Sign Up Now
Get instant access to over 1 million+ study documents
OR
Already registered? click here to login
By creating your account, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and student honor code.
Specifically, the Association warns against limits and dangers to academic freedom that could result from post-tenure reviews, and essentially suggests a bevy of alternative options for imposing sanctions and other disciplinary actions rather than resorting to post-tenure review, and that a proper review process can be identified by its lack of intrusion into areas best covered by other processes contractual agreements. It is not surprising that they conclude post-tenure reviews are ineffective when they have removed any effectiveness form their definition of a proper review.
Resolution no. 3/17/96 on post-tenure review: Adoption of Fresno model as baseline. (1996, March 17). CSSA board of directors. Retrieved November 6, 2009, from California State University Website: http://www.csustudents.org/plenary/resolutiondocuments/96-3-17_Post_Tenure.pdf
In this incredibly succinct and straightforward resolution, the California State Student Association lays out their reason for wanting to implement a system-wide post-tenure review process (namely the unmitigated existence of individual unnamed professors who were deemed to be ineffective in the classroom). Their reasoning also includes the stated rules governing...
The system wide implementations of the proposed post-tenure review process is essential to ensure the same quality of instruction at all CSU campuses, the students maintain. Costs associated with this implementation are not addressed.
SACUA. (1998, January 12). Comments by the University of Michigan's president and provost on post-tenure review. Retrieved November 6, 2009, form University of Michigan Website: http://www.umich.edu/~aaupum/leecb.htm
In entirely unequivocal language taken from the approved minutes of two meetings, the President and Provost of the University of Michigan both spoke out against post-tenure review as it is usually understood in the modern context, with President Bollinger asserting that post-tenure review has always existed in the form of consequences for lack of performance. Both felt that the addition of a post-tenure review program to existing performance reviews would be an unnecessary financial burden and an "anti-intellectual" move for the university to make. Concerns regarding lack of performance standards are summarily dismissed.
In this incredibly succinct and straightforward resolution, the California State Student Association lays out their reason for wanting to implement a system-wide post-tenure review process (namely the unmitigated existence of individual unnamed professors who were deemed to be ineffective in the classroom). Their reasoning also includes the stated rules governing professor's performance in relation to academic freedom, and cites the fact that the students' tuition pays the salaries of the professors. The system wide implementations of the proposed post-tenure review process is essential to ensure the same quality of instruction at all CSU campuses, the students maintain. Costs associated with this implementation are not addressed.
SACUA. (1998, January 12). Comments by the University of Michigan's president and provost on post-tenure review. Retrieved November 6, 2009, form University of Michigan Website: http://www.umich.edu/~aaupum/leecb.htm
In entirely unequivocal language taken from the approved minutes of two meetings, the President and Provost of the University of Michigan both spoke out against post-tenure review as it is usually understood in the modern context, with President Bollinger asserting that post-tenure review has always existed in the form of consequences for lack of performance. Both felt that the addition of a post-tenure review program to existing performance reviews would be an unnecessary financial burden and an "anti-intellectual" move for the university to make. Concerns regarding lack of performance standards are summarily dismissed.
Pay for performance is becoming commonplace in the business world. Pay raises and bonuses are often based on how well one performs on the job or on achieving specific results. However, this is not the case in education. Pay levels are typically based on years of experience and levels of education rather than on teacher effectiveness. As concerns about the quality of the nation's educational systems frequently appear in the
Plus most teachers saw the pay for performance system as inevitable, and therefore wanted to be involved from the start of the plan (Gratz, 2005). The pilot faced many challenges. Not the least, the district was faced with the logistical challenge of linking the students in various databases to the teachers. The internal systems for tracking student progress by teacher simply didn't exist. In addition, non-academic staff members had to
The system must measure true performance in a way that minimizes random variation, as well as undesired and unintended consequences. It must align performance with ultimate outcomes and monitor performance to discourage cheating" (p. 88). In fact, Lavy suggests that any initial incentive pay program implementation will likely be flawed in some ways, but gradual progress in achieving a viable program is possible if the foregoing considerations are taken
A detailed description and origins of pay for performance Pay-for-performance initiatives are designed to improve the efficiency, quality and general value of health care. Other terms used to refer to pay-for-performance include pay-for-quality, alternative payment, valued-based payment, among others. No matter the nomenclature, the main objective of pay-for-performance is to improve efficiency for optimal outcomes. (Rosenthal et al., 2005) During the early 1990s, many consumers opted for managed care by paying some
, 2001). Prior to 1930, thought, little attention was given to pay-for-performance in the public sector in the United States except for the blue-collar, manufacturing functions that were being primarily performed for the military. During this period in American history, government was viewed (and perhaps still is by many) as a competitive threat to private enterprise; as a result, there was not much public support for developing a highly motivated and
Pay for Performance Plan Designing a pay for performance plan for teachers is inherently challenging. The outputs for teachers are students, and their educational attainment. It is difficult to quantify educational attainment at the best of times, and because each student is different it can be difficult to specifically identify the role that an individual teacher has on aggregate student performance. The three elements of an effective pay-for-performance plan are efficiency,