I don't really have an issue with the basic concept but I don't see how it could be implemented in any reasonable way. Is there going to be a base salary and then tiers of bonuses?
How exactly is the math teacher with a class of 20 AP calc students going to be judged against the SPED teacher who is teaching the severely handicapped kids how to feed themselves? Neither are going to have any improvement whatsoever on the standardized tests (they don't include calc).
How are you going to compare the one biology teacher that teaches the 4 AP biology classes to the three that teach 9th grade biology all day long?
Will this make more competition within schools for classes that are seen as easy to teach?
I do worry that it will also create a financial incentive to focus on some students and not others. Especially if outliers are ignored why would a teacher bother with kids at either end of the spectrum if they are alone there.
The study doesn't address any of these, as they would only show up after the teachers learned the ins and outs of the system.
That was my point. The study did some nice groundwork but I don't see any convincing evidence that long term pay for performance will improve our schools.
I don't know what the answer is, but this doesn't seem like a long term one.
Kistra on
Animal Crossing: City Folk Lissa in Filmore 3179-9580-0076
What is the ostensible point of tenure? Is there another profession with a comparable mechanism, whereby you effectively hit a point where it's almost impossible to fire you?
Academic tenure is primarily intended to guarantee the right to academic freedom: it protects teachers and researchers when they dissent from prevailing opinion ...
So, once they have proven that they can do their jobs, they have more freedom to question the ways their institute does things, basically.
I think it's to promote academic freedom - professors can say what they want without having to worry about losing their jobs if what they have to say is unpopular or unfavourable.
Will this make more competition within schools for classes that are seen as easy to teach?
I mean, this is my theoretical opposition. There are already tons of reasons why a teaching position in a well-funded and high-income district is generally a "better" position than the same grade and subject at an urban, struggling school. This just seems to support such a position, practically.
And, on top of that, I don't understand where we get this idea that teachers need reasons to work harder and get better results. I've learned very quickly in my 18 months working with some of the largest financial, for-profit mortgage companies that people suck at their jobs regardless of if they're working for the government or Wells Fargo.
Do realize that this isn't necessarily about making current teachers better. The ideal scenario is to create a market that attracts the good teachers to do the jobs. This does not mean you need standardized pay across the bloody board. (It is amusing that the people against standardized tests seem ok with standardized pay.)
If that's the case, then we need to compete with the private market. Believe me, you aren't going to beat what corporations can pay.
Instead, teaching is a profession that offers security. The choice is much more rational between a high salary, but little security, or a lower salary with. Eliminating protections would eliminate the benefit of accepting the lower salary. This is much more of a problem for the sciences than the humanities.
And I don't believe in "standardized pay" or "standardized tests".
I also think that it's theoretically possible to implement a completely free market health care system that works. But because of where the system currently is and because of certain political realities, I know that it'll never happen. Thus, fuck it, gimme UHC.
Similarly here - what is theoretically possible is not necessarily the same as what is functionally possible, and so we need to be careful.
Except I don't think there have been any studies that showed the effectiveness of a well crafted free market health care system across 300 sites. This isn't even theoretically possible, it was possible. The incentive program was implemented and run over two years and is ongoing. Granted policial realities in the US could make implementing a good system difficult, but a lot of that political reality is reinforced by the union. So I don't get the support of them.
And even a flawed system (any realistic UHC system in the US) is better than the status quo (our crappy combination of Medicare and god awful private insurance). I'd contend it is the same for performance pay. Even a system with somewhat flawed incentives and implementation would be better than the horridness that is the current structure. And the teacher's union in this case is akin to the private insurance companies in the health care debate. All they seemingly want is to retain their control over the state of education to lock in their (and by that I mean the union's powerful constituents and not teachers as a whole) cut of the pie.
I don't really have an issue with the basic concept but I don't see how it could be implemented in any reasonable way. Is there going to be a base salary and then tiers of bonuses?
How exactly is the math teacher with a class of 20 AP calc students going to be judged against the SPED teacher who is teaching the severely handicapped kids how to feed themselves? Neither are going to have any improvement whatsoever on the standardized tests (they don't include calc).
How are you going to compare the one biology teacher that teaches the 4 AP biology classes to the three that teach 9th grade biology all day long?
Will this make more competition within schools for classes that are seen as easy to teach?
I do worry that it will also create a financial incentive to focus on some students and not others. Especially if outliers are ignored why would a teacher bother with kids at either end of the spectrum if they are alone there.
The study doesn't address any of these, as they would only show up after the teachers learned the ins and outs of the system.
That was my point. The study did some nice groundwork but I don't see any convincing evidence that long term pay for performance will improve our schools.
I don't know what the answer is, but this doesn't seem like a long term one.
The study specifically put performance based pay against several other types of pay, and saw a significant effect. At worst, what you are pointing out would require constant changes to the testing procedures. Possibly add some sort of a random attribute to when and how people are tested.
More than that, it will require long term evaluation to see if it would be viable. The study has proven that it is viable in the short run, and now you are claiming it is a bad idea because there is no way it could be viable in the long run. We could easily find out by performing a longer study.
Maybe rather than rewarding teachers with the right to have an opinion once they have put in X number of years, we should revamp the system such that they're allowed to have an opinion from the outset?
I mean, I imagine that the practical upshot of tenure is that teachers are allowed to experiment and teach in unconventional ways without fear of being fired. Well, if their methods are effective, they should be left alone to keep doing what they're doing regardless of how long they've been there. And if their methods are shit, they shouldn't get a pass just because they've been there 20 years, right?
Tenure seems to be the result of a system in which the de facto mindset is "Fuck you, teachers, just sit down and shut up and follow the book." If we could get rid of that mindset, we wouldn't need tenure anymore, right?
ElJeffe on
I submitted an entry to Lego Ideas, and if 10,000 people support me, it'll be turned into an actual Lego set!If you'd like to see and support my submission, follow this link.
Tenure seems to be the result of a system in which the de facto mindset is "Fuck you, teachers, just sit down and shut up and follow the book." If we could get rid of that mindset, we wouldn't need tenure anymore, right?
Sure. But, good luck getting rid of that mindset.
The notion of "academic freedom" is, at this point, absurd to the point of being simply laughable.
Edit: The main problem is that "academic freedom" truly does not exist. For fuck's sake there are biology teachers who either have to teach creationism or cannot teach evolutionary theory. Because, sure, they won't fire you, but they can defund your department.
Maybe rather than rewarding teachers with the right to have an opinion once they have put in X number of years, we should revamp the system such that they're allowed to have an opinion from the outset?
I mean, I imagine that the practical upshot of tenure is that teachers are allowed to experiment and teach in unconventional ways without fear of being fired. Well, if their methods are effective, they should be left alone to keep doing what they're doing regardless of how long they've been there. And if their methods are shit, they shouldn't get a pass just because they've been there 20 years, right?
Tenure seems to be the result of a system in which the de facto mindset is "Fuck you, teachers, just sit down and shut up and follow the book." If we could get rid of that mindset, we wouldn't need tenure anymore, right?
I think the historical source of it is from people in earlier times within the liberal arts needing it as a hedge against challenging the societal norms at a time when such a thing was more dangerous. Now? It is basically a perk for playing politics long enough. There is little reason for an engineering professor for example to have tenure. What exactly is he going to say that needs that level of protection? Even in liberal arts, our society more or less expects professors to say outlandish things occasionally, so there doesn't seem to be a pressing need to protect them at the cost of introducing perverse incentives with regards to teaching quality.
And yeah, they don't work at the level of government funded public education because the local level will just override tenure provisions with their own requirements, making its existence more or less moot except as a way to give older teachers disproportionate rewards.
I have two real problem with incentivizing pay for teachers.
1) It assumes that teachers bear responsibility for everything that happens affecting a student's ability to learn. I'm sorry, but a child who becomes homeless and lioves with five different relatives during the school year because their alcoholic and abusive father can't hold down a job won't do as well in school regardless of how good or bad the teacher's methods are. Obviously, these kinds of problems will plague low income areas to a larger degree - imposing economic incentives that further decrease the supply of talented teachers where they're most needed.
How many times does this need to be addressed. No, it does not. You can measure relative gains and add in mitigating factors when assigning the final raise. Believe it or not, systems exist other than those that just by strict and absolute results on a nationwide standardized test.
Yes, actually it DOES even within districts. If you break the distribution down the level where you can be sure you're evenly distributed students with this issues - which is exactly what it would take to remove the influence they have one scoring - you've put the political power to reward particular teachers via class composition in the hands of local level officials who can easily abuse it. You can not both remove the distribution problem and retain an inherrently ubiased system. More importantly, this is an awknowlegement that teachers do not have full control over whether or not a student learns the material regardless of how well they present it; do you insert a control factor for whether or not the student participates in after school tutoring? How large of a factor is it? Is the impact scalled for the efficacy of local programs or based on a national average? How to you measure the adjustment for the local system without biasing it or incurring a huge cost for anunbiased national observer? Etc. This discussion would happen for every single externality that the teacher doesn't control and, in the end, there's a lot of reason to believe that these external factors exert a MASSIVE ammount of influence over education outcomes (parental educational attainement is the most predictive of student success, FYI). Isolating 'what the teacher is responsible for' from all this noise is something I have basically no confidence that any system of incentiviation that could actually get implemented will be able to accomplish.
2) However you structure the incentive system, based on increase in average score or total passing students etc, you create an economic incentive to tailor your teaching to one group of students over another - either those who are close to acheiving the target score or those at the bottom with the greatest gains to make. In each case, the students at the top get ignored - they'll pass either way and have little room to increase their scores, making teaching to their needs unlikely to increase your paycheck. Either the lowest or middle group will get the additional attention.
The horror, teachers might focus more efforts on underperforming students. That is seriously counted as a disadvantage for you? You can always split off truly gifted children and special needs (just like they already do) to obtain more equitable ability distributions inside of a given classroom. Which is fine. At any rate, adding an incentive to focus on underperformers is far better than a focus on getting a Master's and offering no incentive to actually apply it, or just rewarding time spent on the job.
So you're fine with rewarding teaching one group of students and essentially ignoring others? Additional supports for stuggling students are ESSENTIAL. Incentivizing extra attention for these kids at the expense of other groups? Not so much. Again, the problem here isn't lack of teacher motivation. I've know a lot of teachers, and a grand total of none of them got there masters so they could sit on their ass and pretend to teach because it was a cushy gig.
Philisophically, even if I didn't think it would deemphasize entire blocks of students and disproportionately impact poor school districts, I don't think the problems in the educational system arise from unmotivated, lazy teachers who require incentive to do their job right. People don't become teachers for the big payday anway, they're already there because they find what they do important and rewarding enough that they'll do it in spite of a low salary.
Their salaries in aggregate aren't all that low, even accounting for educational requirements and time spent working. And no, they certainly aren't the only input into education, but they dare undoubtably an input. And the study shows that adding performance pay increases the educational output of their students. You don't need to be lazy or extremely hard working to respond to well crafted incentives.
[/quote]
Not that low compared to the average, but definitely lower than other fields requiring equal amounts of education. If you think people don't take a huge income hit to go into teaching over other alternatives you're kidding yourself, especially in poor districts. Obviously, part of this this is because they're only getting paid for working 10 months a year.
Incentivized pay is dang hard to get right in any job that doesn't create profit directly, and in this case I just think the problems in education are more in the vast innequity and disproportionate effect of the externalities than in the miniscule number of lazy teachers skating by not caring what happens to the kids in their classroom.
Even in liberal arts, our society more or less expects professors to say outlandish things occasionally, so there doesn't seem to be a pressing need to protect them at the cost of introducing perverse incentives with regards to teaching quality.
Where the fuck are you living?
Do you know how much fucking tip-toeing and pussyfooting I had to do when I talked about the command theory of ethics in class? I pretty much couldn't say "god", in an ethics class, discussing the command theory, in 2009.
Where the fuck do you live where people are so open minded as to not be offended by liberal arts?
I'd just like to chime in on the issue of measuring performance based on test scores with the understanding that there are many difficulties with this method including the previously mentioned low performing environments (do you pay based on increases?) etc.
What I take issue with is the most common complaint regarding using test scores to judge teachers, teaching to the test. What problem could be easier to solve? Don't tell the teachers what's on the test. Don't give them practice tests.
My favorite professors are the ones which, when asked (as they always are), "will this be on the test" or "will the final be comprehensive" answer, "Everything is on the test. Learn all of it."
If we inform teachers that their students will be tested on their understanding of multiplication, but not the form that the questions will take, how can the teacher teach to the test? Obviously a test like this may be more expensive to grade (requiring multiple graders perhaps), but if that's the issue, we should talk about that.
Incentivized pay is dang hard to get right in any job that doesn't create profit directly, and in this case I just think the problems in education are more in the vast innequity and disproportionate effect of the externalities than in the miniscule number of lazy teachers skating by not caring what happens to the kids in their classroom.
And yet the study showed that implementing a performance pay system for teachers increased student acheivement in a socio-economically diverse area of India. I'm comfortable with just netting a cost-effective increase in educational attainment while we wrangle with the other factors effecting performance. Marginal improvements are still improvements.
Even in liberal arts, our society more or less expects professors to say outlandish things occasionally, so there doesn't seem to be a pressing need to protect them at the cost of introducing perverse incentives with regards to teaching quality.
Where the fuck are you living?
Do you know how much fucking tip-toeing and pussyfooting I had to do when I talked about the command theory of ethics in class? I pretty much couldn't say "god", in an ethics class, discussing the command theory, in 2009.
Where the fuck do you live where people are so open minded as to not be offended by liberal arts?
I went to school in Iowa and Nebraska. And people can be offended without professors being in any real danger of losing their jobs. I've had professors ramble on about topics potentially offensive to someone and never really seen anyone raise so much as an eyebrow as a result. I mean, there might be some people removed from positions or forced to move to areas more aligned with their world view, but I don't really think the risk of that is greater than the risk of removing the incentive to apply yourself in teaching.
If we inform teachers that their students will be tested on their understanding of multiplication, but not the form that the questions will take, how can the teacher teach to the test? Obviously a test like this may be more expensive to grade (requiring multiple graders perhaps), but if that's the issue, we should talk about that.
The problem is that you are still operating on a model wherein students are regurgitation machines rather than entities whose task is to learn.
There is more to learning than simply spitting back "correct" answers.
If we inform teachers that their students will be tested on their understanding of multiplication, but not the form that the questions will take, how can the teacher teach to the test? Obviously a test like this may be more expensive to grade (requiring multiple graders perhaps), but if that's the issue, we should talk about that.
The problem is that you are still operating on a model wherein students are regurgitation machines rather than entities whose task is to learn.
There is more to learning than simply spitting back "correct" answers.
You do realize this isn't a complaint, right? If we get people to the point that they can successfully regurgitate information, then we can later show them the significance of said information. If they can't even retain the information (which is what we have right now), how is that any better?
If we inform teachers that their students will be tested on their understanding of multiplication, but not the form that the questions will take, how can the teacher teach to the test? Obviously a test like this may be more expensive to grade (requiring multiple graders perhaps), but if that's the issue, we should talk about that.
The problem is that you are still operating on a model wherein students are regurgitation machines rather than entities whose task is to learn.
There is more to learning than simply spitting back "correct" answers.
What I'm saying is that if the teacher is required to teach students to understand the subject, then they will be required to treat the students like humans that have capacity for understanding, and not tape recorders. I don't think it would be terribly difficult to design tests that measure understanding rather than rote memorization (though again, they would be more expensive to grade/administer).
Incentivized pay is dang hard to get right in any job that doesn't create profit directly, and in this case I just think the problems in education are more in the vast innequity and disproportionate effect of the externalities than in the miniscule number of lazy teachers skating by not caring what happens to the kids in their classroom.
Let's just try to agree here that just because a teacher gets tenure doesn't mean that they can suddenly stop teaching or cease in their duties. There are consequences to actions. The number of "bad" teachers out there isn't overwhelming, and it generally doesn't cause a drop in "performance".
I mean, there was a teacher at my partner's school who was found to have basically made up his grades. He had tenure, but boy did they make his life hell over this. The administration immediately took action and he no longer teaches at the school, the union was involved and they supported the actions taken by the administration.
I believe that tenure isn't just "immunity", there are certain requirements on the teacher's side that need to be met. If a teacher isn't doing their job, tenure doesn't get in the way. Honestly, the only place I've routinely seen the quality of education go down is in a teacher's last year before retirement. Damn, those teachers hardly do anything. We should take away retirement to prevent this.
If we get people to the point that they can successfully regurgitate information, then we can later show them the significance of said information.
As far as I can tell, in my own experience, you are incorrect in this. When students operate with the mentality that they are regurgitation machines they become unable to to not be regurgitation machines.
Or, rather, the "regurgitation machine" model has to be untaught to get a student to actually learn. Students cannot go from "memorize this" to "ok, think".
That is, of course, within the educational system of the united states wherein students are taught to be regurgitation machines from Kindergarten up.
When would you propose that we begin to teach students the significance of the information?
I don't think it would be terribly difficult to design tests that measure understanding rather than rote memorization (though again, they would be more expensive to grade/administer).
Granted, but that would require a far different educational system.
For example, in the world you propose there would have never been scantron tests, ever.
Edit: This would entail math classes which had essay questions, for example. Do not simply utilize the formula memorized, explain how the formula came to be and why.
That's a world in which I would want to teach; that is not the world we have.
Incentivized pay is dang hard to get right in any job that doesn't create profit directly, and in this case I just think the problems in education are more in the vast innequity and disproportionate effect of the externalities than in the miniscule number of lazy teachers skating by not caring what happens to the kids in their classroom.
Let's just try to agree here that just because a teacher gets tenure doesn't mean that they can suddenly stop teaching or cease in their duties. There are consequences to actions. The number of "bad" teachers out there isn't overwhelming, and it generally doesn't cause a drop in "performance".
I mean, there was a teacher at my partner's school who was found to have basically made up his grades. He had tenure, but boy did they make his life hell over this. The administration immediately took action and he no longer teaches at the school, the union was involved and they supported the actions taken by the administration.
I believe that tenure isn't just "immunity", there are certain requirements on the teacher's side that need to be met. If a teacher isn't doing their job, tenure doesn't get in the way. Honestly, the only place I've routinely seen the quality of education go down is in a teacher's last year before retirement. Damn, those teachers hardly do anything. We should take away retirement to prevent this.
If we're going to go by anecdotal evidence... the teacher I had who would sit in front of the class drunk and physically hurt students took 10 years to remove. My brother had to testify in the court case that she lost before she was even put on academic leave.
If we get people to the point that they can successfully regurgitate information, then we can later show them the significance of said information.
As far as I can tell, in my own experience, you are incorrect in this. When students operate with the mentality that they are regurgitation machines they become unable to to not be regurgitation machines.
Or, rather, the "regurgitation machine" model has to be untaught to get a student to actually learn. Students cannot go from "memorize this" to "ok, think".
That is, of course, within the educational system of the united states wherein students are taught to be regurgitation machines from Kindergarten up.
When would you propose that we begin to teach students the significance of the information?
I propose that it begin as soon as possible. By whatever means we can consider to do it. Ideally, we pick a method that can adapt with time.
For the regurgitation machine... I think we are talking past each other on this one. I'm not for them just remembering that the answer to x is b. However, many people throughout college even, have shown that just memorizing certain formulas helps them find the answers. Few people can derive the correct formula for differential equations. However, many people know a few tricks that they can try and see if they work. Do you consider this poor teaching? What about how most people learn that 1 + 5 = 6? For most people, that will start as a memorization problem. Then they will work on understanding that. If the problem is that they can not make the connection to the real world in the equations (a famous rant I've seen by Feynman on ... I think it was Brazillian students covers this scenario), I contend we already have that problem and you have not demonstrated a way to fix it.
J, are you arguing that students shouldn't have to learn any facts?
I am not a teacher, but it seems to me that my fellow students in college struggled not because they couldn't reason but because they couldn't remember any basic facts from which to reason.
Kistra on
Animal Crossing: City Folk Lissa in Filmore 3179-9580-0076
If we get people to the point that they can successfully regurgitate information, then we can later show them the significance of said information.
As far as I can tell, in my own experience, you are incorrect in this. When students operate with the mentality that they are regurgitation machines they become unable to to not be regurgitation machines.
Or, rather, the "regurgitation machine" model has to be untaught to get a student to actually learn. Students cannot go from "memorize this" to "ok, think".
That is, of course, within the educational system of the united states wherein students are taught to be regurgitation machines from Kindergarten up.
When would you propose that we begin to teach students the significance of the information?
I propose that it begin as soon as possible. By whatever means we can consider to do it. Ideally, we pick a method that can adapt with time.
For the regurgitation machine... I think we are talking past each other on this one. I'm not for them just remembering that the answer to x is b. However, many people throughout college even, have shown that just memorizing certain formulas helps them find the answers. Few people can derive the correct formula for differential equations. However, many people know a few tricks that they can try and see if they work. Do you consider this poor teaching? What about how most people learn that 1 + 5 = 6? For most people, that will start as a memorization problem. Then they will work on understanding that. If the problem is that they can not make the connection to the real world in the equations (a famous rant I've seen by Feynman on ... I think it was Brazillian students covers this scenario), I contend we already have that problem and you have not demonstrated a way to fix it.
Besides which, the study found that both aspects of learning were enhanced and not just rote regurgitation. From the article;
"We find no evidence of any adverse consequences as a result of the incentive programs. Incentive schools do significantly better on both mechanical components of the test (designed to reflect rote learning) and conceptual components of the test (designed to capture deeper understanding of the material), suggesting that the gains in test scores represent an actual increase in learning outcomes. Students in incentive schools do significantly better not only in math and language (for which there were incentives), but also in science and social studies (for which there were no incentives), suggesting positive spillover effects. There was no difference in student attrition between incentive and control schools, and no evidence of any adverse gaming of the incentive program by teachers."
Also the worst anecdotal horrors of tenure I've seen come from the New Yorker, hardly a bastion of right wing group think.
Honestly, the only place I've routinely seen the quality of education go down is in a teacher's last year before retirement. Damn, those teachers hardly do anything. We should take away retirement to prevent this.
My high-school chem teacher was the exact opposite. He used his last year of teaching before retirement to help us conduct ridiculous experiments that filled classrooms and/or hallways with smoke. Forget the "alkali metals and water lol" - motherfucking thermite was made in his class. And did we ever learn from it.
Of course he was pretty batshit insane to start with, so ... :P
PeregrineFalcon on
Looking for a DX:HR OnLive code for my kid brother.
Can trade TF2 items or whatever else you're interested in. PM me.
However, many people throughout college even, have shown that just memorizing certain formulas helps them find the answers. Few people can derive the correct formula for differential equations. However, many people know a few tricks that they can try and see if they work. Do you consider this poor teaching? What about how most people learn that 1 + 5 = 6? For most people, that will start as a memorization problem. Then they will work on understanding that. If the problem is that they can not make the connection to the real world in the equations (a famous rant I've seen by Feynman on ... I think it was Brazillian students covers this scenario), I contend we already have that problem and you have not demonstrated a way to fix it.
I think that a failure to understand the inter-relatedness of various theories is problematic, yes. Memorization of formulas is not problematic. Applying formulas to different situations is keen.
The problem is that you seem to be couching your position in "They're still getting the right answer". And my contention would be that education is not about that. Education is not about "how do we get students to get the correct answers". Education is about learning.
J, are you arguing that students shouldn't have to learn any facts?
Situation 1: The formula for calculating velocity is X.
Situation 2: The history of humankind with regard to the notion of there being a formula for velocity is bla bla bla...
If by "learn facts" you mean 1 then I would contend that this is a shitty educational system.
If by "learn facts" you mean 2 then I would be keen on that.
I am opposed to "learn facts" where it is understood as, for example, writing "velocity" on one side of an index card and on the other side. That is not education; that is memorization.
I'm keen on the idea of learning facts, but they need to be facts couched in an appreciation of how the fact came to be.
J, are you arguing that students shouldn't have to learn any facts?
Situation 1: The formula for calculating velocity is X.
Situation 2: The history of humankind with regard to the notion of there being a formula for velocity is bla bla bla...
If by "learn facts" you mean 1 then I would contend that this is a shitty educational system.
If by "learn facts" you mean 2 then I would be keen on that.
I am opposed to "learn facts" where it is understood as, for example, writing "velocity" on one side of an index card and on the other side. That is not education; that is memorization.
I'm keen on the idea of learning facts, but they need to be facts couched in an appreciation of how the fact came to be.
I think you're leaning a little too far. I can imagine, for instance, a test with 2 essay questions about, say, what velocity means (not just the formula) and what force means, and 20 scantron questions that require utilization of formulas to arrive at an answer and even some memorization of facts. Such a test would be quite indicative of a students success at learning about velocity and force. And if we tell the teachers (and students) to fuck off when they ask for practice tests or complain about not knowing what will be on the test ("Everything!"), we'd be in much better shape than we are now, even if we're not living in a utopia where everyone learns from Plato directly.
However, many people throughout college even, have shown that just memorizing certain formulas helps them find the answers. Few people can derive the correct formula for differential equations. However, many people know a few tricks that they can try and see if they work. Do you consider this poor teaching? What about how most people learn that 1 + 5 = 6? For most people, that will start as a memorization problem. Then they will work on understanding that. If the problem is that they can not make the connection to the real world in the equations (a famous rant I've seen by Feynman on ... I think it was Brazillian students covers this scenario), I contend we already have that problem and you have not demonstrated a way to fix it.
I think that a failure to understand the inter-relatedness of various theories is problematic, yes. Memorization of formulas is not problematic. Applying formulas to different situations is keen.
The problem is that you seem to be couching your position in "They're still getting the right answer". And my contention would be that education is not about that. Education is not about "how do we get students to get the correct answers". Education is about learning.
No, I'm couching it in "they are still learning to get the right answers." For those where it matters, why can be taught later.
Edit: To address your velocity concern. You do realize that is exactly how people learn things now, right? Most people are not taught Ohms law as to how it was derived, but what it can allow them to find from the circuit they are studying.
J, are you arguing that students shouldn't have to learn any facts?
Situation 1: The formula for calculating velocity is X.
Situation 2: The history of humankind with regard to the notion of there being a formula for velocity is bla bla bla...
If by "learn facts" you mean 1 then I would contend that this is a shitty educational system.
If by "learn facts" you mean 2 then I would be keen on that.
I am opposed to "learn facts" where it is understood as, for example, writing "velocity" on one side of an index card and on the other side. That is not education; that is memorization.
I'm keen on the idea of learning facts, but they need to be facts couched in an appreciation of how the fact came to be.
I think you're leaning a little too far. I can imagine, for instance, a test with 2 essay questions about, say, what velocity means (not just the formula) and what force means, and 20 scantron questions that require utilization of formulas to arrive at an answer and even some memorization of facts. Such a test would be quite indicative of a students success at learning about velocity and force. And if we tell the teachers (and students) to fuck off when they ask for practice tests or complain about not knowing what will be on the test ("Everything!"), we'd be in much better shape than we are now, even if we're not living in a utopia where everyone learns from Plato directly.
That sounds like a happy middle ground which acknowledged both practicality and the virtue of a coherent understanding of ideas.
I don't think it would be terribly difficult to design tests that measure understanding rather than rote memorization (though again, they would be more expensive to grade/administer).
Granted, but that would require a far different educational system.
For example, in the world you propose there would have never been scantron tests, ever.
Edit: This would entail math classes which had essay questions, for example. Do not simply utilize the formula memorized, explain how the formula came to be and why.
That's a world in which I would want to teach; that is not the world we have.
I'm curious. Many of the reports I see are enthusiastic about the way Singapore and Hong Kong teach maths (disclaimer: I did the Singapore math system. This said, having seen Hong Kong papers, I am personally terrified of their system, which seems to get ridiculously difficult at secondary school and just gets harder from then onwards for no real reason. A level certificates should measure a reasonable level of competency, not godlike math prodigiousness.)
Do you think this is an accurate assessment of the quality of math education? Because math in Singapore, Hong Kong, and Taiwan all involve a substantial scantron component (but without scanners - usually hand-written. Apparently nobody trusts fourth graders to pencil in scantrons correctly). These steadily diminish in later levels, but there are always still substantial repetitive elements in studying (an A-level student can expect to be handed a ten-year-series 'pack' of examination papers, compiled from the mock papers of maybe five schools. Fifty papers! For each subject! Not that I know anyone who actually did all of them).
Every time math education pops up I always see demands for more thinking and less rote learning, which is fine and all, but I only ever see the better students benefiting from such changes. The worse students do less repetition, but don't do the thinking to make up for it.
Incentivized pay is dang hard to get right in any job that doesn't create profit directly, and in this case I just think the problems in education are more in the vast innequity and disproportionate effect of the externalities than in the miniscule number of lazy teachers skating by not caring what happens to the kids in their classroom.
Let's just try to agree here that just because a teacher gets tenure doesn't mean that they can suddenly stop teaching or cease in their duties. There are consequences to actions. The number of "bad" teachers out there isn't overwhelming, and it generally doesn't cause a drop in "performance".
I mean, there was a teacher at my partner's school who was found to have basically made up his grades. He had tenure, but boy did they make his life hell over this. The administration immediately took action and he no longer teaches at the school, the union was involved and they supported the actions taken by the administration.
I believe that tenure isn't just "immunity", there are certain requirements on the teacher's side that need to be met. If a teacher isn't doing their job, tenure doesn't get in the way. Honestly, the only place I've routinely seen the quality of education go down is in a teacher's last year before retirement. Damn, those teachers hardly do anything. We should take away retirement to prevent this.
Wait. But the point of tenure is granting tenured teachers academic freedom. If an administration can make someone's life hell to the point of effective firing despite tenure, then tenure sure as hell isn't working as intended. It has to be so solid that it lasts despite whatever 'findings', because no teacher is so perfect that some committee can't find an error in their teaching.
The corollary is that actual real no-shit tenure can't be handed out willy-nilly, of course. "Tenure" otherwise just means "seniority promotion".
Incentivized pay is dang hard to get right in any job that doesn't create profit directly, and in this case I just think the problems in education are more in the vast innequity and disproportionate effect of the externalities than in the miniscule number of lazy teachers skating by not caring what happens to the kids in their classroom.
Let's just try to agree here that just because a teacher gets tenure doesn't mean that they can suddenly stop teaching or cease in their duties. There are consequences to actions. The number of "bad" teachers out there isn't overwhelming, and it generally doesn't cause a drop in "performance".
I mean, there was a teacher at my partner's school who was found to have basically made up his grades. He had tenure, but boy did they make his life hell over this. The administration immediately took action and he no longer teaches at the school, the union was involved and they supported the actions taken by the administration.
I believe that tenure isn't just "immunity", there are certain requirements on the teacher's side that need to be met. If a teacher isn't doing their job, tenure doesn't get in the way. Honestly, the only place I've routinely seen the quality of education go down is in a teacher's last year before retirement. Damn, those teachers hardly do anything. We should take away retirement to prevent this.
If we're going to go by anecdotal evidence... the teacher I had who would sit in front of the class drunk and physically hurt students took 10 years to remove. My brother had to testify in the court case that she lost before she was even put on academic leave.
The thing is the difference between these two annecdotal accounts has nothing to do with pay schemes and everything to do with administrative competence. That's also an important issue (even moreso if the admnistration has any kind of local influence over how merit based pay increases are calculated), but in this sense it's a bit tangential.
With regards to teaching to the test, I think that the merits or lack thereof of teaching to the test are directly linked to the quality of the test. Imagine there was a perfect test, which perfectly measured everything a student should be expected to know. In this case, teaching to the test would be exact right thing to do. Obviously, this is impossible, but I think that when people think of standardized tests, they think of the SAT, a really shitty test. I believe that we can make tests that are a lot better, tests that can measure critical thinking and reasoning, that don't expect students to be rote memorization machines. The problem is, fewer students would pass this test, since all that stuff is harder than rote memorization.
Here's an example. In Washington state several years ago, the state phased in the WASL, a standardized test that would be required for graduation. It wasn't perfect by any means, but it was light years better than most standardized tests. It had lots of essays, and no scantrons. Every question, from 1+3=? on up had a section for the student to write a sentence to a paragraph on "Why is this the answer?" Unsurprisingly, many students were not capable of passing such a test. Parents weren't happy about 1/4th of their "little geniuses" being told they weren't capable of graduating, and they elected a state superintendent who campaigned on a single issue of "I will eliminate the WASL". I argue this was the wrong thing to do. This was a good test, or at least better test, and holding students to a standard of critical thinking and being able to explain their answers was a good thing.
This is in direct comparison to my sister's 10th grade U.S. history class, who watched Disney's Pocahontas in class. Disney's Pocahontas in high school history. And teaching to the test, a test which demands critical thinking and reasoning, is worse than Pocahontas?
Incentivized pay is dang hard to get right in any job that doesn't create profit directly, and in this case I just think the problems in education are more in the vast innequity and disproportionate effect of the externalities than in the miniscule number of lazy teachers skating by not caring what happens to the kids in their classroom.
Let's just try to agree here that just because a teacher gets tenure doesn't mean that they can suddenly stop teaching or cease in their duties. There are consequences to actions. The number of "bad" teachers out there isn't overwhelming, and it generally doesn't cause a drop in "performance".
I mean, there was a teacher at my partner's school who was found to have basically made up his grades. He had tenure, but boy did they make his life hell over this. The administration immediately took action and he no longer teaches at the school, the union was involved and they supported the actions taken by the administration.
I believe that tenure isn't just "immunity", there are certain requirements on the teacher's side that need to be met. If a teacher isn't doing their job, tenure doesn't get in the way. Honestly, the only place I've routinely seen the quality of education go down is in a teacher's last year before retirement. Damn, those teachers hardly do anything. We should take away retirement to prevent this.
Wait. But the point of tenure is granting tenured teachers academic freedom. If an administration can make someone's life hell to the point of effective firing despite tenure, then tenure sure as hell isn't working as intended. It has to be so solid that it lasts despite whatever 'findings', because no teacher is so perfect that some committee can't find an error in their teaching.
The corollary is that actual real no-shit tenure can't be handed out willy-nilly, of course. "Tenure" otherwise just means "seniority promotion".
The point of my (unscientific) story is merely to show a situation where a tenured teacher stopping doing his work and how the administration was able to remove him for not doing his job, despite his tenure.
The context was that we were getting onto a line of reasoning in which tenure was argued to encourage teachers to "hang up their hat" and decrease their performance because they "have tenure".
I keep hearing how we have to change the learning environment but hasn't the decline of the learning environment been the result in the shift in American Culture. I'm exactly sure who to blame on this but I'd like to think it was Reagan.
I keep hearing how we have to change the learning environment but hasn't the decline of the learning environment been the result in the shift in American Culture. I'm exactly sure who to blame on this but I'd like to think it was Reagan.
assembly line education has existed well before reagan got into offce
I'm in favor of performance pay, and if that causes "teaching to the test" maybe they just need to remake the tests. All my AP classes in HS were taught towards having us pass the AP exams and I felt that the classes went fine. Maybe if the test required analytical and interpretative thinking instead of "circle the direct object", teaching towards them would result in students who actually had these elusive and valuable "critical thinking" and "problem solving" skills.
I keep hearing how we have to change the learning environment but hasn't the decline of the learning environment been the result in the shift in American Culture. I'm exactly sure who to blame on this but I'd like to think it was Reagan.
assembly line education has existed well before reagan got into offce
I know, but I do feel like that is where the societal shift came from where people don't want to be educated, just rich or rich enough to feel luxury.
Maybe if the test required analytical and interpretative thinking instead of "circle the direct object", teaching towards them would result in students who actually had these elusive and valuable "critical thinking" and "problem solving" skills.
Yes, there's a reason why AP tests are done so very differently. Care to do a little brain work and consider the problem that would arise from trying to properly make, and then afterwards, grade essay tests, or anything else with answers more complex than can be done by scantron, for every child in the country on a regular basis?
I'm definitely a biased party in that I'm an adjunct professor at a community college in a city that fights it out with Detroit and DC for murder capital of the United States, but I don't think performance pay is likely to do much when you have students who have to miss class because a family member got shot in the face.
While I can see some merits to performance based pay, particularly for those teaching in relatively affluent areas, performance based pay just seems like a good excuse to further fuck over teachers who decide to teach in impoverished areas.
Posts
That was my point. The study did some nice groundwork but I don't see any convincing evidence that long term pay for performance will improve our schools.
I don't know what the answer is, but this doesn't seem like a long term one.
According to Wiki it is supposed to:
So, once they have proven that they can do their jobs, they have more freedom to question the ways their institute does things, basically.
If that's the case, then we need to compete with the private market. Believe me, you aren't going to beat what corporations can pay.
Instead, teaching is a profession that offers security. The choice is much more rational between a high salary, but little security, or a lower salary with. Eliminating protections would eliminate the benefit of accepting the lower salary. This is much more of a problem for the sciences than the humanities.
And I don't believe in "standardized pay" or "standardized tests".
Except I don't think there have been any studies that showed the effectiveness of a well crafted free market health care system across 300 sites. This isn't even theoretically possible, it was possible. The incentive program was implemented and run over two years and is ongoing. Granted policial realities in the US could make implementing a good system difficult, but a lot of that political reality is reinforced by the union. So I don't get the support of them.
And even a flawed system (any realistic UHC system in the US) is better than the status quo (our crappy combination of Medicare and god awful private insurance). I'd contend it is the same for performance pay. Even a system with somewhat flawed incentives and implementation would be better than the horridness that is the current structure. And the teacher's union in this case is akin to the private insurance companies in the health care debate. All they seemingly want is to retain their control over the state of education to lock in their (and by that I mean the union's powerful constituents and not teachers as a whole) cut of the pie.
The study specifically put performance based pay against several other types of pay, and saw a significant effect. At worst, what you are pointing out would require constant changes to the testing procedures. Possibly add some sort of a random attribute to when and how people are tested.
More than that, it will require long term evaluation to see if it would be viable. The study has proven that it is viable in the short run, and now you are claiming it is a bad idea because there is no way it could be viable in the long run. We could easily find out by performing a longer study.
I mean, I imagine that the practical upshot of tenure is that teachers are allowed to experiment and teach in unconventional ways without fear of being fired. Well, if their methods are effective, they should be left alone to keep doing what they're doing regardless of how long they've been there. And if their methods are shit, they shouldn't get a pass just because they've been there 20 years, right?
Tenure seems to be the result of a system in which the de facto mindset is "Fuck you, teachers, just sit down and shut up and follow the book." If we could get rid of that mindset, we wouldn't need tenure anymore, right?
Sure. But, good luck getting rid of that mindset.
The notion of "academic freedom" is, at this point, absurd to the point of being simply laughable.
Edit: The main problem is that "academic freedom" truly does not exist. For fuck's sake there are biology teachers who either have to teach creationism or cannot teach evolutionary theory. Because, sure, they won't fire you, but they can defund your department.
I think the historical source of it is from people in earlier times within the liberal arts needing it as a hedge against challenging the societal norms at a time when such a thing was more dangerous. Now? It is basically a perk for playing politics long enough. There is little reason for an engineering professor for example to have tenure. What exactly is he going to say that needs that level of protection? Even in liberal arts, our society more or less expects professors to say outlandish things occasionally, so there doesn't seem to be a pressing need to protect them at the cost of introducing perverse incentives with regards to teaching quality.
And yeah, they don't work at the level of government funded public education because the local level will just override tenure provisions with their own requirements, making its existence more or less moot except as a way to give older teachers disproportionate rewards.
Not that low compared to the average, but definitely lower than other fields requiring equal amounts of education. If you think people don't take a huge income hit to go into teaching over other alternatives you're kidding yourself, especially in poor districts. Obviously, part of this this is because they're only getting paid for working 10 months a year.
Incentivized pay is dang hard to get right in any job that doesn't create profit directly, and in this case I just think the problems in education are more in the vast innequity and disproportionate effect of the externalities than in the miniscule number of lazy teachers skating by not caring what happens to the kids in their classroom.
Where the fuck are you living?
Do you know how much fucking tip-toeing and pussyfooting I had to do when I talked about the command theory of ethics in class? I pretty much couldn't say "god", in an ethics class, discussing the command theory, in 2009.
Where the fuck do you live where people are so open minded as to not be offended by liberal arts?
What I take issue with is the most common complaint regarding using test scores to judge teachers, teaching to the test. What problem could be easier to solve? Don't tell the teachers what's on the test. Don't give them practice tests.
My favorite professors are the ones which, when asked (as they always are), "will this be on the test" or "will the final be comprehensive" answer, "Everything is on the test. Learn all of it."
If we inform teachers that their students will be tested on their understanding of multiplication, but not the form that the questions will take, how can the teacher teach to the test? Obviously a test like this may be more expensive to grade (requiring multiple graders perhaps), but if that's the issue, we should talk about that.
And yet the study showed that implementing a performance pay system for teachers increased student acheivement in a socio-economically diverse area of India. I'm comfortable with just netting a cost-effective increase in educational attainment while we wrangle with the other factors effecting performance. Marginal improvements are still improvements.
I went to school in Iowa and Nebraska. And people can be offended without professors being in any real danger of losing their jobs. I've had professors ramble on about topics potentially offensive to someone and never really seen anyone raise so much as an eyebrow as a result. I mean, there might be some people removed from positions or forced to move to areas more aligned with their world view, but I don't really think the risk of that is greater than the risk of removing the incentive to apply yourself in teaching.
The problem is that you are still operating on a model wherein students are regurgitation machines rather than entities whose task is to learn.
There is more to learning than simply spitting back "correct" answers.
You do realize this isn't a complaint, right? If we get people to the point that they can successfully regurgitate information, then we can later show them the significance of said information. If they can't even retain the information (which is what we have right now), how is that any better?
What I'm saying is that if the teacher is required to teach students to understand the subject, then they will be required to treat the students like humans that have capacity for understanding, and not tape recorders. I don't think it would be terribly difficult to design tests that measure understanding rather than rote memorization (though again, they would be more expensive to grade/administer).
Let's just try to agree here that just because a teacher gets tenure doesn't mean that they can suddenly stop teaching or cease in their duties. There are consequences to actions. The number of "bad" teachers out there isn't overwhelming, and it generally doesn't cause a drop in "performance".
I mean, there was a teacher at my partner's school who was found to have basically made up his grades. He had tenure, but boy did they make his life hell over this. The administration immediately took action and he no longer teaches at the school, the union was involved and they supported the actions taken by the administration.
I believe that tenure isn't just "immunity", there are certain requirements on the teacher's side that need to be met. If a teacher isn't doing their job, tenure doesn't get in the way. Honestly, the only place I've routinely seen the quality of education go down is in a teacher's last year before retirement. Damn, those teachers hardly do anything. We should take away retirement to prevent this.
As far as I can tell, in my own experience, you are incorrect in this. When students operate with the mentality that they are regurgitation machines they become unable to to not be regurgitation machines.
Or, rather, the "regurgitation machine" model has to be untaught to get a student to actually learn. Students cannot go from "memorize this" to "ok, think".
That is, of course, within the educational system of the united states wherein students are taught to be regurgitation machines from Kindergarten up.
When would you propose that we begin to teach students the significance of the information?
Granted, but that would require a far different educational system.
For example, in the world you propose there would have never been scantron tests, ever.
Edit: This would entail math classes which had essay questions, for example. Do not simply utilize the formula memorized, explain how the formula came to be and why.
That's a world in which I would want to teach; that is not the world we have.
If we're going to go by anecdotal evidence... the teacher I had who would sit in front of the class drunk and physically hurt students took 10 years to remove. My brother had to testify in the court case that she lost before she was even put on academic leave.
I propose that it begin as soon as possible. By whatever means we can consider to do it. Ideally, we pick a method that can adapt with time.
For the regurgitation machine... I think we are talking past each other on this one. I'm not for them just remembering that the answer to x is b. However, many people throughout college even, have shown that just memorizing certain formulas helps them find the answers. Few people can derive the correct formula for differential equations. However, many people know a few tricks that they can try and see if they work. Do you consider this poor teaching? What about how most people learn that 1 + 5 = 6? For most people, that will start as a memorization problem. Then they will work on understanding that. If the problem is that they can not make the connection to the real world in the equations (a famous rant I've seen by Feynman on ... I think it was Brazillian students covers this scenario), I contend we already have that problem and you have not demonstrated a way to fix it.
I am not a teacher, but it seems to me that my fellow students in college struggled not because they couldn't reason but because they couldn't remember any basic facts from which to reason.
Besides which, the study found that both aspects of learning were enhanced and not just rote regurgitation. From the article;
"We find no evidence of any adverse consequences as a result of the incentive programs. Incentive schools do significantly better on both mechanical components of the test (designed to reflect rote learning) and conceptual components of the test (designed to capture deeper understanding of the material), suggesting that the gains in test scores represent an actual increase in learning outcomes. Students in incentive schools do significantly better not only in math and language (for which there were incentives), but also in science and social studies (for which there were no incentives), suggesting positive spillover effects. There was no difference in student attrition between incentive and control schools, and no evidence of any adverse gaming of the incentive program by teachers."
Also the worst anecdotal horrors of tenure I've seen come from the New Yorker, hardly a bastion of right wing group think.
My high-school chem teacher was the exact opposite. He used his last year of teaching before retirement to help us conduct ridiculous experiments that filled classrooms and/or hallways with smoke. Forget the "alkali metals and water lol" - motherfucking thermite was made in his class. And did we ever learn from it.
Of course he was pretty batshit insane to start with, so ... :P
Can trade TF2 items or whatever else you're interested in. PM me.
I think that a failure to understand the inter-relatedness of various theories is problematic, yes. Memorization of formulas is not problematic. Applying formulas to different situations is keen.
The problem is that you seem to be couching your position in "They're still getting the right answer". And my contention would be that education is not about that. Education is not about "how do we get students to get the correct answers". Education is about learning.
Situation 1: The formula for calculating velocity is X.
Situation 2: The history of humankind with regard to the notion of there being a formula for velocity is bla bla bla...
If by "learn facts" you mean 1 then I would contend that this is a shitty educational system.
If by "learn facts" you mean 2 then I would be keen on that.
I am opposed to "learn facts" where it is understood as, for example, writing "velocity" on one side of an index card and on the other side. That is not education; that is memorization.
I'm keen on the idea of learning facts, but they need to be facts couched in an appreciation of how the fact came to be.
I think you're leaning a little too far. I can imagine, for instance, a test with 2 essay questions about, say, what velocity means (not just the formula) and what force means, and 20 scantron questions that require utilization of formulas to arrive at an answer and even some memorization of facts. Such a test would be quite indicative of a students success at learning about velocity and force. And if we tell the teachers (and students) to fuck off when they ask for practice tests or complain about not knowing what will be on the test ("Everything!"), we'd be in much better shape than we are now, even if we're not living in a utopia where everyone learns from Plato directly.
No, I'm couching it in "they are still learning to get the right answers." For those where it matters, why can be taught later.
Edit: To address your velocity concern. You do realize that is exactly how people learn things now, right? Most people are not taught Ohms law as to how it was derived, but what it can allow them to find from the circuit they are studying.
That sounds like a happy middle ground which acknowledged both practicality and the virtue of a coherent understanding of ideas.
I'm curious. Many of the reports I see are enthusiastic about the way Singapore and Hong Kong teach maths (disclaimer: I did the Singapore math system. This said, having seen Hong Kong papers, I am personally terrified of their system, which seems to get ridiculously difficult at secondary school and just gets harder from then onwards for no real reason. A level certificates should measure a reasonable level of competency, not godlike math prodigiousness.)
Do you think this is an accurate assessment of the quality of math education? Because math in Singapore, Hong Kong, and Taiwan all involve a substantial scantron component (but without scanners - usually hand-written. Apparently nobody trusts fourth graders to pencil in scantrons correctly). These steadily diminish in later levels, but there are always still substantial repetitive elements in studying (an A-level student can expect to be handed a ten-year-series 'pack' of examination papers, compiled from the mock papers of maybe five schools. Fifty papers! For each subject! Not that I know anyone who actually did all of them).
Every time math education pops up I always see demands for more thinking and less rote learning, which is fine and all, but I only ever see the better students benefiting from such changes. The worse students do less repetition, but don't do the thinking to make up for it.
Wait. But the point of tenure is granting tenured teachers academic freedom. If an administration can make someone's life hell to the point of effective firing despite tenure, then tenure sure as hell isn't working as intended. It has to be so solid that it lasts despite whatever 'findings', because no teacher is so perfect that some committee can't find an error in their teaching.
The corollary is that actual real no-shit tenure can't be handed out willy-nilly, of course. "Tenure" otherwise just means "seniority promotion".
Here's an example. In Washington state several years ago, the state phased in the WASL, a standardized test that would be required for graduation. It wasn't perfect by any means, but it was light years better than most standardized tests. It had lots of essays, and no scantrons. Every question, from 1+3=? on up had a section for the student to write a sentence to a paragraph on "Why is this the answer?" Unsurprisingly, many students were not capable of passing such a test. Parents weren't happy about 1/4th of their "little geniuses" being told they weren't capable of graduating, and they elected a state superintendent who campaigned on a single issue of "I will eliminate the WASL". I argue this was the wrong thing to do. This was a good test, or at least better test, and holding students to a standard of critical thinking and being able to explain their answers was a good thing.
This is in direct comparison to my sister's 10th grade U.S. history class, who watched Disney's Pocahontas in class. Disney's Pocahontas in high school history. And teaching to the test, a test which demands critical thinking and reasoning, is worse than Pocahontas?
The point of my (unscientific) story is merely to show a situation where a tenured teacher stopping doing his work and how the administration was able to remove him for not doing his job, despite his tenure.
The context was that we were getting onto a line of reasoning in which tenure was argued to encourage teachers to "hang up their hat" and decrease their performance because they "have tenure".
assembly line education has existed well before reagan got into offce
As with any discussion of teachers:
http://oldsite.reason.com/0610/howtofireanincompetentteacher.pdf or http://commongood.org/assets/attachments/firing_chart.pdf
has to be brought up. When it takes a 3 page flow chart to fire someone, weeding out the bad ones gets pretty hard.
I'm in favor of performance pay, and if that causes "teaching to the test" maybe they just need to remake the tests. All my AP classes in HS were taught towards having us pass the AP exams and I felt that the classes went fine. Maybe if the test required analytical and interpretative thinking instead of "circle the direct object", teaching towards them would result in students who actually had these elusive and valuable "critical thinking" and "problem solving" skills.
I know, but I do feel like that is where the societal shift came from where people don't want to be educated, just rich or rich enough to feel luxury.
I don't like the way my argument is coming out.
While I can see some merits to performance based pay, particularly for those teaching in relatively affluent areas, performance based pay just seems like a good excuse to further fuck over teachers who decide to teach in impoverished areas.