Chicago teachers asking for 30% raises over next 2 years

[Torie]

Krazen's obsession notwithstanding, you guys really think teachers should get a 30% raise? Maybe they can at least tie it to performance?

If the worst 30% get fired, the best 30% can get a 30% raise.  The way this industry is run just drives me nuts, but then you, and presumably everyone else around here, already knew that.

The proposal on its face of course is ludicrous. Let's reward failure.

[Torie]

Krazen's obsession notwithstanding, you guys really think teachers should get a 30% raise? Maybe they can at least tie it to performance?

What is "performance"?

Again, can someone please answer this question...

It is about measuring student progress from point A to B, given the type of student in the class. And yes, you have to test the students to measure it. Evaluation the performance of anyone has a subjective element of course, but most of us are so measured in our careers, and some of us advance, and some of us do not, and some of us are fired. Any other formula is a recipe for mediocrity or worse. You simply will not get the best and brightest to teach if everyone is paid basically the same, at a middle class salary. The best need to be paid much more, and the worst not allowed to stay in the classroom for long. You do that, and the profession will have much more prestige, and attract more motivated and talented individuals. And we need to start with the inner city schools, and do it ASAP. What we are doing there is just outrageous, and immoral. To me, it is the civil rights issue of the 21st century.

It is just so freaking obvious really.

[Torie]

How does one evaluate anyone then, given the long list of reasons as to why it is impossible?  How do you fire anyone? How do you ascertain competence?  And how do you find out if the students are learning anything? Are you telling me you can't fairly test for reading comprehension? Just ask the students to read a text they have not seen before, and then explain what it means. How could one teach to the test for that? Reading comprehension of course is the key here. The rest is more peripheral. If you can't read, you are going to fail, and have a menial job for life most likely.

Here's an idea. Why don't we try this approach for one major school district with problems, and see what happens over say 10 years, monitoring progress as we go?  Why don't we experiment?  What we do now ain't working, and there is no evidence spending more money on these dysfunctional school systems helps either. Read the Kansas City school district study, when a judge ordered the state to spend something like 15K a year per high school pupil, in 1980's to 1990's dollars. The result? No improvement in student performance at all.  None.

The quality of the teachers needs to be improved. What is an objective fact, is that most, particularly in the dysfunctional school districts (it would be interesting to get a percentage from a study here) go to third rate colleges and get C averages. They tend to be drones.

[Torie]

I support Rahm and hope he succeeds.

Didn't know you were a neoliberal too.

I would support a reduction in pension benefits with increases in salary (which actually would be opposed by most politicians since it would require immediate tax increases). I don't believe in burdening our generation with paying for the political capital of current politicians.

Posts like the above are the reason that I still have hope for you guy.  Underneath that PC mantle of yours is a seething core of hard headed thinking and realism, and a sense of Old Testament justice.

[Torie]

The grand bargain, that I think "the right" will embrace (they certainly should), is that teachers can be fired like anyone else who are substandard (rather than have a sinecure where they are only fired for serial child molestation captured on a video), while on the other hand, the best and brightest after 10 years or whatever, become master teachers, and make like 150K a year, adjusted regionally by the cost of living. That is the way to attract the talent we need, while getting rid of the drones. You have a career track, and if you have the knowledge, and the talent to teach (which includes acting ability) to achieve excellence, you get rewarded in a serious way - with an upper middle class standard of living. Will it cost more?  Of course! But it is a moral imperative that we make this "investment" with, and only with, the ground rules that I outlined. Make sense?  Anyone disagree?

[Torie]

The grand bargain, that I think "the right" will embrace (they certainly should), is that teachers can be fired like anyone else who are substandard (rather than have a sinecure where they are only fired for serial child molestation captured on a video), while on the other hand, the best and brightest after 10 years or whatever, become master teachers, and make like 150K a year, adjusted regionally by the cost of living. That is the way to attract the talent we need, while getting rid of the drones. You have a career track, and if you have the knowledge, and the talent to teach (which includes acting ability) to achieve excellence, you get rewarded in a serious way - with an upper middle class standard of living. Will it cost more?  Of course! But it is a moral imperative that we make this "investment" with, and only with, the ground rules that I outlined. Make sense?  Anyone disagree?

I agree in principle, but I do have one question that I feel hasn't been adequately answered.

How do we objectively judge merit? Test scores? Teacher grading by the pupils? I see some problems with judging who to promote to a "Master Teacher".

The issue of evaluation attends any professional occupation, including lawyers. Just because it is subjective, does not mean that going through the exercise is not worthwhile. I would start by firing all the teachers who are functionally illiterate, and there are a lot of them. 

Krazen, private school pay is not applicable. Sure, teachers will teach for less if their students are well behaved middle to upper middle class kids. We are talking about a much tougher and more demanding environment here, where the kids have a lot more obstacles. It takes a special kind of teacher to make a difference. I would also focus on the early grades first, and also offer preschool education for the deprived, to get their vocabularies closer to the median when they hit first grade.

[Torie]

The grand bargain, that I think "the right" will embrace (they certainly should), is that teachers can be fired like anyone else who are substandard (rather than have a sinecure where they are only fired for serial child molestation captured on a video), while on the other hand, the best and brightest after 10 years or whatever, become master teachers, and make like 150K a year, adjusted regionally by the cost of living. That is the way to attract the talent we need, while getting rid of the drones. You have a career track, and if you have the knowledge, and the talent to teach (which includes acting ability) to achieve excellence, you get rewarded in a serious way - with an upper middle class standard of living. Will it cost more?  Of course! But it is a moral imperative that we make this "investment" with, and only with, the ground rules that I outlined. Make sense?  Anyone disagree?

So you want teaching to become a good-ol' boys network, where everything depends on who is evaluating?

Surely you can do better than that as a riposte, can't you?