So I read the new education legislation, SB 736, all 37 pages of it. I must say that I don't find nearly as offensive as its predecessory, SB 6, though I'm still troubled by a few points.
Like SB 6, the new proposal also ties teacher evaluations and pay to student performance, but SB 736 is much more clear about how school districts and administrators are expected to reach those conclusions. Honestly, I don't see a problem with using student performance as part of a teacher's evaluation--in fact, there are times during the last few years when I've wished that was part of it. Contrary to popular belief, I don't think most teachers have anything to hide. I think that, for the most part, we're doing everything that's asked of us and working our fingers to the bone to see our students succeed. I also think that any teacher worth his or her shiny red apple would want to be rewarded when we see that hard work pay off.
The way SB 736 sets it up is that every teacher will receive the same base pay, and will receive salary increases based in part on how much growth our students see, which, to be fair, is pretty much how it works everywhere else in business. And before you remind me that the school system isn't like everywhere else, let me say that trust me, I know. But I do think that it's kind of the habit of teachers to want to be like "everywhere else" when it suits us, and to want to be like a school system when it suits us. I'm just as guilty of that double standard as everyone else, but I really think that in this case, it's not necessarily a bad thing for our students' academic growth to be factored in. Look at it this way--when a salesman sells more product, he makes more money. Same goes for us--we facilitate more student achievement, we make more money.
Notice, however, that SB 736 doesn't just link teacher pay to student test scores, which is pretty much what SB 6 did. Instead, it clearly focuses on academic growth over time as the bottom line. I can live with that. Over the past 2 years, I've shown about 75% growth in my level 1 and 2 reading students, a number I'm proud of. Have all of them passed the FCAT? No. But three-quarters of the students who walked into my classroom have gotten that much closer, and I'm proud of them for that. Last year in my first year teaching Advanced Placement, I had 12% pass the exam, and over 50% get a 2. That's pretty impressive in a school where quite a few AP students hadn't passed the FCAT yet. Yeah, I'm bragging, but I also want to show that I'm not trying to hide anything all those times I've argued against achievement-based merit pay. I am against it the way it's been previously presented, but I'm not against measurement of student growth, because I firmly believe that's what I'm there to facilitate.
I am a little troubled that student achievement is a full 50% of the teacher's evaluation, however. That's a pretty big chunk of the assessment pie, considering everything else that goes into being a successful teacher. The bill only vaguely refers to the "additional duties" that will go into the other 50% of the evaluation, leaving it up to the individual district to determine what constitutes the remainder. And therein lies the biggest part of my problem with this new bill--everything else is left up to the district, including the burden of cost for implementing all of these new mandates.
Under SB 736, subject areas which cannot be assessed by state mandated testing (pretty much everything except reading, math and science) will be subject to end-of-course exams or other measurable standards. Who creates these? The district, which will then send the assessment tool to the state for final approval. So here is my question: where is the money coming from? Gov. Scott just proposed a budget that cuts 3.3 billion in education funding. Granted, the legislature has said that the budget won't pass in its entirety, but they've said there will still be some cuts. So if we're already cutting funding, why are we proposing measures that are going to add so much to education's already overflowing plate? It costs a LOT of time and money to create tests like the ones they're talking about; do they think people are just going to volunteer their time? Who is going to be the one in the state department of education who approves these new evaluation measures and student assessments? That's going to be a mountain of work on its own; is this going to be allocated to someone who already works for the DoE, or are they going to have to create new positions? Or, perhaps the legislators will send over their interns for a week or so to help alleviate the increased workload.
We already struggle to meet our obligations in the state budget and we are already facing cuts across the board in both state government and specifically in education. Didn't the legislation learn its lesson about unfunded mandates with the class size amendment debacle?
Apparently not.
No comments:
Post a Comment