Teachers are the key. To be more precise, highly effective teachers are the key. Putting high quality educators in every classroom would increase student performance more than any other reform movements. This isn't just my opinion, it's also the opinion of Professor Edward L. Glaeser according to his op-ed in the Boston Globe.
Dr. Glaeser proposes that step one to getting high quality teachers into the classroom is getting highly capable people into teaching. He suggests increasing teacher compensation as well as making the certification process less of a bureaucratic nightmare. I think both ideas are promising. I've certainly had to (and continue to) deal with the mess of getting certification and keeping it current.
Step two involves keeping these high quality teachers in the classroom. Teacher burn-out is a serious problem, especially among highly motivated, highly effective teachers who spend countless hours planning and prepping for those pivotal few minutes actually spent in contact with their students. People who are highly motivated and very capable also tend to have no problem adapting to careers outside of education.
Step two is where I'd really like to agree with Dr. Glaeser, but perhaps I'm just too cynical to really think things would work out as well as he hopes. Glaeser says, "Perhaps teachers unions could start endorsing the use of test scores to evaluate their members and determine tenure." Look, I totally agree the current seniority based pay scale is not helping our education system. There's simply no incentive to work hard. I get a raise next year whether I bust my behind or just slide through the year. However, tieing test scores to salary gives me the willies.
Why basing teacher pay off student test scores scares me
- Test validity. Most state sanctioned standardized tests have a better correlation with socio-economic status than a students ability to think critically, scientifically, or those other skills that actually matter. If a standardized test could be shown to reliably measure the ability to think scientifically, mathematically, critically, etc. then I'd be much closer to liking this idea.
- The measurement of instruction affects instruction. Once you pick an instrument, that instrument determines what and how instruction will occur. If my salary is tied to successful test taking, I'm much more likely to focus on test taking skills or knowledge that students need for that one test. Gone is the focus on life-long learning.
- Local policies. What happens if my students don't do so hot on the test one year? Or a couple years? Who determines that policy, and how fluid is it? Perhaps it's just my cynicism, but I can envision too many ways this type of system could be used to keep the "good ol' boys" employed while pushing out innovation.
Things my salary should be based on
- Classroom observation. Watch me at work. If you're paying me to interact directly with students, my salary better be based upon you watching me do that.
- Student improvement in the areas of critical thinking, literacy, numeracy, and scientific thinking. I realize the standards say students need to know the difference between an element and a compound, but isn't it more important that my students know how interact with scientific information? We need to be teaching students more than facts.
- My role as a professional educator. Am I a leader in the school? Can I be counted on to work for what's best for the school community?
- Personal improvement. Am I reflective about my practice? Can I effectively target when things have gone poorly and change things to improve my weaknesses?
I'm unaware of any instrument that measures all the variables above. I'm not sure if that instrument existed if that would be the solution to our educational woes.
What things should your salary be based upon? Discuss.
Successful implementation of current teaching practices would be something I would like to see salary partially based on. If there is one thing that is consistent in education it is that methods, theories and practices are always changing. I've seen numerous colleagues at conferences and workshops immediately dismiss any new idea simply because "that will never work with my kids". I'm not suggesting we jump on the bandwagon on every new approach but if we could legitimately tie salary to classroom observation and especially that of new and innovative teaching practices it might help move some along on their lifelong learning journey.
Heh, I just had to provide a "narrative response" (read: essay question) on a job application that asked, in part, to briefly (!) discuss the most positive and negative aspects of public education in the US.
My response for both was pretty similar to your opening statement: the teachers. The good ones have the potential to make a system great, while the bad ones have similar potential to drag it down.
Perhaps a bit oversimplified, but I had to be brief (in fairness, my actual response was a bit longer than what I wrote above).
Outside the Box Ideas:
Number of subjects you have to prepare and plan for. Example, elementary teachers prepare for as many as 6-8 different subjects a day as opposed to high school or junior high teachers.
Teachers who teach writing and must grade high amounts of writing. Example, English teachers.
Teachers who work in schools with a high level of poverty or second language learners.
Teachers who work at under performing schools that require them to spend extra time before or after school providing interventions for students.
@Dave: That definitely fits into my slightly broader "Personal Improvement" category. Again, the tricky part comes when it needs to be decided how this is measured. Bandwagon jumping can be as bad, if not worse, than totally ignoring new practices.
@Damian: It's very, very true that teachers have a huge effect on school climate, culture, and success. It's something that both keeps me hopeful and makes me doubt the ability for change in our schools.
@Rob Jacobs: Food for thought in your suggestions. I was going to respond immediately to your comment, but decided to chew it over a bit. Here's what I'm spitting back now:
1. Elementary vs. Secondary: I'm not sure about this one. Admittedly I'm biased (I teach in a high school), but I spend a hulluva lot of time planning and prepping. It seems to be a case of comparing apples to oranges; the demands of each position are so different.
2. English vs. Others: I don't like this one at all. Yes, there are times when English teachers have to drudge through stacks of essays. However, I've done many projects that have required extensive planning and took huge amounts of time to grade. Giving higher salaries to the English department may help them out, but it will deter other subjects from assigning the in-depth, creative type of work we all should be expecting from our students.
3. & 4. Working with at-risk students: I couldn't agree more. Our most at-risk students should be getting our best teachers. Our system rewards experienced and successful teaching by punishing the students most in need of experienced and successful teachers.
[...] test that does at least a decent job of measuring student achievement. That being said, I have yet to see one that [...]