Purpose and Performance in Teacher Performance Pay

[LWolf]

By Donald B. Gratz

This is an interesting essay looking at the purpose of public education, and how we measure student success and teacher effectiveness.

It starts with a little of the history behind public education: Jefferson, Emerson, and Dewey, and what they had to say about the purposes of education.

Then it tracks the shift into the factory model, away from things like individual freedom and happiness (Jefferson,) life-long learning skills (Emerson,) and child-centered "learning by doing," (Dewey,) and towards "transmitting American values and preserving public order.

<snip>

Students and parents want their children to be happy and successful, but define these in different ways for their children, who themselves have different talents, interests, and abilities. In a letter to his daughters, President Obama recently said he seeks "every opportunity for happiness and fulfillment" for them and other children. The private school they attend will doubtless encourage fulfillment, which generally requires identifying and pursing talents and interests. Should public schools pursue similar goals? Should they teach a common body of knowledge through high school? Or should they focus on core academics while helping students develop the personal skills to become productive workers and engaged citizens? Can a balance be struck between the two?

In 2005, Richard Rothstein and Rebecca Jacobsen asked a cross section of adults to rank the importance of the following skill areas and averaged the results. Suppose we measured student success according to the weight these citizens assigned to each topic. The resulting assessment would be:

•Basic Academic Skills—22 percent;

•Critical Thinking and Problem-Solving—18 percent;

•Social Skills and Work Ethic—12 percent;

•Citizenship and Community Responsibility—11 percent;

• Preparation for Skilled Work—10 percent;

•Physical Health—9 percent;

•Emotional Health—9 percent;

•The Arts and Literature—9 percent.

Now suppose we reallocated classroom time, and definitions of student and teacher performance, around this new approach. Student success, teacher performance, and performance pay would take on a very different look.

Different districts will arrive at different goals, but surveys suggest that the summary above is closer to a consensus than the current, test-based approach. So here’s a radical idea: As we move down the road toward more experiments with performance pay, and as we consider reauthorizing the No Child Left Behind Act, how about defining student and teacher performance based on what parents and citizens actually want for their children—all of the goals, not just one. That would be real reform.

http://www.edweek.org//ew/articles/2009/03/11/24gratz_ep.h28.html?tkn=T[OFO%2Bi2wcF3HMq03F9uz9AK%2FWgZCyB%2FJ0tZ&print=1

[sandnsea]

1. Like they did in Denver

the exact model Obama is suggesting.

[Dinger]

2. Amen LWolf,

AMEN!:loveya:

[LWolf]

3. I ought to clean out my inbox more often.

It's amazing what gems I find. :blush: