I’m tired of being kicked out of my job, even though I’ve been told by every principal I work for that I’m the best media specialist they know, just because someone with more seniority wants my job. That’s absurd.

This is an actual question, not a snarky one, I promise,”Why is defining merit for teachers so much different than any other job?”

I never really got the historical reason for that but in my mind, every job can argue the question of merit. Is it my sales total for this quarter or is it that I’ve put down a foundation for sales for years to come? Is it the amount of code I wrote or is it one really good contribution? Is it the number of arrests I’ve made? The amount crime went down in my patrol area? Is a surgeon better or worse if they’re willing to perform risky procedures that lead to more operating table deaths but longer post-op lifespan?

For me though it comes down to this: One of the core duties of our job is to evaluate. You can argue about what that really means or the purposes but that’s what we do.

Our job is to evaluate, so why are we so scared of being evaluated ourselves?

Yes it’s hard to pin down merit, but that’s our job. We evaluate things that are hard to evaluate. How can you measure reading comprehension? You have no idea what is going on in your student’s head. So what do you do? You develop criteria and tools, you make your best guess using them, you reflect, and you revise your criteria and tools.

So for teacher merit we do the exact same thing.

As noted by many, it will make a difference who makes the call on quality and fit as well. Not all administrators have the same philosophy or see the same priorities, so one may simply be a better fit than another depending upon the preferences of that building’s administrator and the current need/goals that are being targeted.
With the who, however, having those less familiar with the actual teaching (community, parents, etc) does scare me. Also, this is a great way to have good teachers hung out with little to no support. Easy targets for the times they held students accountable if this impacts their jobs – make way for “everybody gets what they want” approaches. I do have to agree whole-heartedly with Jason’s observation, “Having teachers evaluate teachers would improve teaching all around if for no other reason than we’d get a structured opportunity to observe others,” and clearly Roger can sum it up.

What I propose, and I have not seen it or anything like it done in public schools yet (correct me if I am wrong), is to put limits on tenure much in the same way states put limits on teacher licenses. Instead of tenure lasting for life, give teachers 5 or 10 years of tenure. At then end of their term their tenure status could go up for review. Now, how a teacher’s tenure status could be revoked could even be put under strict protective measures. For instance, a rogue administrator couldn’t just do this on their own accord. What if such a measure were done through a series of checks and balances. An administrator could propose it, then a group comprised of a union rep, an administrator, an a board member could vote to either continue renew the tenure or place the teacher back on probationary status. Then, after one year of probationary status, if the teacher doesn’t improve or live up to expectations they could be terminated.

Obviously we’d have to link pay to highly skilled as well to prevent districts from just firing more expensive teachers. Of course, I’m also of the opinion that you don’t want to work in a district that would fire teachers just based on how expensive they are.

Who would decide? Frankly I think almost anything is better than what we have here. I think a 360 degree evaluation is probably best with administrators/teachers/students/parents all getting a chance to have their say. Having teachers evaluate teachers would improve teaching all around if for no other reason than we’d get a structured opportunity to observe others.

I tried to propose a system last year when we were going through cutbacks but people flipped. I’d say 60% strongly against, 25% moderately against, the other 15% on my side. Of those 15% though probably 90% were in danger of being cut so I don’t know who was really in favor and who was just hoping to get saved.

As for choosing which teachers to lay off, this is, indeed, a slippery issue and not one with an easy, one-size-fits-all answer. Should teacher retention be based on seniority or merit? I believe it should be based on seniority IF there also is proven merit, but how should merit be documented?

I personally believe that teachers should be regularly evaluated–both formally and informally–by administrators, peers, students, parents, and even outside educational consultants. Too often, years of service and the status quo have been trusted without documentation or evidence of merit.

On the other hand, too often, exceptional classroom performance has gone unnoticed because of the lack of formal evaluation processes. No one sees or documents the enormous strides teachers make in the classrooms every day.

I also believe teachers need to take the scary plunge and participate in brutal self-evaluations. I believe they should be videotaped in the classroom (as they are for National Board portfolio submissions) and watch themselves in action, ready to make changes where necessary to improve their delivery, interaction, and relationship styles with the students (for example, are they dominating too much and not allowing the students to learn on their own?).

I hope you’ll read my blog post about the process of teacher evaluation and the need for weeding out ineffective teachers — or, rather, how to decide whether teachers are effective or not: “The Best Mirrors” http://edutwist.com/elin/?p=1026

This is truly a major issue. Solving it will take the wisdom of Solomon I’m afraid. In addition it is a problem that has developed over many, many years and is not just the fault of teacher unions, many hands have contributed to the problem Let’s hope that solving it doesn’t succumb to the horrible societal and political climate we are experiencing now.
Brian

In the mean time, the two choices seem to be seniority-based layoffs and layoffs based purely on the random preferences of a district. As a West Virginia teacher who lives in Virginia, I’ve seen both systems up close. I like the seniority-based work environment I have in WV (even though this is just my fifth year) much more than the politically charged sense of insecurity teachers face in my home county in Virginia.

There is a factor other than seniority that enters into the picture. Layoffs generally occur in specific certification categories. A district is forced by student demographics (or by lack of funding) to lay off a few teachers with elementary certification. A teacher who is also certified in reading (or in some middle school content area) may get transfered instead of being laid off while more senior but less qualified teachers hit the road. In other words, if you collect the right certifications, seniority becomes much less relevant – even in a state as unionized as West Virginia.