More boo hooing
April 6, 2006 03:50 PM
This paper, released with great fanfare at Brookings yesterday as part of the newly created The Hamilton Project, proposes to solve the teacher quality crisis by getting rid of teacher certification and paying individual teachers based, at least in part, on their students' test scores. While I would challenge these recommendations for a variety of reasons, here's what struck me most about the proposal:
"Even though school districts have the opportunity to discharge nontenured teachers, they seldom do so."
And this,
"The problem may be, in the words of Michael Ward, North Carolina's superintendent of public instruction, the limited 'willingness of school leaders to confront unpleasant tasks associated with dealing with performance problems.'"
I see, so, we need value-added assessment to determine how teachers are paid--and whether they get tenure--because school administrators are too wimpy to use the authority they already have to judge teacher performance? Not a convincing argument. But, at least the authors can hang out with Rick Hess.
Comments
I've often heard this claim made before:
"Even though school districts have the opportunity to discharge nontenured teachers, they seldom do so."
This flies in the face of my personal experience as a teacher: bad teachers tend to take themselves out of the profession before too long.
This is not a job that you can just shuffle through - if you're not good at it, it will drive you crazy, and you can make just as much money doing many others things that aren't nearly as demanding.
So when this claim is made, I often wonder about the sources. As it turns out, the sources for this report are not good - or, at least, they are poorly used.
P.13:
"It may be that teachers are hesitant to admit that they were laid off or involuntarily transferred or principals may find ways to persuade ineffective teachers to move 'voluntarily.'"
Gee, ya think? Every teacher has seen unwanted colleagues forced out by administrators. It isn't hard: give bad assignments, bad classrooms, bad students - they'll get the hint.
What's really poor about this methodolgy, however, is that it relies on self-reporting. Do the authors think this is an accurate way to guage how many teachers are fired?
"However, even if the proportion being laid
off or transferred involuntarily is understated by a factor of five, less than 10 percent of new teachers are terminated involuntarily."
Where does "factor of 5" come from - thin air?
Until we have some real research on this topic, the authors shouldn't assume that bad non-tenured teachers are retained regularly.
Posted by: Mark W | April 6, 2006 08:03 PM
"Until we have some real research on this topic, the authors shouldn't assume that bad non-tenured teachers are retained regularly."
Hmm, so we have mostly good teachers, but they do a crappy job anyway? In spite of very generous funding?
Ragnarok
Posted by: Anonymous | April 7, 2006 03:32 PM
Please post again when you want to have a serious debate; as I tell my kids, there is a difference between opinion and fact.
Posted by: Mark W | April 7, 2006 05:28 PM
My comment is really based at Anonymous, or Ragnarok.
YES! We have far more good teachers than bad. It's the bad ones who make the news.
We are doing the best that we can in difficult circumstances. Do you think you can do better? Then come join the underpaid, overworked and unappreciated. I generally spend 10 hours per day at school and at least 2 Saturday's a month. For the most part I fund my own continuing education. I'll bet your company pays for yours. Technology? Sorry my school is fairly far behind, no funds. Got enough pens, pencils and paper? I'll bet the company gets those for you too. Teachers end up doing so much that is never seen. Have you had to explain prison to 5 year old? I have!
You obviously have not been in a public school lately. Do not blame the teachers. The blame can be spread so broadly, include yourself in there!
Okay I feel better now.
Posted by: Onyxnator | April 8, 2006 08:26 PM