MCPS Reaches Agreement with MCEA to Raise Teachers' Wages

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I have a “snobby” degree. I’m not a better teacher than colleagues who went to less “snobby” schools. I didn’t take any education classes until graduate school, while these colleagues started getting real-life practice while still an undergraduate. I had to catch up. What my snobby degree arguably did do was make it easier to transition to a new field and out of MCPS. I may have had more options because I hadn’t zeroed in exclusively on education as an undergraduate. I’m not sure young people are incentivized to seek out teaching as an undergraduate these days because they can find their way there through different tracks and preserve other options at the same time.

Finally, someone that seems to get it. It may seem horribly unfair, but compensation for a job is only very loosely tied to how good you are at your job, or how hard you work. It is more based on your replacement cost, which in turn is associated with the compensation offered to people with similar skills/education/experience in other jobs that could do your job at a minimally acceptable level.

Although a lot of workplaces talk about meritocracy, it's often subjective. Teacher jobs reward years of service instead of competency. This isn't to say there are competent teachers it's just not what is currently valued.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I have a “snobby” degree. I’m not a better teacher than colleagues who went to less “snobby” schools. I didn’t take any education classes until graduate school, while these colleagues started getting real-life practice while still an undergraduate. I had to catch up. What my snobby degree arguably did do was make it easier to transition to a new field and out of MCPS. I may have had more options because I hadn’t zeroed in exclusively on education as an undergraduate. I’m not sure young people are incentivized to seek out teaching as an undergraduate these days because they can find their way there through different tracks and preserve other options at the same time.

Finally, someone that seems to get it. It may seem horribly unfair, but compensation for a job is only very loosely tied to how good you are at your job, or how hard you work. It is more based on your replacement cost, which in turn is associated with the compensation offered to people with similar skills/education/experience in other jobs that could do your job at a minimally acceptable level.

Although a lot of workplaces talk about meritocracy, it's often subjective. Teacher jobs reward years of service instead of competency. This isn't to say there are competent teachers it's just not what is currently valued.

+1 this

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I have a “snobby” degree. I’m not a better teacher than colleagues who went to less “snobby” schools. I didn’t take any education classes until graduate school, while these colleagues started getting real-life practice while still an undergraduate. I had to catch up. What my snobby degree arguably did do was make it easier to transition to a new field and out of MCPS. I may have had more options because I hadn’t zeroed in exclusively on education as an undergraduate. I’m not sure young people are incentivized to seek out teaching as an undergraduate these days because they can find their way there through different tracks and preserve other options at the same time.

Finally, someone that seems to get it. It may seem horribly unfair, but compensation for a job is only very loosely tied to how good you are at your job, or how hard you work. It is more based on your replacement cost, which in turn is associated with the compensation offered to people with similar skills/education/experience in other jobs that could do your job at a minimally acceptable level.

Although a lot of workplaces talk about meritocracy, it's often subjective. Teacher jobs reward years of service instead of competency. This isn't to say there are competent teachers it's just not what is currently valued. [/quote

It has been proposed a lot. The issue is how do you determine merit? You can’t use test scores as those almost completely mirror SES level. You also need more teachers in the more challenging schools so rewarding teaching in a school with higher achieving students would make the divide even greater.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So a first-year teacher makes as much as the county's median income, and they feel underpaid?

So a first-year doctor makes as much as the county's median income, and they feel underpaid?
So a first-year lawyer makes as much as the county's median income, and they feel underpaid?
So a first-year engineer makes as much as the county's median income, and they feel underpaid?

My first year out of college, with a bachelor's degree in environmental science, I made more than the county's median income (adjusted for inflation),

Teaching ES isn't precisely comparable to performing heart surgery. Med school and residency take over a decade or more.

I've known a few remarkable teachers, but most seem to have degrees in psychology from Towson State. No offense but that is hardly comparable.

What's your obsession with Towson? You get rejected from there or something? Absolutely sounds like it. Stop disparaging other people's educations while hiding behind a keyboard. You have the mentality of a thirteen year old. Gross to see on a grown adult.

DP, but I imagine “psychology degree from Towson” is just a metaphor for any degree with relatively limited earning potential from an unimpressive school. There are a few people in this thread that seem to be making willfully misleading comparisons between professions and degrees.

People are comparing because there seem to be posters on this thread who don't understand the concept of contracts or how they work. There are people in this thread who cannot handle teachers "only" work 180 days of the year, while failing to acknowledge that many other, high paying professions also do not work as much as most people, but no one seems to have a problem with those jobs. That is the entire point. It's not hard to understand, but DCUM people seem to be absolutely incapable of rational thought.

Everyone understands how contracts work.

Nobody has a problem with teachers being contracted for fewer than the 250 days (minus ten days of leave) that is more common in the full time workforce. The only reason care at all how many days teachers work is when discussions come up about comparing salaries. Shockingly, nobody cares about how many days oil rig workers work, because they aren't on these boards complaining about their pay. You know this, but are being willfully obtuse.

lol everyone except you. Still so salty because 10 different people had to explain something to you that you still don’t get?

Still sending your Sunday trying to bully people online are you?

I'm not even the same poster. I just recognize your pathetic posts when I see them now. Maybe it's time for you to stop posting.

I'm fascinated by the fact that apparently multiple posters here think it is somehow convincing or persuasive to talk to people this way. I can see through the fact that you all keep saying I don't understand, but you can't actually point to any actual statement I have made that is incorrect. Certainly, you all are good at imagining in your heads ridiculous things that people could say, and arguing against that, but then you are just arguing with yourselves.

Sigh..I'll do it for everyone else. You're a moron. Plain and simple. What is your count up to now? 25 people? It's not bullying to call a a stupid person stupid. We all feel bad for you.

Lol, you still have nothing except schoolyard insults

DP, it’s not schoolyard insults. Your points make no sense. Everyone is tired of you. Move on.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I have a “snobby” degree. I’m not a better teacher than colleagues who went to less “snobby” schools. I didn’t take any education classes until graduate school, while these colleagues started getting real-life practice while still an undergraduate. I had to catch up. What my snobby degree arguably did do was make it easier to transition to a new field and out of MCPS. I may have had more options because I hadn’t zeroed in exclusively on education as an undergraduate. I’m not sure young people are incentivized to seek out teaching as an undergraduate these days because they can find their way there through different tracks and preserve other options at the same time.

Finally, someone that seems to get it. It may seem horribly unfair, but compensation for a job is only very loosely tied to how good you are at your job, or how hard you work. It is more based on your replacement cost, which in turn is associated with the compensation offered to people with similar skills/education/experience in other jobs that could do your job at a minimally acceptable level.

I’m not sure I read it the same way. To me, they are saying they have an out because they have a degree other than education. Many teachers do not. While teachers have transferable skills, teaching is all they know. So many are feeling incredible disenfranchised right now and overwhelmed.

PP here, and yes, that’s exactly it. That’s why teacher pay is what it is. Could some teachers change jobs and make more in total compensation? Yes, some could, but most could not.

I’m a teacher. I easily could. I have a bachelors in Econ and a maters in computer science. Do you know how many teachers I know with the same educational backgrounds? Actually most. We do this bc we love the kids. I could be making so much more…. Stop and think about that when you’re on a teacher rant. We are listening. We are planning our next moves.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So a first-year teacher makes as much as the county's median income, and they feel underpaid?

So a first-year doctor makes as much as the county's median income, and they feel underpaid?
So a first-year lawyer makes as much as the county's median income, and they feel underpaid?
So a first-year engineer makes as much as the county's median income, and they feel underpaid?

My first year out of college, with a bachelor's degree in environmental science, I made more than the county's median income (adjusted for inflation),

Teaching ES isn't precisely comparable to performing heart surgery. Med school and residency take over a decade or more.

I've known a few remarkable teachers, but most seem to have degrees in psychology from Towson State. No offense but that is hardly comparable.

What's your obsession with Towson? You get rejected from there or something? Absolutely sounds like it. Stop disparaging other people's educations while hiding behind a keyboard. You have the mentality of a thirteen year old. Gross to see on a grown adult.

DP, but I imagine “psychology degree from Towson” is just a metaphor for any degree with relatively limited earning potential from an unimpressive school. There are a few people in this thread that seem to be making willfully misleading comparisons between professions and degrees.

People are comparing because there seem to be posters on this thread who don't understand the concept of contracts or how they work. There are people in this thread who cannot handle teachers "only" work 180 days of the year, while failing to acknowledge that many other, high paying professions also do not work as much as most people, but no one seems to have a problem with those jobs. That is the entire point. It's not hard to understand, but DCUM people seem to be absolutely incapable of rational thought.

Everyone understands how contracts work.

Nobody has a problem with teachers being contracted for fewer than the 250 days (minus ten days of leave) that is more common in the full time workforce. The only reason care at all how many days teachers work is when discussions come up about comparing salaries. Shockingly, nobody cares about how many days oil rig workers work, because they aren't on these boards complaining about their pay. You know this, but are being willfully obtuse.

lol everyone except you. Still so salty because 10 different people had to explain something to you that you still don’t get?

Still sending your Sunday trying to bully people online are you?

I'm not even the same poster. I just recognize your pathetic posts when I see them now. Maybe it's time for you to stop posting.

I'm fascinated by the fact that apparently multiple posters here think it is somehow convincing or persuasive to talk to people this way. I can see through the fact that you all keep saying I don't understand, but you can't actually point to any actual statement I have made that is incorrect. Certainly, you all are good at imagining in your heads ridiculous things that people could say, and arguing against that, but then you are just arguing with yourselves.

Sigh..I'll do it for everyone else. You're a moron. Plain and simple. What is your count up to now? 25 people? It's not bullying to call a a stupid person stupid. We all feel bad for you.

Lol, you still have nothing except schoolyard insults

DP, it’s not schoolyard insults. Your points make no sense. Everyone is tired of you. Move on.

Ok "DP", which points are those exactly? Ones that I actually made (feel free to quote me), or ones that you all made up and attribute to me?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I have a “snobby” degree. I’m not a better teacher than colleagues who went to less “snobby” schools. I didn’t take any education classes until graduate school, while these colleagues started getting real-life practice while still an undergraduate. I had to catch up. What my snobby degree arguably did do was make it easier to transition to a new field and out of MCPS. I may have had more options because I hadn’t zeroed in exclusively on education as an undergraduate. I’m not sure young people are incentivized to seek out teaching as an undergraduate these days because they can find their way there through different tracks and preserve other options at the same time.

Finally, someone that seems to get it. It may seem horribly unfair, but compensation for a job is only very loosely tied to how good you are at your job, or how hard you work. It is more based on your replacement cost, which in turn is associated with the compensation offered to people with similar skills/education/experience in other jobs that could do your job at a minimally acceptable level.

Although a lot of workplaces talk about meritocracy, it's often subjective. Teacher jobs reward years of service instead of competency. This isn't to say there are competent teachers it's just not what is currently valued.

It has been proposed a lot. The issue is how do you determine merit? You can’t use test scores as those almost completely mirror SES level. You also need more teachers in the more challenging schools so rewarding teaching in a school with higher achieving students would make the divide even greater.

I don't have the answers either, but I'm certain others have studied this. There have to be some good ideas. I know if I were a teacher the lack of reward and recognition for doing anything would be demoralizing. I'd like to feel that my efforts could be recognized and rewarded.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I have a “snobby” degree. I’m not a better teacher than colleagues who went to less “snobby” schools. I didn’t take any education classes until graduate school, while these colleagues started getting real-life practice while still an undergraduate. I had to catch up. What my snobby degree arguably did do was make it easier to transition to a new field and out of MCPS. I may have had more options because I hadn’t zeroed in exclusively on education as an undergraduate. I’m not sure young people are incentivized to seek out teaching as an undergraduate these days because they can find their way there through different tracks and preserve other options at the same time.

Finally, someone that seems to get it. It may seem horribly unfair, but compensation for a job is only very loosely tied to how good you are at your job, or how hard you work. It is more based on your replacement cost, which in turn is associated with the compensation offered to people with similar skills/education/experience in other jobs that could do your job at a minimally acceptable level.

Although a lot of workplaces talk about meritocracy, it's often subjective. Teacher jobs reward years of service instead of competency. This isn't to say there are competent teachers it's just not what is currently valued.

It has been proposed a lot. The issue is how do you determine merit? You can’t use test scores as those almost completely mirror SES level. You also need more teachers in the more challenging schools so rewarding teaching in a school with higher achieving students would make the divide even greater.

In my non-teaching job my boss has zero quantitative measures to decide who to promote. He does it based on the quality of our work as he perceives it. I make $120k after being promoted multiple times. Another colleague who started at the same time makes $60k because he never got promoted. Yet another makes $90k - she has gotten promoted but not as quickly as I have,

Principals or APs could simply decide who the top performers are and give them raises because they want to retain them. No need for fancy algorithms which I agree would likely have unintended consequences.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I have a “snobby” degree. I’m not a better teacher than colleagues who went to less “snobby” schools. I didn’t take any education classes until graduate school, while these colleagues started getting real-life practice while still an undergraduate. I had to catch up. What my snobby degree arguably did do was make it easier to transition to a new field and out of MCPS. I may have had more options because I hadn’t zeroed in exclusively on education as an undergraduate. I’m not sure young people are incentivized to seek out teaching as an undergraduate these days because they can find their way there through different tracks and preserve other options at the same time.

Finally, someone that seems to get it. It may seem horribly unfair, but compensation for a job is only very loosely tied to how good you are at your job, or how hard you work. It is more based on your replacement cost, which in turn is associated with the compensation offered to people with similar skills/education/experience in other jobs that could do your job at a minimally acceptable level.

Although a lot of workplaces talk about meritocracy, it's often subjective. Teacher jobs reward years of service instead of competency. This isn't to say there are competent teachers it's just not what is currently valued.

IKR! All the best teachers just happen to be in all the high SES schools. It's simply amazing how good those principals are at recruiting them.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I have a “snobby” degree. I’m not a better teacher than colleagues who went to less “snobby” schools. I didn’t take any education classes until graduate school, while these colleagues started getting real-life practice while still an undergraduate. I had to catch up. What my snobby degree arguably did do was make it easier to transition to a new field and out of MCPS. I may have had more options because I hadn’t zeroed in exclusively on education as an undergraduate. I’m not sure young people are incentivized to seek out teaching as an undergraduate these days because they can find their way there through different tracks and preserve other options at the same time.

Finally, someone that seems to get it. It may seem horribly unfair, but compensation for a job is only very loosely tied to how good you are at your job, or how hard you work. It is more based on your replacement cost, which in turn is associated with the compensation offered to people with similar skills/education/experience in other jobs that could do your job at a minimally acceptable level.

Although a lot of workplaces talk about meritocracy, it's often subjective. Teacher jobs reward years of service instead of competency. This isn't to say there are competent teachers it's just not what is currently valued.

It has been proposed a lot. The issue is how do you determine merit? You can’t use test scores as those almost completely mirror SES level. You also need more teachers in the more challenging schools so rewarding teaching in a school with higher achieving students would make the divide even greater.

I don't have the answers either, but I'm certain others have studied this. There have to be some good ideas. I know if I were a teacher the lack of reward and recognition for doing anything would be demoralizing. I'd like to feel that my efforts could be recognized and rewarded.

This is a fascinating point. The truth is, if we were to evaluate the "best teachers," it would be based on the ones who can take struggling students and turn them into achievers, not the ones who help high-performers maintain as high-performers.

Looks like the education system has a massive analytical problem on its hands.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I have a “snobby” degree. I’m not a better teacher than colleagues who went to less “snobby” schools. I didn’t take any education classes until graduate school, while these colleagues started getting real-life practice while still an undergraduate. I had to catch up. What my snobby degree arguably did do was make it easier to transition to a new field and out of MCPS. I may have had more options because I hadn’t zeroed in exclusively on education as an undergraduate. I’m not sure young people are incentivized to seek out teaching as an undergraduate these days because they can find their way there through different tracks and preserve other options at the same time.

Finally, someone that seems to get it. It may seem horribly unfair, but compensation for a job is only very loosely tied to how good you are at your job, or how hard you work. It is more based on your replacement cost, which in turn is associated with the compensation offered to people with similar skills/education/experience in other jobs that could do your job at a minimally acceptable level.

Although a lot of workplaces talk about meritocracy, it's often subjective. Teacher jobs reward years of service instead of competency. This isn't to say there are competent teachers it's just not what is currently valued.

It has been proposed a lot. The issue is how do you determine merit? You can’t use test scores as those almost completely mirror SES level. You also need more teachers in the more challenging schools so rewarding teaching in a school with higher achieving students would make the divide even greater.

In my non-teaching job my boss has zero quantitative measures to decide who to promote. He does it based on the quality of our work as he perceives it. I make $120k after being promoted multiple times. Another colleague who started at the same time makes $60k because he never got promoted. Yet another makes $90k - she has gotten promoted but not as quickly as I have,

Principals or APs could simply decide who the top performers are and give them raises because they want to retain them. No need for fancy algorithms which I agree would likely have unintended consequences.

They could certainly do that in private schools, if they wanted to. In public schools, on the public dime, we should expect more objective standards than "Because I am the principal, and I wanted to."

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I have a “snobby” degree. I’m not a better teacher than colleagues who went to less “snobby” schools. I didn’t take any education classes until graduate school, while these colleagues started getting real-life practice while still an undergraduate. I had to catch up. What my snobby degree arguably did do was make it easier to transition to a new field and out of MCPS. I may have had more options because I hadn’t zeroed in exclusively on education as an undergraduate. I’m not sure young people are incentivized to seek out teaching as an undergraduate these days because they can find their way there through different tracks and preserve other options at the same time.

Finally, someone that seems to get it. It may seem horribly unfair, but compensation for a job is only very loosely tied to how good you are at your job, or how hard you work. It is more based on your replacement cost, which in turn is associated with the compensation offered to people with similar skills/education/experience in other jobs that could do your job at a minimally acceptable level.

Although a lot of workplaces talk about meritocracy, it's often subjective. Teacher jobs reward years of service instead of competency. This isn't to say there are competent teachers it's just not what is currently valued.

It has been proposed a lot. The issue is how do you determine merit? You can’t use test scores as those almost completely mirror SES level. You also need more teachers in the more challenging schools so rewarding teaching in a school with higher achieving students would make the divide even greater.

In my non-teaching job my boss has zero quantitative measures to decide who to promote. He does it based on the quality of our work as he perceives it. I make $120k after being promoted multiple times. Another colleague who started at the same time makes $60k because he never got promoted. Yet another makes $90k - she has gotten promoted but not as quickly as I have,

Principals or APs could simply decide who the top performers are and give them raises because they want to retain them. No need for fancy algorithms which I agree would likely have unintended consequences.

They could certainly do that in private schools, if they wanted to. In public schools, on the public dime, we should expect more objective standards than "Because I am the principal, and I wanted to."

Why? Lots of government jobs do this.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I have a “snobby” degree. I’m not a better teacher than colleagues who went to less “snobby” schools. I didn’t take any education classes until graduate school, while these colleagues started getting real-life practice while still an undergraduate. I had to catch up. What my snobby degree arguably did do was make it easier to transition to a new field and out of MCPS. I may have had more options because I hadn’t zeroed in exclusively on education as an undergraduate. I’m not sure young people are incentivized to seek out teaching as an undergraduate these days because they can find their way there through different tracks and preserve other options at the same time.

Finally, someone that seems to get it. It may seem horribly unfair, but compensation for a job is only very loosely tied to how good you are at your job, or how hard you work. It is more based on your replacement cost, which in turn is associated with the compensation offered to people with similar skills/education/experience in other jobs that could do your job at a minimally acceptable level.

Although a lot of workplaces talk about meritocracy, it's often subjective. Teacher jobs reward years of service instead of competency. This isn't to say there are competent teachers it's just not what is currently valued.

It has been proposed a lot. The issue is how do you determine merit? You can’t use test scores as those almost completely mirror SES level. You also need more teachers in the more challenging schools so rewarding teaching in a school with higher achieving students would make the divide even greater.

In my non-teaching job my boss has zero quantitative measures to decide who to promote. He does it based on the quality of our work as he perceives it. I make $120k after being promoted multiple times. Another colleague who started at the same time makes $60k because he never got promoted. Yet another makes $90k - she has gotten promoted but not as quickly as I have,

Principals or APs could simply decide who the top performers are and give them raises because they want to retain them. No need for fancy algorithms which I agree would likely have unintended consequences.

They could certainly do that in private schools, if they wanted to. In public schools, on the public dime, we should expect more objective standards than "Because I am the principal, and I wanted to."

Yeah. And frankly, I'm not sure if principals and APs have the right vantage point to gauge teacher efficacy? I'm a parent, so my perspective is limited to what teachers tell me, but most teachers tell me their admins have little to no idea of what they do, hence why they're so frustrated that they're judged on the occasional observation that the admins do, which is usually in response to some complaint a student or parent has made about the teacher.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I have a “snobby” degree. I’m not a better teacher than colleagues who went to less “snobby” schools. I didn’t take any education classes until graduate school, while these colleagues started getting real-life practice while still an undergraduate. I had to catch up. What my snobby degree arguably did do was make it easier to transition to a new field and out of MCPS. I may have had more options because I hadn’t zeroed in exclusively on education as an undergraduate. I’m not sure young people are incentivized to seek out teaching as an undergraduate these days because they can find their way there through different tracks and preserve other options at the same time.

Finally, someone that seems to get it. It may seem horribly unfair, but compensation for a job is only very loosely tied to how good you are at your job, or how hard you work. It is more based on your replacement cost, which in turn is associated with the compensation offered to people with similar skills/education/experience in other jobs that could do your job at a minimally acceptable level.

Although a lot of workplaces talk about meritocracy, it's often subjective. Teacher jobs reward years of service instead of competency. This isn't to say there are competent teachers it's just not what is currently valued.

It has been proposed a lot. The issue is how do you determine merit? You can’t use test scores as those almost completely mirror SES level. You also need more teachers in the more challenging schools so rewarding teaching in a school with higher achieving students would make the divide even greater.

In my non-teaching job my boss has zero quantitative measures to decide who to promote. He does it based on the quality of our work as he perceives it. I make $120k after being promoted multiple times. Another colleague who started at the same time makes $60k because he never got promoted. Yet another makes $90k - she has gotten promoted but not as quickly as I have,

Principals or APs could simply decide who the top performers are and give them raises because they want to retain them. No need for fancy algorithms which I agree would likely have unintended consequences.

They could certainly do that in private schools, if they wanted to. In public schools, on the public dime, we should expect more objective standards than "Because I am the principal, and I wanted to."

Why? Lots of government jobs do this.

Not in my experience, they don't. Even if that is the real reason, it has to get dressed up in some kind of non-arbitrary, non-capricious justification.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I have a “snobby” degree. I’m not a better teacher than colleagues who went to less “snobby” schools. I didn’t take any education classes until graduate school, while these colleagues started getting real-life practice while still an undergraduate. I had to catch up. What my snobby degree arguably did do was make it easier to transition to a new field and out of MCPS. I may have had more options because I hadn’t zeroed in exclusively on education as an undergraduate. I’m not sure young people are incentivized to seek out teaching as an undergraduate these days because they can find their way there through different tracks and preserve other options at the same time.

Finally, someone that seems to get it. It may seem horribly unfair, but compensation for a job is only very loosely tied to how good you are at your job, or how hard you work. It is more based on your replacement cost, which in turn is associated with the compensation offered to people with similar skills/education/experience in other jobs that could do your job at a minimally acceptable level.

Although a lot of workplaces talk about meritocracy, it's often subjective. Teacher jobs reward years of service instead of competency. This isn't to say there are competent teachers it's just not what is currently valued.

It has been proposed a lot. The issue is how do you determine merit? You can’t use test scores as those almost completely mirror SES level. You also need more teachers in the more challenging schools so rewarding teaching in a school with higher achieving students would make the divide even greater.

In my non-teaching job my boss has zero quantitative measures to decide who to promote. He does it based on the quality of our work as he perceives it. I make $120k after being promoted multiple times. Another colleague who started at the same time makes $60k because he never got promoted. Yet another makes $90k - she has gotten promoted but not as quickly as I have,

Principals or APs could simply decide who the top performers are and give them raises because they want to retain them. No need for fancy algorithms which I agree would likely have unintended consequences.

They could certainly do that in private schools, if they wanted to. In public schools, on the public dime, we should expect more objective standards than "Because I am the principal, and I wanted to."

Why? Lots of government jobs do this.

Not in my experience, they don't. Even if that is the real reason, it has to get dressed up in some kind of non-arbitrary, non-capricious justification.

Please, if anything government promotions are less likely to be based on quantitative measures than private sector jobs. I am a government worker btw.