly, principals should have salary bonuses based on maintenance and increase of student enrollments, but on a smaller portion of regular salary (say 25%?) compared to the Chancellor.

So whether or not they are getting the right resources, this would begin to focus the public school system on competing with the charter schools for students.

Given the what, 7,000 student drop in attendance from last year to this year, that means a hefty decrease in salary to my way of thinking. (I know you have to guard against fudging the data, because that would be the new incentive given the link to salary.)

Right now, one of the two major "promises" of charter schools, that their existence would generate a competitive and marketing orientation on the part of the traditional public schools, has never been realized (the other is choice and better schooling options for children with otherwise limited options).

That's because all the incentives right now favor charter schools. And there are no real penalties to the DCPS, other than school closure, which granted, sucks for the people whose schools are closed, but not for the people who manage to keep their jobs and schools open.

(We can argue about the two tier salary system for teachers as proposed by Rhee. But I don't think her proposal addresses what's really needed in the face of the fundamental lack of [1] quality curricular systems; [2] quality teaching processes; [3] management and support systems for principals; [4] professional development systems for teachers and principals; [5] adequate support systems and provision of additional resources as needed for students of special needs--be they physically disabled or having other skill or resource deficits; [6] adequate support and development systems for parents and families--something that many school systems don't need to do, but seem to be necessary in urban school systems with either or both ESL students and families or a high proportion of lower income students and families.)

This isn't Wall Street, where poor performance gets big bonuses, and stellar performance gets stellar bonuses. I would say a 10%+ drop in enrollment merits a minimum 25% salary decrease... I tell you if Chancellor Rhee's income dropped that much this year, she'd start changing how she does things, and really focus on enrollment-based outcomes.

Match that with student achievement outcomes, and now you're talking.

So I'd do a base salary of maybe $125,000, and then 1/3 ($125,000) on achievement outcomes, and 1/3 ($125,000) on enrollment outcomes.

I think that would have a lot more impact than spending money paying middle school students... And it would be cheaper too. (Although I do think there should be a cooperative education option for high school students on an opt-in basis. Students would go to school year round, maybe on 50% time, and spend the other 50% in payroll-job-subject learning-career oriented internships.)

I'd be happy to sell this as a counter-plan to the Washington Teachers Union, which doesn't seem to have managed to come up with a counter-plan yet.