A recent article in this publication implied that Superintendent Erin Kane is supporting pay-for-performance because it's associated with rewarding teacher effort when she says, "We want to talk to …
A recent article in this publication implied that Superintendent Erin Kane is supporting pay-for-performance because it's associated with rewarding teacher effort when she says, "We want to talk to our employees about what it is that motivates them and makes them want to bring their A-game every day". The point is it doesn't matter if every teacher brings their A game every day, teachers can never be equal. She simply meant it's teacher motivation that "makes our kids winners". Next, I dismiss the parent who said, "I hope you never have to dry the tears of a 5-year-old when she learns that her beloved teacher is leaving". This says more about the kind of non-dedicated teacher who would leave a classroom of 5-year-olds. That's the kind of teacher you don't want.
My experience leaves me unsympathetic with the many teachers who "have expressed dissatisfaction with salaries, competition among teachers because salaries are tied to subjects they teach, and hours of time spent on evaluations." For most professions, compensation is directly tied to putting in an extra effort with willingness for inconvenience. I don't know of any other profession where this attitude is held as a standard.
My belief is that it's unfair to suspend pay-for-performance for teachers but continue it for secretaries, instructional assistants and food service workers. I disagree with board member Wendy Vogel, who likewise opposes it, but for the wrong reason. She says it pits "classified and licensed employees against each other." Wrong, and the Dream Team candidates are aligned with her, Lemieux, and Ray on this and just about every issue.
I support the Elevate Douglas County slate of Randy Mills, Ryan Abresch, Debora Scheffel and Grant Nelson.