Teacher World

A recent article which appeared in Education Week by Boris Korsunsky caught my eye and kept my attention as he enumerated some very powerful reasons to keep tenure in public schools. Let me summarize his very interesting points.

First, let me tell you a little about the author of this piece. Korsunsky is a physics teacher in a public school in Massachusetts, who happens to also be tenured. He has two master’s degrees from Russia, his native land, as well as a doctorate from Harvard Graduate School of Education. Korsunsky is an educational consultant, a widely published author, and a winner of the 2011 Amgen Award for Excellence in Science Teaching. I tell you all of this in order to establish the wisdom and expertise that this man possesses. 

In his article, he first focuses on the current trend to improve the quality of public school teachers by rewarding effective teachers with merit pay while removing the security of tenure. He points out that dangling the promise of merit pay is an empty rhetorical tool in light of the current financial problems which schools face. And removing tenure, which is a central benefit for teachers, to supposedly improve the quality of teaching may actually do just the opposite.

He states that, if the goal is to attract and retain excellent teachers, the tenure system should not only be kept in place, but it should be expanded. He maintains that strengthening tenure systems should be considered a cost-effective way to draw effective teachers into the teaching profession, attracting higher quality candidates and improving the morale of currently employed teachers.

Korsunsky argues that contrary to the belief that tenured teachers don’t have any incentive to work hard because they know they can’t be fired, tenure isn’t a lifetime job guarantee, and unions don’t go out of their way to keep incompetent teachers in their jobs. Unions make sure that teachers’ rights to due process are being protected, and that administrators can’t fire teachers on a whim.

He goes on to explain the importance of due process since it is so difficult to judge the quality of a teacher objectively, and test scores aren’t an accurate measure either. It is sobering but true that, as Korsunsky states, “In reality, any teacher is only as good as his boss thinks he is.”

He brings up the definite possibility that without tenure, teachers who would likely be fired first are those with more experience, who also earn a higher salary and may be considered “troublemakers.” As he points out, these teachers tend to be the most creative, but potentially controversial employees.

“Do you want your children’s teachers to be silent in faculty meetings for fear of displeasing the principal? Do you want your child’s biology and history teachers to be fired each time a different political party wins a local election, or when a principal has a nephew or a girlfriend who needs a job? I have heard plenty of such stories from my colleagues working in the ‘non-tenure’ states,” Korsunsky writes.

Many aspects of the teaching profession have made it an undesirable career for many people, including the inherent stress, the lack of respect teachers receive from the public, the tedious hours spent grading in the evenings and on weekends, and the low salaries with no opportunity for promotion. Korsunsky’s claim is that a stronger tenure system might help teachers overlook these drawbacks, as it would give them both job security and intellectual freedom.  

Korsunsky writes, “The main beneficiaries of the tenure system, in the end, are the students and their parents, not the teachers. Without tenure systems, the nation’s public school teachers would be either much less competent or much more expensive—or both. The evidence of the positive effects of tenure can be found, for instance, in the generally higher levels of student achievement in the ‘tenure’ states as well as in the presence of tenure-type systems in some of the best American private schools, such as Phillips Exeter Academy. As a teacher, I am grateful for the tenure system. As a parent, I am glad my children’s teachers have it. As a taxpayer, I know that many of the nation’s best teachers would have left the profession for the private sector if their paltry public-school salaries were not augmented by relative job security.”

At the same time, he acknowledges the need to make the process of granting tenure more rigorous than it is in some districts. But he likens the need for qualified teachers to earn tenure to the need for Supreme Court justices to have it. He concludes, “Without tenure, no president would be able to find decent candidates for a stressful job with no promotion opportunities, no objective quality indicators, plenty of public backlash, and a comparatively low salary. And, as we all know, America needs a lot more than nine good teachers every year, doesn’t it? How do we lure tens of thousands of bright and passionate young people into the classroom every year? Free apples just won’t cut it, I am afraid—but some job security should help.”

I could not agree more. Tighten up the qualifications for earning tenure, but give teachers a perk that makes it worth it to stay in a profession which has virtually no economic advantages.

Merit Pay for Teachers, teacher evaluations, Teacher's Unions Boris Korsunsky, Education Week, merit pay, teacher tenure, teacher unions

Over the next few blogs, I ask for your indulgence as I write about some very interesting articles which appeared in the latest neatoday magazine (August/September 2010). This first blog pertains to an article that appeared regarding merit pay.

This short article was entitled “Merit Pay Myths”, and it focused on whether merit pay has been proven to increase student test scores or student achievement. The prevailing belief by supporters of merit pay is that the promise of bonuses or increased salaries will inspire teachers to work more diligently to get their students to perform at the levels that are necessary to show academic excellence, particularly as evidenced by higher test scores. One of the assumptions that those who advocate the need for merit pay make, in my opinion erroneously, is that teachers are inspired by the higher pay check, and will not work as diligently without holding out that carrot. Let’s get real for a moment! If teachers were inspired by a higher pay check, they would never have entered the teaching profession, which is notorious for being an underpaid vocation. Am I right?

Another issue I have always had with merit pay is that at a time when school systems everywhere are being asked to engage in collaboration and mentoring to improve student performance, which involves utilizing and sharing each other’s effective techniques, I believe merit pay could lead to a completely different outcome. I fear the tendency for some teachers who are highly effective in their teaching strategies and therefore receiving merit pay, might be to guard their strategies so as to guarantee continued monetary rewards, thus leading to competition rather than collaboration. I have argued against merit pay for these and other reasons.

So, what did the latest study completed by Mathematica Policy Research find? According to this article, these researchers looked at Chicago’s Teacher Advancement Project, which has been operating for three years now getting its money from the federal Teacher Incentive Fund, and they found that merit pay “had no impact on test scores or teacher retention rates”. Over three years and no improvement? Does that seem like good news for merit pay advocates? The article concludes by saying, “In its defense, federal officials said they ‘can’t expect immediate results’.” Okay, but shouldn’t there be some improvement after three years? It just leaves me wondering: how many years does it take before merit pay pays off?

Educational Reform, Merit Pay for Teachers, Teacher's Unions, Teacher-World's Blog merit pay, NEA, teachers

Ohio’s application for the phase 1 portion of Race to the Top was soundly rejected and may be again in phase 2 unless the writers are able to make some major changes to the application. Ohio teachers are probably wondering why it was rejected, and what kind of changes need to be made. Well, let me tell you what I have been able to learn.

First of all, each portion of the application received points, which when totaled, determined which states would be the recipients of RttT resources. According to my research, the area in which Ohio scored lowest (second to the lowest of the 16 finalist states) was in the area called “Great Teachers and Leaders”. Apparently, Ohio’s application was too wimpy due to “the state’s inability to ensure equitable distribution of teachers in hard-to-staff subjects, specialty areas, or in high-poverty or high-minority schools”, according to The Ohio Education Gadfly. Reviewers felt that the process it would take to remove ineffective educators was not clearly provided. There was also criticism due to the fact that only half of the local schools who participated in the phase 1 application process agreed to link teacher evaluations to their compensation and promotion. Some of the other areas of concern were its failure to adequately detail how it would close achievement gaps between poor students and wealthier students, and how it would turnaround the lowest-performing schools.

Now what does this mean for Phase 2? Well, first of all, if Ohio has any hope of being considered, it will need to develop stronger guidelines regarding merit pay, tenure, and dismissal of teachers. And you can rest assured that all of these will be linked to a large degree on achievement test scores. One source I read stated that RttT approved heartily of states like Florida, where the legislature approved teacher salaries being tied directly to test scores, and teachers would be offered one year salaries only. (Although, as I have previously blogged, this was later overturned by Florida’s governor.) Clearly, this is indicative of what the judges are looking for.

Secondly, Ohio will have to state more clearly how teachers would be evenly redistributed so as to level the playing field between low income and higher income school districts in order to turnaround lowest-performing schools. In other words, they are looking for stronger language regarding how highly effective teachers could be moved.

Additionally, Ohio’s application lacked teeth when it came to teachers unions. From what I have been able to glean, RttT reviewers are looking for a firm commitment by unions to be willing to make pretty radical changes to teacher salary, licensure, evaluation, tenure, and termination.

These are some of the salient reasons why Ohio’s application was rejected. I will continue to keep you informed and, of course, give my opinions about upcoming information as it becomes available. In the meantime, I hope you take the time to comment about what you have heard or read, and how you feel about Race to the Top, no matter which state you are from.

Changes in Teaching, Educational Reform, Merit Pay for Teachers, state achievement tests, Teacher's Unions, Teacher-World's Blog low income schools, merit pay, Phase One, Race to the Top, teacher licensure, teacher tenure, Teacher's Unions, turnaround schools

I promised more information on the Phase 1, Race to the Top application, so here goes…

One of my concerns with the original application has always been the mention of moving effective teachers and principals to low income, turn-around schools. The application spoke of evenly distributing teachers and principals. I am not sure how this is going to work. Is the plan to make this mandatory, or would teachers have a chance to decide if they want to move or not? If teachers were offered incentive pay or merit pay to move, and they made the decision to do so, that is fine with me. Where I would balk, is if teachers and principals had no choice! If these moves are mandatory, I have a problem, and I don’t think I would be alone!

I am well aware that there are schools out there that need help. But I also am quite sure that there are many awesome teachers in those schools who battle environmental and social issues that most of us have never experienced, thank goodness! So my first problem is assuming that low test scores in these schools is the fault of the teachers who teach there. I challenge anyone to produce good test scores in an environment where test scores mean virtually nothing. I do not believe moving teachers is going to solve the problems inherent in these schools.

If highly effective teachers and principals are to be mandatorily moved to low income schools without their agreement or desire, I do not feel that this is fair. In fact, I would not be surprised if you saw less effective teachers if they felt the “reward” for their hard work might be an involuntary move to an inner city school. I, for one, would seriously think about standing out too much, and might become a marginal teacher; adequate enough to stay employed but not stellar enough to be forced to relocate.

And how would this affect suburban schools? If effective teachers are redistributed to problem schools, won’t we see a decline in effectiveness in suburban schools? Must they pay the price for the problems that are epidemic in at-risk schools? How fair is that?

As we speak, Ohio is revamping and rewriting their application for Phase 2 of Race to the Top. Does the prospect of redistributing highly effective teachers and principals concern you as it does me? We need to let our voices be heard now while we still have a chance. Comment, blog, send letters, talk to your fellow teachers. The teachers in Florida are proof that when we speak up together, people do listen. So speak up! Whether you are for or against, speak up!

Changes in Teaching, Educational Reform, Merit Pay for Teachers, Teacher-World's Blog merit pay, Race to the Top, redistributing teachers and principals, turn-around schools

Let’s talk about other reasons why so many school systems in Ohio chose not to be a part of Race to the Top. I already stated in my last blog that it was poorly publicized. But I will discuss three other reasons why I believe so many school districts in Ohio turned down this opportunity.

First, something I touched on a little in my previous blog, there were rumors circulating that this new plan would probably change the way teachers are currently compensated, based on years served and graduate classes and degrees achieved, and replace this with merit pay. This is a troublesome issue for teachers for a variety of reasons, which I have addressed in previous blogs. But let me lay out a few concerns that I have with merit pay. First, I do not feel that it is appropriate or fair to link merit pay to test scores as there are so many factors, over which teachers have no control, that influence student achievement on state tests. Home issues and the degree of parental involvement are two major factors in student performance. Second, I feel that merit pay creates competition between teachers when what we should be striving for is collaboration. If Joe Teacher has a system that is highly effective, and he knows he will be paid more bucks for his effectiveness, is he likely to share his techniques if that might mean sharing the bucks as well? Some certainly would, but I am afraid many would not. I can see using merit pay to reward schools which have consistently been effective in showing AYP in all areas of their student population.  That makes sense because it inherently builds a network of staff working in unison to be as productive as possible across the board. That is what is best for students. But I do not believe merit pay for individual teachers will create better schools.

Another item which I believe made it virtually impossible for many school systems to participate in RttT, including my own, was the requirement that all LEAs who joined in had to agree to match the funds that they would receive from the government. In our current economy, how likely is that? At a time when so many schools are operating in the red, this seems like an impossible stipulation, and I am sure it kept many school districts like ours from participating.

Finally, I believe some school systems bowed out when they learned that Ohio is proposing to allocate more than $35 million to hire 50 new Ohio Department of Education staffers, including some with annual salaries in excess of $100,000 per year. Again, at a time when districts throughout Ohio are being forced to make drastic cuts just to stay solvent, this is almost a slap in the face. Let’s put that money where it belongs and where it can do the most good. It just seems mismanaged to me, but what do I know?

Educational Reform, Funding Education, Merit Pay for Teachers, state achievement tests, Teacher-World's Blog Add new tag, Department of Education, LEAs, merit pay, Race to the Top, school reform

On July 2, Education Secretary Arne Duncan spoke to members of the NEA at their national convention in San Diego exhorting them to stop fighting the idea of student achievement as a consideration for teacher pay. While he did say that test scores should never be the driving force behind teacher compensation, he also stated, “But to remove student achievement entirely from evaluation is illogical and indefensible,”

Well, the dreaded words are being spoken! Every time I hear the concept of merit pay linked in any way to state testing results it frightens me! Let me add that most of my students’ test results over the last several years have been well above passing, but I fundamentally disagree with test scores being used as the litmus test to judge teacher quality. Teachers understand the wide variety of factors that affect test results: parent involvement or lack of; parent concern or apathy for their child’s test results; the student population which covers everything from discipline problems, the number of students who are gifted, SPED, ADHD, on 504 plans, etc.; class size; home situations; and when the tests are taken to name a few. (This year, we administered the tests in our district the week students came back from Easter break!) What about teachers who work in intercity schools with the multitude of issues they face daily? These are all factors we cannot control, but they certainly impact test results.

Is there any tangible evidence to support the assumption that student test scores determine the competency of a teacher? How do we figure in all of the extraneous factors over which teachers have no control?

There are a plethora of characteristics that make an exceptional teacher, some measurable and some not. Certainly with the myriad specimens of obtainable evidence which attest to a teacher’s merit, we need not resort to test results as evidence of anything but how we were able to rise above all of the countless issues and distractions we face in education every day and still facilitate student progress.

Take a stand and get vocal! Post some comments here and on other sites on this volatile topic. This is not the time to be complacent.

Changes in Teaching, Merit Pay for Teachers, state achievement tests, teacher evaluations, Teacher-World's Blog Arne Duncan, merit pay, student achievement, teacher compensation, teacher evluation, test scores

I find it difficult to the point of ridiculous to pinpoint any one surefire way to evaluate a teacher’s excellence in order to decide who receives or does not receive merit pay, and I am a teacher. How then, do we leave this colossal decision in the hands of government officials who are distinctly removed from the classroom and have little or no firsthand knowledge of the many qualities involved in being an excellent teacher? It is frightening!

It seems to me that any reliable evaluation designed to fairly determine who receives merit pay would require following every teacher around throughout their day, both at school  and at home. If you are not a teacher or have never lived with a teacher, you have no concept of the number of hours that are dedicated outside of the school day to planning, preparing, and grading. Who will evaluate that?

Who will evaluate what kind of relationship you have with your children, the counseling you do with your students in your classroom and with parents at conference time, the hours you spend on committees, the modifications you make to your curriculum to accommodate children on IEPs, the phone calls you make to parents to praise their child or try to solve a problem their child is having in school, the children’s assignment books you check and initial daily, and the ones whose book bags you help pack at the end of the day? Who is going to see and evaluate these things? Who is going to evaluate the love you give each child in your classroom, even the ones who are hard to love, and how does that factor into an evaluation? Who will take note of the countless times you worked through your prep time at recess to intervene with students who were struggling with a concept you taught that day, or your reward system you utilize to encourage them to do their best? And who is going to observe your lessons frequently enough to evaluate the strategies you teach your children to be successful, the mnemonics you teach them to remember concepts, how you engage and motivate them, your knowledge of the subject matter and the variety of  techniques you use to pass that knowledge on to them?

It boggles my mind how this evaluation nightmare can be resolved! But the bottom line is this: I did not get into teaching because of the big salary (clearly), and I couldn’t work any harder than I already do for a bigger pay out. My reward is more intrinsic, and I’m okay with that. So I guess I just don’t place much value in merit pay, but I sure would take umbrage with someone who tried to tell me I don’t deserve it.

Changes in Teaching, Merit Pay for Teachers, teacher evaluations, Teacher-World's Blog merit pay, method of evaluation, teacher evaluations, teaching strategies

One of the most offensive opinions I am confronting as I research other blogging sites regarding merit pay for teachers is the accusation, sometimes subtle and sometimes very direct, that veteran teachers do not deserve their higher salary as they just don’t work as energetically as younger teachers do following the same lesson plans year after year. I take huge exception to these statements as I am a veteran teacher. I feel compelled to “talk turkey” about veteran teachers and what we have to offer our school systems.

We have years of invaluable experience (in the business world this is a coveted thing). We have experimented with a variety of teaching techniques and fine-tuned our styles over the years. We have taken a variety of graduate classes in education usually earning master degrees. We have attended a wide range of professional development workshops and incorporated many of these concepts into our classroom. We have served on a multitude of committees in our schools, been a part of evaluating new curriculum for our classrooms, been mentor teachers, helped develop standards based report cards and short cycled assessments, and received countless letters of thanks from our parents and students. We have knowledge that we love to share with anyone who is interested, but we are just as willing to listen to the ideas of younger teachers and try them out in our classrooms. Good veteran teachers understand that teaching is not a stagnant thing, and are just as willing to learn as to teach.

Somehow people, and often this includes other teachers, have come to believe that when you reach a certain pinnacle in your educational career, you become complacent and unwilling to make changes. I categorically deny this, and furthermore state again that there is no age requirement for this mind set. I have seen teachers from all age groups and years of experience who are very willing to coast along doing the bare minimum. But the highly charged issue of merit pay breeds in some people this kind of divisive thinking. It is one of the dangers I see in the adoption of merit pay, and I would take issue with anyone trying to tell me that the job I do and the years I have put in do not qualify me for the salary I have earned as a result of dedication and hard work.

Changes in Teaching, Merit Pay for Teachers, Teacher-World's Blog experience, master degree, merit pay, teacher salary, veteran teachers

One of the issues I struggle with concerning merit pay for teachers is who is going to evaluate teachers to determine their potential eligibility for bonus pay. I have read a variety of suggestions from the school’s principal to a panel of teachers from another district. Allow me to explore the first option with you and then I would love to hear your opinions on this topic or other viable plans for successful evaluation.

I abhor the idea of any one person determining my merit as a teacher, let alone someone who visits my classroom only occasionally and, aside from what they see on those visits or what I tell them about what I am doing, know little to nothing about what transpires in my classroom on a regular basis.

I teach in a city whose population has mushroomed over the last few years. We are literally bursting at the seams. Therefore, our principal’s duties have proportionally mushroomed as well. A larger student population drastically increases the scheduling, managing, and disciplinary nightmares. Coupled with all of the district meetings our principal must attend as well as continuing improvement meetings outside of the district, it is fairly common to go days without even seeing our principal. Where would an already overworked principal find the time to engage in the consistent evaluations required to determine bonus pay recipients?

And, let’s get real here! Have you ever had a principal who you fundamentally differed with or didn’t get along with? Have you ever witnessed favoritism by a principal you have worked for? Is it possible that a principal would be more inclined to enthusiastically reward those he/she had a friendship with over those he/she does not? Isn’t it just as likely that some teachers might intentionally build a relationship with their principal in order to improve their chances of monetary gain? Would teachers be more reticent to disagree with their principal for fear of monetary retaliation?

Human nature being what it is, can we not all see the inherent problems which would be created if our principals or any one person was the sole determiner of who would receive teacher bonuses? Call me crazy, but I don’t want any part of this! Do you? Tell me what you think.

Changes in Teaching, Merit Pay for Teachers, Teacher-World's Blog bonus pay, merit pay, principal favoritism, principals, teacher evaluations, teachers

After spending quite some time reading a variety of articles both for and against the issue of merit pay for teachers, I feel, as all teachers should, the need to weigh-in on this important issue. Especially as President Barack Obama plugged teacher bonuses based on student achievement in the first education policy speech of his presidency.

We all know that in education, as in any profession, there are employees who produce average work with average to little success, and are unmotivated to do much more. A common fallacy in the teaching profession is that it is predominately the veteran teachers who fit this scenario as they have become burned out and are simply waiting to retire. While I do not deny that I have seen my fair share of this condition, I must also adamantly state that this attitude has no age requirement. I have seen the same attitude in teachers fresh out of college, and some who have a few years under their belt. In teaching, as in any profession, our labor force ranges from the dedicated, hard-working, and tireless to the “I’ll-do-the-bare-minimum”, and various stages in between. The difference between the business and education world is that our teachers’ unions, which protect us in a multitude of important ways making our work places fairer and safer places to work, also do our profession the disservice of fighting to protect teachers, both young and old, who legitimately deserve to be let go. In the business world, job retention is directly related to job performance. If our unions did not work so diligently to protect teachers whose performance necessitated their being weeded out, does it not stand to reason that we would be left with a higher caliber of teachers who, by that very definition, are all deserving of merit pay?

I propose that unions should establish strict and multi-layered guidelines for teacher dismissal and should ensure that these guidelines are followed to the letter. But when thorough documentation proves a teacher’s unwillingness or inability to take the necessary steps to improve their teaching skills after a methodical, multifaceted evaluation process established by the union, it becomes counterproductive and hurts a school system when its union fights for that teacher. Allowing the administration to release these teachers from their contract would ultimately create a higher caliber school system which encourages respect from the community and makes it far more likely for these community members to support levies that pay all teachers in these schools the salary they deserve.

Changes in Teaching, Funding Education, High Caliber Schools, Teacher Education, Teacher's Unions, Teacher-World's Blog job performance, job retention, merit pay, Obama's education policy, school levies, teacher evaluation, teacher salary, Teacher's Unions, veteran teachers