My high school teacher with Harper...

[Mighty AC]

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.

In Finland, departments spend time collaborating, observing and providing feedback almost every day. The team process helps prevent individual teachers from stagnating and also helps new teachers pick up tips, tricks, lesson ideas, activities, etc. very quickly. Administrators drop into meetings and lessons regularly and offer advice as needed. They have more of an all for one development approach that is far less adversarial than we're used to.

I think that should be the ultimate goal. However, in the meantime we could simply allow department heads to nominate members for observation and remediation. We could also provide more collaboration and PD time.

[Michael Hardner]

In Finland, departments spend time collaborating, observing and providing feedback almost every day. The team process helps prevent individual teachers from stagnating and also helps new teachers pick up tips, tricks, lesson ideas, activities, etc. very quickly. Administrators drop into meetings and lessons regularly and offer advice as needed. They have more of an all for one development approach that is far less adversarial than we're used to.

I also have a strange sense that Canadians are terrible at being direct in evaluating performance, or giving direct criticism. I only have anecdotal evidence of this, having worked for 25 years for many different types of industries but I really feel that we have a "deadwood" problem in this country.

[Mighty AC]

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.

It does still occur but is on the way out. Admins are being removed from the allocation process on what seems to be a school by school basis. Most secondary schools now have teachers enter their own absences directly into the web based system, which does not allow for requests. Admins can still request specific teachers, but this practice is being contested by OSSTF and will soon disappear altogether.

In my experience, direct requests are still more common at the primary level.

[Mighty AC]

I also have a strange sense that Canadians are terrible at being direct in evaluating performance, or giving direct criticism. I only have anecdotal evidence of this, having worked for 25 years for many different types of industries but I really feel that we have a "deadwood" problem in this country.

I agree completely. Though, I think the team planning and teaching approach would help. Regular observation and assessment would help as well. Currently, the process happens every few years and comes off as stressful and punitive. What if peers and admins dropped in to observe regularly so the reflection and improvement process was made normal? Kind of like we do for students.

[Big Guy]

The mistake in Ontario was made years ago when the teacher federation allowed the occasional teachers to unionize and eventually join the same union. Every year, there were concessions made to the new occasional teachers union as a show of solidarity. Now the occasional teachers small group is wagging the OSSTF dog.

The idea of limiting the top 5 senior occasional teachers as candidates for a permanent position is ludicrous and self defeating. I fully agree with AC that these teachers in the occasional pool are still in there for a reason. I hope that the situation has changed but my recollection is that the Faculties of Ed seemed more concerned with attaining target quotas than choosing the best candidates.

If the priority in this organization was indeed the benefit of the student, then the principal would be allowed to create his/her own school occasional list in an attempt to get the best person available for that particular subject.

This restriction to the first 5 on the list for permanent positions has forced experienced principal to do "creative" timetabling for the vacant position. The most effective system I can remember was when the department head was given the responsibility to hire the occasional teacher for the day. He/she usually had a list of qualified teachers who lived in the area, had experience with the kind of student that the timetable required, knew the layout of the school and the administration. Often these were teachers who had worked in the school as student teachers and had done well. At other times, it would be retired teachers with a specific specialty so when the regular was absent, the days lesson could be covered.

[overthere]

I also have a strange sense that Canadians are terrible at being direct in evaluating performance, or giving direct criticism. I only have anecdotal evidence of this, having worked for 25 years for many different types of industries but I really feel that we have a "deadwood" problem in this country.

I do not agree that Canadians are terrible at assessing performance. The problem in my province is that there is no point at all to a prinicpal(who do assess their own teachers annually) calling out a teacher for poor aptitude or performance. There are really no negative consequences for the teacher since there is almost no way to terminate or discipline them. There will be consequences for the principal who does it. Their peers are not other principals, they are the teachers they nominally supervise. If they step outside the bounds of collaboration in the school and try to act they will be mistrusted by their staff and attacked by their union. It is much easier to do nothing, and that is exactly what happens.

I have worked public and private sectors, and IMO they operate very differently. In the public sector, actual performance was secondary. In the private, it was the difference between reward and unemployment.

[Michael Hardner]

I do not agree that Canadians are terrible at assessing performance. The problem in my province is that there is no point at all to a prinicpal(who do assess their own teachers annually) calling out a teacher for poor aptitude or performance. There are really no negative consequences for the teacher since there is almost no way to terminate or discipline them. There will be consequences for the principal who does it.

I don't see how this leads to another conclusion than Canadians are terrible at assessing performance.

Where did you work in the private sector ?

[Mighty AC]

I do not agree that Canadians are terrible at assessing performance. The problem in my province is that there is no point at all to a prinicpal(who do assess their own teachers annually) calling out a teacher for poor aptitude or performance. There are really no negative consequences for the teacher since there is almost no way to terminate or discipline them.

Do the consequences of a poor evaluation have to be termination? Principals and admin staff observe teachers, then offer feedback and suggestions on areas that could be improved. Common areas that need to be improved or new initiatives and best practices are also discussed and worked on during professional development sessions. In some cases teachers are assigned a professional development partner who will spend a week working on ways to tweak their lessons, labs, plans, use of technology, etc.

Unfortunately, observation and collaboration is too rare in Canada. Finland does it right in this regard and they are getting results. The Ontario government is set to push elementary teachers in this direction during the next round contract negotiations. I hear the plan is to mandate that a certain chunk of planning time be spent in collaboration and observation sessions. The goal is to create that effective team teaching environment. It makes sense and will benefit education, but ETFO will fight it so we'll see what can be achieved.

[cybercoma]

Train employees and have them improve? What are you crazy? That means employers would be accountable for educating their staff. How are they going to offload those costs onto the taxpayers by demanding that post-secondary institutions be job training centers? No no no. The appropriate response these days is to fire people. Forget the effect that this has on people. They're just numbers anyway.

Yes, that's sarcasm for those keeping tabs. I'm still awaiting the verdict from the mods on whether sarcasm is a bannable offence or not.

Edited November 6, 2014 by cybercoma

[Michael Hardner]

Yes, that's sarcasm for those keeping tabs. I'm still awaiting the verdict from the mods on whether sarcasm is a bannable offence or not.

Don't wait on any verdicts. If you're not hung in the public square, then chances are they're up there laughing away...

[overthere]

I don't see how this leads to another conclusion than Canadians are terrible at assessing performance.

Where did you work in the private sector ?

I was pointing out that the lack of adequateperformance assessment is part and parcel of the public sector, and far less common in the private for the usual reason. Note that luckily the public sector is much smaller than the private despite the best efforts of some. In the public, it is really a failure of management since there are no serious consequnces to the managers for business failures either.

Do the consequences of a poor evaluation have to be termination? Principals and admin staff observe teachers, then offer feedback and suggestions on areas that could be improved. Common areas that need to be improved or new initiatives and best practices are also discussed and worked on during professional development sessions. In some cases teachers are assigned a professional development partner who will spend a week working on ways to tweak their lessons, labs, plans, use of technology, etc.

No, but a gentle round of feedback is not appropriate in all cases either. Teachers are well trained professionals and it is not at all unreasonable to insist that they act accordingly. That is feedback too, and right now where I live there is really no way to apply it. The Alberta Teachers Association does all the investigating, which is perhaps why the Minister of Education was dismayed when the department could not find a single case of a teacher being dismissed for incompetence. Ever. In the whole province. How is that possible? I'll tell you: because the union has successfully managed to remove every smidgen of common sense from review processes. There are serious consequences to the students when a teacher cannot do their jobs, and not much to worry about for the teacher.. Please, think of the children.

[Michael Hardner]

I was pointing out that the lack of adequateperformance assessment is part and parcel of the public sector, and far less common in the private for the usual reason.

But I WAS talking about the private sector, where I work. The public sector at least has a formal evaluation process to deal with performance.

Note that luckily the public sector is much smaller than the private despite the best efforts of some. In the public, it is really a failure of management since there are no serious consequnces to the managers for business failures either.

But managers have to negotiate a hugely political climate, as well as managing operations and budgets. It's much more difficult in that way, and I don't know whether you can say there are no consequences. What's the reason for that statement ?

The rest of your post is a response to another poster so I'll leave that part to them to respond.

[Mighty AC]

No, but a gentle round of feedback is not appropriate in all cases either. Teachers are well trained professionals and it is not at all unreasonable to insist that they act accordingly. That is feedback too, and right now where I live there is really no way to apply it. The Alberta Teachers Association does all the investigating, which is perhaps why the Minister of Education was dismayed when the department could not find a single case of a teacher being dismissed for incompetence.

Situations where teachers are incompetent beyond repair are very rare, though not unheard of. In general, teachers that bad end up being reassigned to more basic subjects and even non-teaching positions at the school board. It would be nice if it were easier to remove the tiny fraction of bottom feeders but, honestly, they are not a serious problem. IMO, a more pressing issue is the outdated methods employed by the vast majority. Too few continually tweak their practice or freshen and update their lessons.

In Ontario poor quality educators, that somehow passed the supply teacher interview process, used to end up as lifelong occasional teachers, unable to find full time, contract employment. However, the unions here are working hard to ensure that more unqualified teachers make it through.

At the same time the government is set to force a more collaborative approach to teaching, by removing some freedoms, in the hope that the team approach will improve overall performance and make it far easier to implement best practices. If they succeed, it will be much harder for bad teachers to avoid improvement.

[socialist]

For all you non-teachers out there, I can simply say teachers are under heavy scrutiny. Who cares that we have a hundred things on our plate each and every day.

This thread reminds me of how teacher unions and other public sector unions are under attack from certain governments, especially in BC and Saskatchewan.

It's not my fault as a teacher that poverty is increasing negatively affecting students. How can I teach hungry kids who don't even have their most basic human rights met.

The attacks on teachers and unions are not about educational reform, but turning the teaching profession into a service industry.

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/cifamerica/2011/feb/04/usdomesticpolicy-schools

[socialist]

This shows the assault on teachers in Canada. Are you anti-teacher? If yes, then you are anti-democracy.

http://www.teachersolidarity.com/list/CA

[overthere]

But I WAS talking about the private sector, where I work. The public sector at least has a formal evaluation process to deal with performance.

Every private sector job I have had since leaving school- except for sole proprietorships- has had an evaulation process directly linked to a) ongoing employment career advancement c) compensation. The public sector has an evaluation process that has no consequences for the employee or the management. Its pointless. Performance flaws are not dealt with except in the rarest cases.

But managers have to negotiate a hugely political climate, as well as managing operations and budgets. It's much more difficult in that way, and I don't know whether you can say there are no consequences. What's the reason for that statement ?

The consequences are inconsequential when you get to keep your job, your salary, benefits and pension no matter how hard you fail to meet operational targets or budget goals. Nobody gets fired or demoted, at worst you're shuffled to the side to wait for retirement. Gee, I got another shitty performance review.

In Ontario poor quality educators, that somehow passed the supply teacher interview process, used to end up as lifelong occasional teachers, unable to find full time, contract employment. However, the unions here are working hard to ensure that more unqualified teachers make it through.

Lucky you. In Alberta the teachers union act as unions normally do and as their members expect: to protect jobs at all costs regardless of job performance. The best way to ensure that is to guarantee there is no objective performance review, and they continues to succeed at that 100%. It is true that awful supply teachers rarely get full time contracts. But... if you can manage to get that fulltime contract, you'll have the complete weight of your powerful, well funded union behind you to ensure lifetime employment. Your performance is not relevant as long as you don't do anything criminal on the job.

[socialist]

Every private sector job I have had since leaving school- except for sole proprietorships- has had an evaulation process directly linked to a) ongoing employment career advancement c) compensation. The public sector has an evaluation process that has no consequences for the employee or the management. Its pointless. Performance flaws are not dealt with except in the rarest cases.

The consequences are inconsequential when you get to keep your job, your salary, benefits and pension no matter how hard you fail to meet operational targets or budget goals. Nobody gets fired or demoted, at worst you're shuffled to the side to wait for retirement. Gee, I got another shitty performance review.

Lucky you. In Alberta the teachers union act as unions normally do and as their members expect: to protect jobs at all costs regardless of job performance. The best way to ensure that is to guarantee there is no objective performance review, and they continues to succeed at that 100%. It is true that awful supply teachers rarely get full time contracts. But... if you can manage to get that fulltime contract, you'll have the complete weight of your powerful, well funded union behind you to ensure lifetime employment. Your performance is not relevant as long as you don't do anything criminal on the job.

How can you judge a teacher who every day has to teach kids who live in poverty? Do you think those kids are going to do well on useless standardized tests? Do we want kids to learn meaningful thins or do we want them to learn how to fill in a bubble on a standardized test form? This isn't 1950 anymore.

[socialist]

Reading, writing and mathmatics aren't meaningful or important anymore? Kids have no use of these things anymore? I doubt many people on this forum were alive in 1950, so to comment on the state of the education system back then is a red herring.

Teaching kids to embrace a collectivist society is the most important aspect of public school these days. Like I said, it's not 1950 anymore, beaver.

[socialist]

So reading, writing and mathematics are still important regardless of your personal attitudes towards them. people will always need to know how to to read. They will always need to know how to write and they will always need to know how to do math. That will never change.

Fine. But those are not the main focus anymore. Embracing collectivism will make the world a much more inclusive place.

[GostHacked]

Fine. But those are not the main focus anymore. Embracing collectivism will make the world a much more inclusive place.

Is that the goal of public education? To make sure we follow lock step into a social collectivism order of some kind? I thought it was to teach children the basics of things. The basics like math, english (or another language), sciences and history. Those should still be the focus. IF not we are going to have an intellectual crisis down the road. Teaching collectivism will facilitate the down slide of our intellectual capital. Without that intellect, we won't be progressing as a nation, as there will not be the innovation as we see now. We won't have people smart enough to address future problems. Or more correctly we will have some smart enough to recognize the problems, but not smart enough to figure out how to fix it.

Collectivism does not encourage free or critical thinking. It creates a herd mentality that we desperately need to get away from. In other words, you are advocating for is real socialism. We don't need socialism, we need smart intelligent free thinkers to address problems. Socialists have no idea how to fix issues as they are going along to get along for the sake of being inclusive.

[socialist]

Is that the goal of public education? To make sure we follow lock step into a social collectivism order of some kind? I thought it was to teach children the basics of things. The basics like math, english (or another language), sciences and history. Those should still be the focus. IF not we are going to have an intellectual crisis down the road. Teaching collectivism will facilitate the down slide of our intellectual capital. Without that intellect, we won't be progressing as a nation, as there will not be the innovation as we see now. We won't have people smart enough to address future problems. Or more correctly we will have some smart enough to recognize the problems, but not smart enough to figure out how to fix it.

Collectivism does not encourage free or critical thinking. It creates a herd mentality that we desperately need to get away from. In other words, you are advocating for is real socialism. We don't need socialism, we need smart intelligent free thinkers to address problems. Socialists have no idea how to fix issues as they are going along to get along for the sake of being inclusive.

Would you rather have the Koch brothers dictate what happens in public schools. The teaching of a collectivist society that benefits ALL is what is needed most these days.

http://www.commondreams.org/views/2014/11/15/koch-brothers-sneak-school

[Ash74]

Better The Koch Brothers than Noam Chomsky, Lets give these kids a chance at being able to think and act for themselves and not just follow The Dear Leader.

How is the Koch Brothers using their money to influence kids any worse than teachers teaching their political agenda on their students?

[socialist]

Better The Koch Brothers than Noam Chomsky, Lets give these kids a chance at being able to think and act for themselves and not just follow The Dear Leader.

How is the Koch Brothers using their money to influence kids any worse than teachers teaching their political agenda on their students?

Because educators are trying to promote a more tolerant, inclusive society that will benefit all humans. Others are using their power to give their rich buddies more control. That's why.

[Hal 9000]

Because educators are trying to promote a more tolerant, inclusive society that will benefit all humans. Others are using their power to give their rich buddies more control. That's why.

Why don't you want teachers to stick to teaching the three "R's"?

It's very concerning that you claim to be a teacher and all you can promote is teaching kids your socialist/marxist agenda. If I found out my kids teacher was promoting marxism, he'd be eating through a staw for a couple months.

[Ash74]

Because educators are trying to promote a more tolerant, inclusive society that will benefit all humans. Others are using their power to give their rich buddies more control. That's why.

In your opinion.

I may not agree with the concept that the teachers are teaching how to be a better human being. What kind of better human being? Based on who's opinon?

Is Fred a better human being because his Father voted NDP?

Is Sally a horriable person because her Mother works at a bank?

At what point do parents take some responsability for the kids they raise?

At the end of the day it is the teachers job to teach skills that will leave them with the ability to make thier own decisions about what kind of person they want to be.