Of course you are right about teacher evaluation and remuneration, but I see the problem as an economic and administrative one.

For many years, urban school districts were so desperate for teachers that all a person needed was “a heartbeat and a degree” to be hired. Such things as experience, student teaching and state credentials hardly mattered as it was easy to get “emergency” credentials. Each year brought a new “emergency” and this went on for over forty years, although mainly for poor kids.

Once the teacher was hired, the main goal of administration was to keep this person. The principal knew that if a teacher quit in the middle of the year, the students could be stuck with one or more substitutes for the rest of the term. So tenure became automatic and classrooms visitations became infrequent formalities. Unless the teacher “caused waves,” she received “outstanding” evaluations every other year or so. No one asked for more. In most states these sketchy evaluations were reinforced by law.

Then came the recession and suddenly corporate types realized that Ms. Smith, the brilliant Yale graduate, could take old Mrs. Jones’ place and for a lot less money. If people could just show how “dumb” Mrs. Jones (working class graduate of State U.) is, it would be so easy to get rid of her and her $70,000 salary and replace her with young Ms. Smith’s starting salary of $30,000. And so the talk about teacher evaluations and merit pay commenced.

Well, I have news for everyone. It’s not that difficult to evaluate a teacher. Everyone knows who is excellent, who is average and who is ineffective. All an administrator needs to do is spend some time in the classroom observing lessons, student/teacher interactions, student work (especially compositions throughout the year) and periodic achievement tests. For promotions and tenure there would need to be a committee of professionals, in order to ensure fairness. Principals have always had the legal right to evaluate teachers, but few have exercised this right for the reasons I have given. Unions have never had this role. Yes, they’ve defended teachers with poor evaluations, but that’s what unions do. Their role is also enshrined in law.

In conclusion, I believe the lack of careful evaluation of teachers has been a socioeconomic and administrative problem and not a teacher/union concern. Teachers can certainly be carefully evaluated and rewarded accordingly but it will take personnel, time and money.

All of the above is dependent on a good supply of teachers. If the predicted teacher shortage comes once the baby boomers retire, I suspect urban districts will go back to hiring “anyone with a warm body and a degree” or maybe even “a warm body without a degree.”

and from the article:

But one of the principals who met with her last week said teachers don’t trust the evaluation system because they think it is designed to remove them, not help them improve.

“As they see it, Rhee is all show, has already made all the decisions, and sharing feedback with her is pretty pointless,” the principal said. “My teachers basically said it was too little too late. They don’t ever see her regaining their trust.”

The school leader said her instructors, “especially the experienced ones, see this new regime as a type of cult of the true believers. Don’t question what they do since they have all the answers.”

I don’t believe that every teacher is deserving of all three of those. The facts are that some teachers are better than others and that it does not have much to do with seniority (beyond the first 3 years). So, why don’t we try to do a better of figuring out who the better teachers are (through a variety of ways) and then pay them more, give them leadership positions in the school, and allow them to run their classes how they way. The weaker teachers should be given support and professional development until they get better or until it is clear that teaching isn’t the best profession for them.

Clearly there aren’t just 2 buckets of teachers, but isn’t it a requirement to making teaching a better profession to be able to tell who is doing well and make decisions based on it?

Sadly, I don’t think the AFT agrees.

Mike

There’s subtle irony in that somewhere…

This ad says it all. Nothing will be accomplished without collaboration with teachers. The smart people and districts understand that.

Folks who want to blame Michelle Rhee for the problems of the DC schools are in essence defending the status quo pre-Rhee — and that is simply unacceptable. Getting rid of Rhee may make some union members and other adults happy but it will only harm schools and kids, and it will make serious reform impossible. Rhee is bringing serious change to this system, and folks who have a vested interest in the status quo simply don’t like it. Let’s hope they don’t win (again). Our kids can’t afford it.