School improvement, not incentives, say education partner organizations
Release date: May 12, 1999
The presidents of the Alberta Home and School Councils' Association (AHSCA), the Alberta School Boards Association (ASBA), the Alberta Teachers' Association (ATA) and the College of Alberta School Superintendents (CASS) today called on Minister of Education Gary Mar to replace the School Performance Incentive Program (SPIP) announced in the March 11 provincial budget with a program jointly developed and endorsed by the education partners.
The March budget included provision for a program designed to provide incentive funding to school jurisdictions that meet performance measures set primarily by the provincial government. The education partners have serious reservations about the program and have worked together to develop an alternative, the Alberta School Improvement Program (ASIP).
"As provincial partners, we've been working for several weeks now to propose a program that will contribute to improved student learning," noted AHSCA president Christine Ayling. "Efforts to improve schools need to start in our school communities, where parents, school staff, students and others concerned with education collectively define local needs and create unique local initiatives involving shared responsibility."
A key to the approach is partnership. "Rather than just saying Îno' to this program, we've chosen instead to work with the AHSCA, ATA and CASS to offer an alternative. Our proposed Alberta School Improvement Program is a constructive contribution to the incentive program debate," said ASBA president Lois Byers. "It's crucial to allow time for public discussion with the overall educational well-being of our students as the focus."
ATA President Bauni Mackay emphasized that teachers don't want the incentive funding paid to school jurisdictions as salary bonuses for teachers. "The ATA is willing to give up salary bonuses to improve teaching and learning conditions. The joint proposal (ASIP) revolves around improving schools, not paying incentives."
CASS president John Darroch noted that the partners believe our government recognizes and values the importance of reaching consensus on this particular issue. "There is strong support for ASIP among the education partners. Each executive endorsed these directions," Darroch noted. "The joint proposal provides resources that school jurisdictions need to work toward school improvement."
The AHSCA, ASBA, ATA and CASS are seeking a joint meeting with Education Minister Gary Mar to review the Alberta School Improvement Program and to discuss its implementation.
For additional information about the Alberta School Improvement Program, please contact any of the provincial organizations as follows:
Alberta Home and School
Councils' Association
- Christine
Ayling (Grande Prairie), (780) 532-3398
- Cheryl Newton
(Edmonton), (780) 454-9867
Alberta School Boards
Association
- Lois Byers
(in Medicine Hat today), (780) 632-9685
- David Anderson
(in Medicine Hat today), (780) 910-8207
Alberta Teachers'
Association
- Bauni Mackay
(Edmonton), (780) 447-9423; toll free in Alberta, 1-800-232-7208
- Gordon Thomas
(Edmonton), (780) 447-9452; toll free in Alberta, 1-800-232-7208
College of Alberta
School Superintendents
- John Darroch
(Lethbridge), (403) 328-4111
- Neil Gannon
(Edmonton), (780) 451-7106
A complete copy of the Alberta School Improvement Program proposal is also available.
Backgrounder
Comparison of School Performance Incentive Program and
Alberta School Improvement Program
|
|
School Performance Incentive Program (as proposed in March 11, 1999 provincial budget and subsequent meetings with education partners) |
Alberta School Improvement Program (as proposed by Alberta Home and School Councils' Association, Alberta School Boards Association, Alberta Teachers' Association and College of Alberta School Superintendents, May 12, 1999) |
|
Design |
Identifies specific outcomes and rewards behavior that achieves those outcomes with additional funding |
Identifies goals, uses research to select appropriate strategies and provides funding up front to achieve the goals |
|
Format |
Top-down approach with provincially imposed targets and measures
|
Grass roots approach at school community and jurisdiction levels
|
|
Measures |
Provincial and local quantitative measures
|
Combination of quantitative and qualitative measures appropriate to the nature of the school improvement program
|
|
Assessing improvement |
"General improvement target" is 3.5 percent each year; jurisdiction's improvement target is based on its own "opportunity to improve" as reflected in scorecard |
Set of improvement indicators is identified by each team; indicators are appropriate for the nature of each school improvement program |
|
Payment |
Maximum payment is made for 3.5 percent improvement; partial payment available for improvement of 1 percent or more
|
Payment is made up front Resources are allocated to meet the goals identified in each school improvement plan First payment (2000/2001 school year) to be made in September 2000
|
|
Sign-on |
Voluntary participation by each jurisdiction
|
Voluntary participation by each jurisdiction
|
|
Major players |
Provincial government with jurisdiction involvement in recommending local measures |
School community with jurisdiction support and coordination |
|
Assumption about motivation |
Assumes that extrinsic motivation can improve test scores and other measures |
Assumes that intrinsic motivation can improve results |
|
Consideration of means and ends |
Rewards behavior, whether appropriate or not, with funding as long as targets are met |
Provides funding to achieve results identified on the basis of sound research and documented practices |
|
Belief structure |
Does not expect every jurisdiction to meet its "general improvement target" |
Expects every jurisdiction to meet or exceed its improvement indicators |
|
Reporting |
Provincial reporting each year
|
Regular local reporting
|
|
Funding available |
No funding in 1999/2000 $38 million in 2000/2001 $66 million in 2001/2002 Paid as a reward where quantitative improvement targets are met in previous year |
No funding in 1999/2000 $38 million in 2000/2001 $66 million in 2001/2002 Paid up front to provide funding to meet improvement plan targets |
|
Use of government resources |
Central control: highly bureaucratic, technical and costly to manage |
Local control: situated in school communities, research based and locally managed |
The Alberta School Boards Association serves and represents all Alberta’s public, separate and francophone school boards.
