The thing that really puts me off of merit pay and dumping tenure is observing the excellent schools where I live. They insist on hiring good teachers, they get rid of the clunkers before they hit tenure, and class sizes don't exceed 20. I pay a lot more in taxes than I would if I lived in the city, but every day when my little girl comes home with a smile on her face, I know exactly what I'm paying for.
And until the city insists on good teachers, reasonable class sizes, and decent facilities, they'll continue to get what they pay for too.
Thank you for the cute graphic.
I really believe in the concept of "moving your cheese" if someone is not happy. I did it, and I have little regret (except for the pensionable years I lost). But I needed to do it.
If I had to do it all over again, I am not sure I would be a teacher. It was so rewarding when I started. I hated taking days off even when I was sick. Now I take mental health days.
Perhaps if I had a different administration (not so controlling) I would still want this career.
This was a touching reminder of why tenure exists. As a younger teacher, it shows me how, unfortunately, it's going to get a lot worse before it gets better for the educational system. It's definitely going to get worse.
I fear tenure will be the next reform Rod Paige's favorite labor leader gives the education reformers.
Randi'll probably get a 2% salary increase for it and Leo will declare it a victory so big that it scrapes the skies (to paraphrase some crap he wrote about the '05 contract.)
In the meantime, nobody but nobody has got "tenure" the way the unity caucus does - 50 years and counting. There's some "tenure" I'd like to see go away.
Great post, Schoolgal.
Fantastic post.
The whole concept of merit pay and bonuses for administrators and report cards is a farce. I was with a friend last year (an APO) whose got a perfomance bonus for 05/06 year. This year they got an F rating and their principal (who my friend says is awful) will probably be removed in June. None of this makes sense.
Teachers need tenure. If admins did their job correctly, bad teachers could be gotten rid of before they got tenure.
To reduce the scope and detail of my post to a ho-hum, let's-not-have-tenure argument is to miss the point rather dramatically.
I'm not out to blame teachers, or really anyone, but the point remains that the professional structure of teaching is absurd. What's a promotion? What's the incentive (besides the kids, the kids, the kids) for anyone to excel? The absurdity of the contractual progression toward tenure allows us to pretend that we have some type of formal professional advancement, but since evaluations are absurd and make no mention of student achievement as a primary function of the educator, they are essentially worthless.
The generic arguments against merit pay continue the dangerous trend in education of sacrificing the Good at the altar of the Perfect. I agree that the current merit pay structure in NYC is beyond absurd, but generalizing that the entire idea of pay at least partially based on quality would be "disastrous" is illogical. Models that are growth based, inclusive of site-based determinations of leadership and innovation are worth more than a look or a trial balloon. They're worth implementing, now.
Nevertheless, these were minor parts of the post you linked to. I was writing about a system that provides ambitious teachers with no ladder to climb, no model for improvement, no distinctions between the inept and the exemplary, and offers nothing to the high-achievers beyond an eventual move to the suburbs, or out of the classroom. True simplistic thought is to continue to heap invective upon outside factors before seeking to rectify a system we helped create, or in thinking that the different reforms NYC Educator and I argue for are somehow mutually exclusive.
The incentive, sir, is to be the best you can be. Great teachers develop their own voices, and are not dependent on administrative approval. They study like everyone else, but do not simply find their voices in textbooks, or in methodology. They do not wait for their assistant principals to tell them teach like this, or teach like that, because they know that they'll simply say teach some other way the next year.
Good teachers are self-motivated. Anyone who goes into teaching for money is, frankly, not remotely intelligent enough to qualify. If you have imagination and initiative, you don't need a model for improvement. You can go to the library, you can find your own resources, and you can create your own resources. You can assess your own performance, decide what works and what does not, and act accordingly.
To say there's one way, or another way you must teach is the same as saying there's one way, or another you must write. Great teachers I know are unique, just like great writers. They don't just connect the dots and follow whatever trendy methodology comes down the pike, as administrators are required to do.
Anyone in NYC who depends on administration for inspiration is bound for disappointment. While there are great administrators (and I've had a few), they're not something you can count on. A great administrator, in my view, does not dwell on whether or not I'm following this year's popular teaching method, but rather helps me advocate for my kids and solve their problems.
And while the primary motivation of good teachers may not be money, as they could certainly make more elsewhere, teachers have kids, and mortgages, and taxes and all those other good things. They need a living wage and ought to fight for it. Furthermore, despite your contentions otherwise, traditional pay steps actually reward teachers who stay longer. And tenure, sir, is not there to protect bad teachers (who never should have gotten it, and who never would in a well-run system), but rather, for example, teachers whose opinions may clash with those in vogue this week, or those of the administrators.
Where I live, the schools are great. No one talks about merit pay. Good teachers need a salary, not a tip, and those without merit don't belong there at all. In any case, why on earth should teachers go to NYC and hope for merit pay when they can simply drive to Nassau and get paid a whole lot more without it?
To control 34 teenagers, before you even begin to teach, you need to think fast, and make rapid multiple decisions. You need to have eyes everywhere. This is indeed a tough job. But I love being a teacher, and I don't want a "promotion." I'm proud to be a teacher.
And if you don't like being on the ledge, perhaps you ought to consider something quieter. You will be on the ledge as long as you have this job.
I don't believe that teachers or other public employees should have bonuses or "tips". When business rewards its employees with bonuses or options it does so in recognition that their efforts enriched the company and its shareholders. These perks come from a percentage of those profits.
There are no profits to share in the public sector, save the largesse of the taxpayer. I am paid for my efforts as a teacher. Would I like more? Of course, but as an ongoing recognition of my efforts, not as a tip because my classes had a hot day on the standardized exam. We don't pay cops for more arrests. City lawyers don't get bonuses for more wins in court. The firemen in Douglaston don't receive less pay than the guys in East New York.
As far as tenure. Klein would have us believe that thousands of inadequate or lazy teachers are hiding behind it. That's not why he wants it gone. He wants it eliminated because it prevents the creation of "at will" schools. Anyone who thinks that teachers would be fairly evaluated by a system that celebrates its turnover, (yes, Klein praised the fact that 48% of the teaching staff had fewer than five years.) is living in a land west of Oz. Tenure is impefect and it has its deficiencies and some bad teachers are protected, but it has protected a teacher's right to develop his own skills in his own way. It has protected teachers from capricious and less than competent administrators who are fearful that teachers of quality threaten their domains. And it has given a teacher the right to have an off year. Not a bad thing considering the vagaries of our lives.
NYC Educator,
Yes, telling folks to be the best you can be is noble, and many teachers act in accordance with this noble principle. Doctors are likewise noble, as are soldiers, but they combine they desire to to be their best with additional incentives. Our profession limits incentives to the internal. We accept less. While that makes for good chest-thumping, it doesn't do so well for sustainability. I imagine the schools where you live probably don't have a problem with turnover, or at least nothing like that faced by NYC. Is that because the teachers have greater internal motivation, or because factors external to the job -- everything from compensation to working conditions and back -- play a role? Come on.
Your arguments against depending on administration and a single way to teach are fine, but misplaced. I certainly said nothing that could even be remotely construed as suggesting we should teach to please administration and all do things a single way.
You wrote, "traditional pay steps actually reward teachers who stay longer." Sure, but they don't reward folks who teach better. Again, we accept less.
You wrote, "Good teachers need a salary, not a tip." I agree. Merit pay should be massive.
You wrote, "And tenure, sir, is not there to protect bad teachers." I didn't say it was. I said it was an invalid and silly end-goal that parroted a true system of advancement and improvement.
Generally, I think you (and others) have me confused with an anti-union shill. Generally, I think you're willing to accept the conditions of a flawed system too readily.
Thank you for sharing your thoughts.
However, merit pay has never been "massive," and never will be. To imagine otherwise is totally unrealistic.
"Reformers" talk a great ball game, but one of the most prominent, Mayor Michael Bloomberg, has repeatedly proven unwilling to go for good teachers, reasonable class size, or decent facilities. He prefers to construct public schools on toxic waste sites, while turning more viable school properties into much-needed condominiums. Or sports stadiums.
And unfortunately, the assumption that those without merit should be teaching, which you make repeatedly, is a poor one indeed.
I regret you choose to indulge in mind-reading, which is hardly tantamount to argument. I do not "accept the conditions of a flawed system too readily." I observe what works, not in my imagination but in practice, and seek to emulate it.
In fact, you bemoaned the observation system and complained there are no formal plans for "post-competency-acquisition development." Perhaps you did not expect these to come from administration, but elsewhere. It's a fair assumption that administrators would enact such plans, but perhaps you felt they would come from some other source. Of course, there is no other logical source, but it's your plan.
And yes, the schools where I live pay better than those in NYC. I don't hear teachers here clamoring for merit pay or bemoaning tenure. I can tell you they are highly motivated.
I'm afraid mediocrity, after 23 years of teaching, is not something to which I aspire. Nor do most of my colleagues. Frankly, it's offensive to hear otherwise, and "anti-union shills," as you put it, regularly make just such assertions in tabloids and on TV.
When did No Slappz get a name change?
I think you missed my point that tenure is not the enemy. And, to think that it's demise will help this system even a little is simplistic.
When you took this job, you knew the only "advancement" was through becoming an administrator or curriculum specialist, or one day, superintendent.
The problem is teachers are not paid enough to begin with. Merit pay is subjective because not all students progress at the same level.
How do you judge the art or gym teacher? It's not our job to be competitive. It's our job to teach. But that has now grown into being mothers, fathers, babysitters and psychologists. Those elements should be weighed more than test results.
Teachers who are not happy, but stay for the sake of their kids, should not complain. Look to other fields or other schools, or try to make the best of the one you have. I did by closing my classroom door and doing the lessons I wanted instead of having someone tell me how and what I should be teaching. I made the job exciting. When there was little guidance or staff development, I taught myself. I found out about cooperative learning from a friend who was using it. It wasn't part of the school culture I returned to. And, I didn't ask permission. I just did it. Yes, I felt I deserved more pay because I not only worked hard but was also innovative. However, I would never support a merit system.
I was never a kiss-up, so I was glad tenure protected me as I hope it protects you.
The one goal we should all share is for teachers to get higher salaries, greater respect and more input. I do not believe you are anti-union, but anyone who makes tenure a target or supports merit pay will get my hairs up. There are so many good schools that offer their teachers support and real staff development. These are the elements needed so no one feels they are on a ledge.
Tenure is a good thing. It is not an end goal. It is a protection against impossible and stupid administrators.
Great post, Schoolgal.
As long as ANYONE can become an administrator, we need the protection that tenure gives us.
Tenure has been a protection for your income, but not in all cases for your profession.
Music, art, library, and similar kinds of jobs are very expendable in this system. Programs that teachers have taken a 10, 20, 30 years to establish have been collapsed on a dime. You're happy to keep the salary coming in, but every time you're shoved out because a line is closed, or you're speaking up too much, it affects how willing you are to commit with the same kind of energy and hard work.
None of the older ATRs feel protected much by tenure the way it used to be, except for income. Protection for your career, a big fat no.
I've been teaching for about as long as TMAO (maybe a year or so longer), but arrived from a very different place: twenty years in that mythical world known as the private sector where merit, innovation and ambition is justly rewarded. Many very smart people have studied and written about the misconceptions about merit-based compensation beyond the public sector (eduwonkette quite recently at her site) so I need not here. But let me assure you that very seldom was my salary ever contingent on objective measurable accomplishment. My evaluations--when they occurred--were always very subjective. And hacks exist in every profession; in fact, I met more in the consultancy/lobbying world in which I operated for over ten years than I ever have in my teaching life. So-called merit-based compensation does little to weed them out.
When I made the decision to become a teacher I certainly knew what I was sacrificing in terms of salary and that opportunities for merit-based advancement were basically nil (aside from moving to administration, which we all know is very seldom merit-based). I also was quite aware that the "high muckamuck" parts of my life (nice suits, a great office, important meetings, lunches at expensive places) were probably over. Quite simply, this is not the nature of the job and never will be. (Never been happier though and that counts for a lot.)
TMAO and others,especially those who are still quite young, who express such deep frustration with the lack of both professional advancement and "massive" merit incentives available to public school teachers probably should consider leaving the classroom. (Note I used the word consider...who hasn't been frustrated by the boundaries of their professional lives and considered leaving from time to time? For some, this feeling will pass, others might need a new school, still others something completely different.) I would encourage them to go out and seek the wider stage--whether in the education realm or somewhere else altogether-- where those opportunities might possibly be found. No one ever said you had to spend your life teaching. Teach for as long as you can...if it becomes too much for whatever reason, then get out and do something else.
I write this without any sense of rancor or sarcasm. Public school teaching is a challenging gig, but, as Schoolgal, NYC and others have said quite well, the system we work in--the public realm, where at least in theory we are to equitably serve all comers--can never function as the private sector does and should not strive to do so. Just because the motivation to work well in the public sector will always be different than what it takes to gain success in private America certainly does not equate to rewarding mediocrity. Think about it and don't be afraid to conclude this is not the place you want to spend your entire working life. But please, don't confuse personal agnst with an indictment of the things-- as imperfect as they are -- that actually still provide a modicum of professional respect and well-being to those who do choose to stay and work in this system.
There is no doubt in my mind that Randi has weakened tenure. Thankfully, ATRs are still getting their salary because of tenure.
A protection worth keeping.
It's not the tenure issue that is turning teachers like me into test prep specialists. But it's tenure that allows me to speak against my principal's mandates that is now stressing us all out.
Of course there are teachers who I consider lazy, but I can count them on one hand. (And 2 of them are former and current CLs) However, these new mandates are turning a lot of us into "lazy" teachers because we cannot find the time to teach until after the ELA.
Now if merit pay is based on student achievement, we should start test prep in Pre-K.
Ironically, those schools that have great scores are getting failing grades on the school report card because they do not show any growth.
No merit pay for those teachers!
That is why I understand calculus will now be included on the 3rd grade math test.
Lori - what you say profoundly resonates with me. One of the best things of being in this profession has been to be surrounded by adults who made a career choice NOT to accept corporate or business paradigms, but to work hard and with heart for modest gain. There are way fewer of those people now, because many are using the profession as a stepping stone to something else and to get their degree paid for. So, I'm not enjoying the day-to-day associations as much, and I don't trust all of my colleagues anymore in the same way -- just like the kids don't trust that, as an ATR, I'll be their teacher the next day. Changes the quality of life.
Anyway, thanks for your long comment.
I'm glad it's being thought and said.
Best education writing I've read in a long, long time. Thank you.
Tenure and the closely-associated seniority is a major part of the reason that bad people become principals. All the unionista's attempts to keep any form of measurement out of the schools (railing against standardized tests, NCLB, etc.) make it impossible to discern who is good enough to be made an administrator and who isn't. Thus, we get bad principals who are promoted for political reasons and for the reason of seniority.
An abolition of tenure and seniority would take a long time to work, and in the meantime there would be arbitrary and capricious decisions made by some principals, but in the end we would have a much better system. It is unconscionable that we allow - insist even - our union to protect terrible teachers. These teachers are destroying the lives of our students, and it needs to be very easy to fire them. If you're a good teacher you have nothing to worry about - maybe your principal sucks but you can easily get another job under a better administration.
Commenting by HaloScan
