[roundsquare]

"But besides all that, teaching is a profession that is charged with preparing and educating our youth for tomorrow. Obviously, teachers go into it knowing this, and often for that very reason. But in my eyes, that's quite a responsibility. There are plenty of better paying jobs out there with less vacation that, at the end of the day, don't make much of a difference."

If you ask me, that's all the more reason to increase pay and remove the near absolute job security. (Note: I haven't independently fact checked the job security so if its wrong please let me know). Given how important the job is, doesn't it make sense to align the incentives properly?

For the most part, when I hear people disagree with this, they tend to bring up specific problems with things like No Child Left Behind. Its hard to disagree that using bad techniques to measure teacher performance is a bad idea and I don't have a specific better solution, but I don't think that means we should stop trying.

[timjahn]

I agree that it's a good reason to increase pay and possibly remove job security. And yes, once a teacher is tenured, barring any obvious crazy behavior, they are basically guaranteed their job regardless (at least in Chicagoland).

There are pros and cons to that - my wife and I discuss that subject often. I don't like the idea of tenured teachers not taking that responsibility seriously and just slacking off. My wife argues that it helps the good teachers make real change (since they can't before being tenured for fear of being fired).

No Child Left Behind is a big problem if you talk to any teacher. In my wife's district, they will soon be implementing some incentive based teaching practices, where portions of a teachers pay will be tied directly to student performances. And since all high school teaching is geared toward good ACT scores, it will all basically come down to ACT scores (which it does a lot already).

[pmb]

Do you know of any good techniques to measure teacher performance?