What happens when you defend a losing position

MCEA and MSEA have been largely silent with regard to seniority issues.   Failure to address these issues destroys public confidence.   It's a horrific miscalculation to believe this issue- that of seniority- will not result in political losses.   Perhaps those inside of blue Marlyand feel so protected that feel immune for calls for change.   However- look no farther than Ohio or Wisconsin to see the very real consequences of foot dragging.    Here's a scary piece from the Baltimore Sun that shows how seniority issues can be used as a springboard to make broader- often more politically charged attacks- onteacher unions.

The public, teachers, and seniority

How does the public feel about seniority?   Here's a snap shot via Teacher Weak:

With plans for massive teacher layoffs in New York looming, a recent Quinnipiac University poll reveals that 90 percent of public school parents in the state think performance—not seniority—should be the basis for such firings, reports the Buffalo News. Eighty-five percent of all registered votes polled agreed, compared with just 12 percent who favored the seniority-based system.

Of course, that's a much higher percentage than teachers (from two urban districts in California).   Only about 75% of teachers want to consider other factors beyond seniority when making personel decisions.

So everyone wants to change seniority rules.   And when they aren't changed, this public support is hijacked by some the Right in an effort to destory collective bargaining.    Call me a rocket scientist- but maybe we should just go ahead and change seniority rules in Maryland, now.   It would be right.

When issues turn into politics

It's sad, really.   A chance to improve the teaching profession has seemingly been lost in poltiics. 
Let's see what happens in New York.

The bill would do away with the so-called "last in, first out" (LIFO) rule that requires new teachers to be the first to go during layoffs regardless of merit. Seniority could no longer be the sole criteria. Instead, the city could eliminate teachers with unsatisfactory ratings and other performance issues. Mayor Bloomberg plans to layoff more than 4,600 teachers to close a budget gap. Another 1,500 positions would be lost through attrition.

The best defense of seniority (so far)

I found this reprint of a Matthew DiCarlo piece from the Answer Sheet.   It's the best attempt to "defend" seniority based decision making that I've seen.   Needless to say- I take issue with several points made by DiCarlo- which I hope address in the near future.   Here's a snippet:

Third, all of the outrage against seniority seems way overblown. It has for decades been considered a fair and impartial way of proceeding, in both the public as well as private sectors (though it is far more common in the former, and among unionized employees in both sectors). In education, this policy also has some research backing: Even by the narrow measure of student test score growth, experience is among the few proven signals of teaching quality (see here, here, here, here, or our summary here), to say nothing of the possibility that experience matters more when it comes to other student learning outcomes (including, by the way, reducing attrition; experienced teachers are less likely to leave the profession).


In short, seniority is definitely imperfect, but it is hardly outrageous to use it as a proxy for quality

The failed logic of seniority based lay-offs.

A union cannot also be a professional organization so long as it defends seniority rules.   What type of organization protects more experienced workers over less experienced ones irregardless of quality?   Not one concerned about professional reputatoin of its workforce, that is for sure.  Here's a great editorial from the New York Post.   Richard Whitmire explains the problem associated with seniority based decision-making.

National teacher union leaders seem to sense their vulnerability on this issue. Rather than defend seniority-based layoffs, they insist the real issue is avoiding layoffs at all. Or, they answer indirectly. “In no other profession is experience deemed a liability rather than an asset,” said Dennis Van Roekel, president of the National Education Association, the nation’s largest teachers union. “Teaching is a complex profession, and experience matters.”

Yes, but nobody is arguing that teachers get worse with experience, only that the best teachers aren’t always the most experienced.

We haven’t heard any good defense from union officials of last-hired-first-fired — perhaps because there aren’t any. If you want to the best teachers on the job, you find a different way to allocate layoffs. For political protection against what Rhee experienced in Washington, districts should announce the grounds for layoffs well in advance.

Read more: http://www.nypost.com/p/news/opinion/opedcolumnists/bottom_of_seniority_top_of_the_class_LBFY3yQDCJcnxcJexZ2JDO#ixzz1DCnBh8On

Do we protect incompetent teachers?

I probably don't agree with 90% of what this blogger writes, but ok, so, I'm going to do it.  A quote from Liberty's Lifeline:

Why in the world would a talented teacher want to link his career to an incompetent teacher and be sold to a school district as a package? Are teachers professionals or are they not? If they are, then why do they aspire to the level of an unskilled assembly line worker?

Every school teacher should probably ask whether or not this is the case with their own union- and act accordingly. I believe in unionization. However I also believe in choice and democracy and accountability. 

Say no to seniority

From the Boston Globe:

IN ORDER to attract the best and brightest to education, we need to make it worth their while. This means paying some teachers more than others based on their effectiveness in the classroom instead of their seniority and education level (“Teacher salary system decried,’’ Page A1, Jan. 18). The Boston Teachers Union can help kids and make the profession it represents more enticing by dropping its opposition to this reform.

And here, at Laborpains.org

Cognitive dissonance is the holding of two diametrically opposed ideas at the same time and believing both of them equally. I think of this phrase often when confronted by the demands of teachers unions. On the one hand, the unions believe that teachers are incredibly important to the development of children — that they are dedicated educators who can change the lives of any child through their efforts.* On the other, unions resist methods to judge the efficacy of educators because, they claim, factors for success in school have little to do with what goes on in the classroom and everything to do with factors out of their members’ control: poverty, parental involvement, and other factors are more important, they claim.

 

Change far away from Maryland

Interesting developments in LA- brought to us by the Washington Post.

LOS ANGELES -- A judge on Friday approved a sweeping overhaul of how teachers are laid off in what education reformers hail as a landmark decision to keep more effective instructors in the classroom, but unions denounce as a step toward dismantling tenure policies.

And the classic union response:

"What it is really saying is that experience in teaching has no value," she said. "We feel that this remedy, if allowed to go through, will actually exacerbate the problem."

As if someone who goes from really really really bad, to just really really bad should be teaching because they got better over time.

Is MCEA any different?

The Montgomery County teacher's union, MCEA, recently reprinted this post by Valerie Strauss of the Washington Post.   But as I read it over, I couldn't help but think that my union, MCEA, was no different than the political machine that created the problems Strauss blogs about:

[If we cared about children] we would never tolerate a poverty rate among children of 21 percent.

That’s one in five kids who live in poverty, or nearly 15 million children in the United States who live in families with incomes below the federal poverty level, currently pegged at $22,050 a year for a family of four.

And that, of course, doesn’t include the kids who live in families of four who make $22,051 a year. Or $22,052. In fact, research shows that families need an income of about twice the poverty level to cover basic costs, so at that rate, 42 percent of American children live at or close enough to the poverty level so that basics aren’t being covered.

Which groups in the U.S. are least likely to be in poverty?   The old.   Those on social security.   It is the same group of people who are politically active.   Those unable to vote?   Most likely to be in poverty.

Now let's talk about the haves and have nots in our union.    A 1st year teacher makes half as much as a teacher who has taught for twenty years.     A 1st year teacher is involuntarily transferred before a more senior teacher.   A 1st year teacher must be fired before a more senior teacher.   If our children are the second class citizens of society, then our new teachers are the second class citizens of the union.

I went to an MCEA Representative Assembly meeting in December.  My first.   The median age in that room must have been 50 years old.   Retired teachers have more of a say in our union than new teachers.  This is not hyperbole.   I could count on one hand the number of teachers under 30 at the meeting.  This despite the fact that 60% of our teachers have less than 10 years of experience.   Of course, this is just democracy in action.

We can say we're a democracy, but that doesn't mean we represent the interests of our constituents.  It is much more likely that we represent the interests of those who are politically active.   And that's why we continue to have arcane seniority rules.   And it's why we'll continue to have reform dictated to us from above.

Pleasant testing, kids.

Teaching and the moral authority

I've had several discussions with teachers lately about their beliefs on seniority.  And I would just like to say this: there are many, many teachers who do not think seniority is an effective way to compensate what teachers do.   However, many of these same teachers think its not worth the time or battle to change it.   They are busy enough as it is (with good reason).   Many think the current system is broken, but have a natural fear about the unknown.   Some fear the only other option is a test based system that turns the profession into a factory rather than a place where teachers can exercise autonomy and professional discretion to create mastery level lessons that engage all students.   This is, after all, the very serious danger of relying too heavily on student tests to measure teacher effectiveness. 

Our fear and complacency, however, has and continues to have too many unintended consequences.   Not the least among these is that "reformers" have now taken control of the decision making process.   I read continuous admonitions, such as a recent one by blogger and expert teacher David Cohen, regarding our part in the reform movement:

The millions of us who actually do the teaching and provide the education apparently do not need to be won over.  Our buy-in does not matter in debates about the educational policy and leadership.

When we take no active part, it's no surprise that as a professional community we are not enamored with the new evaluation systems that are passed on to us.   In many parts of the country, this has meant student achievement data in the form of value-added modeling becoming as much as 50% of teacher evaluations.   Some of these new systems have had more teacher support than others.

This post, by John Norton, and published in Teacher Magazine, details the many experienced teachers who now seem "tired" with the profession.   While I don't think the "tired" teacher was born with the advent of Value Added Modeling, it's important to realize that teachers and their unions, have the unique power to dampen the calls for outsider reform.  We have the power to reform on our own- to realize the changing time and tide- and to improve our profession and reclaim what we rightfully understand and know how to do better than any other segment in our society:  teach.  We can complain and become disgruntled, tired, veteran teachers, or we can choose to listen to valid criticisms with an eye toward fixing the problem from within.  This begins, in my opinion, with the acknowledgement that a once necessary and valuable seniority system created to ensure fairness for all employees, in particular women, has in the long-run resulted in unintended consequences for our profession. 

In defending a compensation system based solely on seniority, we relinquish the moral authority which teachers have long enjoyed when it comes to discussions about education and compensation.    Teachers have benefited from a long history of improved compensation in many, if not most regions across the country.   Some may credit unionization, but I do so only with an equal tribute to the moral authority that teachers have long held in the argument for more pay: teachers are important to a well functioning society so we must pay them accordingly.   The result, has been the backing from a willing and able public- willing to raise compensation for a public good any market based system will under-value.  While teacher compensation has improved, I do believe there is some way to go on this front.  But our public backing is only as good as the foundation upon which we build it.   And the long-run viablity of our cause has now taken on a second phase: teachers deserve more not because of the job we do, but because we are highly skilled, motivated professionals.  Not only do we do an important job, but we do it well. 

Increased pay and compensation can only continue if we are recognized as a profession with the ability to continue to change our nation.   This means holding ourselves to the same high expectations that we hold the students that we teach.   Therefore, we must demand a highly effective teacher in every classroom.  And the public, through their children, know all too well that this is currently not the case.   A dichotomous evaluation system where 98% of all teachers are rated satisfactory, and 2% are rated unsatisfactory, cannot improve our schools.  A system that pays the effective teacher the same as an ineffective teacher cannot improve our schools.   A system that will fire a strong and nontenured teacher before a tenured ineffective teacher cannot achieve those ends.  Unfortunately, this is exactly the system that has been created by seniority rules.   

Some teachers say our profession is under attack.   They say it's vital for hard-working, misunderstood teachers to defend ourselves from know-nothing reformers who have little, and sometimes no educational experience.  We are victims.   I say we need to fix what is broken, but to defend senioirty is to lose the very moral authority that has brought us to where we are today.    I prefer to see this as an opportunity.

Let's not waste it.

An argument for seniority

A thought provoking critque of the movement away from the seniority system in Teacher Magazine:

My district has had massive teacher layoffs the past two years, with resulting increased class sizes. Layoffs were not based on seniority, degrees or accomplishments, but solely on student test scores and teacher evaluations. Furthermore, the district is proceeding with a pay-for-performance plan, which will go into effect at the latest in 2014. It is not following any kind of best practices research in its structure. Pay would be dependent solely on teacher "effectiveness," which every indication suggests will be based primarily on test scores.

I know that all of this is causing our most experienced, most accomplished, most prepared teachers to rethink their plans for work versus retirement. I also know that absenteeism among teachers is on the rise. At my high-needs schools, most of our teachers are very young, and I am the only nationally certified teacher. We have already had seven teachers resign since school started in August.

I've never before questioned my commitment to teaching the way I am now, and I have never felt so discouraged about the profession in general or the future of my school district or the welfare of and opportunities for our students. I'm not really ready to stop working, but I'm starting to think I've lost heart for teaching. I don't know if I can get it back.

Progress needed

So here we have another example of the central flaw in our educational debate. Jonathan Alter of Newsweek sits down with Bill Gates to talk about education and the reform movement he has embraced. Alter writes this article entitled A Case of Senioritis. Clearly, Gates' beef is one of seniority, right?   Alter writes:

 After exhaustive study, the Gates Foundation and other experts have learned that the only in-school factor that fully correlates is quality teaching, which seniority hardly guarantees. It’s a moral issue. Who can defend a system where top teachers are laid off in a budget crunch for no other reason than that they’re young?

In most states, pay and promotion of teachers are connected 100 percent to seniority. This is contrary to everything the world’s second-richest man believes about business: “Is there any other part of the economy where someone says, ‘Hey, how long have you been mowing lawns? … I want to pay you more for that reason alone.’

It's a piece about creating change through the end of the seniority system.   It is a moral issue.   And it's why that if I had to take sides- I take sides with Gates.   Not that I fully embrace his ideas for education reform- but he does understand and attempt to solve a central problem.   The education profession is indifferent to quality.
Dianne Ravitch, who has made a second and very profitable career of  "defending"  educators from the so called attacks of Gates, responds directly to some of the rhetorical questions posed by Gates on Valerie Strauss' blog, The Answer Sheet.   Ravitch pokes some pretty serious holes in the seemingly logical solutions proffered by Gates and other reformers.   But how many times do you think Ravitch uses the word seniority in her response?

Not once.

Why not?  It seems to me it's a losing issue.   Ravitch thus focuses her attack on Gates' main solution, testing:

I don't hear any of the corporate reformers expressing concern about the way standardized testing narrows the curriculum, the way it rewards convergent thinking and punishes divergent thinking, the way it stamps out creativity and originality. I don't hear any of them worried that a generation will grow up ignorant of history and the workings of government. I don't hear any of them putting up $100 million to make sure that every child has the chance to learn to play a musical instrument. All I hear from them is a demand for higher test scores and a demand to tie teachers' evaluations to those test scores. That is not going to improve education."

Ravitch may be right about testing.   Testing students too many times, in too many subjects could have serious ramifications.   And value-added modeling in its current form, likely poses more questions than answers. I suppose that's why she spends so much time talking about testing rather than seniority rules; the battle over testing is, as Gates would say, a moral one.  And it's grounds where Ravitch may have the moral authority.   So I would like to take this argument backward- to what I believe is its foundation.  Is there agreement between Ravitch and Gates on seniority?  If we can agree, perhaps we can find new ways to pay and evaluate teachers.   A system that is more effective than the one used now, and one that will not turn the measure of teacher effectiveness into a test taken by students.   Or maybe the two don't agree, and seniority is the best way to go after all.  Either way, I think we could all benefit by an explicit answer.   So here is a new rhetorical question for Ravitch to answer:

Is the seniority system the best way to compensate teachers for their hard work?

How we got in this mess

Teachers, their unions, and others all want to know how we got into this educational mess.  Dianne Ravitch spends day and night defending educators from the "reformist" voices of Bill Gates, Michelle Rhee, Arne Duncan and the like, who argue for the use of  student achievement in teacher evaluations.  The reformists say we need to look at the "value-added" that a teacher brings to the classroom.   My union (along with others), cries foul, and goes here there and everywhere to testify.  They regurgitate claims that value-added modeling used to measure student achievment gains is huey.  And they take up the fight against movies made by directors who know more about global warming than education.  But why?   Why has this turned in to an all out war on education?  How did we get here?   Why are we still here?

Clear the air, and you'll realize this  fight is one that should have been over long ago.    The real fight is over seniority based rules that pay the most tenured teachers more money than the most effective teachers.   The same rules call for new teachers to be fired before the least effective teachers.    They are calls for reform that have fallen on deaf ears for many, many years.  They are calls for reform that were ingored.  But they are rules that could have been, and should have been, addressed by the unions themselves.   Had simple but thoughtful reforms been made or even attempted, the foundation upon which "reformers" built their castle would have fallen into the sea.  But like an old stubborn mule, the unions, led by the eldest teachers that control their ranks and benefit most by the imposition of the rules they defend, refused to change.

The result, is a fight that never had to be.   A fight that has now morphed itslef into an us vs. them fight over the use of testing.  We're fighting over the rediculous standardized test data that was released to the public by a newspaper more concerned with selling a few papers than fixing education.   We're fighting over the relaibility of value-added modeling- a topic about which most teachers and politicians and common folk care to know very little.   We're fighting over the merits of movie directors and chancellors of education.     It's a fight that never should have happened.   But it's a fight on grounds where the unions- and Diane Ravitch-  stand a much better chance of winning.   

Don't be fooled by what you hear and read today.   The real fight is over seniority.

Does seniority matter?

Well.   Kind of.   I'm not exactly sure what Valerie Strauss attempts to argue here except to say that as teachers teach more their effectiveness increases.   That's not news, although there seems to be an insinuation that Arne Duncan and Bill Gates don't believe this.     I'm pretty confident they understand this.  However, the question is not whether teachers get better as they teach more.   They do.   The question is whether or not the current system in place encourages teacher responsibility, leadership, and quality.   Or, do we have a system that is indifferent to these things.   And if it is indifferent to those qualities, is it 1) more or less likely to attract people with those characteristics or 2) more or less likely to help those already in the field develop them?

Pink and Teacher Motivation

I've completed reading Daniel Pink's, Drive, an inside look at what motivates people to perform.  His thesis is essentially that we are all motivated to perform if given the right combination of autonomy and purpose to complete a task.   On the other hand, he argues that extrinsic motivators often accomplish the opposite of their purpose, especially when the task is complex and requires creativity.   Rather than motivate, extrinsic "carrots" can narrow our focus, and turn enjoyable tasks into a job that we are unmotivated to perform.   Pink does a good job- and I believe much of what he says.   Allow teachers automony, provide them with a sense of purpose, and you are more likely to create a master teacher.   Agree or disagree- this book should probably be required reading for anyone considering new evaluation systems and pay scales based on teacher quality.

However, one statement got me thinking about teaching- and the seniority system of pay that currently dominates the field.   A system where the longer you teach, the more money you earn in a single year.  Pink asserts the following:

Of course, the starting point of any discussion of motivation in the workplace is a simple fact of life: People have to earn a living.   Salary, contract payments, some benefits, a few perks are what I call "baseline rewards."  If someone's baseline rewards aren't adequate or equitable, her focus will be on the unfairness of her situation and the anxiety of her circumstance.   You'll get neither the predictability of extrenisic motivation or the weirdness of instrinsic motivation.   You'll get very little motivation at all.

But once we're past that threshold, the carrots and sticks can achieve precisely the opposite of their intended aims.   Mechnaism designed to increase motiviation can dampen it.   Tactics aimed at boosting creativity reduce it.   Programs to promote good deeds can make them disappear.  

My question is whether or not our current system of pay  meets the requirement of  "fairness" Pink asserts is a prerequiste of  what he calls, motivation 2.0.   A system that does not reward increased responsibility by paying more,  but instead punishes it by increasing your workload.   A system that rewards teachers who take jobs as coaches- often at the expense of missing meetings required by those teachers who do not coach.   A system that says if you would like more money- you should leave your job early and find something else to do.   This does not seem like a "fair" system to me- and it leads me to wonder, "what type of teacher would find it fair?"   Is it a teacher who is not interested in leadership or responsibility?   Is it a teacher who has always wanted to coach athletics?   And which type of teachers leave the profession, or never enter the profession, because this is the type of pay structure that exists?

Maryland teacher's unions, and especially my own union, MCEA, are currently fighting tooth and nail to prevent a new evaluation system that would base 50% of that evaluation on student achievement data.   This new evaluation system proposed by the Maryland State Department of Education  is not likely to fix our educational problems.  It is replete with problems just like our current system.

However, if teachers, and the unions that represent them, were more proactive in addressing the failures of pay systems created more than thirty years ago, you wouldn't have politicians and state school boards trying to mandate changes to local school districts.   If we had teacher-leaders brain storming and researching in an effort to create pay scales based on leadership and responsiblity, instead of rewarding those who do just enough to get by, then perhaps we'd all be happy.   Perhaps we'd transform our schools and our profession.  And perhaps my union wouldn't  have to spend time defending our current broken evaluation system, from another, equally broken system proposed by politicians.

The problem with seniority

The debate over evaluation systems has turned into an "us vs. them."   It's the crazy politicians vs. the crazy unionites.   According to the crazy politicians, the crazy unionites obstruct reform to defend the worst teachers among us.   According to the crazy unionites, the crazy politicians have ill-concieved notions of effective teaching that will foster competition instead of collaboration, and narrow teacher focus to a set of poorly designed test questions that tell us nothing about what we really want to know.

The politicians, motivated by short-term goals and "I told you so" data points, want quick and instant reform before the next politician comes along with a new plan about how to save education.   The unionites, controlled by the activist and most often politically extreme that control their ranks, seek to protect the jobs and salaries of the existing employees, often at the expense of the creation of a superior and professionalized workforce.    They value the status quo.

And so the reform discussion devolves into debate, less about the public interest, more about  self-serving "talking points" each side hopes will allow them to "take the hill" a la Teddy Roosevelt's Rough Riders.  Debates have victors.   Discussions do not.   Discussions involve compromise based on the strength of argument.   Debates involve rigid positions which define compromise as a sign of weakness.  A number of bloggers have now directed me to Don Sutton's post on the value of "Strong Opinions, Weakly Held" which highlights the importance of being able to both argue vehemently and concede graciously.  Crazy politicians and crazy unionites have mastered the first half of this equation.

Which brings me to a teacher's solution to the curent call for reform.   This group of expert teachers came from all over the country, and from both political parties.   They offer guidelines for education reform that should make any school district think twice about their current system of evaluation and compensation.   Chief among these reforms, in my mind, is a way to weaken the seniority system; a system that rewards longevity in place of leadership and responsibility.   From The Center for Teacher Quality report:

Reward leadership, not seniority. Qualified teachers who take on additional responsibilities — mentoring novices and peers and preparing new teachers, creating family- and community-outreach programs, serving on advisory councils and the like — should be paid for their time outside the classroom. The number of years on the job should not determine who gets tapped for these leadership opportunities; demonstrated ability should.

When the debating stops, and the discussion begins, it should begin here- with common sense reforms made by teachers who know the system, and understand how to fix them.   We need to reward teachers who lead.   We need to reward teachers who are experts in their craft.   We need to reward those who help other teachers become better at their craft.   And we need to reward those who take on added responsibilities, not fewer ones.

School Reform Debate

The current debate over school reform seems to have divided itself into two irreconcilable camps: the Rhee and Klein types chirping about the evil unions blocking reform at the expense of students across the country, and the Diane Ravitch and union sympathizers crying afoul as teacher names are published in newspapers without so much as a wink of recognition that the standardized tests that produce these lists are not only unreliable, but are single handedly ruining any chance of improving our education system.   What do these two sides have in common?   They're both wrong.   Or I suppose if you're an optimist- they are both right.

As someone who doesn't care about power- because I have none- I think I can speak on this subject with atleast some degree of authority.   The sides described above are concerned about what's best for education just like our United States Congress is concerned about creating a nice well-rounded bill that reflects sound judgement rather than partisan politics.   So I'll do my best to dissect both sides of the argument.   A few items I'll try to discuss of over the next month- maybe after the elections.

1) Teacher unions have not been effective in policing their own profession.
2)  There are outside the classroom factors that have a large impact on what goes on inside the classroom.   But they are not an excuse for what goes on inside the classroom.
3) Due process is not an all or nothing proposition- it can coexist with fair and robust evaluation systems.
4) Value Added Modeling has the potential to be a useful feedback tool, but has severe limitations.
5) Standardized testing is not the root of all evil- nor a cure all- but when done 50 different ways in 50 different states- creates an extraordinary amount of wasted resources in the form of duplication.
6) Pay for performance will not likely impact student acheivement- however seniority rules protected by unions likely do more harm than good.

Jerry Weast- No new evaluations

Kudos to the Parents Coalition for digging up this document- a letter to the Maryland Board of Education expressing his view on the new evaluation system that will go into place throughout the state.   He sounds his more reasonable tone yet when arguing agaist the state system, in particular when arguing about the ability to effectively put in place such a wide reaching system in such a short period of time.   However, he sounds the same tired tone when he talks of how effective the current evaluation system in Montgomery County is- the one that removed (or made to resign or retire) over 400 teachers  over a TEN YEAR PERIOD.   How many teachers has Montgomery County had during that time?   Well, it's 10,000 in one year.... so over the course of 10 years maybe 13,000?   More?    Not sure.  

Michael Durso, current candidate for Montgomery County Board of Education, recently said this about Weast's use of data:

The reputation of the school system, and the reporting of statistics and test scores, have been more tied into the personality and the image of [Superintendent Jerry Weast] as our leader, than the students and teachers who are impacted even more," Durso said. "We always haven't been as candid about some of our shortcomings, as opposed to publishing our positives.

Read more at the Washington Examiner. 

It's time to talk about ways to improve our current evaluation system.

Overheard

I've been doing some listening. And reading. And thinking. And I've noticed a resounding juxtaposition in what I hear from educators.

First, there's this idea amongst union members that teachers are not respected, that we are not appreciated for the work for we do, and that we should be rewarded by having fewer requirements placed on us by administrators. A few select quotes from the MCEA discussion board to demonstrate this premise:

“Her point was that we don't stand up for ourselves. We have such an important task in front of us yet we are willing to settle for conditions that stand in the way of our success”

“Once again, this is a question of professionalism and how we are treated. “

“Nothing will change about our workload/time issues unless teachers find some way to say 'enough'.”

“It is time for us to let the county know that what is essential for good instruction, teachers, and students is the time to plan effective lessons, assess student progress, reteach and reassess. Right now teachers are working well beyond what they are paid to prepare for their students.”

"We are being asked to blindly accept a watered down contract with a few minor provisions in exchange for not getting anything of substance to appease an already divided work force"

On the other hand, I don't hear anyone saying that we wouldn't do this work if it weren't required. In fact, much of the work done by teachers when we're not teaching is not done out of contractual duty, but rather out of a good-hearted understanding of the nature of our job. We want students to achieve. And we're willing to do what is necessary to make sure this happens.

What I hear, is that teachers want to be rewarded and appreciated for this hard work. For eating lunch with one hand, while reteaching and retesting with the other. For going to a sporting events just to build a teacher-student relationship. For chaperoning an event at 7pm when they could finally be spending quality time with their family.

This reward, and here is where my views of the teaching profession are different than many of my colleagues, should be a merit based pay system. It is what we desperately want, but what we have convinced ourselves is not possible to attain.

As a profession, we're so afraid that we won't be evaluated fairly, we have boxed ourselves into a system that rewards us based on years of service instead of what we would desperately prefer. We don't really want one less meeting, or one less chaperon duty. What we really want is someone to come into our classroom and say to us, "you are doing all you can do, and you do it so well, that it with great honor and much appreciation that I inform you of your raise for next year."

Perhaps the largest obstacle to the creation of this new system, is that teachers have such an intricate understanding of the considerable variables that go into doing our job effectively, that we can't imagine a system that could effectively capture that success. But is precisely this intricate knowledge, that should be pooled together in the creation of a new evaluation system. Our knowledge is not the problem, it is the solution; an evaluation system created by us and for us that determines the amount of "step" or "raise" in any given year.

As a profession, it is clear to me that we need that affirmation. We need that reward. And not mind you, at the expense of collectively bargained pool of funds, but a redivision of those collectively bargained funds based on the delivery of quality instruction as judged by an evaluation system created by teachers themselves.

This is what we crave.

More on seniority

Ok, so this is nothing new... but if you like reading about why seniority rules don't help anyone, give it a try. And even if you want no part of reading about seniority, you can still click and complete the poll questions: Do you believe aliens have visited Earth within the last 100 years?