I am sorry it is taking so long to write these analyses. As we get closer to the end of the year so many students are now rushing to get work in that was due weeks, if not months, ago. The grading has become a bit ridiculous. But, since grades go in on June 12 (since that makes sense - *sarcasm*) I'll have more time soon.
Another I'd like to point out before starting: Lisa Haver wrote a great article dissecting the background of those who put together this study. Check out her article here.
--------
This section of the NCTQ study discusses a dubious concept know as "teacher tenure." I say it is dubious because it is not true tenure as most higher-education folks would have us understand it. A teacher who has tenure does not have a job for life. These teachers do not however have to prove as stringently their skills as an educator because for their first 3-4 years of teaching they have improved markedly in front of constant observations.
Finding 3.1: NCTQ points out that PA is one of the majority of the states that allow a stricter due process system for teachers who have more experience. They quote that 11 states allow for some kind of probationary period extension from the 3-4 years already in the system. Apparently 3-4 years is not enough time to make a decision on the quality of an individual teacher and NCTQ thinks it should be longer. I would argue that if principals were given more time to actually observe (and were more objective with their observations) we could get a more honest picture of what's happening in the classroom.
Finding 3.2/3: Teacher effectiveness is brought up and dismissed by NCTQ as being a part of teacher tenure. They say only the amount of time a teacher has been in a classroom is used to determine their status. One might ask what they were doing in their 3-4 years in the classroom to warrant receiving stricter observation benefits? I would point out they were observed multiple times and received satisfactory results. This seems to be more of a criticism of the evaluation process than the outcomes thereof. The one thing I might agree upon is having a more scaled sense of how well a teacher is doing - if I am an outstanding teacher, I'd like to know that; if I need some work, then give me some time to improve before labeling me as "unsatisfactory."
Again, however, these designations need to mean something in the processes that follow. Without support, a "needs improvement" rating might as well be a pink slip.
Finding 3.4: NCTQ says that there are flaws in the system because few teachers with "tenure" are dismissed for poor performance. But perhaps their skill levels have improved? Or, maybe there was a failure in the system itself since that teacher was moved from their placement and a new principal was judging them. If there were a more across-the-board evaluation system, perhaps using a committee of educators who sticks with the teacher regardless of a move, then things would be better.
Overall the outcome of these policy recommendations would be to demotivate teachers so much that new ones would not want to fill the ranks of the retirees. Without protections in place that allow for creativity and experimentation among the veterans, why would new cohorts want the job?
Another I'd like to point out before starting: Lisa Haver wrote a great article dissecting the background of those who put together this study. Check out her article here.
--------
This section of the NCTQ study discusses a dubious concept know as "teacher tenure." I say it is dubious because it is not true tenure as most higher-education folks would have us understand it. A teacher who has tenure does not have a job for life. These teachers do not however have to prove as stringently their skills as an educator because for their first 3-4 years of teaching they have improved markedly in front of constant observations.
Finding 3.1: NCTQ points out that PA is one of the majority of the states that allow a stricter due process system for teachers who have more experience. They quote that 11 states allow for some kind of probationary period extension from the 3-4 years already in the system. Apparently 3-4 years is not enough time to make a decision on the quality of an individual teacher and NCTQ thinks it should be longer. I would argue that if principals were given more time to actually observe (and were more objective with their observations) we could get a more honest picture of what's happening in the classroom.
Finding 3.2/3: Teacher effectiveness is brought up and dismissed by NCTQ as being a part of teacher tenure. They say only the amount of time a teacher has been in a classroom is used to determine their status. One might ask what they were doing in their 3-4 years in the classroom to warrant receiving stricter observation benefits? I would point out they were observed multiple times and received satisfactory results. This seems to be more of a criticism of the evaluation process than the outcomes thereof. The one thing I might agree upon is having a more scaled sense of how well a teacher is doing - if I am an outstanding teacher, I'd like to know that; if I need some work, then give me some time to improve before labeling me as "unsatisfactory."
Again, however, these designations need to mean something in the processes that follow. Without support, a "needs improvement" rating might as well be a pink slip.
Finding 3.4: NCTQ says that there are flaws in the system because few teachers with "tenure" are dismissed for poor performance. But perhaps their skill levels have improved? Or, maybe there was a failure in the system itself since that teacher was moved from their placement and a new principal was judging them. If there were a more across-the-board evaluation system, perhaps using a committee of educators who sticks with the teacher regardless of a move, then things would be better.
Overall the outcome of these policy recommendations would be to demotivate teachers so much that new ones would not want to fill the ranks of the retirees. Without protections in place that allow for creativity and experimentation among the veterans, why would new cohorts want the job?
RSS Feed
