Doug Mann wrote: > Linking pay to performance evaluations is going to adversely > affect teaching practices in one way or another. For example, > linking pay to test scores encourages a narrowing of the > curriculum, i.e., teaching to the test. Linking pay > increases to the acquisition and use of "skills known to improve > learning" is just another gimmick that won't work because higher > ups tend to use a one-size-fits-all, cookie-cutter approach, but > teachers have different strengths and weakness, different > personalities. A skills set that works well for one teacher > doesn't necessarily work well for another.
I agree with Mr. Mann. I have always been ambivalent about merit pay for teachers. Although I accept some aspects of the business model for education, I have a queasy feeling about production bonuses for teachers; for me it calls up images of automobile assembly lines. When I talk about using student performance to evaluate teacher effectiveness, I think about removing teachers from the system who are ineffective, not rewarding the best. In my experience, for the best teachers teaching is its own reward. Of course, if you think about it for a while you will realize why teachers unions support merit pay rather than testing teachers or removing teachers who can't teach. > If the goal of the new MPS merit system is to improve student > outcomes, the criteria for evaluating teacher performance would > be student outcomes. Instead, teachers are to be rewarded for > acquiring and using certain skills "that are known to improve > learning." The district says it promotes teaching > practices that are known to improve learning, but > the test score data says something else. I would hope that most people would be able to see through this rouse, but the insidiousness of this is probably not obvious to those unfamiliar with the educational system. First off, what is meant by "skills that are known to improve learning" is usually Constructivist methods (a philosophical approach to teaching which has no proven empirical basis). Secondly, what the new MPS merit system will reward is conformity to the status quo, not actual gains in student achievement, i.e., it rewards conformity. The same is true of any peer reviewed merit system. That's why using student performance is so important: it links instruction directly to what it is intended to affect. Michael Atherton http://QualityEd.US Candidate for Minneapolis School Board Prospect Park ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Prepared and paid for by the Atherton for MPS Committee. 156 Orlin Ave SE, Mpls, MN 55414 _______________________________________ Minneapolis Issues Forum - A Civil City Civic Discussion - Mn E-Democracy Post messages to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subscribe, Unsubscribe, Digest option, and more: http://e-democracy.org/mpls
