Teachers: Should you be paid based on performance?

MS Math Teacher wrote:

Non-Teachers: Would you like to see your kid's teachers paid more or less based on how well they subjectively "teach" your children?

Yes. I would like to dock teacher's pay when they make stupid a$$ mistakes on homework and tests.

I would like the free market to determine how teachers are paid.

MS Math Teacher wrote:

I will leave the criteria for "performance" up to you. It can be state tests results, class passing %, whatever.

Without actual criteria spelled out for performance this is a meaningless question. I can support the concept as a concept but translating that into a framework in which performance is measured consistently, fairly, and repeatably is very difficult.

NO! NO! NO!

We must ALLLLLL be paid exactly the same no matter what subject taught, or what grade you teach. This is paramount to providing the best education available to the public.

Everyone knows that a teacher that's been there 10 years should get paid more than the teacher that's been there only 3 or 4 years. Look THEY'VE BEEN THERE 10 YEARS!!

The definition of performance is the problem here. I think even the teachers are okay with performance, but how to measure that?

Is it test scores? Well on a given year a teacher could catch a break with a group of smart kids or kids good/comfortable with taking tests. (I think we probably give kids too many standardized tests). If the kids score well, they might do so regardless of how good the teacher is (assuming the teacher is not the Cameron Diaz character in that stupid teacher movie).

I am not sure how kids are assigned to teachers, but that could become a sticking point. Does the principal assign the kids randomly? Does the principal try to "even out" the classes?

One could look at a standardized test and look at the improvement from one year to the next. However, that improvement can be a result of nothing the teacher did (again within reason).

Evaluating teachers through observation is time consuming and expensive and could be highly subjective.

I think an economist could come in and figure out a set of measures that would come up with a ranking.

Then here is the radical part---every two years, any teacher ranking in the bottom 10% for those 2 years would be released by that school. The teacher would be free to find another school. For instance, a pretty darn good teacher could be in a school with a lot of great teachers. Sort of like being a Kenyan marathoner--you might be #10 in Kenya and yet #15 in the world.

As a teacher, I also think that teacher who mail it in or do a shitty job should be disciplined and/or helped to improve and if they don't then they should be let go. Of course, I feel the exact same way about salespeople, customer service, all variety of business people, etc....

On the other hand, student achievement is the product of so much more than just one teacher. I spent three years teaching French in one of the most affluent communities in my state and I can tell you that teaching those kids that subject, I would be guaranteed to get huge bonuses. These kids have great role models outside of school, complete parent support and they chose to study French because they were interested in it. Of course my kids are going to do great. On the other hand, if I was in the inner city, would my students reach the same level of advanced knowledge? Heck no. What about teachers who deal with students who have recently immigrated and don't speak much if any English and they are tasked with teaching these kids math and science?

It's very complicated and there are tons of way that our education system can be fixed, but I don't think that giving teacher bonuses (or firing them I guess) is the way to do it.

mstars wrote:

As a teacher, I also think that teacher who mail it in or do a shitty job should be disciplined and/or helped to improve and if they don't then they should be let go.

I hope you're more coherent when communicating with your students in French. God help them.

There are many problems with any evaluation system, as luv2run has stated. However, the real problem is bigger than that. Some classes have measures in place (standardized tests) while others do not. Some have a way of measuring growth, while others do not.

Under the OP's suggestion, how do you fit PE teachers into any formula? How do you measure teaching ability in the arts (a very subjective department)? Do they get a pass, or do we develop some matrix that is fair to both them and to the other teachers with whom they are compared? What about foreign languages, which do not hve any prior measures of students? Do we limit the evaluation to just the Core 4 (Math, English, Science and Social Studies)?

The "pay for performance" is just a way to help slash school budgets by tying raises to statistics that the majority of the teachers cannot meet because the way students are taught is extremely flawed in the US.

The best public school system in the world is Finland. The Finns start by only sending the top 10% of college students to get the required masters degrees in education. Teachers are seen as professionals on par with lawyers, engineers and bankers. Then, the schools are all very small. Class size is generally 15-20 per teacher. The curriculum and teaching methods are controlled by the teachers at the school. Teachers are supportive of their fellow teachers and have the freedom to decide what the best teaching techniques are for their particular classes. Elementary school teachers let kids play a lot during the day and only have class time when they think the kids are ready to learn. They also spend a lot of time outdoors doing learning games instead of hours pinned to a desk. There are very few administrators and no regular standardized testing. Kids who fall behind are given special attention, frequently one on one intensive tutoring. Recent immigrants get lots of attention thanks to "positive discrimination" funding. All the children have extensive social support available to them, from free meals to health care to social workers. Children who are hungry, sick or need counseling are quickly given whatever they need so as not to disrupt their education.

Of course, this will never happen in the US because the US education system is not set up to have all the children excel. It is set up to weed out the smart ones and warehouse the rest until they are ready to get jobs or go to vocational school.

We also educate (or at least attempt to) all of our population to some degree. Not so in many of the countries that supposedly rank higher than us.

Will people ever stop with this BS about "Oh, there is no perfect way to measure performance"?

Guess what folks? There is no perfect way to measure performance in ANY job but there are reasonable ways and paying for performance is fundamental to getting improved performance. Yes, it IS that simple.

Otherwise, let's pay every administrative assistant the same as every other, every lawyer the same as every other, every engineer the same as every other, every executive the same as every other...because, after all there is no way to perfectly measure performance.

Teachers should get stock options.

For that matter so should Military Generals. I mean how else are they going to be motivated? Before Patton made his breakout drive in France he should have demanded that he have an option to own 3% of France. That seems fair enough don't you think? Unfortunately our military doesn't understand the value of unleashing the force of the free market.

Gonna have to call BS wrote:

Will people ever stop with this BS about "Oh, there is no perfect way to measure performance"?

Guess what folks? There is no perfect way to measure performance in ANY job but there are reasonable ways and paying for performance is fundamental to getting improved performance. Yes, it IS that simple.

Otherwise, let's pay every administrative assistant the same as every other, every lawyer the same as every other, every engineer the same as every other, every executive the same as every other...because, after all there is no way to perfectly measure performance.

If it IS that simple, please inform all us what are the reasonable ways to assess teacher job performance. I have multiple teachers in my family. Some teach at private schools, others public. While a few teach in low performing schools where the kids come from difficult circumstances - single parent homes, live with grandparents or various other friends/family, homeless, drug addicted parents, parent in jail, parent involved in prostituition, abusive families, immigrant families that speak no English, and so forth. Other family members teach at affluent public/private schools where the kids come from homes where there are two parents in the home, educated parents, access to all the latest educational tools, computers, and tutors, parents are involved in their school's extracurricular activities, education, and guidance.

The teachers in the low income schools pay for all the supplies in the classroom, pay for their children to attend field trips, stay after school and come in early to provide the children with extra help, yet these children still fall short of their affluent peers. Should that teacher be penalized for being willing to work in a school plagued by poverty?

On the other hand, the other teachers are overwhelmed by the number of volunteers, receive tons of supplies and gifts, and can count on the children being in school and doing their assignments. Should they be rewarded for teaching at a school where grades and success on standardized schools is almost guaranteed? (This doesn't even include the teachers at private schools that don't have to deal with the state standardized testing system.)

What are the reasonable standards?

Gonna have to call BS wrote:

Will people ever stop with this BS about "Oh, there is no perfect way to measure performance"?

Guess what folks? There is no perfect way to measure performance in ANY job but there are reasonable ways and paying for performance is fundamental to getting improved performance. Yes, it IS that simple.

Otherwise, let's pay every administrative assistant the same as every other, every lawyer the same as every other, every engineer the same as every other, every executive the same as every other...because, after all there is no way to perfectly measure performance.

Lawyers win or lose cases and engineers either design well or they don't. Its much easier to measure their direct performance.

However, teachers would have to be indirectly measured. Where you would measure them by how their students do not what they directly do.

The problem as stated previously is that there are other factors that greatly influence the academic performance of students. Mostly which are socio-economically related.

no, same salary all teachers. Ï like equality.

This is going to sound half baked because I just thought of it, but...

How about this - tie compensation closely to exams and other objective performance measures. Make this a nationwide thing. This would be really crappy and fewer people would want to become teachers. With a smaller supply of employees and it being harder to succeed, the remaining teachers who are really good at their jobs would command higher salaries.

I'm not seeing a downside here. On the plus side we weed out the teachers who just don't have it. Could that mean some very nice or smart people don't make the cut? Yes. That happens in life and in other professions.

Maybe we can come up with some kind of supporting roles for them. Kind of like how in a hospital the doctor makes the big bucks but assumes more liability. Then he has support staff - nurses, physician assistants, etc. You could have the teachers making bigger bucks, taking on the test score liability. Then they could have assistant teachers too.

In this way we're really elevating the teaching profession to one on par with doctors, lawyers, etc. as someone else mentioned above.

I say yes, definitely, pay me based on my performance - and by that I mean the decisions I make in the classroom. My planning, lessons, interventions, etc.

But you'd better not base my pay on the F'ers in my class who don't do what they're asked to do, whose parents don't follow up at home, and who don't attend on a regular basis.

See, I could have the perfect lesson plans, every day, all year. It could be standards-based, differentiated, efficient and engaging, etc., etc., but if the students don't do what I ask them, or if they're simply not there to receive the instruction, I would like to disassociate myself from those students' test results.

Otherwise, I suggest you apply the same logic to doctors. Dock their pay every time a patient develops diabetes or heart disease due to overeating and lack of exercise. Do the same for every patient who develops lung cancer because of smoking. I mean hell, it's the doctors job to convince his/her patients to lead better lifestyles, right?

disagree completely wrote:

If it IS that simple, please inform all us what are the reasonable ways to assess teacher job performance.

The same way I am assessed at my job - my boss determines whether I'm doing good work. It really is that simple. The boss can use whatever quantitative and qualititative criteria he or she wants.

Of course the boss usually answers to a bigger boss, so at some point if the overall company's performance is not there, they put someone new in charge.

Do that. Put the principal's balls on the line, and then give him the authority to put teachers' balls on the line. That's how it works at my job, why shouldn't it be the case where you work?

I think it's a good idea. What taxpayer wouldn't want to pay their child's teacher $1.50/hour?