As was foretold, we've added advertisements to the forums! If you have questions, or if you encounter any bugs, please visit this thread: https://forums.penny-arcade.com/discussion/240191/forum-advertisement-faq-and-reports-thread/

Performance pay for teachers.

1246711

Posts

  • HounHoun Registered User regular
    edited October 2009
    Doodmann wrote: »
    Doodmann wrote: »
    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.

    I don't like the way my argument is coming out.

    You have a point. Current US Culture tends to vilify educated individuals, and promote an ideal of the quick, easy money for minimal effort.

    Houn on
  • Gabriel_PittGabriel_Pitt (effective against Russian warships) Registered User regular
    edited October 2009
    By and large, performance pay is going to fail in any system where most of the participants are there involuntarily. For the student who simply doesn't care, and is even actively hostile towards the educators, it costs them absolutely nothing to, instead of just slacking off and not engaging in any of their school assignments, actively work to make sure their contribution to the evaluation is as negative as possible.

    Gabriel_Pitt on
  • DoodmannDoodmann Registered User regular
    edited October 2009
    Houn wrote: »
    Doodmann wrote: »
    Doodmann wrote: »
    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.

    I don't like the way my argument is coming out.

    You have a point. Current US Culture tends to vilify educated individuals, and promote an ideal of the quick, easy money for minimal effort.

    I guess my point about Reagan is that his whole Greed is Good thing is a big part of present day America.

    Doodmann on
    Whippy wrote: »
    nope nope nope nope abort abort talk about anime
    Sometimes I sell my stuff on Ebay
  • The Crowing OneThe Crowing One Registered User regular
    edited October 2009
    Alright. Tenure.

    I got confirmation from my teacher that tenure isn't at all what we were really bitching and moaning about earlier. And this goes for MA, so other states are different.

    Tenure is a "professional status" which doesn't give too much of a difference in the day-to-day. It is generally measured by 1) education level and a certain number of grad hours, 2) seniority within the district (3 years minimum) and 3) it requires a few other requirements that aren't as important.

    She also assures me that the majority of teachers in her district (and nationwide) do not have tenure.

    The benefit is, essentially, job security. Don't mix that up with impunity. For example, in order to fire a teacher you need 2 documented cases of dereliction of responsibility. If you have tenure? you need 3. In addition, a tenured teacher is assumed to be a good teacher, and is evaluated once every two years, as opposed to every year.

    The job security thing isn't that huge, either. It merely provides (limited) protection from layoffs. In example, if a school had to cut 30 teaching positions, they would be required to lay off as many un-tenured as possible before they can kick a tenured teacher out the door. So if you're tenured and they cut these 30 jobs, if 29 are all the un-tenured teachers, 30 would be a tenured position that would be cut.

    So examples of tenured teachers sucking monkey balls are symptoms of bad administration and not a fault of the tenure system.

    I really have no complaints with that. You have a masters, have passed the MTEL and you have been in the same district for over three years you get a little less oversight and a little more security from layoffs.

    I know this isn't attached directly to performance pay, but it seems necessary to clarify.

    The Crowing One on
    3rddocbottom.jpg
  • RobmanRobman Registered User regular
    edited October 2009
    _J_ wrote: »
    Kistra wrote: »
    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 901d56d788a63b1a2e5bf684ea444d57.png 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.

    For the love of christ shut the fuck up, velocity is an incredibly complex concept and you're reeking of typical liberal art idiocy and absolute ignorance towards the physical sciences.

    EDIT maybe that reek is pot, in which case I'll forgive you that statement

    Robman on
  • Psycho Internet HawkPsycho Internet Hawk Registered User regular
    edited October 2009
    Robman wrote: »
    For the love of christ shut the fuck up, velocity is an incredibly complex concept and you're reeking of typical liberal art idiocy and absolute ignorance towards the physical sciences.

    EDIT maybe that reek is pot, in which case I'll forgive you that statement

    Let me guess, an engineering major?

    Anyway, _J_ has a point, he's just phrasing it in an incredibly retarded way. Teaching students complex ideas means absolutely nothing if you don't teach the underlying logic and principles behind them, and when faced with a standardized test, teachers will generally force rote memorization down a student's throat because it's faster and you have to make sure everyone can pass the test by April.

    To go back to _J_'s example, simply teaching the formula for calculating velocity is a lot less useful in the long run than teaching the underlying physics behind velocity, but if the test isn't testing those principles it's a lot easier to slap an equation on the board and call it a day. In a college course this will get you fucked, but we're talking about basic high school subjects here.

    Psycho Internet Hawk on
    ezek1t.jpg
  • RobmanRobman Registered User regular
    edited October 2009
    That's because you could spend your entire career probing the concept of velocity, and have a rich, respected list of publications by the end.

    We're at the point where you have to lie to teach out of simple necessity. How do you truly explain cellular mechanics to a grade 10 science course? How can you explain the concept of electron orbitals as variable probability functions in any detail?

    In high school, you learn lies so that you may later learn lesser lies, until eventually you can begin to appreciate you'll never understand the truth. It's kind of philosophical.

    Robman on
  • AngelHedgieAngelHedgie Registered User regular
    edited October 2009
    ElJeffe wrote: »
    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?

    Yep - federal judiciary appointments. And interestingly enough, the arguments for defending the latter end up working pretty well for the former.

    AngelHedgie on
    XBL: Nox Aeternum / PSN: NoxAeternum / NN:NoxAeternum / Steam: noxaeternum
  • big lbig l Registered User regular
    edited October 2009
    Robman wrote: »
    _J_ wrote: »
    Kistra wrote: »
    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 901d56d788a63b1a2e5bf684ea444d57.png 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.

    For the love of christ shut the fuck up, velocity is an incredibly complex concept and you're reeking of typical liberal art idiocy and absolute ignorance towards the physical sciences.

    EDIT maybe that reek is pot, in which case I'll forgive you that statement

    You guys agree. Read _J_'s post again. He's saying it is more complex than just a formula, and should be taught that way. And as somebody who double majored in math and communications, take it easy on the liberal arts. You just sound like an asshole. [Snark]Maybe had you studied some liberal arts, you would have been able to read and comprehend _J_'s post. I guess science doesn't teach you everything, and studying the liberal arts doesn't necessarily make you a retard, huh?[/Snark]

    big l on
  • RobmanRobman Registered User regular
    edited October 2009
    Oh right, let's teach everything from first principles.

    Robman on
  • _J__J_ Pedant Registered User, __BANNED USERS regular
    edited October 2009
    Robman wrote: »
    Oh right, let's teach everything from first principles.

    Damn straight.

    If you don't understand what the formula for velocity means, by way of understanding its origin, you do not understand velocity but rather understand some formula.

    Here's a question for you: If I ask a student "What is velocity?" and they write 901d56d788a63b1a2e5bf684ea444d57.png on the board...do you contend that this is a good thing?

    _J_ on
  • RobmanRobman Registered User regular
    edited October 2009
    If they wrote it in that form on the board, I'd be pretty happy

    Robman on
  • _J__J_ Pedant Registered User, __BANNED USERS regular
    edited October 2009
    Robman wrote: »
    If they wrote it in that form on the board, I'd be pretty happy

    And if I asked "right, but what does that mean?" they repeated the formula, would that be good?
    And if I then asked "Yes, but what is velocity?" they then pointed to the equation, would that be good?

    _J_ on
  • AngelHedgieAngelHedgie Registered User regular
    edited October 2009
    _J_ wrote: »
    Here's a question for you: If I ask a student "What is velocity?" and they write 901d56d788a63b1a2e5bf684ea444d57.png on the board...do you contend that this is a good thing?

    It depends on the level of education, frankly. A high school physics class? Sure. An high level aerospace engineering elective? Not so much.

    AngelHedgie on
    XBL: Nox Aeternum / PSN: NoxAeternum / NN:NoxAeternum / Steam: noxaeternum
  • RobmanRobman Registered User regular
    edited October 2009
    _J_ wrote: »
    Robman wrote: »
    If they wrote it in that form on the board, I'd be pretty happy

    And if I asked "right, but what does that mean?" they repeated the formula, would that be good?
    And if I then asked "Yes, but what is velocity?" they then pointed to the equation, would that be good?

    And if it took you three seconds to destroy a high school level philosophy essay, then what?

    What are you trying to prove other then restating the very obvious fact that it takes longer then high school to teach any reasonable level of comprehension about a subject?

    Robman on
  • _J__J_ Pedant Registered User, __BANNED USERS regular
    edited October 2009
    Robman wrote: »
    _J_ wrote: »
    Robman wrote: »
    If they wrote it in that form on the board, I'd be pretty happy

    And if I asked "right, but what does that mean?" they repeated the formula, would that be good?
    And if I then asked "Yes, but what is velocity?" they then pointed to the equation, would that be good?

    And if it took you three seconds to destroy a high school level philosophy essay, then what?

    What are you trying to prove other then restating the very obvious fact that it takes longer then high school to teach any reasonable level of comprehension about a subject?

    That education needs to be primarily focused upon a level of comprehension of topics which goes beyond mere memorization.

    _J_ on
  • AngelHedgieAngelHedgie Registered User regular
    edited October 2009
    _J_ wrote: »
    Robman wrote: »
    _J_ wrote: »
    Robman wrote: »
    If they wrote it in that form on the board, I'd be pretty happy

    And if I asked "right, but what does that mean?" they repeated the formula, would that be good?
    And if I then asked "Yes, but what is velocity?" they then pointed to the equation, would that be good?

    And if it took you three seconds to destroy a high school level philosophy essay, then what?

    What are you trying to prove other then restating the very obvious fact that it takes longer then high school to teach any reasonable level of comprehension about a subject?

    That education needs to be primarily focused upon a level of comprehension of topics which goes beyond mere memorization.

    And there are different levels of comprehension, which is Rob's point.

    AngelHedgie on
    XBL: Nox Aeternum / PSN: NoxAeternum / NN:NoxAeternum / Steam: noxaeternum
  • RobmanRobman Registered User regular
    edited October 2009
    Look, I understand your position, but there is a point where you want someone to be comfortable with the math before you explain the theory behind it.

    Robman on
  • _J__J_ Pedant Registered User, __BANNED USERS regular
    edited October 2009
    Robman wrote: »
    Look, I understand your position, but there is a point where you want someone to be comfortable with the math before you explain the theory behind it.

    Sure, but both need to be taught.

    It would take far more time and far more actual teaching. But, i'm pretty sure it would be advantageous.

    _J_ on
  • RobmanRobman Registered User regular
    edited October 2009
    Advantageous to who? Your personal beliefs or how actual physicists, mathematicians and psychiatrists have analyzed the issue and come up with the current method?

    Robman on
  • MoridinMoridin Registered User regular
    edited October 2009
    _J_ wrote: »
    Robman wrote: »
    Look, I understand your position, but there is a point where you want someone to be comfortable with the math before you explain the theory behind it.

    Sure, but both need to be taught.

    It would take far more time and far more actual teaching. But, i'm pretty sure it would be advantageous.

    It would be advantageous, yes, but it isn't realistic to teach all children calculus before introducing them to velocity.

    Moridin on
    sig10008eq.png
  • CleonicusCleonicus Registered User regular
    edited October 2009
    _J_ wrote: »
    Robman wrote: »
    Look, I understand your position, but there is a point where you want someone to be comfortable with the math before you explain the theory behind it.

    Sure, but both need to be taught.

    It would take far more time and far more actual teaching. But, i'm pretty sure it would be advantageous.

    Is a deep understanding of velocity truly necessary to live a full life? (I understand velocity is just an example, but it could be replaced with many topics that are given a once-over in high school.)

    Cleonicus on
    Debate 'n' DeHockey team: Astronauts
  • HounHoun Registered User regular
    edited October 2009
    You're all forgetting that different people learn in different ways. Some kids will memorize the formula, some will figure out what it means by playing with it, some need to understand the underlying principles before they understand the formula.

    There's no one size fits all here, thus ALL approaches are valid, and if possible, should be attempted simultaneously to ensure widest range of understanding.

    Houn on
  • CleonicusCleonicus Registered User regular
    edited October 2009
    Ok, I skimmed this thread and want to make a few points.

    Some background on me, I earned a Masters in Education (focus on teaching secondary mathematics) from UC Santa Cruz in 2004. The general perspective of my teacher education was very progressive, that is we focused on teaching concepts instead of skills. As part of my program I “student” taught two classes for half of the school year. I put student in quotes because after about two weeks in the classroom I had complete control of what went on, there just happened to be the old teacher in the room most days.

    There are a couple of misconceptions in this thread; the first one being that merit based pay would be based on test scores. While this is the easiest way to do it, it also brings up numerous problems such as how to account for teachers who teach above or below average students. From what I have heard about performanced-based pay, the evaluation of the teacher would be akin to how I was graded as a student teacher, and how new teachers are supposed to be given guidance in California. The teacher and their superior would meet at the beginning of the school year and set-up goals that both people feel are attainable in the school year. Then, about once each month, the superior would watch the teacher teach for a period and point out areas that the teacher is excelling in and areas in where improvement is needed. If the teacher fails to meet their goals for the year, then they do not receive their pay raise, or perhaps face some disciplinary action after enough failed years. This system allows for a teacher to be judged on her or his ability to teach, and not based on the students that are being taught. It can be time consuming and invasive for the teacher, but these sessions are very useful for learning many aspects of teaching.

    Another misconception in this thread is that teaching to the test is bad. This is wrong because it really depends on the test. The way I was taught to design units and lessons is to decide on the goals for the class, then create an assessment that would tell if the students learned the goals, and finally design the steps to teach those goals. In essence, we were continually teaching to some form assessment. If you stop and think about it, how do you know if they have successfully taught something to a student? Do you take the student’s word for it, or do you test them in some way on it? People should not focus on fighting against any test that comes up, but should focus on fighting for better tests. If we had better tests, then teaching to the test would not be an issue at all.

    Tenure has also been brought up in this thread. It was pointed out earlier that tenure was originally used to protect respected professors if they felt like voicing an unpopular opinion. I can see a use for this at universities where research is being done, and some professor wants to investigate an off-the-wall idea without worrying about their job. However, the meaning and purpose of tenure has changed for all educators and now it is just job security for teachers after working in the same place for a few years. There is no point in granting a 10th grade teacher tenure, in the classic sense, and it should be done away with outside of research institutions.

    Cleonicus on
    Debate 'n' DeHockey team: Astronauts
  • taerictaeric Registered User, ClubPA regular
    edited October 2009
    Cleonicus wrote: »
    Another misconception in this thread is that teaching to the test is bad. This is wrong because it really depends on the test. The way I was taught to design units and lessons is to decide on the goals for the class, then create an assessment that would tell if the students learned the goals, and finally design the steps to teach those goals. In essence, we were continually teaching to some form assessment. If you stop and think about it, how do you know if they have successfully taught something to a student? Do you take the student’s word for it, or do you test them in some way on it? People should not focus on fighting against any test that comes up, but should focus on fighting for better tests. If we had better tests, then teaching to the test would not be an issue at all.

    I tried (poorly) to make this same point earlier. The teacher obviously has some metric to determine for themselves if they have taught the students. We are just trying to make that metric more uniform. One might even say standardized.


    And the debate over how well you should know a topic is pretty shaky. How well do you really understand your computer? Do you know all about boolean logic? Krom clauses and how they are useful? What about combinatorics and more advanced discrete math? Type theory? Physics of semiconductors? Transistors? Etc. All of these are incredibly important in having a working computer. However, actually operating a computer.... not so much.

    taeric on
  • SiskaSiska Shorty Registered User regular
    edited October 2009
    I am against it. Will just lead to teaching tests. Besides, I don't think this will encourage teachers/schools to get students who are behind the rest to catch up. But rather try and find a way to get those students out of their class and pass them on to someone else. If anything, teachers working with difficult kids should be payed more.

    Siska on
  • OptimusZedOptimusZed Registered User regular
    edited October 2009
    I think performance based pay for teachers is a horrible idea.

    The people who deserve the most money aren't going to be the ones working with the smartest, most well-behaved kids.

    Besides, if you're getting into teaching for the money, we probably don't actually want you there.

    OptimusZed on
    We're reading Rifts. You should too. You know you want to. Now With Ninjas!

    They tried to bury us. They didn't know that we were seeds. 2018 Midterms. Get your shit together.
  • KistraKistra Registered User regular
    edited October 2009
    I do think it would be helpful here to point out that tenure means very different things at a high school level and at a university level.

    Tenure still means "you can't be fired for anything job related" at a university level. This means professors can try new teaching methods and they can research anything they want. They can still be fired for misconduct or if their entire department is cut. Some universities they are just guaranteed a job, other universities they are guaranteed their salary.

    As The crowing one pointed out tenure can mean very different things at different levels.

    Kistra on
    Animal Crossing: City Folk Lissa in Filmore 3179-9580-0076
  • The Crowing OneThe Crowing One Registered User regular
    edited October 2009
    ElJeffe wrote: »
    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?

    Yep - federal judiciary appointments. And interestingly enough, the arguments for defending the latter end up working pretty well for the former.

    Actually, not really. At least for K-12 schooling. Higher Ed, etc. is more of what we're thinking of with the whole "cannot be fired" thing.

    The Crowing One on
    3rddocbottom.jpg
  • StarcrossStarcross Registered User regular
    edited October 2009
    OptimusZed wrote: »
    I think performance based pay for teachers is a horrible idea.

    The people who deserve the most money aren't going to be the ones working with the smartest, most well-behaved kids.

    Besides, if you're getting into teaching for the money, we probably don't actually want you there.

    I disagree with performance based pay too, but presumably any such system would be set up to measure how much your students improve under you, rather than just raw test scores. (ie. you'd be rewarded for getting a "D" student up to a "C" more than you would be for having a "B" student stay where he is)

    Starcross on
  • KistraKistra Registered User regular
    edited October 2009
    Starcross wrote: »
    OptimusZed wrote: »
    I think performance based pay for teachers is a horrible idea.

    The people who deserve the most money aren't going to be the ones working with the smartest, most well-behaved kids.

    Besides, if you're getting into teaching for the money, we probably don't actually want you there.

    I disagree with performance based pay too, but presumably any such system would be set up to measure how much your students improve under you, rather than just raw test scores. (ie. you'd be rewarded for getting a "D" student up to a "C" more than you would be for having a "B" student stay where he is)

    So teachers are basically going to be set up to ignore the best students? If someone is already getting "A"s they can't move anywhere.

    Kistra on
    Animal Crossing: City Folk Lissa in Filmore 3179-9580-0076
  • StarcrossStarcross Registered User regular
    edited October 2009
    Kistra wrote: »
    Starcross wrote: »
    OptimusZed wrote: »
    I think performance based pay for teachers is a horrible idea.

    The people who deserve the most money aren't going to be the ones working with the smartest, most well-behaved kids.

    Besides, if you're getting into teaching for the money, we probably don't actually want you there.

    I disagree with performance based pay too, but presumably any such system would be set up to measure how much your students improve under you, rather than just raw test scores. (ie. you'd be rewarded for getting a "D" student up to a "C" more than you would be for having a "B" student stay where he is)

    So teachers are basically going to be set up to ignore the best students? If someone is already getting "A"s they can't move anywhere.

    They can move down to "B"s, so you have an incentive to work to keep them at "A" level.

    Starcross on
  • HenroidHenroid Mexican kicked from Immigration Thread Centrism is Racism :3Registered User regular
    edited October 2009
    Performance pay is a shitty idea, as has been said. Teachers have no control over students once they're at home. A child's education needs support from parents.

    Oh wait we're not allowed to make that suggestion are we?

    Henroid on
  • KhavallKhavall British ColumbiaRegistered User regular
    edited October 2009
    OptimusZed wrote: »
    I think performance based pay for teachers is a horrible idea.

    The people who deserve the most money aren't going to be the ones working with the smartest, most well-behaved kids.

    Besides, if you're getting into teaching for the money, we probably don't actually want you there.

    what

    First off, as has been stated numerous times, no one is suggesting that merit be based on a universal scale, but rather one that would adjust to where the teacher is teaching, so those teaching in inner city schools who are really good teachers will be paid the same as those teaching at Boston Latin really well. Those who are working with not the smartest most well-behaved kids and suck at it or don't care don't deserve the money more than the dedicated and good teachers who are teaching the smart ones.

    Also, merit-based pay has no relation to people going into teaching for money, unless you're suggesting that there would be a class of great teachers who then would just be going into it for the money that they would get by being awesome at their job, in which case fuck yes we want them there.

    Khavall on
  • StarcrossStarcross Registered User regular
    edited October 2009
    Henroid wrote: »
    Performance pay is a shitty idea, as has been said. Teachers have no control over students once they're at home. A child's education needs support from parents.

    Oh wait we're not allowed to make that suggestion are we?

    You can make that suggestion, but it's a lot more difficult to design policy around that.

    Starcross on
  • The Crowing OneThe Crowing One Registered User regular
    edited October 2009
    Starcross wrote: »
    Kistra wrote: »
    Starcross wrote: »
    OptimusZed wrote: »
    I think performance based pay for teachers is a horrible idea.

    The people who deserve the most money aren't going to be the ones working with the smartest, most well-behaved kids.

    Besides, if you're getting into teaching for the money, we probably don't actually want you there.

    I disagree with performance based pay too, but presumably any such system would be set up to measure how much your students improve under you, rather than just raw test scores. (ie. you'd be rewarded for getting a "D" student up to a "C" more than you would be for having a "B" student stay where he is)

    So teachers are basically going to be set up to ignore the best students? If someone is already getting "A"s they can't move anywhere.

    They can move down to "B"s, so you have an incentive to work to keep them at "A" level.

    Unless a teacher actually lost pay for decrease in performance, this would still be an issue. And there's no way the union etc. would ever allow pay to decrease. In fact, that sets up a nasty bit where an unscrupulous teacher/district could control pay by controlling grading. Everyone gets a "B" first term/test, then the "A" students could move back up, netting a nice profit to the teacher/district. For a subject like English, this wouldn't be difficult to justify in most cases.

    Then again, a system would have to be based on standardized tests, which work for the sciences but are a headache to get "right" for any subject that focuses on interpretation of theoretical concepts.

    It works for business, as it has been said, because an employee's "profit" is more measurable.

    The Crowing One on
    3rddocbottom.jpg
  • taerictaeric Registered User, ClubPA regular
    edited October 2009
    Everyone that is chiming in that it is a bad idea, did you read the study linked?

    taeric on
  • OptimusZedOptimusZed Registered User regular
    edited October 2009
    Starcross wrote: »
    OptimusZed wrote: »
    I think performance based pay for teachers is a horrible idea.

    The people who deserve the most money aren't going to be the ones working with the smartest, most well-behaved kids.

    Besides, if you're getting into teaching for the money, we probably don't actually want you there.

    I disagree with performance based pay too, but presumably any such system would be set up to measure how much your students improve under you, rather than just raw test scores. (ie. you'd be rewarded for getting a "D" student up to a "C" more than you would be for having a "B" student stay where he is)
    Even if this were the case, there are too many outside influences that effect that sort of thing to drop it all on the teacher. Family involvement, trouble at home, undiagnosed or untreated learning disabilities, etc. I mean, there are teachers that spend their entire day trying to teach kids with severe learning disabilities how not to spill water on themselves when they drink out of a glass or how to avoid burning themselves on exposed kitchen elements. Those kids aren't going to be making advances you can gauge with tests.

    Such a system would also be a huge burden for teachers of junior high and high school kids in areas with large populations of at risk kids. Dropping test scores because kids are getting into gangs and drugs can't be blamed directly on the teacher, but they would be reflected by paycuts under this sort of a system. Which would be particularly dangerous here given that those places are the ones that can't find or keep teachers anyway.

    OptimusZed on
    We're reading Rifts. You should too. You know you want to. Now With Ninjas!

    They tried to bury us. They didn't know that we were seeds. 2018 Midterms. Get your shit together.
  • OptimusZedOptimusZed Registered User regular
    edited October 2009
    Khavall wrote: »
    Also, merit-based pay has no relation to people going into teaching for money, unless you're suggesting that there would be a class of great teachers who then would just be going into it for the money that they would get by being awesome at their job, in which case fuck yes we want them there.
    People who want to be teachers now realize that they're not going to make a lot of money. They also realize that outside of typical raises after a set number of years teaching, their pay is going to remain relatively static. A system that is supposedly merit based is going to introduce an element of profit chasing to the mix that can only be detrimental to students in the long term.

    OptimusZed on
    We're reading Rifts. You should too. You know you want to. Now With Ninjas!

    They tried to bury us. They didn't know that we were seeds. 2018 Midterms. Get your shit together.
  • taerictaeric Registered User, ClubPA regular
    edited October 2009
    OptimusZed wrote: »
    Even if this were the case, there are too many outside influences that effect that sort of thing to drop it all on the teacher. Family involvement, trouble at home, undiagnosed or untreated learning disabilities, etc. I mean, there are teachers that spend their entire day trying to teach kids with severe learning disabilities how not to spill water on themselves when they drink out of a glass or how to avoid burning themselves on exposed kitchen elements. Those kids aren't going to be making advances you can gauge with tests.

    Such a system would also be a huge burden for teachers of junior high and high school kids in areas with large populations of at risk kids. Dropping test scores because kids are getting into gangs and drugs can't be blamed directly on the teacher, but they would be reflected by paycuts under this sort of a system. Which would be particularly dangerous here given that those places are the ones that can't find or keep teachers anyway.

    Again, instead of just saying "it would be a burden" take a look at the study that shows that it does work. I will repeat that I am a skeptic towards merit based pay, but this study seems to indicate it can work. It is far from a silver bullet, but it did get results. Seeing as how we have no real alternatives being put forth, I am in favor of trying something if it has been shown to get results.

    taeric on
Sign In or Register to comment.