My high school teacher with Harper...

[Accountability Now]

I beg to differ, teachers are just the easiest kick at. I could reach my hand into a barrel of any profession (even doctors) and pull out just as many duds as good'uns. The only thing you can work to is to avoid that doctor/teacher.

The only similarity here is that a lot of doctors go into it for the wrong reason too...money. But they certainly aren't going into it because they think its easy. Ask any resident.

[socialist]

I never said it was easy. I said a lot of the teachers go into it thinking it's going to be easier than it is and then spend their career complaining about it. Almost all of the ones I know that do this are teachers by default meaning they chose it only because they couldn't get into the profession they wanted. The teachers that are truly teachers get into it knowing it's not easy.

Nice anecdotes. Too bad they are meaningless.

[overthere]

The study I quoted indicates that simply asking principals to assess is subjective. And how do you know the principals are good ?

It is completely pointless here to ask principals anything about the quality of teaching. Principals and teachers belong to the same bargaining unit in this province. They don't criticize their staff unless they have absolutely no choice.

Congrats to Mr Procyk for inspiring some students to excellence. I was lucky enough to have a couple like him.

[Bob Macadoo]

The only similarity here is that a lot of doctors go into it for the wrong reason too...money. But they certainly aren't going into it because they think its easy. Ask any resident.

No my point is after they get the job they start mailing it in. Its the same the world over.....private/public....rich/poor.....apathy is apathy.

[Big Guy]

In Ontario, Mike Harris made the principals create a separate union from the teachers. Co-operation between principals and staff began to deteriorate at that point to where it is now.

[August1991]

I beg to differ, teachers are just the easiest kick at. I could reach my hand into a barrel of any profession (even doctors) and pull out just as many duds as good'uns. The only thing you can work to is to avoid that doctor/teacher.

Huh? Bob Macadoo, doctors? Would you go into heart surgery in the same way that children enter a classroom?

I agree that there are good pilots and bad pilots, good surgeons and bad surgeons, and good teachers and bad teachers; but for some reason, society seems to tolerate bad teachers more than, well, even bad cashiers working at minimum wage.

Bad cashiers get fired. Bad pilots never get to fly. Bad surgeons never graduate - or they get sued. But bad teachers? The union protects them, and thousands of children waste years of their lives listening to an idiot talk about nonsense.

Edited November 4, 2014 by August1991

[August1991]

ie. It's hard to measure teacher quality.

This is the key point, IMV.

Except for one idea: it is hard to know if you have a good pilot (the plane lands) but it is easy to know if you have a bad one (the plane crashes).

Rather than give awards for "good teachers", we should tell "bad teachers" to find another occupation. But no politician wants to be involved in a photo-op where anyone loses a job.

[Michael Hardner]

Rather than give awards for "good teachers", we should tell "bad teachers" to find another occupation. But no politician wants to be involved in a photo-op where anyone loses a job.

There's something to this, actually. I think that for the purposes of this discussion, though, we should call them "terrible teachers". I do believe that "terrible teachers" exist, are easily detectable through simple means, and are currently protected. Furthermore, I believe that they are *hired* out of the gate due to hiring practices that are random and unprofessional.

But then we get to a problem that is more difficult than grading teachers - changing the system. Ontario seems to be making little deals with the unions to improve the system, but it's hard to build trust between them.

[Bob Macadoo]

Huh? Bob Macadoo, doctors? Would you go into heart surgery in the same way that children enter a classroom? I agree that there are good pilots and bad pilots, good surgeons and bad surgeons, and good teachers and bad teachers; but for some reason, society seems to tolerate bad teachers more than, well, even bad cashiers working at minimum wage. Bad cashiers get fired. Bad pilots never get to fly. Bad surgeons never graduate - or they get sued. But bad teachers? The union protects them, and thousands of children waste years of their lives listening to an idiot talk about nonsense.

Bad GPs are a dime a dozen and they go nowhere as that service is desparately needed. Bad pilots are shunted to short haul flights. Go into any convenience store.....bad cashiers are still on the job.

[Mighty AC]

But then we get to a problem that is more difficult than grading teachers - changing the system. Ontario seems to be making little deals with the unions to improve the system, but it's hard to build trust between them.

OSSTF is currently pushing to eliminate merit from the hiring process. They want teachers hired for permanent positions based solely on their position in the occasional teaching line. To the union a polished resume of experience, qualifications, coaching, workshops and general effort is irrelevant. Existing teachers don't seem to care because the move doesn't impact them directly. Unfortunately, they don't realize that forcing schools to hire low quality educators will erode the esteem of the entire profession.

[Michael Hardner]

OSSTF is currently pushing to eliminate merit from the hiring process. They want teachers hired for permanent positions based solely on their position in the occasional teaching line.

I think this is only part of the story. They need supply teachers, and I believe part of the idea is to vet them against how they do in the classroom on a temporary assignment.

To the union a polished resume of experience, qualifications, coaching, workshops and general effort is irrelevant.

Actually, if you knew the hiring process you would know that those things are irrelevant to management anyway.

... forcing schools to hire low quality educators will erode the esteem of the entire profession.

You jump right past the problem I highlighted before: how to determine 'quality'. It's even harder to do that before they start teaching than after.

[Mighty AC]

I think this is only part of the story. They need supply teachers, and I believe part of the idea is to vet them against how they do in the classroom on a temporary assignment.

You jump right past the problem I highlighted before: how to determine 'quality'. It's even harder to do that before they start teaching than after.

That was the idea, but that's what the OSSTF has been working to change. While waiting in the occasional pool some teachers continue to upgrade their skills, build experience, add to their qualifications, coach teams, volunteer their time and of course some do not. Based on experience with occasional teachers, observation and staff feedback administrators assessed the quality of various individuals in the pool and sought to hire good teachers when permanent positions opened up. However, the OSSTF is pushing for the hiring process to be based solely on the amount of time served in the occasional pool.

As a result permanent positions are currently being filled exclusively by bad teachers that have been on the occasional list for quite some time because they do not perform or interview well. In many areas administrators must hire from the top 5 most senior occasional teachers or face a panel to explain their decision.

Edited November 4, 2014 by Mighty AC

[Michael Hardner]

However, the OSSTF is pushing for the hiring process to be based solely on the amount of time served in the occasional pool.

Fair enough. You will have a hard time getting rid of the idea of seniority, but maybe removal of terrible teachers is a common-sense item that they could get behind.

As a result permanent positions are currently being filled exclusively by bad teachers that have been on the occasional list for quite some time because they do not perform or interview well.

It's pretty much impossible to say if that's true. Also interviewing well is a separate question from teaching well, and the ridiculous interview process helps make that separation a reality.

[Mighty AC]

Fair enough. You will have a hard time getting rid of the idea of seniority, but maybe removal of terrible teachers is a common-sense item that they could get behind.

We can always hope, but right now the pendulum is swinging away from merit towards increased seniority. Removal of a bad teacher is near impossible, but at least bad permanent teachers are being identified and entered into a remediation program. A skilled veteran teacher is sent to observe the problem teacher in action and then works with him/her to implement changes. I'm not sure if there is a followup process.

It's pretty much impossible to say if that's true. Also interviewing well is a separate question from teaching well, and the ridiculous interview process helps make that separation a reality.

It's easy to verify that the top 5 most senior occasional teachers must be interviewed, however, it is impossible to say, with certainty, that these candidates are low quality teachers. Generally, if they have risen to the top of the occasional seniority list, they have been around for quite a long time, had several interviews and have yet to be make a positive enough impression on administration to be hired.

Interviewing, is certainly a separate skill from teaching. However, in the past the interview process was more of a formality because the candidates chosen had typically already proven their worth to admin staff and existing department heads. Now the process is more important as admins must use it to pick between 5 candidates they are forced to hire from.

Edited November 4, 2014 by Mighty AC

[GostHacked]

ie. It's hard to measure teacher quality.

I don't think it's that hard. Base it on the student performance of the knowledge presented in the class. Quality teaching should result in higher grades for the students.

[Mighty AC]

I don't think it's that hard. Base it on the student performance of the knowledge presented in the class. Quality teaching should result in higher grades for the students.

It doesn't work that way. For instance, socioeconomic status is a far greater factor than teacher performance.

A school in my area had its boundaries redrawn, meaning that a neighbourhood where the typical house price is about 3-4 times the regional average was sent to a different school. Prior to the realignment the school was a perennial, above average, performer on grade 3 and 6 EQAO standardized tests. Now the school is a perennial below average performer, despite having almost the exact same staff.

In my opinion, the only way to reliably assess a teacher is to observe them in action on many occasions. At the secondary level, department heads know which teachers are great and which are less than spectacular. However, they are not permitted to evaluate their peers. I would like to see them given the ability to assign staff members to professional development and remediation programs. It doesn't have to be punitive; for example Finland's ed system builds observation, collaboration and feedback right into the usual routine.

Edited November 4, 2014 by Mighty AC

[Michael Hardner]

We can always hope, but right now the pendulum is swinging away from merit towards increased seniority.

I don't see how. Adding a mandatory supply stint as an entry barrier to full-time should ostensibly provide an evaluation period of sorts.

Generally, if they have risen to the top of the occasional seniority list, they have been around for quite a long time, had several interviews and have yet to be make a positive enough impression on administration to be hired.

Right - and that points to an indicator of merit. Also, they are keeping files on you all the time, I presume. They can go off the top-5 list too, right ?

However, in the past the interview process was more of a formality because the candidates chosen had typically already proven their worth to admin staff and existing department heads. Now the process is more important as admins must use it to pick between 5 candidates they are forced to hire from.

I don't follow. "already proven their worth" how ?

[Michael Hardner]

I don't think it's that hard. Base it on the student performance of the knowledge presented in the class.

Read the study. 90% of the factors involved aren't under the teacher's control.

Quality teaching should result in higher grades for the students.

Assuming they pay attention, they were fed by their parents before they left the house, they didn't have a student murdered in the halls that day, many other things...

[Michael Hardner]

In my opinion, the only way to reliably assess a teacher is to observe them in action on many occasions. At the secondary level, department heads know which teachers are great and which are less than spectacular. However, they are not permitted to evaluate their peers. I would like to see them given the ability to assign staff members to professional development and remediation programs. It doesn't have to be punitive; for example Finland's ed system builds observation, collaboration and feedback right into the usual routine.

Excellent observations, reasonable, and straightforward. Your opinions on this topic are informed and valued, which is why I come to MLW...

[overthere]

You will have a hard time getting rid of the idea of seniority, but maybe removal of terrible teachers is a common-sense item that they could get behind.

The teachers can afford to pretend to support getting rid of terrible teachers, but in reality they won't. The reason is that determining who is bad/good would require an assessment protocol involving examiners outside their peer group checking every teacher, and that won't happen.

You have to abandon most notions of common sense here.

The first hirings here are not occasional teachers.

First a principal must find a reason to reject every teacher with a contract who is looking for a job.

[Michael Hardner]

The reason is that determining who is bad/good would require an assessment protocol involving examiners outside their peer group checking every teacher, and that won't happen.

That reasoning is actually backwards as per MightyAC's suggestion. Peers do know who the bad teachers are.

The first hirings here are not occasional teachers.

First a principal must find a reason to reject every teacher with a contract who is looking for a job.

I don't get that.

[Mighty AC]

I don't see how. Adding a mandatory supply stint as an entry barrier to full-time should ostensibly provide an evaluation period of sorts.

The mandatory supply stint isn't new for most boards. The new part is the mandatory hiring of people who have been supplying the longest.

Right - and that points to an indicator of merit. Also, they are keeping files on you all the time, I presume. They can go off the top-5 list too, right ?

No, files of that sort aren't being kept on occasional teachers (OTs).

Admin can hire outside of the top 5 but must appear before a panel of board and union heads to explain why. This essentially eliminates the practice.

Occasional teaching is like babysitting. It can help to improve classroom management skills a little, but it's rare that OTs are left to teach an actual lesson. In most cases they supervise work periods, quizzes, movies or make work activities. In the past teachers could request qualified OTs and would then feel comfortable leaving actual lesson material. However, now the union is forcing the process of assigning substitutes to be more random.

The rule mandating that the most senior OTs be hired is less than 2 years old. Thus the people being hired now are the occasional teachers that nobody wanted and have thus hung around on the list for near a decade.

I don't follow. "already proven their worth" how ?

Administrators and department heads get to know many of the substitute teachers. Through observation and teacher feedback, they learn which are good and which are not. They used to be able to request the better candidates for substitute work and also hire them when permanent positions opened up. Now they are limited to hiring those who have been in line the longest. Merit is no longer a factor. Edited November 4, 2014 by Mighty AC

[overthere]

That reasoning is actually backwards as per MightyAC's suggestion. Peers do know who the bad teachers are.

I don't get that.

It doesn't matter what peers know, teachers and principals are members of the same bargaining unit here and absolutely would not accurately assess teachers now or then. Knowing is one thing, acting is very different. Assessors must be independent.

Get this- There are always teachers with an ongoing contract(not subs or pool or occasional) who for many reasons do not have a job at the end of June. They include: teachers returning from stress or maternity or the other forms of leave available, teachers who have been laid off due to low enrollemnt at their schools(seniority rules on that), and others. There are quite a few of them, and a signifcant number are not good teachers.

By September, all of them have to be placed in ongoing jobs as per the collective agreement. If that pool is finally empty, principals can hire any applicant that is certified. They usually hire the best subs as demonstrated by performance in their schoool or term teachers that are good wanting ongoing contracts or transfers of friends from other schools wanting new places working with a buddy. I know at least two principals who don't hire any new teachers until the very last minute, like the day before school starts. By doing that they can often avoid the deadweight of 'must hires' and get soembody they want. It doesn't always work.

[Michael Hardner]

Administrators and department heads get to know many of the substitute teachers. Through observation and teacher feedback, they learn which are good and which are not. They used to be able to request the better candidates for substitute work and also hire them when permanent positions opened up. Now they are limited to hiring those who have been in line the longest. Merit is no longer a factor.

I can guarantee that that's not the case. My wife gets called up by principals to return as an occasional teacher directly, bypassing the system. And the principals drop in to check on things like class control, communication ability, and the ability to follow instructions.

[Michael Hardner]

It doesn't matter what peers know, teachers and principals are members of the same bargaining unit here and absolutely would not accurately assess teachers now or then. Knowing is one thing, acting is very different. Assessors must be independent.

You're not in Ontario, I take it. I like AC's suggestion.

If that pool is finally empty, principals can hire any applicant that is certified.

Ok, I get it now.

No, this won't happen because teachers as a group won't allow their careers to be ended by a principal not wanting them for next year. If the goal is to get rid of demonstrably terrible teachers, there are easier ways to achieve that.