Whoever came up with the concepts of pensions and tenure - wow, that guy must have been some kind of BS artist

As a former high school teacher and son of a teacher I will tell you that many people do not like teachers. They didn't like them when they were students and when they become parents and taxpaywers they continue not to like them. They complain about how teachers do their jobs, what they're paid, how they're retained and who knows what else.

When they don't like their kids' grades their first response is that the teacher stinks.

Then you have people who are appalled that a teacher is living with someone they aren't married to, are gay, are homophobic, don't attend church, attend the wrong church, have a bumper sticker on their car that's objectionable, made a comment in class criticizing government policies or officials, made a comment supposrting government policies or officials, assinged an objectionable book for a class to read, etc.

Any of these things can lead to charges that a particular teacher shouldn't be teaching.

You want to compare teachers to software engineers? Ok. How many threads have you ever seen here criticizing software engineers and their salsries, job performances and the like? I have never seen such a thread here. I've never read a letter to an editor about software engineers and their employment conditions. It's only teachers who face this sort of thing and it's a big reason why tenure is part of their profession. Yes, tenure makes it moer difficult to remove incompetent teachers. But it does allow it to happen and creates a process for doing so which is not totally capricious. ANY unionized job, not just education, provides this sort of process and protection for the employee.

But you evidently would like to improve education by attracting more "quality" people into teaching. And you think the way to do it is to get a bunch of people together who will scrutinize teachers' performances even more than they're already scrutinized, tell the teachers how to do their jobs better despite the fact that probably no one in your bunch has actually taught for a living, lengthern their workday and year, and make it much easier to fire them. Yeah, that's going to have droves of "quality" people applying for teaching jobs.

The performance evaluations will probably be based on test results cause that's the easiest way to do it. This just makes teachers focus on teaching to the test, which is not ideal.

But would it be asking too much to suggest that if the only things you have to say are irrational then you just shut up and stop posting?[/quote]

Why don't you try it and see?

Sigh, yet another irrational response.

1) "ANY unionized job, not just education, provides this sort of process and protection for the employee."

OK, this is officially hilarious. I suppose it never occurred to you that the best and the brightest are not particularly attracted to "ANY unionized job".

2) "And you think the way to do it is to get a bunch of people together who will scrutinize teachers' performances even more than they're already scrutinized, tell the teachers how to do their jobs better despite the fact that probably no one in your bunch has actually taught for a living, lengthern their workday and year, and make it much easier to fire them. Yeah, that's going to have droves of "quality" people applying for teaching jobs."

Once again intellectual dishonesty rears its ugly head.

When did I say "get a bunch of people together"? Oh, I see you are another one who so thoughtfully forms my own opinions for me, the better to then argue against them.

But if we are going to use the term "bunch" (hey, I like that, perhaps your only real contribution here), then I would suggest that your "bunch" include people in the education profession. Mostly I suspect teachers and principals (with significant input from parents and test results) would be making evaluations. Nothing quite like real reviews with something real at stake by peers and superiors to start moving things in the right direction.

How do you like that for "my bunch" Next time, please try the intellectual honesty route. You might actually enjoy it.

"lengthen the workday and work year" I said this? Remind me of when exactly I said this. Or have the integrity to come right out and admit you are being dishonest in your post by trying to put these words in my mouth,

"Make it easier to fire them?" Yes, absolutely. I am so sick of folks saying tenure does not make it impossible to fire a teacher, it just puts a process in place... When that process results in hordes of horrible teachers effectively having lifetime job security as it does then yes, tenure effectively makes it as close to impossible to fire a teacher as necessary to render this "process" a charade.

Worried that this will make it difficult to attract bright people into the profession? That's funny, these same conditions don't seem to make it very difficult to attract bright people into every other high talent profession in this country.

Next.

And please, this time with intellectual integrity, if not outright intelligence.

HRE wrote:

You want to compare teachers to software engineers? Ok. How many threads have you ever seen here criticizing software engineers and their salsries, job performances and the like? I have never seen such a thread here.

If people were forced to pay software engineers' salaries through taxes and software engineers' salaries were based on tenure instead of ability, I think you would find some threads.

Teachers' salaries are a very tricky topic. The security provided by the job is something that ensures quality applicants. The lack of monetary incentives for quality work can stifle improvements. We all had a teacher growing up that clearly was just going through the motions. We all also had some great teachers, who clearly went above and beyond the minimum needed to maintain their job. Ideally this difference would be reflected in their pay.

HRE wrote:

But would it be asking too much to suggest that if the only things you have to say are irrational then you just shut up and stop posting?

Why don't you try it and see?[/quote]

Show me how my posts are irrational please.

The fact that you are either incapable of following valid arguments or perhaps unwilling does not make them irrational.

So, go ahead, give it your best shot.

Thanks.

Ho Hum wrote:

The performance evaluations will probably be based on test results cause that's the easiest way to do it. This just makes teachers focus on teaching to the test, which is not ideal.

Way to assume an outcome that you think is not ideal and then brush off the real issue. Well done.

Real evaluations with real consequences are possible and highly desirable. Any process is imperfect but it is irrational to assume that real evaluations must be bad therefore let's avoid them.

Next.

Hey Potato Boy: How about you man up and provide some insight into your solution. How, exactly, will you determine which teachers to let go. Cover all bases, please. No vague terminology like "effectiveness" or "quality". Give specifics. Which choir teachers stay? Which ones go? Etc. Focus especially on the teachers of students with special needs, and on teachers of electives that have no standardized testing. How does one evaluate the art teacher? Do tell.

You need to stop criticizing others' posts with angry diatribes that provide no solutions of your own, other than "well, let the educational professionals sort it all out". Because, it seems as though they're already doing that with the current system.

If you want change, spell it out. You're just like the angry tea party mob who just wants to spew their vitriol at anything government, without any specifics other than "lower taxes, smaller gov't."

So let's hear it. Who do we fire?

So from from NewToys and HRE we've learned that:

1) It's impossible to dermine and evalute whether a teacher is performing or not. yp- it's just impossible to measure it! Amazing.

2) If you are given the ability to get rid of teachers then the principals will just be firing everyone for no darned reason at all, because, hey, that's what happens in other jobs right- mangers chase off their best people left & right, just to be mean.

3)Tenure leads to great teachers and awesome schools and helps attract the best and brightest into the profession.

4) We shouldn't change a thing (except pay teacher a lot more money.)

Mr Potato Head wrote:

[

You have got to be kidding me. You have absolutely got to be kidding me.

There are so many teachers that we we better not apply proper evaluations and be guided by the results? That passes for logic?!? OMFG!

Sorry you can't follow my logic. I never said not to evaluate teachers, nor be guided by results.

I believe we can evaluate teachers fairly. I believe we can identify those who don't meet our standards. (not that the current methods generally suggested actually achieve this) And we could certainly choose to fire them.

What I'm saying is that *if* we do that (which certainly seems like the right thing to do)

IT WONT SOLVE THE PROBLEM.

We will simply end up with fewer teachers teaching gigantic classes, or a need to hire large numbers of people who are even more unqualified than those we fired.

I'm all for merit pay (if you actually take the time/money to really measure merit). And certainly there are many teachers that need serious interventions to make them acceptable in the classroom. But firing significant numbers of folks doesn't help the problem.

Aquafina wrote:

So from from NewToys and HRE we've learned that:

1) It's impossible to dermine and evalute whether a teacher is performing or not. yp- it's just impossible to measure it! Amazing.

2) If you are given the ability to get rid of teachers then the principals will just be firing everyone for no darned reason at all, because, hey, that's what happens in other jobs right- mangers chase off their best people left & right, just to be mean.

3)Tenure leads to great teachers and awesome schools and helps attract the best and brightest into the profession.

4) We shouldn't change a thing (except pay teacher a lot more money.)

And from you we've learned that.... well, nothing. Just that you're angry, I guess.

Mr Potato Head wrote:

Way to assume an outcome that you think is not ideal and then brush off the real issue. Well done.

Real evaluations with real consequences are possible and highly desirable. Any process is imperfect but it is irrational to assume that real evaluations must be bad therefore let's avoid them.

Next.

Assume? This is the generally-proposed model because, as I said, it is easy to implement. You can read about the models yourself; I'm not going to sit here and spoon feed you.

Ho Hum wrote:

Assume? This is the generally-proposed model because, as I said, it is easy to implement. You can read about the models yourself; I'm not going to sit here and spoon feed you.

PRECISELY. Since these "evaluations" will be paid for by the taxpayers, the public will most likely call for the easiet, most cost-effective method, since the fallout from a failed system doesn't affect them directly.

"Evaluation" means standardized test scores. Period.

Independent thinker wrote:

Teachers' salaries are a very tricky topic. The security provided by the job is something that ensures quality applicants. The lack of monetary incentives for quality work can stifle improvements. We all had a teacher growing up that clearly was just going through the motions. We all also had some great teachers, who clearly went above and beyond the minimum needed to maintain their job. Ideally this difference would be reflected in their pay.

Hey! I found someone with intelligence. IDEALLY, sure, this makes sense. LOGISTICALLY it's impossible.

new toys wrote:

Why are teachers such the focus of a Big Brother, lynch mob mentality?

Possibly because public education sucks (on the average) in the US?

Maybe because teachers unions have been screwing the pooch for decades?

I guess it could be because most public school teachers in the hard sciences now really have no idea about the subjects their teaching, because instead of becoming experts in their fields, they are forced to get their "masters" in education?

I agree with the vast majority of your post. My hat is off to you for being more polite than I have been.

A few comments:

1) "I believe we can evaluate teachers fairly. I believe we can identify those who don't meet our standards. (not that the current methods generally suggested actually achieve this) And we could certainly choose to fire them."

I agree 100%

2) "What I'm saying is that *if* we do that (which certainly seems like the right thing to do)

IT WONT SOLVE THE PROBLEM."

Nothing will solve the problem instantaneously. Nor will anything solve all problems 100%. But that it not the goal (I know that you did not say it was - I am not trying to put words in your mouth here). The goal is continual improvement, just like it is with every other process out there.

I certainly would not advocate firing 10% (pick any number you like) of the teachers out there tomorrow. I would advocate putting a process in place to identify and reward superior performers, help ALL teachers improve, give (almost) all teachers a second chance if they are not up to snuff today, fire those who don't get up to snuff in a reasonable time frame, and attract far more of the best and brightest who today avoid the profession like the plague.

3) "We will simply end up with fewer teachers teaching gigantic classes, or a need to hire large numbers of people who are even more unqualified than those we fired."

Yes, this could be a problem if one approaches this process without careful thought to how the entire process would work. I do not think that this is anything close to an insurmountable issue for a well thought through process moving toward greater rewards and accountability.

4) "I'm all for merit pay (if you actually take the time/money to really measure merit). And certainly there are many teachers that need serious interventions to make them acceptable in the classroom. But firing significant numbers of folks doesn't help the problem"

Agreed that firing large numbers overnight is not an intelligently thought through process. Agreed that significant merit pay should be part of the process ( I cannot imagine a serious profession where folks are not rewarded for excellence). Firings on an on-going basis will need to be part (and only a small part) of any overall sensible process. This is no different than with any other profession where folks need to perform to keep their job and standards are continuously raised.

Mr Potato Head wrote:

Agreed that significant merit pay should be part of the process ( I cannot imagine a serious profession where folks are not rewarded for excellence). Firings on an on-going basis will need to be part (and only a small part) of any overall sensible process. This is no different than with any other profession where folks need to perform to keep their job and standards are continuously raised.

Just ideas. No plan.

Who gets more money, the "excellent" kindergarten ART teacher, the "effective" 8th graded algebra teacher, the "proficient" middle school librarian, or the "effective" H.S. intervention specialist?

How does a principal, #1 determine these ratings when the nature of the instruction is so different (different outcomes: painting vs equations vs lifelong reading? vs employability skills), and #2 how these ratings and rankings equate to a dollar amount?

Further, these teachers teach in different buildings, yet they all fall under the same contract. How can there be any consistancy?

Does an excellent teacher in a failing school deserve merit pay? What about a lousy teacher in a successful school?

Too many variables. Too many logistical impossibilities. Too cumbersome. Too time-consuming. Too expensive.

Mr Potato Head wrote:

Firings on an on-going basis will need to be part (and only a small part) of any overall sensible process. This is no different than with any other profession where folks need to perform to keep their job and standards are continuously raised.

One thing I've struggled with is how to evaluate a teacher when his or her class changes every year. It's not like one teacher follows a group of students from K through 12. The crop of students is different every year.

Are you going to measure progress from the first day of the school year to the last day? Are you going to compare year to year stats? You seem to be an expert on teacher evaulation, so I'd love to hear your ideas on how to best quanitify and analyze teacher performance.

Take a high school English teacher. Tell me how you would evaulate him in order to determine if he's doing a good job. Give me specifics.

The real problem is in producing quality evaluations. Who is going to do it, what is quantitative grounds for firing, how do we account for differences in subjects & students, and how do we measure with anything approaching a fine grain?

My parents are both teachers (my father is a professor, my mother a middle school teacher who has worked in a number of different subjects) and I of course encountered bad and good teachers in middle school, high school, and college. So I've heard about and thought about this for quite some time.

WHO:

Who is qualified to evaluate teachers?

It's not students. Consistently tough teachers who grade critically and ask for excellence in the classroom are going to get shot down on student evaluations. I heard an awful lot of bitching in college from students who actually had to do a decent amount of work for a class.

It's not principals. They're quite far removed from the day-to-day operations of the classroom, usually having been out of it for a while. Dropping in once or twice a year for an evaluation is not a good indicator of progress or lack thereof - and that is really all the time a principal has to evaluate a teacher. There are usually not that many principals per school (3 for my elementary & middle school, which was K-8 with about 10 teachers per grade. 90 teachers, 2 days a year for each for evaluations...you get the idea).

It's not standardized tests. The 'chain of education' that leads up to a teacher inheriting students from another teacher has more to do (esp. as you get farther and farther from kindergarten!) with their current state of education than anything their teacher will teach them. You get kids who don't know much, you will probably end up spitting out kids at the end of the year who don't know much. Having everything ride on these huge tests also just sucks. You have to stop teaching to prepare for it, and they tend to have horrible biases depending on economic / cultural situations. We also can't separate out what kids SHOULD be improving that aren't, which ones will not improve no matter how much effort we put into it, etc. And how do you test teachers on music curriculum, physical education, gifted and talented, theater?

It's not other teachers, though they'd be the most qualified to do it. Like principals, there's just not enough time in the day, and the only people who really know what's going on in a classroom is the teacher and the students. They're the ones that are there every day.

Optimally you'd want to blend this all together to measure it, but then it still ends up being subjective, unwieldy, costly to administrate and execute, and gives you no better idea of who is a good teacher. It just gives you some numbers that change each year. Maybe they're correlated to reality. Maybe they're not. Who knows?? It would take years of weeding out 'bad' teachers with this strategy, controlling test numbers and evaluations for economic conditions and just plain unintelligent students, before you knew if it worked at all. And if it didn't? What then? Just say 'sorry' to the people you fired mistakenly?

It's a very John Stuart Mill sort of problem. How do we measure the teachers that are best for everyone when the effect of education cannot be measured well? I got a decent education by weaseling my way through an awful public school system with a 50% graduation rate and into a good college. Do I count as a gold star for both bad teachers and good teachers at that school? What about kids who would have dropped out at 16 no matter what?

How can you demand that a person should lose their livelihood on a guess of whether they are apt at it?