Colorado Teacher Saleries

Most states currently use an experience and education "step" system to determine teacher salery. So, if you are a new teacher you might make $25, 000 in year one; in year two you might go up to $26,000. Additionally, different levels of education have different staircases. Basically, you are paid based on experience and education level. Unless someone really messes up, most teachers are garuanteed to move up the steps of their staircase w/o obstical. Colorado, however, just passed an annual tax increase that changes the way teacher's are paid. Now in Colorado, teacher's saleries are based on student preformance. Teachers are also given salery incentives to teach in poorer areas, are evaluated by their principals, and education and experience still come into the mix -with more emphasis on education level than experience. read here.

So, which is better? Well, at first glance the Colorado system seems pretty cool. Other job saleries are preformance based, so why not teaching? The answer is - it should be, but.... It should be based on the teacher's preformance: Is she engaging her students? Is she furthering her knowlege through practical education? And, yes, are her students learning? ...but I disagree that how good a teacher is can be measured by a standerdized test scores.

This system will put too much emphasis on the bottom line, and that doesn't work with education. Measurement is done using standradized test scores. In my opinion, too much emphasis is already being put on standradized tests. I do not think they accurately measure learning, but only measure test taking ability. When used correctly, as one of many measurement tools to get a larger picture, they are fine. It is when they become the classrom (thank you NCLB) that they become an impedement to learning. With learning, how you get to the answer is as important, if not more, than the answer you get -this is something that the standardized test proponants don't seem to understand.

Additionally, even if taught by the same teacher, not all children will preform the same. Not all test takers are at the same starting point and so cannot and should not be at the same ending point by the end of the year. Examples: students with disabilities, low economic students, at risk students. Note: The incentive for teaching in a poorer area is $1000 annually. For the sake of arugument, let's say saleries have the can go up $1000/year if achievement is met. Basically, teachers in the at risk areas are given one freebie year to catch their kids up, but after that there is no real incentive. If their classrooms continue not to "acheive," the teacher saleries will lag behind those in non-at-risk areas. That being the case, who will want to teach those kids? Even fewer than those who do now.

No doubt the current system has pitfalls. For instance, you may have a teacher who has been around for ever, but is doing a medocre job or "phoning it in," but is collecting big bucks. Meanwhile, you might have a fresh young teacher who is full of energy and ideas that she can implement in the classroom. Even with these pitfalls, however, I still think this system is better than Colorado's new system.

What do you think?

This blog brought to you by "Thougtful Thursdays"