Re: [Phys-l] lab safety rules +- time on task +- symbolism

["Paul Lulai" <plulai@stanthony.k12.mn.us>]

A quick comment regarding the matrix (or steps and lanes).  I've heard folks speak negatively of the extra pay for coursework.  I think it is a must.  I've learned a lot from the courses I've taken since I started teaching.  If there were no additional compensation for the courses, I would be MUCH less likely to take them.  
As it is, all coursework that I take, I pay for.  There are no programs in place for public school teachers in MN to have coursework paid for or subsidized.  I find my private school colleagues have a leg up on me in this area.  I know many private school teachers for whom their workplace pays for the coursework those teachers take, AND pay them extra once they earn the credits.  
I do not know how this compares to the variety of private sector jobs available.  I believe that some govt labs have programs in place to help fund promising employees to take coursework towards their graduate degrees.

Have a good one.
That wasn't so quick.

Paul Lulai
Physics Teacher
St Anthony Village S.H.
3303 33rd Ave NE
St Anthony Village, MN 55418

612-706-1146
plulai@stanthony.k12.mn.us
http://www.stanthony.k12.mn.us/hsscience/ ;

-----Original Message-----
From: phys-l-bounces@carnot.physics.buffalo.edu [mailto:phys-l-bounces@carnot.physics.buffalo.edu] On Behalf Of Edmiston, Mike
Sent: Tuesday, September 13, 2011 10:58 AM
To: Forum for Physics Educators
Subject: Re: [Phys-l] lab safety rules +- time on task +- symbolism

David Marx commented that merit pay might encourage people to do things they otherwise might not do.  He also commented that same pay (which I take to mean pay based upon years of service) promotes laziness.

Hugh Haskell commented that some of the things people might be encouraged to do are not necessarily meritorious.  I certainly agree with that.  Although my institution does not have merit pay, I have seen a fair amount of non-meritorious behavior from teachers still trying to get tenure, and even from tenured professors hoping for some sort of "quid pro quo" other than direct salary increases.  It can get pretty pathetic.

Considering the second part of David's comment, I am not sure how often same pay promotes laziness.  I don't doubt it sometimes happens, but I don't think I see very much of it.  I do see considerable differences in the time various professors spend working with students.  Also, some professors make exclusive use of machine-scored multiple-choice exams rather than essay exams, and some professors make more use of student assistants than I do.  It's hard to know whether this should be classified as laziness.  And even if we believe it should be classified as laziness, it's difficult to know if a merit-pay system would reduce it.

Hugh also described the possibility of a system with different levels of teacher.  In many respects we already have this, at least around my area.  I assume it is fairly common.  The bottom level in our local school district is the teacher with a BA/BS only.  If teachers take some graduate-level courses within their teaching field, or toward an MS in education that is for improvement of teaching (not for gaining an administrative license), then they jump to a new rank after 15 semester hours are completed.  That's about half way to the MS/MA degree, and the "rank" is called "BA/BS+15."  The next change in rank occurs with the earning of the MA or MS.  The next change in rank is "MA/MS + 15."  That's the top of the "ranks" in Bluffton, but some area schools also have a PhD rank.

Within these ranks, there are further salary increases for years of service at that rank.  If Ohio Senate Bill #5 survives the recall vote, the "years of service within the rank" will disappear, but the ranks will remain because they are merit based.  This is a type of merit-based pay that is pretty easy to document and apply fairly.  It doesn't require any administrative judgment.


Michael D. Edmiston, PhD.
Professor of Chemistry and Physics
Chair, Division of Natural and Applied Sciences
Bluffton University
Bluffton, OH 45817
Office 419-358-3270
Cell 419-230-9657


-----Original Message-----
From: phys-l-bounces@carnot.physics.buffalo.edu [mailto:phys-l-bounces@carnot.physics.buffalo.edu] On Behalf Of Hugh Haskell
Sent: Tuesday, September 13, 2011 2:37 AM
To: marx@phy.ilstu.edu; Forum for Physics Educators
Subject: Re: [Phys-l] lab safety rules +- time on task +- symbolism

At 11:55 AM -0500 9/12/11, David Marx wrote:
> On the other hand, having merit-based raises encourages people to do 
> things they otherwise may not do.  People should be rewarded for their 
> efforts.  A system that gives the same raise to everyone is a system 
> that promotes laziness.  Really, I think it should be a combination of 
> cost of living adjustments, deserved pay equity,  and merit.
A major problem with the so-called "merit" pay system is that some of the things they otherwise may not do are hardly meritorious--kissing up to the person responsible for raises, not dissenting from policy when it would otherwise be appropriate, not trying to figure out new ways to teach that might not be popular with the upper echelons, not rocking the boat, and more of that sort.

Also, salaries in publicly supported schools are a matter of public record, so everyone will know who is getting the merit raises. This means that they can be a morale breaker as well, if the choices are not unanimously acceptable to the other faculty. In private businesses, salaries are not public, so the salaries will not be generally known and there will be less resentment if the raises are not fairly given (a goal which is hard to achieve under the best of circumstances).

There is, however, a better way. Colleges and universities have had a hierarchical system for a long time; it used to be four levels, but now is mostly three, and they do at least have a more or less objective way to hand out promotions--how much grant money you bring in. I don't particularly like that criterion, and it certainly isn't particularly good for education, but at least it is reasonably transparent.

The pre-college community is a different matter. For the most part they have one job title--teacher. And one can have that title for an entire 40-year career. JD and ME and others have eloquently shown how difficult it is to evaluate teaching skills, so that leaves little more than longevity as a guide for teacher salaries.

So I would propose adding several grades of "teacher." We'd need to come up with some good sounding names for these positions, but there would be promotions that could justify increased salaries, and merge that with longevity raises and you have essentially the same system as the military pay system. If promotions are done by a committee of peers (or nearly peers--that is, made up of people at least one grade higher than the teachers being considered for promotion), it would largely (but not completely) remove the promotion system from the morale-destroying favoritism that can so easily develop in a top-down promotion system.

I lived with the military system for 22 years and I found it to be the fairest system I have seen anywhere. Merit is rewarded with promotions (which can have some objective criteria attached to them--professional development, other classroom service, out of classroom service, in addition to skills as a teacher), and reliable, but not exceptional service earns longevity raises at certain intervals (in the military it's typically two years). It's not a perfect system, but if promotions include new duties (both in and out of the classroom) it will minimize the dissatisfactions with the occasional missed or unmerited promotion. And there probably is no perfect system. Details could vary from district to district, but I think this would help toward moving teaching into a more professional status.

As a teacher moves up the professional ladder they become less supervised and do more supervising, and become freer to innovate in their classroom and try new methods (presumably after suitable training). A sabbatical system should be included to permit teachers to pursue additional professional development, do research in their fields, or develop new curricula or courses.

The real issue here is not money, although a certain amount is necessary to support living without the necessity of getting a second or a summer job. It is professional respect. Pre-college teaching is not today considered a profession by the general public. Teachers are not respected by either the public or school administrators, and apparently not a certain category of politician. Until it becomes one in reality, we are going to continue to have the problems with our schools that we have today. While money isn't the a primary driver here, it does help to improve the professional standing of teachers. 
It is really time that we recognize teachers as professionals who can develop their own courses and curricula, evaluate their own students honestly and fairly and can motivate their students to do the best they are able. They need support to achieve these goals, but more than anything, they need respect. And that has to be built from both ends of the hierarchy.

Hugh

-- 

Hugh Haskell
mailto:hugh@ieer.org
mailto:haskellh@verizon.net

It isn't easy being green.

		--Kermit Lagrenouille
_______________________________________________
Forum for Physics Educators
Phys-l@carnot.physics.buffalo.edu
https://carnot.physics.buffalo.edu/mailman/listinfo/phys-l
_______________________________________________
Forum for Physics Educators
Phys-l@carnot.physics.buffalo.edu
https://carnot.physics.buffalo.edu/mailman/listinfo/phys-l