ED 082 349

AUTHORTITLE

INSTITUTIONPUB DATENOTEAVAILABLE FROM

DOCUMENT RESUME

EA 005 465

Hart, Jerry LeeEvaluative Economics: A Process To CompensateTeachers Based on Evaluation of StudentAccomplishment of Instructional Objectives.Educational Service Bureau, Inc., Washington, D.C.7329p.Educational Service Bureau, Inc., 1835 K Street,N.W., Washington, D.C. 20006 ($5.95)

EDRS PRICE MF-$0.65 HC-$3.29DESCRIPTORS Academic Achievement; Admihistrator Guides;

*Collective Negotiation; Course Objectives;*Educational Accountability; Educational Economics;Motivation Techniques; *Performance Contracts;Productivity; *Teacher Motivation; TeacherResponsibility; *Teacher Salaries

IDENTIFIERS Efficiency (Education); *Student Productivity

ABSTRACTThis document suggests a management plan for

replacing fixed salary schedules for teachers with a pay structurebased on student productivity. The plan is more a conceptual processof attacking the problem, rather than the resolved finality of aspecific plan. The instructional objectives, the accomplishmentevaluation, and the subsequent amount of compensation earned inaccordance with this idea, are all basically determined by theprofessional staff itself as part of the evolutionary development ofthe suggested method. The author begins by outlining the historicalunwillingness of public school employers and employees to attempt thecorrelation of compensation factors with employee production. He thenconsiders factors that have changed in the 1970's to make acompensation plan based on productivity more attractive. The balanceof the presentation is given over to a discussion of the essentialpremises on which the plan is based, an overview of the plan, and aprocedural implementation of a plan from the time it is firstpresented to the board to the time when objectives are created andevaluated. The document concludes with a discussion of the managementcontrol of such a plan. (Author/DN)

C

UJ

FILMED FROM BEST AVAILABLE COPY

EVALUATIVE

ECONOMICS

A PROCESS TO COMPENSATE TEACHERS

BASED ON

EVALUATION OF STUDENT ACCOMPLISHMENT

OF INSTRUCTIONAL OBJECTIVES

By

Dr. Jerry Lee Hart

U S DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH.EDUCATION & WELFARENATIONAL INST'TUTE DF

EDUCATIONTHIS DOCUMENT HAS BEEN REPRODUCED EXACTLY AS RECEIVED FROMTHE PERSON OR ORGANIZATION ORIGINATING IT POINTS OF VIEW OR OPINIONSSTATED DO NOT NECESSARILY REPRESENT OFFICIAL NATIONAL INSTITUTE OFEDUCATION POSITION OR POLICY

PERMISSION TO REPRODUCE THIS COPY.RIGHTED MATERIAL HAS BEEN 1,RANI:D BY

TO ERIC AND ORGANIZATIONS OPERATINGUNDER AGREEMENTS WITH THE NATIONAL IN-STITUTE OF EDUCATION FURTHER REPRO-DUCTION OUTSIDE THE ERIC SYSTEM REQUIRES PERMISSION OF THE COPYRIGHTOWNER

' EDUCATIONAL SERVICE BUREAU, INC.

('-') 1835 K Street, N.W., Washington, D. C. 20006

First Printing

Second Printing

Third Printing

"PERMISSION TO REPRODUCE THIS COPY-RIGHTED MATERIAL HAS BEEN GRANTED BY

TO ERIC AND ORGANIZATIONS OPERATINGUNDER AGREEMENTS WITH THE NATIONAL IN-STITUTE OF EDUCATION. FURTHER REPRO-DUCTION OUTSIDE THE ERIC SYSTEM RE-QUIRES PERMISSION OF THE COPYRIGHTOWNER

Copyright 1973 by Educational Service Bureau, Inc.copies, $5.95. No part may be reproduced withoutof the publisher. Copies may be ordered fromBureau, Inc., 1835 K Street, N. W., Washington, D. C.

February 1973

March 1973

A;Iril 1973

Price for individualthe written consentEducational Service20006.

Table of Contents

CHAPTER PAGE

I. HISTORY - CLIMATE FOR CHANGE 3

II. ESSENTIAL PREMISES 9

III. OVERVIEW 13

N. PARTICIPATORY INVOLVEMENT AND PROCE-DURAL IMPLEMENTATION 17

V. MANAGEMENT CONTROL 27

Chapter I

HISTORY - CLIMATE FOR CHANGE

Collective bargaining between public schoolemployers and employees historically has evinceda general unwillingness to attempt to correlatecompensation factors and employee production. Arational basis for employee compensation in edu-cation thus has been almost nonexistent in theUnited States to date.

For several years following the most commonlyaccepted start of the teacher union movement inthis country - 1965 - there was a rather standardapproach to protecting a program called "meritpay". Management sought to maintain existingprograms by getting the unions and those employ-ees directly involved to simply rubber stamp andthereby endorse ongoing designs then in effect.The result was disastrous for several reasons.

First, the representative of employee units inthose days was a young, militant, outspoken acti-

3

vist who sought changes in anything and every-thing. His most pursued enemy was the statusquo, judged to be the unilateral creation of man-agement. Perhaps equally significant, however,was the all too often beneficiary of merit payprograms - the veteran teacher. It did not appearto the young revolutionist that merit pay programswere more than mere bonus schemes for old-timerswho were rewarded for perseverance on the job.

Unions quickly found the way to roadblockthis pay incentive. By merely failing to agree to itsdimensions following introduction at the bargain-ing table, the union leadership froze it. It couldnot legitimately be implemented. Management,having introduced it into a decision-making forum,had ethically and in some states legally given upthe right to unilateral implementation. Schoolboards were to learn quickly that though manage-ment may gain tactical strength in taking some ofits own proposals to the negotiations battlegro-and,such action is an erosion of school board power byexpanding the decision-making involvement.

Then, just as the 1960's were drawing to aclose, management, still trying to preserve a finalencore for merit pay, elected to keep it out of ne-gotiations and hope for subsequent unilateral im-plementation based on a continuance of past prac-tice. Again the result was failure. In states withmandated bargaining statutes the attempt was anerroneous effort to circumvent economic consid-erations at the bargaining table, as required by law.And equally distasteful for the advocates of suchprograms was an assertion in the nonstatute statesthat teachers were not involved in the creation andimplementation of such a sensitive program.

4

CHANGED In the early seventies, conditions relating to theCLIMATE question of services rendered for payment tend-

ered in public education are markedly different.

1First, the public, still the most influential yetnondefinable lobbying pressure in the UnitedStates, is literally crying out for "accountability".It asked such probing questions as: What do I getfor my dollar? How do I know I'm not being over-charged? Does any increase in expenditures as-sure an increase in quality education?

Second, all elements have come to admit(though candidly all previously recognized) thatnot all teachers are good teachers. Further, notall teachers were deserving of all the benefits sosought by union leadership. In essence, the nega-tive effect of poor teaching on the potential suc-cess of progressive gain for all teachers had finallybeen acknowledged from within the teacher move-ment.

Third, we must cite the present conditions ofthe job market. The law of supply and demand,currently favoring boards of education, gives an op-portunity to upgrade the teaching profession in adiscerning and discriminating manner with themost competently qualified and/or experiencedpersonnel available.

Fourth, attitudes about definitive measure-ment have changed. No longer will the publicaccept without question the primacy of certain in-tangible elements which defy specificity in anyhuman-human endeavor. Pragmatic analysis on ob-jective dimensions has become a common expecta-tion in society. State legislators, congressmen andeven the President of the United States are cri-

5

tiqued with scorecard precision for actions and de-cisions undertaken.

Fifth is the public's attitude that a limit inrevenue for educational expenditures has beenreached. "Reorder your prioritka- or "eliminateyour programs" are philosophies seldom advocatedbefore 1970. Today many see only the plausibi-lity of recutting the budgetary pie, not increasingit, or at least not expanding it appreciably.

Finally, employee leadership has changed incharacter and attitude in many places in this coun-try. Daily it appears to be more responsive to, ifnot representative of, the constituency it repre-sents. It is indeed refreshing to sense a broaderbase of creative input and not still be forced tolimit reflective consideration of any managementposture to the self-serving interests of a select few.

All of the above speaks to a condition, a cli-mate in which leadership for educational changecan emanate from management efforts.

For too long we have searched for utopia in anexisting program from another school district.Educators flock to countless meetings, clinics,seminars and conventions, searching for ideas thathave already been developed into working designsand currently implemented. While steadfastly de-fending the concept of local autonomy of the indi-vidual district, educational leaders have nonetheless extensively practiced the exercise of trans-ferring the on-going programs of another locale to+-heir own constituency with but necessary minorrnou'iiication. Not always has this been an unwisepractice. Indeed, such transference has been bene-ficial to countless many for numerous years. But

6

we cannot expect constantly and forever to merelylift the programs which others have developed be-cause we are either incapable of creating them, orare too lazy, or because we believe everything isapplicable to our particular school environment.

There are common elements of most successfulprograms in any field of endeavor, perhaps evencommon components. One must understand -nom.than basics. Original intent and evolutionary de-velopment, which transforms a desire to a thoughtto a plan to a molding mechanism and subsequent-ly to a finished product, is indicative of strengthseldom exhibited in public education. Somewould rationalize we are too complex an irstitu-tion to entertain and complete a worthwhile yetmonumental objective without serious compro-mise. Others venture that the cross currents ofvested interests will erode any effort to avoid amediocre conclusion on any worthwhile objective.Still others merely fault the dissolving of unilater-ally concentrated decision-making by a publicboard as a condition which inhibits at best andprevents at worst the successful accomplishment ofa worthwhile goal.

Such arguments serve only as excuses for thefailure to produce. This publication will assumeno such impediments to success. Rather, it isbased on a concept, not a preconceived plan - aprocess of development, not a packaged programalready in existence. Its approach is through thenegotiations channel, guaranteeing contestabilityyet culminating in commitment of both parties.Its premise is that teachers should be compensatedfor what they produce. Its anatomy is intregal,though separable in stages .end therefore easilyimplementable. Its composite name is "EvaluativeEconomics".

7

Chapter II

ESSENTIAL PREMISES

"Evaluative Economics" is more a conceptualyet definitive process of attacking a problem,rather than the resolved finality of a specific plan.Even after one were to understand its evolution.ary, step-by-step development, no prognosticationwould be possible in affixing exact compensatorystatistics, nor would it be conceivable to highlightexactly acceptable levels of performance. Such in-formation is determined only by those who parti-cipate in the developmental exercise, and is ascer-tainable only as the process itself evolves.

Two premises, however, lay the groundwork forfacilitating an approach to the problem in thismanner. The first would relate to a key elementinherent in nearly every bargaining law thus far en-acted. There is no requirer'ent that the partiesmust reach agreement in the execution of the bar-gaining activity. For years management has great-ly misunderstood the value of this reality. Whilefearing to entertain serious discussions on sensitive

9

issues, board representatives consisten* faultedthe legislature's requirements and professed that noflexibility or alternatives remained which wouldfacilitate management's opportunity to still runthe school operation.

Nothing could be further from the truth.School management must accept responsibility formassive erosion of what it felt to be prerogativesbecause it gave those ribnts away by choice or in-eptness of execution. Concession and compro-mise by board representatives is at the very core ofmutual decision-making in negotiations. Seman-tically speaking, teachers agree to things; pragma-tically, this agreement, :represents little more than awillingness to retreat from further pressure on agiven subject matter area for the remainder of thisnegotiating season.

In essence, no law is that devastating; it takestwo to agree and having done that, regardless ofthe tactics or pressure used, management must ac-cept the consequences of its action, not point thefinger of accusation.

Now, however, one must recognize the value inthis. Unions need that agreement in the bargainingprocess. At least a limited numuer of areas aremost certainly essential to foster the stability and,in most cases, symbolic reputation of the unionthrust.

Though, in failing to reach any accord whatso-ever, the plight facing the union and managementwould indeed be different, it must be recognizedthat each does face in its own sphere a difficultproblem. Too often management personnel envisions where the union leadership is headed - en-

10

croachment in policy decision-making - and failsto recognize that the rank and file, representingthe majority of the constituency, desires only eco-nomic gain and improved working conditions asthe elements of success.

UNION In reality, and as a last resort, but a require-WEAKNESSES ment in any bargaining endeavor, the union must

achieve economic gain. No union can exist, cer-tainly not for long, without an instrumental role inimproving the employees' economic condition on ayearly basis. For too long management has failedto realize the strength in this concept and the op-portunity it presents in balancing the scales ofnegotiations leverage. School boards, looking in-trospectively have failed to probe the problemsand vulnerable concerns of the enemy. Certainlythe knowledge that union representatives must ac-quire economic gain in every contract negotiatedhas been the untapped, yet vulnerable flaw in thehistory of educational negotiations. Most definite-ly, such point of vulnerability is at the very centerof the Evaluative Economics concept.

CONCEPT, NOT A second premise in the developmental schemeDOLLARS is the acknowledgement that economics per se is a

means to an end and not the end itself. Dollardesignations, pay scales, or fringe programs repre-sent an activity, service, or product in execution;the fiscal assignments in each instance is but avalue assessment consistent with a materialistic expression dictated by the fiscPl phraseology oursociety demands. In education, a salary scheduleis perhaps more accurately an expression of deci-sion-making regarding the experience and/or train-ing of one who may wish to be applied to the en-vironment upon which one may wish to be judged.There is no guarantee that any correlation existsbetween he who serves in such environment andthose who receive the attention of that service.

11

For a comprehensive understanding of what isbeing attempted in this document, one must con-stantly keep in mind these two premises. Theyare interwoven throughout the execution of andessential to the -uccess of Evaluative Economics.Repeating more succinctly, management must:

1) Use the knov-ledge of the union necessity tomake economic gain in bargaining by utilizing le-verage in the negotiations process, and

2) Concentrate on the evolutionary develop-ment by the participants upon objectives, stand-ards, and other key elements of the process, recog-nizing any statistical specificity as to number, level,amount, or degree as only symbolic terminologyand incidental to the procedure being underscored.

12

Chapter III

OVERVIEW

Evaluative Economics is a method of compen-sating certificated staff based upon the accom-plishment of student objectives. The objectivesthemselves, evaluation of accomplishment, andsubsequent amount of compensation earned in ac-cordance with this idea, are all basically deter-mined by the professional staff itself as part of theevolutionary development of the method or proc-ess.

There is a large assurance of management con-trol at all stages, though many dimensions are notdefinitively developed at the outset. The key toinsuring commitment and implementation is man-agement's incorporating the entire language enun-ciating procedures and establishing responsible en-tities to oversee the execution of all provisions con-tained in such language. Paramount to the suc-cess of the entire concept is that management willnot add one additional dollar to any present com-pensation formula or salary schedule in public edu-

13

cation unless and until union representatives agreeto incorporate all the basic elements inherent in anEvaluative Economics board proposal into a MasterAgreement.

Thereafter, staff devises instructional objec-tives, a term used herein to mean performance, be-havioral, or any other so termed meaningfulstandard signifying relevant student growth. It isrequired to provide data and/or test the degree ofobjective accomplishment which in turn reflects anan cunt of earned compensation.

Failure of timely execution according to re-quired time deadlines of specified activity as stipu-lated in the language of the Master Agreement willdefault designated funds available as compensationfor this undertaking and revert those funds to theboard, which, according to the mandate of the context language, can then unilaterally determine ap-propriate objectives and pay the same teachersunder the same process, or hire additional person-nel (specialists) who will be required to executethe provisions and intent of the concept as ori-ginally incorporated.

A lessening of certificated teacher involvementby those who discount or ignore definitive mea-sures of accountability and a corresponding in-creased reduction of compensation, would, in justa few years, transform any district staff exclusivelyto personnel willing and capable of functioning in,and being compensated according to, a producti-vity philosophy.

The school board would set aside a limitedamount of its funds for application to this endea-vor the first year, but would increase it yearly as it

14

decreased a corresponding amount designated fortraditional compensatory methods of paying teach-ers.

Exceptions, right of appeal, and various checksand balances all aimed at protecting due processand justice inherent whenever one deals with thecomplexities of both the human and learning ele-ment, would be expected to be appropriately apart of Evaluative Economics.

15

Chapter IV

PARTICIPATORY INVOLVEMENT ANDPROCEDURAL IMPLEMENTATION

The first step in the development of EvaluativeEconomics is that management understands theoverall long-range plan as well as the elements andtimely enactment of the various phases.

In creating a board proposal of this dimension,it would be recommended that members be ap-prised of the potentially difficult ramifications ofsuch an undertaking. One must honestly assertthat although the likelihood of gain is significant-in creased accountability, definitive measurement,improved education - there exists an equally sober-ing possibility that it may take a long, devastatingfight to assure the inclusion of such a program inthe school district.

Some boards are ready to fight for a worth-while project. However, on the whole, mostboards talk of vision and commitment in the cool

17

of a winter season, yet find the heat of pressure inlate summer that allows little time remaining to re-solve the publicly highlighted question of whetherthe staff will be present at the opening bell of thenew school year.

Once past the hurdle of commitment, the planof Evaluative Economics is unfurled and ready tobe put into effect.

The proposal is drafted by management. Notmany such proposals are drafted for board submit-tal during this particular negotiating season. Theemphasis is focused on this rather complex andsensitive area. As to the relative merit of therboard proposals, one must be quick to note Liat aschool board can easily over-extend itself by sub-mitting initial demands. Most all such proposalsare trivia, or perhaps worse, are things managementcould pronounce unilaterally without subjectingthem to a mutual decision-making process.

This specific 'iroposal must call for various TASK FORCEmechanisms and procedures to guarantee the suc-cess of the endeavor. It will call for a TASKFORCE, whose primary responsibility will be, inessence, overseer of the agreed-upon proposal it-self, assuring that all actions and responsibility oc-cur as ordered. It is the first of two functionalcommittees which are essential to this concept.

In the proposal, management must detail themembership of such TASK FORCE. Strong argu-ments exist that it be composed of board mem-bers or agents, key administrators or their repre-sentatives, and teachers. Each could name ap-proximately one-third of the membership. Boardmembers earn their right because the statutes

18

charge them with grave responsibility for directinga district. On the other hand, administratorsmust supervise instructional programs and as prac-titioners need to evaluate the necessary and re-quired elements thereunder. Certainly teacherswould be a vital part of such a steering group -both as educators concerned with the upgradingof the teacher-learner endeavor and as employeesrightfully concerned about their own economicallyrelated benefits.

In the reality of compromise, however, themembership is likely to reflect a 50% conceptwherein management names half and so does theunion representation. Where this ideology pre-vails, management through persistence may usuallyname the chairman of such a group. This wouldallow a degree of initial influence over such factorsas time of meetings held and agenda contents.

The scope of the TASK FORCE is restrictivelyspecific. Its authority to enforce the provisions ofthe included article, however, would be almostlimitless. The logic for concentration of suchpowerful administrative overtones would be basedon two considerations.

First, management does not have to agree toany final enactments across a bargaining table. Inso doing it acknowledges what it desires or per-haps as prevails in most cases, what it can livewith for an up-corning period of time. If it can-not support aspects of a resolution, managementshould not agree with it in the first place. Havingdone so the commitment of execution should right-fully fall on all parties which agreed to the provi-sion.

19

And in such rationale as the above one findsthe second consideration for enhancing enforce-ment strength into the realm of the TASK FORCE.The commitment of execution is also an expres-sion of the union forces. Specific language con-tained therein can compel both sides to operateprocedurally as designated. Failure of strict ad-herence by the union may, depending upon theactions or inactions, result in deferral to the boardfor unilateral decision-making, withholding of pay,or conceivably the invalidation of the entire MasterAgreement covering all issues between the parties.Naturally this depends on the punitive stipulationsincorporated in language of the resolved article it-self. Certainly in a state with a bargaining statute,such commitment is enforceable under the bannerof compulsion and one could seek relief from thejudicial system in guaranteeing implementation.This is an enormous improvement over the mean-ingless present day offering by union representa-tives to incorporate a reference to a "code ofethics" which they write, have the power toamend, process alleged violations thereunder, andhave full control of punitive aspects, if any.

An important inclusion in any proposal en-compassing a committee-like creation would be adefinitive timetable. It would be necessary to as-sure that membership to the TASK FORCE isnamed and it become operative, as well as com-mitment dates for the establishment of instruc-tional objectives and subsequently the reporting ofdata and, in effect, identifying of the level or de-gree of accomplishment thereunder. Since a por-tion of an employee's income is dependent uponthe degree to which he accomplished the instruc-tional objectives, it is necessary to receive that in-formation to effect payment to a certificated em-ployee. Any breakdown in the precise enactmentsof events and/or deadlines under such a plan will

20

cause a correspondingly adverse reaction to all sub-sequent expectations involved.

In administration of such a concept as Evalua-tive Economics the leverage remains, of course,with the actual money allocated to the program.This designation, unlike most of the meaninglessmerit pay plans of the past, should be expendedonly upon strict adherence to all the provisionscontained within the agreed-upon article.

Violation of union requirements thereunderwould by the nature of the language .lefer thosedecisions unilaterally but now legally throughelimination of the requirement for union action, tothe board. A new period of time necessary for theboard and/or its representative to do the job whichothers failed to do, would require a specific cita-tion in the article language itself and a correspond-ing reference to release, again legally, the moneysprotected to be used in other areas.

Accountability contains the important elementof timeliness. Education cannot afford monthsand, in some cases, years of delay in completing aproject, such as in construction or defense indus-tries. Kids grow up and though there will alwaysbe another class of youngsters next year, we ig-nore that delays in upgrading the quality of educa-tional process is a disservice approaching inexcus-able proportions for the students of yesteryear.

FUNDING Certainly the area of funding and released timeare important to this entire concept. It is notly, at least in the initial year, that the TASKFORCE will need either. Its responsibility as en-forcer of the provisions of the article in the MasterAgreement, and coordinator of necessary require-

21

ments thereunder, is such that a limited time in-volvement would suffice.

Such, however, would not be the case withstaff in the selected subject matter areas. The in-dividuals would need time appropriate to studyand, in essence, understand the world of instruc-tional objectives. Each faculty member will be re-quired to assume a central role in the performanceof two dimensions, heretofore undoubtedly strangein most aspects to the certificated teacher.

The first would relate to the creation of objet- CREATEtives. These would encompass both those related OBJECTIVESgenerally to the subject matter area which may ap-ply to several, and perhaps in some cases, all stu-dents under the teacher's direction.

These would be the "common", perhaps de-partmental objectives, formulated through coop-eration of colleagues, and in conjunction with asupervisor or department chairman.

In addition to these, however, there would bethe essential personalized objectives for each childand the capability of diagnosing the student, in-cluding all supportive records and experiences, andcorresponding drafting of meaningful yet mea-surable instructional objectives. This is an art fewteachers will comprehend, much less be capable ofperforming. The fear of such a monumentalundertaking is usually enough to dissuade one fromparticipating. The related economics will not findfavor with the traditional union leadership. This iswhy it must be locked into a Master Agreement.The released time for the first of these two new di-mensions for teachers will appropriately occur be-fore meeting the students. In the initial year of

22

such undertaking, it would occur in a summerworkshop or training seminar. Since most teach-ers would not be working in.any capacity with theschool during this time, it is likely that compensa-tion for utilization of their time will represent thefirst of three major components of expenditure inregard to Evaluative Economics.

Once the traditional school year begins,teachers could then formulate instructional objec-tives for each student subject to approval by thedepartment chairmen, but within a required timeframe mandating submittal to the TASK FORCEas stipulated by the Master Agreement. Failure tomeet the submittal deadline for such objectiveswould put into effect a provision in the articleauthorizing the board to then legally do it uni-laterally and releasing the funds for payment underthat program. It would seem consistent that thesefunds would now be directed to specialized person-nel who would undertake the job to do whatteachers, for whatever reason, had failed to do.

EVALUATE The second major area of teacher concern, andOBJECTIVES for which considerable training is necessary, would

be in the area of evaluating objective-accomplish-ment. This would involve testing the gathering andinterpretation of data and other essential elementsof the final stages. One would suspect that"inservice days," a widespread practice throughoutthe United States of teachers seeking professionalgrowth experiences with colleagues during the ab-sence of students, might be used to properly orientand prepare staff for the necessary applications re-lated to this phase of the undertaking. Criticism isnot uncommon in education wherein one is the as-sessor of his own work or enactments. However,there is a safeguard against where bias is suspect,which shall be discussed in Part V of this docu-ment.

23

Specific language incorporated in the MastrzAgreement would stipulate both the selected sub-ject matter areas to initiate the pilot year of thisproject, as well as the committee within that areaor department responsible as a steering mechaniamfor assuring that the TASK FORCE is presented ina timely fashion with its requirements.

Though a department chairman may head suchcommittee, it would be logical to assign all teach-ers within the department to the committee. Anyfailure of the committee thereafter to meet thetimely execution of its responsibilities would likelydeprive the members thereof of benefits, whichwith a mandated chain reaction system was obvi-ously their fault originally. However the commit-tee chose to develop "common" objectives wouldbe left to each department. Needless to debate,each teacher would have to develop instructionalobjectives for his own students.

Two other major components of expenditureare incorporated in Evaluative Economics. Cer-tainly the need for expert assistance to steer in acooperative manner a district into and through thedevelopment of such a program is an economicallybased consideration.

This would undoubtedly require a major Pro-ject Director who understood each element of theprocess, its correlation to all others, the corre-sponding timetable, and the various mechanismsavailable as well as personnel dynamics involved toaccomplish the end result. In addition, variousspecialists in the area of writing and evaluating in-structional objectives would be required. All thisprofessional assistance by expert consultants wouldrepresent the second major expenditure com-ponent.

24

It take several years, perhaps as many asfour, to transform an educational institution froma compensatory philosophy based on past con-siderations only, such as training and experience,as evidenced in all index, columnar-type salaryschedules, to a contemporary philosophy of pay-ment for productivity only.

The necessary time lapse is due to several fac-tors. Executionally, no involved party can be ex-pected to exhibit a perfected role. Accordingly,preliminary flaws will affect only a limited segmentof the operation in the pilot stages. In addition,the unknown variables of whether staff can ulti-mately draft appropriate objectives and/or success-fully accomplish any goal thereunder is an intangi-ble which sobers the desire for haste. Andrealistically, even unions will accept only a moder-ate degree of experimentation into such areas thatredefine historical concepts of "equal pay forequal work" now demanded by the public outcryfor definitive accountability.

Unions can accept no less in the infant stages ofsuch an undertaking than a guaranteed base paywith a possibility that an added remunerationtending toward some pre-established maximumfigure based upon 100% accomplishment if all ob-jectives were attained. The lessening of thisfigure, when it is based primarily on objectivespre-set and subsequently evaluated by the respec-tive teacher, yet representing only a fraction of theindividual's total income anticipated for a year, :isnot a condition which defies the possibility ofmutual acceptance between management and un-ion. This amount of money, namely that portionof an individual's anticipated yearly income whichwould not be guaranteed, but would be dependentupon the degree of success a teacher has in attain-ing the objectives, would represent the third major

25

expenditure component inherent in this process.In reality it is the money set aside 4o pay certifi-cated staff for successful accomplishment. Inpractice, it would be applied on an individualteacher concept, not a comnosite departmental ap-proach. Any teacher, par.'cipating hereunder,would ignore any lifferentiat' on between "com-mon" and individual object:,es for a given stu-dent. By adding the percentage of accomplishmentregarding all objectives for each student with allstudents and simply extracting a "mean" for thegroup, the teacher ascertains the percentage ofcompensatory eligibility under this plan. Thisamount in potential will represent whatever theparties had previously agreed and incorporated intothe Master Agreement language. It may represent, during pilot stages of this process, as little as10% or as much as 25% of the maximum attain-able income for a teacher in a particular year.

Eventually, as the process evolves, any internalflaws are corrected, and district money alloca-tions and cycles are appropriately incorporated, itwould be the intent to expand the dimension ofEvaluative Economics in two economic directions:(1) expansion to all areas served by certificatedpersonnel, and (2) enlarging the percentage ofone's income to reflect evaluative productivity toan ultimate goal of reflecting 100% of a person'scompensation. Thus a district may then discardthe index or structured salary schedules.

26

Chapter V

MANAGEMENT CONTROL

Educational management has been critical ofthe basic form of teacher salary schedules formany years. However, the alternatives to suchschedules have been few and offer management lit-tle assurance that any substitute will be better inequity for all concerned than what now exists.

In addition, management has faced perhaps aneven more difficult problem, namely how to effecta transfer from one compensatory philosophy toanother. Traditionally the approach was to geteveryone involved, and assuming a plan could bedevised and agreed upon, it could then be incor-porated into the system. The hidden destructivevariable in this theory has been the advent of theteacher union movement, which highlights jobsecurity, standardized pay, and an attitude that allevaluation is subjective and therefore impossible.

If, therefore, as a result of involvement byeveryone, a plan was cultivated, its future was pre-

27

dictably assured. If meritoriously uiscerning, itwas blocked at the bargaining table, ana boardrepresentatives would eventual:), concede withnoncontingent economic offerings anyway. If theplan was nebulous, union leaders would utilizesome aspects of it and pronounce the willingness toeffectuate compromise bargaining.

In Evaluative Economics, no plan is predeter-mined. Granted, the procedure guaranteeing exe-cution of the process which will assure evolutionand implementation of the efforts to instill ac-countability will either be performed or the rami-fications relevant thereto put into effect.

At the bargaining table then, one finds thefirst of three major management control factors inthis concept. Either union representatives incor-porate all key elements of this proposal into aMaster Agreement, or the board will refuse to addany moneys whatsoever to existing compensationmethods. Naturally, this takes a dedicated, if notunified, public board, and one which is willing toexert leadership in forging a direction into qualita-tive improvement of any system, yet with difficultpressutzs, perhaps not yet evidenced elsewhere inthis country.

There are controls in two other vital areas ofconcern - fiscal and educational.

First, any moneys necessary for the funding ofthis concept would be deducted during the bargain-ing process from the moneys the board had avail-able for traditional salary increases. Necessaryconsiderations and corresponding amounts shouldbe established as discussed in Chapter IV of thisdocument. Such approach would insure fiscal in-

28

tegrity by not exceeding budgetary allocationsbased on expected in-district activity.

Education:.) integrity would at first show up inthree arenas. The original instructional objectivesset for each child must be approved by the immedi-ate supervisor or department chairman prior to in-ception of the educational experience.

Second, wherein a supervisor or departmentchairman had reason to suspect the evaluation ortesting instrument(s) by any teacher was inept orbiased in degree of objective - accomplishment, theadministrator could compel a review of such instru-ment or elements of instructional process to athree member Review Panel consisting of himself,another teacher in the department selected by saidteacher in question, and an agent/representativeappointed by the superintendent. This Panelwould be empowered, again by original language inthe Master Agreement, to mandate changes ineither the instructional approach or evaluativetools. If there is ever suspicion as to the compe-tence, allegiance, or integrity of a supervisor ordepartment chairman, the board should take ap-propriate action.

Educational integrity is further enhanced in athird manner consistent with the original purposesof Evaluative Economics, when tie moneys repre-senting less than 100% accomplishment for instruc-tional compensation for any student are redirectedfor supplementary activities for that student. Thiscould be in the for'n of personnel specialists, addi-tional programs within the district, or serve astuition payment for selected activities offeredelsewhere.

29

Finally, the student must not be deprived of theopportunity to maximize his learning, nor the gen-eral public disregarded in its increasing desire tojustify expenditures in public education. A goalof better teachers exerting their best efforts toeducate our children is within reach through a dili-gent application of the principles and procedures inEvaluative Economics. It is time to begin.

# # #

30