Teacher Pay

[Sandman]

I'm confused on what exactly you are claiming can be faked. Anyone can get up in front of a class of kids and talk, barring people with extreme public speaking phobias. It doesn't make them effective public speakers. Nobody can get in front of a room while being evaluated and fake being a skilled teacher, and to even suggest that is offensive to good teachers. What they do is not easy, it's an amazing and valuable talent, and it sure as shit isn't something that can be faked on command. It's like saying anyone can get in front of a camera and fake their way to a Daniel Day-Lewis performance. Silly.

And as far as the frequency of evaluations, it's all relative. The point is it'd be a million times better than the seniority-based system we have now, where demonstrably bad teachers won't get fired for it. You think it's "horrid" that someone should have to prove they're worthy of holding a job that requires specific skillsets. I think it's a no-brainer. Teaching children is one of the most important jobs on earth, and you talk about it like it's unskilled labor that should never be scrutinized.

[wormwood]

[wormwood]

[Medius]

Honestly, I'd say:

-Pay based on seniority.
-Remove seniority job protection.
-Set up a bonus system for good teachers.

Teachers who are crap can be removed, so it makes seniority pay more fair.

Bonuses on some frequency ensure that a teacher can't just fake it at the right time and ride a bigger pay check through years or decades of substandard education. It also ensures that compensation given under a poor evaluation system doesn't lock up budget long-term.

[The Comrade]

[Medius]

Most of my worst teachers thought they were great teachers. Most of my teachers that knew how to be good teachers but chose not to be good teachers were tenured.

Honestly, if you want to evaluate teachers, I'd suggest randomly sampling graded homework. It'll tell you what the kids know, what the teacher expects them to know, and how the teacher reacts to what they do and don't know. Long-term it can also give you an idea of how students are improving. This was a fairly common practice to rate teacher's assistance in college.

At the end of the day, it doesn't much matter whether the teacher is great at presentation, fun, engaging, or personable. What matters is if the kids are learning. In many cases, this requires adapting to the kids themselves. So it might mean being hard and strict on some kids and encouraging and engaging to others. I had plenty of teachers that were absolutely awesome at reaching about half the class. If that other half is burn-outs, thugs, and people who are determined not to learn, that may be success. If that other half is full of intelligent kids who learn differently, that is failure.

[PoS]

[The Comrade]

[Sandman]

[The Comrade]