Reviews for Teachers?

[undercoverbrother]

Saw this, and thought there may have been a thread, but there is not.

http://www.calgaryherald.com/news/al...777/story.html

A panel appointed by Alberta's education minister is recommending the province develop programs to nurture strong teachers, scrutinize and weed out weak ones and overhaul how competency and misconduct reviews are handled.
In a report to be delivered Monday, the Task Force for Teaching Excellence calls for new competency reviews every five years to determine whether teachers should be stripped of their certification, requiring teachers to focus more on "inquiry and discovery" based instruction and to make misconduct investigations more transparent.
"This is the most important thing we're going to do in the next 20 years in education," Education Minister Jeff Johnson told the Herald in a phone interview Sunday. "The quality of teachers is really important."

The teachers are not happy:

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/edmont...ents-1.2632411

The Alberta Teachers' Association is denouncing a proposal to make teachers undergo competency reviews every five years, calling it a “direct assault” on their profession.
The recommendation is one of several contained in the report of the Task Force for Teaching Excellence that the ATA is objecting to.
Under the system proposed by the task force, teachers would have to prove they are competent at their jobs in order to renew their certification – and responsibility for that review would be taken away from the ATA.

Like most things, the idea is sound (IMO), but it could fall down in the implementation.

I think that teaching/teachers hold a very important job, and a review would be a good thing. It might highlight not only inadequacies, but also highlight successes.

[Temporary_User]

I would take the teachers' side on this and say I'm against it. There are tons of professions that require certification similar to teachers but no one is suggesting they have to go through a review process every 5 years in order to keep their certification.
Teachers are constantly forced to attend conferences and other seminars to ensure their knowledge is up-to date.
Same with other professions, if they make a mistake their employer can fire them. I don't think we need to strip anyone of their certification and tell them they cannot continue doing what they do as a career anymore.

If they are stripped of their certification would they be able to obtain certification again? None the less to obtain certification it is a 2-year full-time university process. How much does two years of university (plus loss of earning power) cost these days?

[TurdFerguson]

My wife is a public teacher (so i have a slanted view I'm sure) and honestly, I have no idea how the hell she does it. The public system and administration is a joke, riddled with authority stripping and incompetence promoting procedures and limitations. As with most strongly unionized professions, there seems to be a materiel amount of "legacy teachers" that, frankly, are not good at there job any more, no longer evolve as a professional and basically mail it in year-over-year (to be clear there are terrible teachers regardless of experience). My wife was working with a "team member" that was teaching a curriculum that was 6 years old! honestly, WTF. I'd love to see a system that helps to curb this. That said, teaching also has a ridiculous attrition rate in the first 5 years...making the standards higher, or more time consuming will surely only increase this. Combine that with the general feeling amongst teachers that there are not enough resources, class sizes are way to big and overall expectations for "after-hours work" are too high and I expect the union to push back pretty hard on this, despite the well placed intent.

[GGG]

I think they should make them a fully self-regulated profession. Include in the act that gives them self-regulation direction to have methods to ensure competency. In engineering we have Professional development hour numbers to meet. The same appears to happen in teaching.

If they would do one thing to benefit learning rather then take away certification they need to make the process to remove underperforming teachers easier. In the EPC world you have recessions where the weak are weeded out. In teaching demand is relatively static so you never clense your work force. If principals had more power to remove underperforming teachers I think it would be a much better solution.

Treat them like everyother profession, those that perfrom stay, those that underperform go if there is a viable replacement. The best people to asess this are the people directly supervising them. Underperforming doesn't mean incompetent it just means their are better out there. This whole review process would just ensure not incompetent teachers keep there jobs. We need a competitive system where the best teachers are rewarded and the poorer teachers are replaced with new grads and relagated to substitute work.

[peter12]

Education standards for teachers themselves are abysmally low.

It is no small wonder that anytime evaluation is brought up by policymakers it is met with a veritable hurricane of opposition from the unions.

[CaramonLS]

I read the original article in the herald this week, I guess what I found most shocking is that not one single teacher has had their certificate revoked because of incompetence in the last 10 years...

It is an inherent conflict of interest that the ATA faces. Either they represent the teacher's best interests or they represent the students/parents. Sometimes increasing standards and oversight actually is in direct conflict with the first point.

I am not saying that there are not great teachers - because there are some amazing ones. But it doesn't seem like the ATA is making the best decisions.

[Temporary_User]

Originally Posted by peter12

Education standards for teachers themselves are abysmally low.

What are your sources on this?

A typical route is to get a 4 year degree and then enter into the 2 year education program.
From friends who have went through the education program they told me it is competitive to get in and that you typically need a minimum of 3.0 to get into the program (changes every year due to number of applicants). I wouldn't even say those standards are low let alone abysmally low.

[peter12]

I would like to know the criteria differentiating a "great" teacher from a "bad" teacher, given that the vast majority do not have graduate degrees or any particular academic specialization.

[peter12]

Originally Posted by Temporary_User

What are your sources on this?

A typical route is to get a 4 year degree and then enter into the 2 year education program.
From friends who have went through the education program they told me it is competitive to get in and that you typically need a minimum of 3.0 to get into the program. I wouldn't even say those standards are low let alone abysmally low.

Standardization of mediocrity. I am told that the two year education program contains virtually no further specialization of craft, but instead a lot of pop psychology and learning strategies. Teachers are being created to read curriculum to their students. They are, in effect, mouthpieces for the education bureaucracy. There is no room for difference or creativity in a public education system.

[Russic]

On the surface it seems like a good idea, but I don't see how it would actually work. Teachers have their time taxed already to the point where it can easily impact their ability to actually teach in a negative way. There are already other review processes that are well-intended, but useless. How this would end up as anything but another level of interference is a big question mark. I notice the report also calls for "increased time for teacher planning and collaboration". I wonder what aspect of their job gets eliminated to create this time?

[TurdFerguson]

Originally Posted by peter12

Standardization of mediocrity. I am told that the two year education program contains virtually no further specialization of craft, but instead a lot of pop psychology and learning strategies. Teachers are being created to read curriculum to their students. They are, in effect, mouthpieces for the education bureaucracy. There is no room for difference or creativity in a public education system.

I think that is a fairly valid statement. The issue is probably systemic more then anything. Now, even with a system that produces generalist there is a vast array in competency and even ability to follow and execute on curriculum (teachers learn to teach differently then they use to...fundamentally, its different and there is no "re-certification process"). That can probably be controlled some how.

[peter12]

Originally Posted by TurdFerguson

I think that is a fairly valid statement. The issue is probably systemic more then anything. Now, even with a system that produces generalist there is a vast array in competency and even ability to follow and execute on curriculum (teachers learn to teach differently then they use to...fundamentally, its different and there is no "re-certification process"). That can probably be controlled some how.

Absolutely. I mean, probably the worst thing about standardization in teaching is the suppression of intelligence, which brings us back to the original post, and its most valid criticism: should teachers be evaluated by an administration that is corrupt?

Honestly, my public school education did virtually nothing for me, and I was often bored. The sciences, because of their rigour, maintain an element of seriousness that I enjoyed, but the humanities were brutal, except for a few scraps of Shakespeare.

[RedCoffee]

Does this once and for all kill extra-curricular activities?
Why would a teacher now volunteer to coach a sports team for example if that time he's losing puts his job in jeopardy?

[Northendzone]

i dunno - most of us in private enterprise get performace reviews annually......

[CaptainCrunch]

I have no problem with a certification evaluation every 5 years. They have the most important job out there, they are teaching our kids, and there can't be a margin of error in terms of competency and ethics.

what we would have to know more about is what it entails. Do we evaluate them on their average student results year to year? Or do we have someone sit in the classroom for a week every 5 years and then interview students.

Oh maybe we can have end of year comment cards handed out to students.

[Zarley]

Any effort to weed out poor teachers would we welcome and long overdue. There is a massive problem within the public system where bad teachers bounce around from school to school because the process to remove them is incredibly difficult. A major problem is that principals and vice principals (management) a also members of the ATA, so there is a disincentive for them to take disciplinary action against incompetent employees.

Originally Posted by Temporary_User

A typical route is to get a 4 year degree and then enter into the 2 year education program.
From friends who have went through the education program they told me it is competitive to get in and that you typically need a minimum of 3.0 to get into the program (changes every year due to number of applicants). I wouldn't even say those standards are low let alone abysmally low.

Having a decent GPA in undergrad does not necessarily mean they are well suited to teach. A problem with the education curriculum is that it focus on theory with minimal assessment of practical teaching ability. My friend (junior high teacher) had a student teacher working with her class who was totally inept at teaching and obviously was not cut out for it. My friend (along with the other teachers at her school) gave a failing assessment back to the education faculty with a blunt recommendation that this individual look at another career path. This was ignored by the faculty and this person was graduated and is now teaching in the CBE. An example of how bad teachers are allowed to enter the system.

[Sliver]

Originally Posted by TurdFerguson

My wife is a public teacher (so i have a slanted view I'm sure) and honestly, I have no idea how the hell she does it. The public system and administration is a joke, riddled with authority stripping and incompetence promoting procedures and limitations. As with most strongly unionized professions, there seems to be a materiel amount of "legacy teachers" that, frankly, are not good at there job any more, no longer evolve as a professional and basically mail it in year-over-year (to be clear there are terrible teachers regardless of experience). My wife was working with a "team member" that was teaching a curriculum that was 6 years old! honestly, WTF. I'd love to see a system that helps to curb this. That said, teaching also has a ridiculous attrition rate in the first 5 years...making the standards higher, or more time consuming will surely only increase this.

Is it higher than for other vocations? I don't know many people straight out of post-secondary school that get hired with one company and stay with them for the next 25 years. That figure is only alarming if it is materially higher than for other jobs. Without comparing it with the larger workforce, it means nothing.

Originally Posted by TurdFerguson

Combine that with the general feeling amongst teachers that there are not enough resources, class sizes are way to big and overall expectations for "after-hours work" are too high and I expect the union to push back pretty hard on this, despite the well placed intent.

Every job has expectations for after-hours work. Teachers seem to forget that their time spent teaching is only five hours in a day, leaving three hours a day to mark, prepare, etc. if they want to work just an eight-hour day. That's very manageable most days. Not to mention they only work 2/3s of a year, which is something else unique to teaching. In most professional jobs when you take a holiday work is piling up for you while you're away, or you are called while sick or on vacation for assistance (that can't not happen if you are important). When teachers are on their ~100 days of holiday each year, no work is piling up and nobody is at work to call them. They are completely free. There is no better job in Canada.

[Temporary_User]

Originally Posted by Northendzone

i dunno - most of us in private enterprise get performace reviews annually......

So do teachers.
What is being discussed is the possibility of striping teachers of their certification that they went to school for 5+ years in total to obtain.

[WinnipegFan]

Originally Posted by peter12

Absolutely. I mean, probably the worst thing about standardization in teaching is the suppression of intelligence, which brings us back to the original post, and its most valid criticism: should teachers be evaluated by an administration that is corrupt?

Honestly, my public school education did virtually nothing for me, and I was often bored. The sciences, because of their rigour, maintain an element of seriousness that I enjoyed, but the humanities were brutal, except for a few scraps of Shakespeare.

As a public teacher I am torn on the topic, but not on this panel review. The Panel is unfortunately incorrect. Most people are ignoring the first three sections of their report regarding mentoring processes, evaluations, professional development and consistency. The unfortunate part is these are very expensive activities. The fourth part is about certification regarding conduct and competency. Unfortunately the panel starts with a basic misunderstanding of how the ATA works. Thus, their suggestions are flawed at their core and the recommendations are redundant and incorrect.

However, the topic of teacher competency is not really one of the profession but one of a union. All unions protect all members. I am in support of unions but not when they get so large they take their power for granted. I am a supporter of the ATA but it needs to revisit the intention of it's policies. It seems that the union's first response is to protect all members, even bad teachers. Now this should be the case, as a union. The next step is incredibly tedious for any principal and is tied up in so much bureaucracy that it rarely is seen through to the end. The process of "firing" a teacher is difficult and needs to be revisited. That being said the PC party is looking to push through a number of crazy ideas in education. One way to ensure that is to make themselves capable of removing any opposition.

This allows them to standardize teachers, this has been their goal for years. If you standardize education you dissolve free thought and remove any chance for individualized education. It is a core philosophy issue that I got into educaiton to discuss. Currently I consider myself a "good" teacher but I can always improve I look for chances to expand my practice and test new waters. Especially when I disagree with a theory, I then try it to test my pedagogy against practice.

My favorite part of all of this is public reaction. Everyone's limited experience in the system is then applied to all of us in general. If you had a bad teacher or one bad experience then we need reform, if you had a good experience then things are fine. Very near sighted in approach. Like all pprofessions some os us are bad, most of us are really passionate and quite good at our jobs. Just like EVERY other profession. I have met bad doctors, lawyers, financial advisors, and a plethora of other professions with "lemons" and they don't lose their practice. They simply lose clients, and if parents push hard enough they can move their kids away from bad teachers, or teach their students to thrive in spite of the condition. Another good life lesson. That is my 2 cents.

[peter12]

Originally Posted by Temporary_User

So do teachers.
What is being discussed is the possibility of striping teachers of their certification that they went to school for 5+ years in total to obtain.

I went to school for 6 years in far more competitive, and difficult programs. I had to compete in a pretty brutal job market for a decent job that I could lose in a second if I receive a negative performance review.