In an op-ed at the Washington Post, Microsoft co-founder and philanthropist Bill Gates proposes student test results as just one of the factors used in evaluating teachers:
While there is justification for rewarding teachers based in part on how their students perform, compensation systems should use multiple measures, including classroom observation. In top-performing education systems in other parts of the world, such as Singapore and Shanghai, accomplished teachers earn more by taking on additional responsibilities such as coaching and mentoring other teachers and helping to capture and spread effective teaching techniques. Such systems are a way to attract, retain and reward the best teachers; make great use of their skills; and honor the collaborative nature of work in schools.
States, districts and the U.S. Education Department would do well to encourage the right balance. States such as Connecticut, Delaware and Kentucky are showing leadership in creating feedback and evaluation systems that reflect the patience and involvement of teachers and administrators. This is what’s required to build the kind of infrastructure that stands the test of time.
Does any school district in the country disagree with that? I only know of one group of organizations that opposes anything other than seniority and education as the basis for determining compensation: teachers’ unions.
As an experiment I went over to the site of the Chicago Teachers Union to see what the bargaining organization for Chicago’s teachers wanted to do. There is significantly more attention there to what they oppose than to what they support. They’re opposed to closing schools, standardized tests, and merit pay. They’re in favor of smaller class sizes which is another way of saying “hiring more teachers”.
If Chicago’s teachers wish to be treated as professionals, behaving professionally might be a good start. One of the hallmarks of professionals is that professionals have a heightened level of responsibility for determining the standards of their profession than, say, truck drivers, do. I would very much like to see what Chicago’s teachers want to do to improve the Chicago Public Schools. You won’t find much on the CTU site.
The scholarship on class size is actually pretty ambiguous. The general finding is that a class size of 15 is better than one of 40. There has been no proof that a class size of 29 is better than a class size of 30.
Chicago is not going to double the number of teachers employed by the CPS. It simply doesn’t have the money—the city can’t even pay the bills it already has. It is either naive or disingenuous to identify increasing tax rates with increasing tax revenues. It looks very much as though Chicago has reached its limit load with respect to revenues. The state of Illinois is in even worse shape.
When the teachers struck successfully for higher pay, the clear implication was that schools would be closed and the total number of teachers reduced.
They’re in favor of smaller class sizes which is another way of saying “hiring more teachersâ€.
I never thought of it that way, but I think you nailed it.
I think for elementary level, roughly half of the teachers should be traditional educators and focus on teaching (with some of the collaboration and mentoring mentioned in the article, to optimize teaching methods and learn to individualize according to kids’ learning styles) while the other half should be trained in child behavior and development. They’d be paired up in the classrooms so that one adult focuses on teaching and the other on behavior management, one on one assistance of kids who need it, etc.
I think this team approach could handle larger class sizes (my experience as a parent has been that most of the teachers seem overwhelmed when the class size exceeds the low to mid 20s.) And for whatever reasons (societal, parental input, increasing levels of mental and behavioral disorders in kids, etc) I think that level of assistance is needed in most of the classrooms in order to allow the lead teacher to focus on actual delivery of material, especially if that person is expected to do it really well.
Of course i have no idea how the cost of implementing my model would compare to current systems; i’ only postulating on a system that I believe would be effective. On first glance it sounds like a lot of staff but it’s possible in theory that the proactive nature of addressing behavior in the classroom cuts out an awful lot of what secondary staff and administrators spend their time doing now. It would certainly simplify a lot of the IEP/504 process although a potential political funding issue is that if fewer kids even need special ed services then the district has to fund the second clasroom teacher with fewer federal dollars.
Innovative teaching will come through school reform. And, school reform will come about when parents/students manage to loosen the stranglehold teacher unions have over creating a better educational system.
I think it was well understood that there would be school closings and teacher lay-offs because one of the key concessions the teachers wanted was some sort of first preference in re-hiring fired teachers.
The situation is quite sad. A friend’s daughter has been trying to start a teaching career the last couple of years, but being the last in, she’s always the first fired as all of the schools undergo cutbacks. She finally gave up and is attending nursing school.
Really, what’s the deal. To get better teachers, we pay more, hoping to draw future Wall Street executives into the profession, but if there aren’t many entry level jobs, why bother?
Tenure preempts drawing in and keeping better teachers. It’s all under the category of clutching onto old rules and ways of doing things, which prevents anything new from being able to be injected into an outdated, failed system.
Question: Elsewhere I think you mention that Illinois is middling as far as state taxes go. Why can’t it raise more revenue? Excessive local taxes?
That’s a good question, Trumwill Mobile, and I wish I could give an answer that wasn’t complicated.
Illinois’s taxes were in the middle of the pack in the period covered by the NEA’s report. In 2011 Illinois raised its personal income tax 60% on a temporary, emergency basis.
1. Raising the tax rate did not result in 60% more personal income tax revenues but significantly less. That doesn’t bode well for increasing revenues that way.
2. Illinois is at the top of the pack in terms of real estate taxes and sales taxes.
3. Both houses of Illinois’s legislature are solidly controlled by Democrats. They like their jobs well enough that they’re reluctant to raise taxes.
4. Illinois has more independently taxing entities than any other state in the union. Every school district, forest preserve district, sanitary district, etc. can raise its rates without asking for the state’s permission.
5. Only the state can levy an income tax.
6. Raising the state’s corporate income tax resulted in substantial flight of businesses from the state.
7. As in California, in Illinois although districts set teachers’ wages the state is responsible for their pensions (except for Chicago where the city is responsible for their pensions).
Illinois has been so mismanaged for so long that there’s no way it can produce the revenues it needs on the basis of raising tax rates alone.
As for Chicago itself, the city already has the highest sales tax in the country, it’s reached the statutory limit for increasing property taxes, and it doesn’t have the power to levy an income tax. The state’s contribution to education is quite small and the city is responsible for teacher pensions (rather than the state). Chicago is basically at the end of its rope. At this point the only rate it can increase by act of the City Council is the sales tax rate and doing that just drives retail out of the city.
@Dave Schuler
Chicago-Illinois sounds like New Orleans-Louisiana. Most of the items on your list apply there also.