Race To The Top Briefings
DSEA local presidents will be briefed on the progress of the state's RTTT application,the Department of Education's strategic plan, and the regulatory changes that tie them together. The southern locals will be briefed on Thursday, December the 16th and New Castle locals on Monday, December the 21st. There has been a good deal of cooperation between DSEA and the Markell administration for positive results in many areas of regulation. The DSEA is looking forward to sharing with presidents at the briefings.
____________________________________________________________________________________
State Fiscal Policy
I was recently privileged to attend the national State Fiscal Policy Conference. This is an annual conference sponsored by the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. The conference gives advocates information about making public policy work for ordinary Americans. The following are a sampling of workshop titles this year: Everything You Always Wanted to Know about State Debt & Bonding (But Were Afraid to Ask); If You Tax Them Will They Flee? Countering Migration Myths; Writing About Fiscal Policy Effectively; Closing Corporate Tax Loopholes Through "Combined Reporting"; and Building and Sustaining Effective Revenue Coalitions.
The last workshop title brings up an interesting issue for Delaware. Delaware is one of perhaps three states in the nation that does not have a public policy analysis group. Most states have an affiliate of one of the following: Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, Economic Policy Institute, or Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy.
These groups provide analysis of public policy, particularly state fiscal policy and economic conditions from a populist perspective. They provide an important balance to corporate, anti-government, anti-public service, anti-union forces at work in most state capitols.
Advocates for public educators, state workers, and good public services are at a disadvantage without the research and analysis offered by economic policy groups.
Perhaps Santa is reading this blog and will bring Delaware a public policy group...we haven't been too naughty.
Monday, December 14, 2009
Monday, December 7, 2009
Thoughts on Merit Pay vs. Alternative Compensation
Educator compensation issues seem to go hand in hand with education reform discussions. Federal dollars, particularly related to innovation in grants through Race To The Top have prompted more attention than ever on ways to compensate teachers and other educators. An interesting change in language seems to be happening in many position papers, articles, and discussions. The older and narrower term "pay-for- performance" is replacing the modern, more inclusive "alternative compensation". Unfortunately, it is more than a matter of semantics.
Alternative compensation can mean any form of compensation other than pay for seniority alone (the vertical steps in the salary schedule). Alternative compensation as it currently exists is for such things as education (horizontal movement on salary schedule), professional development and special certifications such as NBC. Moreover, many teachers unions are interested in exploring other possibilities for alternative compensation through the collective bargaining process.
Pay-for-performance is a term which comes with much more baggage. Linking teacher pay directly to student performance is not new or innovative. The very first pay for performance experiments happened in the United Kingdom in the 18th Century. In the United States the flirtations with pay for performance began in the 1920s. The history of pay for performance is of failed attempts.
In spite of the heavy touting of merit pay by the big business interests (who declare themselves as stakeholders in education), it is quite uncommon for private sector professionals, particularly if the compensation is based on client outcomes. Certainly, the Chief Executive Officers of corporations have not based their own compensation on performance.
The challenges to pay for performance in education are legion, but just to name a few:
Educators are a self selected group not likely to be motivated by money. To put it another way, one has a group of people who by choice have entered a profession that has historically not compensated well. Thus one could conclude money is not a primary motivator, yet these programs seek to motivate primarily by money. Also, the concept of pay for performance assumes that educators are holding something back in their teaching, not giving 100%, and that they need a cash incentive to give that extra effort. For educators this is a ludicrous idea.
The variables between students and educators are exponentially staggering. 'I have more special education students than Mary. Mary has more students below the poverty line than Mark. Mark has several emotionally disturbed students not shared by Ann. Ann has numerous English as second language students, a challenge not seen by Ted at a magnet...on and on.' Finding a formula that is fair will require Stephen Hawking's help, but I hear he is tied up (pardon the expression) with String Theory.
New compensation plans cost money. One assumes that with new improved measurements for teacher effectiveness that almost all of the teachers will qualify for the incentives. Many of the same folks pushing for merit pay see little merit in paying taxes. From where will the sustainable funding come?
Finally, there is absolutely no data supporting the idea that pay for performance improves student learning.
Considering all the drawbacks to merit pay should not confuse the issue with the broader concept of alternative compensation. Teachers are open, within the context of collective bargaining, to opportunities for compensation that take into account qualifications beyond their experience.
Alternative compensation can mean any form of compensation other than pay for seniority alone (the vertical steps in the salary schedule). Alternative compensation as it currently exists is for such things as education (horizontal movement on salary schedule), professional development and special certifications such as NBC. Moreover, many teachers unions are interested in exploring other possibilities for alternative compensation through the collective bargaining process.
Pay-for-performance is a term which comes with much more baggage. Linking teacher pay directly to student performance is not new or innovative. The very first pay for performance experiments happened in the United Kingdom in the 18th Century. In the United States the flirtations with pay for performance began in the 1920s. The history of pay for performance is of failed attempts.
In spite of the heavy touting of merit pay by the big business interests (who declare themselves as stakeholders in education), it is quite uncommon for private sector professionals, particularly if the compensation is based on client outcomes. Certainly, the Chief Executive Officers of corporations have not based their own compensation on performance.
The challenges to pay for performance in education are legion, but just to name a few:
Educators are a self selected group not likely to be motivated by money. To put it another way, one has a group of people who by choice have entered a profession that has historically not compensated well. Thus one could conclude money is not a primary motivator, yet these programs seek to motivate primarily by money. Also, the concept of pay for performance assumes that educators are holding something back in their teaching, not giving 100%, and that they need a cash incentive to give that extra effort. For educators this is a ludicrous idea.
The variables between students and educators are exponentially staggering. 'I have more special education students than Mary. Mary has more students below the poverty line than Mark. Mark has several emotionally disturbed students not shared by Ann. Ann has numerous English as second language students, a challenge not seen by Ted at a magnet...on and on.' Finding a formula that is fair will require Stephen Hawking's help, but I hear he is tied up (pardon the expression) with String Theory.
New compensation plans cost money. One assumes that with new improved measurements for teacher effectiveness that almost all of the teachers will qualify for the incentives. Many of the same folks pushing for merit pay see little merit in paying taxes. From where will the sustainable funding come?
Finally, there is absolutely no data supporting the idea that pay for performance improves student learning.
Considering all the drawbacks to merit pay should not confuse the issue with the broader concept of alternative compensation. Teachers are open, within the context of collective bargaining, to opportunities for compensation that take into account qualifications beyond their experience.
Thursday, December 3, 2009
RTTT in the News
Race To The Top and related:
Yesterday saw a splash in the paper with the release of the Delaware Department of Education strategic plan. This year many of the plan's initiatives are tied to positioning Delaware for the program known as Race To The Top (RTTT). RTTT is a federal program that provides competitive grants to encourage and reward states that are creating the conditions for education innovation and reform. Delaware is eligible for a grant between $20 million and $75 million.
Within that framework are guidelines under the following headings: Great Teachers and Leaders; Turning Around Struggling Schools; Standards and Assessments; and Data Systems to Support Instruction.
Delaware had many innovations already in place that fit well with RTTT guidelines. The remaining changes needed are for the most part regulatory versus statutory. This means that the Department of Education can draw up new regulations and have those approved by the State Board of Education instead of needing to draft legislation and have changes made to the Delaware Code. This is another advantage for Delaware because the deadline for PhaseI applications is January 19th. If changes to law had been required it would have been close to impossible to meet the deadline with the General Assembly not beginning session until January.
DSEA has been involved in discussions with the Governor's office and DOE. DSEA is encouraged by the communication and collaboration with the Administration. There is a sincere effort to make educators into partners with the RTTT program.
Everyone has to work together to make sure educators are given the resources they need to implement new ideas because all reform innovations eventually boil down to a teacher with a class of students.
Yesterday saw a splash in the paper with the release of the Delaware Department of Education strategic plan. This year many of the plan's initiatives are tied to positioning Delaware for the program known as Race To The Top (RTTT). RTTT is a federal program that provides competitive grants to encourage and reward states that are creating the conditions for education innovation and reform. Delaware is eligible for a grant between $20 million and $75 million.
Within that framework are guidelines under the following headings: Great Teachers and Leaders; Turning Around Struggling Schools; Standards and Assessments; and Data Systems to Support Instruction.
Delaware had many innovations already in place that fit well with RTTT guidelines. The remaining changes needed are for the most part regulatory versus statutory. This means that the Department of Education can draw up new regulations and have those approved by the State Board of Education instead of needing to draft legislation and have changes made to the Delaware Code. This is another advantage for Delaware because the deadline for PhaseI applications is January 19th. If changes to law had been required it would have been close to impossible to meet the deadline with the General Assembly not beginning session until January.
DSEA has been involved in discussions with the Governor's office and DOE. DSEA is encouraged by the communication and collaboration with the Administration. There is a sincere effort to make educators into partners with the RTTT program.
Everyone has to work together to make sure educators are given the resources they need to implement new ideas because all reform innovations eventually boil down to a teacher with a class of students.
Wednesday, November 25, 2009
Part 2 Executive Summary
Now for Part 2 of the DSEA Executive Summary, Comments on Race To The Top (RTTT)
Performance Zones
DSEA believes that the Performance Zone concept for low-performing schools included in DOE’s strategic plan should be used only where other well implemented strategies have failed. DSEA favors the creation of a performance zone only under the following conditions:
• Schools within the zone will be part of a “reform network”, but the district retains oversight of the schools.
• DOE oversees the “reform network”, including technical assistance and resources.
• DOE will develop capacity within the districts to support their zone schools.
• School improvement plans will be developed within a collaborative, collective bargaining environment. Other stakeholders such as parents and community groups will be involved in the development of the plan.
DSEA believes that sustainable funding must be a part of any reform effort in order for Delaware to avoid the “funding cliff” when federal stimulus money is no longer available and improvement efforts are left without funding.
Standards and Assessments
While the Common Core Standards have the potential to provide educators with far more manageable curriculum goals to promote student success, the standards alone do not guarantee student achievement. Delaware must provide effective teachers and the necessary educational and community resources to ensure quality education.
DSEA also favors the state’s effort to develop a student assessment instrument that is both formative and summative in nature, commonly referred to as growth model testing. To ensure the success of the new instrument, the DOE should determine its validity and reliability and align it with the proposed “Diamond State Curriculum” before moving to statewide implementation.
Data Systems to Support Instruction
A data system needs to provide educators with timely and relevant information to impact instruction; provide parents with the information to be active in their children’s education; and provide colleges and universities with information to make teacher preparation programs relevant to today’s classrooms. DSEA does not support the use of data systems that link student tracking information to individual teachers for the purpose of performance evaluations.
Effective, Efficient Service Delivery
Regional Centers
DSEA supports the experimentation with regional centers for purchasing and providing various human resources tasks. A cost benefit analysis on those centers should be completed as soon as practical.
School District Consolidation
DSEA questions the educational value of district consolidation. Delaware decision makers must examine the state’s experience with consolidation, review previous studies, and commission new studies of consolidation to determine the educational merits of such as a proposal. Furthermore, DSEA is committed to the principle of “leveling up”. Leveling up is the practice of making the new salary schedule for a consolidated district match the salary schedule of the best paid district among those absorbed. A thoughtful discussion involving all stakeholders must occur before serious consideration is given to consolidation.
Conclusion
DSEA is proud of our advocacy role as a union which we view as complimentary to the reform process. The union gives voice and input to educators in substantial ways. Efforts to weaken unions or collective bargaining agreements diminish educator ownership of the reform process and create the potential for failure. Every reform ends with implementation by an educator in the classroom. This reality makes DSEA more than just another opinion in the room. DSEA takes the responsibility and the opportunity seriously.
Delaware State Education Association
November, 2009
Our Mission:
The Delaware State Education Association, a union of public school employees, advocates for the rights and interests of its members and outstanding public education for all students.
Performance Zones
DSEA believes that the Performance Zone concept for low-performing schools included in DOE’s strategic plan should be used only where other well implemented strategies have failed. DSEA favors the creation of a performance zone only under the following conditions:
• Schools within the zone will be part of a “reform network”, but the district retains oversight of the schools.
• DOE oversees the “reform network”, including technical assistance and resources.
• DOE will develop capacity within the districts to support their zone schools.
• School improvement plans will be developed within a collaborative, collective bargaining environment. Other stakeholders such as parents and community groups will be involved in the development of the plan.
DSEA believes that sustainable funding must be a part of any reform effort in order for Delaware to avoid the “funding cliff” when federal stimulus money is no longer available and improvement efforts are left without funding.
Standards and Assessments
While the Common Core Standards have the potential to provide educators with far more manageable curriculum goals to promote student success, the standards alone do not guarantee student achievement. Delaware must provide effective teachers and the necessary educational and community resources to ensure quality education.
DSEA also favors the state’s effort to develop a student assessment instrument that is both formative and summative in nature, commonly referred to as growth model testing. To ensure the success of the new instrument, the DOE should determine its validity and reliability and align it with the proposed “Diamond State Curriculum” before moving to statewide implementation.
Data Systems to Support Instruction
A data system needs to provide educators with timely and relevant information to impact instruction; provide parents with the information to be active in their children’s education; and provide colleges and universities with information to make teacher preparation programs relevant to today’s classrooms. DSEA does not support the use of data systems that link student tracking information to individual teachers for the purpose of performance evaluations.
Effective, Efficient Service Delivery
Regional Centers
DSEA supports the experimentation with regional centers for purchasing and providing various human resources tasks. A cost benefit analysis on those centers should be completed as soon as practical.
School District Consolidation
DSEA questions the educational value of district consolidation. Delaware decision makers must examine the state’s experience with consolidation, review previous studies, and commission new studies of consolidation to determine the educational merits of such as a proposal. Furthermore, DSEA is committed to the principle of “leveling up”. Leveling up is the practice of making the new salary schedule for a consolidated district match the salary schedule of the best paid district among those absorbed. A thoughtful discussion involving all stakeholders must occur before serious consideration is given to consolidation.
Conclusion
DSEA is proud of our advocacy role as a union which we view as complimentary to the reform process. The union gives voice and input to educators in substantial ways. Efforts to weaken unions or collective bargaining agreements diminish educator ownership of the reform process and create the potential for failure. Every reform ends with implementation by an educator in the classroom. This reality makes DSEA more than just another opinion in the room. DSEA takes the responsibility and the opportunity seriously.
Delaware State Education Association
November, 2009
Our Mission:
The Delaware State Education Association, a union of public school employees, advocates for the rights and interests of its members and outstanding public education for all students.
Tuesday, November 24, 2009
RTTT Executive Summary Pt1
A thousand apologies to the blog followers for the length of time between posts. I have been traveling the last week.
Posted below is the first installment of two featuring an Executive Summary of a DSEA position paper on Race To The Top.
PART ONE
Delaware State Education Association Comments and Concerns Regarding RTTT and the Delaware Department of Education Strategic Plan
Executive Summary
The Race to the Top Fund (RTTT) is a federal program that provides competitive grants to encourage and reward states that are creating the conditions for education innovation and reform; implementing ambitious plans in the four education reform areas described in the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (ARRA); and achieving significant improvement in student outcomes. The four education reform areas include Standards and Assessments, Data Systems to Support Instruction, Great Teachers and Leaders, and Turning Around Struggling Schools. The Delaware Department of Education created a Strategic Plan for the Delaware Public Education System, that attempts to align their plan with the four federal focus areas and adds a fifth goal of Effective, Efficient Service Delivery.
Great Teachers and Leaders
Teacher Preparation and Alternative Certification
DSEA endorses a variety of strategies to improve teacher effectiveness and the equitable distribution of qualified teachers for all of Delaware’s students:
• DSEA supports many of the recommendations made by the DOE Innovation Action Team sub-committee, dealing with teacher quality and teacher preparation programs.
• DSEA supports teacher preparation programs that will continue to recruit and prepare talented graduates, with specially designed programs for those choosing to work in Delaware’s high need schools.
• DSEA supports the implementation of teacher residency programs as part of the DOE strategic plan.
Providing Effective Teacher Supports for Instruction
DSEA favors the use of timely student data to inform and evaluate teacher and principal support programs such as professional development, collaboration, and common planning time. DSEA urges DOE to partner with Dr. Eric Hirsch and the New Teacher Center to conduct an ongoing teaching and learning conditions survey statewide.
Teacher Compensation
DSEA believes any proposed teacher compensation system must recognize the skills and knowledge of educators while promoting a collaborative work environment to enhance student growth. Additionally, compensation systems must be:
• Cooperatively developed by the state or district and the collective bargaining representative for educators.
• Developed with a differential pay component to recruit and retain teachers for low performing schools.
• Fully funded and sustainable.
DSEA does not support compensation systems that link teacher pay directly to student performance based primarily upon student assessment.
A moratorium has been placed on both National Board Certification and cluster incentives. Moreover, educators are currently working for 2.56% less than last year. Delaware must first restore basic compensation and lift the moratorium on incentives before exploring alternative compensation.
Determining Teacher Effectiveness
DSEA supports the Delaware Performance Appraisal System (II) use of multiple measures when assessing student achievement relevant to teacher evaluation. DSEA is opposed to changing the current weighting between and within the DPAS II components.
Turning Around Struggling Schools
Delaware is not unique in the struggle to find effective strategies to consistently improve low performing schools. Four options are offered by the US Department of Education for dealing with these schools:
• Turnarounds - Replacing the principal and at least 50% of the staff
• Re-Starts - Closing the school and reopening as a charter or with an education management organization
• Closures - Closing the school and transferring the students to other better performing schools in the district
• Transformations - Restructuring of the school that involves a change in school leadership, new instructional programs, extended time for students and staff, intensive support, and increased services.
DSEA acknowledges the immediate need to deal with low-performing schools and endorses the work of the Learning First Alliance (2009), a partnership of 17 major national education groups, as a responsible plan of action. The Alliance recommends the following operating principles for turnaround schools:
• Measure progress toward a broad vision of student success.
• Measure the conditions for school and student success.
• Ensure that measures are clear and available for all stakeholders.
• Track progress over time.
DSEA believes a district developed plan with adequate resources and support from DOE provides the best opportunity to turn around schools and improve student achievement.
Charter Schools
DSEA believes that charter schools have a niche in the education community, but they are not the answer to all of the challenges in education today. Delaware needs to improve its regulation of charters to ensure the responsible growth of such schools within the traditional public school system.
PART TWO TOMORROW
Posted below is the first installment of two featuring an Executive Summary of a DSEA position paper on Race To The Top.
PART ONE
Delaware State Education Association Comments and Concerns Regarding RTTT and the Delaware Department of Education Strategic Plan
Executive Summary
The Race to the Top Fund (RTTT) is a federal program that provides competitive grants to encourage and reward states that are creating the conditions for education innovation and reform; implementing ambitious plans in the four education reform areas described in the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (ARRA); and achieving significant improvement in student outcomes. The four education reform areas include Standards and Assessments, Data Systems to Support Instruction, Great Teachers and Leaders, and Turning Around Struggling Schools. The Delaware Department of Education created a Strategic Plan for the Delaware Public Education System, that attempts to align their plan with the four federal focus areas and adds a fifth goal of Effective, Efficient Service Delivery.
Great Teachers and Leaders
Teacher Preparation and Alternative Certification
DSEA endorses a variety of strategies to improve teacher effectiveness and the equitable distribution of qualified teachers for all of Delaware’s students:
• DSEA supports many of the recommendations made by the DOE Innovation Action Team sub-committee, dealing with teacher quality and teacher preparation programs.
• DSEA supports teacher preparation programs that will continue to recruit and prepare talented graduates, with specially designed programs for those choosing to work in Delaware’s high need schools.
• DSEA supports the implementation of teacher residency programs as part of the DOE strategic plan.
Providing Effective Teacher Supports for Instruction
DSEA favors the use of timely student data to inform and evaluate teacher and principal support programs such as professional development, collaboration, and common planning time. DSEA urges DOE to partner with Dr. Eric Hirsch and the New Teacher Center to conduct an ongoing teaching and learning conditions survey statewide.
Teacher Compensation
DSEA believes any proposed teacher compensation system must recognize the skills and knowledge of educators while promoting a collaborative work environment to enhance student growth. Additionally, compensation systems must be:
• Cooperatively developed by the state or district and the collective bargaining representative for educators.
• Developed with a differential pay component to recruit and retain teachers for low performing schools.
• Fully funded and sustainable.
DSEA does not support compensation systems that link teacher pay directly to student performance based primarily upon student assessment.
A moratorium has been placed on both National Board Certification and cluster incentives. Moreover, educators are currently working for 2.56% less than last year. Delaware must first restore basic compensation and lift the moratorium on incentives before exploring alternative compensation.
Determining Teacher Effectiveness
DSEA supports the Delaware Performance Appraisal System (II) use of multiple measures when assessing student achievement relevant to teacher evaluation. DSEA is opposed to changing the current weighting between and within the DPAS II components.
Turning Around Struggling Schools
Delaware is not unique in the struggle to find effective strategies to consistently improve low performing schools. Four options are offered by the US Department of Education for dealing with these schools:
• Turnarounds - Replacing the principal and at least 50% of the staff
• Re-Starts - Closing the school and reopening as a charter or with an education management organization
• Closures - Closing the school and transferring the students to other better performing schools in the district
• Transformations - Restructuring of the school that involves a change in school leadership, new instructional programs, extended time for students and staff, intensive support, and increased services.
DSEA acknowledges the immediate need to deal with low-performing schools and endorses the work of the Learning First Alliance (2009), a partnership of 17 major national education groups, as a responsible plan of action. The Alliance recommends the following operating principles for turnaround schools:
• Measure progress toward a broad vision of student success.
• Measure the conditions for school and student success.
• Ensure that measures are clear and available for all stakeholders.
• Track progress over time.
DSEA believes a district developed plan with adequate resources and support from DOE provides the best opportunity to turn around schools and improve student achievement.
Charter Schools
DSEA believes that charter schools have a niche in the education community, but they are not the answer to all of the challenges in education today. Delaware needs to improve its regulation of charters to ensure the responsible growth of such schools within the traditional public school system.
PART TWO TOMORROW
Friday, November 13, 2009
New RTTT Guidelines Complete
The final federal guidelines for Race To The Top (RTTT) have been released. RTTT is a $4.3 billion competitive grant program designed to bring about education reforms and innovation that impact student achievement. Given the amount of money at stake and the scarcity of resources in the recession, every state, including Delaware will be competing hard to win a grant.
Four areas must be addressed in the grant application: Standards and Assessments, Data Systems to Support Instruction, Great Teachers and Leaders, and Turning Around Struggling Schools.
A draft of the guidelines were open for public comment. More than 1,600 such comments were received including those of the National Education Association. Meanwhile at the state level in Delaware, the Department of Education is busy putting together a strategic plan that compliments the federal RTTT. DSEA has given Secretary Lowery a position paper on RTTT in an effort to influence the DOE plan.
Some of the key areas of the just released guidelines that were closely watched by NEA are as follows:
*States must not have any barriers to linking student achievement or growth to teachers and principals. Delaware has no such barrier. NEA was against this linking of student achievement to specific educators.
*The new language for defining highly effective teachers requires multiple measures, provided student growth is a significant measure. This is a positive change from a direction of having student achievement measured by standardized tests as the primary component of evaluations. In Delaware, student achievement is only one of five equally weighted components of teacher evaluation.
*The new regulations state that teacher and principal evaluation systems should be designed and developed with teacher and principal involvement.
*Definitions of student achievement have been expanded to include other measures beyond a single test.
*According to the guidelines, states should not have laws adverse to charter schools, but state laws should monitor charter authorizers and should monitor charter student populations for comparison to public school populations.
Stay tuned for much more on RTTT.
Four areas must be addressed in the grant application: Standards and Assessments, Data Systems to Support Instruction, Great Teachers and Leaders, and Turning Around Struggling Schools.
A draft of the guidelines were open for public comment. More than 1,600 such comments were received including those of the National Education Association. Meanwhile at the state level in Delaware, the Department of Education is busy putting together a strategic plan that compliments the federal RTTT. DSEA has given Secretary Lowery a position paper on RTTT in an effort to influence the DOE plan.
Some of the key areas of the just released guidelines that were closely watched by NEA are as follows:
*States must not have any barriers to linking student achievement or growth to teachers and principals. Delaware has no such barrier. NEA was against this linking of student achievement to specific educators.
*The new language for defining highly effective teachers requires multiple measures, provided student growth is a significant measure. This is a positive change from a direction of having student achievement measured by standardized tests as the primary component of evaluations. In Delaware, student achievement is only one of five equally weighted components of teacher evaluation.
*The new regulations state that teacher and principal evaluation systems should be designed and developed with teacher and principal involvement.
*Definitions of student achievement have been expanded to include other measures beyond a single test.
*According to the guidelines, states should not have laws adverse to charter schools, but state laws should monitor charter authorizers and should monitor charter student populations for comparison to public school populations.
Stay tuned for much more on RTTT.
Wednesday, November 11, 2009
US House Health Care Bill
As promised, here is a quick look at the US House version of health care reform. Please keep in mind that the Senate will pass a version and then the two bills will go to a conference committee to be reconciled and back to both chambers for a vote on final passage. In other words, what you see today is a long way from law.
Some Key Points of the Legislation with Comment:
Health Insurance Exchange
This refers to a "marketplace" that allows for comparison shopping among insurance providers. The exchange would also administer the affordability credits provided in the legislation.
Public Insurance Option
Within the health insurance exchange would be an option to purchase a public plan in areas where just one or two carriers dominate the market. This is a much watered down version of the public option than originally discussed. The first version of a public option would have been offered anywhere in the nation, not just in the areas with few insurers. The first version would have provided insurance for a massive group of around 129 million Americans. The current version allows for about 6 million Americans to buy a public plan.
This area is of major concern because a comprehensive public option was our best hope of controlling health care cost inflation. When a plan has 129 million consumers, it can dictate to the market what it will and will not pay for various procedures and drugs. A plan with 6 million is not likely to have much market leverage. Moreover, a small public option could simply turn into a high risk pool which will eventually price itself out of existence.
Guaranteed Coverage and other Insurance Reforms
This is probably the best part of the bill. Insurance companies would no longer be allowed to exclude people from coverage for pre-existing conditions. Equally important, insurers would no longer be able to base premiums on health status, but only on age, geography, and family size.
Sliding Scale Affordability Credits
These are credits to help low and moderate income individuals and families purchase insurance. Medicaid will still exist for very low income people and the credits will start just above that level and continue up to 400 percent of the federal poverty level ($43K for an individual and $88K for a family of four).
One negative aspect of this program is that federal tax dollars (public) will flow to (private) for-profit insurance companies. This is not what happens with Medicaid for example, because Medicaid is the insurer and directly pays the health providers without the middlemen of the insurance industry taking a cut. This is why Medicaid has an administrative cost of about 2 or 3 cents for every dollar of heath care delivered as opposed to private insurers whose overhead is around 25 cents to 27 cents for every dollar of care delivered.
Expands Medicaid
Individuals and families with incomes at or below 133% of the federal poverty level will be covered. The expansion will be fully federally financed to avoid stressing state budgets.
Improves Medicare
The current "donut hole" in the Part D drug program will be eliminated helping seniors with their prescription drug costs. Cost sharing for preventive services has been eliminated. Physician payments have been improved. Also, improvements in the delivery system have been made.
Individual Responsibility
Once all reforms and affordability credits are in place, individuals must obtain health insurance. Failure to buy insurance will result in a penalty of 2.5% of adjusted gross income.
This is very controversial. Private, for-profit insurance companies will now reap billions from all Americans forced to buy their products. Without cost controls, what is to stop the insurance industry from charging exorbitant rates?
Employer Responsibility
Employers will chose between providing coverage for employees or paying 8% of their payroll into a health fund. Small businesses with payrolls under $500,000 are exempt from the requirement. Above $500k, businesses begin to pay on a sliding scale that maxes with the 8% for those over $750k in payroll.
In conclusion, this legislation still needs work, and it is a long, long, way from being a truly progressive health care reform bill.
Some Key Points of the Legislation with Comment:
Health Insurance Exchange
This refers to a "marketplace" that allows for comparison shopping among insurance providers. The exchange would also administer the affordability credits provided in the legislation.
Public Insurance Option
Within the health insurance exchange would be an option to purchase a public plan in areas where just one or two carriers dominate the market. This is a much watered down version of the public option than originally discussed. The first version of a public option would have been offered anywhere in the nation, not just in the areas with few insurers. The first version would have provided insurance for a massive group of around 129 million Americans. The current version allows for about 6 million Americans to buy a public plan.
This area is of major concern because a comprehensive public option was our best hope of controlling health care cost inflation. When a plan has 129 million consumers, it can dictate to the market what it will and will not pay for various procedures and drugs. A plan with 6 million is not likely to have much market leverage. Moreover, a small public option could simply turn into a high risk pool which will eventually price itself out of existence.
Guaranteed Coverage and other Insurance Reforms
This is probably the best part of the bill. Insurance companies would no longer be allowed to exclude people from coverage for pre-existing conditions. Equally important, insurers would no longer be able to base premiums on health status, but only on age, geography, and family size.
Sliding Scale Affordability Credits
These are credits to help low and moderate income individuals and families purchase insurance. Medicaid will still exist for very low income people and the credits will start just above that level and continue up to 400 percent of the federal poverty level ($43K for an individual and $88K for a family of four).
One negative aspect of this program is that federal tax dollars (public) will flow to (private) for-profit insurance companies. This is not what happens with Medicaid for example, because Medicaid is the insurer and directly pays the health providers without the middlemen of the insurance industry taking a cut. This is why Medicaid has an administrative cost of about 2 or 3 cents for every dollar of heath care delivered as opposed to private insurers whose overhead is around 25 cents to 27 cents for every dollar of care delivered.
Expands Medicaid
Individuals and families with incomes at or below 133% of the federal poverty level will be covered. The expansion will be fully federally financed to avoid stressing state budgets.
Improves Medicare
The current "donut hole" in the Part D drug program will be eliminated helping seniors with their prescription drug costs. Cost sharing for preventive services has been eliminated. Physician payments have been improved. Also, improvements in the delivery system have been made.
Individual Responsibility
Once all reforms and affordability credits are in place, individuals must obtain health insurance. Failure to buy insurance will result in a penalty of 2.5% of adjusted gross income.
This is very controversial. Private, for-profit insurance companies will now reap billions from all Americans forced to buy their products. Without cost controls, what is to stop the insurance industry from charging exorbitant rates?
Employer Responsibility
Employers will chose between providing coverage for employees or paying 8% of their payroll into a health fund. Small businesses with payrolls under $500,000 are exempt from the requirement. Above $500k, businesses begin to pay on a sliding scale that maxes with the 8% for those over $750k in payroll.
In conclusion, this legislation still needs work, and it is a long, long, way from being a truly progressive health care reform bill.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
