How do you suggest performance reviews be accomplished? How do you evaluate the performance of a second grade teacher? Student test scores?
Great questions, and difficult to answer. I'll give you my $0.02, but bear in mind that I am far from an expert! Standardized performance reviews wouldn't be very useful due to the wide variety of teaching assignments. It would be unrealistic to compare the actions of an elementary behaviour-disorder specialist to a high school gifted-student drama teacher. Student test scores are equally problematic, as test results can vary wildly based on any number of variables (socio-economic status, ESL, whatever) and might not reflect things such as student growth.
Having said that, I would have to say that regular classroom observation is your best bet, preferably by more than one observer. Things to observe and assess would be curricular coverage, classroom management, and passion for the work. Passion is hard to quantify, but if you see it, you know it. Flaky, I know, but passion is instrumental in an engaging classroom for both the teacher and the students. Classroom management might sound a little "Big Brother," but I can totally remember teachers from my youth that just couldn't handle us and thus got nothing done. Curricular coverage... well, that's pretty much the backbone of the whole endeavour.
I'm admittedly vague on HOW to observe some of those traits, but that's where I'd start approaching the whole thing.
On another note, what do you think of john talyor gatto's perspective on public schooling?
I hadn't heard of him before you mentioned him. In the brief time I had to Google him, my impression was that he feels that education is working primarily for the interests of corporations. Would that be fair?
I'm Canadian, so while our societies are similar (assuming you're American) he does seem to be addressing America specifically. However, I feel pretty safe in considering the two systems to be similar enough for comparison. I would certainly agree that corporate influence is a threat to genuine, meaningful learning. Many schools welcome some questionable corporate influences that overtly advertise, in return for some funding/equipment/whatever. That's saying nothing about the covert influences that creep in. Schools do exist to create "productive members of society" but one has to be aware of whose definition of that we are using. Are we churning out compliant factory workers, or passionate critical thinkers? Which is better for society? My personal hope is that our system helps develop citizens with a good knowledge of the world around them (past and present) and with the personal skills to acheive a life they would find satisfying. Doesn't always happen, but that would be my ideal goal.
I suppose I've yammered on about ideas I haven't read yet. But I'll know more after I read some more of his stuff.
What kind of entry standards do you think are reasonable?
Well, and these are just ideas: an assessment of the skills mentioned above (allowing for experience level) from training practicums, a manditory probationary period of say 3-5 years, with regular review afterwards, manditory team teaching/mentorships for the first year, and a formal appraisal of curricular knowledge (both factual and how subjects can integrate). I would guess that there are others out there that I haven't thought of.
This was a little long. My apologies. I'd love to hear your thoughts on these questions.
If you aren't being paid enough, then ask for a raise, or move to a different job.
I couldn't agree more.
I also agree that weeding out bad teachers is something that doesn't happen enough. Teachers would be doing themselves a huge favour by having stricter entry standards, longer probabtionary periods, and regulated performance reviews. In my humble opinion, anyway.:)
Do I think that teachers are well compensated for the services they provide? Yes.
Do I think they (and any profession) should be able to ask for a variety of improvements in their profession, despite the circumstances when they entered it? Yes.
I like what you had to say about supply/demand working out the realities of compensation. I don't think teachers should be given everthing that they fight for unless it makes good sense to do so. Nor should any other profession.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I suspect you aren't a fan of the teaching profession.:) But let me ask you this: Is the sentiment that a person should not be in (or even have entered) a profession if they perceive a problem in it and hope to deal with it, a fair sentiment? (Please note that I'm intentionally wording it without mention of teaching or salary, as I am curious to hear first your general assesment.)
"So much" is very relative. How much would be caring enough? Too much? Not enough? How do you objectively determine that teachers care "so much" about pay relative to another occupation?
Every person cares about how much they earn to some degree. Having a passion for your work is fabulous. Liking your job doesn't mean you can't strive to make it better. It is inaccurate to imply that a person lamenting a feature of their job (any feature, including pay) means that they don't like or have a passion for their job.
Every time I hear this crap about what it takes to be a great teacher is that you must have a "call to teach", I can't help but think, if you have a call to teach, why do you care so much about what you are paid to do it.
Is it really so hard to understand that teachers can have a "call to teach" and simultaneously want to improve their working conditions? It is unfair to say that just because a person wanted to be a teacher, they gave up any right they had to complain about their profession or work towards solutions. Who else, I wonder, would be more genuinely qualified to speak to the working conditions being faced?
The fact that a person became a teacher does NOT mean they should be silenced or discounted when speaking about the job. And wage, while important, is often a distraction from the other legitimate concerns that teachers try to address, such as class sizes and limited classroom resources.
I really have to point out that the Star Trek universe does just about the worst job of showing how society would react to new technologies. I mean, the transporter alone would create whole new forms of crime, social interaction, cultural shifts, etc. Niven tackled the idea of transporters combined with human nature. Why doesn't Trek?
Same idea goes for replicators, holodecks, whatever. Star Trek just usually cops out and gives us "regular life surrounded by cool toys." The advances they have almost never change their lives the way they would change our own.
This concept was driven home for me in elementary school with the "Choose Your Own Adventure" books. I could NOT read one of those without jamming my fingers between pages to mark interesting divergences in case my choice didn't work out! It drove me nuts to think that I might be missing out on something interesting somewhere else.
"Do you want to repair the damaged robot? Turn to p. 42" "Or you want to flee with the princess? Turn to p.22"
Choices? Bah! I just gave up and went with the old "one narrative only" books. Much more satisfying.
Slashdot Mirror
You're right about those being great games, but he excluded them.
Coming full circle... wouldn't that be a 360? :)
Great questions, and difficult to answer. I'll give you my $0.02, but bear in mind that I am far from an expert! Standardized performance reviews wouldn't be very useful due to the wide variety of teaching assignments. It would be unrealistic to compare the actions of an elementary behaviour-disorder specialist to a high school gifted-student drama teacher. Student test scores are equally problematic, as test results can vary wildly based on any number of variables (socio-economic status, ESL, whatever) and might not reflect things such as student growth.
Having said that, I would have to say that regular classroom observation is your best bet, preferably by more than one observer. Things to observe and assess would be curricular coverage, classroom management, and passion for the work. Passion is hard to quantify, but if you see it, you know it. Flaky, I know, but passion is instrumental in an engaging classroom for both the teacher and the students. Classroom management might sound a little "Big Brother," but I can totally remember teachers from my youth that just couldn't handle us and thus got nothing done. Curricular coverage... well, that's pretty much the backbone of the whole endeavour.
I'm admittedly vague on HOW to observe some of those traits, but that's where I'd start approaching the whole thing.
On another note, what do you think of john talyor gatto's perspective on public schooling?
I hadn't heard of him before you mentioned him. In the brief time I had to Google him, my impression was that he feels that education is working primarily for the interests of corporations. Would that be fair?
I'm Canadian, so while our societies are similar (assuming you're American) he does seem to be addressing America specifically. However, I feel pretty safe in considering the two systems to be similar enough for comparison. I would certainly agree that corporate influence is a threat to genuine, meaningful learning. Many schools welcome some questionable corporate influences that overtly advertise, in return for some funding/equipment/whatever. That's saying nothing about the covert influences that creep in. Schools do exist to create "productive members of society" but one has to be aware of whose definition of that we are using. Are we churning out compliant factory workers, or passionate critical thinkers? Which is better for society? My personal hope is that our system helps develop citizens with a good knowledge of the world around them (past and present) and with the personal skills to acheive a life they would find satisfying. Doesn't always happen, but that would be my ideal goal.
I suppose I've yammered on about ideas I haven't read yet. But I'll know more after I read some more of his stuff.
What kind of entry standards do you think are reasonable?
Well, and these are just ideas: an assessment of the skills mentioned above (allowing for experience level) from training practicums, a manditory probationary period of say 3-5 years, with regular review afterwards, manditory team teaching/mentorships for the first year, and a formal appraisal of curricular knowledge (both factual and how subjects can integrate). I would guess that there are others out there that I haven't thought of.
This was a little long. My apologies. I'd love to hear your thoughts on these questions.
Sorry. Didn't realize you weren't responding to me until it was too late. My bad!
I'm not sure I follow. What makes you say that I am deriding people and diminishing their achievements?
I couldn't agree more.
I also agree that weeding out bad teachers is something that doesn't happen enough. Teachers would be doing themselves a huge favour by having stricter entry standards, longer probabtionary periods, and regulated performance reviews. In my humble opinion, anyway. :)
Do I think that teachers are well compensated for the services they provide? Yes.
Do I think they (and any profession) should be able to ask for a variety of improvements in their profession, despite the circumstances when they entered it? Yes.
I like what you had to say about supply/demand working out the realities of compensation. I don't think teachers should be given everthing that they fight for unless it makes good sense to do so. Nor should any other profession.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I suspect you aren't a fan of the teaching profession. :) But let me ask you this: Is the sentiment that a person should not be in (or even have entered) a profession if they perceive a problem in it and hope to deal with it, a fair sentiment? (Please note that I'm intentionally wording it without mention of teaching or salary, as I am curious to hear first your general assesment.)
Every person cares about how much they earn to some degree. Having a passion for your work is fabulous. Liking your job doesn't mean you can't strive to make it better. It is inaccurate to imply that a person lamenting a feature of their job (any feature, including pay) means that they don't like or have a passion for their job.
Is it really so hard to understand that teachers can have a "call to teach" and simultaneously want to improve their working conditions? It is unfair to say that just because a person wanted to be a teacher, they gave up any right they had to complain about their profession or work towards solutions. Who else, I wonder, would be more genuinely qualified to speak to the working conditions being faced?
The fact that a person became a teacher does NOT mean they should be silenced or discounted when speaking about the job. And wage, while important, is often a distraction from the other legitimate concerns that teachers try to address, such as class sizes and limited classroom resources.
http://members.ozemail.com.au/~scunge/shazam/
That is, unless the term "first family" was being used in a presidential sort of way, but even then I'd give it to the "Big Red Cheese" and co.
Same idea goes for replicators, holodecks, whatever. Star Trek just usually cops out and gives us "regular life surrounded by cool toys." The advances they have almost never change their lives the way they would change our own.
Careful. If Heinlein taught us anything, it's that if the moon starts throwing stuff back, we're in big trouble!
This concept was driven home for me in elementary school with the "Choose Your Own Adventure" books. I could NOT read one of those without jamming my fingers between pages to mark interesting divergences in case my choice didn't work out! It drove me nuts to think that I might be missing out on something interesting somewhere else.
"Do you want to repair the damaged robot? Turn to p. 42"
"Or you want to flee with the princess? Turn to p.22"
Choices? Bah! I just gave up and went with the old "one narrative only" books. Much more satisfying.