Reply #132: I think you last sentence identifies the problem [View All]

"Is teaching somehow different in that regard than other types of employment? I don't think so."


I have been reading publications like Education Weekly and voting (in favor of) education bonds for about 25 years now. Teachers unions have worked hard to establish a separate culture for recruiting, compensating, correcting and laying off teachers. With budget cuts and agitation for reform - the protected status teachers have carved out for themselves is under attack. It's gotta feel horrible - I'll grant them that up front. I think they perceive it as axe chops to the root of education itself.

In the linked article, the head of the teacher's union says (paraphrasing) "We were never ever consulted about this." The sense of betrayal is marked - note the 'never ever' earnestness. She sees something deeply cruel in the use of the screening tools and is aghast that it ever happened. In the past, teachers have always been able to set the rules for how they were evaluated. If it was a written test, then 'a written test can not evaluate a teacher correctly!' If it was an oral exam, then 'an oral exam in an inappropriate measure!' In class observation, then 'it was only one class period! what can you tell from that!' This type of control over how an employee is evaluated is unknown in businesses outside of union shops. I just had to pass an application screening, oral exam, and written exam to earn the right to an interview - and they still are not required to ever see me. I had no say in this process but then, I never had it in the first place so I was not shocked. That's where the pain is, I believe, in this issue for teachers. Throughout the material in this thread and at the link - time served appears to be the primary measure that teachers expect to be evaluated on. In my employment history - time served means nothing (I and my colleagues were laid off after 20 plus years of provable success. If I had worked for 20 years believing that time served would always be honored and then suddenly, it evaporated - well that would be a shock.
Usually, when a new means of proposed teacher evaluation is proposed - teachers can defeat it or alter it to become somethign acceptable to them. Much is made, in this thread, about 'top teachers' evaluating others. Some posters want to know the qualifications of those teachers and say it is key to determining if the evaluations were fair. I submit that it is key to them dismantling any effort to screen teachers by methods they did not originate themselves. Once again - in my world I never had the opportunity to know deep information about how I was screened for employment. The article states that the teacher evaluators were given a rubric and trained how to use it. I expect any functioning teacher to be able to apply a rubric, given training, to job applications. What is really missing here is the rubric developed by CPS. If teachers could get that information, I believe they would dismantle screening one again by stating that the rubric doesn't adequately evaluate the teaching profession.
Some say the essay questions have no reflection on teaching ability. This is the start of the dismantling process. But a teacher is called upon to present materials to the public (conferences, panels, parents, community activities) so I believe it is fair to expect that someone seeking employment can perform a task like that.
The article says that 10% if 4000 applicants received a 'not recommended' rating. That seems fair - how severe could the rubric be if that many received a variation of recommended?. I had to be one of the top ten (not percent) candidates, once my application review-oral exam- and written exam scores were totaled, just to get a chance at an interview. Do I like this? No. Is it real life?
Yes. What the teachers are losing is real and valuable in the job satisfaction realm. I took an HR class that identified a key driver of job satisfaction as 'control over what happens to you'. For teachers to lose this control is a major hit to key job satisfaction to their life's chosen profession. I think transition and coaching to adopt and modify the existant culture would have helped. But the unions, once alerted to impending changes, would have halted such cultural changes. So teachers wake up one morning and feel kicked in the face for no reason.
I read up on Chicago schools after reading this thread and found that the teacher's unions are meeting mid Oct. to reject broad measures meant to bring about reform (take control of schools away from mayor, reject Race To The Top, and others). This is an attempt to preserve job satisfaction and a nurturing culture they adopted when they entered the profession. However - their goals are sweeping indeed and they do not propose alternative 'reforms' to satisfy the pressure for change felt by the non-teaching community (IMHO). I don't know how the cultural battle will turn out. It looks like reforms are being dive bombed into public schools to evade the status quo effects of the unions. It seems unfair that we are down to chooing reforms or teacher trauma. :(