5 ms·

Third were the teachers “who can but won’t,” in Gunner’s phrase; these teachers had the capacity to become more effective educators but appeared to have no inte

by lacker 8y ago

Third were the teachers “who can but won’t,” in Gunner’s phrase; these teachers had the capacity to become more effective educators but appeared to have no interest in doing so. They were already set in their pedagogical ways or didn’t think change at the school was necessary or possible or didn’t want to put in more effort. There is a fairly simple solution here. Rather than improving the skills of people who aren't interested in improving, just fire them.

willart4food 8y ago
> There is a fairly simple solution here. Rather than improving the skills of people who aren't interested in improving, just fire them. Well, depends on the absolute quality level of these teachers: according to your statement, you would fire a good-but-not-great teacher who is not willing to improve and retain a mediocre teacher who is willing, but not capable, to improve.
- lacker 8y ago
  Yeah good point. It's also discouraging how much the principal has to deal with staff turnover - it seems like there are constantly problems like "This teacher isn't very good, but it's so hard to hire good teachers, if they quit I'll probably get a worse one."
  - dorchadas 8y ago
    I know that one of my colleagues got tenure solely because they had an issue with teacher retention in the math department. They weren't recommended for rehire after their first year, even from the person who supervised them, who was a friend. But, the school was struggling to fill the math spot that it already had open, and so they, of course, didn't do anything to her. This was repeated several years. In fact, I think they've had to hire a math teacher each of the past 5/6 years due to various things.
sdenton4 8y ago
This is addressed in the article; turn over in these schools is a huge problem, especially mid-year, where students dealing with lots of instability in their lives suddenly have another major change. There's no guarantee that the replacing teacher will be any better: indeed, given the stress and low pay, it seems a decent chance you'll end up in the same place you started. Furthermore, firing a third-to-half of the teachers (even during the off season) will create a pretty trash work environment, where /everyone/ is fearing for their jobs. I thought the principal in the article did a great job of managing the issue. She made it clear that she was building a new culture of higher expectations. When confronted with the higher expectations, low-performing teachers can try to get with it (which is a win), or quit, as many did.
- MarkMc 8y ago
  > given the stress and low pay, it seems a decent chance you'll end up in the same place you started. Perhaps a solution would be to increase class size and increase teacher pay. Singapore has one of the highest student achievement levels in the world with an average class size of 36 students [1] [1] https://www.economist.com/leaders/2018/08/30/what-other-countries-can-learn-from-singapores-schools https://www.economist.com/leaders/2018/08/30/what-other-coun...
- mikekchar 8y ago
  In Japanese publicly funded schools, teachers change schools every 3-5 years. You are supposed to change at least every 5 years, although some teachers are allowed to stay at the same school for a long time in special circumstances. I taught at the local high school 10 years ago and today, apart from 2 teachers who have been there for 30 years, I don't know any of the teachers. Even the principal, vice principal and even the office staff change schools. As a student you normally you have a "home room teacher", who is responsible for you. As much as possible, that home room teacher does not change for the duration of your school time (at least in junior high school and high school. I'm not sure about elementary school). So you start in your home room in grade 10 and you have the same home room and home room teacher until grade 12. Occasionally they have to split up some classes if there are problems. Occasionally they have to replace a home room teacher (in case one gets pregnant, etc). But as much as possible they try to avoid it. This provides stability to the students. If you are a new teacher to the school, you might take the first year not having a home room (or filling in for a departed home room teacher for a year). Then you go to the grade 10 group, you get a home room and you look after it until they graduate. You will either move to another school at that point, or you will spend one more year filling in, or taking a break from having a home room (it's a lot of extra work). The schools in Japan are ranked. As a teacher, your performance is evaluated. As much as I don't like the criteria for evaluation (usually if your students do well scholastically, then your get a good evaluation), I think it's a good system. If you get a good evaluation, you move to a higher level school. If you get a bad evaluation, you move to a lower level school. Certain good teachers (and administrators) are selected to become the department heads in the low level schools. Their job is to improve the poor performance of the teachers. If a teacher falls off the end at a bad school, then they are usually fired. The school I worked at was one of those "last chance" schools and a few teachers I worked with ended up being fired at the end of the year. Unfortunately, due to a huge under supply of qualified teachers, those teachers (who are unbelievably bad -- trust me on that), can easily get work on a contract basis for a year at a time. But they lose at least 30% of their salary, a lot of benefits and job security. I think it's a good system, though it's hard on the teachers because you are always commuting a lot. I live in a rural area, so some teachers have to drive a few hours a day to get to work. In the big city it's easier, because there are a lot more schools in a small area. Still, even if you have a big commute, it will only be for 5 years, and they offer subsidised housing if you need it.

by lacker 8y ago

willart4food 8y ago

> There is a fairly simple solution here. Rather than improving the skills of people who aren't interested in improving, just fire them. Well, depends on the absolute quality level of these teachers: according to your statement, you would fire a good-but-not-great teacher who is not willing to improve and retain a mediocre teacher who is willing, but not capable, to improve.

lacker 8y ago
Yeah good point. It's also discouraging how much the principal has to deal with staff turnover - it seems like there are constantly problems like "This teacher isn't very good, but it's so hard to hire good teachers, if they quit I'll probably get a worse one."
- dorchadas 8y ago
  I know that one of my colleagues got tenure solely because they had an issue with teacher retention in the math department. They weren't recommended for rehire after their first year, even from the person who supervised them, who was a friend. But, the school was struggling to fill the math spot that it already had open, and so they, of course, didn't do anything to her. This was repeated several years. In fact, I think they've had to hire a math teacher each of the past 5/6 years due to various things.

sdenton4 8y ago

This is addressed in the article; turn over in these schools is a huge problem, especially mid-year, where students dealing with lots of instability in their lives suddenly have another major change. There's no guarantee that the replacing teacher will be any better: indeed, given the stress and low pay, it seems a decent chance you'll end up in the same place you started. Furthermore, firing a third-to-half of the teachers (even during the off season) will create a pretty trash work environment, where /everyone/ is fearing for their jobs. I thought the principal in the article did a great job of managing the issue. She made it clear that she was building a new culture of higher expectations. When confronted with the higher expectations, low-performing teachers can try to get with it (which is a win), or quit, as many did.

MarkMc 8y ago
> given the stress and low pay, it seems a decent chance you'll end up in the same place you started. Perhaps a solution would be to increase class size and increase teacher pay. Singapore has one of the highest student achievement levels in the world with an average class size of 36 students [1] [1] https://www.economist.com/leaders/2018/08/30/what-other-countries-can-learn-from-singapores-schools https://www.economist.com/leaders/2018/08/30/what-other-coun...
mikekchar 8y ago
In Japanese publicly funded schools, teachers change schools every 3-5 years. You are supposed to change at least every 5 years, although some teachers are allowed to stay at the same school for a long time in special circumstances. I taught at the local high school 10 years ago and today, apart from 2 teachers who have been there for 30 years, I don't know any of the teachers. Even the principal, vice principal and even the office staff change schools. As a student you normally you have a "home room teacher", who is responsible for you. As much as possible, that home room teacher does not change for the duration of your school time (at least in junior high school and high school. I'm not sure about elementary school). So you start in your home room in grade 10 and you have the same home room and home room teacher until grade 12. Occasionally they have to split up some classes if there are problems. Occasionally they have to replace a home room teacher (in case one gets pregnant, etc). But as much as possible they try to avoid it. This provides stability to the students. If you are a new teacher to the school, you might take the first year not having a home room (or filling in for a departed home room teacher for a year). Then you go to the grade 10 group, you get a home room and you look after it until they graduate. You will either move to another school at that point, or you will spend one more year filling in, or taking a break from having a home room (it's a lot of extra work). The schools in Japan are ranked. As a teacher, your performance is evaluated. As much as I don't like the criteria for evaluation (usually if your students do well scholastically, then your get a good evaluation), I think it's a good system. If you get a good evaluation, you move to a higher level school. If you get a bad evaluation, you move to a lower level school. Certain good teachers (and administrators) are selected to become the department heads in the low level schools. Their job is to improve the poor performance of the teachers. If a teacher falls off the end at a bad school, then they are usually fired. The school I worked at was one of those "last chance" schools and a few teachers I worked with ended up being fired at the end of the year. Unfortunately, due to a huge under supply of qualified teachers, those teachers (who are unbelievably bad -- trust me on that), can easily get work on a contract basis for a year at a time. But they lose at least 30% of their salary, a lot of benefits and job security. I think it's a good system, though it's hard on the teachers because you are always commuting a lot. I live in a rural area, so some teachers have to drive a few hours a day to get to work. In the big city it's easier, because there are a lot more schools in a small area. Still, even if you have a big commute, it will only be for 5 years, and they offer subsidised housing if you need it.