My personal experience with a failed education reform.
Another failure, as personally witnessed
Q Comp, as assessed by the University of Minnesota and St. Catherine’s, has been ineffective with students despite a legislative tab approaching half a billion dollars (“Pay plan gets poor report card,” Nov. 16).
Earlier assessments and teacher feedback had already indicated that the now 10-year-old project would flop.
As a conscripted Q Comp soldier, I witnessed teachers performing amazing tasks to advance students. Yet Q Comp never rewarded those teachers as promised (the study showed it never had the tools to objectively measure individual, or even collective teacher performance). Thus, no teachers received compensation for specific, outstanding work. In fact, Q Comp did the reverse: It rewarded all teachers for participation and compliance, regardless of individual achievement.
Should legislators wait for future report cards on the program before defunding it (a 15- or 20-year progress report)? Certainly not, yet taxpayers should know that this latest education failure is likely another “untouchable” and “unmentionable” in the House and Senate, a public accounting only adding to the lengthy legislative legacy of mismanagement in education funding (e.g., Profile of Learning).
Without demand for a serious review of Q Comp’s fatal flaws, taxpayers should prepare to celebrate the next great (and expensive) innovation in education reform.
STEVE WATSON, Minneapolis
THE PEOPLE’S WORK
Rewards and perks too readily given
If the Minnesota State Colleges and Universities system now needs a plan to “improve dramatically how we do our work” (Star Tribune, Nov. 21), why did the trustees award the former chancellor a $40,000 bonus in addition to his $360,000 salary (Star Tribune, June 17, 2010) in his final year?
If the University of Minnesota now needs a new “strategic plan” (Star Tribune, Nov. 9), why did former senior administrators receive $2.8 million in compensation (Star Tribune, Feb. 27, 2012) as they were leaving their positions?
MICHAEL MCNABB, Lakeville
• • •
Why would a new building for the state Senate need a gymnasium? (“Dayton cool to plans for Senate building,” Nov. 21.) The Legislature comes to St. Paul to make laws, not to work out. If senators feel the need to work out and stay in shape, they can get a membership at a fitness club.
Another example of spending taxpayers’ money on something not necessary.
DICK RIES, Shakopee
The Opinion section is produced by the Editorial Department to foster discussion about key issues. The Editorial Board represents the institutional voice of the Star Tribune and operates independently of the newsroom.