I've been communicating with some of my former teachers on Facebook. And I've been hearing my eldest describe her current teachers in high school. And it has all got me thinking about just how good teachers can be . . and just how bad teachers can be.
Many of you know that I'm a fan of the idea of merit pay for teachers. I'm not sure how to accomplish it fairly and practically, but I agree with the principle: good teachers should be paid better than bad teachers. They should be paid according to their value to their students. But how do we determine that value?
My husband, the businessman, will tell you that the value of a product has nothing to do with the costs incurred to produce it, or the differences between it and similar products, or anything like that -- the real value of a product is whatever a consumer is willing to pay for it. A fancy decorative tea cozy may seem like an unnecessary frivolity that accomplishes nothing of worth in society, but if someone is willing to pay half a month's salary for it, then that is its value.
So, can we use the same principle to determine a teacher's value -- that is, what he/she should be paid? Stay with me here, and hear me out before you get all huffy -- I'm just exploring an idea . . .
I contend that the people in a school community who ultimately know best which teachers are good and which are bad are the parents. (Well, the attentive parents -- we all know there are some parents that know nothing really about what's going on in their kids' lives -- factor them out of this scenario.) Parents know when a school year ends which teachers their kids actually learned from and which they didn't. And parents are usually quite willing to share their assessment with other parents -- and such parents know very well which teachers they want their kids to get for certain classes.
What if . . and again, don't freak out yet . . what if we were to allow parents to pay extra for the teachers they want their children to have? If parents had some power to choose their child's teachers, they would be even more active in seeking out information about the prospects. And the teachers who have been most successful with the most students would have the best reputations and ultimately command the best salaries. We would KNOW which teachers are good, and they would get paid accordingly.
Now, I understand that this would also mean that the wealthiest children would get the best teachers -- I'm not suggesting this as a legitimate solution to the teacher pay question. I'm just exploring the question of how to determine how much a teacher should be paid. As much as my liberal friends like to rail against the free market system, it can be very useful, and I'm wondering if there's a way to make use of its principles here . . .
More to come later, I think.
5 comments:
Nice post, Gwen. You make some excellent points. I can think of a few professions off the top of my head that offer merit pay: consulting, Wall Street jobs, professional athletes, and at a more every day level - waiting tables, hair stylists, and others who earn tips for good performance.
My issue is with ownership. Who "owns" teachers? In awarding merit pay to teachers, I think it's a great idea for private schools. In those cases, parents effectively do own the teachers - they should be free to pay more to good teachers, in theory, that are doing a great job with their children. Top performers should earn more!
But in public schools, the parents do not own the teachers, the school district does. I feel like the district should pay extra to good teachers, not parents. But hey, the principal of the school and the school district need to listen to the parents, and get their input, as well as students' input, on who the best teachers are. I just worry about parents giving money directly to the teachers here - sort of could become a bribe. In my cautious mind, I play out a hypothetical conversation:
Parent: "Here's some extra dough make sure to take good care of Johnny and Jane come grade time, and don't forget - we have another child coming up in a couple of years who could have you as a teacher too."
I suppose this same sort of quid pro quo could happen in a private school though, too. Hmmm.
Anyways, I enjoyed the post! :)
Oh, yes, D. -- I fully agree that we cannot have parents paying teachers directly. As I said, I'm not proposing this as a legitimate solution. I'm just playing with the idea that parents may be the best objective judges with no ulterior motives -- their goal is simply to get their kids a good education. (Although, as you point out, some parents just want the grade whether learning accompanies it or not. So they're not the perfect solution either.)
Of course, the pay needs to come from the district. My husband wondered last night about using some kind of token system -- every parent gets the same number of tokens to "bid" on the teachers of their choice. Starts sounding kind of gimmicky . .
But I might take issue with your point about teacher "ownership". At least, with the notion that private school parents own their teachers more than public school parents do. Public schools are government institutions -- and we are the government, yes? :)
Yeah Gwen, the word "ownership" was probably not the best one I could have used. Sloppy me. Unless the parents have an equity ownership interest in the school itself, they do not "own" the teachers. The legal "owner" is the school. It has the employment contract with the teacher, and has power to hire and fire. So if I "revise and extend" my remarks, instead I might say "clout", or "influence", or "implicitly higher value expectations." Whatever.
It's funny. We have educated our daughter at both public and private schools and seen the advantages and disadvantages of each. A few things emerge: For openers, quite logically, parents who pay X dollars per year to send a child to private school - or receive vouchers and go that route - may gain some clout or access to influence decisions that public school parents lack. If your child is one of 30 in a class with an underpaid public school teacher, or one of 12 in a class with a higher paid private school teacher, the power of the parents vis a vis the teacher will likely differ. While I worry about the public school parents becoming complacent, or frustrated, or a voice unheard, I also worry about pushy private school parents who may abuse their power as the well-heeled ""client". While the public school teacher may risk becoming jaded or somewhat unaccountable for results, the private school teacher may risk providing honest criticism to the parents about the student, for fear of his job. (Side note -it would be really interesting to compare the so-called "grade inflation" pressures between public and private schools). A cheerleader teacher is not the one to reward, but neither is the taskmaster or schoolmarm. Since everyone learns differently, the teacher who can ignite a love of learning for her pupil - in the student's best mode of learning -- is the one to hold in high regard. And engaged parents often do have a good idea on how their child sees the world and how they learn, so they need to have a voice to tell the school up front, at some level - it's not WHAT you teach that is as important as HOW you ignite the love of learning for Johnny or Jane!
BTW, I hear ya on the gimmicky sound to tokens for teachers. Would the tokens awarded to the teacher allow them to "buy" some sort of benefit from the school, like better supplies, special parking places, or more vacation time (which may not be what the parents want...)
Yeah Gwen, the word "ownership" was probably not the best one I could have used. Sloppy me. Unless the parents have an equity ownership interest in the school itself, they do not "own" the teachers. The legal "owner" is the school. It has the employment contract with the teacher, and has power to hire and fire. So if I "revise and extend" my remarks, instead I might say "clout", or "influence", or "implicitly higher value expectations." Whatever.
It's funny. We have educated our daughter at both public and private schools and seen the advantages and disadvantages of each. A few things emerge: For openers, quite logically, parents who pay X dollars per year to send a child to private school - or receive vouchers and go that route - may gain some clout or access to influence decisions that public school parents lack. If your child is one of 30 in a class with an underpaid public school teacher, or one of 12 in a class with a higher paid private school teacher, the power of the parents vis a vis the teacher will likely differ. While I worry about the public school parents becoming complacent, or frustrated, or a voice unheard, I also worry about pushy private school parents who may abuse their power as the well-heeled ""client". While the public school teacher may risk becoming jaded or somewhat unaccountable for results, the private school teacher may risk providing honest criticism to the parents about the student, for fear of his job. (Side note -it would be really interesting to compare the so-called "grade inflation" pressures between public and private schools). A cheerleader teacher is not the one to reward, but neither is the taskmaster or schoolmarm. Since everyone learns differently, the teacher who can ignite a love of learning for her pupil - in the student's best mode of learning -- is the one to hold in high regard. And engaged parents often do have a good idea on how their child sees the world and how they learn, so they need to have a voice to tell the school up front, at some level - it's not WHAT you teach that is as important as HOW you ignite the love of learning for Johnny or Jane!
BTW, I hear ya on the gimmicky sound to tokens for teachers. Would the tokens awarded to the teacher allow them to "buy" some sort of benefit from the school, like better supplies, special parking places, or more vacation time (which may not be what the parents want...)
Yeah Gwen, t"ownership" was probably not the best word I could have used. Sloppy me. Unless the parents have an equity ownership interest in the school itself, they do not "own" the teachers. The legal "owner" is the school. It has the employment contract with the teacher, and has power to hire and fire. So if I "revise and extend" my remarks, instead I might say "clout", or "influence", or "implicitly higher value expectations." Whatever.
It's funny. We have educated our daughter at both public and private schools and seen the advantages and disadvantages of each. A few things emerge: For openers, quite logically, parents who pay X dollars per year to send a child to private school - or receive vouchers and go that route - may gain some clout or access to influence decisions that public school parents lack. If your child is one of 30 in a class with an underpaid public school teacher, or one of 12 in a class with a higher paid private school teacher, the power of the parents vis a vis the teacher will likely differ. While I worry about the public school parents becoming complacent, or frustrated, or a voice unheard, I also worry about pushy private school parents who may abuse their power as the well-heeled ""client". While the public school teacher may risk becoming jaded or somewhat unaccountable for results, the private school teacher may risk providing honest criticism to the parents about the student, for fear of his job. (Side note -it would be really interesting to compare the so-called "grade inflation" pressures between public and private schools). A cheerleader teacher is not the one to reward, but neither is the taskmaster or schoolmarm. Since everyone learns differently, the teacher who can ignite a love of learning for her pupil - in the student's best mode of learning -- is the one to hold in high regard. And engaged parents often do have a good idea on how their child sees the world and how they learn, so they need to have a voice to tell the school up front, at some level - it's not WHAT you teach that is as important as HOW you ignite the love of learning for Johnny or Jane!
BTW, I hear ya on the gimmicky sound to tokens for teachers. Would the tokens awarded to the teacher allow them to "buy" some sort of benefit from the school, like better supplies, special parking places, or more vacation time (which may not be what the parents want...)
Post a Comment