Teachers: Should you be paid based on performance?

C'Mon...who's going to help me with Illir and Bernardo???

This is why I'm pretty much okay with the current pay scale based off of years experience. There are very few teachers who are long time teachers who AREN'T good at what they do. We are trying to reform teacher pay for a small percentage of experienced teachers who aren't "good" teachers, ie. they're lazy or don't care about teaching anymore.

I'm all for firing of teachers for inappropriate conduct. Although that is such a fine line between giving teachers due process when facing allegations and protecting teacher's jobs when they've acted unprofessionally. There are just as many unreported stories of teachers who are accused of misconduct by angry parents and students, with no basis other than they want to harm the teacher because they gave them a bad grade or told sharply told a kid to "shut up and sit down". I couldn't do my job as well as I could if I felt that I could be fired at anytime without due process for a baseless accusation by a parent or student.

We shouldn't be trying to fire or get rid of bad teachers, the current problem we face is that too many teachers quit in their first three years because they're not supported. I haven't the time to look up teacher retention in their first three years, but it isn't good at all. "Bad" teachers are almost exclusively teachers who aren't experienced, and who aren't supported in their first few years. They become frustrated because... well, they suck as their job. They either keep sucking at their job collecting a pay check, or they quit. And I feel confident in stating that there are VERY few teachers who are okay with showing up to work everyday and running and awful classroom. A large large percentage of teachers WANT to be good teachers, and they aren't motivated by money. They want to be good teachers, because when they wanted to be teachers in the first place, they wanted to be good at what they do: help students learn.

Let me paint everyone the scenario of my current middle school. It's currently ranked in the bottom 7% of ALL schools, private, public, and charter in Texas.

- School is labeled as Unacceptable

- Teacher work loads increase, more paper work, more pressure on testing, less time is given for grading papers, contacting parents, etc.

- Veteran teachers are going to transfer to another school, or seek employment elsewhere with less stess

- School is stuck hiring brand new teachers with no experience (some are alternative certified meaning they've never been in a classroom before)

- These new teachers are completely unprepared to deal with classroom management, lesson plan writing, dealing with parents

- Teachers, new and veteran, become overwhelmed, frustrated with unrealistic expectations... and "give up".

- Everyone fails, school is labeled as unacceptable, restart cycle with new administration and new teachers.

The biggest issue in my failing school is teacher retention. EVERY year they have to start all over from scratch with new teachers with little to no experience. They become overwhelmed and either quit or move on to a better environment.

Quite honestly I think it would be something if they were to offer pay scale based on how under preforming a school is. Since you are expected to "work more", maybe they should be paid more. It would be a way to actually attract veteran, experienced teachers to schools who NEED them. Because lets be honest, EVERYONE sucks ass teaching their first year. You would have a greater chance of keeping new teachers in the profession if their first teaching job wasn't the worst school in the area.

I think it'd be something else too, if schools were required to block off a certain percentage of their teaching staff as Veteran, Developing, and New teachers. Require that 1/3 of the staff be brand new teachers at EACH school, another 1/3 have 5-10 yrs experience, and have the last 1/3 have 10+ years. That would you could distribute the "experienced' teachers across schools and create a support system where good teachers are supporting developing and new teachers. Or at least offer different pay bonuses to encourage schools and teachers to distribute themselves across schools.

... That's just my four cents on the issue. There's no "right fix", I believe school reform needs to be done on a school-by-school level with parents, members of the community, and teachers working together to meet the needs of that particular school and community, everyone needs to be on the same page. This is why Charter Schools are more successful I think, they get everyone involved on board. The parents want their kids to be there, and teachers want to be there. Public schools are not the same population. You have to CONVINCE or SELL education to people whom may not want it to begin with.

(please don't discredit my post because of typos y'all, I'm not proof reading this, it's way too much. Be and adult and infer what I meant in my sentences if it's not grammatically correct or whatever.)

Nice post, Adam. (IMHO)

Couple of things:

1) I agree with most of what you said.

2) I particularly agree with the notion of paying folks more for making a difference in underperforming schools.

3) It seems as if whenever the subject of pay based on performance or performance ratings for teachers comes up there is a tendency among many to jump to "We shouldn't be trying to fire or get rid of teachers" or "I couldn't do my job as well as I could if I felt that I could be fired at anytime". These are different topics. Not entirely unrelated, but different. Note the OP's subject line - "Should you(r) be paid based on performance?"

Define limited?

Some things are obvious wrote:

This whole debate is pretty silly.

I honestly do not think that any person of even moderate intelligence could think that:

1) Every teacher is the same - there are no good teachers or bad teachers.

or

2) While there may be good and bad teachers it is simply impossible to figure out which is which.

It strikes me as equally obvious that no person of even moderate intelligence could think that one size fits all - that it is even possible to come up with a three paragraph description of a performance evaluation and compensation plan that would perfectly fit every teacher scenario across the country.

This is the problem. Nobody in education thinks either #1 or #2. What we do not like is that people think standardized tests are an accurate measure of quality teaching, or that growth measures are applicable to all subjects.

steve martin wrote:

Define limited?

Limited: Of insufficient depth and breadth to bring useful insights to the discussion.

Define subjective.

Gonna have to call BS wrote:

steve martin wrote:

Define limited?

Limited: Of insufficient depth and breadth to bring useful insights to the discussion.

Define subjective.

I guess that defines you, since you have no productive experience as a classroom teacher.

That is the dictionary.com definition. Mine is much easier to say than what is written there.

Subjective: Beginning any argument or evaluation with a bias that skews any productive involvement in the discussion or evaluation process. That would describe you perfectly.

Teachers should be paid on years experience.

I believe that there should be a "Mastery" status level that teachers can obtain that would lead to extended contracts and a significant pay increase.

To reach a National/State Mastery status level of teaching

1. Teachers must have 10 years of teaching experience

2. Teachers may apply after 7 years of experience

3. For 3 years teachers are observed in classroom by administrators, teachers, and independent contractors for a set amount of time. Criteria will be determined to observe "effectiveness" in classroom.

4. Teachers MUST obtain a Master's Degree in relevant field

5. Teachers must participate in X amount of relevant professional development hours and lead X amount of development sessions.

... This would do a few things:

1. Encourage teachers to stay teachers, make a career out of it.

2. Encourage teachers to continue THEIR education, and broaden their teaching knowledge, and collaborate with other educators.

3. Would not reward teachers for simply "being teachers" through years of experience.

If you are a track/XC coach your athletes should get faster every year you coach them. If they don't you should get fired because if you are a good coach you will make them get faster. Also if your runners get faster the coach should get a raise if they get especially faster.

Also if you cut athletes or if athletes get injured so they can't run, that should count against the coach getting a raise because the coach's job is to make everyone run faster and not just the stars.

Teaching should be the same way.

steve martin wrote:

Gonna have to call BS wrote:

Limited: Of insufficient depth and breadth to bring useful insights to the discussion.

Define subjective.

I guess that defines you, since you have no productive experience as a classroom teacher.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/subjective

That is the dictionary.com definition. Mine is much easier to say than what is written there.

Subjective: Beginning any argument or evaluation with a bias that skews any productive involvement in the discussion or evaluation process. That would describe you perfectly.

I hope that you are aware that posting brilliant stuff like "define limited" and "I guess that defines you" makes it seem as if you are trying to make teachers look bad. No worries though. I think that most folks (including me) have a much higher opinion of teachers than one would pick up in reading your posts.

Now if only you were capable of actually addressing the ideas that I put forth rather than retreating into "clever" rhetoric land.

We shall see.

Eezy Peezey wrote:

Also if you cut athletes or if athletes get injured so they can't run, that should count against the coach getting a raise because the coach's job is to make everyone run faster and not just the stars.

Teaching should be the same way.

Okay, well you can't "cut" kids out of your classroom. And in your scenario how should the coach be evaluated with the kids that he can't cut and refuse to run? They show up to practice every day and sit on the ground. How should the coach be evaluated then?

What about the kid who transfers on your team right before the district meet, who hasn't ran a mile in his life? You're accountable for his performance too? Or what if your top athlete transfers to another school right before the State meet?

steve martin wrote:

dotato wrote:

it is simple.

1. don't be a dick to parents,

2. participate in PLC,

3. one year of instruction equals one year of growth, as determined by MAP Assessments for k-9 and state level achievement assessment for 10-12. 10-12 Secondary gets a bit tougher, which why I support cohort teaching/learning over differentiated instruction at the this level,

4. provide effective mentoring, measured by using district provided time to assist non-tenured teacher skill development.

5. proof of content mastery and continuing learning.

see?

How do you measure growth for PE classes? Band? Art? Foreign languages? Home Economics?

Fair question. I would argue all those non-core areas don't deserve to be paid the same as a chemistry, biology, or math teacher. Second, I would suggest the same cohort approach as secondary level assessments. It is not that difficult. Notice that assessment is one of FIVE factors of performance here, I'm not arguing that an x period of growth be the predominant factor for evaluation, just that its in there. MAP testing is industry standard, so whether or not someone can go from running a half mile to a mile, not being able to read sheet music to a recital, and going from no SL ability to some should be fairly simple to design. Art (distinct from art theory) and home economics aren't valid areas of instruction. That they're part of our education system is laughable.

I like school too.. wrote:

HAHA nice try. I call BS. What school district do you work for? No regular teacher makes that amount no matter what state you work at. Teacher salary amounts are public informaion and you can find that information online. All teachers in our schools make beween 32K-65K principas between 70K-85K, and our super intendent makes 90K. I live in Washington State which is one of the better paying states for teachers as well. In Montana the beggining teacher starts out at a ridiculous 28K. Can you imagine what this will be after taxes?

You are not a teacher and you do not make that amount of money, I guarantee that. If you were a teacher, you would not be bragging about it and supporting the bashing of teachers. Nice try though.

There is nothing in my post that is untrue. In addition, our district is nowhere near the highests paid in the county (we are about 1/3 of the way down the list). I AM a teacher and I've posted enough personal information on this site over the years that anyone who is slightly curious could easily figure out who I am.

My wife tells me that I should clarify that the school district PAYS 92k for my services. This includes my salary, 1k stipend for a masters degree, about 8k for medical, and an 8% matching contribution to our state pension fund. My actual salary is in the mid 70s. Like the beginning teachers in Montana, I made 28k my first year as well.

The fact that I said I was sitting at home on a Thursday afternoon at 2:52 on letsrun does not mean in anyway that I was bashing teachers. If you must know, I've been spending mornings with the municipal water district in a neighbooring city as part of an internship that I've taken through the county where teachers can shadow people who are actually using the skills that we teach. I've been out at the sewage treatment plant, monitoring groundwater, taking samples of the city drinking water supply. I've also been working 1-4 hours daily on curriculum for next year and re-organizing my classroom. I didn't say I sat on my fat lazy ass during the summer, soaking up taxpayer dollars.

I feel lucky to work for my current employer. I have an awesome principal and AD. I bust my ass for them and for my students. I started the AP Bio program at our school (before handing it off to another teacher). I am currently getting ready to start an AP environmental science program. I stepped up to the plate to serve as the student activities director for 2 years. My bosses recognize the work I put in for the school and I'm sure would give me a performance based pay raise if they could, but they can't. What they give me instead is unwavering support. When smart board technology came out, I was the second teacher in our town to get one. When the school district decided to develop the land to the east of our football stadium into athletic fields, the administration allowed me to design in a permanent layout for an on campus cross country course (including the fact that they built a hill for me). My athletic director is currently trying to help me raise money for an all weather track.

What I OBJECT to is to the teachers unions who make it seem like teaching in 2012 is the same as mining coal in 1885. It is not. The old excuse that we can't control the raw materials (students we work with) is facile and disingenuous. It is true that we cannot control the students we get, but it is easy to track the progress those students make in any given school year or with any given teacher. The myth propogated by CTA and other teachers unions that we are not respected is a bunch of hooey as well. While walking around with the city sewer worker the other day, a pedestrian and friend of the worker asked me if I was in training to work for the city. I replied that I was a teacher doing an internship. The pedestrian lady then proceeded to thank me for being a teacher, saying that she knows it's a hard job.

I OBJECT to teachers who don't take their professional obligations seriously and make lame excuses for their lack of effort. I shared a store room with a shi++y teacher for 10 years. We both taught Earth Science (he taught chem as well). Many days, his lesson planning consisted of sauntering through the store room that connects our two classes, looking at the lesson plans on my board, and cruising back to his room AS HIS CLASS WAS STARTING. His test scores for Earth Science were consistantly 20 points lower than mine. His students chemistry scores were consistantly the worst in the county. Our principal would have fired this guy years ago if she could have, but she coundn't. There is no way that you can tell me that the standards test our students take didn't give at least a partially accurate picture of the difference in teaching performance between me and my former colleague.

I DO NOT THINK that I am the best teacher in the world, country, state, county, or even in my own school (I would put myself in the top 5 out of 38). I do know that I am a good teacher who works hard and would love to see merrit based pay.

Adam Prime wrote:

Eezy Peezey wrote:

Also if you cut athletes or if athletes get injured so they can't run, that should count against the coach getting a raise because the coach's job is to make everyone run faster and not just the stars.

Teaching should be the same way.

Okay, well you can't "cut" kids out of your classroom. And in your scenario how should the coach be evaluated with the kids that he can't cut and refuse to run? They show up to practice every day and sit on the ground. How should the coach be evaluated then?

What about the kid who transfers on your team right before the district meet, who hasn't ran a mile in his life? You're accountable for his performance too? Or what if your top athlete transfers to another school right before the State meet?

He should be evaluated on everyone. If he can't motivate the kids who won't run it's his fault and he should be held accountable. If people transfer in or out, those are the breaks. If he can't make everyone run faster he's not doing his job.

Adam Prime wrote:

There are very few teachers who are long time teachers who AREN'T good at what they do.

This isn't remotely true.

What if they have dumb kids?

I would like to see you paid less and the teachers paid more

Cut the lazy b@stards holidays though

For all of you posting on this thread, calling for a significant shift in teacher compensation - toward a performance based model - why don't you visit the military compensation thread I started and take the same stance toward them: gov't employees paid based on rank and experience (no performance, value-added measures) only. A captain with 10 yrs experience gets paid the same as... every other captain with 10 years experience.

You'd be amazed at the lack of voices demanding performance-based pay, or - my favorite - "whatever the free market decides" pay schemes.

yep im a teacher wrote:

For all of you posting on this thread, calling for a significant shift in teacher compensation - toward a performance based model - why don't you visit the military compensation thread I started and take the same stance toward them: gov't employees paid based on rank and experience (no performance, value-added measures) only. A captain with 10 yrs experience gets paid the same as... every other captain with 10 years experience.

You'd be amazed at the lack of voices demanding performance-based pay, or - my favorite - "whatever the free market decides" pay schemes.

A squared away soldier will advance through the ranks faster than a crappy one. Your argument lacks merit.

yep im a teacher wrote:

For all of you posting on this thread, calling for a significant shift in teacher compensation - toward a performance based model - why don't you visit the military compensation thread I started ....

Did you really just direct folks to your military comparison thread where you were completely owned and basically got laughed off of your own thread?

Seriously?

OMFG!