Tuesday, June 19, 2018

Where do school funds come from? Budget, Funds, Revenue 101

I have recently accepted a nomination to be on the Future Facilities Task Force for Grand Prairie ISD. We are looking at the demographics and needs of the city, then advising on which programs need to be started, changed, or sunsetted for the future. How many students will be coming our way? What do we have money for? What will keep programs in high demand?

First of all, members of the task force have been in something of an education boot camp to learn about demographics, current programs, and the budget as it is.

Here's what I learned about how the budget and finance works in GPISD and similar Texas districts. Lots of acronyms! Here's the 101.

Our visit and education was with Mr. Rob Welch, an assistant superintendent of GPISD, who educated us on school finance and budgeting in Texas and GPISD in particular. It is my goal that this outline will help other task forces organize their beginning education sessions on school finance. I owe him for staying with me afterward to break down all of the various acronyms. 


Funds
a.       Funds, or pots of money with very different uses and purposes.
                                                               i.      The general fund (aka maintenance and operation fund M&O, the daily expenses); examples, salaries, utilities, fuel for buses, supplies, pretty much anything we need as a universal “donor” in the district
                                                             ii.      The debt service funds (aka interest and sinking fund I&S, the mortgage payment); pay the principal and interest on bonds that funded building construction and capital acquisitions. This one is very limited in how we can use this
b.       Revenues
                                                               i.      Local fund, general fund of $75.5 million, all funds $106.1 million (property taxes, various tuition, gate receipts [tickets], interest on investments)
                                                             ii.      State general fund, $118.7 million, all funds $211.5 million (FSP [foundation school program], ASF [available school fund], (the two biggest general funds, where the state gets the money to pay for things), ASATR, NIFA, IFA, EDA, [funding components] Weighted funding, revenue per WADA [weighted average daily attendance], etc.)
                                                           iii.      Federal, general fund $5.6 million, all funds $34.1 million (E-rate reimbursements [allows districts to get reduced costs within the community or school district], MAC/SHARS Reimbursements [Medicaid, income related; various special services for special needs], IDEA grants [SPED, such as Title I], Perkins grant)
                                                           iv.      Total revenues, general fund, $170 million, all funds, $351.7 million, plus issuance of bonds or other financing sources (plus issuances of bonds or other funding sources)
c.       State funding and local taxes
                                                               i.      Property values go up, state funding goes down
                                                             ii.      Tax rate goes up, state rewards local tax effort and state funding goes up
                                                           iii.      GPISD maximizes state funding with M&O tax rate of $1.17 passed by voters in 2015
[Question: Definition of General Fund. In public sector accounting, the primary or catchall fund of a government, government agency, or nonprofit entity such as a university. It is like a firm's general ledger account and records all assets and liabilities of the entity that are not assigned to a special purpose fund.]
d.       State funding formula
                                                               i.      Evolving system of calculations intended to equalize for property values and populations served, about 40 years old and tweaked every two years. Annual funding levels are based on WADA, despite the huge demographic shifts in the past 40 years
                                                             ii.      GPISD allotment is appx $5600 per student. 1% gain in attendance is $2mm in additional funding. 290 students are 1% of students, is half of an elem., worth 2800 students or $15mm.
                                                           iii.      School building bonds—require an election. Voters approve the authorizations, board votes on issuance, and the bonds are issued with proceeds deposited into capital projects fund. The board sets the I&S tax rate annually to make the Bond P&I payments [principal and interest scheduled over about 20 years. Key factors:  
1.       limited dates annually for a bond election;
2.       repayment must be supported by projected property values and projected IFA/EDA [instructional facilities allotment funding, which districts apply for and may not get funded];
3.       interest rate cost based on bond ratings provided by rating agencies;
4.       Current bond ratings: Fitch AAA/AA, Moody’s Aaa/Aa3, Standard & Poor’s – AAA/AA- the most significant factor in the bond process. They investigate how the district is managed and evaluate the district’s finances. These are very competitive rates for GPISD
2.       Budget
a.       Budget calendar – the budget planning process begins in November of the prior fiscal year
                                                               i.      Building the budget involves a student forecast in January; campus budget allocations in February through April; Staffing formula and allocations in March through June; and the department zero-based budgeting March through June
                                                             ii.      Setting the tax rate involves property value projections and estimates, May through July; Certified values by July 25thl Public meeting to discuss tax rate and budget in August; Adopting the budget and setting the tax rate, by August 31st; Start of the new fiscal year by September 1. [Responsibilities are laid out for each aspect of the budget calendar, as each element will be assigned to a different area, as appropriate to that area, e.g., school board approval.]
                                                           iii.      Number of Funds – 40, (such as the general fund, debt services, fund, federal fund, child nutrition fund, capital projects fund, etc.…), number of purchase orders annually average, 14,400 per year
                                                           iv.      Basics of expenses [78% of the budget is payroll; utilities, 8%, supplies, 6%, misc., 4%, debt service, 1%, capital acquisitions, 3%]
3.       Human resources
a.       Kinds of staffing—teachers, admin, aides, paras, central admin, auxiliary – custodian, aux – transport, aux – food service, tech, other
b.       3773.1 staff—67% professional staff, 8% aides, 24% auxiliary staff; 75% f, 25% m; .9 doc, 21% m, 77.5 b, .6 no degree;
c.       Salary GPISD avg $54.500 for beginning teachers, $52.5k Arlington, Irving, 52k, Mansfield 54k, state average 46k
d.       Staff benefits – GPISD insurance contribution $350/month. Area districts range from $225-$351. The state requirement for contribution is $225/m.
e.       2017-2018 critical shortage stipends – TEA and GPISD recognize the following as critical shortage areas and provide the following stipends
                                                               i.      SLP $5k
                                                             ii.      Diagnosticians 4k
                                                           iii.      Bilingual 3k
                                                           iv.      VI / O&M 2k
                                                             v.      Certain subject areas such as math, science, ASL 1k

More information available to the public 
a.       GPISD Website contains the proposed and adopted budgets, the SchoolFIRST and annual financial reports, the check registers, and the annual debt reports
                                                               i.      Home>Our district>financial transparency> a ton of resources such as the first section, “financial reports”
                                                             ii.      You can observe every single check written by the school district and what the district is spending money on. It goes all the way back to the 2013 school year, archived, related to how the district is spending money.
b.       SchoolFIRST contains the financial rating systems for the schools based on the prior year data. It makes sure that the school districts are managing finances the way that they should be. They grade the district based on an applicable range for the report. Presently rates A = Superior on the budget integrity rating.
c.       What is happening in the state budget? Certain elements are changing due to…
                                                               i.      Commission on school finance reform
                                                             ii.      Financial transparency – the A-F Financial report card
                                                           iii.      Legislative priorities
                                                           iv.      Changes in school FIRST financial rating system
5.       Local aspects of the budget system
a.       Demographic projections
b.       Property values expect continued growth, in the existing property values. Most new development is on the commercial side.
c.       State revenue adjusts for property value growth
d.     Overall revenue is flat is we maintain our ADA 

Thursday, August 24, 2017

Reflection on Managing Information in the Public Montessori Classroom

The following is my reflection on my new learning, following a talk given by Dr. Jan Mallett, Ph.D., Research Assistant of Montessori and Early Childhood Education at Southern Methodist University, at the Dallas Conference of Public Montessori Teachers given at the Meadows Conference Center. 

How Public Montessori and Classical Montessori Interact

A Commitment to Follow the Child
As Montessorians, we share a commitment to respect the work of the individual child--we share a commitment to the work of Dr. Maria Montessori. Three key principles of Montessori philosophy stand out as different from traditional education, as major elements of the Montessori pedagogy:


  • We are committed to whole child education;
  • We are committed to the Montessori prepared environment; and,
  • We bring the child the specially prepared adult. 
In a Montessori setting, adults are trained in the ways we perceive and interact with children and also how we speak about children to other adults in the educational arena. Each of these three elements is going to have its own design for paperwork in data management. We can do all of these while giving honor to the philosophy of following the child.

In following the child, one of our special charges is knowing the child well—proverbially, "all the way down to the child’s grandmother’s shoe size". We laugh, but the more we can know about the child, the better we can serve her. When we prepare for the child, we should consider not only what presentation each child needs next, but we are also considering what the child needs or wants next.


Following the Child in Daily Lesson Preparation

Reflectively, each day, we consider which lessons would progress most organically and individually into the next day, the list of lessons we would mentally and physically prepare for the next day. It would be a different plan from that we are required to submit, but we also have to accept that the Guide knows the children to that degree, that it rests on the adult to give the children exactly the presentation they need that day.


Render Unto Caesar: Following the state curriculum standards

We know, too, as public school teachers, that we are accountable for presenting the TEKS (or whatever local curriculum standard) and all of the campus, district, and state requirements. How can we reconcile having two masters? We have to be able to simplify all of the requirements from outside organizations and create concordances of how we are satisfying outside requirements. We are on the right path with Montessori pedagogy, but we have to be able to justify how we are in good faith are moving through outside requirements while maintaining our primary focus on the philosophy of following the child.
  •   Figure out exactly what the principal wants
  •   Negotiate for simplicity in providing for outside requirements
  •   Routinize providing that satisfaction of requirements
  •   Spend the lion share of the time focusing on the child and what she needs, as an individual


The Prepared Environment

The Class and Casa de Bambini Space

The clutter-free, organized, sequenced environment does make the space easier for the adult to navigate, and it is more inviting for outside visitors. However, the environment is for the child. We do not apply state standards literally to the shelf. The walls should not display the lesson requirements and objectives, as the child needs resting space for the eye. The posting of the lesson objectives and demonstrations of learning does not serve the child; it is for the upper administration. When we must display standards, we display it quietly, small, and at the adult height to minimize and satisfy what may be required to be rendered—but we give this in the simplest, smallest way, only for the adult.

The Requirement of Grading Software

As public school teachers, we are required to give grades, although that is opposed in many ways to our pedagogy. We are a mastery-based pedagogy, not a percentage of mastery and reporting style of learning. However, as a non-negotiable, there is a window of opportunity to make grades scaled in rubrics of mastery by a deadline. We recommend that the teacher records grades daily as a routine, along with measuring routine work monitored perhaps even covertly, on occasion.

The Structure of Personalizing Grades

We liberate ourselves from a static idea of “work” as a single unit of a grade. There will be students who struggle more with committing work to paper, but learning continues. Therefore, the grade measurement might be different for each child. Perhaps, for example, it is a five question oral test for one child quietly at a table. Sometimes it is being able to bring an assembly of objects to the Guide or to another child or to her own map. We do not advocate each potential assignment as a possible grade in the gradebook. As we follow the child, grades must follow a child. In grading, to leave things more open ended for each child, we might say, Botany 1, Botany 2, Botany 3, those are expectations that the child learn three key elements about plants—but those particular lessons might be different for each child. We still may assign a grade for work we expect every child to have finished by a certain time, but there will also be other works with broader categories where the work will vary widely by individual.


The Whole Child

Knowing the child

When meeting with parents about academic progress, take care to record some behavioral and personal anecdotes to share with the parent. When parents are overly focused on grades, we make sure to bring qualitative information about the content of the child’s work. As a recommendation, bring two or three stories of work they do with furthered independence and total development.

The Planner of the Older Child

The child learns how to mention their own time with the support of a planner. Many children coming into the room do not realize that each of the squares in the planner represents a space of time where the child will work on a task. Very soon, the children will be able to write for themselves what they have already done. The most basic way a child would use a planner is in the regular recording of their own tasks. Then, over time, they begin to anticipate what they want to do today, tomorrow, and next week. When the light bulb turns on and they begin to understand that this helps them manage their time, that is when we invite them to the table to begin discussing the idea of a deadline, so that they may grow toward emerging self-mastery. It is a tool for the child. The planner does not belong to the parent, so we do not advocate sending home the planner for the parent to sign.


We speak to children as if they are
the wisest, kindest, most beautiful and magical
humans on earth, for what they believe
is what they will become. 


We respect the child in allowing them to develop their own internal recordkeeping system. It is appropriate to open it at conference time to show how the child is beginning to anticipate their own goals and show the child’s emergent self-monitoring, but we must take care never to weaponize the tool as a rigid, prescriptive task. Occasionally, there are individual children who require more structure and guidance and support in assigning tasks to times, but we are empowering the child to become masters of their own time—we do all we can to enable them to take the power of their own work and visions for learning.


Special thanks to Dr. Mallett for inspiring my thoughts and reflections on this subject;
a teacher of teachers. 


Sunday, July 23, 2017

Advantages of Performance Pay for Teachers Vs. Tenure Pay

The following is a brief scholarly analysis of pay-for-performance models of teacher compensation (also called performance pay) versus tenure models of teacher pay, based on USA-American and international implementation. The model has been implemented in Dallas ISD under the name Teacher Excellence Initiative for three years, resulting in increased retention of the highest-achieving and highest-rated teachers. As the area considers the future of TEI, it is important to consider also the research on the subject of educator labor markets in general, for application to this place.
- Jeannot R. Jonte Boucher, M.Ed., AMI

Advantages of Performance Pay for Teachers
It is a fundamental of staffing economics that workers respond to incentive with sharp increases in productivity and higher profits for the consumer-company (Lazear, 2000). In many fields, pay is readily linked to performance. Currently, there is much discussion about the benefits of offering performance pay to teachers, who might yield higher productivity leading to higher student achievement. Economic examination of the field of education reveals multiple advantages to linking increases teacher pay to performance. First, performance pay is less controversial among high-achieving teachers than pay for years of service. Higher-achieving teachers prefer performance pay (Muralidaharan & Sundararaman, 2009).  Additionally, as high-quality instruction delivered by the teacher is the strongest predictor of student success, attention arrives at the labor market for attracting high-achieving teachers. As the most effective teachers will be harder to find and hire, incentive pay makes schools more competitive to hire these teachers (Hanushek & Rivkin, 2010). Finally, as performance pay rewards overall teacher quality, there is a gain to overall student achievement and gross domestic product, providing long-term sustainability to the models (Hanushek & Woeessman, 2010). Therefore, pay for performance models should inform public decisions for a new direction in public teacher pay markets.
Less Controversial: A Quality-Teacher Preference
A series of international studies in Israel, Kenya, and India examined whether teachers prefer performance-based pay systems. While these systems are rare in public systems in the United States, they are found more frequently abroad. According to the research of Pradesh and Muralidharan (2009), there is a positive correlation and causal relationship between teacher quality and the preference for performance pay. In other words, since higher quality teachers overwhelmingly prefer performance pay, offering this pay model would attract better teachers, by measure of student achievement. There is also a possibility that performance models would repel less effective teachers into low- to no-accountability settings in other environments or careers. The main finding from Muralidharan is that over 80% of teachers preferred performance-linked pay. Furthermore, the degree of support relating to actual teacher performance suggests that teachers are self-aware of their abilities. That could mean that with the knowledge that they should be paid better for their ideas and work, more teachers would be attracted to the field.
However, there are some mixed results in the research on increased teacher satisfaction. Belfield & Heywood, 2008, found that teachers were not more satisfied in performance pay settings. As a detail, the teachers in performance pay settings did receive more income over the span of their careers. Additionally, the ability of the teacher to work collaboratively did significantly increase the performance pay. This answers the question of whether single-teacher performance is an appropriate indicator, since teaching should be a collaborative profession. Nevertheless, Belfield and Heywood did not isolate teacher satisfaction by achievement group, so the findings of Puresh and Muralidharan remain: The highest quality teachers are the most satisfied with performance pay.

Competitive Pay Yields Student Success
Under years of experience pay scales, teachers gain salary slowly over time. This is a challenge to fair compensation, because teacher quality shows sharp incline early in the career and a sharp decline toward the end of the career (Hanushek and Rivkin, 2010). This is the opposite pattern from traditional years of service scales, which increases in compensation over time instead of acknowledging that teacher support and ability declines steeply with advanced age. Allowing teachers to earn an amount closer in line with their salaries boosts retention of the highest-quality employees.
Gordon, 2006, writes extensively on how to determine teacher effectiveness, monitoring trends. Since one of the key purposes of performance pay is to retain the highest quality teachers, Gordon examined New York State data to learn about teacher retention, and there was no difference in retention between two-year contract Teach for America volunteers and certified teachers (<0.01 standard deviations). This reflects a crisis of teacher retention, something Gordon proposes could be improved by competitive offerings.
Ultimately, teacher retention would lead to improved teaching, since Gordon observed that teacher’s performance was significantly higher after the first two years—again, that sharp climb. This would validate the findings, too, of Lavy, 2009, who observed that monetary incentives for teachers contributed to significant gains in student success. Lavy compared observing Israeli schools competing for $1.44 million in rewards, given as either more school resources versus paying the teachers that amount cumulatively, and the ultimate comparison found the greater outcome to student success from direct teacher pay, rather than heavily endowed schools.

Financial Gains, not Losses
A common criticism is that school districts cannot afford to pay additional funds to teachers for doing a good job. However, Hanushek (2010) noted that there is a social benefit overall which can be measured in the gross GDP of the place, when the highest quality teachers are retained in the classroom. In this manner, policymakers have the opportunity to offer teachers room for advancement without leaving the classroom. As more effective teachers stayed in the classroom, the community became more measurably prosperous over time. According to Muralidharan, the support from teachers aligns so closely with student achievement levels that it is predictive of teacher efficacy before any other factors indicate the teacher’s effectiveness level. Therefore, teachers who show higher ex-ante support have better ex-post support.
Teacher labor markets receive a great deal of scrutiny, as a large part of many school district budgets. In economic terms, the field of teaching suffers from high turnover and quit rates of new teachers, leading to diminished supply pool. Lowered productivity stems from this initial high quit rate. Belfield & Heywood continued their analysis of teacher pay in terms of personnel policy. The researchers of this 2008 study found that teachers being offered performance pay showed an up to 20% increase in productivity following the measures. Future research should consider the long-term effects of the increase in productivity and labor concerns. As a complex but worthwhile consideration that “if they work harder, the reward for each unit of effort will be reduced, leaving their earnings the same despite more effort” (244). This concern is refuted in Woessman’s presentation in the symposium overview on the subject, 2011. He wrote that long-term equilibrium effects are outweighed by positive association between pay for performance and student achievement.
Conclusions
For decades, pay for years of tenure programs have penalized talented young teachers and rewarded characteristics which are not related to student outcomes, like whether the teacher has a master’s degree (Gordon, 2006). It is time to follow the lead of international evidence suggesting that students with teacher compensation according to performance are more likely to find high performing, successful students. We know, also, that teachers who experience a campus for paid performance also experience a higher degree of support for the program. Expanding pay for performance models will be critical in attracting workers of high quality, who are the most likely to support such a program. Going forward, it will be important to communicate these benefits to labor unions, who might present considerable dissent to unequal pay between workers, should the benefits to student and teacher welfare not be placed centrally in the conversation.


References
Belfield, C. and Heywood, H. (2008). Performance pay for teachers: Determinants and consequences, 20(3), 243-252.


Hanushek, E. and Woessmann, L. (2011). Overview of the symposium on performance pay for teachers. Economics of Education Review, 30(3), 391-393.

Gordon, R., Kane, D., Staiger, D. I (2006) Identifying effective teachers using performance on the job. The Brookings Institute.

Lavy, L. (2009). Evaluating the effect of teachers’ group performance incentives on pupil achievement. Journal of Political Economy, 110, 1286-1317.

Lazear, L. (2000). Performance pay and productivity. American Economics Review, 90, 1346-1361.
Muralidharan K. and Sundararaman, V. (2011). Teacher opinions on performance pay. Evidence from India. Economics of Education Review, 30(30), 394-403
Muralidharan, K. and Sundararaman, V. (2009). Teacher performance pay: Experimental evidence from India. National Bureau of Economic Research, Cambridge, MA
Woessmann, L. (2011). Cross-country evidence on teacher performance pay. Economics of Education Review, 30(3), 404-418.

Wednesday, March 29, 2017

Classroom Management for a More Peaceful World

CLASSROOM Management
Pre-K Teachers: Beware of Gold Stars
5 ways preschool teachers can reinforce positive behavior without bribes, for a more peaceful child and world
March 22, 2017



As educators, we know students learn better when we inspire good behavior. But how do we get our preschool students to that point? From the plethora of classroom management strategies, it can leave a new teacher dizzy with possibilities for rewards systems and tiered consequences. In his popular books 
Punished by Rewards and Unconditional Parenting, education author Alfie Kohn explores the behavioral science reasoning for avoiding rewards and punishments altogether. Kohn promotes a radical but researched philosophy of classroom management: inspiring the child’s own intrinsic motivation.
We identify five essential strategies for developing intrinsic motivation in the preschool child:
  • Offer specific observations
  • Listen more
  • Guide the child to express feelings
  • Model self-assessment of my own actions
  • Give students opportunities self-assess behavior

Many teachers are already using a version of these principles for improving student behavior—commonly, by offering observation. Here’s how I implement the five key strategies for building intrinsic motivation.
What Should A Teacher Do?
The first principle is to offer specific observation. Maria Montessori said that a child is disciplined when she is a master of herself. The young child develops the capacity to behave through positive social and practical activities. Adults can support the child by offering descriptive observations of behaviors or events. Instead of praising a child with that famous gold star, a stamp, or a sticker, we describe, “You cared for your space by picking up every snip." Or, “You showed kindness when you offered your friend a tissue.” Rather than gain positive feelings from my response, the child associates the positive feeling with the behavior. They will then be more likely to repeat the practice.
The second principle is listening to a child discuss what has occurred. Offering observational language is one way to help the child. Often, staying present while the child considers what happened is enough. Children accustomed to praise will seek adults for validation, a habit which makes independent work and exploration challenging. In the opposite effect, children accustomed to punitive-focused discipline will wait for adult reprimand before correcting misbehavior. Richard M. Ryan and Edward L. Desi, educational psychologists on motivation, identified supporting the child’s notion of exploratory and playful joy as a primary intrinsic motivator. As I improve at asking a child what has occurred, then listening, I can lead the child to a habit of reflection about what brings joy.

“You completed many kinds of work today,” I begin, then become quiet. The child fills the silence with a grin of satisfaction. One child commented to me, “Yes, and I feel strong.”
What Does Intrinsic Motivation Look Like?
The third principle of inspiring intrinsic motivation is to guide the child to express.  In our language-rich early childhood environments, we work to scaffold a vocabulary for feelings. We discuss determination, satisfaction, and pride. While other children are at work, planned conversations in small groups allow four or five eager children time to share their own stories. We focus on times they felt an accomplishment or disappointment. Planned social conversations modify the children’s perspectives about justice and kindness over time. We also role-play scenarios. Each week, we plan social presentations on the basis of emerging behaviors, routine themes, and observed needs. In Montessori pedagogy, these presentations comprise a core component of social cohesion, called Grace and Courtesy. Yet, grace and courtesy encompass more than manners. Instead, the practice of grace and courtesy role-play gives children experience considering the feelings and needs of others. 
The fourth principle is to model self-assessment for the child. This principle requires adult vulnerability. The adult narrates a scenario for the child to consider the teacher’s own actions. I discuss what I have seen myself do. Then, I follow with how I feel about it. I close with a comment about what I would do differently next time. For example, when I knock an object over or forget my keys, I narrate a description. Sometimes this is with a group, and other times it is “to myself”. Children are fascinated to see what happens when an adult makes a mistake. Likewise, as I organize my plans and tidy my table through the day, I faux-soliloquize on my pride in finishing my work and caring for my space. They are listening.

What Tools Do Students Need?
The final principle of inspiring intrinsic motivation is to lead the child to develop her own compass. Our larger goal in teaching is to prepare the child for life. In discussing character, I reminded students that some days I will be absent, and they will have to decide the right thing to do. Some of the youngest looked nervous. But an older boy piped up, “Yes, but we have an inner voice now!”

We help the child find the internal compass for kindness, gentleness, and responsibility. We support with 
books, songs, and real-life storytelling. We create nonjudgmental space for a child to assess that she could have done things differently. We always support learning how to make one’s own amends. Saving space for social lessons has many benefits in academic areas: namely, comfort with error and confidence with complexity.
When I discuss these approaches to developing intrinsic motivation with more traditional teachers, I hear that the standard fare of stickers and time outs successfully modifies behavior. Children do enjoy treats and goodies as incentives. However, we plant seeds of more in these sensitive, early years. Intrinsic motivation helps children feel confident appraising and monitoring their own behaviors. Critical thinkers approach finding their own solutions. We could go the easier route and tick off a “Good job!” and dole out a prize. Ultimately, behavioral approaches that center intrinsic motivation give the opportunity to present kindness as the child’s native language.
FILED UNDER
CLASSROOM MANAGEMENT
MONTESSORI
PRESCHOOL (PRIMARY, PRE-K, K)
PEACE EDUCATION
ABOUT THE AUTHOR
Johnny Boucher is a public school teacher at Eduardo Mata Montessori in Dallas, Texas and a doctoral student of education policy and leadership through Johns Hopkins University by distance. Boucher advocates for high-quality early childhood programs, best practices in literacy, and closing achievement gaps with Montessori approaches for the public sector. Tweet @jonteboucher

REFERENCES
Kohn, A. (1999). Punished by Rewards: The Trouble with Gold Stars, Incentive Plans, A's, Praise, and Other Bribes (2nd ed.). Mariner Books.


Montessori, M. (2007). Education and Peace the Montessori Series. Montessori-Pierson Publishing Company.