"Students are not products, and teachers are not assembly line workers."
Someone passed this article along to me, and it really spoke to me on a fundamental level as someone whose job it is to work with children and teach them what they need to know. I wish Mr. Hines success in his bid to become Georgia State Superintendent of Schools. He already sounds like he's got more sense in his pinky toe than Cathy Cox has ever had in her whole body!
Roger Hines: Perdue's pay plan will intensify 'teaching to test'
by Roger Hines
Guest Columnist
February 23, 2010
Performance pay for teachers sounds like a sensible idea. Most Americans believe in "performing" well and then getting paid for it. Whether dealing with products or services, employers rightly expect employees to perform. When teaching children or teenagers, however, the game changes. Students are not products, and teachers are not assembly line workers. Products are inanimate objects. They have no part in the work of their own formation. In a classroom, students most certainly do play a part in their own intellectual formation. Yet in our discussion of teacher accountability and of so called performance pay, students have gotten off the hook. Their accountability and performance have hardly been mentioned.
If I am selling pants, you can evaluate my performance on how many pants I've sold in a certain amount of time. If I'm building widgets, you can evaluate my performance on whether or not the widgets meet your specifications. But, alas, students aren't like pants or widgets. They have a will, and they determine in large measure how successful their "form-er" will be. A child in school is never formed, developed, or moved toward knowledge or maturity by any one teacher, but by several teachers and a myriad of other influences and experiences. Still, proponents of performance pay want to link a single, one-time, standardized test score to an individual teacher. To do so presumes that one individual teacher did all the performing. Only two groups of people could ever favor such an idea: (1) those who have never taught school, and (2) those who have taught school, left teaching, and forgotten how teaching and learning work.
For the decade that I taught Advanced Placement 12th grade English, my "performance" pay would have been good, largely because of whom I was teaching, but when I voluntarily took on five classes of "low-level" ninth-graders, I guarantee you I would have been lowering my salary had performance pay been in force. The ninth-graders were a pleasure, but so poor intellectually that I wonder to this day if I helped them any at all. They never did well on tests even though they and I struggled so hard.
I say to all proponents of performance pay, "Go teach, not for a day, but for just one full school year. You will experience every human emotion possible from total defeat to sheer exhilaration. How so? Because you are not selling pants, building widgets, or speaking to a large group of your own captive, obedient employees. You're dealing with alive, changing, unpredictable, often resistant children or teens. It's hard to "standardize" a bunch like that. You will wonder why you ever thought your pay should be based on how well you corral and direct such wonderfully different human beings. And you will see that your performance is determined in great part by the students in front of you. You will find that your pay just might fluctuate, even though the number of your monthly bills doesn't."
As far as getting rid of incompetent teachers is concerned, evaluating teachers is no mysterious task. Teachers must be observed at least a few times a year. Their plans must be looked at occasionally. Principals should walk the halls, stand in the door or sit in for 10 minutes and participate in the class. If things are going well, leave teachers alone. If things are not going well, it will be easy to see, and teachers can either agree to work toward improvement or find another line of work. One caveat: No principal who has taught only three years should ever evaluate a teacher who has taught 20.
Until we find a better way, teachers should continue to be paid for degrees and for years of service, but teacher evaluation should be streamlined, teacher observation should be routine, and lazy or incompetent teachers should be dismissed. But tying pay to a standardized test score will intensify teaching to the test which is the bane of genuine education. It will drive teachers from teaching and will most likely discourage many people from entering the profession.
I loved those ninth-graders I taught, but even if just 50 percent of my pay had depended upon any test they took, I would soon have been beating the pavement looking for work.
Roger Hines: Perdue's pay plan will intensify 'teaching to test'
by Roger Hines
Guest Columnist
February 23, 2010
Performance pay for teachers sounds like a sensible idea. Most Americans believe in "performing" well and then getting paid for it. Whether dealing with products or services, employers rightly expect employees to perform. When teaching children or teenagers, however, the game changes. Students are not products, and teachers are not assembly line workers. Products are inanimate objects. They have no part in the work of their own formation. In a classroom, students most certainly do play a part in their own intellectual formation. Yet in our discussion of teacher accountability and of so called performance pay, students have gotten off the hook. Their accountability and performance have hardly been mentioned.
If I am selling pants, you can evaluate my performance on how many pants I've sold in a certain amount of time. If I'm building widgets, you can evaluate my performance on whether or not the widgets meet your specifications. But, alas, students aren't like pants or widgets. They have a will, and they determine in large measure how successful their "form-er" will be. A child in school is never formed, developed, or moved toward knowledge or maturity by any one teacher, but by several teachers and a myriad of other influences and experiences. Still, proponents of performance pay want to link a single, one-time, standardized test score to an individual teacher. To do so presumes that one individual teacher did all the performing. Only two groups of people could ever favor such an idea: (1) those who have never taught school, and (2) those who have taught school, left teaching, and forgotten how teaching and learning work.
For the decade that I taught Advanced Placement 12th grade English, my "performance" pay would have been good, largely because of whom I was teaching, but when I voluntarily took on five classes of "low-level" ninth-graders, I guarantee you I would have been lowering my salary had performance pay been in force. The ninth-graders were a pleasure, but so poor intellectually that I wonder to this day if I helped them any at all. They never did well on tests even though they and I struggled so hard.
I say to all proponents of performance pay, "Go teach, not for a day, but for just one full school year. You will experience every human emotion possible from total defeat to sheer exhilaration. How so? Because you are not selling pants, building widgets, or speaking to a large group of your own captive, obedient employees. You're dealing with alive, changing, unpredictable, often resistant children or teens. It's hard to "standardize" a bunch like that. You will wonder why you ever thought your pay should be based on how well you corral and direct such wonderfully different human beings. And you will see that your performance is determined in great part by the students in front of you. You will find that your pay just might fluctuate, even though the number of your monthly bills doesn't."
As far as getting rid of incompetent teachers is concerned, evaluating teachers is no mysterious task. Teachers must be observed at least a few times a year. Their plans must be looked at occasionally. Principals should walk the halls, stand in the door or sit in for 10 minutes and participate in the class. If things are going well, leave teachers alone. If things are not going well, it will be easy to see, and teachers can either agree to work toward improvement or find another line of work. One caveat: No principal who has taught only three years should ever evaluate a teacher who has taught 20.
Until we find a better way, teachers should continue to be paid for degrees and for years of service, but teacher evaluation should be streamlined, teacher observation should be routine, and lazy or incompetent teachers should be dismissed. But tying pay to a standardized test score will intensify teaching to the test which is the bane of genuine education. It will drive teachers from teaching and will most likely discourage many people from entering the profession.
I loved those ninth-graders I taught, but even if just 50 percent of my pay had depended upon any test they took, I would soon have been beating the pavement looking for work.