Parents have the right to use whoever they feel most comfortable with as a tutor. So I would oppose your proposed contract provision.

MarkDS, I disagree, the policy should be changed. A teacher should only be allowed to tutor children out of district. Currently the policy states, that the teacher can not tutor a child they have in class, they also must get the building principals okay to tutor. So if you changed the policy to out of district, it would be a lot more beneficial to our children

Example when you are in sales, its easier to look for the clients when they are right there, then if you need to seek a little further.

Lastly, school supplies, don't get me started. I write one check after the other for those and spend many an evening at Staples.

There is a great advantage to having as a tutor someone who knows your child, knows well how the child is doing in school and where the needs are and knows the district curriculum and what will be upcoming in school. You can only get that with a tutor who is also a teacher in the school.

Mark - are you OK with direct cash payments to teachers to give extra attention to your kid during the class? How about cash payments to give your kid a higher grade? Both of those are akin to using the teacher as a tutor. Of course, no teacher will admit that, but if one kid is giving them bupkas and one kid's parents are paying them $200/week, who gets more attention? In other words, throwing out the conflict of interest argument, which is pretty powerful, then there is the 'this is tantamount to bribery' argument. Your turn..

First of all, as Anne wrote above, a child's CURRENT teacher can not tutor the child. So that should take care of most of your concerns. Second of all, as I have written there are numerous reasons why having someone in the system as a tutor is beneficial to the child.

again, I must disagree. The emphasis should be on teaching in the classroom. Making sure your current student understands the subject matter. reviewing the lessons. As your child rises through the system, you will see more and more pile on of homework ( this is fine as long as it is reviewed, and not always the case). Again, I just feel strongly that to be a great teacher, you need to reach and get through to each child. Tutoring seems like an easy answer. This is just my opinion.

One question, MarkDS, do you write those checks to Cash? Just wondering.

Our tutoring experience has been limited to the summer when we have wanted to maintain what was learnt during the year (studies show a large drop off during the summer) and prepare for the next grade. And we do pay by check written out to the person's name.

I completely agree with Mark. I do not want anyone telling me who I can hire to help out my child.....especially since I have a kid that struggles to keep up. Personally, I would never hire a potential primary classroom teacher--that would be unethical. However, I have relied on a few teachers in the district who have been extremely helpful in keeping my child on task and in the mix so there is no falling FURTHER behind.

So many assumptions here about tutoring and so much resentment when for some of us, tutoring is the only way a kid can keep up....

I agree. The teachers were there to support their union, and would never hold anything against a student. The students' best interest is always a top priority.
As far as school supplies, I spend a lot of money as a parent and a teacher. If my child needs something for school, I do not hesitate to supply it. Likewise, if I need something for my classroom that will help my students, I do not hesitate to purchase it.

I hope this is a joking comment. It would be chaos to fire all of our teachers even if you could find cheaper replacements.

I'm sure John Education doesn't mean that. I think he was just making fun of all of the Wisconsin unionized featherbedders who used despicable language - calling Governor Walker - Hitler, Mubarek, etc. and showing complete incivility despite what our President called for in his Tuscon speech. Wisconsin has the same problem that we all have in Millburn, NJ - an overbearing, non-economic, non-competitive unionized work which is sucking the life out of everything that comes in its path - the 'tax-eaters' as somebody called them.

John Education - you were being sarcastic, right?

Mayor in San Francisco layoff everyone and rehire them again. Do the same if unions are too stubborn.
http://www.sfexaminer.com/local/newsom-implements-shorter-workweek-layoffs

excuse me Curbside, but I am not crying the blues. I am also a hard working individual, who yes, has a "nanny" but I still am very much a part of my children's activities and lives. I make sure of that. I personally don't mind if they go to school till July or not get a February break. Most school districts have desolved this.
But remember, its as much of a break for the students as it is for the teachers. (ask them) I also treat my children's teachers with respect and expect the same. My children also treat all individuals with respect and courtesy. They understand that the latter isn't tolerated.

one question curbside mom, perhaps you should speak to your friends who work in the private sector. If you are stubborn, you will be fired.

Wendy: And in Providence Rhode Island the Dept Of Ed announced last week it laid off all of their teachers but truly, don't you think civil negotiations are the appropriate first step? I am sure many of are finest teachers would be offended by a mass layoff after one formal and one informal negotiations meeting. Lets not lose sight of the fact that we have a wonderful school system and the goal should not be to throw the baby out with the bath water.

Noreen -- The Abbott districts' teachers are very well paid. Does that mean that they are producing superior results? Do you think that our teachers would perform well Newark and turn Newark into the #1 district in the state? Or have our teachers and administrators been riding on the coattails of this community's demographics?

Oracle, of course town demographics help with student results but I do think who your child's teacher is IS important and most managers know better than to alienate their best employees; let alone all of their employees. What good could possibly be served by creating complete chaos within the schools? The town does have a wonderful school system which many citizens consider a crown jewel. On the other hand is this a good time for fiscal restraint...umm yes....in the past decade the township has been very generous to staff. Just months after the last round of Negotiations the world went into a financial crisis but the BOE out of respect for our teachers and staff did not attempt to rebargain the recently sealed contract. Last year, amid Gov Christie's calls to renege on contracts the BOE stayed the honorable course and refused to renege. The BOE has shown the staff that they are well regarded and valued but this year, the staff do need to reign in their requests and get more realistic. Important items are being cut from the budget. It is a time for restraint. There is no way a request to exceed the cap would pass public approval or even be appropriate to put on a ballot.

Damian: Just so you know its likely the best paid teachers in the state are in Newark (and probably the other Abbott schools too, money is how they get employees to work in those districts). Although I agree MB teachers are extremely well compensated. You are correct they are paid well above the state average and they are able to move up the scale very quickly.

Curbside Mom: I was not in the room during this meeting so I don't know what actually happened but neither were you so why spread rumors as you did a few posts above. But I can tell you it is very common in negotiations to simply exchange proposals during the first meeting and then adjourn. The proposals are often long documents and it is in everyone's best interest to read them before responding.

It is however VERY UNUSUAL for either side to file an impasse after the first meeting.

And why not tell the other side you filed for an impasse? Why informally meet with the other side and still not mention you have filed for an impasse?

With the crazy requests and rush to file an impasse certainly makes it seem as if the union was the one spoiling for a fight from the get go. Why is beyond me.

@Noreen. While I may have posted the rumor, it is certainly out there being discussed while waiting for the kids. I too am curious as to why there was such a rush to file for impasse. I am postulating that it could be based on either the feeling that certain BOE members feel this may be the Waterloo they have been waiting for, or possibly the MEA feels their best hope would be through a mediator. I don't see how one meeting would show good faith bargaining and would allow for the clock to start running so soon. If that's the MEA's strategy, I would think it's flawed.

I don't find YOU to be all that respectful either...... Above you wrote "both sides should show respect blah blah blah" and then you go to all the trouble to research and repost the above to what--respectfully disagree?????

The sad part is--you make good points. I like your points. I do not, however, like your tone. Lead by example and please refrain from personally attacking another poster--it makes me uncomfortable to read it.

mommakiddies, thank you.

@mommakiddies. I apologize if I've made you uncomfortable. That is not my intent. Did you only become uncomfortable when you read mine? I read this article yesterday and then went back to see what comments would be added. I was shocked by the ugliness of some of them. I feel we let too much go without confronting it. It was no trouble and took zero time to cut Anne's posts into mine to show a sample of this. Is my interpretation of those comments incorrect? I feel not. Disgusting poems about BOE members and calls for firing all the teachers do not make you uncomfortable as well?

If you agree on some of my points, there must be enough truth there to make many of us uncomfortable. We have elected BOE members to negotiate these contracts. I don't see why we do not let them do their job.

@curbside--I think maybe I missed a lot of the ugliness and some of it was apparently erased--and I just saw yours. What made me uncomfortable was you going back to research Anne's posting to score points--that was way too personal and out of left field. Still- let's just move beyond this.....

I personally can see both sides. I think coming to the table asking for a 5% raise is.......just bad strategically. Bad PR. Bad morally. Bad sportsmanship---bad, bad, bad. Just an enormous misstep...... I find it staggering, really."Christie has declared all out war on the teachers"---so I used to think. Then stuff like this happens and I start thinking maybe he has a point--KWIM? The teachers used to have the moral majority---and the union has ceded it away entirely---and in the end,the really stellar teachers will STILL be underpaid in my honest opinion because the entire system is a huge FUBAR--starting with healthcare, and working its way down to unions and politics. That's how I see it--but I could stand more education on the subject.....and I do not have a single answer beyond two edicts: they were crazy to ask for 5%---and we are crazy to bash teaching as a professions considering how above and beyond the teachers in this town do for our kids.

As for the overall snarky tone of this thread. I think we should all take a big step backwards and look at the big picture. Teachers are not the enemy. Taxes are not always the answer.

....have to add though that there is one thing I really am still bothered and that is your comment about Anne having a nanny. To live in this town, you need dual incomes and that's how many of us end up with nannies. Actually staying hone in this town requires big bucks--otherwise, dual incomes and exactly where are the kids supposed to go afterschool if parents are working??

To send a dig at someone making a living just seemed...wrong. Anyway, I had to stand up for the nanny-families. We all do what we can for our kids.

@mommakiddies. I think you are making my point. I swiped at Anne because, while less overt than others, her comments still seemed to be slamming our teachers. I understand the need for many to have a dual income household. Guessing that about 80% or more of our teachers are female, don't you think they too come from dual income families? If I sent a dig at anyone making a living...what have the majority of these comments been doing? Are MSH dual income households that require care-givers the only ones in the state? Of course not. To live in many towns in NJ you need dual incomes. That was my point earlier when I said that based on the (needed) reforms in healthcare benefit contributions and the caps that are now in place, the teachers will be seeing a loss of spendable income. Some on here have called for their firing, reductions in salaries and have said they should feel priviledged to teach our children. That priviledge won't pay for their mortage or their "nannies". As I also said, our BOE should understand the current climate and negotiate accordingly. Does it do us any good to be making these snarky comments about them as the negotiations are just starting?

@curbside, I am not going to get into a tint for tant with you but you totally miss read my comments. I am a dual hard working family. (hence the need for childcare).
I have seen many of my colleagues get laid off.
We are all trying to work for the common goal here and I am not blaming the teachers for the reason we are where we are now. But going forward, we need to realize that asking for >5 % in addition to a 0% contribution to healthcare premiums is over. As is mine and my husbands bonuses. Remember, we have a cap here and if you demand too much, there will be greater layoffs. You can't get away from it.

@Anne, my advice is to just not respond to curbside mom. She just seems to want a fight for some reason, takes exception to almost everyone's comments, and miss reads most things.

MOMSH and Anne. I'm not wanting a fight for any reason. It seems though that this thread has been less about stating that any settlement needs to stay within the cap, and more about teachers are greedy, tax cheats, and unthankful. I think that's one of the problems when negotiations go public.
What have I misread? If I point out that most teachers also come from dual income homes, I hear crickets in reply. When I point out that they will be losing net income because of healthcare contributions, no matter what the settlement brings, it's either no response or "well I've lost my bonus too".

To reiterate my position again...teachers have to contribute a fair amount to their healthcare benefits. Whatever that takes when you combine a salary increase (or not) needs to be respectful of and within the cap. I'm just doing it without calling them overpaid and ungrateful.
There have been many snarky comments on here. They just all seem to be one-sided. My opinion seems contrary to most and I will continue to share it.

Curbside - I have no issues with sharing of opinions. I do take issue when you misquote and misinterpret what I have said. I also take issue with YOUR "snarky" tone. Speaking for myself, I have NEVER called any teachers "overpaid and ungrateful." In fact, I do believe that most of us on this site do not believe that of most teachers. I think we do believe, rightfully so, that the teachers UNION demanding a 5.2% raise, and then filing an impasse was out of line. I think we are also all trying to point out that the money has to come from somewhere given the state mandated 2% tax increase cap. This is the reality and has absolutely nothing to do with any ill will that you seem to think exists between myself and the MSH teachers. You read into comments and add your own slant on what people say. I would appreciate you not doing this, and I do not plan to respond to you again if this continues. I truly feel somewhat verbally assaulted by you and I'm not sure why!

@curbside, even though MOMSH advised me not to respond to you, I am stubborn too.
You are missing facts here, the teachers currently don't contribute to their healthcare. No one knows what they will be contributing. So to say that they will be contributing a fair amount, either you know more than the rest of us, or this is just an unvalidated answer.

As for snarky, you just misread them as snarky because we don't agree.
I grew up in the area, so the teachers, from way back, have been a part of my upbringing and I do value what they do.

Damian, I don't have the recent school salary info at my fingertips but I do know historically Newark's teachers have been the highest paid district in Essex County. And agreed MB is right up there near the top. Your earlier comment specifically referenced Newark and implied not well paid. I think Newark has their own Union as well meaning not part of NJEA. Not sure why that is .

Noreen, the Star Ledger said $66,000 for Newark. I guess my point overall (whether Newark, East Orange, Asbury Park, or Camden) is that those teachers have to educate children disadvantaged by their upbringing, single parent households of limited means, gang influence and other issues. Worrying if you can make it out of the parking lot in one piece is certainly something our teachers here aren't troubled with, thank God.

I shop downtown almost daily, I've never seen that attitude-well, I have seen it at the Mall from both the sales professionals and the shoppers, but downtown is pretty civil. I do see some self absorbed types shopping at Kings, chatting on their cell phones leaving the cart dead in the center of the aisle. It's an overall lack of civility to a small extent, but certainly no worse here than in other towns nearby.

@MOMSH. I'm sorry that the recession has hit your home. It's real and has effected many people. I do not believe that it then makes it right for you to invoke "market value" and teachers knew something that none of us did when they got into the field. My husband did not receive a 5% raise this year. However he did receive a 35% bonus. Something that teachers do not receive. I honestly do not believe that the teachers expect to receive a 5% raise. I would think that they see what is happening and how our governor is making regulations that are costing them more out of pocket. As with any negotiations, first offers are starting points. I'm actually surprised the BOE did not make an initial offer of 0%.

I agree that there needs to be more contribution for health costs above 1.5% of their gross salary. But again, saying they should be thankful for a job and should feel priviledged to be teaching our children will probably be ignored. As it should be.

@ curbside mom - I was not saying that teachers should have known about the recession before it happened. I was simply saying that when one makes a choice to become a teacher, it comes with the realization that the pay is not the same as a Wallstreet exec. and that they will not be getting the generous bonus that your husband was so fortunate in receiving. Also, if the 5% raise was simply a "starting point" for the teachers in negotiation, then why file an impasse so soon?

In addition, I do not appreciate your tone in saying that my comments should be ignored. I also did NOT say "they should feel priviledged to teach our children" - this was YOUR paraphrase and it is indeed INCORRECT and not my intention at all. I was simply saying that when you compare teaching in Millburn Twp to other areas (e.g. Newark), I have to believe that the working environment is far superior.

In the end, we cannot afford to end up with a 5% raise for our teachers. Are there any other towns in NJ with this level of raise, especially given our current absolute salary is one of the highest in the state?

@curbside mom - a starting point of 5.2% way too high - and to me shows a degree of arrogance that is shocking in this financial environment. Your husband may have received a bonus of 35%, congratulations BTW, but that is not true for everyone in this town.

I do not believe that our teachers are overpaid, maybe some are, but most I believe are not. But we cannot afford to give them the kind of raises they have received in previous years and the fact that they came in at 5.2% and asked for a waiver of the 2% cap shows the union's complete disregard for the financial situation we are in right now. I do not have a "tude" as you say, for individual teachers, I am talking about the union, and it's not the same thing. Keep in mind that if the union gets what they want re: pay increases, then the district will have no choice but to cut more and more teachers will lose their jobs. But the union doesn't care about those teachers at all and that is a shame.

Well said M.Moore! And with those teacher cuts come greater class sizes. The middle school parents are upset about an increase in average class size from 18 to 22 (which 22 is still in line with overall township averages). With a 5.2% raise, there will be even more teachers cut and class sizes will go up across the board. Is that what we want? We need to keep in mind that the ONLY way to solve a budget gap such as this is with 1) benefits and 2) teacher salaries. We physically cannot reduce the remaining 20% of the budget which falls outside of teacher salaries and benefits enough to make up this gap. The math does not work.

@MOMSH. Sorry, never said your comment should be ignored. I think you may now be paraphrasing. In regards to tone, I feel the general tone by the posters in this thread is one of looking at teachers as "the little people". No they are not Wall St execs and based on the experience of my sister, never expect to be paid at that level. However, one of the choices that come with teaching vs. our Wall St execs is a greater degree of security once you have passed the evaluations to be tenured. I see it as a tradeoff. Many in our community have made the choice of higher salaries and risks that come with those careers versus the lower paid, more stable environment of teaching. We are experiencing harder times and the risks that come with the rewards of Wall St have struck some of us. Why are we in this position? Because our governor has chosen to deny us anything close to our fair share of taxes we pay to the state. If aid was even partially returned to us, there would not be the need for the proposed cuts and we wouldn't be looking at the teachers(or Union) as the villians.

@M.Moore. Sorry for all the replies at once, this is the first chance I've had to respond.

I agree that the mere mention of exceeding the cap is just dumb on the MEA's part. I still don't agree that a starting point of any level is uncalled for in a negotiation. If our BOE started with an opening proposal of a 5% cut, I wouldn't think that is an insult to our teachers, but just a starting point.

We know that the teachers will be paying more out of pocket for their benefits. And regardless of how good they are or not, to a teacher's household, it will still net them less money than they are taking home now. That's the part that I'm seeing that I think is going unnoticed. Are the benefits good? I hear they are very good. But it doesn't take away from the fact that in real dollars, these teachers will have less to spend regardless if they get 1%, 2% or 3%.

As I stated above, some on this thread are villifying our teachers when the real culprits are those that are retuning to MSH about $.03 on the dollar for what we send to Trenton.

If teachers and other public sector workers had to pay a more reasonable level for their health care plans, they would no longer insist on Platinum plated plans and everyone could save some money. In real terms, health care plans add one to two percentage points to the stated increase in any union bargaining agreement. So if the teachers get 2%, throw on another percent or two unless there's a serious restructuring of their health care plan.

Rather than just blame the governor, you may want to consider the Education Law Center and their lawsuit against the state. The Abbott districts get most of the education tax dollars in this state and even now the ELC is suing the state over the cuts last year.

Yes, teachers do accept a greater degree of job security for lower pay. I am an RN and I made the same trade-off years ago. But they can't have it both ways - job security and pay increases, not any more, or at the very least not right now.

Maplewood/South Orange is currently operating without a contract this academic year. So far neither side seems to be pushing too hard for one. The town gets the benefit of no raise over the step up (though no benefit reform and they may have to deal with a retroactive down the road) and the union may be waiting for the fiscal or political environment to improve.

I actually asked Dr. Crisfield (and he can chime in on this I'm sure) about if the cap on arbitrator's awards instituted by the state affects school districts. It's not clear it does, but the assumption is it does not affect school districts.

Read Dr. Crisfield's comments about the average salary numbers in "Millburn's School Per Pupil Cost Increases" from February 8th. The salary info for 2002-03 is wrong on the NJ report card. However, salaries have gone up each year with no health insurance contributions by the employees.

I really dislike being the defender of the teachers and to be very clear I'm in no way affiliated with them, but before you e-mail these facts to the BOE perhaps you may take pause to look at the data first. I've attached a link from NJ.com dated October of 2004.

http://www.nj.com/education/ledger/index.ssf?/specialprojects/teachers/teacheressex_1003.html

For those not inclined to click the link, it states that in the 3 years leading up to 2003, over 100 new teachers were hired due to enrollment and retirements. In 2003 alone 76 were hired.
Unfortunately Jill referenced the MEAN but stated the figures were the AVERAGE. With this many new hires in the the couple of years leading to and including 2003, of course the mean would be lower. Most were probably hired at the starting salary or close to it.
With cuts to lower paid aides the past year(taking them out of the base), and not as many new hires, of course the mean would increase in 7 years. This would mean a compounded increase every year of almost 6%. We have not seen that when they announce the contract settlements.

not sure what you are talking about curbside...I referenced the average salary for faculty, please scroll up. Also, average and mean are the same thing:

"average
av·er·age
 –noun
1.a quantity, rating, or the like that represents or approximates an arithmetic mean"

Also, I don't get your point. If you mean that the 2003 average was lower than that of previous years due to new hires, then you are just plain wrong. And if you mean that somehow the numbers are inaccurate, and the average salary has not gone up at that rate, then take it up with the state report card, since these are just the facts. We now pay a heck of a lot more than we used to, that is indisputable.

As a follow up, average salary was $47,800 in 2000-2001, $46,000 in 2001-2002, and $54,300 in 2002-2003. So from 2000-01 to 2009-2010 the increase was 65% over 9 years. Again excluding benefit cost increases to the district, with no benefit increases passed on to the teachers.

what you also need to remember is that teachers do get an increase of about 2.2% when they go up a level.

That's why the union asked for "only" 3%, but it was exclusive of the 2.2% step increase. Both are too high in this environment and considering the 2% cap.

MomSH, they want the raise and they want the junior unionmembers to get fired. it is the union way. look at the newark and camden police situation - they laid off many rather than have any take a paycut. the laid off get to go on public unemployment and the union figures that when they get a Democrat back into office, they will hire them back. never ever cut salaries. witness wisconsin - they want to keep collective bargaining, which isn't bargaining. it is more like a one-sided negotation with the Dems and the unions on the same side spending the taxpayers $$...same story, different state.

Dr. Crisfeld - can we put in 'no tenure' into the new contract? can we put in merit pay? can you give the BOE or the principals the right to fire incompetent teachers rather than seniority based? Can we do background checks on prospective hires?

With regard to tenure, that's covered by state statute, so we cannot override employees' rights at the local level. Districts ARE able to grant tenure earlier if they are so inclined (rarely happens). The period of time (three years now) that we have to evaluate a teacher to see if we want to be married to them for the rest of their career is too valuable, in my opinion, to shorten. Merit pay is another matter entirely, rife with problems about measurement, teaching to tests, etc. We do fairly extensive background checks now, but of the criminal variety and of the standard, reference type. Where I think the answer lies is in your reference to being able to dismiss teachers when they have become ineffective for some reason. That's what I like about the recently proposed tenure reforms. It is imperative that we be fair and not fire somebody for some arbitrary reason, and that we give them a chance to remediate the deficiencies that we've noted, but if the deficiencies are fairly observed and if the teacher fails to fix the problem, then by all means districts should move on the problem. Currently, districts CAN take steps to dismiss the teacher, but it's a very, very long and arduous process. Not impossible, but long. With the reform proposals, that process would be a lot more realistic and a lot more consistent with how hiring and retention works in the business world. Our world is not business, to be sure, but it would be nice to have certain elements of it here.

Dr. C. - Sad to hear you say that Merit pay is too problematic for the world of public educators. I don't know a good manager in the world who would want to automatically hand out raises based on an arbitrary (albeit negotiated) system known as a "Salary Guide," the way all school districts do.

The topic of "merit pay" is a very interesting one. Actually, the problem with it in the field of education is not that we don't like the concept, per se. It's that we are dealing with (little) human beings as the "output" in our "business," and therefore any attempt to measure "merit" of the people "producing" the output in a quantitative fashion immediately falls into dangerous territory. Using student test scores as the primary metric for the "merit" of a teacher just doesn't work. It naturally breeds teaching to the test and it as a result infects the entire classroom learning environment. Teaching and learning is too much about style and perception of the teacher and the relationship the teacher has with his or her students, and cooperative learning and problem solving, and these things can be evaluated, but not in a quantitative way and merit pay almost always falls back on needing numbers to work. Having said that, I love the concept of paying people based on how good they are, and I definitely agree that the concept of a "salary guide" is unsavory. I think we can devote our time and energy to cultivating good teachers, and helping them get better at what they already do well, and as a result, "merit" will be injected into the system, if not in the pay arena.

The state now has reams and reams of data on all the kids in the elementary and middle schools because of all the testing we have implemented in the past decade. Yet none of it is being utilized to help us identify which teachers are making a difference, and which ones aren't. Statistics can sometimes be misleading, but a top level person could devise a database system that would track all students as they move through the system and compare how each teacher did in advancing the students that he/she had in a given year versus how they had done in previous years, and how they did in subsequent years. And thought I agree that I wouldn't want to fire people based on a year or two of testing, or evaluate them just on testing data, to completely ignore the data as a way to grade teachers, or even to identify which ones need help or more constant monitoring, as the NJEA demands, is foolish and ultimately damaging to all the kids who could have been saved from bad teachers.

We have to stop saying that testing is bad, merit pay is bad, etc. and start to use all the information we have to build a better teaching corps.

So the questions would be:

Have you seen the report that was issued yesterday by the Education Effectiveness Task Force - http://www.state.nj.us/education/educators/effectiveness.pdf ?

and

Do you think there is any merit to what they are proposing?

I completely agree that we can and should use all these data we've collected, and that we need to learn how to get better at that. But I want to use the data in ways that help us understand exactly what individual students need. In other words, in ways that help direct our instruction. Or, to assess entire programs. But the research overwhelmingly shows that using student achievement data as a metric for determining what a teacher is paid is bound to fail. Yes, that does contradict directly what's in the Task Force's recently released report. I am very sorry to see that they simply ignored the research. They do cite examples of where it's been implemented, but one cannot conclude that it works just because a few places have it in place. I completely agree that we need to identify which teachers need remediation, and then give them a chance to fix what's wrong, and then, if they can't or won't, then we need the ability to let them go (i.e., tenure reform). I support that 100%. But I do not support using student testing data as a metric for determining teacher pay. We would be very foolish in implementing such a system--if we think we're taking the creativity and problem solving out of classrooms today, just wait until teachers are told their pay depends on how their students do on tests. Education is not all about tests. Tests are important, and necessary, but not in determining teacher pay. The unintended consequences of doing so are very real...and disturbing.

Dr. C - thanks for answering my question above thoroughly and thoughtfully. An aswer I don't like is better than the silence we generally received prior.

As for determining who is a good teacher and who is bad and the pitfalls involved - there are pitfalls involved in every approach...but doing something/anything is better than tenure. It is the fear of potentially being fired that installs some sense of accountability and hard work in teachers. When they know they can't get fired, no matter what they do and how poor they perform, they have no motivation to work hard. Ask anybody in the private sector if the potential for getting fired makes them work harder and more effectively - the question is so ridiculous to even ask because the answer is so obvious. Even talking to the teachers who live in town - they know they have had a sweetheart deal for way too long and they know the shouldn't get all the benefits they are getting. It is only the union bosses who are out of touch with reality. Let's try to rectify this situation - zero budget increase (actually, a decrease might be in order) and demand salary cuts to make up for the extragavant, over the top raises the teachers received during the Great Recession.

Marty - don't you think it is a bit extreme to say that teachers have no motivation to work hard when they know they can't get fired? I know human nature may say this makes sense, but I have known many tenured teachers who actually truly enjoy teaching our children and make a strong effort every single day. Keep in mind, teachers are a rare profession where they have to go through quite a bit of education and testing in order to qualify for a job that pays relatively low. Granted, they do get to be home when their own kids are off school, and their benefits program has been significantly better than most, but still... they must inherently enjoy children and the satisfaction that comes with helping a child learn. That is a motivation which exists whether or not you can be fired.

I would argue that corporate jobs don't come close to having this motivation, unless you are one of the lucky ones who finds him/herself in a job you truly enjoy.