We voted on Amendment 3 yesterday which reads as follows
Shall the Missouri Constitution be amended to:
- Require teachers to be evaluated by a standards based performance evaluation system for which each local school district must receive state approval to continue receiving state and local funding;
- Require teachers to be dismissed, retained, demoted, promoted and paid primarily using quantifiable student performance data as part of the evaluation system;
- Require teachers to enter into contracts of three years or fewer with public school districts; and
- Prohibit teachers from organizing or collectively bargaining regarding the design and implementation of the teacher evaluation system?
For a moment let's get past the poor wording of the amendment and the brevity of the moment associated with amending the state constitution. Why would teachers not be in favor of the general purpose of the amendment?
As an outsider I do not understand the process of removing bad teachers from the system. I can only go on what I hear, but apparently due to the power of the union, tenure rules, contract structure, and such it would appear that getting rid of a teacher would be difficult. When was the last time you heard of a teacher being fired for poor performance?
Some would argue that lawmakers went about this change the wrong way, by not involving teachers in the progress. Could that be due to the fact that when a lawmaker or outsider would like to make a change, the NEA or local state and district unions fight tooth and nail for what appears to be good, albeit difficult, solutions?
Maybe outsiders are tired of the NEA pushing the status quo under the guise of protecting the children. Who is protecting our children from the poor performing teachers? Teachers are you not fed up with watching co-workers coast through their teaching career with better pay because of archaic tenure rules? Are you not tired of kids funneling into your classroom from previous years having little to no grasp of the core concepts of the previous grade due to terrible teaching techniques?
I would assume that most teachers care about teaching their kids and want to always improve their teaching skills. But I know for a fact that there are plenty of teachers out there just collecting a paycheck and counting down days to the pension kicks in.
Lawmakers got it wrong here in the fact that they did not detail the evaluation standards they would like to put in place. Typical politics offering some vague solution without a lot of details. I would tend to believe that most teachers would be in favor of merit pay over the tenure/leveling/whatever its called in your district pay grade system, if and only if the evaluation standards are clearly defined and communicated. Combine this with the ability for teachers to collectively request the resources needed to be successful. How crazy are you if you try to create a merit pay system without giving teachers a voice to tell you what they need to be successful (See bullet point 4 above). Allow the teachers to give input on the merit system.
Teachers seem worried about legislation that tries to circumvent the teachers union. I can only assume they think that they will lose their voice on the issues. I can understand that, but the system can be built in a way that allows teachers to be involved with the process. Bottom line, the best workers you work with are not inspired by unions and the worst people you work with are protected by them.
Tear down the us vs them mentality that the teacher unions tend to thrive on. What exactly has the NEA done for you lately besides removing some of that cheddar from the top of your pay check? Lawmakers need to do a better job writing up these amendments. This one has the looks of being done at an Applebees during half price apps.
0 comments:
Post a Comment