CoachB wrote:
A squared away soldier will advance through the ranks faster than a crappy one. Your argument lacks merit.
I don't know, dude. By the time I had 10 years in, I had earned two master's degrees, reading certification, and National Board Certification, as well as 15 additional graduate hours.
I'm now at the top "rank" in my district - Class 7, with 15 years experience. There are only a handful of other teachers in this class.
So how is this different?
Recognizer of Ignorance wrote:
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!
So you have no rebuttal, is what you're saying. Double standard, bro. Double standard...
That's what i thought... you got nothing. Bottom line, there is a double standard when it comes to calling for a performance-based, value-added system of compensation for teachers, yet not for the military.
Both are paid appropriately, using the same rank and experience system.
However, if you're calling for compensation reform for one set of public employees (teachers) you ought to be doing it for all, including the military.
Otherwise, you're a fraud and have selective principles.
I think Parents who suck should pay higher property taxes, that way Teachers are compensated for having to teach the spawn of retards
Adam Prime wrote:
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.
...
How does this make sense? In my first year of teaching, I taught all the math classes of a small school. The school had averaged approximately 52% in the previous 4 years on province-wide, standardized math tests. My first year resulted in an average of 71% on the same tests, which was maintained for the next 3 years until I moved somewhere else.
Good thing that the guy I replaced, a teacher with about 12 years experience (and he was also well-regarded) was getting paid the highest of our 10-year pay scale, and I was clearly a better teacher, but got paid the lowest of our 10-year pay scale because I was new.
Sandowski was. They pay well at that University. Monster!
randomcoach wrote:
How does this make sense? In my first year of teaching, I taught all the math classes of a small school. The school had averaged approximately 52% in the previous 4 years on province-wide, standardized math tests. My first year resulted in an average of 71% on the same tests, which was maintained for the next 3 years until I moved somewhere else.
Good thing that the guy I replaced, a teacher with about 12 years experience (and he was also well-regarded) was getting paid the highest of our 10-year pay scale, and I was clearly a better teacher, but got paid the lowest of our 10-year pay scale because I was new.
How do you know you were better? You didn't teach the same kids. Who's to say that you would've done any better in the previous four years?
Also, how do you that the test hasn't changed? Even slight variances can affect results.
Bottom line? You're looking at one variable, and one that isn't really that reliable or valid - the apples to oranges thing.
You realize that teaching is more than test scores, right? How do you propose wages be determined?
The book Freakonomics deals directly with paying teachers based on student performance. Listen to the podcast:
yeah sure pal wrote:
How do you know you were better? You didn't teach the same kids. Who's to say that you would've done any better in the previous four years?
Also, how do you that the test hasn't changed? Even slight variances can affect results.
Bottom line? You're looking at one variable, and one that isn't really that reliable or valid - the apples to oranges thing.
You realize that teaching is more than test scores, right? How do you propose wages be determined?
I'm pretty sure his 4 year average of 52%, ranging from 49% to 55%, compared to my 4 year average of 70%, ranging from 68% to 72% clearly shows that students learned more curriculum in my classes. The course did not change, nor did the format of tte exam, nor did the provincial averages in those 8 years.
I might not be a better teacher, but my students definitely do better on tests. I would support free market salaries.
randomcoach wrote:
yeah sure pal wrote:How do you know you were better? You didn't teach the same kids. Who's to say that you would've done any better in the previous four years?
Also, how do you that the test hasn't changed? Even slight variances can affect results.
Bottom line? You're looking at one variable, and one that isn't really that reliable or valid - the apples to oranges thing.
You realize that teaching is more than test scores, right? How do you propose wages be determined?
I'm pretty sure his 4 year average of 52%, ranging from 49% to 55%, compared to my 4 year average of 70%, ranging from 68% to 72% clearly shows that students learned more curriculum in my classes. The course did not change, nor did the format of tte exam, nor did the provincial averages in those 8 years.
I might not be a better teacher, but my students definitely do better on tests. I would support free market salaries.
The point is YOU DIDN'T TEACH THE SAME KIDS....so how can you truly say you did better.... You have no idea what type of kids the previous teacher had or what support he was given compared to you. Odds are you probably are a better teacher but you cannot say that for certain.
I'm all for a system that puts in test scores as part of the overall raise format. However, as the one and only criteria, I don't think so. It would end up being a disaster for education.
The poorer systems would make it almost impossible for teachers to get a raise and the richer systems would make it much easier thus creating a massive imbalance in education geared towards the richest students.
Speak it loud ummmmmmmmmmmmmmm, speak it baby....
CoachB wrote:
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.
It sounds like you had bad administrators, it is their responsibility to remove those teachers. Teachers have due process, a good thing, so administrators have to spend time attempting to help them get better, they don't have time, they let it slide. The admins fault, not the teachers. If no tells you you are bad how do you improve?
Have we reached consensus on teacher pay for performance?
In college we have academic ranks. If we don't move up, we stop getting pay raises. High schools should do the same. This would do a lot to establish credibility with the tax- payers.
The system is not perfect, but it does work to some degree. We have had a number of faculty not get promoted to full professor who clearly did not deserve the rank. We also have had a number of faculty let go who clearly deserved to be let go. It wasn't that costly to the tax-payers either.
The downside is there have been some big-time suck-ups who have rose to the top like a shot. And, we have had a few competent professionals who have not made full professor. But, no system is perfect. All in all, this system is more accurate than the high school system of promoting everyone.
As an educator I want to see teachers paid well. However, I resent the unions using the best of their profession to get pay raises for the worst of their profession, and I resent the unions using chronic shortages in key areas to get pay raises for teachers in areas for which there is a huge surplus of candidates trying to get in.
WE also get evaluated by students. This is an imperfect system, but has been wisely used by our administration. During the year when I made full professor, I got roasted by a particular class. half liked me, and half hated me. Yet, I had a consistent track record, and our administration takes a variety of data into consideration. We have had faculty who consistently score at the very bottom on student evaluations. Generally they are miserable teachers, and don't get tenure.
somali pirate wrote:
Have we reached consensus on teacher pay for performance?
I think everyone wants it, but we cannot agree on a way to define and determine what performance looks like. At least, in a way that is fair, impartial, and takes in account all the variables.
I like what someone else said earlier in the thread, "You know good teaching when you see it". I agree. If there needs to be a way to pay people to professionally evaluate "good teaching when they see it". I think other professions where they are paid on performance, that performance is often times visual and easy to see. Teaching is often done behind closed doors and we only see the results, and not everything that goes into it.
Teaching needs to be observed more instead of relying on the raw data. Teachers do the same thing, we know more about a student's performance by looking at their work rather than relying on the grade.
I think teachers would feel more pressure to not slip into "lazy teaching" if they knew they were being observed more often. I was observed by my assistant principal who was my appraiser, a total of 3 times the entire school year. Each time for about ~45 minutes. My principal came into my classroom ONCE. Between the two of the, do we really think they know how good or bad I am of a teacher?
Adam Prime wrote:
somali pirate wrote:Have we reached consensus on teacher pay for performance?
I think everyone wants it, but we cannot agree on a way to define and determine what performance looks like. At least, in a way that is fair, impartial, and takes in account all the variables.
I like what someone else said earlier in the thread, "You know good teaching when you see it". I agree. If there needs to be a way to pay people to professionally evaluate "good teaching when they see it". I think other professions where they are paid on performance, that performance is often times visual and easy to see. Teaching is often done behind closed doors and we only see the results, and not everything that goes into it.
Teaching needs to be observed more instead of relying on the raw data. Teachers do the same thing, we know more about a student's performance by looking at their work rather than relying on the grade.
I think teachers would feel more pressure to not slip into "lazy teaching" if they knew they were being observed more often. I was observed by my assistant principal who was my appraiser, a total of 3 times the entire school year. Each time for about ~45 minutes. My principal came into my classroom ONCE. Between the two of the, do we really think they know how good or bad I am of a teacher?
I will say that I was very worried when this whole evaluation thing came up in my state, because I was not one of the favored teachers, but I was given very good reviews from the principals that evaluated me, and one even said I had the highest score he had ever given. Maybe I was his first teacher to evaluate.
I know good music when I hear it.
Of course, Mozart's music was considered crap when he performed it during his lifetime.
Van Gogh sold only 2 paintings during his lifetime because no one thought he was any good.
I'm paid by performance at my school, so me and my fellow teachers spend a lot of time trying to get the poor performers--those who don't do their homework, have lower IQs, are lazy--we try to get them out of our classes. We push them on to other teachers. Hey, it's dog eat dog at my school.
I also try to get the brown nosers in my class--they usually try very hard.
And hey, have you seen the reaserach? It seems cheating is often rampant when high-stakes testing is involved. Not saying I don't do what I gotta do, but hey, I got kids to feed.
Americans are so sure that schools are rife with bad teachers, we come up with any cockamamie method to get rid of them.
. . . and then bring in some excellent teachers.
There seems to be an assumption by many in this thread that performance appraisals in the private sector are unbiased, fair, and accurate. In general they aren't. Cronyism/favoritism are a part of performance appraisals either explicitly or implicitly.
If you want a good appraisal, make your boss look good, make your "team" look good, get your team to like you, and bust your AXX to achieve hard and soft measurements related to your role.
The difference in teaching is that nearly all of the people who really know what you do are minors. Are we really ready for performance appraisals based on the feedback of 3rd graders?
I still think every teacher should in conjunction with administration create a professional development document at the end of each school year that identifies strengths and weaknesses. It would also identify actions to be taken in the upcoming 12 months to strengthen weaknesses. It would identify hard measurements based on the kind courses to be taught the next year and historic performances. These could include test scores, but they would only be a small part.
As in most things where we want to perform well, we need to identify process goals and then honestly assess how we did against those goals. If we are achieving the process goals but the achievements are not as good as desired, then you re-evaluate the process goals together with administration.
Everyone doesn't need to have the same goals or be assessed on the same criteria. Everyone should be seeking to get better.
This process allows administrators to encourage high performers to take on the toughest assignments.
We've got to stop acting like every teaching role is the same and should be evaluated by the same metrics.
We've also got to lose the adversarial environment that is too present in the world of education. We can't continue with the teacher vs administration approach. I think 95% or more of most faculties want to do a great job including administrators. We would be much better off working as a team towards goals tailored to our situations.
As it stands now, I don't think most teachers have a performance improvement plan unless they have already received poor performance ratings. That's crazy. We can all improve. Why do we wait until there's a problem to worry about improving?
We don't need standardized test scores to accomplish this. We need trust.
Trust is not going to happen so long as we use teachers as pawns in our little game of politics.