ernest_t_bass;680483 wrote:Yes, through the evaluation process. The only problem is that there are MANY administrators that don't focus on poor performance. EVERYONE knows the teacher that is performing poorly, yet there are many admins that just move them along... just like we do kids through the school system.

Yet the admins just move them along........why is that? IMO it has everything to do with union protection and CBAs. It is unfair to teachers that actually perform well and care about their students.

ernest_t_bass;680492 wrote:Yes, it would make sense, but you start to focus on "where you are on the ladder." Teachers then become selfish, and some WILL forget about the students, and focus only on advancement. There are many teachers who are not in it for the money, but there are also many who would be (for more money) under the merit pay system.

Again, this has to do with the union mentality. "Where you are on the ladder" is union mentality that is not just found within teachers unions, but all unions. You are arguing points FOR a merit based system.

A merit based system would be about positive results, not just pushing kids through (which is done now in some school systems). The current system is not working, it is time to change it.

ernest_t_bass;680501 wrote:Understood on this end, 100%. But you also have to realize that education is not designed to "push a product" like the private sector jobs, but to educate the future of our nation. Our job is not to get students in and out of here as quickly as possible, so efficiency is not a main key.

Ah but you do. Your teaching is the product, maybe it can't be quantified by test scores, but it can be quantified. If admin evaluations do not capture ones ability to teach then perhaps a new method of evaluation is needed. I know my vice principal/ principal sat in on 1 maybe 2 of my classes all year long. I am positive they couldn't get a proper evaluation out of this. Who knows if they reviewed what we supposidly covered and what type of tests/quizes/exersizes the teachers had us do. I am not sure how it works but surely this can be done.

ernest_t_bass;680492 wrote:Yes, it would make sense, but you start to focus on "where you are on the ladder." Teachers then become selfish, and some WILL forget about the students, and focus only on advancement. There are many teachers who are not in it for the money, but there are also many who would be (for more money) under the merit pay system.

I think this is exactly the point--align the interests of the students and teachers. Teachers who were selfish and wanted to make lots of money would have incentives to, you know, teach well, put in extra time, help students with their work, etc.

That's how it is at my workplace; my employer identifies what is important to them, and then pays us based on how well we move toward that goal. That means that people who work extra hard and make more money for the firm get paid more, while people who do the minimum get paid less and less each year (and generally get fired pretty quickly).

ernest_t_bass;680512 wrote:

YESSSSSSSSSSS!

fan_from_texas;680513 wrote:If I were designing a merit-based pay system, I'd use extensive weighted evaluations from administrators, fellow teachers, parents, and students,

Wouldn't that lead to the more popular teachers getting better raises instead of better teachers? Are the better teachers more popular? A lot of people think that Math and Science teachers should be paid better, but would they have better evaluations? My high school physics teacher was more popular than my math teacher, but I think it was because physics is more exciting than math. (Even though you can't have physics without an understanding of the math behind it.)

fan_from_texas;680513 wrote:combined with comparisons to baseline performance from year-start/year-end.

I like where you're going with that. If we compare where a student was, to where he is we get an idea of what they've learned but I still think a lot of that can come down to student motivation and parental involvement.

FatHobbit;680527 wrote:Wouldn't that lead to the more popular teachers getting better raises instead of better teachers? Are the better teachers more popular? A lot of people think that Math and Science teachers should be paid better, but would they have better evaluations? My high school physics teacher was more popular than my math teacher, but I think it was because physics is more exciting than math. (Even though you can't have physics without an understanding of the math behind it.)

Popularity would have no part in it. Do you think companies that are based on merit pay dish out raises solely on popularity? FFT was suggesting a combination of evaluations that would warrant increases in pay, popularity may be a factor in an evaluation, but not the sole criteria.

FatHobbit;680527 wrote:Wouldn't that lead to the more popular teachers getting better raises instead of better teachers? Are the better teachers more popular? A lot of people think that Math and Science teachers should be paid better, but would they have better evaluations? My high school physics teacher was more popular than my math teacher, but I think it was because physics is more exciting than math. (Even though you can't have physics without an understanding of the math behind it.)

My experience was that better teachers were more popular teachers, as well as the fact that there was a consensus among everyone about which teachers were good and which were bad. As I've argued before, if everyone knows which teachers are good and bad, then it shouldn't be hard to pay the good ones more. Moreover, if we're pulling from many different sources (admins, teachers, parents, students), we're triangulating many diverse interests, so it's not like a teacher who gives lots of candy but otherwise sucks is going to be universally admired by the groups. Also, if we're considering improvement to baseline and other qualitative measures, this seems to balance out concerns about inaccurate evaluations.

I like where you're going with that. If we compare where a student was, to where he is we get an idea of what they've learned but I still think a lot of that can come down to student motivation and parental involvement.

Yeah, but if we're slotting teachers into brackets, they're being compared to other teachers in the same school system. Presumably, the pool of students is going ot be reasonably consistent from year to year--it's not like one teacher will randomly draw all A+ students every single year, while another teacher will randomly draw all of the bad students every single year.

It would take a few years of analysis and review to nail downt he mechanics, but the general idea should be solid.

fan_from_texas;680513 wrote:If I were designing a merit-based pay system, I'd use extensive weighted evaluations from administrators, fellow teachers, parents, and students,

dwccrew;680532 wrote:Popularity would have no part in it.

I can see how administrators and other teachers might be somewhat unbiased, but I have no faith in parents or students.

dwccrew;680532 wrote:Do you think companies that are based on merit pay dish out raises solely on popularity? FFT was suggesting a combination of evaluations that would warrant increases in pay, popularity may be a factor in an evaluation, but not the sole criteria.

Companies don't have peers (at least where I have worked), parents and students evaluating them.

FatHobbit;680543 wrote:Companies don't have peers (at least where I have worked), parents and students evaluating them.

Many companies (including mine) have boss evaluations, peer evaluations, and client evaluations that form the basis for pay determinations. I'd much rather be evaluated by students (where at least I have a fighting chance) than by clients, who are ready to fire us over a single typo in a 10,000-word filing.

fan_from_texas;680539 wrote:My experience was that better teachers were more popular teachers, as well as the fact that there was a consensus among everyone about which teachers were good and which were bad. As I've argued before, if everyone knows which teachers are good and bad, then it shouldn't be hard to pay the good ones more. Moreover, if we're pulling from many different sources (admins, teachers, parents, students), we're triangulating many diverse interests, so it's not like a teacher who gives lots of candy but otherwise sucks is going to be universally admired by the groups. Also, if we're considering improvement to baseline and other qualitative measures, this seems to balance out concerns about inaccurate evaluations.

I do like the idea of having different sources for the evaluation, but kids and parents already feel like they are entitled to good grades. I can see them rating someone poorly because Johnny didn't get an A. Some of my best high school teachers were also the most critical. I did not like them at all, but looking back they did a much better job than the teachers who liked me because I was not disruptive in class.

fan_from_texas;680539 wrote:Yeah, but if we're slotting teachers into brackets, they're being compared to other teachers in the same school system. Presumably, the pool of students is going ot be reasonably consistent from year to year--it's not like one teacher will randomly draw all A+ students every single year, while another teacher will randomly draw all of the bad students every single year.

It would take a few years of analysis and review to nail downt he mechanics, but the general idea should be solid.

That's a good point and I agree for the most part, but in my school the college prep teachers did get the best students so that would have to be taken into account.

fan_from_texas;680547 wrote:Many companies (including mine) have boss evaluations, peer evaluations, and client evaluations that form the basis for pay determinations. I'd much rather be evaluated by students (where at least I have a fighting chance) than by clients, who are ready to fire us over a single typo in a 10,000-word filing.

Yep. MANY companies have peer reviews, customer reviews (ie the parents), client reviews (ie the students), and then performance reviews (with your superior, and which includes results from the other reviews).

FatHobbit;680543 wrote:I can see how administrators and other teachers might be somewhat unbiased, but I have no faith in parents or students.



Companies don't have peers (at least where I have worked), parents and students evaluating them.

Feedback from the customer doesn't play a role (and in this case, that's exactly what parents and students are)? It does/did everywhere I ever worked.

queencitybuckeye;680617 wrote:Feedback from the customer doesn't play a role (and in this case, that's exactly what parents and students are)? It does/did everywhere I ever worked.

Not everyone interacts with customers. But you're right, it does and should play a role for most people. I just wonder if the customer always appreciates what they are getting. (In education, the easiest path is not always the best.)

FatHobbit;680627 wrote:Not everyone interacts with customers. But you're right, it does and should play a role for most people. I just wonder if the customer always appreciates what they are getting. (In education, the easiest path is not always the best.)

In business, whether the customer actually understands the product is of little importance. The customer isn't always right, but is always the customer. The case being discussed here is not and should not be an exception.

queencitybuckeye;680636 wrote:In business, whether the customer actually understands the product is of little importance. The customer isn't always right, but is always the customer. The case being discussed here is not and should not be an exception.

So if parents want their kids to not have homework or complain and get straight A's, that's what they should get? Because I think that's what a big chunk of them would take.

For example: My daughter gets straight A's. Occasionally she gets an A-, and I would not even complain about a B. But when she got a C I went to the teacher and asked what we could do. I'm not sure if the teacher didn't want us complaining about it or my daughter actually improved but she's been getting A's again ever since. I trust that the teacher is doing her job and my daughter only had a topic she was struggling with for a little bit. But I want the teachers to challenge my daughter and to give her a good education. I don't want her to get A's that she doesn't deserve just because her parents complain or could give her a bad evaluation. I wasn't complaining about the teacher. I just wanted to know what we could do as parents to help my daughter understand the subject, but I think a lot of parents (if they care at all) would subconsciously rate teachers higher if they did not have to get involved.

FatHobbit;680643 wrote:So if parents want their kids to not have homework or complain and get straight A's, that's what they should get? Because I think that's what a big chunk of them would take.

Those aren't what is being "peddled."

Here's the elevator pitch.

"We offer an excellent education for your child, in which the teachers are incredibly driven and motivated to help each student reach his or her full potential."

If a parent cares more about their child never having homework or being able to complain and get better grades, then maybe such a school system ... one that values the education of the students ... is not for them or their child.

If I go into Verizon and tell them I want a 150-minute plan for my wife and I, and that I want it to cost us $40 a month, including texting, they will very nicely tell me that their service is not for me. They don't offer a buffet of services. Neither does a school.

If a parent WANTS to be able to pick and choose their preferences like that, there is a way ... homeschooling.

O-Trap;680652 wrote:Those aren't what is being "peddled."

Here's the elevator pitch.

"We offer an excellent education for your child, in which the teachers are incredibly driven and motivated to help each student reach his or her full potential."

If a parent cares more about their child never having homework or being able to complain and get better grades, then maybe such a school system ... one that values the education of the students ... is not for them or their child.

I don't think many parents would actively choose a lousy school so they don't have to hear their kids complain, but I think they might tend to rate teachers lower who challenge their kids. Is that what we want to encourage?

FatHobbit;680643 wrote:So if parents want their kids to not have homework or complain and get straight A's, that's what they should get? Because I think that's what a big chunk of them would take.

Ultimately yes, the public school should provide what the public wants. If that's not what I want for my kid (and it certainly would not have been), I have options and a responsibility to explore and exercise them.

Why not do it with a combination of administrator evaluation, student evaluation, and test scores?

I know at the University level, the students have to fill out evaluation forms for their teachers. Now the flaw in this, is usually students that get bad grades rate them fairly poorly and vice versa. That is why the other 2 factors help level this problem out.

The way its done now with tenure and experience dictating pay is absolutely stupid.

FatHobbit;680660 wrote:I don't think many parents would actively choose a lousy school so they don't have to hear their kids complain, but I think they might tend to rate teachers lower who challenge their kids. Is that what we want to encourage?

That's why only PART of the criteria is based on this.

Moreover, ALL "customers" would be taken into account, so one or two pissy parents throwing a tantrum wouldn't overtake the whole.

I recall the teacher that pushed us the hardest. He was brutal. No favoritism. No leniency. No breaks.

However, you could also tell he cared about the kids, so while a couple students couldn't stand him, most students liked him, and they actually worked hard in his class because they wanted to do well in a class he taught.

I remember, because I was one of them. I worked harder in his class than others, not just because it was harder, but because I didn't want him to be disappointed.

But again, it should be just one small part of the overall evaluation.

FatHobbit;680643 wrote:... but I think a lot of parents (if they care at all) would subconsciously rate teachers higher if they did not have to get involved.

In our home we hold the responsibility of educating our children and we choose the school system and teacher to assist us in that process. They are contracted to augment and add to the educational process not be responsible for it.

FatHobbit;680660 wrote:I don't think many parents would actively choose a lousy school so they don't have to hear their kids complain, but I think they might tend to rate teachers lower who challenge their kids. Is that what we want to encourage?

they do it all the time its called charter school....there are several scam for profit schools in columbus right now. they dont do anything educational, give the kids cold prison style lunches and then give everyone an A. they pocket a few million dollars from the state and then shut down sometimes in the middle of the year. Then they show up in my school not having done anything all school year and take the OAA and fail it and further pull our scores down. happens all the time. kids going back and forth from public to charter. They all say the same thing. The teachers are unqualified and there is no real curriculum. parents are happy cause their child who was a D student now gets straight A's. And they dont have to take Ohio Achievment tests, so their isnt much evidence that they arent teaching.

even worse are these online schools who get you a computer and internet service for your house and then get between 8-11000 from the state while spending less than 1500 on the student.

FatHobbit;680660 wrote:I don't think many parents would actively choose a lousy school so they don't have to hear their kids complain, but I think they might tend to rate teachers lower who challenge their kids. Is that what we want to encourage?

they do it all the time its called charter school....there are several scam for profit schools in columbus right now. they dont do anything educational, give the kids cold prison style lunches and then give everyone an A. they pocket a few million dollars from the state and then shut down sometimes in the middle of the year. Then they show up in my school not having done anything all school year and take the OAA and fail it and further pull our scores down. happens all the time. kids going back and forth from public to charter. They all say the same thing. The teachers are unqualified and there is no real curriculum. parents are happy cause their child who was a D student now gets straight A's. And they dont have to take Ohio Achievment tests, so there isnt much evidence that they arent teaching.

even worse are these online schools who get you a computer and internet service for your house and then get between 8-11000 from the state while spending less than 1500 on the student.

Con_Alma;680669 wrote:In our home we hold the responsibility of educating our children and we choose the school system and teacher to assist us in that process. They are contracted to augment and add to the educational process not be responsible for it.

Glad to hear that is what happens in your home.

Unfortunately, you would be amazed at the number of people who do not share your viewpoint and believe that the responsibility for their children's education lies completely in the lap of their child's school.

wkfan That's the problem. The responsibility must be with the parents and child. If it's placed on a school system it will never work, no matter how effective the school system is.

You cannot educate someone that doesn't themselves hold the responsibility of becoming educated. They have no chips in the game. It doesn't work.