Facebook
Fark
Digg
Reddit
Stumble
By Anjeanette Damon (contact) 
Wednesday, March 30, 2011 | 2:01 a.m.
Brian Sandoval
Lynn Warne
John Oceguera
Sun Coverage
Sun archives
- Battle continues in state Legislature over teacher tenure (3-20-2011)
- Are teachers getting tenure too soon? (1-23-2011)
- Similar budget woes prompt Nevada rallies (1-22-2011)
- Hundreds of union workers rally in Las Vegas for bargaining rights (2-21-2011)
- Chancellor backs UNLV president in talk of financial emergency (2-16-2011)
- Wis. governor wants to cut union rights in budget (2-10-2011)
- Regent says it’s time that K-12 shares in budget sacrifice (2-8-2011)
- Sandoval won’t push bill to eliminate collective bargaining (2-4-2011)
- Higher education officials say Sandoval budget cuts a ‘death sentence’ (2-4-2011)
- Education in forefront of upcoming budget battle (1-30-2011)
- Chancellor: University tuition would have to go up 73 percent to cover Sandoval budget gap (1-27-2011)
- A steep climb for Nevadans (1-26-2011)
- Soft words during State of the State hide Nevada in pain (1-25-2011)
- Calls to end teacher tenure are bipartisan (9-23-2010)
- Gibbons wants to reform collective bargaining, though his deputy chief of staff once said he was in pocket of unions on issue (5-10-2010)
As his fellow Republican governors have declared public-employee unions to be public enemy No. 1 and moved to strip their collective bargaining rights, Gov. Brian Sandoval has avoided a similar fight. He has focused instead on the state’s flatlining economy, beleaguered budget and struggling schools.
But Sandoval’s newly unveiled education reform package might bring the collective bargaining fight to him.
Under the legislation, teachers unions couldn’t bargain for higher pay based on educational attainment or years of service. They would also be limited in bargaining on the processes for layoffs, other workforce reductions and termination.
Sandoval’s senior adviser, Dale Erquiaga, said the governor’s intent isn’t to eliminate collective bargaining. But he acknowledged some of those rights could end up as collateral damage in Sandoval’s efforts to end teacher tenure and seniority.
“This isn’t about opening up (Nevada Revised Statute) 288,” Erquiaga said, referring to the statute on collective bargaining. “Our perspective is the policy outcome of ending teacher tenure and first in, last out.”
The Nevada State Education Association sees Sandoval’s bill, Assembly Bill 555, as an end run around its collective bargaining rights.
“We certainly didn’t take the governor at his word that he was not going to mess with collective bargaining,” association President Lynn Warne said. “He said he wasn’t going to move to eliminate collective bargaining, but there’s lots of mischief to be made within the statute of 288. And he’s picked on two very important issues to us.”
Sandoval’s proposal comes as legislators across the political spectrum are proposing bills to make it easier to get rid of bad teachers — widely seen as key to improving schools. Democrats and Republicans are, however, at odds on whether that requires an end to collective bargaining.
Democratic lawmakers, led by Assembly Speaker John Oceguera of Las Vegas, want to end teacher tenure by extending their probationary period and requiring any teacher with more than one unsatisfactory evaluation to be placed on probation. Oceguera’s bill would not change the collective bargaining statutes.
(Teachers in Nevada technically aren’t granted tenure, but they cannot be fired “at will” beyond a one- to two-year probationary period, which both conservative and liberal lawmakers argue is de facto tenure.)
Conservatives argue it’s impossible to end teacher tenure without eliminating rights to collectively bargain on dismissal procedures. Under state law, collectively bargained contracts supersede state law on teachers’ probationary and post-probationary status.
“If you want to end teacher tenure, you kind of have to go after collective bargaining,” state Sen. James Settelmeyer, R-Minden, said.
Sandoval’s bill would repeal the statutes allowing local teacher contracts to supersede state-mandated dismissal procedures.
But Oceguera said that isn’t necessary. Existing law is strong enough to prevent an arbitrator from siding with the teachers union on a contract that goes beyond the policies his bill seeks to establish. School districts wouldn’t agree to such provisions anyway, he said.
“I just think it’s highly unlikely that the districts would say, ‘Oh, yeah, we’ll give on that,’ ” Oceguera said.
Yet, conservatives note that’s what districts have done in some cases.
State law requires districts to share the cost of employee retirement contributions. But unions have negotiated terms forcing districts to bear 100 percent of that cost — another practice Sandoval seeks to end.
In another example, Washoe County negotiated some dismissal procedures that go beyond state law.
State law also didn’t grant the ability to include “evergreen clauses” in teacher union contracts, allows terms of an existing contract to continue in the event a new contract is not bargained. District officials have complained the clause allows terms bargained when district coffers were flush to continue during the budget crisis. But district officials allowed those evergreen clauses to be created through bargaining.
Democrats are walking a fine line in pushing education reforms that give districts more power to terminate teachers. But there are signs Democrats are willing to at least listen to Sandoval’s ideas even if they will likely anger one of the party’s powerful constituencies — teachers.
“If we piss off the teachers, then we are a defunct party,” Assemblyman Tick Segerblom, D-Las Vegas, said. “They are our backbone.”
Segerblom dismissed Sandoval’s proposal, saying he’s confident it will fall victim to the Democratic majorities in both houses. “Good thing it isn’t going anywhere,” he said.
But Assemblywoman Debbie Smith, D-Sparks, chairwoman of the Ways and Means Committee where Sandoval’s bill would be heard, said leadership is open to “reasonable suggestions.”
She promised what will likely be a “day and a half long” hearing on all of the provisions in Sandoval’s bill.
Let's get real, and be honest about it...
The interest here is NOT to improve Education.
Rather, it's again about POWER.
"WE will tell YOU what you can make, what your benefits will be, whether you deserve a pay increase, IF EVER, and under which circumstances you may complain."
Nevadans, once again, are BEING PLAYED.
Brian Sandoval will indeed smile at your face, all the while he's thinking how he'll be stabbing you in the back.
Smoke & Mirrors Sandoval.
Playing his shell game with the budget, robbing Peter to pay Paul, pretending to not increase taxes while stealing every nickel he can find, and lying about breaking unions and contracts.
Yeah. He'll "fix" Nevada, all right.
The Fix is definitely in.
Notice that Sandoval does nothing about a 15% hike in gasoline prices over a few months. Executives raise their own income by monopolistic practices all the time - an "Executive Tax". No problem there, it's unions that are a problem with Sandy.
All of this public employee and education cost is a smoke screen being done so that the Republicants can push through more tax loopholes for the wealthy. I have said it before and I will say it again, Beware of a smiling Republicant, his goal is to shaft the working people.
"The Nevada State Education Association sees Sandoval's bill, Assembly Bill 555, as an end run around its collective bargaining rights."
That's exactly what it is. They believe by masking it as something else, they can get away with it.
Governor Sandoval and the rest of the Republicans here in Nevada are emboldened by what is happening in the Midwest. And they see a chance to do it here. The arrogance has surfaced.
The simple fact of the matter is that they want power. They can't get anywhere on a national scale, so they are encouraged by money from the corporations to attack on a State level. People can paint it however they want, but it is ultimately nothing but a power grab.
Governor Sandoval has raped the school system in Nevada repeatedly. But that is not enough for him. He wants Nevada to have the worst education system in the nation. The way he thinks, we need to be ranked 52nd (below both Guam and Puerto Rico).
The money and power to be attained from it are more important than teachers. Teachers are expendable in the Republican hell they envision. Also, the middle class to them is crap, and not a treasure. They only are interested in them for votes. Then after they get elected, they are no longer constituents. In their eyes, they change status and become victims.
The Great Republican Party Over Reach Policy has now infected Nevada.
Get ready for the political backlash, Governor Sandoval.
You won't survive it.
Trust me.
BRIAN SANDOVAL IS A COMPLETE AND TOTAL FRAUD!!!
look at that picture above...
look at that frickin smile...
that phony smile...
that nervous smile...
that i know i am completely full of $#!^ but i hope you are distracted by my big teeth and don't figure it out smile...
BRIAN SANDOVAL IS A COMPLETE AND TOTAL FRAUD!!!
"Alaska senator: Not enough info to justify oil tax cut"
"Leading Alaska senators are showing virtually no interest in advancing Alaska Gov. Sean Parnell's bill to cut oil production taxes before the Legislature adjourns next month."
"...there's a lack of available information on how tax credits are being used and a lag in audits of oil companies' tax forms dating to 2006 -- when the state was under a different tax regime than it is today."
LAG IN TAX AUDITS IN ALASKA TOO! DURING THE PALIN ASCENDANCY.
Republican Governors around the country are busy increasing Corporate Executive's wealth by taking it from the wage earner. (Less Jobs, not more) Oil Executives in particular love monopolies and increase their incomes by just raising the collective price of gas.
Wealth as an institution does not need a Democracy, just power. Power comes from money, monopolies, low to no taxes, and an inexpensive source of uneducated military recruits to 'fight for their country'.
By gutting the public schools, ignorant children will be looking for a job - and get a uniform instead. They were once known as the Hitlerjugend.
"If we piss off the teachers, then we are a defunct party," Assemblyman Tick Segerblom, D-Las Vegas, said. "They are our backbone."
I guess Segerblom doesnt have common sense? Bad teachers shouldn't find another line of work, but stay in the classroom...huh?
Much like firefighters, we hold teachers in high regard. However, there are just as many BAD teachers as GOOD teachers, like any other profession. its a shame people think this is about "education" but rather about continuing the education bureaucracy that keeps money flowing.
Brian Sandoval is a HUGE failure. He will divide the state and eventually cause boycotts to Nevada with his extreme right wing agenda. This guy will destroy Las vegas for his own career gain.
He alaways caters to republicans and republicans only. He is ineffective and does not work with anyone.
psss: the government WANTS GAS PRICES TO INCREASE--so we buy the sales pitch on alternate energy hook, line, and sinker. They even enourage increased tax on gasoline, say 40%, not a specific amount--so as the sales price increases, tax revenues go up.
Teacher tenure and seniority protection hurt the quality of education by protecting bad teachers. Seniority also protects teachers by age rather than skill and sense we pay older teachers more (regardless of their skill) we end up firing the cheaper, younger and generally more eager students.
Worst of all since it is so difficult to fire teachers bad teachers are shuffled off to schools where parents are the least likely to complain - yup, low-income schools. And since seniority protects old teachers and fires young teachers guess which schools end up losing more of their teachers during budget cuts - yup, low income schools.
In the end seniority and tenure end up hurting students and the quality of education.
Cities, Counties and School Districts must TRIM FOR THE LONG HAUL. These cuts are NOT TEMPORARY. Next time will be more of the same--even if sales improve, we're short hundreds of millions due to OVERSPENDING ON K-16 for decades. Our economy will not rebound in a biennium, even if we start DEPORTING and stop paying illegals to come here. The Governor is an IMMEDIATE SUCCESS by proposing the budget and being realistic. NO SPECIAL SESSIONS. We can OPERATE OFF EXECUTIVE ORDER.
CCSD Super Jones has asked for legislation to deal with REDUCTION IN FORCE layoffs not based on seniority. Twas NOT THE GOVERNOR. Cities and Counties are painted into corners dealing with employee unions--need AUTHORITY FOR NEGATIVE COLAs.
Paying teachers to age is very strange. The data shows teachers don't improve their teaching skills after the first 5 years. It makes no sense to pay more and more for doing the same job with no additional responsibilities. They pay increases should be done in the first 5 years with bonuses based on performance and additional bonuses for top teachers to train other teachers and/or teach more students.
Getting extra degrees is equally useless as the data also shows having a MA degree is not correlated with higher student achievement.
Both of these policies lead us to spend millions of dollars in ways that are completely ineffective at producing good quality education.
The B.S. M.O...
Theft by Swindle.
Bottomline - You are not seeing Sandoval's real agenda. Sandoval has not told you the truth since he has been in office. Barrick Mining underwrote part or nearly all the Governor's Ball, so who do you think he is in bed with? His law firm was the one that got nearly 45 additional deductions for the mines before you figure net proceeds. So who do you think he is bed with? Calling for more Mining audits...are you kidding me?? Pure window dressing, smoke screens, the old flim-flam. He is trying an end run around collective bargaining in order to gut collective bargaining, because he wants to give more power to the people that should not have it because they don't know how to use it wisely and justly. Oceguera is barking up the wrong tree too. You can't give power to principals or other administrative people in the School Districts, because they will wield it like a machette cutting down the people that don't bow to their will, which in most cases is something of a power trip that has no basis in doing what is right for education, but more to do with their grandoise plan of dictatorship. You don't pay school teachers what they are worth now, and you want to go cutting their salaries and take away the collective bargaining power?? Are you out of your flipping mind? Pay them what they are worth. Give them the tools to do the job right. Don't even think about something as silly as school vouchers, what a disaster waiting to happen. Let me ask the legislators, "who did you look up to when you went to school?" Yeah, that's right the teachers. You know they have not really changed, it is the crap from above that has soured the picture. Wake up!!
viper it would be nice IF WE HAD EVEN A SINGLE SCHOOL WHERE ALL TEACHERS ARE REASONABLY EFFECTIVE and all students learn to read well, to write, move towards graduation. Oh we do? Other than Meadows Academy where good-great teachers are employed?
btw: did NOT look up to teachers beyond grade school. Caught on to their hype fast--"teachers" who say they're underpaid. Teachers who say this and that BUT DON'T PERFORM. They're mucho overpaid now.
Connect the dots dudes: The Governor doesn't seem much interested in politics or re-election. He's DOING THE RIGHT THINGS BECAUSE THEY ARE THE RIGHT THINGS.
Those that can...do, those that cant...teach.
wiseguy2235:
"However, there are just as many BAD teachers as GOOD teachers"
[citation needed]
Recent attacks on teachers and the supposed flood of "bad" teachers in our schools is really disgusting. I've yet to see one single statistic in any source, including from your organization Mr. Gibbons, on how many "bad" teachers we have.
No specifics, just conjecture and fear mongering over some perceived group of "bad teachers."
I wonder why no one ever cites numbers. Could it be because there isn't really a "bad teacher" problem, but rather a bad student problem? Could it be that regardless of how teachers perform in the classroom, the student body today doesn't speak the language, and those that do are more concerned with video games and texting than with studying. Hell, can you blame them? Many of them don't have textbooks to take home and study from.
This whole attack on teacher tenure and bargaining rights is a ruse. It isn't about getting rid of "bad" teachers, it is about getting rid of OLDER teachers, because they COST MORE. Bad teachers are easily weeded out early in their development, many before they even graduate college. It is becoming increasingly difficult for individuals to be poor performers and make it through a teacher training program at the college level due to higher GPA standards, continuous evaluation, rigorous student teaching internships and just the sheer workload. Many, if not most potential "bad" teachers wash out before graduating college.
Those that actually do make it into the classroom have to go through regular evaluations from administrators and can be terminated at will by the school district very easily in their first few years. They do not automatically earn tenure, they have to receive a number of positive evaluations before that happens, and even one mediocre evaluation resets the clock on earning tenure.
Even after tenure has been granted, teachers can be easily fired "for cause." Sure, they can't be fired "at will" in the traditional sense (for any reason or for no reason in HR speak) but if they violate policy, are negligent, receive poor ongoing performance evaluations or otherwise screw up they certainly can be easily terminated.
(continued)
(continued)
Let's not let facts cloud the argument here.
This whole argument for eliminating tenure is about getting rid of older and more expensive teachers more easily. They make more money, they typically have spouses and children which cost more to cover with health insurance, they create a higher PERS obligation, and tend to be more outspoken in arguing for their pay, benefits and other interests. With tenure, it is hard to get rid of older, more expensive (and experienced) teachers, so the answer is to eliminate tenure and open the door to lowering costs.
This same process has gone on in private industry for many years, labeled in sanitary terms like "cost reduction" or "downsizing" and our tea drinking cabal now wants to bring it to the education profession. It is a shame that people who have spent years developing a truly unique skill have to worry that shady politicians are now using their jobs as a political foil to artificially cut a budget.
I encourage teachers in CCSD and throughout the state to begin planning for a strike. It is far beyond time to start fighting back.
http://edpro.stanford.edu/hanushek/admin...
(one of many on the subject)
See Table 1 on page 11. Most studies show teacher experience can have a positive but very small relationship (as I stated earlier teachers do improve during the first 5 years) but degrees have no statistical correlation with student achievement.
Meanwhile, both teacher experience and degree have a very strong statistical correlation with pay.
http://www.princeton.edu/futureofchildre...
http://129.3.20.41/eps/pe/papers/0304/03...
http://www.caldercenter.org/PDF/1001059_...
and more...
Even the left-of-center Center for American Progress is on board with reforming tenure and seniority rules http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2...
In fact, they find that Nevada keeps 99.4 percent of its teachers while just 0.6 percent of teachers are fired for bad behavior or awful teaching...
Very eloquently said, keystone6.
I've said it before and I'll say it again: This is nothing but a power grab by the Republicans here in Nevada with the sole intention to accumulate money at the expense of quality teachers and degrading Nevada education in order to give it to the filthy rich and the corporations they serve.
Governor Sandoval's entire purpose is to search for another thirty-two corporate tax breaks for them. In the process, he hopes to amass fame and power.
I have a neighbor who is a school teacher. She is a good teacher and is close to retirement.
Because of all the propaganda put out by the Republican mouth machine against teachers here in Nevada, she daily has to explain herself to parents. Because they are being fear mongered that every teacher in Nevada is crap and the system is broken and their beloved child is being victimized by them.
On top of that, her class has increased with students, making it even harder for her to teach, to work with the ones that need a little bit more help.
She has expended her own personal funds to attain teaching aids to help her teach. Because the paltry amount provided during the year is simply not enough.
She told me the whole infrastructure of schools in Nevada is now falling apart because of the ruin and devastation that the Republican mouth machine is doing. She has school text books that are falling apart, held together with duct tape.
DUCT TAPE!
Besides that, there are other horror stories she tells me about. And I am horrified...as well as concerned for the future of Nevada.
This is the kind of stuff that don't make it in the news. Because Governor Sandoval has access to a microphone and mass media, so his crap is thrown out there continually and people are starting to believe his stupidity. And the learned experts are not what they say they are. They are just trying to pound out talking points in order to get their way.
The simple fact of the matter is that the quality of education in Nevada is going the wrong way. Governor Sandoval and his crony Republicans are doing their damndest to ensure it continues a slide downward down a very steep and tall cliff.
Wake up, people.
I've said it before and I'll say it again: If this continues, no one will win. At the cost of providing sub-par education to Nevada, the cost savings will end up being lost in the future when Nevada has to build bigger prisons.
The way we're going, this horrible leadership in this State wants to incarcerate the youth of Nevada, not educate them. If not incarcerate them, they want them to go away. Go somewhere else.
But even as I type this, the Republican propaganda hell will continue. Governor Sandoval dare not sit in a room with teachers and find out the real deal. Because it don't fit in with his scorched desert plans for Nevada.
Your point Mr. Gibbons?
Not one of your links actually provides statistical analysis on how many "bad" teachers we have. Not one link actually provides criteria painting a picture of a bad teacher.
In fact, your link at http://129.3.20.41/eps/pe/papers/0304/03...... says the following:
"School administrators, parents, and students themselves widely support the notion that teacher quality is vital to student achievement, despite the lack of evidence linking achievement to observable teacher characteristics"
Implying that student achievement, or lack thereof somehow exists in a vacuum that teachers have little to no impact on. The fact that you cite a paper with such a statement as the first sentence of the introduction makes me question your motives in rooting out "bad" teachers. After all, if one of your sources questions teacher characteristics as a factor in student achievement, it shouldn't matter if a teacher is "good" or "bad" should it?
As for "table 1" it uses data from 1994. Sorry, but 17 year old data doesn't cut it, especially when viewed in the context of the major changes to K-12 education engineered through NCLB in the last decade.
As for compensation as it relates to experience, your princeton.edu webpage states "These premiums tend to compare favorably with those in private industries" speaking about pay premiums for teacher experience and continued education.
Aren't you a free market capitalist? Doesn't it speak positively on the situation that pay premiums in the education profession "compare favorably" to private industry? That's good, right? Because the argument from the tea cabal lately has been along the lines of teachers and other unionized workers getting a better deal than private industry... Or does that argument fall apart after we actually read the data?
Yet one question lingers that none of your "sources" seems to answer. How many bad teachers are there? People like you Mr. Gibbons, self proclaimed experts on education, claim that bad teachers are the problem. Tell me how many people we have to get rid of in CCSD to make our schools better.
How many? How do we determine who goes? Test scores? Do the students get to vote? What about specialists? What is the criteria to get rid of bad gym or wood shop teachers?
"If we piss off the teachers, then we are a defunct party," Assemblyman Tick Segerblom, D-Las Vegas, said. "They are our backbone."
Did he just admit that democrats are union shills and only represent them, not the taxpayers?
Hey, Pat...
How are things out at the OK Coral?
You learnin' all about Wranglin' & Wrustlin' and all that? That's nice!
Your propaganda techniques are EXACTLY THE SAME as when ya worked fer that big Kahuna Cowboy, "Bat" Adelson.
Well, carry on with yer lessons, and remember, Pat;
It isn't what we don't know that gives us trouble, it's what we know that ain't so.
Will Rogers
Let's talk about Patrick R. Gibbons and his "qualifications" as an education policy analyst.
His resume is available through a simple google search, and is rather telling about his "expertise" concerning education.
Let's look at Mr. Gibbons' own website for details.
http://www.patrickrgibbons.com/home/abou...
Mr. Gibbons has a B.A. from Penn State in Poli Sci (history) and an M.A. from Oklahoma in Poli Sci (international relations).
Hmmm.... so he doesn't have any training as a teacher or any formal training in k-12 education policy at all. Interesting.
Let's look at his resume for work history:
His first employment listing is as a teacher in the York County Public Schools in Virginia from August 2003-June 2004. Ok, here we go, some education experience.
Wait a minute...
He says he taught "World History, 2003" and "Itinerant Special Education 2004"
So he didn't even teach a full school year, in fact, less than 5 full months in his area of training in history? That doesn't make sense... Unless Mr. Gibbons is trying to use some shady resume tricks to fluff up his credibility. What is an itinerant exactly? Well, in teaching terms an Itinerant is someone who travels from school to school filling in when a full time teacher is not available. But in special education? Doesn't that take some pretty specific training to be a certified special ed teacher?
Why yes, yes it does. Which means Mr. Gibbons wasn't a certified teacher.
GASP, He was a LONG TERM SUBSTITUTE in the York County Schools.
Let's look at what a Substitute teacher needs to have to be "qualified" to work in the York County Schools:
http://yorkcountyschools.org/employees/e...
Substitute Teachers
Official transcripts verifying at least 50 semester hours from an accredited college (some copies are acceptable)
Completed application
Three letters of reference
So In truth, NPRI's Education Policy "Expert" is in fact a Substitute teacher who left the career after one school year.
How then, Mr. Gibbons, with your rather thin background in education do you expect us to swallow any of the malarky you spew about education in Nevada?
The fact of the matter sir, is that you are nothing more than a hack. You dole out right wing mantras claiming some expertise on education issues when in fact all you are is a mouthpiece for politically motivated organizations.
You are an overly opinionated hack who is trying to leverage one year as a substitute teacher against the careers of tens of thousands of Nevadans who together bring hundreds of thousands of combined years of experience in education to the debate. You are outclassed at every level by the teachers of this state, you are outmatched when it comes to actual knowledge of what goes on in the classrooms in this state.
Mr. Gibbons, from this moment forward, STOP trying to portray yourself as someone knowledgeable about education. you might be able to regurgitate talking points or copy and paste 17 year old data, but you sir are nowhere close to being a competent commentator on education issues and you are certainly no "expert" on anything having to do with education, other than trashing hard working teachers.
You are a troll and a fraud and deserve no further attention from anyone in this state.
I've softened my opinion of unions, since seeing how Republicans are masking their attempts to destroy them by claiming they're "reforming" the system. That said, I think a lot of the union policies are a huge part of the problem. Last in, first out, is completely stupid. If advanced degrees, especially from a low quality school like UNLV, have proven to have little to no impact on teacher quality, then they shouldn't be rewarded. I absolutely agree that teacher reviews should be judged based on year over year improvements on their students' test scores, but I definitely think the administrators should be judged on that same criteria (for whatever school/area for which they're responsible).
Here's a huge part of the problem: "If we piss off the teachers, then we are a defunct party," Assemblyman Tick Segerblom, D-Las Vegas, said. "They are our backbone."
So, even if it's the right thing to do, this politician wouldn't do it because he doesn't want to "piss off the teachers"? Nothing will ever be accomplished with that thinking.
Nobody is looking out for the students and the quality of education. The Republicans want to dismantle the unions so that they can weaken their opponents, and the DNC wants to coddle the unions so that they don't "piss off" their base. The unions just care about their members, despite their claims. Nothing will ever be accomplished unless someone is willing to shake up the system, acknowledge that the status quo is a failure, and genuinely care about making dramatic improvements in the system.
Whew!
If teachers stop improving after 5 years, how many years should we allow them to work? Are you suggesting that we let go anyone who has reached the magical 5 year mark? Can't wait to see the line of people applying for those jobs. "Come work for us for 5 years and then you are fired." Tenure is not the question. Anyone who believes that not basing reductions in force on seniority would lead to anything other than keeping the teachers with the lowest pay is naive. Your argument that younger teachers are better because they are younger is empty. If experience should not be used as a criteria to keep someone, lack of experience cannot be used either.
improveLV:
How can a teacher be "judged based on year over year improvements on their students' test scores" when the system doesn't allow for teachers to see the same students each year?
The idea of test scores as a reliable and accurate metric of teacher quality only works when the same group of students remains with the same teacher over multiple evaluation cycles.
The concept is totally flawed and unworkable when students move from one teacher to another every year. Test scores then prove to be an unreliable metric of teacher performance because there is no year over year consistency in the student-teacher relationship.
Advocates of the progressive test score metric for teacher evaluations never ever address this obvious and underlying flaw. Adopting such a system would lead to teachers being evaluated on student performance as a cumulative result of years of other teachers work.
I don't know about you, but I'd be pretty damned opposed to having my career be evaluated based on the work of others.
Keystone, you've misunderstood the quote (completely). The quote states that a) everyone recognizes that teacher quality is important but b) the data suggests we can't really predict what characteristics make a teacher great.
It says nothing about teachers being unable to affect student achievement or student achievement existing in some sort of vacuum.
Btw, that report was from 2006 and the author notes "While more studies have appeared since then, they are small in numbers relative to the stock in 1994, and they show no discernibly different pattern of results from those in Table 1."
basically there haven't been a lot of studies since 1994 because there is now a strong consensus among academic researchers on the relationship between teacher experience and learning and additional education and learning.
I also provided links to 3 others you seemed to have ignored those.
As for teacher certification, much research ALSO shows that to be a bogus measure for teacher quality. In fact, I can turn to the Brookings Instution, a left-of-center think tank that our very own Brian Greenspun is a board member. Their research shows no statistically significant difference between certified and uncertified teachers with student achievement.
http://www.brookings.edu/papers/2006/~/m...
See figure 1 on page 8.
Fan you misunderstand. The evidence suggests teachers reach their peak teaching ability and no longer improve after the first 5 years. That doesn't mean we fire them, that would be silly.
It means we shouldn't have step increases past year 5. It makes NO SENSE to pay people extra money for doing the same job.
I'm suggesting shorting the pay scale from 14 years to 5 with bonuses paid out to top tier teachers to train other teachers and to take on more students.
Keystone,
Btw, the certified teacher that was brought in the following year to fill the history teaching spot was later arrested and sent to jail for possessing child pornography. Yup, good job teacher certification!
keystone, good question, and I'd be interested in your thoughts. For me, to base performance on year over year improvements for the same student addresses the concern that underperforming schools and kids are being compared to wealthy schools and kids.
If a student started the year at a 5th grade level, and ended it at a 7th grade level, when in previous years they only increased one grade level, then I think it's fair to say that the teacher of that subject had something to do with that improvement. Now if a student starts at a 5th grade level, and still isn't at a 6th grade level when he finishes the year, and they've advanced at least one grade level each year prior to that, then it should be a factor taken into consideration when determining whether or not a teacher is effective.
I think there are even more thoughtful, data-driven methods for evaluating teachers (with value-added analysis, including typical advances at a certain grade level, and using demographic data), but those studies cost money.
Of course people can poke holes in the whatever method is chosen, or blame external factors for the results, but I really think we need to think about improvements to the current method, and constantly making adjustments as we see fit, as opposed to waiting for the absolutely perfect method before making any changes. Possibly assigning a lower weight to the test scores initially, and increasing as we become more and more comfortable with the logic.
What do you think, keystone? What are the problems with the explanation above? And is the status quo better (or at least as good)?
I personally think it's stupid to assume that all teachers are equally effective. I think the current system promotes mediocrity, since good teachers are rewarded and bad teachers (we all know they exist) aren't eliminated.
Public employees should not be allowed to collectively bargain. They are then trying to stick it to the taxpayers. The state isn't like a business that can make more money to pay for increased salaries. The state can afford what it can afford and shouldn't have to be be held over a barrel by public unions. We are your bosses and when you try to get more money out of the state, you're trying to get more money out of me. And I don't think you're worth it. So eliminate collective bargaining for wages and limit it to benefits. That's the only way our state and nation can survive. BTW, federal employees are not permitted to form a union. And further BTW, liberal god Franklin Roosevelt didn't believe public unions were a good idea.
last sentence of my previous quote was supposed to read "...since good teachers are NOT rewarded..."
Fan, you're right. Experience, or lack thereof, and salary level ABSOLUTELY should NOT be taken into consideration when performing layoffs. PERFORMANCE should.
Personally, I think the fear that the "districts will lay off the highest paid if tenure or experience is not taken into consideration", is simply a scare tactic that the unions are promoting. They know that the goal (at least of people that genuinely care about improvement) is to base the layoffs on performance, largely based on objective criteria. Of course there will have to be some subjective criteria with classroom reviews, but I think most people are simply regurgitating fears that they've heard from other teachers or union leaders. I could be wrong, but when I hear the same argument over and over again, and it doesn't make sense, I become suspicious.
I think the thing that Sandoval's plan has ignored, and it's incredibly important, is that it's not just to base LAYOFFS on performance, but to grant BONUSES based on performance. I don't believe his budget took that into consideration, and if it did, it's not nearly enough. If he really subscribes to Michelle Rhee's philosophy, then he needs a lot more money/benefits to keep the good teachers happy.
Let's take that very specific quote and dissect it Mr. Gibbons:
""School administrators, parents, and students themselves widely support the notion that teacher quality is vital to student achievement..."
So this quote blatantly states that admins, parents, students and presumably teachers all agree that the anecdotal value of a "quality teacher" has a large impact on student achievement. That much is clear.
However the author goes on to state: "despite the lack of evidence linking achievement to observable teacher characteristics."
So he says that people think that there is a correlation between teacher quality and student achievement, but that there is a lack of evidence to prove it.
My point: This paper tries to suggest that no evidence is available to demonstrate teacher quality relates to high student performance. To accept that and still be intellectually honest, you have to also accept the other side of the coin that no evidence exists that teacher quality has a negative impact on student performance.
However you and your tea cabal friends in the extremist right today expect us to accept the latter as gospel. That bad teachers are the root of all school evils.
Yet you still after 8 posts in this thread and countless other expositions have yet to inform us of how many bad teachers there are in CCSD, how we find them and how to get better ones.
Your brookings paper paints a pretty pie in the sky picture of teaching if we just opened up the career field to anyone who wants to take a shot at it. The basic premise is that credentialing teachers is a needless exercise, that ineffective teachers shouldn't reach tenure and that bonuses should be paid to effective teachers.
But it doesn't say how to grade the teachers.
In fact your graph on page 8 still proves that traditionally certified and credentialed teachers still outperform alternatively certified and uncertified teachers.
You still haven't addressed the argument that the attack on teacher tenure and collective bargaining is a blatant effort to remove protections for long standing (and thus more expensive to employ) teachers.
Patrick, find a new subject area to harp on. You washed out as a teacher. We get it. Maybe you couldn't hack Penn State's teacher training program. Maybe you didn't want to drive from State College to Altoona to student teach. Whatever. Who cares. The fact that the credentialed teacher who came after you committed a crime has nothing to do with the credentialing process or its viability. Cops commit crimes all the time, maybe you should take a shot as a law enforcement analyst. Just remember to add your time as a safety patrol member in the third grade to your resume.
ImproveLV:
I think the only way to reasonably implement a year over year evaluation method is to require teachers and classes to stay together each year. It is the only way to maintain a constant that doesn't have unreasonable outside influences in the mix. I personally think that this method would permit teachers and students to be better evaluated over time and would result in more stable metrics of both teacher and student performance.
It seems to me that each school year is only a snapshot of student performance. Over time, maturation of the student changes their interaction with their learning environment. A child that excelled in the early primary environment could see a plateau in the late secondary environment. The constant switching of teachers every year only muddies the waters for both the student and teacher because they both have to start from scratch. The teacher today has very few resources to track the student's growth other than numbers in a computer and maybe a few short blurbs in a file from other teachers. Its fast food teaching really.
You want my solution? The long game. At least at the elementary level. Keep class sizes small, and keep the group together.
I have been a CCSD educator for over 22 years. I have received great professional evaluations for all but one of those years. There was a single evaluation in those middle years that was mediocre at best. I was evaluated by an administrator with far less classroom experience than I had attained. Had this been a situation where there were no tenure/seniority considerations, I could have been out of a job. This same individual could have easily ruined the lives of many proficient educators simply because she didn't like or understand their methods of teaching. I have never met a truly poor teacher in all of my years with CCSD. On the other hand, I have seen good teachers nailed for little or no reason other than an administrator's opinion of what good teaching looks like. Teachers should never have to do without the protections attained by collective bargaining. It's a shame that ignorance can be found at the top of state government. Time for Sandoval to go back to school.
keystone, despite what other people say about class sizes, I think your idea definitely has some merit. Just from personal experience, I know that, especially for the more technical/difficult classes (STEM programs) in high school and college, small class sizes and teacher availability makes a huge difference. I think there are some subjects where it doesn't really matter, but again, that's more for college and high school. Unfortunately, we have limited funds and, I'm sure, a lot of wasteful programs that people don't seem to have any interest in cutting, so class sizes can't be small enough. Believe me, I cringed when I read the district's plan for increased class sizes, and just as a parent, I acknowledge how difficult it must be for teachers with those huge classes. That's why we need to make sure that we're keeping the best teachers that we have, given our constraints/restrictions. That's also one reason why I think the good teachers deserve a hell of a lot more than they're being paid.
I also think you raise some valid concerns of the YOY test score improvements. But I think, on average, the data would be useful and we'd be able to identify some patterns. Using one of your concerns"let's say a student plateaued, and it just so happens that it happened to a lot of the kids that year (certain grade levels - 5th - are supposedly notorious for this), that's where the (scary word) subjective reviews come in to play, and ideally, data from other schools (similar demo's) for that grade level. I'm fairly certain the districts are currently collecting a lot of the data, they simply haven't mined/analyzed it. Even if it's only 5 years, I think we have enough history to identify whether or not a year is an anomaly or whether or not it happens every year with a particular teacher.
Again, I think we're striving for "much better", not "perfection". There are always going to be issues with every idea, but we can't let those concerns kill an entire concept. Concerns like the ones you raised should be addressed and taken into consideration. I think the union can play a part in making sure that those concerns are addressed, and we can still implement something that gives us the opportunity to improve.
I heard today that CCSD is getting rid of 20% of the administrators. No, they are not being laid off. No, they are not taking pay cuts. They are going back into the classroom, some making 2-4 times what a teacher makes. This means massive layoffs of newly hired teachers who make a lot less money.
Being able to get rid of bad teachers is good on one hand, but this is CCSD we're talking about. A good teacher who is labeled a "troublemaker" for refusing to go along with a morally or legally wrong action of an administrator, could be fired at will. I guess the key is to keep your mouth shut if you see anything, especially if your supervisor wants you to report it to boost his rep. with the Area Super.
A friend who is a teacher emailed this to me today:
"Initial licensed staffing allocations, generally, will reflect an increase of class size ratios of three students more than the 2010-2011 ratios. These are as follows:
Kg AM/PM - 52:1; FDay - 28:1
Grades 1/2 - 21:1
Grade 3 - 24:1
Grades 4/5 - 33:1
Grades 6-12 - 35:1
In addition, ECS, ELL facilitator, literacy specialist, and special education facilitator positions are currently recommended for reductions of 25%. "
I don't care who you are, you can't reasonably tell me that a student to teacher ratio of 52:1 is acceptable at any level. That is nothing more than daycare.
The information I got also clearly states that the above staff reductions and class increases are not "worst case" numbers, and that the final budget could screw the school district even more.
I also know for a fact that the 35:1 ratio in 6-12 is way off even today's figures. There are quite a few classrooms in this district right now that have more than 40 students. Any increase will only swell those classrooms further over capacity.
Nevada has between 17 and 19 students per teacher. The reason why class sizes are so much larger than that is because we give teachers duty periods where they may or may not do anything related to student learning.
That said, Carpe Diem charter school in Yuma Arizona has 52 students per teacher yet scores above the 90th percentile in mathematics...
Keystone, you're still misreading the quote.
The quote says
1) Teacher quality is important but
2) We can't link any specific characteristics to determine what makes a quality teacher.
It says nothing about measuring teacher quality against student achievement which in fact we can do. We can determine who is an effective teacher and who is not an effective teacher. We can do it with statistical analysis and we can do through evaluations of classroom performance. As it turns out both teachers, parents and principals are pretty darn good at identifying bad teachers through observation alone.
One of the statistical measures we can use is called "value added assessment" it measures the individual student's achievement growth from year to year. We can control for many variations like income, learning disability and demographic to zero in on which teachers add the most value and which teachers are so bad that students leave the year knowing less than they did before. That latter group may make up 5 to 10 percent of the current teaching workforce.
LIAR!
Finally, as far as "hacking" the teacher training program (a terrible attempt at a personal attack, seriously, can you actually try making a valid point?) the big secret is that the average American teacher today comes from the bottom third of college graduates and that the schools of education are usually regarded by people in and out of academia as jokes. Even teachers regard the training they receive and certification hoops they have to jump through as a joke.
I'm not advocating the end of ed schools, just pointing out that 4 years of ed school makes a teacher no better off than 4 weeks of training under Teach for America or emergency certification of degree holding individuals.
In the end there is a very large and growing consensus that 1) tenure must be eliminated 2) seniority must be eliminated 3) certification requirements should be highly modified to attract non ed school professional adults or eliminated and 4) value added assessment of teachers should be instituted.
"Nevada has between 17 and 19 students per teacher."
Good one, Pat!!!
Let's ASK SOME TEACHERS;
How many of you have "between 17 & 19" in your class?
"the schools of education are usually regarded by people in and out of academia as jokes. Even teachers regard the training they receive and certification hoops they have to jump through as a joke."
Pat,
Give us some examples of these vague "people in & out of academia"... and some of the schools you refer to.
Please, also quote some REAL TEACHERS that consider everything a "joke"...
Thanks, Pat!
p.s...
I LOVE IT when you make sh*&t up as you go along!
It makes your arguments so much more INNERESTING!
Gmag,
We have about 19 students per teacher. That is a statistical fact http://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d10/t...
This is based on fall enrollment and not daily average attendance.
As I mentioned, the reason why class sizes are larger is because not all teachers are teaching all day long. Aside from your lunch break a teacher also has 1 to 2 "duty" periods in which they do no teaching at all. This time is usually non-education related administration tasks (or baby sitting in the cafeteria or watching the school buses) or a planning period (which veteran teachers don't always use because they're recycling plans).
Gibbons:
I'm not misreading the quote. You are trying to spin your tea cup here, when your own source openly states that the mythical metric of "teacher quality" is anecdotal and no true metric exists.
Your "value added assessment" is nothing more than the test score canard by a different name.
You know as well as I do that right now teachers are evaluated by administrators on an ongoing basis. The sheer volume of administrators necessary to perform these evaluations has bloated the school district budget and helped create this mess. A probationary teacher has to be evaluated at least four times each year.
So your idea of teacher evaluations is already being implemented. Yet you stick to the idea that we are burdened with a dearth of bad teachers that need to be rooted out.
Are the administrators just not doing their jobs when evaluating teachers? Is there really some widespread conspiracy in this school district (and many others throughout the country if we are to believe the right wing talking points of late)?
Or could it be that the institutional problems with education today are located largely outside of the classroom? Could it be that the many outside factors on student achievement weigh more heavily on outcomes than the classroom teacher?
You continue to stray from the question at hand, which is how does the agenda of the tea cabal improve education?
It doesn't, Mr. Gibbons.
As an aside, who do you think you are? You are a washout who couldn't hang in the classroom, and you very likely don't have children of your own in CCSD schools. So what makes you think you are at all qualified to criticize real teachers who work every day in one of the most challenging working environments in American education?
Focus on your background in history and let qualified people work on the education problems in this country. I'd say that our problem is not teachers, it is the self employed policy princesses like you flaunting your faux "expertise," and the damned fool politicians who give you the time of day.
That's a load of BUNK.
Again, let's ASK SOME TEACHERS, Pat.
Will they LIE?
I'll start...
My wife teaches a primary grade, has 31 urchins this year, and she & her cohorts have been told to expect another 4 or so, on average, next year.
She gets one "prep" period per school day.
9 times out of 10, that "prep" period is taken up by meetings with parents, other teachers, administrators, etc.
She's been teaching for over 20 years, and like MANY of her fellow teachers, I can assure you, Pat, are not "recycling" plans, if for no other reason than the curriculum, student populations, and many other variables change year-to-year.
You are too funny for words, with your cute "educational expertise", Pat!!!
Editorial at Newsweek http://www.newsweek.com/2010/03/05/why-w...
http://articles.latimes.com/2010/aug/14/...
Dale Ballou and Michael Podgursky covered the issue in their work "Teacher Pay and Teacher Quality" http://www.amazon.com/Teacher-Pay-Qualit...
Again Gibbons lies.
CCSD about 19 students for every licensed employee, not every classroom teacher.
The individuals who work in positions such as speech pathology, the curriculum support center, and many, many other non instructional positions who are still licensed are counted in your ratio.
It is impossible to even consider your arguments as legitimate when you so obviously lie.
I hope your wife doesn't call them urchins...geez.
The data doesn't lie Gmag, hate it all you want but being an angry old man won't change the facts.
I wonder how many students we have per actual CLASSROOM teachers in the CCSD. Not Nevada in 2006-2008, but the CCSD in 2011. Don't include any employee who does not work in a classroom with students on a daily basis.
We need to remember that it is not the teachers that are the decision makers in the CCSD. While there are many problems with the CCSD, constantly placing the blame on teachers is misguided. Teachers are policy followers, not policy makers.
I would be more apt to support a belief in mismanagement and poor administration than I would putting all the blame on "all the bad teachers".
I believe that Sandoval subscribes to the Michelle Rhee philosophy on education reform, here is what she recently wrote about collective bargaining: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/michelle-r....
I personally hope that Sandoval agrees with what she wrote, and he (and all state politicians) truly focuses on improvements instead of power and politics.
Yes, all of your "data", and all existing "data", has been proven true and unbiased.
Another knee slapper, Pat!
You are TRULY A WRANGLER, sir!
Come on improveLV,
When she states as part of her thesis that "We agree that citizens can no longer avoid the budget crises happening across the country," I tune out.
When corporate profits are at all time highs and politicians insist on tax cuts, statements like the one above simply cannot be taken seriously.
When mining in Nevada is reporting record profits while schools are facing record cuts and parents are facing record unemployment, the above statement cannot be taken seriously.
When obvious revenue streams exist but politicians, swayed by "interest groups" like NPRI and StudentsFirst, refuse to pursue them, her statements cannot be taken seriously.
The National Center for Education Statistics is run by the U.S. Department of Education
http://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d10/t...
Who is this Patrick R Gibbons? After 22 years of teaching in CCSD, I am definitely what you would call a veteran teacher. I do not have anywhere close to sufficient time to analyze student data, plan for lessons, or set up for lessons. I cannot correct papers, enter data, and still prepare for special projects in the planning time allowed. I still either take work home or return to school to get things done on the order of seven to ten hours a week. I would put more time into my work, but family obligations prohibit it. Just hang around an elementary school classroom for a few months and see what really happens. Armchair commentators on education need to put down their beverage and take a visit to the real world of the elementary school classroom.
keystone, you're getting in to very political and economic issues. I puke when I think about the former and I'm not focused on the latter for purposes of this discussion. I agree that mining is getting a sweetheart deal and it's blatant corruption. It needs to be addressed (seriously, not just empty comments) by both parties.
In our state, the gaming industry has been hit hard over the last few years, and many are swamped with debt. They're not making record profits. Maybe some industries are, but our primary industry is not. Look at MGM's net income for the past few years: http://www.google.com/finance?q=NYSE:MGM..., and the LV Sands: http://www.google.com/finance?q=NYSE:LVS..., and Wynn: http://www.google.com/finance?q=NASDAQ:W.... Our unemployment rate is the highest in the country. There's no doubt that our state has been hit HARD by this recession, and is struggling financially.
Regardless, my reason for posting was to show that the person that Sandoval apparently has so much respect for, believes that there's a place for collective bargaining in education.
I just don't want these idiot politicians to get sidetracked and lose sight of what should be the primary focus, and that's improving the poor quality of our education system.
The 35:1 ratio just MAY be the AVERAGE per teacher for grades 6-12. Average in all those Special Ed classrooms where the Federal max is, I believe, 16:1. I know a PE teacher who has 57-72 students in her classes. A math teacher told me he has 46 in Algebra I. How about 51 in history?
If you have a classroom with space for 32 desks, you can have about 20 sitting on the floor at the start of the year. With the high dropout rate, that can end up at about 5-10 in most high schools. Did the Fire Dept. give the OK to load these classrooms with more than max capacity?
A friend just reminded me that I should probably point out that the gaming industries are not collecting record profits on operations IN THIS STATE. Many are doing well due to their Asian properties and other territories.
When I was a pharmacist I made 6 figures for doing less work (more hours) than now when I am a teacher.
I changed because i hated the stress/boredom of being in the Pharmacy.
Teaching is much harder work than Pharmacy is in my experience.
My opinion being that the hours in a year are less teachers should top out around 75,000.
Who should get 75,000? Well there is NO PROVEN method for deciding who is good and who is bad.
Testing/Merit Pay does NOT work according to every study out there. Experience does not indicate that either past about 7 years.
Extra training (not necessarily degrees) DOES matter. The training needs to be more focused on what actually happens inside a classroom though.
NOW THE ANSWER IS!!!! the certification process should be much tougher. Then there will be less people available for the positions, and therefore would deserve more money. The public then would not look so poorly upon those in the profession.
So the government should simply toughen the standards to become a teacher. Make the tests more difficult, like the tests I had to take to become a pharmacist. Then people will look at teachers and say "hes a teacher; he must be a pretty smart guy."
-JD
Ahhhm that is 17 students per licensed employee, right now per Carolyn Edwards. 10 students PER EMPLOYEE. You'd think they could get some teaching done.
roseannroseannadanna...
Do you know a Sharron Angle?
This BLS survey of teacher work hours suggests the average teacher works around 40 hours per week, even accounting for working from home after hours and on the weekend.
http://www.bls.gov/opub/mlr/2008/03/art4...
Of course the average teacher works about 190 days a year compared to 230-240 or so for other professions. Of course the vacation time is part of the attraction to teaching.
Dooley, actually there is a proven way to determine who is good and who is bad, it is called value-added assessment. Mix it with evaluations by peers and principals (who are given more latitude in getting rid of bad teachers and thus have an incentive to write more truthful reviews). Doing a rolling three-year average allows you to smooth out any bumps in what is already a fairly accurate method for measuring teacher effectiveness.
As for merit pay there are several problems with existing studies. Most merit pay programs are not substantial bonuses usually less than 5%. Research has shown that bonuses greater than 10 percent can have some effect.
There is also the problem that the bonuses are tacked on to an existing system which already has trouble identifying and recruiting great teachers.
If we opened up the teaching profession by eliminating the useless and meaningless certification requirements would a bonus system attract higher quality teachers because they know they can earn top pay within 1-5 years instead of having to weight 14 and spend thousands of dollars earning extra degrees which won't make them improve? I'd suspect a bonus system would have an impact in that case.
It's not the teachers fault if the punk student comes from a family of disinterested parents who could care less about the level of their childs education. It's not the teachers fault if the kids can't even speak English - it's not the teachers fault if all the kids really go to school to do is socialize - afterall, god forbid the teacher try to exert ANY kind of discipline. The only time the parent gets involved is when the teacher tells punk kid to write "I will behave in class" 50 or 100 times - yes, THEN the parent gets involved - they run to the principal to complain how their precious 'angel' is being picked up. Good grief - teachers are just that - they are TEACHERS - they are not MIRACLE WORKERS. You can lead a horse to water but ya can't make it drink.... you can bring the education to the kids but you can't make them shut up and listen - you can't make them do their homework - you can't even make them attend most classes without skipping most others.... teachers hands are really tired by this nanny government that doesn't let ANYONE discipline a kid in ANY manner whatsoever.
To comment on this: "Nevada has between 17 and 19 students per teacher. The reason why class sizes are so much larger than that is because we give teachers duty periods where they may or may not do anything related to student learning."
I currently have 173 total students in the five classes that I teach, at the secondary level. At our school we have a 6 period day. If you take that total amount of students and divide it by 6 you still have 29 students in a class. So that number of 17-19 is unrealistic. That average that you are using is most likely coming from the elementary level, however you cannot take these teacher "duty periods" away. These are times when the students go to their specials, such as Art, PE, music ect. So if you take away elementary "duty periods" then you are eliminating these classes. BIG MISTAKE.
Also the district average at the secondary level takes into ALL classes that are taught by ALL teachers. Meaning that this includes classes that are or, socially and emotionally disturbed student (or other special needs students) and only have 10 students or less in them. So the realistic average of a regular classroom is about 32-37 ALREADY. They want to add about 8 students to that in this new budget. BIG MISTAKE!!!
It is not that we don't want to give up our rights to collectively bargain because we are being selfish; it is actually quite the opposite, we CARE ABOUT KIDS. If we give up the right to our "prep period" and they increase class sizes we are now going to go from teaching 173 students to 270. (45 in a class times 6 classes!!!)
Let's say that NEXT year we are going to have 45 students in a class even if you DON'T take away my "duty period" as you call it. (Actually it is called a "prep period" meaning that is my period when I prepare lessons and grade) and divided my now 225 students into 6 periods that is right back where you started at class sizes of 37-38 per class. Either way it is a losing situation.
If you take away teacher prep periods or increase class sizes, now you have teachers getting prepared and grading for even longer periods of time after school. Which is fine, however grading one assignment a day for that many children will take about 2 hours a day or more depending on the situation that plays out. So now since they changed our start time to 9 and end at 3:15. I will be at my job from 8:20 when I am supposed to report for opportunity period to help students (which is never the case I get there early about 30 minutes, to put grades into the grade book and set out materials) and then stay through the afternoon opportunity period of 3:30.
Then after 3:30 I will be able to start my grading (if all kids are out of my classroom, which is never the case) I will be grading from 3:30 till 5:30 or later. THEN I need to prepare labs and lessons for the next day. So lets say that takes another 30 to 45 minutes. I will be leaving school at around 6:15pm.
So I will have been there from 8:30am-6: 15pm, which is almost 10 hours A DAY!!! I will not be able to give my students what they deserve the next day or the next because I will eventually reach the point of total exhaustion.
Moral of the story is: ALL of these things directly affect the quality of education that children are receiving. This is NOT ok!!!! With 45 children in a classroom at one time or 37 children, it doesn't matter. There is not enough quality time to spend with children who have special needs, need extra attention or just simply need to feel that school is a place where people care about them. This diminishes chances that some children have of not only gaining a quality education, but to grown into mature adults who are productive members of society. Lets stop point fingers at teachers and others; insinuating that we can do without these "privileges" that we have and own up to the fact that OUR public education system in NEVADA is broken. By taking any of these cuts, making these and taking concessions we are not doing our students any favors. After all a large majority of teachers became educators because we love kids and want to help them and foster a nurturing learning environment so they can grow up to be productive and educated members of society. We need to be adding to the quality of our education here in Nevada and working on what we can do to make it better. Taking away money and adding more children to the classrooms across Nevada is not doing this AT ALL.
Further:
To address this
"That said, Carpe Diem charter school in Yuma Arizona has 52 students per teacher yet scores above the 90th percentile in mathematics..."
Do they get private donations? Has their funding been cut? What requirements do they have to go to this charter school? How large are their classrooms? Can they hold that many students? Do they have books for every student? Books to take home? Desks for 52? Technology? Paper to make copies? Do their teachers have a prep period?
Welcome to NEVADA, we DON'T are not going to !!!!
Pat's "misinformation" campaign gets more & more OUTRAGEOUS!
It REALLY HURT when you couldn't hack it as a teacher, din't it, Pat?
Is THAT what this is all about? Some kind of personal vendetta, Pat?
Pat Gibbons is a paid blogger/commenter for a right wing "think tank," the NPRI. He probably won't deny it; he's even been featured in an article for this very paper on the subject. He will, however, probably disagree with my characterization of him as a shill who cherry picks data in order to further a radical, disproven, and immoral economic/political agenda. His data are selectively chosen and quoted, essentially lying with facts.
nnose;
There's nothing "essentially" about it. Gibbons is a paid misinformation operative for conservatives who want to gut education rather than levy proper taxes to fund it.
He uses information in a disingenuous manner, often presenting sources and claiming the content supports his arguments when in fact the source completely undermines his point.
He's the kind of guy who makes cheap arguments, but makes them frequently, essentially throwing a lot of sh!t against the wall in the hopes that something will stick.
Folks, if we want to turn the country around, we have to stop giving people like Patrick R. Gibbons credibility. He is intellectually dishonest, and for the worst reasons, politics.
We spent more money last year on military spending than every other nation on earth COMBINED. That's not counting VA benefits, spy agencies, nuclear weapons, and many other things. When those things are factored in, it's over a trillion dollars.
The weird thing is, nobody can tell me what we need a trillion-dollar-per-year military to defend against. The Russians? "Red Dawn" was just a movie, and they're too busy stealing from each other to steal much of anything from us. The Chinese? Why would they hurt a country with 10,000 Wal-Marts? Terrorists? Already tragically proven that they can do quite a bit of damage with dollar store box cutters.
GE posted record profits and is expecting a tax refund of 3 billion. Their CEO just doubled his own pay, got a side job working for the Obama administration, and decided to off-shore American jobs and try and break unions representing GE workers -- average folks who define "success" as being able to afford a modest suburban two-bedroom, at least if the spouse works some, too. Since Obama took office, Wall Street has literally never been better.
And yet people in this country are going to blame schoolteachers and office workers for our various budget crises? We don't have the money in Nevada to keep class sizes below 40 kids a room? Give me a break.
Pat Gibbons is WRONG. There is NO current way to assess teachers. None. Zero. They don't work. They aren't accurate.
Principal evaluations? The principals never go into classrooms. The evaluation means the teacher who coaches the team no one wants, or takes student government that no one wants, is a GREAT teacher and gets the most merit pay. It will have nothing to do with who is a good teacher between the bells, just more office politics and more power to principals who will abuse it (and probably take kick backs.)
My idea (which would never happen) is peer to peer evaluations.
Take teachers out of their classrooms for a semester on a rolling basis. Send them to different teacher's (different schools, even different counties, people they do not know) classrooms for 2 weeks at a time (about the time of 1 teaching unit). Take anonymous scoring of the teacher. 10 reviews per year. Throw out the top 2 and bottom 2 and average the rest. The score will be made and then you can have an idea who is good or bad. If you want to base 25% of the salary on this "merit" then so be it. If you want to say 3 years straight of bad reviews and no improvement then they lose their jobs, then so be it.
This would increase teaching jobs and lower money wasted on standardized testing (which are INeffective and a waste of cash). I would think this idea would be acceptable to teachers and also less money spent overall considering the cost of testing.
1) Harvard did a study last year and found that there is no proof that degrees do not increase teacher effectiveness. Why? because not one (NOT ONE) single study evaluated those teachers BEFORE they got the added degree. If those teachers were less effective prior, then the degree did improve effectiveness.
2) Your stats on teacher improvement or lack there of, after 5 years was also proven false. The study found it was actually 10 years, and teachers with 3 years were actually MORE effective than 1st year teachers.
3)Merit pay has not one single study to show it is effective. In fact, a recent study showed the same exact improvement in classes in the same school and grades when only half the staff was to get merit pay.
4) The Harvard study also showed marked correlation between teacher professional development prior to 10 years and student improvement. They also came to the conclusion that "it's easier to pick a good teacher, than it is to train a new one.)
5)I am a 15 year CCSD teacher, MA and beginning my EdD. Yes, my degrees have improved my teacher. Proof is in my 85-90% profiency testing each year in a Title I school since earning my Masters.
6) Collective bargining doesn't protect bad teachers, administrations that don't document teachers with deficiencies prevent them from being fired. Just because there isn't an "at will" firing policy in place, doesn't mean poor teachers aren't let go. They are. I know some who have been, and one that will be.
7) Please, continue posting your studies. I can find 2-3 to discount each of yours.
Here's one
http://www.hks.harvard.edu/pepg/MeritPay...
gmag: 4th grade 35 students. Even if people who don't have a class go back into the classroom, we will still have 35 students and possibly even go up to 37/38. It will not change, and it has nothing to do with prep periods.
3rd grade is supposed to have 22, they have 27. Nothing will change with them either, unless they increase.
We are not staffed at 17-19 students per teacher. We are staffed at 30 per kinder; 21 per 1st, 2nd and 3rd grade; 34 per 4th and 5th grade teacher. BUT then they only pay to staff the school at 97% of that.
Doolish is actually wrong. Administration is required to be in classrooms for a minimum of 30 minutes in one sitting so many times a year prior to evaluations. They are required to do random unannounced walk throughs, unannounced observations, and planned obervations. Each one is documented and there is a meeting after each one.
That is policy and mandated, and it is what happens, or the administrators get written up.
Teachers are less effective in classes in the beginning of the year when they do not know the children. In order ot be effective it has been proven time and time again, there needs to be a system of discipline, strictness, consistancy and raport with the students and parents. That wouldn't happen in your senario. Your idea of evaluation would hurt the children and their education.
There are peer to peer evaluations. My grade level meets once a week and goes over common assessments and how our students did and how those who "stunk" can improve their lesson and improve. We take notes and I submit to administration. I have mtgs with my grade level teachers on their effectiveness and how they can improve their students understanding. Whether they listen and change, is on them however. But yes, I do report back to administration and document how help was offered and explained. (notice, that goes above and beyond what I'm required to do, and weekly meetings are above and beyone contract as well.)
Trust me, we know who the bad teachers are, and we want them out just as much as everyone else. If the documentation is there, they can be let go- regardless of the union. The union is on the side of good teachers too. They just want to make sure the firing isn't a personal vendetta (which has happened many times in the past).
@Patrick_R_Gibbons
"Paying teachers to age is very strange. The data shows teachers don't improve their teaching skills after the first 5 years."
It seems to me you are mixing issues here. I am a five year veteran and I'm being trained by a 20 year veteran who is in the teaching stratosphere. I realize it will take me at least ten more years to get to the level she is at where curriculum is integrated with extremely interesting, yet complex activities that can still be managed well with 30 - 40 students.
I agree with some of your points that teachers should not be retained due to age or seniority, but your remarks about TFA and young teachers hold absolutely no substance.
The first issue is the unions. Unions need to be evaluated on whether they are helping protect bad teachers. Some sort of system must be developed to effectively do this. Your suggestions of evaluations from other teachers, administrators, and maybe even students may be part of the solution, and maybe an independent panel.
But at the same time, teachers need to be protected. There are many teachers who have incredible potential, but start out awfully due to philosophies and experiences that do not square with the reality. In these instances, there is a long adjustment period.
The second issue is how to keep great veteran teachers. Your ideas about young teachers and TFAs will deplete any talent in the public school system very quickly. No one of any worth will want to remain.
Thirdly, the correct training is what is necessary. Your remark about the lower half of society teaching is completely unfounded. I have met some of the smartest people teaching and I have worked in some high echelon places in the private sector. Their talent is underutilized because the curriculum is so substandard and uninteresting, and these teachers are not trained to convey what it is that created such passion for the geniuses to pursue the field they did. Everyone is dumbed down. The public sector is not allowed rich curriculum as what occurs in elite private schools. Just look at Bill Gates' schooling history and his public school experience versus his private school experience.
In essence, I think many of your proposals would make public school much worse. Especially the class size argument. I am interested to know if you've ever been an effective teacher.
Melissa does not work in a real life school. Administrators who know you have a clue, basically leave you alone. Which is fine. Whether or not they are supposed to by policy is irrelevant, I do not know any teachers who will turn in an admin for NOT bothering them enough.
The only effective observations are continual. Meaning if you are not there all class for a number of days or even weeks in a row, you really do not know what is going on in there.
There are no peer t peer evaluations which are meaningful towards an evaluation. That is fact.
The idea we know who the bad teachers are is also silly. "Bad" to me might be "good" to you. I have a lot of "colleagues" i think are terrible (shows movies every day) but the principal LOVES. Probably because they take the clubs no one wants like student government. hmmmmmm how do we solve that one?
In the low income, Title 1 school neighborhoods, teachers face a population that very few opt to teach. This has a transient population, second languages spoken and English is being learned, and many of these children do not have the American culturation needed to understand many of the items presented on standardized tests. Most teachers who work and teach at such schools are NOT typically "bad" teachers, they are dedicated individuals who could be classified as humanitarians who care deeply about equally serving our diverse population. I take great exception to Patrick Gibbons comments here.
When it becomes a reality that teachers get merit pay, there will be a flight of teachers from these schools. They do an amazing job with what they have and the students assigned to them (remember, they don't get to pick and choose their students!). When teachers get a group of students that have been low functioning since entering school at age 5, and these students develop extremely slowly, in part, due to their parents NOT SPEAKING ENGLISH IN THE HOME to assist language development in reading (which is the basis of learning), who is the bad one here? We are dealing with living human beings, with their own dynamics, and to expect equal levels of development and ability is insane. The analogy might be as planting a seed (depending on the kind and quality) and expecting the same/equal results, time after time. Students are unique individuals, and every crumb or bite of learning that is mastered is celebrated daily by both teacher and student.
The majority of folks working in the educational industry, do so because they CARE to make a difference in a life, not because they will get rich, and retire living in sublime wealth passively watching the world turn.
What is needed is enforced immigration, reformed education, and a restructured taxation system. The mining and casino/resort/tourism industries have reigned and dictated policies for decades now, raping the people in the State of Nevada, and even cheaply taking Nevada's natural resources, at the cost of Nevada's citizens. If we addressed THIS, we would NOT be having educational cut conversations right now.
Teacher A has 20 years experience and makes $68,000. Teacher B has 10 years experience and makes $50,000. Every possible test score, evaluation, and any other factor you can think of are identical.
Who gets laid off?
Seniority is the only real protection that the American worker has ever had from corrupt management.
Melissa (part 1),
In regards to the Harvard study you cited lets review it (I've met Dr. Peterson, in fact I invited him to Vegas and hosted him at a education conference last year, I wish you could have attended). As I will demonstrate the Peterson study you've cited will support none of the assertions you've made above. (source: http://www.hks.harvard.edu/pepg/MeritPay...)
On teacher training - teacher certification doesn't make teachers better.
"Teacher classroom performance is correlated neither with the type of certification a teacher has earned, nor with the acquisition of an advanced degree, nor with the selectivity of the university a teacher attended.." (page 2) This point is repeated.
"Prior econometric research has generally failed to detect positive impacts of pre-service teacher preparation programs on student learning. In their review of the literature, Murnane and Steele (2007, p. 24) conclude that "in general, empirical studies find little or no difference in average effectiveness between those teachers who are traditionally licensed and those who enter the profession through alternative routes." In recent studies of high quality, Clotfelter et al. (2006) found no benefits from certification in North Carolina and Kane et al. (2006) found no differences in the effectiveness of certified, non-certified, Teach for America (TFA), or teachers recruited through a special New York City initiative." (page 5)
on advanced degrees, most research shows holding an advanced degree does not make teachers more effective,
"However, little or no impact of an advanced degree on student learning has been detected (Clotfelter et al. 2006; Coleman et al. 1966; Goldhaber 2002; Hanushek 1986; Harris and Sass 2008; Rivkin et al. 2005). However, most studies do not estimate the impact of the acquisition of an advanced degree by comparing individual teacher performances before and after the year the degree was acquired. Harris and Sass (2008) do provide such estimations but must rely on a data from a five-year time period and find inconsistent results." (page 11)
In service training is correlated with a decline in teacher effectiveness after a decade of teaching "We also show that the value of additional on-the-job training decays after several years of teaching and turns negative after a decade or more of teaching, particularly when measured by low-stakes tests." (page 4 - this does not say that teacher quality improves for the first decade).
(part 2),
In fact, he cites research that shows teachers improve in the first 3 years only,
"It is conventionally believed that on-the-job teacher training is effective, because students learn more from teachers with additional years of experience, especially in the first two or three years (for a review of the early literature, see Rockoff 2004, p. 2). But as Figlio (1997) points out, many estimates of effectiveness returns to on-the-job training (years of teaching experience) may be upwardly biased because the estimations do not account for the probable attrition from the teaching force of less effective teachers (Clotfelter et al. 2006; Rivkin et al. 2005). Even
8
these studies find few positive benefits from experience beyond the initial years, however. Rivkin et al. (2005, p. 449) conclude that "there is little evidence that improvements continue after the first three years" of teaching, Clotfelter et al. (2006, p. 28) conclude that the "benefit [to fifth graders in North Carolina] from having a highly experienced teacher is approximately one tenth of a standard deviation on reading and math test scores," but admit that "roughly half of this return occurs for the first one or two years of teaching experience." (page 7)
As for my five year number, its for reading,
"To avoid selection bias, Rockoff (2004) estimated effectiveness returns to experience on math computation, math concepts, vocabulary and reading comprehension in two New Jersey school districts after conditioning on teacher fixed effects. He found marginal returns to the initial years of experience--overall, the linear effect varies between insignificant and .07 standard deviations, depending on the subject--but little in the way of additional returns after five years, except, perhaps, in reading comprehension. He did not estimate experience effects beyond eleven years of teaching." (page 7)
Peterson's own conclusions from this report:
"Masters' degrees appear to have little impact, though it may be argued that one university, the University of South Florida, has a slightly better program for middle school teachers than does the University of Florida. However, its impact on elementary school teachers may be negative, relative to the University of Florida. More generally, we find little difference in the apparent effectiveness of attending a more selective university or, indeed, in having majored in any specific Florida university teacher training program." (page 26)
Value of on-the-job training declines after 10 years
"We also find that the on-the-job training that teachers receive with each year of experience on the job to be fairly modest and that it typically turns downward at some point after ten years of education." (page 26)
In the end Dr. Peterson makes the same recommendations I do - teacher recruitment and compensation needs an overhaul because how we hire teachers and pay them is not related to the data on teacher quality and effectiveness.
PS,
I appreciate you looking for data to back up your assertions. That is far more than most people on here will do. Most are happy to lay in a personal attack without even attempting to debunk someone else's points with relevant facts. Thanks for that.
Don't let the GOP do what it did to us in Wisconsin.You will be sorry if you do.
Wally
Patrick, I'm as interested as anyone in value-added modeling, but you can't go so far as to say it's a "proven" solution. There are certainly fair criticisms that need to be addressed, and the logic of many of the models needs to constantly be adjusted to reflect new discoveries. It's MUCH better than the status quo, but your entire argument is going to be proven false simply by others that see that value-added modeling isn't perfect. Like any software, it's only as good as the logic that's provided and the programmers that write it.
I personally think the union can get involved, and get on board, with frequent reviews of the results. They can spend a year analyzing the historical results with the model as-is, suggest modifications based on any problems that they identify, then implement and do annual (at least) reviews/adjustments based on new data.
Teachers, I know you're getting a lot of heat, but please know that a large portion of the community acknowledges your hard work and has a ton of respect for what you do. Don't let right wing lunatics, focused only on cutting spending, get you worked up. The good teachers are CLEARLY underpaid. At the same time, don't buy in to the left wing lunatics that make you feel like everyone in your profession is perfect. The bad teachers need to go, and we're wasting money on them. We need your help to identify both groups, and both groups do exist. You're not all equal performers, despite your good intentions.
Improv,
I didn't say value added assessment was perfect, I said it was proven. That is, it can be used to accurately identify great teachers and not so great teachers.
It isn't a perfect system, no system would be perfect but it is far better than doing nothing.
To smooth out some of those imperfections some have suggested using a rolling 3 year average for value added data instead of one year. In that way a teacher who scores poorly 3 years in a row we can be fairly certain he or she isn't a good teacher. And since value added assessment itself looks at the individual student performance compared to their own performance it takes into account the variance in learning ability among children so it is far more fair than looking at raw scores.
I agree, Patrick. I just want to make sure the proponents of the concept choose their words wisely, and are honest with everyone. Good ideas are too often completely thrown out because one statement is disproved, or a divisive personality supports the idea.