Anonymous wrote:

Teachers in "wealthier" schools don't exactly have it easy. The grass is always greener.

I've done both. Different challenges, but, believe me it is easier to teach in a wealthier school. Sure, the parents are pests, but, just try to schedule a meeting with a parent in one of the really, really poor schools. Try teaching where you have two or three kids absent at least once a week because mom couldn't get out of bed. Try teaching kids who think that the only way to play is to hit or push other kids. The kids are loveable and you feel very needed, but it is extremely exhausting. And, now, with everything driven by test scores, it is extremely difficult to teach what they need.

Anonymous wrote:

Teachers in "wealthier" schools don't exactly have it easy. The grass is always greener.

I've done both. Different challenges, but, believe me it is easier to teach in a wealthier school. Sure, the parents are pests, but, just try to schedule a meeting with a parent in one of the really, really poor schools. Try teaching where you have two or three kids absent at least once a week because mom couldn't get out of bed. Try teaching kids who think that the only way to play is to hit or push other kids. The kids are loveable and you feel very needed, but it is extremely exhausting. And, now, with everything driven by test scores, it is extremely difficult to teach what they need.

Teachers in "wealthier" schools don't exactly have it easy. The grass is always greener.

No one denies there are bad teachers. You just come across as bitchy. Kinda like this response you just posted. I have a feeling you would be part of the rubbish that merit pay gets rid of. But you're too lacking in self-awareness to realize that. The fact that you think the only reason a person could disagree with you is because they're a poor teacher is proof of that. You sound like you need to grow up.

Anonymous wrote:

This. It's like apples and oranges. No way to compare how effective a teacher really is when Teacher A has a class full of kids who have stable homes, enough food in their homes and educated, tuned-in parent, and Teacher B has a class full of kids whose basic needs aren't met.

Absolutely. I've taught in both--believe me, I deserved more pay when I was working in the poor school. I also spent more of my own money there--as well as more hours of work.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I would be worried word would get out to parents and teachers that Mrs. A gets paid more than Mrs. B and then there would be a fight among parents for Mrs. A. Also, Mrs. B may be jealous of Mrs. A and not want to work constructively with her on curriculum planning and particular students they share. Since not all children can get Mrs. A, this system doesn't work.

Mrs. B being jealous of Mrs. A and refusing to work with her is just a good indication that Mrs. B is in the wrong field and needs to leave teaching.

How do people in other professions manage to work with people who earn more or less than they do? Are teachers so petty that it's an impossibility for them to imagine that someone might be better (or have more recognizably better skills in particular areas) or worse (or have fewer recognizably better skills) than they are?

I work in a merit pay based system. It is not "fair" in the sense that everyone would agree about how the merit pay is allocated and judged. But the metrics are understandable, even if they can't possibly cover everything and tend to cover measurable things even when those things aren't the most important aspects of the job. So in that sense it is fair. It's not fair in the sense that everyone would always be judged the same no matter what - different supervisors rate people differently. It's part of life. It's fascinating that teachers find that unfathomable (although early child care workers and university professors seem less befuddled by the concept).

How many other job salaries are tied to how well someone else does at their job? Are doctors graded on how healthy their patients are? That's why merit pay doesn't work. We are grading the students and not the teacher in order to figure out a salary for a teacher. In addition, there are few promotions that a teacher can have so it becomes strange to have all of these merit and longevity pay scales for the same job tasks.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think most teachers are pretty good. The top "10%'ers" can go to the privates and can make the big bucks if money is the issue.

The focus should be on the other 10% of the spectrum. The bad teachers. They're easier to ID (start with the criminals on paid admin leave) and getting rid of the bad ones would have a much more significant effect. Just allow leadership to fire the bad ones just like we can in the real world.

Watch out, PP. I suggested that the other day and listed four examples of bad teachers I had known over a number of years of teaching. Teachers who should have not been there. Someone on this thread jumped all over me and denied that there were any poor teachers. Poster said I was a "busybody" for noticing. The poster claimed to be a teacher. I can only guess that it must have been a high school teacher who never left the classroom. Either that, or, perhaps a poor teacher that had been reported by a colleague.

I always have said that merit pay should start with getting rid of rubbish--not the mediocre teachers--but, just the really poor ones.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think most teachers are pretty good. The top "10%'ers" can go to the privates and can make the big bucks if money is the issue.

The focus should be on the other 10% of the spectrum. The bad teachers. They're easier to ID (start with the criminals on paid admin leave) and getting rid of the bad ones would have a much more significant effect. Just allow leadership to fire the bad ones just like we can in the real world.

Leadership IS allowed to fire "the bad ones". I've seen it happen several times. They fired tenured teachers.

Tenure doesn't mean that the teacher cannot be fired. It simply means that the principal must have JUST CAUSE to fire him/her. Without it, principals would fire the teacher s/he doesn't like for whatever reason. The one who refuses to take on extra activities, the one who disagrees with him in a meeting, the one who just refuses to kiss his ass.

They need to do a more complete evaluation. We've seen teacher's contracts not renewed as they were not a principal favorite but they were amazing teachers. It goes both ways.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think most teachers are pretty good. The top "10%'ers" can go to the privates and can make the big bucks if money is the issue.

The focus should be on the other 10% of the spectrum. The bad teachers. They're easier to ID (start with the criminals on paid admin leave) and getting rid of the bad ones would have a much more significant effect. Just allow leadership to fire the bad ones just like we can in the real world.

Leadership IS allowed to fire "the bad ones". I've seen it happen several times. They fired tenured teachers.

Tenure doesn't mean that the teacher cannot be fired. It simply means that the principal must have JUST CAUSE to fire him/her. Without it, principals would fire the teacher s/he doesn't like for whatever reason. The one who refuses to take on extra activities, the one who disagrees with him in a meeting, the one who just refuses to kiss his ass.

Anonymous wrote:

I think you need to look more inclusively not just at test scores and progress but by observations, parental survey's and progress of the individual students. You are always going to get a mix of kids and that's part of teaching. At our school, my SN kid is except from testing (which makes no sense when his test scores on the one test he did do was very good). So, they always have loopholes. I'd like to have input into my children's teachers ratings. Teachers who do extra deserve the merit pay... those that work with and other professionals involved with the kids, those who engage parents in the classroom and let parents know what is going on, those who really teach vs. lump kids together based off what is easiest and meet individual kids needs, etc. We've had great teachers where I know what is going on and feel really a part of my child's education and we work together. It makes it better when what we supplement at home is equal or a bit ahead of what is done at school. This year, no parent/teacher conference, I have no idea what is going on in the classroom, teacher will not speak with outside professionals who have worked with my child for years, has her in a reading and math group way below her ability and never corrects work or helps while they are doing it. There are several teachers and aides and a small class size so there is no excuse for what is going on. Teachers like that should not be rewarded. Our principal thinks very highly of the classroom and has no idea what others think.

So, if the teacher puts the child in the group the parent chooses, then she gets more pay? Versus, putting the child in the group she tests into at school?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I would be worried word would get out to parents and teachers that Mrs. A gets paid more than Mrs. B and then there would be a fight among parents for Mrs. A. Also, Mrs. B may be jealous of Mrs. A and not want to work constructively with her on curriculum planning and particular students they share. Since not all children can get Mrs. A, this system doesn't work.

Mrs. B being jealous of Mrs. A and refusing to work with her is just a good indication that Mrs. B is in the wrong field and needs to leave teaching.

How do people in other professions manage to work with people who earn more or less than they do? Are teachers so petty that it's an impossibility for them to imagine that someone might be better (or have more recognizably better skills in particular areas) or worse (or have fewer recognizably better skills) than they are?

I work in a merit pay based system. It is not "fair" in the sense that everyone would agree about how the merit pay is allocated and judged. But the metrics are understandable, even if they can't possibly cover everything and tend to cover measurable things even when those things aren't the most important aspects of the job. So in that sense it is fair. It's not fair in the sense that everyone would always be judged the same no matter what - different supervisors rate people differently. It's part of life. It's fascinating that teachers find that unfathomable (although early child care workers and university professors seem less befuddled by the concept).

How many other job salaries are tied to how well someone else does at their job? Are doctors graded on how healthy their patients are? That's why merit pay doesn't work. We are grading the students and not the teacher in order to figure out a salary for a teacher. In addition, there are few promotions that a teacher can have so it becomes strange to have all of these merit and longevity pay scales for the same job tasks.

Anonymous wrote:I think most teachers are pretty good. The top "10%'ers" can go to the privates and can make the big bucks if money is the issue.

The focus should be on the other 10% of the spectrum. The bad teachers. They're easier to ID (start with the criminals on paid admin leave) and getting rid of the bad ones would have a much more significant effect. Just allow leadership to fire the bad ones just like we can in the real world.

I think you need to look more inclusively not just at test scores and progress but by observations, parental survey's and progress of the individual students. You are always going to get a mix of kids and that's part of teaching. At our school, my SN kid is except from testing (which makes no sense when his test scores on the one test he did do was very good). So, they always have loopholes. I'd like to have input into my children's teachers ratings. Teachers who do extra deserve the merit pay... those that work with and other professionals involved with the kids, those who engage parents in the classroom and let parents know what is going on, those who really teach vs. lump kids together based off what is easiest and meet individual kids needs, etc. We've had great teachers where I know what is going on and feel really a part of my child's education and we work together. It makes it better when what we supplement at home is equal or a bit ahead of what is done at school. This year, no parent/teacher conference, I have no idea what is going on in the classroom, teacher will not speak with outside professionals who have worked with my child for years, has her in a reading and math group way below her ability and never corrects work or helps while they are doing it. There are several teachers and aides and a small class size so there is no excuse for what is going on. Teachers like that should not be rewarded. Our principal thinks very highly of the classroom and has no idea what others think.

Anonymous wrote:
As a teacher, don't you also see some practical difficulties with parents and other teachers if you are paid more or less than they are?


If you want a higher income, then you need to change professions. You cannot complain someone else is making more money when you choose the profession.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I would be worried word would get out to parents and teachers that Mrs. A gets paid more than Mrs. B and then there would be a fight among parents for Mrs. A. Also, Mrs. B may be jealous of Mrs. A and not want to work constructively with her on curriculum planning and particular students they share. Since not all children can get Mrs. A, this system doesn't work.

Mrs. B being jealous of Mrs. A and refusing to work with her is just a good indication that Mrs. B is in the wrong field and needs to leave teaching.

How do people in other professions manage to work with people who earn more or less than they do? Are teachers so petty that it's an impossibility for them to imagine that someone might be better (or have more recognizably better skills in particular areas) or worse (or have fewer recognizably better skills) than they are?

I work in a merit pay based system. It is not "fair" in the sense that everyone would agree about how the merit pay is allocated and judged. But the metrics are understandable, even if they can't possibly cover everything and tend to cover measurable things even when those things aren't the most important aspects of the job. So in that sense it is fair. It's not fair in the sense that everyone would always be judged the same no matter what - different supervisors rate people differently. It's part of life. It's fascinating that teachers find that unfathomable (although early child care workers and university professors seem less befuddled by the concept).