Skip to main content

School Compensation Systems: Salaries vs. Grades

Schools reward their inhabitants in two amazingly different ways: teachers get salaries, and students get grades. Not only are these systems vastly different, but I'm not sure teachers would accept a pay scale that's built like a grading scale, nor would students accept a grading scale that's built like a teacher's pay scale.

The vast majority of schools pay teachers according to a "salary schedule," a rigid, two-dimensional matrix of dollar amounts with credits across the top and experience down the left side. The more credit hours you've earned, and the more years you've taught, then the more you'll make. I don't feel it's a fair system, but it's a system that most teachers will agree to use, putting it ahead of most any other pay system available. It's a simple system, perhaps too simple. Its simplicity allows us to easily print and read the salaries on a sheet of paper, and I think that's one reason we continue to rely on it. Now, forget merit pay for a moment. Suppose we simply wanted to add a third variable to the schedule, such as student count. The number of students you have definitely has a measurable impact in the effort it takes to be an effective teacher. (Certainly an impact comparable to credit hours, for example.) Addition of a third variable would turn the salary schedule into a three-dimensional model, not easily displayed on a piece of paper, and probably requiring the use of an algebraic formula to calculate every teacher's salary. So however incomplete and unfair, teachers opt for the simple and straightforward.

If you put ten teachers in a room and asked each to describe their grading system and practices, I guarantee you'll get ten different descriptions. My goal is to have a grading system that accurately reflects each student's ability and achievement, and I fail at that every single grading period. I always seem to find at least one student for which the numbers just don't reflect my personal feeling of what he/she has learned. As a math teacher, I think I'm especially critical of my grading methods, and thus I've never graded exactly the same two semesters in a row. Teachers are allowed so many choices: grade weighting, extra credit, curving scores (using normal curve or other methods), dropping lowest scores, partial credit, use of "pluses" and "minuses"...the list is considerable. These variables are in addition to the simple idea of being a "tough grader" vs. an "easy grader." Is a "C" average? Should every class have "A" students? How many failing students is too many? Teachers are generally allowed to include any combination of variables, and we expect our students to adapt to each of their teacher's grading systems.

As a teacher, I find it ironic that we resist making our compensation system more complex, yet we subject our students to some of the most esoteric grading rules imaginable. Maybe I'm comparing apples to oranges, but maybe not. If my ideas are valid and the writing of sufficient quality, feel free to compensate me for my efforts. Hmm...should I be simply paid by the word? Or should we develop a multi-variate rubric to assess the quality and effectiveness of the piece across a variety of audiences depending on my grammar, word choice, sentence structure, paragraph organization, and tone?

Comments

  1. What gets lost in your blog is how does this help children?

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

The 15-Year Blogoversary

15 years and 1,213 posts! My first experience with the World Wide Web came in 1995, and by 1997 I had my own web page. The first web authoring tool I remember using was Composer, an HTML editor built into the Netscape Communicator suite. That helped me learn some HTML, and later I used Microsoft Word 97 and then FrontPage 98 and later Macromedia Dreamweaver to design more elaborate pages. Some of my FrontPage-built sites are still on the web. As I learned more about HTML standards and validation I wrote more HTML by hand, but I still wanted a way to make publishing to the web easier.

By 2001 I understood that (a) sites should be updated regularly and (b) FTP'ing sites and pages from my desktop to a server was a bit of a pain. I had heard about some early blogging platforms and chose one, Blogger, to try out. As you can see, I'm still here.
My first post using Blogger came on December 8, 2001. A few months later I paid for Blogger Pro, which offered additional authoring tools, l…

Last.fm and Ten Years of Web 2.0

Ten years ago yesterday I scrobbled my first tracks to last.fm. What's scrobbling? On last.fm, scrobbling refers to automatic music track logging to the internet. For me, uploading a record of my music listening habits was my first real experience with "Web 2.0." Remember Web 2.0? It referred to websites of user-generated content that enabled virtual communities and interoperability. Now such sites are too ubiquitous on the web to warrant a special designation — they're just the web. But that wasn't true in 2006, and even though I'd been putting content on the internet since 1996, at the time it was enough to make me a little nervous. What did these strangers want with my data, and what was in it for me?

Ten years and 24,941 scrobbles later, I have my answer: I have a really cool record of all the music I've listened to the past 10 years! Well, not "all," technically: I've certainly listened to music in places and on devices that didn't …

Why Eleanor Roosevelt Would Have Liked Google+

And why Google+ won't be replacing Twitter or Facebook for most of us anytime soon
"Great minds discuss ideas. Average minds discuss events. Small minds discuss people."
-- Eleanor Roosevelt

I know too much already has been written about Google+ and its place in the world of social networking, but I've recently developed a new perspective which might help some of you who are trying to decide how and when to use Google+ versus Twitter or Facebook.

Eleanor might have said "small minds discuss people," but there's more than one way to discuss people and none of us are consistently small-minded. People are important, and the people who are most important to us are those with which we have mutual friendships or family relationships. This is why Facebook is best at people: it enforces (if we ignore fan pages) a symmetric follower model, ensuring that we are connected to people who want to also be connected to us. Those connections, often with people who we don&…