On 23 Oct, mburson wrote
> To me,employee development planning that serves organizational
> learning requires three critical elements that must work together:
> a) a relationship between employee and supervisor that considers
> learning and development more than once a year (and preferably in
> a way that _isn't_ directly linked to annual performance evaluation);
> b) an understanding on everyone's part of the relationship between
> individual development/learning, and the company's strategic
> direction and business plans; and
> c) an appreciation that individual learning for personal growth AND
> organizational success must encompass a broad range of learning
> possiblities, well beyond what's on the training calendar.
Our challenge is using these principles and concepts in public education!
In educational organizations, we generally have employees who remain in
one district for an entire career. Although evaluated annually,
compensation is traditionally found in the form of a step schedule which
provides the same percentage increase for everyone on the same step
(regardless of perfomance) and additional pay for movement "across" the
schedule for advanced degrees.
Some districts have and are attempting to draft Professional Development
Models which are systemic, dependent on additional learning (collaborative
and individual a.k.a. team learning and personal mastery), and which are
reflective of a models that "grows" great teachers over a career
respecting them as professionals. This latter concept is factored in with
more structured development in the early years, immersion in the
proverbial "big picture" of the organization and education in general
after a few years, and more self-designed initiatives throughout one's
career.
What makes us somewhat difference from other corporations is that we do
have lifetime employees, that we have no measurable product, and our
customers and out product are the same: students! For those thinking the
perspective should be that of service, that is true, too, however our
customers again are unique - no two alike. And unlike medicine and other
individualized services, what works for one does not for another.
The real issue is that teachers argue rightfully so that there is no
objective measure to assess their performance which could be consistent
across 30 schools and hundreds of supervisors with varying degrees of
expertise. And, rightfully so, student achievement over an 8 month period
is neither measurable nor a measure of that teacher's performance.
School districts must pursue means of causing substantive development in
professionals rather than one shot sit and get seminars and disconnected
workshops. The concepts in M.Burson's note are right on target as well as
applying systemic thinking to the challenge.
I would appreciate thoughts on the system and also on the perspective of
those not in education on what you believe public education needs to "do"
as we hear often from our public that they don't understand teacher
compensation, "three months off in the summer" and other factors of
missionary work.
--Jere Hochman jhstl@stl.net
Learning-org -- Hosted by Rick Karash <rkarash@karash.com> Public Dialog on Learning Organizations -- <http://www.learning-org.com>