Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
In what way does a merit based system introduce these abuses? The school administrators already have a preference for teachers that don't cause a lot of problems and personal connections are already an important aspect of getting a teaching job (especially in good districts).
The fact that there is no metric for "merit" that works 100% of the time is not a good argument against its use. Private employers across the country use rough metrics to gauge merit every day.... Furthermore schools already employ a rough notion of "merit" when hiring, so if its good enough for hiring why isn't something similar good enough for existing teachers?
There are some objective and easy to implement measures of teacher merit that could be easily employed:
1.) Require teacher exams that test a teachers domain knowledge in the subject(s) he/she teaches. If a teacher fails they are put on probation and can retake the exam....if they continue to fail they are fired.
2.) Take biannual student evaluations.
3.) Measure student performance and rank teachers against each other within the same school/district.
etc...
Teachers hate the idea of merit based system because sitting on your butt while tenured is a lot more pleasant..... But in terms of merit based systems, I think what most people have in mind is differential pay between subjects and greater ease of removing bad teachers from the classroom rather than paying English teacher A more than English teacher B within the same school because A ranks higher under some measure of merit. The latter isn't even that common in private business because it creates issues between employees of the same rank...
Several responses:
- In #1, most states require teachers to do continuing education in order to keep their jobs - are you suggesting teacher exams replace that or be added as another layer of bureaucracy? Either way, that's less about merit pay and more about minimum standards (which already exist).
- In #2, how would evaluating students every other year somehow be a better system than the annual evaluations they currently take? The issue teachers have with this is the same - all kids do not come into your classroom with the same level of readiness and support - you would still be penalizing the teachers that work with more challenging students.
- In #3, schools aren't a boiler room phone bank. Cooperation between teachers would be more likely to yield benefits to students than competition. I don't have empirical data on this, just a modicum of common sense. Your last sentence seems to agree.
- If it is less about "paying English teacher A more than English teacher B within the same school because A ranks higher under some measure of merit", then why do two of your examples suggest doing just that?
- Finally, I'm not sure I agree with your statement about what most people have in mind. People are all over the map on this topic.
So, does the teacher get penalized for the kid that circles all B's on that exam?
I'm not sure what you are asking...obviously you're not going to look at individual exams but instead a large sample of student exams.
Quote:
Originally Posted by golfgal
What criteria will you use to rank teachers against others--who you like the best? Most states already require a subject test at minimum to get a teachers license.
Who you like the best? huh? There are a variety of objective metrics you can use to evaluate teachers and hence compare teacher performance. In terms of testing, I'm talking about routine testing not just testing to get a license..
- In #1, most states require teachers to do continuing education in order to keep their jobs...
- In #2, how would evaluating students every other year somehow be a better system than the annual evaluations they currently take? The issue teachers have with this is the same - all kids do not come into your classroom with the same level of readiness and support - you would still be penalizing the teachers that work with more challenging students.
- In #3, schools aren't a boiler room phone bank. Cooperation between teachers would be more likely to yield benefits to students than competition. I don't have empirical data on this, just a modicum of common sense. Your last sentence seems to agree.
1.) What most states require is that teachers take methodology courses here and there, but that is much different than continuing their education in their domain. Routine testing will ensure that teachers still have an active understanding of what they are supposedly teaching, it will also give teachers incentives to keep up with their domains.
2.) This just seems like a strawman...nobody that supports merit based systems would suggest that you compare the scores regardless of the student body of the classroom. What you want to measure is improvement within a given environment...
3.) Private work environments are competitive, yet people cooperate to get things done all the time. Measuring individual teacher performance is just one thing, departments, schools, districts, etc should also be measured and each of these cases you're talking about groups of teachers.
For example, individual players in a sports team are all competitive with each other, yet they all work together because they also have a common goal, namely to win the game. The same thing can be done in education...
Do you believe that sports teams would be better served if players pay was based on how long they were on the team?
1.) What most states require is that teachers take methodology courses here and there, but that is much different than continuing their education in their domain. Routine testing will ensure that teachers still have an active understanding of what they are supposedly teaching, it will also give teachers incentives to keep up with their domains.
2.) This just seems like a strawman...nobody that supports merit based systems would suggest that you compare the scores regardless of the student body of the classroom. What you want to measure is improvement within a given environment...
3.) Private work environments are competitive, yet people cooperate to get things done all the time. Measuring individual teacher performance is just one thing, departments, schools, districts, etc should also be measured and each of these cases you're talking about groups of teachers.
For example, individual players in a sports team are all competitive with each other, yet they all work together because they also have a common goal, namely to win the game. The same thing can be done in education...
Do you believe that sports teams would be better served if players pay was based on how long they were on the team?
Having come out of industry, the biggest issues I see, WRT evaluating teacher performance are that I work in isolation and my clients (students) aren't choosing my service. How do you evaluate me when you only watch me work twice a year? Can you rely on evaluations given by students who don't like the way I do things? Who don't really want to be in my class? Who have a chip on their shoulder to begin with?
The most vocal students and parents are the ones who are unhappy with what we do. I read somewhere that when we're unhappy with something, we tell 10 people and when we're happy with something we tell 3 people. The people going to my supervisor are the ones complaining.
I'll give you an example. I have a girl in one of my classes who, literally, stares intently into the corner all hour, arms folded on her chest, books closed... In an attempt to get her involved (I've tried proximity, moving her seat, talking to her, talking to her parents....) I started calling on her to answer questions (her answer was always "I don't know"). I'd make sure there were several hands up when I'd call on her because I wanted to be sure she had time to get the material. You know what I got? A reprimand for embarassing her by calling on her. So now, she sits in my room, stares intently into the corner all hour, fails every test and they want to know what *I* am going to do to get this girl to pass.
In the eyes of my administration, I get a black mark because I embarassed her and she's failing my class. In the eyes of her parents, I get a black mark because I failed to educate her AND I embarassed her. I'm sure she'd give me a black mark too just for existing from the dirty looks I get when I do manage to get her attention away from that corner. Seriously, she stares at it like she's trying to burn a hole in it with her X-ray vision. Her contempt for being in my class is palpable.
When I was in industry, I worked in the open. It was no secreat what I did, how fast I did it and the quality to which I did it. I self assessed againt my peers and they me every single day. My customers chose our services and their opinion was taken to heart in my evaluations. They were much easier to please than my current customers who come to me with very different ideas of what education is. Some expect me to spoon feed, some expect me to do it for them, some expect me to give easy grades, a few expect me to really teach them, some don't want to be there at all and are hell bent on distrupting everyone elses learning...
Teaching is not anything like industry. I really wish people would quit trying to force a square peg into a round hole. It doesn't fit.
The tenure system isn't perfect but it's needed. How many parents have to complain that I failed to educate their child who stared into the corner all hour before I get fired? How many students have to complain that lectures are boring before I'm fired? Unfortunately, it's not the people who are happy with what I do who are going to my administration. Engineering sounds better and better every single day. I really see no future in teaching if they take away the only protection we now have.
Edited to add: Atheletes also work in the public eye and they have a huge incentive to perform. Seriously, if you put the kinds of salaries atheletes get on the line in ANY profession, you'd get results. They wouldn't be worth what you paid for them but you'd get results. Again, you cannot compare atheletes to teachers. Their game plans are carefully coordinated. They are paid enough that they don't have to worry about anything. And they can self assess againts other atheletes any time they want because they don't close the door and teach.
Last edited by Ivorytickler; 12-22-2011 at 03:40 AM..
I'm not sure what you are asking...obviously you're not going to look at individual exams but instead a large sample of student exams.
Who you like the best? huh? There are a variety of objective metrics you can use to evaluate teachers and hence compare teacher performance. In terms of testing, I'm talking about routine testing not just testing to get a license..
I am the only teacher in my school who teaches chemistry. Who will you compare me to? Most teachers in my school have subjects that they are the only person who teaches it. This doesn't work in most districts. A big district might have 2-3 teachers teaching a subject. That's too small a sample set to determine anything.
In industry, I started out in a group where a tree would have been a stellar employee and I was exceptional. I moved to a group where I was run of the mill because the manager surrounded himself with highly capable people. Do I really deserve more for doing my job in the first scenario than the second? I found the second challenging. I grew there. I improved there. Yet, using your evaluation process, I should have been paid more in the first scenario.
I have no issue with subject matter tests. Most teachers don't. However, doing better/worse than the next person isn't an indicator of how well I can teach. We just need to pass and passing has to have meaning.
I'm not sure what you are asking...obviously you're not going to look at individual exams but instead a large sample of student exams.
Who you like the best? huh? There are a variety of objective metrics you can use to evaluate teachers and hence compare teacher performance. In terms of testing, I'm talking about routine testing not just testing to get a license..
1.) What most states require is that teachers take methodology courses here and there, but that is much different than continuing their education in their domain. Routine testing will ensure that teachers still have an active understanding of what they are supposedly teaching, it will also give teachers incentives to keep up with their domains.
2.) This just seems like a strawman...nobody that supports merit based systems would suggest that you compare the scores regardless of the student body of the classroom. What you want to measure is improvement within a given environment...
3.) Private work environments are competitive, yet people cooperate to get things done all the time. Measuring individual teacher performance is just one thing, departments, schools, districts, etc should also be measured and each of these cases you're talking about groups of teachers.
For example, individual players in a sports team are all competitive with each other, yet they all work together because they also have a common goal, namely to win the game. The same thing can be done in education...
Do you believe that sports teams would be better served if players pay was based on how long they were on the team?
Why so obtuse? Are you saying to supplement or replace current teacher training requirements with tests? Do you mean semi-annual rather than biannual? That would make more sense. People can only respond to what you say. Now you want to rank departments, schools, etc. - if you change the argument each time you post, you shouldn't be surprised people can't make sense of you.
Having come out of industry, the biggest issues I see, WRT evaluating teacher performance are that I work in isolation and my clients (students) aren't choosing my service. How do you evaluate me when you only watch me work twice a year? Can you rely on evaluations given by students who don't like the way I do things? Who don't really want to be in my class? Who have a chip on their shoulder to begin with?
The most vocal students and parents are the ones who are unhappy with what we do. I read somewhere that when we're unhappy with something, we tell 10 people and when we're happy with something we tell 3 people. The people going to my supervisor are the ones complaining.
I'll give you an example. I have a girl in one of my classes who, literally, stares intently into the corner all hour, arms folded on her chest, books closed... In an attempt to get her involved (I've tried proximity, moving her seat, talking to her, talking to her parents....) I started calling on her to answer questions (her answer was always "I don't know"). I'd make sure there were several hands up when I'd call on her because I wanted to be sure she had time to get the material. You know what I got? A reprimand for embarassing her by calling on her. So now, she sits in my room, stares intently into the corner all hour, fails every test and they want to know what *I* am going to do to get this girl to pass.
In the eyes of my administration, I get a black mark because I embarassed her and she's failing my class. In the eyes of her parents, I get a black mark because I failed to educate her AND I embarassed her. I'm sure she'd give me a black mark too just for existing from the dirty looks I get when I do manage to get her attention away from that corner. Seriously, she stares at it like she's trying to burn a hole in it with her X-ray vision. Her contempt for being in my class is palpable.
When I was in industry, I worked in the open. It was no secreat what I did, how fast I did it and the quality to which I did it. I self assessed againt my peers and they me every single day. My customers chose our services and their opinion was taken to heart in my evaluations. They were much easier to please than my current customers who come to me with very different ideas of what education is. Some expect me to spoon feed, some expect me to do it for them, some expect me to give easy grades, a few expect me to really teach them, some don't want to be there at all and are hell bent on distrupting everyone elses learning...
Teaching is not anything like industry. I really wish people would quit trying to force a square peg into a round hole. It doesn't fit.
The tenure system isn't perfect but it's needed. How many parents have to complain that I failed to educate their child who stared into the corner all hour before I get fired? How many students have to complain that lectures are boring before I'm fired? Unfortunately, it's not the people who are happy with what I do who are going to my administration. Engineering sounds better and better every single day. I really see no future in teaching if they take away the only protection we now have.
Edited to add: Atheletes also work in the public eye and they have a huge incentive to perform. Seriously, if you put the kinds of salaries atheletes get on the line in ANY profession, you'd get results. They wouldn't be worth what you paid for them but you'd get results. Again, you cannot compare atheletes to teachers. Their game plans are carefully coordinated. They are paid enough that they don't have to worry about anything. And they can self assess againts other atheletes any time they want because they don't close the door and teach.
Quote:"Edited to add: Atheletes also work in the public eye and they have a huge incentive to perform. Seriously, if you put the kinds of salaries atheletes get on the line in ANY profession, you'd get results. They wouldn't be worth what you paid for them but you'd get results. "
Ok, we will pay all teachers a million dollars a year, and we want results. All perfect scores on SAT's, and a whole pile of Nobel Prize winners.
Quote:"Again, you cannot compare atheletes to teachers. Their game plans are carefully coordinated."
So, you are stating that teachers cannot coordinate their 'game plan'.
Quote:"They are paid enough that they don't have to worry about anything."
I see, so if teachers are paid enough to not have to worry about anything, they would do a wonderful job.
Also, the word 'athlete' has only two 'e' vowels in its spelling. (Just an idiosyncrasy of mine, but my expectation of a teacher is that he/she can spell).
3.) Measure student performance and rank teachers against each other within the same school/district.
So, under this, criteria, developmentally disabled students would need to perform comparably to non-disabled peers, and if they don't, that's a measure of teacher performance?
Quote:
Teachers hate the idea of merit based system because sitting on your butt while tenured is a lot more pleasant...
I don't know any teachers (myself included) who oppose merit pay. I get merit pay, now, myself...we don't do tenure, don't do unions/collective bargaining, and I'm good with that. What I most often hear people opposed to is a version of merit pay where the criteria by which one is being measured is flawed/involves variables that have to do with many factors other than the teaching being done.
Can you rely on evaluations given by students who don't like the way I do things? Who don't really want to be in my class? Who have a chip on their shoulder to begin with?
Yes, you can rely on student evaluations. Student evaluations are used throughout both private and public colleges, yet they are entirely ignored in high schools, etc. I think part of this is due to the antagonistic student/teacher relationship in high school, that is, where the high school teacher feels they are in a position of ultimate authority and can derive no useful information from students...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ivorytickler
You know what I got? A reprimand for embarassing her by calling on her.
Good, you were obviously picking on the student. What you did made no sense, why in the world would calling on a student that shows no interest repeatedly to answer questions develop an interest in your class? It wouldn't, instead it creates an antagonistic relationship and that was precisely the end result.... This is precisely the sort of thing that you can learn from student evaluations....of course you'd have to look at them with an open mind.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ivorytickler
The tenure system isn't perfect but it's needed. How many parents have to complain that I failed to educate their child who stared into the corner all hour before I get fired? How many students have to complain that lectures are boring before I'm fired?
Why is it needed? Its needed because it shields teachers from complaints from parents and students? Umm....huh? If some teacher continuously gets complaints from both students and parents...isn't that reason to believe that something is going wrong in the classroom?
Also, as I said previously, you handled that child very poorly yet you believe you were right..... If you were subjected to continuous student evaluations its unlikely that you'd have such an authoritarian attitude towards your students and their parents...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ivorytickler
Again, you cannot compare atheletes to teachers.
You are missing the point, namely, that competition between teachers doesn't preclude coordination between teachers. If you focus on both the performance of schools as a whole and individual teachers then teachers have incentives to improve not only their own performance but also the performance of their school as well.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
So now, she sits in my room, stares intently into the corner all hour, fails every test and they want to know what *I* am going to do to get this girl to pass.
