Special ed teachers picked careers dedicated to helping others. For anyone to suggest that they don't care about the kids because they want to keep themselves and their loved ones safe during a pandemic, is just ridiculous. For anyone questioning their dedication, I'd ask, what is your job?

Anonymous wrote:PP, adding to that:
I've never understood why teachers think they're in such a unique situation from a performance-evaluation perspective. Yes, performance evaluations are harder than, say, a manufacturing jobs. But they're not particularly harder than other service and/or professional jobs.

Exactly. If anything, educational outcomes are easier to quantify and judge and compare across schools and within a school. They don’t want performance based pay because they know that some teachers would do poorly and some would do well and it would piss the ones who did poorly off. You know what? That’s not my problem. That’s actually how it should work. We should be incentivizing high performance not protecting teachers feelings or preserving the salaries of bad teachers.

The public school system has lost its focus as a system that educates children rather than a center for employment of teachers.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There seems to be a lot of agreement that SPED teachers should be paid more- or at least get hazard pay for now- but then a couple posters here said the union would never allow it? Why is that? Will they not agree to any raises unless it is for all teachers?

Correct.
AACo used to have bonuses for teachers at the most challenging schools (not just Special Ed, but high FARMs, etc) and the union did away with all those too. Basically their stance is that all teachers should be paid on the same scale, despite the fact that some teachers do remarkably different jobs.

I would like to see that practice return. That is a measure that could actually combat the achievement gap. All things being equal, why wouldn't most teachers want to be in a less stressful, less challenging environment?

I think it's part of a general fear of performance-based pay. Teachers have broadly fought all efforts to tie any portion of salaries or bonuses to job performance. There seems to be an incredible lack of trust between teachers and administrators. Once you understand that, many of the broader actions of the teachers unions make more sense.

Performance based pay would punish teachers who work with challenging students. Also, how do you measure performance? Do you want art teachers judged on English scores? Because that has been known to happen in some school systems that have adopted such systems.

That’s ridiculous. We judge and pay doctors based on their performance and they treat “more challenging” patients. There are ways to account for that. It’s a huge excuse and it basically drives good teachers out of the system (many who can’t get tenure year after year) and rewards bad teachers. Unions are part of the problem.

Yep. Sped teachers, bilingual teachers and those who work in difficult schools should be paid double. Just raise taxes. I'm a teacher and I'm 100% behind paying those who a willing to teach sped, willing to teach in rough schools waaaaaaaaaaay more.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
its not any different, but in organizations the tradeoffs are well thought out (or at least should be) and the bonus pools are highest where they need to be to either attract the needed talent or to motivate the correct divisions. In schools you want your best talent in the worst schools

Right - you make the bonus pools highest where they need to attract talent. So you'd make the bonus pools highest in the worst schools and the most challenging disciplines. It's really not rocket science.

They need to advertise the positions and give provisional certifications until the pandemic is under control. So many students need the help of in person support. There are willing special needs support workers out there but whether they are certified, well, the qualifications may need to change at the moment.

As a parent, I would be willing to have someone who is credentialed in special needs support even if they aren't a special needs educator to help us through virutal learning. The fact that no one is willing to return just means no one is willing to break the line. It's time to find the assistants and those who are working on the job requirements to see if they can train as they go.

Not an ideal situation, but virutal learning is a total waste so it can only be an improvement.

Anonymous wrote:
its not any different, but in organizations the tradeoffs are well thought out (or at least should be) and the bonus pools are highest where they need to be to either attract the needed talent or to motivate the correct divisions. In schools you want your best talent in the worst schools

Right - you make the bonus pools highest where they need to attract talent. So you'd make the bonus pools highest in the worst schools and the most challenging disciplines. It's really not rocket science.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There seems to be a lot of agreement that SPED teachers should be paid more- or at least get hazard pay for now- but then a couple posters here said the union would never allow it? Why is that? Will they not agree to any raises unless it is for all teachers?

Correct.
AACo used to have bonuses for teachers at the most challenging schools (not just Special Ed, but high FARMs, etc) and the union did away with all those too. Basically their stance is that all teachers should be paid on the same scale, despite the fact that some teachers do remarkably different jobs.

I would like to see that practice return. That is a measure that could actually combat the achievement gap. All things being equal, why wouldn't most teachers want to be in a less stressful, less challenging environment?

I think it's part of a general fear of performance-based pay. Teachers have broadly fought all efforts to tie any portion of salaries or bonuses to job performance. There seems to be an incredible lack of trust between teachers and administrators. Once you understand that, many of the broader actions of the teachers unions make more sense.

Performance based pay would punish teachers who work with challenging students. Also, how do you measure performance? Do you want art teachers judged on English scores? Because that has been known to happen in some school systems that have adopted such systems.

The same way nearly every other profession does it: through subjective evaluations by their supervisors.

in which case, teachers who can would get to stable high performing better off schools where it's easy to justify a bonus because all of the kids are testing where they should be as opposed to schools in poorer neighborhoods with high ESOL and FARMs populations where its harder to justify bonuses because the test scores are never where they should be. Even with subjective scores, school administrators will still have to answer to their bosses and it's a lot easier to call everyone a model employee if the school is thriving

How is this different than any other field?

I'll also note that in most cases, employees get grouped into different evaluation pools, with each pool getting set aside their own pot of money for pay increases and/or bonuses. These dollar amounts allocated to each pool might be based on their size, or it might be based on their need to more strongly reward/retain high-performers in particular areas.

In the case of schools, it seems like you'd almost certainly separate the pools at least by school, and perhaps grouping departments as well. And you'd probably allocate more money for schools (Title 1?) and specialities/areas (SPED, STEM) where it is harder to recruit or retain teachers.

its not any different, but in organizations the tradeoffs are well thought out (or at least should be) and the bonus pools are highest where they need to be to either attract the needed talent or to motivate the correct divisions. In schools you want your best talent in the worst schools

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There seems to be a lot of agreement that SPED teachers should be paid more- or at least get hazard pay for now- but then a couple posters here said the union would never allow it? Why is that? Will they not agree to any raises unless it is for all teachers?

Correct.
AACo used to have bonuses for teachers at the most challenging schools (not just Special Ed, but high FARMs, etc) and the union did away with all those too. Basically their stance is that all teachers should be paid on the same scale, despite the fact that some teachers do remarkably different jobs.

I would like to see that practice return. That is a measure that could actually combat the achievement gap. All things being equal, why wouldn't most teachers want to be in a less stressful, less challenging environment?

I think it's part of a general fear of performance-based pay. Teachers have broadly fought all efforts to tie any portion of salaries or bonuses to job performance. There seems to be an incredible lack of trust between teachers and administrators. Once you understand that, many of the broader actions of the teachers unions make more sense.

Performance based pay would punish teachers who work with challenging students. Also, how do you measure performance? Do you want art teachers judged on English scores? Because that has been known to happen in some school systems that have adopted such systems.

It doesn't have to be performance based. It could be a bonus paid to teachers who were willing to work with challenging situations. Maybe it could be structured so that the bonus increases with teacher experience or previous teacher ratings. All of the equity discussions raise the issue of inexperienced teachers at poorer schools. More experienced teachers generally prefer to work with less challenging populations. Could financial incentives help to direct experienced and highly effective teachers to teach at more challenging schools?

PP, adding to that:
I've never understood why teachers think they're in such a unique situation from a performance-evaluation perspective. Yes, performance evaluations are harder than, say, a manufacturing jobs. But they're not particularly harder than other service and/or professional jobs.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There seems to be a lot of agreement that SPED teachers should be paid more- or at least get hazard pay for now- but then a couple posters here said the union would never allow it? Why is that? Will they not agree to any raises unless it is for all teachers?

Correct.
AACo used to have bonuses for teachers at the most challenging schools (not just Special Ed, but high FARMs, etc) and the union did away with all those too. Basically their stance is that all teachers should be paid on the same scale, despite the fact that some teachers do remarkably different jobs.

I would like to see that practice return. That is a measure that could actually combat the achievement gap. All things being equal, why wouldn't most teachers want to be in a less stressful, less challenging environment?

I think it's part of a general fear of performance-based pay. Teachers have broadly fought all efforts to tie any portion of salaries or bonuses to job performance. There seems to be an incredible lack of trust between teachers and administrators. Once you understand that, many of the broader actions of the teachers unions make more sense.

Performance based pay would punish teachers who work with challenging students. Also, how do you measure performance? Do you want art teachers judged on English scores? Because that has been known to happen in some school systems that have adopted such systems.

The same way nearly every other profession does it: through subjective evaluations by their supervisors.

in which case, teachers who can would get to stable high performing better off schools where it's easy to justify a bonus because all of the kids are testing where they should be as opposed to schools in poorer neighborhoods with high ESOL and FARMs populations where its harder to justify bonuses because the test scores are never where they should be. Even with subjective scores, school administrators will still have to answer to their bosses and it's a lot easier to call everyone a model employee if the school is thriving

How is this different than any other field?

I'll also note that in most cases, employees get grouped into different evaluation pools, with each pool getting set aside their own pot of money for pay increases and/or bonuses. These dollar amounts allocated to each pool might be based on their size, or it might be based on their need to more strongly reward/retain high-performers in particular areas.

In the case of schools, it seems like you'd almost certainly separate the pools at least by school, and perhaps grouping departments as well. And you'd probably allocate more money for schools (Title 1?) and specialities/areas (SPED, STEM) where it is harder to recruit or retain teachers.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There seems to be a lot of agreement that SPED teachers should be paid more- or at least get hazard pay for now- but then a couple posters here said the union would never allow it? Why is that? Will they not agree to any raises unless it is for all teachers?

Correct.
AACo used to have bonuses for teachers at the most challenging schools (not just Special Ed, but high FARMs, etc) and the union did away with all those too. Basically their stance is that all teachers should be paid on the same scale, despite the fact that some teachers do remarkably different jobs.

That's crazy! Do they not realize there is a SPED teacher shortage?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There seems to be a lot of agreement that SPED teachers should be paid more- or at least get hazard pay for now- but then a couple posters here said the union would never allow it? Why is that? Will they not agree to any raises unless it is for all teachers?

Correct.
AACo used to have bonuses for teachers at the most challenging schools (not just Special Ed, but high FARMs, etc) and the union did away with all those too. Basically their stance is that all teachers should be paid on the same scale, despite the fact that some teachers do remarkably different jobs.

I would like to see that practice return. That is a measure that could actually combat the achievement gap. All things being equal, why wouldn't most teachers want to be in a less stressful, less challenging environment?

I think it's part of a general fear of performance-based pay. Teachers have broadly fought all efforts to tie any portion of salaries or bonuses to job performance. There seems to be an incredible lack of trust between teachers and administrators. Once you understand that, many of the broader actions of the teachers unions make more sense.

Performance based pay would punish teachers who work with challenging students. Also, how do you measure performance? Do you want art teachers judged on English scores? Because that has been known to happen in some school systems that have adopted such systems.

The same way nearly every other profession does it: through subjective evaluations by their supervisors.

in which case, teachers who can would get to stable high performing better off schools where it's easy to justify a bonus because all of the kids are testing where they should be as opposed to schools in poorer neighborhoods with high ESOL and FARMs populations where its harder to justify bonuses because the test scores are never where they should be. Even with subjective scores, school administrators will still have to answer to their bosses and it's a lot easier to call everyone a model employee if the school is thriving

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There seems to be a lot of agreement that SPED teachers should be paid more- or at least get hazard pay for now- but then a couple posters here said the union would never allow it? Why is that? Will they not agree to any raises unless it is for all teachers?

Correct.
AACo used to have bonuses for teachers at the most challenging schools (not just Special Ed, but high FARMs, etc) and the union did away with all those too. Basically their stance is that all teachers should be paid on the same scale, despite the fact that some teachers do remarkably different jobs.

I would like to see that practice return. That is a measure that could actually combat the achievement gap. All things being equal, why wouldn't most teachers want to be in a less stressful, less challenging environment?

I think it's part of a general fear of performance-based pay. Teachers have broadly fought all efforts to tie any portion of salaries or bonuses to job performance. There seems to be an incredible lack of trust between teachers and administrators. Once you understand that, many of the broader actions of the teachers unions make more sense.

Performance based pay would punish teachers who work with challenging students. Also, how do you measure performance? Do you want art teachers judged on English scores? Because that has been known to happen in some school systems that have adopted such systems.

The same way nearly every other profession does it: through subjective evaluations by their supervisors.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There seems to be a lot of agreement that SPED teachers should be paid more- or at least get hazard pay for now- but then a couple posters here said the union would never allow it? Why is that? Will they not agree to any raises unless it is for all teachers?

Correct.
AACo used to have bonuses for teachers at the most challenging schools (not just Special Ed, but high FARMs, etc) and the union did away with all those too. Basically their stance is that all teachers should be paid on the same scale, despite the fact that some teachers do remarkably different jobs.

I would like to see that practice return. That is a measure that could actually combat the achievement gap. All things being equal, why wouldn't most teachers want to be in a less stressful, less challenging environment?

I think it's part of a general fear of performance-based pay. Teachers have broadly fought all efforts to tie any portion of salaries or bonuses to job performance. There seems to be an incredible lack of trust between teachers and administrators. Once you understand that, many of the broader actions of the teachers unions make more sense.

Performance based pay would punish teachers who work with challenging students. Also, how do you measure performance? Do you want art teachers judged on English scores? Because that has been known to happen in some school systems that have adopted such systems.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There seems to be a lot of agreement that SPED teachers should be paid more- or at least get hazard pay for now- but then a couple posters here said the union would never allow it? Why is that? Will they not agree to any raises unless it is for all teachers?

Correct.
AACo used to have bonuses for teachers at the most challenging schools (not just Special Ed, but high FARMs, etc) and the union did away with all those too. Basically their stance is that all teachers should be paid on the same scale, despite the fact that some teachers do remarkably different jobs.

I would like to see that practice return. That is a measure that could actually combat the achievement gap. All things being equal, why wouldn't most teachers want to be in a less stressful, less challenging environment?

I think it's part of a general fear of performance-based pay. Teachers have broadly fought all efforts to tie any portion of salaries or bonuses to job performance. There seems to be an incredible lack of trust between teachers and administrators. Once you understand that, many of the broader actions of the teachers unions make more sense.