Two Out of Three

By Tom

A recent editorial by Seattle Times columnist Lynne K. Varner caught our attention. She argues for school reform, specifically in the Seattle School District.  I like what she says about teacher evaluation, I agree (to a point) with what she says about firing bad teachers, but I take exception to what she has to say about merit pay.

And as Meatloaf famously told us, "Two out of three ain't bad."

She makes the claim that "Principals and administrators (in Seattle) evaluate teachers in a thumbs up or down way." I don't work in the Seattle School district, so I'll have to trust that she did her research on their system. I'm much more familiar with the way she describes the Lake Washington system. It's how we do it in my district, and our evaluations are always full of details and specifics, and when done by a qualified and trained administrator, they can be a very useful tool.

She goes on to criticize the idea of tenure, and the nightmarish process a district has to go through to get rid of a bad teacher. As I understand it, tenure simply means that after a certain number of years, the district can’t fire you without a good reason. In my district, it’s two. During those first two years, they can let you go for any reason whatsoever.

But if a teacher is incompetent, any district can and should fire that teacher. Where I work, there is a well-defined process, but it’s a process that’s negotiated and agreed upon by two parties; the school district and the union. And having watched the process in action, I have to agree that it’s nightmarish.

First an administrator identifies a struggling teacher and explains to that person what it is that he or she is not doing well. Then the district provides a mentor in an honest attempt to increase the struggling teacher’s capacity. (That was my role.) Along the way, the teacher’s supervisor, on behalf of the district, observes the teacher and documents what, if any, progress is being made. These observations are made available to the teacher and the union.

Frequently, this process works. Struggling teachers get better and kids learn. Sometimes, it doesn’t work. Struggling teachers don’t get any better, and it becomes clear that they are in the wrong profession. At this point, the teacher gets fired. And frankly, no one is more pleased than the teachers union. They get to go back to representing good teachers.

What I like about this process is that it’s fair. No one should lose their job arbitrarily. Teaching is a very important job, but it is a job; a job that buys food and pays a mortgage. You can’t just sack someone without a clear reason and a good-faith effort to help that teacher improve.

What I don’t like about the process is that it takes time; time away from teaching and time away from learning. For every teacher that gets fired, there’s a whole year wasted for a whole class of students, not to mention all the years that led up to that final, excruciating year.

But blame for the teachers union for that wasted year is misplaced. Remember, the teachers union doesn’t hire teachers, they don’t supervise teachers, and they aren’t responsible for providing professional development for teachers. They really only have two roles: to negotiate a contract for their teachers and to enforce that contract.

Now, if a teacher is accused of doing something illegal, that’s something else altogether. Obviously there needs to be an investigation to see if the charges are true. And obviously the teacher needs to be removed from the classroom in case the charges are true. And obviously the teacher needs to continue to get paid in case the charges are false. That how it should be, and that’s how it is.

Toward the bottom of her piece, Lynne touts the wonders of merit pay. She implies that teachers need to get with it and follow the “smart thinking.”  But the smart thinking that she’s writing about thinks that merit pay should be based on student test scores. That’s an idea that sounds great to people outside the field of education: “Let’s just pay them based on student test scores. If we do that, they’ll do what it takes to raise test scores. Everyone wins.”

You’re right, we will raise test scores. I can guarantee it. 

But you’re wrong if you think everyone wins. I can also guarantee that.

You see, teachers do a whole lot more than raise test scores. We teach kids to get along with each other; to function as a community. We teach kids to laugh. And not to laugh. We teach kids to be curious and to diligently pursue that curiosity. We teach music, art, physical education, and social studies. We teach drama, shop and computer skills.

None of these things are tested on our standardized tests.

Lynne blames the teachers union for blocking merit pay based on student test scores. Ironically, the union itself has been the biggest supporter of what many of us consider is merit pay done right. I’m talking about National Board Certification.

The National Board has painstakingly articulated what good, accomplished teachers should know and be able to do. And they’ve developed a process for teachers to show that they’ve met those high standards. Most states now recognize National Board Certified Teachers; Washington gives them a $5,000 bonus. That’s what merit should look like; a system that encourages and rewards teachers to skillfully perform an incredibly complicated job. Not a stipend for a bunch of technicians who coach kids to score well on a host of worthless tests.

So here’s what Lynn and I agree on: Evaluate all teachers. Carefully. If they don’t measure up, try to help them. If that doesn’t work, fire them, as quickly but as fairly as possible.

But as far as merit pay is concerned, figure out what you really want teachers to do. (Or let the National Board figure it out for you) And pay a little bit more to the teachers who do it well.

Two out of three. Not bad at all.

 

Comments

[Tom]

I love that joke, Brian! And I'm using it shamelessly without giving you any credit at all. Sorry.

But consider this; as a high school math teacher, your work is relatively easy to measure. Your students know how to take tests, their answers are fairly easy to score, etc. But what about someone who teaches dance? or wood shop? Developmental preschool? Even kindergarten? Let's face it, there's not a whole lot of hard data coming out of those classrooms. And what about teachers in schools with 50% or higher mobility. Pre and post tests are pretty meaningless. And then there's guys like me. I teach third grade, but only about half of what I do all day is linked to a standardized test. I would be pretty tempted to act just like the lady in your story if the state decided to pay me a bonus based on only part of what it wants me to do. I wouldn't sell out for twenty bucks, but I'd probably settle for well under a million.

[Brian]

There's an old joke about a guy asking a beautiful woman if she would sleep with him for a million dollars. She says yes, so he says how about twenty bucks? And she says what do you think I am, and he says we've already established that, now we're negotiating price.
So let's not say we're against merit pay; like Tom says we (NBCTs) are already receiving merit pay for being certified by the National Board for Professional Teaching Standards as accomplished teachers. But the National Board never asked me how my students actually did. I have my Certificate hanging next to my Master's Degree, but it's what happens with my students that matters, not what's on my wall.
I have not seen a serious proposal that says merit pay should be based on a "single test", but look how many times that phrase pops up when merit pay is discussed. I teach math, and my students have not done much better than the state average on the WASL, but I will bet that if we measured where their skill level was in September, December, March and June there would be steady improvement. And I think we can come up with a way to level the playing field for teachers who work in high needs schools. What are we gaining from just saying no?
So yes, I'm willing to give the value-added approach a try.

[kristin]

Well, I think the objective of merit pay is a worthy one: reward the teachers who are teaching effectively. Unfortunately, with the existing testing structure it's impossible to measure a teacher's effectiveness.
On top of that, many teachers feel that the most challenging and challenged students deserve the best teachers. If our effectiveness is based on the score a child earns once a year (as with the current NCLB measurement structure), some teachers will choose to teach better-performing students. It's unrealistic to expect teachers - professionals required to complete years of training - to leave a salary raise on the table out of the goodness of their hearts.

[Bob Heiny]

Perhaps the best way to settle this discussion is not to implement merit pay for public school teachers. That resolves the implicit unspoken issue educators and policy makes know exists: of teachers who argue for extra pay as a self interest without first identifying how much it costs for a student to learn /a/ with existing resource distribution.

[Tom]

Chelsea-
The best model for that idea is the Value-Added approach, which Brian covers in his recent post.

I'm personally not a big fan of it, but its the best of the worst.

[chelsea]

What if merit pay were based on student growth through out the year instead of 1 single high-stakes test?

[Tom]

And who in their right mind would teach art to third graders? Or social studies?

[Mark]

I do think that the idea of the union protecting bad teachers is a common one. I know that was my perception until I became a building union representative. Now I understand that a well-functioning local will do exactly as Tom says: first try to help the teacher in order to better serve the students, and if that doesn't work, help remove the teacher in order to better serve the students.

I don't know that it works smoothly everywhere.

Merit pay based on test scores is not the way to go. If that were the case, who in their right mind would take on intervention, remediation, or inclusion classes? If my pay and "performance" is based on a single test administered in March of my time with the kids, that is not an effective measure of what growth I may have helped elicit. Besides the obvious problem that so few teachers in a building are in tested disciplines and grade levels.

[kristin]

Great post, Tom. I saw her editorial and you've broken it down into its essential elements.

I wonder what pressure could be applied to administrators to keep them evaluating their staff frequently, effectively, and fairly? When I taught in Lake Washington, the parents provided that pressure because they did not tolerate ineffective teachers.

Now that I'm in Seattle (and Seattle does have a satisfactory/unsatisfactory evaluation system) the parents are divided - educated, middle and upper-class parents make a lot of noise, undereducated, poor, predominantly immigrant parents don't. Sometimes they don't know how to fight the system, sometimes there are language barriers, and many of them simply trust the school district to look out for their child. I wish it did. Unfortunately, like naughty priests, the school district shuffles its incompetent teachers from position to position until they rest in a place where no one really complains - and guess what population they end up teaching? The already disadvantaged students become more disadvantaged.