Carla Sarr believes she's a good teacher. She doesn't believe an occasional visit by an evaluator sums up her classroom capabilities.

        Ms. Sarr, a first-year teacher in Cincinnati Public Schools, is one of hundreds of teachers expected to vote against a plan this week that would tie those occasional visits and other evaluations to wages.

HOW IT WORKS

How the teacher evaluation system works    Cincinnati Public Schools teachers are evaluated on 17 standards under a 2-year-old evaluation system.     On Wednesday, members of the Cincinnati Federation of Teachers union will vote on whether to tie that evaluation system to their pay in what would be one of the nation's first pay-for-performance plans for public school teachers. If the pay plan is rejected, teachers will continue to be evaluated but it won't be linked to pay.     Teacher performance is ranked on a 1-4 scale in each of four areas called domains:     • Distinguished (4).     • Proficient (3).     • Basic (2).     • Unsatisfactory (1).     Among the standards, teachers are assessed on how they:     • Create an inclusive and caring environment in which each individual is respected and valued.     • Manage and monitor student behavior to maintain a safe and orderly environment.     • Select or design clearly defined assessments that align with performance standards.     • Demonstrate content knowledge, use content-specific instructional strategies, and correct student errors and misconceptions.     • Engage students in discourse, use thought-provoking questions, and create problem-solving situations to explore and extend content knowledge.     Pay ranges under the current contract, which expires in December, for teachers who have a bachelor's degree (base pay increases with additional degrees, education credits):     • Apprentice: $31,827.     • Novice: $33,948.80-$37,927.18.     • Career: $41,109.88-$52,249.33.     • Advanced: $55,697.25-$58,349.50.     • Accomplished: $63,654-$66,306.25.     — Jennifer Mrozowski

        Wednesday's vote on a new pay system — where Cincinnati Public Schools teachers' salaries would rise and fall based on their evaluations — has national implications.

        If approved, the system would shake up an 80-year tradition of paying teachers based on experience, rather than teacher quality. Only a handful of districts nationwide have done so, and Cincinnati's plan is considered by educators to be the most ambitious.

        Here, district officials say it would mean better instruction and much-needed improvement in student achievement.

        But interviews and feedback from more than 40 Cincinnati teachers revealed mostly apprehension, confusion and distrust for the 2-year-old evaluation system.

        “I feel like the CPS system is designed to catch teachers trying to get away with something,” said Ms. Sarr, an 11th-grade English teacher at Hughes Center. “Most of the teachers I know are working their butts off. I would like it to be about strengthening teachers in our system.”

        Among the complaints:

        • Teachers don't want to be lab rats for what may be the first system in the nation to not only raise, but decrease teachers' pay, if warranted.

        • Information has not been distributed in a timely fashion.

        • It's too early to vote at this point.

        • Many said a requirement calling for a portfolio of students' work, phone calls to parents and written reflections is not a good measurement of exemplary teaching and takes time away from class preparation. Some toiled more than 80 hours on a single portfolio.

        • Teachers question whether the district, in times of budget restraints, will dole out poor evaluations to curb salaries. Of the 369 teachers evaluated last year, 10 qualified for raises exceeding $20,000 each if the pay system were in place.

        If that percentage holds true for the remaining 90 percent of teachers to be evaluated, union officials said, the extra $1 million set aside to fund the pay plan may be used up paying the raises of just 40 teachers.

        District officials have said budget shortfalls will not alter evaluation scores.

        To reject the pay portion of the plan, 70 percent of the district's 3,300 voting union members must oppose it Wednesday.

        In recent polls, the vast majority of teachers say they will vote it down.

        “In theory, I agree with the idea of linking pay to performance,” said Patrick Farrell, a social studies teacher at the Cincinnati Academy of Mathematics and Science located at Jacobs High School in Winton Place.

        “However, it would be foolish of me to accept something that I haven't had a chance to test.”

A climate for reform

        District officials and union members jointly developed the pay evaluation plan to improve teaching in 1998.

        They acknowledge public schools need improvement. Only 57.6 percent of students graduate from high school in this 42,000-student urban district.

        Enhancing teacher quality through the rigorous evaluation system is just one of many reforms in Cincinnati Public Schools. Others include transforming large high schools into smaller, program-focused schools-within-schools.

        “The sole driving factor of (the pay and evaluation plan) is improving student achievement,” said Kathleen Ware, the district's associate superintendent. “We think it's a fair system and just about right. I don't think there's a way to make it simpler and still be fair.”

        Some teachers welcome the system as a way to finally be rewarded for their hard work by paying them for how well they teach instead of how long they've been teaching.

        Lori Cargile, a seventh-grade math teacher at Shroder Paideia who is being evaluated this year, said she will vote for the pay system.

        “It angers me that some people who have been teaching much longer and don't go above and beyond make a lot more just because they have more time on the job,” said Ms. Cargile, a CPS teacher for eight years.

        Ms. Ware said the system — if tied to pay — would allow star teachers to climb to the top of the pay scale much faster.

        Yet the vast majority think the system and its 92-page explanatory booklet are confusing and subjective.

        In the past week, union heads and district officials have blamed each other for the anticipated rejection of the plan.

        In a poll released in July 2001, one-third of the 332 responding teachers who were on the comprehensive evaluation said that they had adequate training on how the pay system works.

        A new phone poll released in April indicated only 9 percent of teachers said they support the plan. Despite modifications in the past year, union leadership recommended that teachers vote against the plan — at least for now.

        One reason: only 369 teachers — less than 10 percent of the teaching staff — have experienced the most rigorous piece of the evaluation process, the “comprehensive evaluation.”

        “CFT supports pay-for-performance, but we're not ready to implement this design,” said Sue Taylor, Cincinnati Federation of Teachers president.

17 standards

        The most rigorous part of the evaluation — the one that would link performance to pay — grades teachers on 17 standards. It's that part of the plan that has caused teachers the most hesitation.

        Requirements include unannounced and announced observations by teacher evaluators and administrators, and the creation of a portfolio with teachers' lesson plans, students' work, documentation of parent visits and phone calls and written self-reflections.

        “If you are doing your job, there's already enough paperwork,” said Jocelynne Jason, an English teacher at Taft High School. “It's just far too complex.”

        Many teachers say the evaluations don't fully reflect teacher quality.

        During a recent visit to Ms. Sarr's classroom, an evaluator walked in unannounced, sat down for nearly an hour and recorded much of what the teacher said and her students did.

        Ms. Sarr said she doesn't know if the evaluator wrote down or knows about her cabinet filled with African-American literature books, which she lends to her predominantly African-American class.

        Or that Ms. Sarr asks her students to bring in their CDs, which she listens to at home so she knows more about her students.

        Or that she compares the latest rap lyrics to abstract poetry, which excites her students about lessons.

        Or that some students eat lunch in her classroom every day, talking with her about everything from nutrition to their personal lives.

        Or that her students say she challenges them.

        While Ms. Sarr said she may one day support pay-for-performance, she said the system hasn't proven itself yet.

        “I felt like they were taking a photograph of a fish tank and saying, "This is what a fish tank is,'” she said. “Well, a fish tank is not a still picture.”

        Neither, she said, is the classroom.

Other pay-for-performance systems 'tepid'

Security scare disrupts airport
Decision near on teacher pay plan
College branches booming
Community center may be coming to Fairfield
New center will engender campus feel for college
Tylersville traffic tie-ups worsen
Arrest may change reputation
Fund-raising scandal case opens
Lebanon praises TEAM
Mediation at middle school done by pupils
Area has anti-terror money
Blunt talk from departing reformer
John L. Henderson announces retirement
KSU president defends travels
Last of soft money gifts coming in
Man accused in police standoff
Ohio joins multistate lottery this week
One dead, one missing in river rafting mishap
Pilarczyk says some abusers can be rehabilitated
State program helps high-schooler get jump on college
Street sees violence more often
Student teaches seldom heard advice: Wait for sex
Woman charged with '99 slaying
BRONSON: Dig it
Some Good News
You Asked For It
Tristate A.M. Report