8. Limitations of Using Student-Achievement Data for Career-Ladder Promotions and Merit-Pay Decisions

A study of U.S. school districts conducted 70 years ago reported that 48% of the districts sampled used merit pay (Evendon, 1918). Since then, the quantity as well as quality of teacher-compensation systems has fluctuated markedly (for details, see Cohen & Murnane, 1985; Murnane & Cohen, 1986; Porwoll, 1979). At present, 29 states are implementing large-scale teacher-incentive programs (a.k.a. career ladder, merit pay, pay for performance), funding local plans, piloting testing models, or using state board of education or legislative mandates to develop programs for teachers and administrators (Southern Regional Education Board, 1986) The status of these programs is summarized in Table 8.1. Teacher performance is at the core of all of the programs in operation or those being considered. Determining who will receive the pay bonuses, which typically range from $1,000 to$3,000 per year, or be promoted up the career-ladder hinges on the methods used to evaluate teacher performance. The current trend in measurement procedures is to deemphasize supervisory ratings by the building principal and instead to emphasize peer evaluation, classroom observation, student-achievement outcomes, and questionnaire data from principals, teachers, and students (for details, see Southern Regional Education Board, 1986). Use of Student·Achievement Data One particular procedure that seems to be gaining acceptance increasingly by legislators and the professionals who are designing the programs is the use of student-achievement data (d. Robinson, 1983; 1984). These data provide information different from the other measurement tools previously noted. Where classroom observation and ratings by principals, teachers, and students measure a teacher\u27s behavior on the job, student achievement relates to the outcomes of that behavior. That is, the former methods are direct measures of teacher performance; the latter is an indirect measure. Student outcomes are perceived as evidence of a teacher\u27s effectiveness. Because superior teacher performance is the criterion in teacher-incentive programs, the psychometric issue becomes how best to measure that performance-use direct measures, indirect measures, or a combination of both. Teacher-incentive programs that rely on student-achievement gains have been referred to as new style merit pay (Bacharach, Lipsky, & Shedd, 1984), as opposed to old style merit pay, which bases teacher pay bonuses on principals\u27 evaluations. In 1983, a national survey of merit-pay programs reported that nine school districts in seven states (Arizona, New Hampshire, North Carolina, Oklahoma, South Dakota, Texas, Utah) used student-test scores as evaluative criteria in determining merit pay for classroom teachers (Calhoun & Protheroe, 1983). In all but two of the districts (Dallas and Houston) student achievement served as the only evidence of teacher performance. Today student achievement is a criterion of teacher performance in one third of all statewide teacher incentive/school incentive/career ladder programs. Those programs have been fully implemented in four states (Florida, South Carolina, Tennessee, Utah), are at the pilot stage in four states (Arizona, Kentucky, Maine, South Carolina), and are under development in three states (Alabama, Florida, Georgia). A school incentive program based on student achievement is also under consideration in Alaska, and several career-ladder or merit-pay programs based on student performance have been implemented by local districts (e.g ., Campbell County and Danville, Virginia)

Ernst Freund as Precursor of the Rational Study of Corporate Law

Gindis, David, Ernst Freund as Precursor of the Rational Study of Corporate Law (October 27, 2017). Journal of Institutional Economics, Forthcoming. Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2905547, doi: https://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2905547The rise of large business corporations in the late 19th century compelled many American observers to admit that the nature of the corporation had yet to be understood. Published in this context, Ernst Freund's little-known The Legal Nature of Corporations (1897) was an original attempt to come to terms with a new legal and economic reality. But it can also be described, to paraphrase Oliver Wendell Holmes, as the earliest example of the rational study of corporate law. The paper shows that Freund had the intuitions of an institutional economist, and engaged in what today would be called comparative institutional analysis. Remarkably, his argument that the corporate form secures property against insider defection and against outsiders anticipated recent work on entity shielding and capital lock-in, and can be read as an early contribution to what today would be called the theory of the firm.Peer reviewe

Determinants of penetrance and variable expressivity in monogenic metabolic conditions across 77,184 exomes

Penetrance of variants in monogenic disease and clinical utility of common polygenic variation has not been well explored on a large-scale. Here, the authors use exome sequencing data from 77,184 individuals to generate penetrance estimates and assess the utility of polygenic variation in risk prediction of monogenic variants

Has the Rate of CD4 Cell Count Decline before Initiation of Antiretroviral Therapy Changed over the Course of the Dutch HIV Epidemic among MSM?

Introduction:Studies suggest that the HIV-1 epidemic in the Netherlands may have become more virulent, leading to faster disease progression if untreated. Analysis of CD4 cell count decline before antiretroviral therapy (ART) initiation, a surrogate marker for disease progression, may be hampered by informative censoring as ART initiation is more likely with a steeper CD4 cell count decline.Methods:Development of CD4 cell count from 9 to 48 months after seroconversion was analyzed using a mixed-effects model and 2 models that jointly modeled CD4 cell counts and time to censoring event (start ART

Omecamtiv mecarbil in chronic heart failure with reduced ejection fraction, GALACTIC‐HF: baseline characteristics and comparison with contemporary clinical trials

Aims: The safety and efficacy of the novel selective cardiac myosin activator, omecamtiv mecarbil, in patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) is tested in the Global Approach to Lowering Adverse Cardiac outcomes Through Improving Contractility in Heart Failure (GALACTIC‐HF) trial. Here we describe the baseline characteristics of participants in GALACTIC‐HF and how these compare with other contemporary trials. Methods and Results: Adults with established HFrEF, New York Heart Association functional class (NYHA) ≥ II, EF ≤35%, elevated natriuretic peptides and either current hospitalization for HF or history of hospitalization/ emergency department visit for HF within a year were randomized to either placebo or omecamtiv mecarbil (pharmacokinetic‐guided dosing: 25, 37.5 or 50 mg bid). 8256 patients [male (79%), non‐white (22%), mean age 65 years] were enrolled with a mean EF 27%, ischemic etiology in 54%, NYHA II 53% and III/IV 47%, and median NT‐proBNP 1971 pg/mL. HF therapies at baseline were among the most effectively employed in contemporary HF trials. GALACTIC‐HF randomized patients representative of recent HF registries and trials with substantial numbers of patients also having characteristics understudied in previous trials including more from North America (n = 1386), enrolled as inpatients (n = 2084), systolic blood pressure < 100 mmHg (n = 1127), estimated glomerular filtration rate < 30 mL/min/1.73 m2 (n = 528), and treated with sacubitril‐valsartan at baseline (n = 1594). Conclusions: GALACTIC‐HF enrolled a well‐treated, high‐risk population from both inpatient and outpatient settings, which will provide a definitive evaluation of the efficacy and safety of this novel therapy, as well as informing its potential future implementation

Reducing the environmental impact of surgery on a global scale: systematic review and co-prioritization with healthcare workers in 132 countries

Abstract Background Healthcare cannot achieve net-zero carbon without addressing operating theatres. The aim of this study was to prioritize feasible interventions to reduce the environmental impact of operating theatres. Methods This study adopted a four-phase Delphi consensus co-prioritization methodology. In phase 1, a systematic review of published interventions and global consultation of perioperative healthcare professionals were used to longlist interventions. In phase 2, iterative thematic analysis consolidated comparable interventions into a shortlist. In phase 3, the shortlist was co-prioritized based on patient and clinician views on acceptability, feasibility, and safety. In phase 4, ranked lists of interventions were presented by their relevance to high-income countries and low–middle-income countries. Results In phase 1, 43 interventions were identified, which had low uptake in practice according to 3042 professionals globally. In phase 2, a shortlist of 15 intervention domains was generated. In phase 3, interventions were deemed acceptable for more than 90 per cent of patients except for reducing general anaesthesia (84 per cent) and re-sterilization of ‘single-use’ consumables (86 per cent). In phase 4, the top three shortlisted interventions for high-income countries were: introducing recycling; reducing use of anaesthetic gases; and appropriate clinical waste processing. In phase 4, the top three shortlisted interventions for low–middle-income countries were: introducing reusable surgical devices; reducing use of consumables; and reducing the use of general anaesthesia. Conclusion This is a step toward environmentally sustainable operating environments with actionable interventions applicable to both high– and low–middle–income countries

8. Limitations of Using Student-Achievement Data for Career-Ladder Promotions and Merit-Pay Decisions

A study of U.S. school districts conducted 70 years ago reported that 48% of the districts sampled used merit pay (Evendon, 1918). Since then, the quantity as well as quality of teacher-compensation systems has fluctuated markedly (for details, see Cohen & Murnane, 1985; Murnane & Cohen, 1986; Porwoll, 1979). At present, 29 states are implementing large-scale teacher-incentive programs (a.k.a. career ladder, merit pay, pay for performance), funding local plans, piloting testing models, or using state board of education or legislative mandates to develop programs for teachers and administrators (Southern Regional Education Board, 1986) The status of these programs is summarized in Table 8.1. Teacher performance is at the core of all of the programs in operation or those being considered. Determining who will receive the pay bonuses, which typically range from $1,000 to$3,000 per year, or be promoted up the career-ladder hinges on the methods used to evaluate teacher performance. The current trend in measurement procedures is to deemphasize supervisory ratings by the building principal and instead to emphasize peer evaluation, classroom observation, student-achievement outcomes, and questionnaire data from principals, teachers, and students (for details, see Southern Regional Education Board, 1986). Use of Student·Achievement Data One particular procedure that seems to be gaining acceptance increasingly by legislators and the professionals who are designing the programs is the use of student-achievement data (d. Robinson, 1983; 1984). These data provide information different from the other measurement tools previously noted. Where classroom observation and ratings by principals, teachers, and students measure a teacher\u27s behavior on the job, student achievement relates to the outcomes of that behavior. That is, the former methods are direct measures of teacher performance; the latter is an indirect measure. Student outcomes are perceived as evidence of a teacher\u27s effectiveness. Because superior teacher performance is the criterion in teacher-incentive programs, the psychometric issue becomes how best to measure that performance-use direct measures, indirect measures, or a combination of both. Teacher-incentive programs that rely on student-achievement gains have been referred to as new style merit pay (Bacharach, Lipsky, & Shedd, 1984), as opposed to old style merit pay, which bases teacher pay bonuses on principals\u27 evaluations. In 1983, a national survey of merit-pay programs reported that nine school districts in seven states (Arizona, New Hampshire, North Carolina, Oklahoma, South Dakota, Texas, Utah) used student-test scores as evaluative criteria in determining merit pay for classroom teachers (Calhoun & Protheroe, 1983). In all but two of the districts (Dallas and Houston) student achievement served as the only evidence of teacher performance. Today student achievement is a criterion of teacher performance in one third of all statewide teacher incentive/school incentive/career ladder programs. Those programs have been fully implemented in four states (Florida, South Carolina, Tennessee, Utah), are at the pilot stage in four states (Arizona, Kentucky, Maine, South Carolina), and are under development in three states (Alabama, Florida, Georgia). A school incentive program based on student achievement is also under consideration in Alaska, and several career-ladder or merit-pay programs based on student performance have been implemented by local districts (e.g ., Campbell County and Danville, Virginia)

5. Minimum Competency Testing: Status and Potential

INTRODUCTION Competency becomes an issue when one seemingly encounters incompetence and its consequences. For example, suppose an automobile is taken to a dealer for brake repair. Once the repair has presumably been completed, the owner drives the car to the first intersection, one block from the dealer, and the brake light in the dashboard appears. This owner would probably begin to question the competence of the attending mechanic. As consumers, employers, or even students, we witness countless other examples of probable incompetence. It is this questioning of competence that provided the impetus for the minimum competency testing movement in this country. The movement which began in the 1970s developed in two distinct but interrelated fields: education and occupational licensing. In education, the public seriously questioned the meaning of the high school diploma and, in essence, the competence of a high school graduate. Coterminously, thousands of consumer complaints against licensed and certified practitioners brought into question the quality of services rendered and the conditions for relicensure. Although many of the issues in education and licensure are quite similar, especially in regard to assessment, only the competency movement in education will be reviewed here in order to avoid redundancy in this, chapter and with Kane\u27s chapter in this volume. Minimum Competence Despite the recency of the minimum competency testing movement, the concept of minimum competence is not new. It has been an integral part of occupational licensing in the United States for more than 200 years. Licensing is “the process by which an agency of government grants permission to an individual to engage in a given occupation upon finding that the applicant has attained the minimal degree of competency necessary to ensure that the public health , safety , and welfare will be reasonably well protected (U.S . Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, 1977, p. 4). This concern for “minimal competency or “minimum qualifications for safe practice underlies the state regulation of more than 800 occupations and professions (Greene & Gay, 1980; Shimberg, 198 1). Individuals seeking licensure, for example, physicians, pilots, electricians, lightning rod installers, or horseshoers (see Shimberg, 1982a, chap. 1), are usually required to pass an examination in order to demonstrate their competence. Shimberg (l982a) has listed three responsibilities of licensing boards using such an examination: 1. The examination is a satisfactory measure of competence; 2. It measures the critical and important knowledge, skills, and abilities prerequisite to performance of the job at the minimum level of competence deemed necessary for the public protection; and 3. It is capable of screening out those who lack the requisite level of competence. (p. 56) The educational analogue of these characteristics will become apparent in subsequent sections of this chapter. Another perspective on the concept considers minimum competence in the context of United States social policies. Cohen and Haney (1980) have pointed to the longstanding) interest in having government promotes minimum levels of social welfare. Examples include public health programs, social security, unemployment insurance, welfare programs, and, certainly, a free public education. Throughout the relatively brief hi story of the competency testing movement the expression minimum competence has engendered a considerable amount of confusion among lay people and educators alike. In practice, it connotes both the type of competence to be measured and the performance standard that is specified to designate attainment of the competencies. A further discussion of this topic is given in the section on Definitions

Beyond Student Ratings: “A Whole New World, a New Fantastic Point of View”

Unfortunately, student ratings have dominated as the primary and, frequently, only measure of teaching performance at colleges and universities for the past four decades (Seldin, 2006). In fact, the evaluation of teaching has been in a metaphorical cul-de-sac with student ratings as the universal barometer. Only recently has there been a trend toward augmenting those ratings with other data sources to broaden and deepen the evidence base (Arreola, 2007; Berk, 2006b; Braskamp and Ory, 1994; Centra, 1993; Knapper and Cranton, 2001; Seldin, 2006). Although much has been learned over the 60-year history of faculty evaluation and the 50-year his- tory of the 360 ̊ MSF model in management, a lot of work is still necessary to realize the true meaning of “best practices” in measuring teaching performance. The model described in this essay is one strategy institutions can use to improve their procedures for rendering fair and equitable decisions