Here’s a thought: What if school administrators were paid on a per-pupil basis?  The salaries could be computed based on total enrollment, or, if you want to use VAM, a value-added measure, then the $$-per-pupil could be based on the number of students successfully completing the year.

For fun, let’s compare the pay pulled down by public school superintendents with the money paid to the CEO’s of some charter school networks.   Before you read on, write down your hunch: which school CEO/Superintendent is raking in the most on a per-student basis? And who’s the lowest paid on a per-student basis?

Let’s begin with Chicago, where the public school enrollment (including charter schools) has dipped to 392,000 students. The Chicago school leader (called the CEO) is paid $250,000.  That means he’s paid 64 cents per pupil.  Factor out the 61,000 students in charter schools, and Forrest Claypool’s wages per student go up to 76 cents per kid.

One of Chicago’s leading charter networks, the nationally recognized Noble Network of Charter Schools, paid its CEO and founder Michael Milkie a salary of $209,520 and a bonus of $20,000.  NNCS, which received the Broad Prize last year, enrolls 11,000 students, meaning that Mr. Milkie is paid $21.00 per student.

Let’s turn our attention to New York City. Chancellor Carmen Fariña presides over a school system with 1,1o0,000 students and is paid $227,727 per year.  That comes to $.20 per child.  But she also receives her retirement annuity of $208,506, so if we factor that in, she’s pulling down a whopping $.40 per child.

New York’s most prominent charter school operator is, of course, Eva Moskowitz, the founder and CEO of Success Academies. She has received a significant pay raise and now makes $567,000 a year, as Ben Chapman reported in the New York Daily News.  Success Academies enrolls 11,000 students, the same number as in Chicago’s Noble Network.

Let’s do the math.  567,000 divided by 11,000 equals 51.35, meaning that Ms. Moskowitz is earning $51.35 per student, nearly two-and-one-half times what Mr. Milkie is paid per student.

If Carmen Fariña were running Success Academies instead of the nation’s largest school district, at her current pay rate of 40 cents per student she’d be earning $4400 a year!

Put another way, Eva Moskowitz is being paid about 128 times more per student than Chancellor Fariña.

(I was at a dinner last night with her predecessor, Dennis Walcott, who made essentially the same salary when he was Chancellor.  The look on his face when I told him the numbers was priceless!)

However, Eva Moskowitz doesn’t come close to claiming the crown for “Highest Paid Charter School CEO,” because New York City is home to a charter network that enrolls only 1400 students and pays its leader in the neighborhood of $525,000 per year.  (I write ‘in the neighborhood’ because the most recent salary isn’t available, so this number is based on recent years and the pattern of annual increases.)

You’ve done the math in your head, right?  $525,000 for 1400 students means this CEO is raking in $375 PER STUDENT. Just imagine if Chancellor Fariña had come out of retirement to take this job!  At her current pay scale, she would be bringing home $560 a year, not $425,000.

This charter network’s leader must not have a “pay for performance” contract.  The network is notorious for losing students, as the chart below indicates.  On the left, 126 students in full-day kindergarten; on the right, only 36 students in 12th grade.  Pretty clear what happens year after year.  In another school, 119 kindergarteners and 33 high school seniors.

The common argument for charter schools is that they are “life-changing,” but just ONE of that year’s graduates headed off to college, while the others reported ‘plans unknown.’ In another school, one was headed for a 4-year college, three to 2-year institutions, and 28 with ‘plans unknown.’

Like Eva Moskowitz’s Success Academies, this network loses a lot of students, but, unlike Success Academies, the remaining students here perform poorly.  Here’s the percentage of students in one school who scored ‘proficient’ in English Language Arts, by grade: 5th-8%; 6th-12%; 7th-11%; and 8th-28%.  In another school, 4%, 20%, 17% and 30% .

In Math: 5th-6%; 6th-36%; 7th-52%; and 8th-48%.  In another school, 27%, 37%, 39% and 34%.  (And as the NAEP scores below suggest, those high-ish math scores may be illusory.)

Scores on the NAEP, the National Assessment of Educational Progress, were unimpressive.  In 4th grade, 36% scored ‘proficient’ in Reading and 35% in Math.  In 8th grade, 33% scored ‘proficient’ in Reading and 31% in Math.  In another of her schools the respective numbers are 36%, 35% 33% and 31%.

This same charter network has famously high turnover rates among teachers too.  In the most recent report, 38% of teachers departed, meaning that 4 out of every 10 teachers left. In another school, 31% left.  One thing that students in high-poverty schools need is continuity, which they apparently do not get in this network.

Oh, by the way, the CEO who makes all that money also has her own car and driver, according to Ben Chapman of the Daily News.

I am referring to Dr. Deborah Kenny, the founder of Harlem Village Academies, a network of just five schools and 1400 students.  Somehow, I suspect she’s happy to have Eva Moskowitz taking all the flack in the media about harsh discipline and high turnover rates, because that means her network’s performance is not being scrutinized.  It clearly should be.

In fairness, some traditional public school districts in New York State are paying their superintendents inflated amounts when computed on a per-student basis.  Brookhaven-Comsewogue Union Free District has about 3900 students and pays its superintendent $462,000 or $118 per student.  Mount Sinai Union Free District has about 2600 students and pays its leader $403,000, or $155 per student. And Tuckahoe Union Free District, with just 1100 students, pays its superintendent $388,000, or $353 per student.

But that doesn’t keep Deborah Kenny from taking home the Blue Ribbon in the “Earns Most, Does Least” competition.

For decades, the United States and “Red China” had minimal contact.  Communist China was the third rail of politics and no politician could afford to appear to be ‘soft on Communism.’ After all, in the 1950’s the careers and lives of hundreds of people were destroyed because they were accused of having ‘lost China.’

Then, in February 1972, a politician with impeccable anti-Communist credentials did the unthinkable. President Richard Nixon went to China 44 years ago and ‘normalized’ diplomatic relations with that country.  Only an avowed foe of Communism could have accomplished that feat.

Public education needs its own Richard Nixon if it is ever going to escape the ‘test and punish’ death spiral that is distorting schooling almost beyond recognition.  Education’s Richard Nixon will have to be a strong advocate of testing who has seen the light, someone who has undergone conversion, the educational equivalent of Saul on the road to Damascus.

No testing critic from the left, no matter how eloquent, sensible, or correct, will be able to sway public opinion and move bureaucracies.  When Diane Ravitch, Randi Weingarten, Deborah Meier, or Peggy Robertson of United Opt Out speak out about the corrosive effects of excessive testing, their supporters say ‘Amen,’ but others shrug it off: “What else is new?” or “That’s what I’d expect them to say.”

Until a few months ago, I had a pretty good idea who could become education’s Richard Nixon.  This educator worships at the altar of testing, and her schools live and die by test scores, but–of critical importance–her schools also focus on science, the arts and physical education.  Whenever I’d visited her schools, they seemed to be places of joyful learning.

At one point I even went so far as to imagine her “conversion” announcement:

My friends, you know me as an advocate of standardized testing. I believe in test results and what they tell us about our students.  But what you might not know about me is that I subscribe to much of what John Dewey taught us about education.  Learning by doing is important.  The arts, science and physical fitness are essential parts of quality education.  These are vital elements in my schools, although they have not gotten much publicity in the past.

For years I have focused on test results, and I’ve boasted about my students’ success, but now I realize that schools are vehicles that must take on passengers–the students–wherever they are and take them as far as possible.  

I say ‘vehicle‘ advisedly. A unicycle, with the one wheel being test scores, can’t be relied upon to carry students long distances.  The proper vehicle is a sturdy, reliable, 4-wheeler.  The ‘wheels’ of my effective schools are academic excellence in English and math; hands-on science; the arts; and physical education.  And all 4 wheels pull with equal power.

From here on out, my schools will be evaluated and rated on a 4-point scale: 1) How do students perform in math and English on standardized tests? 2) How many hours of hands-on science for students per week?  3) How many hours of the arts per week? and 4) How many hours of physical activity, including active recess, per week?  

Henceforth, all four categories count equally, which means that doing well in one category will not offset doing poorly in another.  In other words, having high tests scores but minimal recess, for example, will not give a school a passing grade.  

Some of my colleagues in the pro-testing camp will complain that three of the ‘wheels’ are input measures, which they are contemptuous of.  I would remind them that they consistently support a different input measure, ‘time on task.’   From my new perspective, I now realize that valuing ‘time on task’ above all else has contributed greatly to the de-emphasis and disappearance of recess, science, and the arts from many schools.

Anyway, friends, this will be the new 4-part report card for Success Academies going forward, and it’s my strong hope that other schools, whether chartered or traditional, will consider following our example. Thank you.

In this fantasy, Eva Moskowitz, the founder and CEO of Success Academies, would be education’s Richard Nixon.  By insisting on using those four criteria to measure school effectiveness, she would begin the hard work of saving public education from its current disastrous policies and practices.  By insisting that schools ‘measure what matters,’ she would do for education what Richard Nixon did for US-China relations, usher in a new era.

The next pinnacle for her personally, in this fantasy?  She might become United States Secretary of Education!

However, that was before I began a serious investigation of Success Academies and its practices. Yes, the curriculum includes hands-on science and lots of art, music and physical education, but Success Academies have a draconian behavior code and follow a number of questionable practices that eliminate certain students, some of which are certainly unethical and perhaps illegal.

Juan Gonzales of the New York Daily News has been doggedly  following  this  story for years, but Ms. Moskowitz has managed to defuse or deflect most of his criticism.  Our report for the PBS NewsHour last October documented how Success Academies use multiple out-of-school suspensions of 5-, 6- and 7- year-old to ‘persuade’ parents to withdraw their children set off the current firestorm.  Two subsequent (here and here) blockbuster reports by Kate Taylor of The New York Times, the second one accompanied by a dramatic video, may have turned the tide of public opinion against Ms. Moskowitz.

If the authorizing body that has consistently approved her petitions, the Charter School Institute at SUNY, follows through on its proposed investigation, or if she loses the support of powerful and wealthy hedge fund billionaires like Dan Loeb, her goal of creating hundreds of Success Academies will be out of reach, and her control over her current schools could be in jeopardy, along with her sizable annual salary of roughly $500,000.

So Eva Moskowitz will not be education’s Richard Nixon.  Are there any other candidates?  Is it possible that John King, another test score worshipper, will see matters differently when and if he is confirmed as U.S. Secretary of Education?

Toward the end of his tenure, his predecessor warned that too much testing was taking “the joy out of the classroom,” but Arne Duncan failed to take the next step, pondering what brings joy to classrooms.  I fear that Secretary King will try to appear reasonable and, like Arne Duncan, talk about ‘limiting’ testing, while failing to question the premise that now rules public education in America: test scores are the most reliable means of evaluating teachers and sorting students.

The premise is wrong.

Who will be education’s Richard Nixon?

Major celebrations always begin with music.  Sunday’s Super Bowl had Lady GaGa, for example.  The national meeting of United Opt Out will have music of its own. A well-placed source inside the organization tells me that the annual meeting (beginning Friday in Philadelphia) will kick off with a variation on a familiar song. The lyrics, leaked to me, are below.

“YOU GOTTA KNOW WHEN TO TEACH ‘EM…

KNOW WHEN TO TEST ‘EM…

KNOW WHEN TO STEP ASIDE AND JUST LET ‘EM LEARN.

THE STATE KEEPS SAYING “TEST ‘EM,”

BUT ALL THAT DOES IS MESS ‘EM.

SCHOOLS DO TOO MUCH TESTING!

LET’S MAKE LEARNING FUN AGAIN”

My source said that the original song is by a Kenneth Ray Rogers, someone I’d never heard of.  However, my source apparently knows Mr. Rogers well because she/he kept referring to him as ‘Kenny.’

United Opt Out plans to sing the song three times, changing line three every so slightly each time, from ‘just let ’em learn‘ to ‘just watch ’em learn‘ and, finally ‘just help ’em learn.’  That covers the bases, I guess.

The United Opt Out gathering is expected to draw a large number of committed people, including students, concerned about excessive testing in our public schools.  The keynote speakers are Jill Stein, Chris Hedges, Stephen Krashen, Bill Ayers, and Antonia Darder. Additionally, a number of the sessions will focus on ESSA, the new “Every Student Succeeds Act.”

I wish I could be there to attend sessions–and learn the song.

For more about the United Opt Out meeting: http://unitedoptout.com/2015/06/29/uoo-conference-february-26-28-2016-transcending-resistance-igniting-revolution/

Here’s more about the meeting location and housing options: http://ihousephilly.org/

My confidential source was not sure whether Kenneth Ray Rogers would be able to there in person.

PS: As you know, one out of every 100 Americans teaches in our public schools. They are the OTHER 1%. If you haven’t gotten your bumper stickers yet, go to Pay Pal and john.merrow@gmail.com.   $4 for one, $10 for three….

Gather round, children. Grandpa Johnny wants to show you how to cheat and lie without doing anything illegal.  This will come in handy, especially if you want to run charter schools in New York when you grow up.

The story I am going to tell you, kids, involves something grownups call ‘Attrition,’ which means losing things, in this case children like you. ‘Attrition’ is bad, and so all charter schools try to have a low number, like maybe 5 or 6 out of 100.

In other words, if a charter school starts the year with 100 students and ends up with 95, that would be just a 5% ‘Attrition’ rate…and a reason to celebrate.

Here’s where you have to pay attention, because, if you run charter schools, YOU get to decide when to start measuring ‘Attrition.’  You could start counting on the first day of school, or you could wait until the state requires you to tell how many kids are enrolled a month and a half later.

In other words, if your school has 100 kids when classes begin on August 24th, you have 55 more days until you have to tell the State how many kids you have.

And here’s the best part: Whatever happens in that 55-day period does not count against your attrition because you can replace whoever leaves with new kids. It’s as if whoever leaves was never there!

So, suppose you realize that some kids who have enrolled don’t seem to fit in. Maybe they’re independent-minded, or maybe they are special needs children who will be very costly and difficult for you to educate.  You have 55 days to find ways to get rid of those kids, whom you can then replace with children who are more likely to get with the program.

One technique is what they call ‘out of school suspension,’ basically sending kids home for some infraction or other, however minor.  Do that a few times, and the parent, weary of having to take time off from work, will decide to find another school.  That kid is gone, and it’s as if he never existed.  No drag on your ‘Attrition’ rate, which is what matters to you.

There’s another way to cheat, kiddies, and that comes when your school year ends in mid-June.  You lopped off the beginning of the year when you decided to count from October 7th.  Now you can choose to completely ignore the summer months (a good idea because quite a few students decide to leave over the summer) and simply report ‘Attrition’ as of mid-June, your last day.  Your ‘Attrition’ data covers about 155 days of school, not the full 180, but there’s no way for anyone to know that, unless you tell them (and why on earth would you do that?)

If the powers-that-be really wanted to know which charter schools lost lots of kids, the State would ask for one number, how many of the kids who started your school in mid-August of one year were still enrolled the next mid-August, 365 days later.

Come to think of it, if you wanted to run a charter school (or academy) that focused on the success of each child, then you would want to know which children did not succeed, and why. Rather than worry about your ‘Attrition’ rate,  you would spend your time and money encouraging success and learning from your own failures.

But, kiddies, you don’t have to do that.  You can lie and cheat with numbers without breaking any laws, you can boast about your low ‘Attrition’ rate, and you can fool the Governor, some very rich people, lots of the media, and some of the public.

Even better, when you look in the mirror you won’t have to think about what happened to the children you ‘disappeared’ during that 55-day period–because it’s as if they were never there.

Pretty neat, huh….