What makes a good teacher?

[Splashdown]

The last few days, there has been a definite uptick in discussion about public education on the board, brought on by the mass firings in Rhode Island and other budgetary issues. It seems to me that there is a general consensus on the board that teachers should be paid based on merit rather than the traditional method, which usually consists of a combination of education and years of service.

That idea of merit-based-pay--or performance-based compensation--is more elusive than it seems.

I've been a teacher in both public and private schools (currently, I'm a private high school teacher). I'm unusual for several reasons. First, I have spent time in the "real world;" I left a newspaper job to go into education. Second, I'm a conservative and a registered Republican.

Trying to come up with concrete requirements which make up a good teacher is very difficult. Do you want to talk students' test scores? Is it classroom management? Is it following some sort of community or district-based curriculum? Lots of variables in each of those areas are out of the classroom teacher's hands.

I come at this from a different perspective. I know what makes a bad teacher. I can point out bad teachers quickly. I have been in classrooms with horrific teachers--especially English teachers--who have managed to kill any interest in literature or writing which kids may have had.

So. My question is, can you show me some kind of concrete criteria--which can be measured--which makes one a better teacher than another? I'd love to see your perspective on this.

[thundley4]

As a student many years ago, I didn't have many complaints about my teachers or the school in general. It helps when teachers can identify which students need a little extra help, versus those that are quicker on the uptake, and at the same time keep the class interesting for everyone.

Almost every teacher would allow topics to go off on tangents only slightly related to the subject at hand, but it helped to keep interest.

On a side note, I don't think "class size" is all that relevant, but overall school size is.  We hadn't many classes with 30+ students, but the district itself was in under 400 students, K-12.  In high school most teachers taught at least one class at each of the grades , freshman through senior, and by the junior year the teachers were well acquainted with each student.

[DumbAss Tanker]

Splashdown, there are several teachers in my family as well, naturally enough my views are somewhat to the right of theirs, but I understand where they are coming from and their concerns.  There is a lot of totally unjustified hatred of public education and educators on the Right, as well as some very justified disgust with the way the system works in many places.  Like all humans, we tend to focus on the negatives and disregard the much larger number of successes.
To address what you say, I think there are many routes to success, and more than one type of failure.  Our TQM/ISO-900X/Black-Belt/Where's-My-Damn-Cheese management buzzthink world unfortunately craves metrics and then pounding the real complex world of unbounded human interactions into whatever univariate model the metrics were designed to fit, so I am not a huge fan of pay for performance, especially after seeing how it was implemented in DOD.  After watching the fundamental misconceptions about public sector employment that went into the rise (And brought the demise) of the DOD's so-called merit pay system, I regard it as even less productive than the tenure system, which at least allows for multivariate success. 

[formerlurker]

Remove the tenure system (professional status) and you will see teachers endeavor to be creative and competitive.   Absent of that, that type of passion is usually only commonplace with new hires (who endeavor to be tenured).   

Individual growth models can certainly drive a good merit pay system.   I am all about merit pay for municipal employees as a whole. 

The tired "we have to teach to the test" argument of mediocre teachers is played.   You know the material you have to present?  well make it challenging, make it creative, learn how to teach to all students or find another profession.    This isn't rocket science (well, not until you reach the advanced placement science classes in high school). 

I support teachers.  I don't support complacency. 

[Chris_]

Well.......I (sort of) support DAT's premise, to the extent that all students are not equal, and the mark of a good teacher is recognition of, and management of that fact.  Since education is subjective, metrics become worse than useless, they actually work against the premise that all students are capable of being educated......just in differing ways and to different accomplishment levels.......

That said, I think that there needs to be some basic standards, such as reading comprehension, basic math skills, and proper use of language.  I believe that all K-12 students (that are not mentally disabled) should be able to manage reading at a tenth grade level, speak and write correct basic English, and handle basic mathematics (addition, subtraction, multiplication, division) in a practical manner........everything else is enrichment........some students will accomplish these objectives by the fifth grade (the vast majority by at least the seventh) .......others may take until the twelfth......but those are the requirements.

Starting from this premise, curricula becomes divided into two fundamental paths, the first being the continuation of basics for those requiring it, and the second, enrichment for those that have attained the basic skill levels early.  The two pathways can be divided into differing classroom/teacher groups (preferred), or integrated into one "grade" as dictated by manpower and building resources available.

Teachers are then evaluated on a very simple metric.......

How much improvement has their least advanced student demonstrated.......

How much enrichment has their most advanced student accomplished........

Finally, there should be no "tenure"......employees change over time, and good ones can go bad for a variety of reasons.  Teachers are employees.......simple as that, and if they go bad, develop attitude problems, or become complacent, they need to be fired......no discussion, no appeals, no union involvement.....they are gone.  Further, there should be no 2 - 3 month summer vacation for teachers.....during the summer classroom break, they should be required to report every work day, and spend that time preparing a unique and customized lesson plan for every individual incoming student for the fall term, in conference with each student's prior year teacher.  Once this is accomplished, the balance of their time can be spent developing integration for coursework for the class at large.

Everything else is "window dressing".......

doc

[DumbAss Tanker]

Let me say that I am not a huge fan of tenure, however like most public sector employment, as a career teaching has a pretty flat pay slope, there is not a big upside to it besides the security.  So, it does play a role in the bargained-for compensation package, to make up for the fact that most teachers start OK on pay, but then don't get a lot better as time goes on and they get older, either, and the security aspect does compensate for that.  Until you have something that works better to replace it with, doing away with tenure entirely turns teaching into just a 'starter job' for a large part of the US.

[Chris_]

Let me say that I am not a huge fan of tenure, however like most public sector employment, as a career teaching has a pretty flat pay slope, there is not a big upside to it besides the security.  So, it does play a role in the bargained-for compensation package, to make up for the fact that most teachers start OK on pay, but then don't get a lot better as time goes on and they get older, either, and the security aspect does compensate for that.  Until you have something that works better to replace it with, doing away with tenure entirely turns teaching into just a 'starter job' for a large part of the US.

Then perhaps the teacher compensation system needs to be revamped based on overall performance history and acomplishments......

Their lot in life compensation-wise is little different from many private sector jobs, and they are always free to relocate to school systems offering better compensation, or moving into administration......

I have serious issues with an employee that can't be fired........without what amounts to criminal cause.......teachers are valuable, but I don't consider them "special", and entitled to more protections than private sector professionals......and since they are largely unionized, its a stretch to call them "professionals".

As it stands today, I consider teachers just another form of "protected class"....to which they are not entitled.  Tenure reinforces this perception. 

doc

[The Village Idiot]

Let me say that I am not a huge fan of tenure, however like most public sector employment, as a career teaching has a pretty flat pay slope, there is not a big upside to it besides the security.  So, it does play a role in the bargained-for compensation package, to make up for the fact that most teachers start OK on pay, but then don't get a lot better as time goes on and they get older, either, and the security aspect does compensate for that.  Until you have something that works better to replace it with, doing away with tenure entirely turns teaching into just a 'starter job' for a large part of the US.

Anyone paid by the taxpayer should make less than average. They are servants and should be servile, now on your knees Egor!!

//slight sarcasm

[Splashdown]

Let me say that I am not a huge fan of tenure, however like most public sector employment, as a career teaching has a pretty flat pay slope, there is not a big upside to it besides the security.  So, it does play a role in the bargained-for compensation package, to make up for the fact that most teachers start OK on pay, but then don't get a lot better as time goes on and they get older, either, and the security aspect does compensate for that.  Until you have something that works better to replace it with, doing away with tenure entirely turns teaching into just a 'starter job' for a large part of the US.

The slope isn't bad, the "problem" is that top plateau. Once you max out educationwise, there's not much farther to go. Of course, what makes up for it is the fact that I have a pretty good insurance package, a strong pension, and close to 5 months away from teaching during the year.

[Eupher]

Mrs. E is a music teacher, being certified to teach grades K-12.

Several great comments from DAT and TVDOC - and I agree fundamentally with the notion that tenure should be canned. I can halfway understand tenure at the undergrad and grad levels, but not in the public school system.

One of the things that is like the proverbial cat chasing its tail is the school administration's scuffling and flailing about to satisfy all of the federal and state mandates. There are tons of these things (far too many to mention here, but Title 1 of ESEA is a good place to begin). That's another useless thing that politicians do that hinders more than it helps -- write and vote on mandates.

Following up to DAT's argument about metrics, assigning metrics to education is like teaching a horse to shit on cue. It can be done, but it's frustrating and at the end of the exercise, you're simply left with a huge pile of steaming dung.

Laws have mandated how teachers' performance is to be measured. Another big exercise in futility. Mrs. E had to go through no fewer than 3 separate meetings for her "evaluation". Her boss has to do all this times 15 teachers.

Any measuring system will be corrupted given enough time. But I like Doc's simple, but telling, method.  

One of the fundamental issues I have, and I'm probably waaaaaay out in left field, is this idea that it's a God-given right to a "public education". Sorry, but I didn't read that in the Constitution anywhere. While education is a must if one aspires to be more than a ditch digger, I have no problem with vouchers and relegating education to private industry.

[formerlurker]

One of the fundamental issues I have, and I'm probably waaaaaay out in left field, is this idea that it's a God-given right to a "public education". Sorry, but I didn't read that in the Constitution anywhere. While education is a must if one aspires to be more than a ditch digger, I have no problem with vouchers and relegating education to private industry.

Most states provide for it in their state constitution - http://www.ecs.org/clearinghouse/17/03/1703.htm.

 

[Eupher]

Most states provide for it in their state constitution - http://www.ecs.org/clearinghouse/17/03/1703.htm.

 

Thanks for that link. I had no doubt that the school thing was legal, but I guess I just don't swallow the idea that taxpayers have to pay for education.

You [not you personally] got kids? Want to get them educated? Great -- pony up the money and you can educate them to the 11th degree.

The social argument that it's to my benefit that taxpayer-paid education is there is also a load of crap. What leads to education and the incentive to learn isn't a state-government mandate, it's either a financial incentive or physical pain caused by digging lots of ditches.

Gubmint needs to stay out of my pocket. Education is merely another "gotcha" that gubmint uses.

[DumbAss Tanker]

Eupher, I think a voucher system would be a fantastic improvement and cut through a tremendous amount of the legalistic standards and management bullshit that afflicts the system now, especially after all the NCLB 'Improvements,' because there is not a metric or model that could touch the visible value judgments of parents freely deciding where their kids are going to go.  Unfortunately the Dems and the damned NEA seem to be able to kill any widespread reform on that front, at least so far.

[Eupher]

I got into a "spirited discussion" with Mrs E this morning on this subject.

She, like other liberal educators, seems to think that it's my duty to continue to pay for public education through my property taxes, local sales taxes, municipal bond levies, and any other "gotcha" that the politicians bestow on us poor bastards who are unfortunate enough to work for a living.

I'm sick and tired of the freakin' gubmint stealing my money, what little of it there is. I'm tired of the scrabbling and scraping that the liars in city and state gubmint use -- to great effect -- to extort even more of my money for an eff'n football team or baseball uniforms or fuel for buses that actually have to drop off the students in front of their doors because "it's too far to walk".

Metrics that mean nothing, except eyewash, are touted and worshiped as if they're the be-all, end-all. Systems that are created not because they add value, but because they add infrastructure to a system that serves itself.

Go ahead teachers -- there are many, many examples of good, dedicated, hard-working teachers out there as well as school administrators -- ask yourselves the question:

"Would my students be as well served if my compensation were based on my performance rather than my tenure? Would I perform better as a teacher or administrator if I actually could immerse myself into it as opposed to worrying about which bond issue will pass or not or whether I've assembled enough 'metrics' to tell the story about my performance?"

I won't go into the part of the discussion in which we talked about welfare recipients and the homeless.....

[The Village Idiot]

Eupher, I think a voucher system would be a fantastic improvement and cut through a tremendous amount of the legalistic standards and management bullshit that afflicts the system now, especially after all the NCLB 'Improvements,' because there is not a metric or model that could touch the visible value judgments of parents freely deciding where their kids are going to go.  Unfortunately the Dems and the damned NEA seem to be able to kill any widespread reform on that front, at least so far.

It would take the government about 10 seconds to say "You got a government voucher, now follow these standards and here is your new gay-inclusive curiculum"

[Eupher]

It would take the government about 10 seconds to say "You got a government voucher, now follow these standards and here is your new gay-inclusive curiculum"

And that's different from the current system in what way?

We've got teachers and administrators out there extolling the "merits" of being gay and how to go about "being comfortable" in one's gayness -- this for teenagers who are already confused about sex.

And aren't the vouchers given to the parents, rather than the school? Putting the power back in the parents rather than the gubmint?

[DumbAss Tanker]

It would take the government about 10 seconds to say "You got a government voucher, now follow these standards and here is your new gay-inclusive curiculum"

Government can screw up a wet dream, true; a lot of the voucher debate revolves around parents wanting to use them for parochial schools.  I am not religious at all but I don't have a problem with that, as long as those schools meet some straightforward and objective academic accreditation standards and not some lefty-gay-diversity bullshit curriculum crapola.  To me cutting them out seems to be discrimination against religion (Again, granting the academic accreditation) rather than discrimination in favor of it or state sponsorship of it as the opponents claim - a good or service should not be off-limits and unavailable simply because it is offered by a religiously-affiliated vendor, that decision should be left to the free market.

[The Village Idiot]

And that's different from the current system in what way?

Teenagers?

I'm talking Kevin Jennings who wrote the forward to "Queering Elementary Education" who wants every class to have gay themes from kindergarten.

[Eupher]

Teenagers?

I'm talking Kevin Jennings who wrote the forward to "Queering Elementary Education" who wants every class to have gay themes from kindergarten.

Okay, we can go younger too. That just makes my point mo betta.   

[Chris_]

Government can screw up a wet dream, true; a lot of the voucher debate revolves around parents wanting to use them for parochial schools.   I am not religious at all but I don't have a problem with that, as long as those schools meet some straightforward and objective academic accreditation standards and not some lefty-gay-diversity bullshit curriculum crapola.  To me cutting them out seems to be discrimination against religion (Again, granting the academic accreditation) rather than discrimination in favor of it or state sponsorship of it as the opponents claim - a good or service should not be off-limits and unavailable simply because it is offered by a religiously-affiliated vendor, that decision should be left to the free market.

Realistically.......in most geographic areas, the only alternative to the public school system is parochial schools.......

doc

[DumbAss Tanker]

Realistically.......in most geographic areas, the only alternative to the public school system is parochial schools.......

doc

That is unfortunately true, though in the long term the availability of the funds from vouchers to supplement private school tuition could go a long way to solving the problem of a lack of diversity in the choices.

[thundley4]

That is unfortunately true, though in the long term the availability of the funds from vouchers to supplement private school tuition could go a long way to solving the problem of a lack of diversity in the choices.

One thing that I do like about the current administration is their apparent willingness to support charter schools in the face of opposition from the teachers unions.  However, at some point, I think they'll push to let the unions into the charter schools.