The other day at lunch four young(ish) men were sitting in my room eating another well prepared school lunch. The typical lunch bunch conversation is centered around the sports from the evening before or how we all want to go camping and make flat iron steaks under the moon. This day was a little different. Our Tom Hanks look a like brought up the spark plug topic among teachers, "Performance Pay". Say those words and you'll get a distinct reaction from the typical teacher. For those that do not know what that means, basically, a teacher is paid upon their students performance. Now, I've been down this road of discussion many a time with teachers and (as they view it) the real world workers. I'm here to tell you that I see both sides of the argument for exactly what they're worth, and agree with both. I'm the definition of a fence sitter on this topic. Let me explain why.
For Performance Pay. There isn't any reason why a teacher that has been teaching 30+ plus years should make twice as much as the first year teacher, based solely on their experience. It's ludicrous to think that first year teacher could be teaching like their hairs on fire and really impacting kids on a daily basis while the veteran is riding out the final years of their contract to earn a few extra percents on their retirement. Where is the incentive? Besides being a good person and wanting to impact kids, where is the incentive for that first year teacher to really work that much harder? That teacher could do the minimum just so they don't get fired or teach like a possessed encyclopedia with personality and earn the same amount of money. Performance pay is designed to reward those teachers that go the extra mile and get results. Performance pay could potentially provide bonuses for a student achieving higher than they should on a standardized test. Perhaps you help that student grow more than they were supposed to that year and earn a higher salary.
Against Performance Pay. Most parents don't trust their kids to stay at home by themselves or make the correct decision when it comes to drugs, alcohol, or sex....so why do I want that same kid determining my salary? Do I really trust that the kid will do the extra work it takes at home on their own? Or will they spend the half hour to hour on facebook or xbox? I have 50 minutes a day for a 186 days to ensure my salary is livable. It's a miserable situation when a student comes to school and hasn't showered for three days or is being beat at home. As a teacher you do what you can to make those 50 minutes the best escape from their awful reality that is their home. That isn't tested on a standardized test. You don't get a growth report on that student who has to wake themselves up each day, skip breakfast because they don't have the option to eat, and come to school after a night of sleeping in a house without heat because his mom can't afford it. Then hope that same student can pass that test so you get paid, because after all, a multiple choice test on life science is exactly what their focused on.
I see both sides, I could argue for both until I turn blue. I wish they could find a compromise because too often teachers get bashed by the real world workers, and too often teachers complain about pay. Maybe performance pay should be based on a number of performances or so on....I don't know. Add your thoughts.
4 comments:
I agree with you, Brent. I could make a great argument for both sides. If it really came down to it, I don't think I want my SALARY based on preformance, but I would love some rewards and incentives for good preformance! Heck, at my school, a simple "good job" would be OK. Will teachers ever be rewarded based on good preformance? Im doubtful. But, it sure would be awesome!
Interested in your thoughts on Michelle Rhee. I have heard her speak and I am a supporter of Student's First... but she is pretty controversial.
how about performance pay for the parents rather than the teachers? it's a sad reality when you have to entice people to do what should come naturally but such is the world we live in. teacher salary is then partially based on what their students' parents average "performance pay" income is. the lower the performance payouts for the parents, the higher the bonus for the teachers.
maybe this idea already exists. i didn't look into it.
Leah, she is controversial, I agree, I think her intentions are extremely good. It seems like she is working hard to improve a broken system. I am all for incentives for good teachers and ridding the schools of the poor teachers. The issues are very common among all jobs, but unfortunately for teachers most people believe they can be a teacher because they went to school growing up. The larger issue is what Tyler hits on. We've always had poor teachers, there will always be people that are poor at their job, and I agree they should be removed. The thing that has changed is parents. Trust me in 7 years of teaching and coaching I've seen the change and when I compare it to how we were all raised, it's drastically different. I would love for Michelle to find a way to remove bad parents. In on class I have a student that has never earned anything below a 4.0 because of parental involvement has motivated him. On the other hand in that same class, I have a student that can't break 50 percent. I've called home, emailed, for the past 18 weeks. Not a single response. Now multiply that by 30 kids, some on both ends and some in the middle. It's interesting and somedays I feel like I succeed and reach them all, and other days I fail. I would hate to have my teaching ability judged on a good day or bad day.
Post a Comment