Man, the lunch discussion got pretty heated today when we started talking about a proposal to expand and revise the teacher evaluation system with three graduated levels of "satisfactory" ratings: basic, proficient and distinguished.
Arguments against: It's the first step to merit pay (paying teachers based on performance). It would be too difficult to be distinguished. Becoming distinguished (or even proficient) would mean spending more hours outside class and more of the teacher's own money.
Arguments for: It's an incentive to get better instead of everyone being rated simply "satisfactory" or "unsatisfactory" (very rare). It recognizes areas where teachers already are excelling. It is a model for performance-based compensation (merit pay) if that becomes a reality, which is possible at some point.
In a sign that I sometimes go against the grain, I am in favor of this new model. Basically, I think educators can do better, and I want to do better. Right now, there is no incentive. I get the same "satisfactory" evaluation as someone who does not work as hard or want to be better. Others who are better than me don't get that acknowledgment either.
I don't think we should all be ranked, but, honestly, I think it is time that those of us who work hard and exceed the minimum standard are recognized and valued for it. I'm not asking for a rasie based on my willingness or ability to be better. I just want to be known for doing so and labeled as such by my employer. We should strive to be as good as we can be, not just good enough.
I was pretty disappointed with the cynical and pessimistic responses I heard from the extended group of Joint Chiefs. I am as much of a Unionista as the next person -- moreso than some -- but I don't see how we're giving up any of our union rights by accepting the work of a committee that has toiled for two years and that was composed of teachers, administrators and union representatives.
My view on "merit pay" is that it should be avoided. Simply put, it's too hard to determine the measurements by which the pay will be allocated. That's a whole other post here, so I will save it.
Those who post discussion: Please avoid making this about merit pay. It's not there -- yet. Find at least another reasonable argument to make. Let the online arguing begin.
-- Wenatchee, Wash.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
6 comments:
I agree with Loganite in that teachers should not get raises based on a performance assessment. First of all, it is an inconsistant system. For instance, a distinguished teacher teacher who is being evaluated with his/her class being especially rowdy does not get a fair chance against a teacher who threatens to flunk every last weenie in the class if they don't behave for the one evaluation day. Like I said, the system is far too inconsistent. Now I have a question for Loganite, I understand that you would like to be recognized for your superb teaching but for what purpose? I only ask this because when you chose teaching for your career you plan to stay with it for your entire life, correct? So what is the point of recognition if you will not be dawning another job besides teaching? My second to last question is... on a scale from 1-1000, how would you rate yourself as a teacher? Also, out of all of the teachers at your school what number would you rank yourself on the depth chart of teachers?
Bad night
Late night Blogger
I think this issue comes down to a few basic ideas: pride, fairness, and merit pay.
Having to be distinguished with a distinction beyond satisfactory smacks of pride to me. We, as educators, understand the lack of honors and rewards within our chosen profession. Getting a gold star on an evaluation does not necessarily equate to an individual needing or wanting to improve. That internal motivation is the sign of a true professional (with the students' best interests in mind). A new evaluation form is not guaranteeing that people will improve. That's a personal choice, one I believe in, but a personal choice nevertheless.
The evaluation system in place is simplistic; however, procedures are in place to discipline and force improvement on teachers but is rarely used. This is an administrative failure, not the teachers' failure. We should not bear the burden of their failure. Nothing stops a teacher from improving except the teacher.
Besides, how do we adequately and fairly assess whether a teacher is deserving of merit pay. The classes one teaches can affect the appearance of success in addition to the subject matter one teaches. Do we only provide merit pay for core subjects? Do we base it on test scores? Do we look at student improvement? Do we identify teachers who teach specific classes? How many evaluations determine a fair assessment? These are but a few of the many questions that need to be answered.
Also, does this evaluation fairly assess what constitutes a good teacher? There are unmeasurable intangibles that can't be quantified at all. Additionally, there are inclusions on the form that indicate a teacher can't speak unfavorably of the district or its policies, a gag order of sorts. Other such evaluative criteria are included that I couldn't personally support.
I have to admit that this type of form can lead to competition rather than collaboration, especially if merit pay becomes a reality.
I guess I came into teaching knowing the responsibility of self-improvement is solely upon my shoulders. I also realize that teachers are not paid their worth with the increasing responsibilities and lessening assistance. We are expected to parent as well as teach.
This form also does not improve or solve the real problems: time to collaborate, time to improve, the increasing class sizes, the added responsibilities, and the falling salaries (when weighed against inflation and pay freezes).
what is the solution to evaluation of teachers who are past their first few years and know that they really have to 'mess up' in order to be fired? it seems there are many young teachers who can't 'break' into the profession because of this precise problem.
It is an administrative failure when the process is not followed; however, there is no merit to the claim that teachers can't find jobs because of this. This state is in such dire need of teachers that positions are available. Granted, some may have to begin in positions not initially desired, but openings are there. The public and press should cry out for accountability--not just for teachers and test scores--but with holding the officials responsible and a revamping of the entire system.
The current certfication process and low starting salaries contribute more to young people not entering the profession than anything else. During my first year as a full time teacher (and coach), I qualified for food stamps and other government assistance. Though I did not accept it, this reveals the low status and priority teaching has become as a profession. I had two degrees, a minor, and two different endorsements and still barely got by on the starting wage. Scary!
i do agree that most teachers are eternally motivated to reach as many students as they can and are willing to do almost anything to help a student. i just believe that some competition may be good for the system(a bit more like business). it just seems that the system could be so much more streamlined.
Competition in education is the exact opposite of what you want. You want to see collaboration.
If teachers have to compete with one another, many problems will arise. Effective lessons and practices may become guarded and secretive. Trying to teach the "good" classes may become a wrestling match. The flow of ideas may sputter and possibly halt. A cynical view, yes, but a possibility if we must compete for pay. The students will suffer and teaching will as well.
We need to be cooperative collaborators who try to keep the students needs in focus at all times. If we begin to squabble because of a forced competition, the youth will bear the brunt of this.
I'm not sure what you mean by a "streamlined" system. What is that?
Post a Comment