Florida wants to throw a huge amount of money into the teacher salary picture -- with one condition. The state wants teachers to figure out a way to create a merit-pay plan. The state wants teachers' pay related to students' performance.
Why isn't that fairly simple to institute?
You need to first understand how teachers are currently paid in most school districts. They are paid according to a salary schedule that specifies the base pay for every teacher in the system based on years of service. Every first year teacher gets a certain amount, a second year teacher gets that plus an increment, a third year teacher an increment, and so on. If you have been in the school system for 20 years, you get the same base pay as every other teacher who has been in the system for 20 years.
I underlined the base pay part of the second sentence in the previous paragraph to draw your attention to the fact that teachers are normally paid extra for additional, i.e., out-of-classroom, activities or services. Coaches get paid extra. Sponsor the yearbook and you get paid extra. Chaperon a fans bus to an away game and you get paid extra. Part-time department chairpersons get paid extra. Teachers hired to write curriculum are paid extra. Extra responsibilities not part of your daily classroom responsibility earn you extra money in your paycheck. Most teacher contracts also call for teachers to receive a bump up in salary for additional college hours and earned degrees. Hence, not all teachers on the same salary step earn exactly the same amount.
For some reason, the present system doesn't bother most teachers. They prefer knowing that they will get a raise next year come what may. The salary increments (percentage increases) are generally negotiated, and teachers like looking at the salary schedule and knowing that next year or three years hence they will be making X dollars.
It does not bother them that an ineffective teacher gets paid the same as an effective teacher. (Well, it does bother some but not enough to want to change the system.) They don't seem to mind that a teacher who shows up at school every morning just as the bell rings gets paid the same as the teacher who comes in early and meets with her students who need extra help. They know who the hard working teachers are and they know who the lazy, ineffective teachers are. They know they don't want their own children in the classes of the ineffective teachers -- but they apparently don't mind that those teachers may be getting the same salary as the better teachers.
That last part bothers parents, school board members and state-level politicians though. It probably bothers administrators but they are generally powerless to change the salary system. Their job is to administer the teacher-school board contract, not change it as they may see fit. I know that their input is sought during contract negotiations, but only as advisers. After all, in many school systems administrators are paid on a separate but similar salary schedule.
One fly in the pay-for-performance ointment is the difficulty of defining performance. Teachers know that it takes a different level of teacher effectiveness to raise student performance in, say, a physics class than it does to raise performance in an art class. And how do you rate the performance of the two?
Teachers also know that even between two teachers of the same subject there can be a big difference in the students they have and, hence, any observable performance difference. Teachers do not get to choose their students; they have to take those assigned to them. Students can ask for a transfer (and usually get it) to a less demanding teacher but teachers cannot ask to have difficult, disruptive or "slower" students transferred from their class. The presence or absence of such students can, however, affect the overall performance of the entire class.
There is still another class of teachers for which student performance in almost impossible to determine. I speak of special education teachers, remedial teachers, guidance counselors, student assistance coordinators, or any other person on the faculty who is paid according to his/her place on the salary schedule but does not have a regular classroom assignment and/or meet with mainstream students on a daily basis. How, for example, do you measure the effectiveness of a remedial math teacher? If she starts the year with a lad who is working one or more years below grade level and she brings him along a full year in achievement (an exceptional accomplishment when it happens), the child is still a year or more behind his peers at the end of the year because they have also advanced a year in achievement.
And what about music teachers, physical education teachers and school librarians? How do you measure student performance for purposes of merit pay for these teachers?
A second concern for teachers is the evaluation process. An administrator or supervision who may or may not be familiar with your subject or appropriate classroom techniques observes you for several periods and then writes you evaluation. How is that supposed to equate with the subject matter content your students learned or other skills you develop that may be important to their personal or educational growth and development?
Finally, there is the matter of a limited pool of money each year from which to award merit pay increases. The size of the money pool available for merit pay increases is always limited, sometimes very limited. That means that only a few teachers each year can get merit pay increases. If you got a merit pay award last year you can bet that you will not be in the running for one this year. In short, teachers know that the pot is small and not every deserving teacher will get a merit pay increase every year, regardless of their students' performance. Kind of defeats the purpose of the merit pay notion, doesn't it?
I don't have a solution. I just thought you should know some of the problems that continue to thwart the good intentions of those who want desperately to see good teachers paid more than poor teachers. A workable system might improve education by encouraging poor teachers to seek employment in another field but few merit plans have servived beyond the first half-dozen years, so we don't know.
What do you think?
Tuesday, December 15, 2009
Friday, December 11, 2009
EVERY GENERATION HAS MORE THAN IT NEEDS - SO THEIR PARENTS THINK
I've been off line for a while because of buying a new laptop computer. My old laptop was getting as slow as me and I felt I needed something faster. I have a 14" Toshiba Satellite and as with any new piece of electronics, there is a learning curve. Then, of course, there is the need to personalize the desktop, home pages, and hardware. For instance, I don't like the tap feature on most mouse pads; they are too sensitive and I end up entering folders or programs I did not intend. Hence, I always look for a way to turn off the tap function.
Well, all this takes awhile. It takes awhile to learn where the various switches are and it takes awhile to learn what to turn off and what to leave alone. Added to all this is the fact that I am a slow learner -- or just cautious. Anyway, I think I have this mustang under control, ready to ride, so to speak, so I'm ready to resume writing my blog.
Why did I want a new laptop? Did I need one? Certainly not. I already had one and it worked. I wanted a new laptop because my old one (now five years old and by industry standards, obsolete) not only was slow but also incapable of running some of the newer (meaning, larger) programs. In addition, it did not have some of the bells and whistles of newer computers on the market and I was envious.
Prices on laptops have come down so much from five years ago that is seemed almost insane to not buy a new computer. This new laptop with double the speed, memory, etc. cost about one-third what my older laptop cost. And it has some of the previously mentioned bells and whistles missing from the other machine: webcam, multiple USB ports (one a high speed port), a memory card reader, built-in broadband capability, et al.
But the new laptop started me thinking about all the electronic "things" my children and grandchildren have that I never had at their age. They not only have these things, they have the latest version. They've gone through more cell phones, for example, than I have golf balls -- and I go through a lot of golf balls. (If my golf balls could sing the woods bordering the golf course would be alive with the sound of music, except for the balls under water going glub, glub, glub.)
Further thought on the subject made me realize that every generation thinks it just has to have the gadgets and conveniences available at the time, very quickly reaching the point of wondering how the previous generation got along without them. Who among us, young or old, hasn't wondered: "How did the world function with computers?" They are everywhere and in every part of our lives it seems.
But why stop with computers? How about cell phones, SUVs, color HDTV, electric blankets, microwave ovens, refrigerators with ice cube and cold water dispensers, tires that are guaranteed for 50,000 miles or more (When was the last time you changed a tire?), credit cards, EZ passes for quicker entry to toll roads, CD players, iPods, DVD players, Blue Tooth everything, automatic dishwashers and on and on.
My generation didn't have all those things. True. But we did have our at the time must-have creature comforts that many of our parents must have wondered about. What young couple setting up housekeeping in the 1950s gave any thought to having a car, maybe two. Some of our parents at that point still survived with just one car, and an older one at that. We had to have a television set, even if it was black and white TV. And we had a telephone, maybe two or three, while many of our parents still got along with one phone on the wall in the kitchen -- and it was a rotary dial phone. Our wives worked while our mothers thought a women's place was at home. And we bought things on credit!
Clothes? We had several pairs of dress shoes, several more pairs for sports or casual wear, several suits and jackets for every occasion. Meanwhile, my dad had one suit: a dark navy blue gabardine, dark enough to be suitable for church, weddings and funerals -- and he wore it winter or summer, always with a tie. Casual Friday hadn't been invented yet and church service, weddings and funerals always required a suit, no exceptions.
When my wife and I married we had little but we nevertheless took some of the money we received from relatives to buy a HiFi record player. It wasn't a stereo set, understand, just a state-of-the-art Sylvania HiFi record player. We both had a collection of 33/3rd long-play records of favorite artists and we felt it made sense to buy a good record player. Looking back, I am sure both our parents thought it a stupid waste of money since neither of them had such a fine piece of electronics in their house.
Looking back a bit farther, however, I decided that my parent's generation probably started their adult lives with some things their parents had done without: a car, a telephone, a washing machine (clothes driers wouldn't come along until much later), an electric fan, an electric toaster, and other gadgets that surely made their parents wonder.
I suspect now that every generation looks at the next generation as the "me" generation, the generation that has to have every new convenience and have it now. Well, I'm trying to not fall too far behind the current generation -- a battle I suspect I am losing -- by buying a new laptop with some of the current must-have features. I suppose that some day my grandchildren will look back and wonder how grandma and grandpa managed "in their day."
Well, all this takes awhile. It takes awhile to learn where the various switches are and it takes awhile to learn what to turn off and what to leave alone. Added to all this is the fact that I am a slow learner -- or just cautious. Anyway, I think I have this mustang under control, ready to ride, so to speak, so I'm ready to resume writing my blog.
Why did I want a new laptop? Did I need one? Certainly not. I already had one and it worked. I wanted a new laptop because my old one (now five years old and by industry standards, obsolete) not only was slow but also incapable of running some of the newer (meaning, larger) programs. In addition, it did not have some of the bells and whistles of newer computers on the market and I was envious.
Prices on laptops have come down so much from five years ago that is seemed almost insane to not buy a new computer. This new laptop with double the speed, memory, etc. cost about one-third what my older laptop cost. And it has some of the previously mentioned bells and whistles missing from the other machine: webcam, multiple USB ports (one a high speed port), a memory card reader, built-in broadband capability, et al.
But the new laptop started me thinking about all the electronic "things" my children and grandchildren have that I never had at their age. They not only have these things, they have the latest version. They've gone through more cell phones, for example, than I have golf balls -- and I go through a lot of golf balls. (If my golf balls could sing the woods bordering the golf course would be alive with the sound of music, except for the balls under water going glub, glub, glub.)
Further thought on the subject made me realize that every generation thinks it just has to have the gadgets and conveniences available at the time, very quickly reaching the point of wondering how the previous generation got along without them. Who among us, young or old, hasn't wondered: "How did the world function with computers?" They are everywhere and in every part of our lives it seems.
But why stop with computers? How about cell phones, SUVs, color HDTV, electric blankets, microwave ovens, refrigerators with ice cube and cold water dispensers, tires that are guaranteed for 50,000 miles or more (When was the last time you changed a tire?), credit cards, EZ passes for quicker entry to toll roads, CD players, iPods, DVD players, Blue Tooth everything, automatic dishwashers and on and on.
My generation didn't have all those things. True. But we did have our at the time must-have creature comforts that many of our parents must have wondered about. What young couple setting up housekeeping in the 1950s gave any thought to having a car, maybe two. Some of our parents at that point still survived with just one car, and an older one at that. We had to have a television set, even if it was black and white TV. And we had a telephone, maybe two or three, while many of our parents still got along with one phone on the wall in the kitchen -- and it was a rotary dial phone. Our wives worked while our mothers thought a women's place was at home. And we bought things on credit!
Clothes? We had several pairs of dress shoes, several more pairs for sports or casual wear, several suits and jackets for every occasion. Meanwhile, my dad had one suit: a dark navy blue gabardine, dark enough to be suitable for church, weddings and funerals -- and he wore it winter or summer, always with a tie. Casual Friday hadn't been invented yet and church service, weddings and funerals always required a suit, no exceptions.
When my wife and I married we had little but we nevertheless took some of the money we received from relatives to buy a HiFi record player. It wasn't a stereo set, understand, just a state-of-the-art Sylvania HiFi record player. We both had a collection of 33/3rd long-play records of favorite artists and we felt it made sense to buy a good record player. Looking back, I am sure both our parents thought it a stupid waste of money since neither of them had such a fine piece of electronics in their house.
Looking back a bit farther, however, I decided that my parent's generation probably started their adult lives with some things their parents had done without: a car, a telephone, a washing machine (clothes driers wouldn't come along until much later), an electric fan, an electric toaster, and other gadgets that surely made their parents wonder.
I suspect now that every generation looks at the next generation as the "me" generation, the generation that has to have every new convenience and have it now. Well, I'm trying to not fall too far behind the current generation -- a battle I suspect I am losing -- by buying a new laptop with some of the current must-have features. I suppose that some day my grandchildren will look back and wonder how grandma and grandpa managed "in their day."
Thursday, December 3, 2009
THE PROBLEM WITH BELIEFS -- THEY CAN TRAP US
I read in the paper this morning that the New York State senate rejected a bill that would have made that state the sixth to allow gay marriage. The measure needed 32 votes and only received 24, a wider-than-expected margin, but closer than many people might have feared possible.
I don't care about the vote. It's only a matter of time before gay marriage is approved nationwide. Gay marriage resistance will fade away and law makers will act just as they did to remove miscegenation laws, Sunday blue laws, and the 55 mph speed laws. As more and more gays become known (they were there all along, but "in the closet) and society begins to see that they are not devil-possessed sexual perverts (at least not anymore than some heterosexuals), society will adopt the same acceptance it has about casual sex, living together without marriage, drinking, card playing and dancing -- all of which have gone through an outstanding metamorphosis of acceptance that would have been unbelievable 50-60 years ago.
No, the New York vote did not surprise or disappoint me. What caught my eye in the article was the statement by Sen. Eric Adams, D-Brooklyn. He challenged his colleagues "to set aside their religious beliefs and vote for the bill." He might as well have challenged them to be honest.
We humans are generally incapable of abandoning our beliefs.
Beliefs are just that, beliefs. They are not fact. They are not even remotely based on fact. They are exactly what they name says: they are what we believe -- not what we know.
Now I am sure that some readers are objecting that -- regarding their religious beliefs, at least -- that they "know" Christ is king, that God exists, that the world is only 6,000 years old, that Jesus turned water into wine, that prayer works, and so forth. They know this because that's what they have been taught since early childhood and they never stopped, i.e., had no cause, to question these teachings. Or, they will argue, that these elements of their faith are substantiated by no less an authority than the Christian Bible. Or, they will refer for validation to a noted clergyman or televangelist.
It can be said with certainty that what any of us knows came from some authority. We seldom have the ability or the time to independently verify what we are taught as fact. (Would you be surprised to learn that 2+2 = 4 is not always true? It is true only in a base 10 number system.) Just the same, there are some things we must accept on faith, while other things are verifiable by direct observation or science.
We can believe the earth is flat. We know it is not. We can believe "our" political leaders do not lie. We know better. We believe our spouse is faithful. Regrettably, more than one spouse has found that to not be the case.
Religious beliefs are the hardest to deal with. If we see a frosted image on the window of a McDonald's and "believe" it to be the Virgin Mary, who or what will persuade us otherwise. Thousands of like believers will throng to the site to pay homage to and/or pray before the image. Nothing will change their belief.
Political beliefs are the next hardest to influence or change. We believe in the Democratic or Republican or Independent or whatever party philosophy -- often without ever actually knowing what it is we are supposed to believe -- and nothing anyone can say or do will change how we vote. We vote the party and any politician worth his/her salt will spend an entire campaign repeating the party line, since we are only interested in hearing those arguments that support what we already believe.
Hence, we listen to the president and believe, or not, that he is doing the right thing. We listen to Rush Limbaugh and believe, or not, that he indeed offers us excellence in broadcasting, i.e., the truth. We watch the ABC News (or any other network news) and believe the news people there are reporting unbiased accounts of events. We know better in each of these instances, but we still believe.
Our beliefs allow us to give meaning to the things in life we do not fully understand. Our beliefs allow us to enter the world of Harry Potter or Santa Clause when we are young. Our beliefs give us something to hang onto when the world we know seems to offer little of substance. Every so-called miracle (something we cannot explain) bolsters our belief/faith while, like children who first learn the truth about Santa Clause, we reject or ignore evidence that challenges our belief.
Change our beliefs? Don't be ridiculous. Most of us cannot change our beliefs any more than we can change the color of our skin -- Michael Jackson being an exception.
The senator from New York should know better than to ask his colleagues to set aside their religious beliefs. Religious beliefs, like political, social or patriotic beliefs change as the patriotic, social, political or religious climate changes. We just follow. Very few of us are willing to or capable of examining and rejecting long-held beliefs -- and certainly not because some politician asked us to.
I don't care about the vote. It's only a matter of time before gay marriage is approved nationwide. Gay marriage resistance will fade away and law makers will act just as they did to remove miscegenation laws, Sunday blue laws, and the 55 mph speed laws. As more and more gays become known (they were there all along, but "in the closet) and society begins to see that they are not devil-possessed sexual perverts (at least not anymore than some heterosexuals), society will adopt the same acceptance it has about casual sex, living together without marriage, drinking, card playing and dancing -- all of which have gone through an outstanding metamorphosis of acceptance that would have been unbelievable 50-60 years ago.
No, the New York vote did not surprise or disappoint me. What caught my eye in the article was the statement by Sen. Eric Adams, D-Brooklyn. He challenged his colleagues "to set aside their religious beliefs and vote for the bill." He might as well have challenged them to be honest.
We humans are generally incapable of abandoning our beliefs.
Beliefs are just that, beliefs. They are not fact. They are not even remotely based on fact. They are exactly what they name says: they are what we believe -- not what we know.
Now I am sure that some readers are objecting that -- regarding their religious beliefs, at least -- that they "know" Christ is king, that God exists, that the world is only 6,000 years old, that Jesus turned water into wine, that prayer works, and so forth. They know this because that's what they have been taught since early childhood and they never stopped, i.e., had no cause, to question these teachings. Or, they will argue, that these elements of their faith are substantiated by no less an authority than the Christian Bible. Or, they will refer for validation to a noted clergyman or televangelist.
It can be said with certainty that what any of us knows came from some authority. We seldom have the ability or the time to independently verify what we are taught as fact. (Would you be surprised to learn that 2+2 = 4 is not always true? It is true only in a base 10 number system.) Just the same, there are some things we must accept on faith, while other things are verifiable by direct observation or science.
We can believe the earth is flat. We know it is not. We can believe "our" political leaders do not lie. We know better. We believe our spouse is faithful. Regrettably, more than one spouse has found that to not be the case.
Religious beliefs are the hardest to deal with. If we see a frosted image on the window of a McDonald's and "believe" it to be the Virgin Mary, who or what will persuade us otherwise. Thousands of like believers will throng to the site to pay homage to and/or pray before the image. Nothing will change their belief.
Political beliefs are the next hardest to influence or change. We believe in the Democratic or Republican or Independent or whatever party philosophy -- often without ever actually knowing what it is we are supposed to believe -- and nothing anyone can say or do will change how we vote. We vote the party and any politician worth his/her salt will spend an entire campaign repeating the party line, since we are only interested in hearing those arguments that support what we already believe.
Hence, we listen to the president and believe, or not, that he is doing the right thing. We listen to Rush Limbaugh and believe, or not, that he indeed offers us excellence in broadcasting, i.e., the truth. We watch the ABC News (or any other network news) and believe the news people there are reporting unbiased accounts of events. We know better in each of these instances, but we still believe.
Our beliefs allow us to give meaning to the things in life we do not fully understand. Our beliefs allow us to enter the world of Harry Potter or Santa Clause when we are young. Our beliefs give us something to hang onto when the world we know seems to offer little of substance. Every so-called miracle (something we cannot explain) bolsters our belief/faith while, like children who first learn the truth about Santa Clause, we reject or ignore evidence that challenges our belief.
Change our beliefs? Don't be ridiculous. Most of us cannot change our beliefs any more than we can change the color of our skin -- Michael Jackson being an exception.
The senator from New York should know better than to ask his colleagues to set aside their religious beliefs. Religious beliefs, like political, social or patriotic beliefs change as the patriotic, social, political or religious climate changes. We just follow. Very few of us are willing to or capable of examining and rejecting long-held beliefs -- and certainly not because some politician asked us to.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
