Parents United: How does a number get carved in stone
Parents United: At the Capital
Proposed Benefits of Teacher Tenure/Seniority/LIFO (G2A Tenure Benefits)
- Tenure may increase job security and offset lower wages, therefore encouraging more personnel to join profession.
- Insulates Teachers from Politics.
- A secure happy Teacher has a positive impact on the classroom.
Proposed Detriments of Teacher Tenure/Seniority/LIFO
- Teacher cost more, so fewer Teachers can be afforded for the same funds. (ie ineffective Teachers paid too much and/or still employed, costs to much to dismiss them (ie time and money), etc)
- Sometimes the most effective and energetic Teachers are laid off due to low Seniority. May cause highly driven people to bypass or jump off this career path.
- Principals have little leverage with which to energize burnt out Teachers. (ie few carrots and no sticks)
- Principals have little leverage with which to ensure District's chosen curriculum and content is taught.
- Rewards years served and degrees, rather than effectiveness and results.
I am still definitely for an end to LIFO, from my perspective the Proposed Benefits don't do much for the students. Though they definitely do a lot for the Teachers. Well hopefully in a week or so we will see what Gov Dayton has to say about it. Any new thoughts? Did I miss any Benefits or Detriments?
Heartlander Teacher Tenure
ABC Petersen meets with governor
MinnCan Scrap Seniority
Students First MN Education Reform
MSR Seniority in Jeopardy
10 comments:
I'm still thinking that tenure would lead to apathy and a lack of job satisfaction among teachers. Being challenged a little bit-- a bit of competition-- is a GOOD thing. And why should teachers even NEED to be "insulated from politics" if that is even true.
J. EWing
I agree that detriments 1, 3 & 5 would definitely lead to some morale and apathy problems. Imagine being an effective organized employee who works next to a burnt out disorganized employee and how frustrating that would be. Then on top of this knowing that the burnt out employee is making 50+% more than you and won't be forced to improve.
As for the benefits... I tried to record both views.
While I am tired of the repeated attacks on teacher's unions I am bored enough to make a comment.
Because NCLB/MCA testing is flawed, basing teacher's performance ratings on students tests results is flawed. If anything it should be a very small component until better tests are developed. Even then there are many other more important factors.
I have been persuaded that a teacher rated at the lowest level of a good evaluation system (which is yet to be developed) should be let go before a highly rated less senior staff member. Beyond that there could be a bit more of a career ladder developed where the best teachers can get paid more by taking on more responsibility. Basing pay on test scores is a really dumb idea.
John,
On a very tangential note I have been reading the new issue of the teacher union magazine and thought you might be interested in one of the articles: Why does family wealth affect learning? as it talks about educating those kids that you label as unlucky.
Great article... Makes sense to me...
I can't wait to see how they use test scores in the weighted assessment. I think the 35% seems to be a reasonable weighting.
If I was using test scores and had 9 classes of 3rd to 5th graders, I would be looking for the Teacher(s) who's students consistently showed less improvement per year than the other Teacher's students. It doesn't seem that challenging.
And no, one can not compare directly across different school districts that have totally different demographics.
As for are we ready for this... Of course we are, since we are already paying Managers to evaluate performance and address problems. We just need to give them some authority to do what we are paying them for.
I claim that unionized labor is completely incompatible with professional behavior and high achievement. If we expect professional behavior and achievement from teachers, and if they expect professional respect and pay, then the union has to disappear from the equation. After that, evaluating teachers' performance becomes a pretty simple matter. Corporations have been doing "management by objectives" and ranking performance between employees (for purposes of "merit pay" or, in some cases, for retention decisions) for decades. In fact, all you have to do is ask the kids. If THEY know, why can't WE figure it out?
J. Ewing
I agree that "Professional" and "Union" don't seem to be aligned. (at not in my mind)
Professional to me, speaks of the expertise of the individual. And the rewarding of the individual.
Whereas Union to me, speaks of the securing a group of people at the expense of or benefit to the individual.
It's right there in the union contract. Every teacher with X years of seniority and Y hours of graduate schooling gets Z dollars. It doesn't matter one bit whether they are the most brilliant teacher since Socrates or the guy I had once, who mumbled something and walked out of the class after ten minutes, leaving me (just a student) to teach it. Teachers are just interchangeable cogs in the wheel, no better or worse than any other. It's not reality, and it's not practical either, yet it is the practice and it needs to change.
J. Ewing
How about the State recuse itself from this question, leaving teacher evaluation and pay entirely to the districts to decide?
It seems like a good idea, except that Local Boards seem to be hand picked by the Teacher's Union. By this, I mean the large amount of funding and advertisement they can give to the candidates they endorse. (ie lg relative to some non-endorsed candidate)
Thoughts?
Absolutely right. I sometimes think the unions run the schools and the only entity big enough to "take them on" is the federal government IF they would do it (like the original NCLB did. I have no problem, if you get rid of the unions, of allowing local control to handle personnel matters, work rules, etc.
J. Ewing
Post a Comment