Uh oh: looks like I'd better keep working out... and buy some neckties that match!
Daniel Hamermesh, an economist at the University of Texas-Austin, has conducted a series of studies on the role that appearance plays in the workplace. He found that better-looking men and women get paid more than average-looking men and women of similar education and experience ("Linjustice," The New Yorker, Mar. 5). To add insult to injury, taller people also get paid more on average.
Readers will probably think that this tendency does not apply to education. But they would be wrong. Hamermesh also found that good-looking college professors received significantly higher teaching scores than their less attractive colleagues ("Economic Scene; A beautiful mind is not enough when it comes to evaluating teachers," The New York Times, Aug. 28, 2003). Curiously, good looks played a significantly more important role in rating men than women. Why would teachers in K-12 be immune to this halo effect? I think that evaluators are unconsciously influenced by good looks, despite the existence of checklists. I'm not saying they can't be trained to minimize or eliminate this bias. But it's all too easy to associate good looks with instructional competencies [Walt Gardner, "Do Good Looks Affect Teacher Ratings?" Education Week: Reality Check, 2012.03.05].
The original study Gardner cites dealt with teacher evaluations written by undergraduates, not professional public school administrators. So if teacher merit pay kicks in, maybe there's some hope for the ugly among us.
But salary schedules based on objective criteria like credit hours and years of service exist for a reason. When teachers can get better scores just because of genetics and fashion sense, how well do such evaluations measure actual merit?
Shaving might help too.
Hey, I resemble that remark.
A better question, why should teachers be exempt from the short ugly prejudice while the private sector isn't? And second, is there statistics that show teachers are disproportionately short and ugly versus the population?
Another story that demonstrates what arbitrary, unreliable, and specious criteria are involved in the current evaluation-of-teachers fad is this one about a teacher who was praised as a model of classroom performance and then fired: http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/education/creative--motivating-and-fired/2012/02/04/gIQAwzZpvR_story.html?hpid=z5
I am among those who think that most students can perform competently if they want to and take advantage of the instruction offered them. However, most teachers who have presided over actual classrooms for a time will have a story about the class from hell in which recalcitrance and prideful stupidity tended to rule. There is a scientific cause-effect relationship on what governs student interest and will that has not been discussed in this matter of teaching effectiveness. I recall when a teacher from one of the educational battle zones was asked how he assessed his own performance each day: he said that if every student left his class alive and uninjured, he had put in a successful day.
Steve,
There are two bigger questions.
1. Why is it okay in any setting to discriminate against us ugly folk. I do include myself in that number. We didn't select our gene pool.
2. Why is it the short and ugly who take the double hit? When one is tall and ugly, there's so much more ugly to go around.
A socialist governmental policy will fix the problem, but create an even bigger injustice...paying sluggards the same as teachers of the year. And are teachers of the year predominately tall and good-looking?
LK, the research fails to address the question of whether teachers who can look downright intimidating can also get better evaluations. There's still some hope for us! >-)
Steve, dang it, where are the sluggards?! I want a census!
The ratings referenced were done by students and not trained administrators.
There are examples in the private sector where highly rated employees were ultimately fired. In some cases it was the performance changed and other cases the evaluation was incorrect. Nothing is perfect. Are we really advocating because nothing is perfect we can do nothing?
In some cases a teacher which just survives the "class from Hades" deserves a bonus while a teacher who had the "class from Heaven" deserves nothing, and vice versa. A manager who can't discern what is appropriate is an indictment of the manager and not the merits of the evaluation.
At the end of the day, as much as I try to consider non-support for the concept, I hear the following objections which I don't accept as fundamental against the concept.
1) Harms collaboration and cooperation. Are teachers really that petty? I don't believe it and won't accept it.
2) The criteria for the bonus is flawed (reliance on testing). I concede this to a point. Introduction of bonus plans begin with a reliance on the objective and this is less than ideal. But, in relatively short order they move to the subjective which discerns situations. It is the natural process and should not preclude the use of bonus' because of the need for the transition.
3) A lack of confidence our administrators are capable of fairly performing the evaluations. First, when it starts, it is essentially objective so discretion is minimal so this argument is weak. Second, if the administrators can't perform subjective evaluations fairly it is an indictment of managers and not a reason to not have evaluations. Teachers deserve evaluations. In fact, this is an opportunity to improve our managers either by replacing them or giving them the skills to do what teachers deserve.
Looks cover up many flaws. Anyone who has had an attractive teacher knows that. They are so much easier to look past the flaws if they just smile nice a few times or wink. It's a lot like politics in SD.
Fortunately the looks will fade and we will see who the best are.
Troy,
At the end of the day, I keep asking for the following.
Where is the specific proof that merit pay limited to only 20% of the eligible pool works? I have seen none and don't believe that people will be motivated by a 1/5 chance to get the bonus.
Where is the proof that STEM is more important than the humanities or that South Dakota has a huge shortage of STEM teachers?
Why has no one given cogent explanation of why those currently teaching STEM classes are guaranteed a raise no matter their proficiency? The Governor likes STEM is not really a good reason.
You write, “Introduction of bonus plans begin with a reliance on the objective and this is less than ideal. But, in relatively short order they move to the subjective which discerns situations.†Where does the law allow for that change? The policies being discussed indicate that the same 20% who receive the bonus year one should receive the bonus year two and year three . . . .
The Governor’s bill is an insult to every teacher in every classroom in South Dakota and no amount of rationalizing changes that fact.
"where are the sluggards"
I remember one of my high school teachers would make the students buy workbooks, then make us rip out the questions at the end of each chapter, and then use them as tests so he would not have to create tests himself. It was a "self-study" class. Should he get paid the same as teachers of the year?
Yes, yes, yes, we can all tell stories about that one teacher who torqued us off. We can also tell stories about the teachers who made a difference by busting their chops for us. The problem is that no one is quantifying this rhetoric to justify major policy changes.
And is that teacher teaching now, Steve? How many are there like him?
And was he good-looking?
Good questions LK:
1) 20% is arbitrary. It could be a bit lower or higher. It is probably mostly limited to dollars available. Excellence by definition is select (I think anything over 25% too high.
2) Pay differential has two components: "Value" and "supply". There is numerous evidence of math/science shortage and excess in other disciplines. As a nation and a state, it is imperative we divert aspiring teachers into STEM. Pay differential is normative way to do this. Both Obama and Bush referenced this problem (estimated to a shortage of 280,000 by 2015). Part of the problem is there is a STEM retention problem because private sector options for STEM teachers are greater and for greater pay. I think the inference the proposal for pay differential is about "value" is wrong. It is supply problem. Do you know how many federal STEM proposals Obama is supporting (more loan forgiveness, easing regs for transitioning non-traditional potential teachers into STEM (eg troops to teachers)? Maybe it is all an over-reaction and will require a future pendulum swing. I don't know. All I know is virtually universally there is a shortage of STEM teachers with projections for it to get worse.
The reason for the pay increase for STEM exclusively is related solely to the supply problem. A business with a shortage of welders adjusts pay to attract more welders.
The law doesn't provide for moving to the subjective from the objective. This is an example of an issue (which there are many) which will continually be reviewed by the Governor/Legislature. Would you prefer the flexibility be written into the bill and reside with the Department of Education? I would but somehow I think there would be even more opposition.
Finally, I'm sorry you believe a discussion to improve education, address a STEM shortage, pay for performance, etc. insults you. As a parent of an aspiring (non-STEM) teacher, nothing I say is intended to result and I see nothing in the Governor's proposal with that intent.
"There is no great invention, from fire to flying, which has not been hailed as an insult to some god." (John B. S. Haldane-19th century British scientist)
Troy, it's not the discussion that insults us. It's the fact that when we join the discussion with evidence showing that specific policies don't work, that evidence is ignored, our professional expertise dismissed, and those bad policies enacted.
And are you really saying that one solution to the lack of STEM teachers is to hire less-qualified, less-prepared STEM teachers? Whither Finland....
"And is that teacher teaching now, Steve? How many are there like him?
And was he good-looking?"
No, the teacher is retired early receiving a huge pension. The number of sluggards is not the point. It is an injustice to hard-working teachers of the year. And Cory, just how do we determing "Teachers of the Year".
Good-looking and tall, perhaps that is why the sluggard stayed on. Perhpas only the short and/or ugly sluggards are terminated.
Cory,
I've read your "evidence" and I've written on here why it is flawed and thus I find it rational to not give it credence.
Regarding being at the table, you rejected the proposals out of hand. Do we have to agree with you for you consider being at the table? Kinda narrow of you.
Regarding your "expertise," the demand we agree with you also says we have no stake in this and our views are to be ignored. The reality is there is a growing dissatisfaction with performance of our education. For most of my life I've been told (despite being a son of a teacher, student, parent of students, and parent of an aspiring teacher) to leave it to the "experts." Maybe after years of being told by the "experts" not to worry our pretty little head, we've just decided to stand up to the "experts."
Regarding your last statement, where would you get that? I want to improve the pool of qualified STEM teachers.
No, Steve, the number of sluggards is the point when you keep bringing up slaggardry as a justification for policy action. Show me numbers. Show me singificance. Show me harms. Then I'll consider letting the machinery of state roll into action on a solution. Until then, your conservatism should say, "Whoa, Nelly."
Troy: I'm looking at your statement where you say we could consider easing the regs for transitioning non-traditional teachers into STEM. Does that mean easing the requirements for training to become a teacher?
...and I rejected the proposals up front in the State of the State. I studied them as they evolved into the bill forms. I read evidence, heard the voters around me, still found the proposals wanting, and continue to reject the proposals. And the evidence is still on my side. More importantly, the Governor's plan has no evidence. His proponents couldn't cite any. The Harvard study was debunked. Even if my evidence sucks, the Governor hasn't presented any affirmative evidence to make the prima facie case for his bill.
No, I'm talking about Obama's "Troops to teachers" initiative. It gives weight to their superior math skills vs. having a full education college curriculum. I admit I was skeptical about it until I found out many of O'Gorman's theology teachers (exempt from having an education degree because of their theology expertise) are assisted by mentors with lesson planning and a lack of student teaching experience and it is a raging success.
Regarding your opposition, I've done the same thing from my perspective and we must agree to disagree.
Troy,
A few points in reply
Starting at the bottom. I never claimed to be a god, and this bill is hardly great invention. In general, I try to remember that most slights spring from ignorance not malice. I have seen nothing to disabuse me of the notion that the Governor is using this legislation to weaken a political foe, so I'm not giving him the benefit of the doubt here.
The discussion doesn't insult me. The imposition of this particular law without input from any educators insults me.
As for the rest, we will continue to disagree. I will do my best to be agreeable while doing so.
I didn't infer you were a god. Sorry I can see how you got that. I was referencing it to be "sacred cow" views, eg merit pay can't work in education.
Regarding your comment slights spring from ignorance and not malice, yet you question the Governor's motives.
I try to be agreeable too. I know I fail. And usually it is typing faster than considering the unintentional connotations.
Cory, there is no statistic on sluggards. There are Teachers of the Year and you have yet to answer how are those determined.
Steve, I don't know. We voted for our in-house teacher of the year. I assume those nominations go to some other level. If I had a photo directory of Teachers of the Year, I suppose I could convene a focus group to look through those photos and the photos of a random sample of all teachers and offer comparative "Hot for Teacher" ratings.
But it doesn't matter. "Teacher of the Year" is an award with little if any policy impact. Governor Daugaard is proposing the use of a flawed measurement tool as the basis of statewide policy and fiscal decisions.
And the fact that there are no stats on "sluggard" teachers is why you constant recitation of that baseless charge is improper in our debate on education policy.
There are no stats, but I know they are there...I just gave one one example.
So Teacher of the Year awards are without merit?
I would welcome you to try to find an example of a Teacher of the Year who lacks merit. I do not know what standardized process, if any, exists for picking "Teachers of the Year" at district, state, and national levels. But I'm willing to wager that, if as in Spearfish, such awards are given based on the votes of ones peers, it is unlikely your bogeyman sluggards will be so recognized.
Hey Troy, I appreciate you adding your point of view to the discussion. Too often we don't open our minds to the bigger picture. I may not always agree with Cory or yourself, but I enjoy the debate.
Troy,
"Regarding your comment slights spring from ignorance and not malice, yet you question the Governor’s motives."
Yes I do. If pushed, I will even admit to having the same unreasoning dislike of the man and his policies that many Republicans had for Clinton or have for Obama.
From my point of view, he epitomizes Machiavellian politics at their worst. He doesn't have any redeeming virtues; he only appears to have them.
Like Mr. Black, I do appreciate your presence here and I generally enjoy our discussions. I too frequently type faster than I think.
Sibson, this is one of the funniest things you've ever written . I LOLed!!
"A better question, why should teachers be exempt from the short ugly prejudice while the private sector isn’t? And second, is there statistics that show teachers are disproportionately short and ugly versus the population?"
If short and ugly is an issue, why isn't Danny DeVito hiding under a rock somewhere?!
(I think he's funny, and man! Is he uuuuuugly!)