Chicago schoolteachers go on strike

[RIJIMMY]

"I'd love to see what some of you would do if put in a position where your job was on the line because you couldn't get through to some of these kids."

you mean like salespeople that have no control over market conditions yet are compensated on commissions?

money managers who are compensated on returns yet have no control over the economy?

Project managers held to project deadlines yet do not own or control the resources?

I have sympathy for teachers, its a tough job buy many professions get compensated for delivering on things they cannot necessarly control. I have always gotten paid and raises based on my performance. Why is that ok for most and not for teachers? I guarantee it will allow the best to excel and the slackers to leave. Its win/win. Why are we afraid to suceed?

[zimmy]

Originally Posted by RIJIMMY

"

I have always gotten paid and raises based on my performance. Why is that ok for most and not for teachers? I guarantee it will allow the best to excel and the slackers to leave. Its win/win. Why are we afraid to suceed?

Any idea what an accurate measure of teacher performance would be? Most teachers I know would be all in for raises based on performance, but it is very difficult to quantify performance. Standardized tests are not designed as a measure of teacher performance. It is kind of like measuring physicians based on the health of their patients. Some terrible physicians would look great and the best oncologists in the world could look terrible. The city schools can't keep teachers to begin with. A well meaning, but misguided system for judging performance won't help the kids or tax payers.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by zimmy

Any idea what an accurate measure of teacher performance would be? Most teachers I know would be all in for raises based on performance, but it is very difficult to quantify performance. Standardized tests are not designed as a measure of teacher performance. It is kind of like measuring physicians based on the health of their patients. Some terrible physicians would look great and the best oncologists in the world could look terrible. The city schools can't keep teachers to begin with. A well meaning, but misguided system for judging performance won't help the kids or tax payers.

"Any idea what an accurate measure of teacher performance would be? "

That's a great question. In my opinion, evaluating teachers based solely on student improvement on test scores is unfair. What if the kid was up all night because his parents were fighting, and he bombs the test? That's not the teachers fault.

But obviously there's a way to differentiate the best teachers from the worst teachers. Hell, when I was 12 years old, I could tell you who was the best, and who was the worst.

It might be hard to distinguish between the 15th best teacher and the 16th best teacher, but it's not hard to identify the worst. The problem is, tenure makes it almost impossible to fire them. And very, very few teachers are willing to abandon the concept of tenure. They want their job guaranteed. And yuo cannot tell me that benefits the chikdren in any way, that only benefits the senior teachers.

"it is very difficult to quantify performance"

Agreed, I don't know that you can use a "statistic" to evaluate teachers. It should be based on evaluations by the principal, and feedback from parents, and even the students in some cases. The principals know which of their teachers are stellar, and which are dead weight.

"A well meaning, but misguided system for judging performance won't help the kids or tax payers"

Agreed 100%. If we reward teachers based on performance (and how could anyone be opposed to that), we need an accurate way of determining performance.

But evaluating teachers is not harder than evaluating anyone who works in any service type capacity. It's not all that hard. It may be hard to quantify as you said, but if you observe the teachers in their classrooms, you'll see clearly who is the best and who is the worst...

But to get to my original point, the teachers should not be striking over this. They serve the public, that's their sole purpose. I cannot imagine how disruptive this must be for the parents.

[scottw]

anecdotal teaching story...

my wife decided to go back to school and get another degree after our kids were born...she wanted to teach so she commuted part time an hour each way for several years to earn her degree...she graduated Summa Cum Laude with a stack of impressive recommendations from the schools that she student taught at and from her college instructors, she began applying to every opening within an hours commute and was unable to get interviews for permanent positions. She did daily subbing at various schools and had some long term sub jobs that produce more impressive letters of recommendation building her resume and continued to apply to openings but still not getting interviews for posted job interviews. After a couple of years of daily and long term subbing at various schools the end of summer was approaching and she was a little frustrated at the prospect of another school year spent subbing. She noticed an opening at a charter school and landed a job about a week before the beginning of the school year. It didn't pay a lot and the contracts were year to year but it was a job. She had a very succesful first year and was considered a model teacher, in her second year she was one of 4 teachers nominated for Teacher of the Year in the combined and enormous school district that her school is considered part of. There were two pretty attractive job openings posted this summer that she applied for, one happened to be a school system that she'd spent considerable time in during her student teaching and subbing days...she applied to both, never heard back from either except to read the reply notices that the jobs had been filled, in one case she had impressive letters of recommendation from both teachers and administrators within the schools system that she was applying to and could not get an interview. We would never suggest that she ought to get a job based on her resume because I'm sure the hiring is/was based on many factors, but you'd think she might have at least gotten an interview given her history. She had an experience at one particular school district where they put the long term sub applicants through a long interview process, she went though the process a couple of times for different openings because she really wanted to work and each time she came home upset and frustrated because she felt that the panel of interviewers were either rude or disinterested and that their decision was made well ahead of time, making the time that she invested to apply and drive to the interviews futile.

[zimmy]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

"Any idea what an accurate measure of teacher performance would be? "

That's a great question. In my opinion, evaluating teachers based solely on student improvement on test scores is unfair. What if the kid was up all night because his parents were fighting, and he bombs the test? That's not the teachers fault.

But obviously there's a way to differentiate the best teachers from the worst teachers. Hell, when I was 12 years old, I could tell you who was the best, and who was the worst.

It might be hard to distinguish between the 15th best teacher and the 16th best teacher, but it's not hard to identify the worst. The problem is, tenure makes it almost impossible to fire them. And very, very few teachers are willing to abandon the concept of tenure. They want their job guaranteed. And yuo cannot tell me that benefits the chikdren in any way, that only benefits the senior teachers.

"it is very difficult to quantify performance"

Agreed, I don't know that you can use a "statistic" to evaluate teachers. It should be based on evaluations by the principal, and feedback from parents, and even the students in some cases. The principals know which of their teachers are stellar, and which are dead weight.

"A well meaning, but misguided system for judging performance won't help the kids or tax payers"

Agreed 100%. If we reward teachers based on performance (and how could anyone be opposed to that), we need an accurate way of determining performance.

But evaluating teachers is not harder than evaluating anyone who works in any service type capacity. It's not all that hard. It may be hard to quantify as you said, but if you observe the teachers in their classrooms, you'll see clearly who is the best and who is the worst...

But to get to my original point, the teachers should not be striking over this. They serve the public, that's their sole purpose. I cannot imagine how disruptive this must be for the parents.

I believe I agree with everything Jim said in this post

[RIJIMMY]

Originally Posted by zimmy

Any idea what an accurate measure of teacher performance would be? Most teachers I know would be all in for raises based on performance, but it is very difficult to quantify performance. Standardized tests are not designed as a measure of teacher performance. It is kind of like measuring physicians based on the health of their patients. Some terrible physicians would look great and the best oncologists in the world could look terrible. The city schools can't keep teachers to begin with. A well meaning, but misguided system for judging performance won't help the kids or tax payers.

Sure -

1. Standardized tests - dont use average scores, use the median (the extremes high and low will drop off) and test begginning of the year and end of year. - 50% of rating
2. Parent rating - after all, teachers are our customers, we should have a say - rating questionairre - 25%
3. Evaluation - teachers should be evaluated by their superiors - 25%

There you go, not so hard.

Not making this another texas thing - but I can give you some thoughts. We left a good town in MA where we had decent schools. I rarely heard from my kids teachers. Texas schools started 2 weeks ago- do you know i get DAILY emails for both my kids teachers detailing what is going on in the class, weekly summaries of the work and other random updates. Thats about 8-10 emails A WEEK from my kids teachsers. Thats awesome and thats what great teachers do.

I believe teachers hands are tied by political correctness. Kids should take a reading and english test at the beginning of the year, if they fail - they should go to an 8 hr a day special class where ALL they do is learn to read and learn English. Why bother teaching anything else if they cant read or understand english? No one has the balls to implement something like this.

[zimmy]

Originally Posted by RIJIMMY

Sure -

1. Standardized tests - dont use average scores, use the median (the extremes high and low will drop off) and test begginning of the year and end of year. - 50% of rating
.

I'm not exactly sure what you are getting at. Are you comparing the teachers in one school? Are you comparing across schools; districts; a state? In Bridgeport middle schools, about 10% of students make goal in science. In Fairfield, about 85% of students make goal. You can't compare across districts and expect to still have teachers in the cities.
If you are comparing within schools, the make-up of the classes would have to be as close to identical as possible, which they almost never can be because of special ed staffing, etc. Even then, what are you measuring? Percent of students who make certain benchmarks? In MA and CT, the science tests, at least, cover three years of curriculum. So now you have to factor that in to the assessment. If the system is set up in a way allows for effective comparison, it is very likely that there will be a only a few outliers. But again, the admin will already know about those teachers in most cases and can already take steps to get rid of those teachers, even if they have tenure. What Jimmy pointed out is what CT is will have in one or two school years. I hope it works to push administrators to put the effort into getting rid of bad teachers. but I am pretty certain isn't going to take care of the gap between Bridgeport and Fairfield, or Worcester and Newton. That is the real challenge and no one knows how to address it in practice.

[Piscator]

Originally Posted by RIJIMMY

"I'd love to see what some of you would do if put in a position where your job was on the line because you couldn't get through to some of these kids."

you mean like salespeople that have no control over market conditions yet are compensated on commissions?

Thank you................my job is sales. Hit the number or we will find someone else that will. Obviously there are outside factors that always need to be considered. If a pattern of poor performance is apparent, you are let go or put on a performance plan. Things don’t improve while on a performance plan, bye bye.

I think there is probably a reasonable way (even via standardized testing) that can gauge how effective a teacher is. There are kids who are naturals and test very well, there are kids who aren’t that test poorly. Then there is a whole bunch of average kids who test average, sort of like a bell curve.

I’m sure all of these PHD’s in our education system can figure out a way to measure how effective a teacher teaches to their students. If they can’t then we are in trouble.

Saying you can’t figure out a way to grade a teacher on performance is lame and asinine in my opinion. We can put someone into space but can’t rate how effective a teacher is? Come on boys…..

I remember just about every teacher I had, some were incredible, some sucked really, really bad. It was very easy to see

[zimmy]

Originally Posted by Piscator

Saying you can’t figure out a way to grade a teacher on performance is lame and asinine in my opinion. We can put someone into space but can’t rate how effective a teacher is? Come on boys…..

Any ideas or you just think someone else should be able to figure it out? Let me know when you find one. I didn't say it can't be figured out, but so far it hasn't. Comparing student performance to sales is rather asinine in my opinion. The places where lousy teachers get to stay are the schools that don't have people in line to take the job. Good suburban school districts don't seem to be struggling for "good" teachers. The best Chicago teachers that haven't already, can head to the suburbs and test performance won't be an issue. How will that fix the problems in the city?

[Piscator]

Originally Posted by zimmy

Any ideas or you just think someone else should be able to figure it out? Let me know when you find one. I didn't say it can't be figured out, but so far it hasn't. Comparing student performance to sales is rather asinine in my opinion. The places where lousy teachers get to stay are the schools that don't have people in line to take the job. Good suburban school districts don't seem to be struggling for "good" teachers. The best Chicago teachers that haven't already, can head to the suburbs and test performance won't be an issue. How will that fix the problems in the city?

The reason it hasn’t been figured out so far is that the Unions will not let it.

Here’s a thought, give a standardized test the first week of school for that year grade level. Teacher teaches class throughout the year for the grade level. Give that same exact standardized test at the end of the year and look at how the scores improve. Not every kid will learn and improve. Most kids (with a competent teacher will have learned and will show improvement). A teacher should not be fired for a few bad eggs. If scores overall don’t improve much from the first time around, something is wrong and needs to be looked at. If most kids show improvement, there probably isn’t in issue. If most kids show no improvement year over year with a teacher or two out of the whole bunch, there is a problem. I don’t think it’s that difficult to figure out. The reason it hasn’t been figured out is that the teachers union seems to have a vice grip on these things and do not want teachers to be rated.

[zimmy]

Originally Posted by Piscator

The reason it hasn’t been figured out so far is that the Unions will not let it.

If scores overall don’t improve much from the first time around, something is wrong and needs to be looked at. If most kids show improvement, there probably isn’t in issue. If most kids show no improvement year over year with a teacher or two out of the whole bunch, there is a problem. .

Guess what? That kind of testing already exists. What it shows is that urban schools have less growth across the board. Schools with kids who come in to kindergarten not reading continue to do poorly throughout their education. Kids in suburban schools come in to kindergarten doing well and continue on that path. The data comes out the same way from school to school across the country. It might pick out an occasional teacher that is not teaching anything, but the administration will almost always know there is a problem with those teachers. Those teachers shouldnt get paid less and the others paid more, the poor teachers should get booted. That is what happens in schools that are able to attract candidates. It still doesn't fix the primary socioeconomic problems that lead to the differences in the cities vs. the suburbs.
The resistance of unions to it is that the people who are trying to implement it are politicians, not statisticians. People who have no idea about variables, correlations, etc. Simpleton politicians can think it sounds good, but it doesn't make it good or effective or beneficial to education. Teachers in the suburbs will appear great and teachers in the cities will appear lousy.

[scottw]

this is great...

"Chicago's teachers have the highest average salary in the country at $76,000/year and according to the Mayor's office, the financial side of the $400 Million deal is done. 4%/year raises have been agreed to, taking them to $88,900/year by 2016.

The Mayor's office stated that:

"The two remaining stumbling blocks involve re-hiring laid off teachers from schools that get shut down or shaken up and a new teacher evaluation process that the union says puts far too much weight on student test scores."

So while 404,000 students are missing school, the real issues are accountability and union job protection.

Chicago is not really different from Wisconsin, but while it is only 90 miles away, it is a universe away in its political realities. The city has seen the same economic straits as most large cities in the country and yet at a time when everyone else is cutting back and trying to get by, the Chicago Teacher's Union, who have already been financially sated, wants more control with less accountability.

This crystallizes two of the major issues we face. The terrible state of our K-12 educational system and our out of control public sector unions.

Chicago has a 50% drop out rate; better than Los Angeles at 70%, but still what should be an insult to every teacher in each district.

Whether it is for gross misconduct by teachers or for regular evaluations and student testing, the union expects to remain unaccountable. In Chicago, standardized test results are destroyed almost immediately after the tests are scored. They have it down in Chicago. No Atlanta scandals there.

And at a time when the average salary in Chicago is $47,000/year and the city is running massive deficits, the disparity between results, compensation, and accountability in the school district is growing even larger.

The issue is national. In California, the unions own the state government as well as most of the largest cities. Across the country states and municipalities are running huge deficits and there is a massive pension crisis.

And Chicago perfectly summarizes the issue. This was an insider deal to begin with and now the union is pressing its advantage. They play rough in Chicago. It's not about the kids. It is about continuing to rob the taxpayers blind and give them as little as possible in return.

It is interesting to note that back in the 1990's our president was at the forefront of educational reform in Chicago and to note the lack of progress since. The Annenberg Challenge spent hundreds of millions of dollars and in the words of its own final report in 2003 achieved almost nothing.

Mayor Richard M. Daly took control of the School District in 1995 and put Arne Duncan, now U.S. Secretary of Education in charge, to no effect.

One of the obligations of local government is education. It is obvious that Chicago's school district and its teachers are failing in this responsibility. Their answer is to blame the system but it is their system. They did build it."

[Raider Ronnie]

"50% drop out rate"
Does is really make a difference if they even go back ?
Let them strike and never go back !
What is the drop out % in Boston ?

Originally Posted by scottw

this is great...

"Chicago's teachers have the highest average salary in the country at $76,000/year and according to the Mayor's office, the financial side of the $400 Million deal is done. 4%/year raises have been agreed to, taking them to $88,900/year by 2016.

The Mayor's office stated that:

"The two remaining stumbling blocks involve re-hiring laid off teachers from schools that get shut down or shaken up and a new teacher evaluation process that the union says puts far too much weight on student test scores."

So while 404,000 students are missing school, the real issues are accountability and union job protection.

Chicago is not really different from Wisconsin, but while it is only 90 miles away, it is a universe away in its political realities. The city has seen the same economic straits as most large cities in the country and yet at a time when everyone else is cutting back and trying to get by, the Chicago Teacher's Union, who have already been financially sated, wants more control with less accountability.

This crystallizes two of the major issues we face. The terrible state of our K-12 educational system and our out of control public sector unions.

Chicago has a 50% drop out rate; better than Los Angeles at 70%, but still what should be an insult to every teacher in each district.

Whether it is for gross misconduct by teachers or for regular evaluations and student testing, the union expects to remain unaccountable. In Chicago, standardized test results are destroyed almost immediately after the tests are scored. They have it down in Chicago. No Atlanta scandals there.

And at a time when the average salary in Chicago is $47,000/year and the city is running massive deficits, the disparity between results, compensation, and accountability in the school district is growing even larger.

The issue is national. In California, the unions own the state government as well as most of the largest cities. Across the country states and municipalities are running huge deficits and there is a massive pension crisis.

And Chicago perfectly summarizes the issue. This was an insider deal to begin with and now the union is pressing its advantage. They play rough in Chicago. It's not about the kids. It is about continuing to rob the taxpayers blind and give them as little as possible in return.

It is interesting to note that back in the 1990's our president was at the forefront of educational reform in Chicago and to note the lack of progress since. The Annenberg Challenge spent hundreds of millions of dollars and in the words of its own final report in 2003 achieved almost nothing.

Mayor Richard M. Daly took control of the School District in 1995 and put Arne Duncan, now U.S. Secretary of Education in charge, to no effect.

One of the obligations of local government is education. It is obvious that Chicago's school district and its teachers are failing in this responsibility. Their answer is to blame the system but it is their system. They did build it."

[Piscator]

Originally Posted by zimmy

Schools with kids who come in to kindergarten not reading continue to do poorly throughout their education. Kids in suburban schools come in to kindergarten doing well and continue on that path. The data comes out the same way from school to school across the country.

The resistance of unions to it is that the people who are trying to implement it are politicians, not statisticians. People who have no idea about variables, correlations, etc. Simpleton politicians can think it sounds good, but it doesn't make it good or effective or beneficial to education. Teachers in the suburbs will appear great and teachers in the cities will appear lousy.

The part about kids coming into school not being able to read is sad and in many cases a direct correlation to parenting (or lack thereof). My wife and I make it a point to read as much as we can to our kids. My oldest daughter just entered Kindergarten and she can read extremely well for her age. It’s not due to the town we live but how we raise our kids and what we try to instill in them. That is another topic of discussion.

I think that if statisticians vs politicians were trying to implement this, Teachers Unions would still fight it to the end. My opinion and I hope I'm wrong.