You have offered no evidence that teachers in America are somehow different.
Do you have any statistics showing how teacher absenteeism is a raging problem in the U.S. educational system?
The study showed performance pay didn't improve absenteeism, it improved teaching effort for those teachers who showed up.
But in a system where you have rampant absenteeism, you've got a larger problem with motivation and dedication anyway. So monetary incentives bring up marginal performances in a system full of people who aren't even motivated enough to show up for work on a regular basis. That's great for India, I guess, but the problems with the US school system are completely different.
You have offered no evidence that teachers in America are somehow different.
Do you have any statistics showing how teacher absenteeism is a raging problem in the U.S. educational system?
The study showed performance pay didn't improve absenteeism, it improved teaching effort for those teachers who showed up.
Is there an observed problem with teacher effort in US Schools?
You don't need a problem in order to induce greater effort. If I can incentivize a good teacher to become great or a medoicre teacher to become good, that is a perfectly acceptable result.
Do you realize how hard it is to become a teacher in this country?
Do you realize how hard it is to become a doctor in this country? An engineer? Are you claiming incentives don't work for those fields?
Do you realize how many orders of magnitude the salaries of those professions generally outstrip those of teachers?
It's not just the work, it's the end result that you're aiming for. With teachers, they aren't putting in tons of work for a payday. They're putting in tons of work to try and help kids. Their motivations are things like job satisfaction and aiding the community. People who are profit motivated and willing to work their asses off end up in other industries like the ones you mentioned.
I think you misunderstand me. If we are wanting to attract talented and able people into the profession of teaching, than lets start using monetary incentives. Nobody gives a fuck that the reason their doctor became a doctor is that they like to help people. They want the best doctor they can get. We need the same attitude with people teaching our children. I don't give a damned how much you are "in it" to help people. I want you to be able to teach.
You have offered no evidence that teachers in America are somehow different.
Do you have any statistics showing how teacher absenteeism is a raging problem in the U.S. educational system?
The study showed performance pay didn't improve absenteeism, it improved teaching effort for those teachers who showed up.
Is there an observed problem with teacher effort in US Schools?
You don't need a problem in order to induce greater effort. If I can incentivize a good teacher to become great or a medoicre teacher to become good, that is a perfectly acceptable result.
But the effectiveness of monetary incentives is inversely proportional to the motivation of the teacher without them. So in a system with higher standard levels of teacher motivation than India, and it's hard to say that the US doesn't have a system with high general levels of motivation, the effect is depressed.
This means that the money that would be spent for incentives, even assuming they have some positive effect, would probably be better spent on things like school music programs or hiring new teachers, things that have been proven to have positive impacts on student performance in this country.
You have offered no evidence that teachers in America are somehow different.
Do you have any statistics showing how teacher absenteeism is a raging problem in the U.S. educational system?
The study showed performance pay didn't improve absenteeism, it improved teaching effort for those teachers who showed up.
Is there an observed problem with teacher effort in US Schools?
You don't need a problem in order to induce greater effort. If I can incentivize a good teacher to become great or a medoicre teacher to become good, that is a perfectly acceptable result.
But the effectiveness of monetary incentives is inversely proportional to the motivation of the teacher without them. So in a system with higher standard levels of teacher motivation than India, and it's hard to say that the US doesn't have a system with high general levels of motivation, the effect is depressed.
This means that the money that would be spent for incentives, even assuming they have some positive effect, would probably be better spent on things like school music programs or hiring new teachers, things that have been proven to have positive impacts on student performance in this country.
Have you disproven that monetary incentives for teachers will have an effect? Because, it doesn't sound like you have. You have just stated it, and expect us to take your word for it.
Do you realize how hard it is to become a teacher in this country?
Do you realize how hard it is to become a doctor in this country? An engineer? Are you claiming incentives don't work for those fields?
Do you realize how many orders of magnitude the salaries of those professions generally outstrip those of teachers?
It's not just the work, it's the end result that you're aiming for. With teachers, they aren't putting in tons of work for a payday. They're putting in tons of work to try and help kids. Their motivations are things like job satisfaction and aiding the community. People who are profit motivated and willing to work their asses off end up in other industries like the ones you mentioned.
I think you misunderstand me. If we are wanting to attract talented and able people into the profession of teaching, than lets start using monetary incentives. Nobody gives a fuck that the reason their doctor became a doctor is that they like to help people. They want the best doctor they can get. We need the same attitude with people teaching our children. I don't give a damned how much you are "in it" to help people. I want you to be able to teach.
And I think you're misunderstanding the level of funds that we have to throw at the problem. Schools in this country are chronically underfunded. There's no way we can ever hope to approach the private sector in terms of pay, especially for the young talented go-getters that you're talking about. You can't pay teachers doctor salaries, so there's no way you're going to pick up people of that caliber that aren't already motivated to teach in the first place.
You have offered no evidence that teachers in America are somehow different.
Do you have any statistics showing how teacher absenteeism is a raging problem in the U.S. educational system?
The study showed performance pay didn't improve absenteeism, it improved teaching effort for those teachers who showed up.
Is there an observed problem with teacher effort in US Schools?
You don't need a problem in order to induce greater effort. If I can incentivize a good teacher to become great or a medoicre teacher to become good, that is a perfectly acceptable result.
Yes, but I just want to be sure that we're actually trying to fix a problem here. I was in several schools growing up, and now have my own kids in public school, and I have never really noticed a lack of effort being any kind of trend. Nor is this a common complaint I've heard, nor is it something I see reflected in media attitudes toward teachers in America.
My point is, India was incentivizing teachers to show up and do their job. If there is no evidence that the US public education system is saturated with apathy and absenteeism, why would we want to take the same solution?
So, I ask again. What are we talking about incentivizing? I'm not against incentives, I just want to make sure we've clearly defined what we plan to incentivize.
Have you disproven that monetary incentives for teachers will have an effect? Because, it doesn't sound like you have. You have just stated it, and expect us to take your word for it.
I haven't disproven it anymore than you've proven that the results in India would carry over to America, no.
But I have put forward other uses of the limited school funds that are likely to have a much greater impact. Teacher incentives don't exist in a budgetary vacuum.
They tried to bury us. They didn't know that we were seeds.2018 Midterms. Get your shit together.
0
FencingsaxIt is difficult to get a man to understand, when his salary depends upon his not understandingGNU Terry PratchettRegistered Userregular
edited October 2009
I'm fairly sure that any sane performance metric would take into account if a teacher was a special ed teacher, or a ESL teacher or if they had some other physical or learning handicap.
I'm fairly sure that any sane performance metric would take into account if a teacher was a special ed teacher, or a ESL teacher or if they had some other physical or learning handicap.
You assume sanity from Educational Administration? You assume in folly, I think.
And I think you're misunderstanding the level of funds that we have to throw at the problem. Schools in this country are chronically underfunded. There's no way we can ever hope to approach the private sector in terms of pay, especially for the young talented go-getters that you're talking about. You can't pay teachers doctor salaries, so there's no way you're going to pick up people of that caliber that aren't already motivated to teach in the first place.
So, you are back to complaining that "it can't be done." If they are chronically under funded as it is, where is the money going? We spend more than any other country per child. Yet we now have one of the worst drop out/graduation rates. link
Have you disproven that monetary incentives for teachers will have an effect? Because, it doesn't sound like you have. You have just stated it, and expect us to take your word for it.
I haven't disproven it anymore than you've proven that the results in India would carry over to America, no.
But I have put forward other uses of the limited school funds that are likely to have a much greater impact. Teacher incentives don't exist in a budgetary vacuum.
I see more reason to believe the results would carry over, than to believe that they wouldn't. You have stated differences that say it shouldn't work as well here, but have provided absolutely no studies that show those differences matter. Unless you are basically boiling down to a race based argument, I will insist on more before just taking your word for it.
I think the another issue with why education may be different from other industries is that teachers teaching better will not bring in more money or save on expenses for their school.
Also, teachers teaching better will not automatically affect the education of our kids. I'm sorry, but no matter what the teacher is doing, the kids in the class that don't want to learn, won't.
And besides that, our current incentive system has thoroughly fucked up our healthcare system. I don't think doctor pay is a particularly effective argument. The centers around the country that consistently provide the best care are places like Mayo where doctors are salaried and not incentivized.
Kistra on
Animal Crossing: City Folk Lissa in Filmore 3179-9580-0076
And I think you're misunderstanding the level of funds that we have to throw at the problem. Schools in this country are chronically underfunded. There's no way we can ever hope to approach the private sector in terms of pay, especially for the young talented go-getters that you're talking about. You can't pay teachers doctor salaries, so there's no way you're going to pick up people of that caliber that aren't already motivated to teach in the first place.
So, you are back to complaining that "it can't be done." If they are chronically under funded as it is, where is the money going? We spend more than any other country per child. Yet we now have one of the worst drop out/graduation rates. link
I'm not complaining that it can't be done. Please stop putting words in my mouth.
I'm saying that raising the average teacher's salary by an order of magnitude (i.e. going from $30,000 to $300,000 or so) to put them on par with other professionals with high levels of education and specialization simply isn't something that can be supported by the public school funding system as it is set up. If we really wanted to, sure we could. I hope you like your 400% local tax increase, I'm sure everyone else will.
The reason we spend so much money is tied to the reasons it's so hard to be a teacher; most school districts pay for the costs of classes for recertification. So a school with 20 teachers is probably paying for 4 or so of their teachers to be full time students for every summer (including room and board if the school is far away). This is not a small fee. There are also things like ubiquitously available computers for school kids to use, art programs and their constituent supplies, band instruments, school buses since our country lacks comprehensive public transportation in most places, etc. Another issue is that there are a huge number of public schools that are forced to rent their facilities, including the building housing their classrooms, because the people holding the purse strings are in elected office and unwilling to forward them the funds to buy their buildings outright.
There are a lot of budgetary issues with the American public school system. None of them will be fixed with teacher incentives.
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.
See, if it were like this, I'd be okay with it, because you're describing not only a merit pay system, but an institutionalized coaching or mentoring system.
My concern is that the actual implementation would be significantly watered down from this.
Another misconception in this thread is that teaching to the test is bad.
Teaching to the test isn't necessarily bad, but if the test is a standardized multiple-choice test taken on a Scantron, or something that has very limited application to real world skills like the SAT, then I think there's a solid argument that teaching to the test is a poor use of time.
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.
I agree with this 100%.
Feral on
every person who doesn't like an acquired taste always seems to think everyone who likes it is faking it. it should be an official fallacy.
Have you disproven that monetary incentives for teachers will have an effect? Because, it doesn't sound like you have. You have just stated it, and expect us to take your word for it.
I haven't disproven it anymore than you've proven that the results in India would carry over to America, no.
But I have put forward other uses of the limited school funds that are likely to have a much greater impact. Teacher incentives don't exist in a budgetary vacuum.
I see more reason to believe the results would carry over, than to believe that they wouldn't. You have stated differences that say it shouldn't work as well here, but have provided absolutely no studies that show those differences matter. Unless you are basically boiling down to a race based argument, I will insist on more before just taking your word for it.
There haven't been any studies in the United States. DC was going to try it (after firing half their teachers and effectively putting the rest on probation) after their new Superintendent took over, but I don't think that ever took shape.
So no, I can't point you to studies showing it won't work in America anymore than you can point me to some that prove it will.
Another misconception in this thread is that teaching to the test is bad.
Teaching to the test isn't necessarily bad, but if the test is a standardized multiple-choice test taken on a Scantron, or something that has very limited application to real world skills like the SAT, then I think there's a solid argument that teaching to the test is a poor use of time.
Thing is, even when the test isn't a Scantron-type, people will still rally against it. Example: here 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". 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.
People don't like hard things. If you have a hard test, people won't like it. If you have an easy test, then teaching to the test will happen and will be unproductive and students will suffer for it.
Can we at least all agree that lack of spending/funds is clearly not the problem with US primary and secondary education?
From OECD Education at a Glance 2009. (No link, institutional subscription required.) The "#REF!" on the orange line legend is there in the original. Sloppy editing I guess.
And I'm not saying that more funding would be a bad idea. That's debatable. I'm saying that relative to other OECD countries, we shouldn't be blaming the problems of the US system on underfunding. Use of funds, distribution of funds, etc.? Perhaps. But not underfunding in general.
Can we at least all agree that lack of spending/funds is clearly not the problem with US primary and secondary education?
From OECD Education at a Glance 2009. (No link, institutional subscription required.) The "#REF!" on the orange line legend is there in the original. Sloppy editing I guess.
And I'm not saying that more funding would be a bad idea. That's debatable. I'm saying that relative to other OECD countries, we shouldn't be blaming the problems of the US system on underfunding. Use of funds, distribution of funds, etc.? Perhaps. But not underfunding in general.
I will note that since my daughter has started public school, school supply lists have basically been asking the parents to buy supplies for the whole classroom to last the year. When I was in school, if I needed a pencil, the school had pencils. Why am I buying pencils for 30 children? I don't mind the expense, but what's going on with the budgets that they can't afford any themselves?
I'm saying that raising the average teacher's salary by an order of magnitude (i.e. going from $30,000 to $300,000 or so) to put them on par with other professionals with high levels of education and specialization simply isn't something that can be supported by the public school funding system as it is set up. If we really wanted to, sure we could. I hope you like your 400% local tax increase, I'm sure everyone else will.
You are also putting words in my mouth. I did not say to increase their pay by an order of magnitude. I just said to use incentives. The incentives do not have to raise them to a new income level, just be present. I am lacking links, but it has been shown before that having someone make 30k plus 4k incentives, will lead to more productive people than just giving them 34k. (It does drop off, I believe. Offering upwards of 40% incentives hurts, I believe. Can't find the link. )
Can we at least all agree that lack of spending/funds is clearly not the problem with US primary and secondary education?
On a national level? No, you're right. If you average the whole country, we should have plenty of money to support a functional school system.
On a district level? Where one district's budget might eclipse another district's budget due to higher property taxes? Absolutely, lack of funds can be a problem.
In other words, the way we collect and allocate funds, on a macro level, is part of the problem.
Feral on
every person who doesn't like an acquired taste always seems to think everyone who likes it is faking it. it should be an official fallacy.
Have you disproven that monetary incentives for teachers will have an effect? Because, it doesn't sound like you have. You have just stated it, and expect us to take your word for it.
I haven't disproven it anymore than you've proven that the results in India would carry over to America, no.
The difference between us, is that I am open to being shown wrong. You don't even want to attempt it.
Can we at least all agree that lack of spending/funds is clearly not the problem with US primary and secondary education?
From OECD Education at a Glance 2009. (No link, institutional subscription required.) The "#REF!" on the orange line legend is there in the original. Sloppy editing I guess.
And I'm not saying that more funding would be a bad idea. That's debatable. I'm saying that relative to other OECD countries, we shouldn't be blaming the problems of the US system on underfunding. Use of funds, distribution of funds, etc.? Perhaps. But not underfunding in general.
I will note that since my daughter has started public school, school supply lists have basically been asking the parents to buy supplies for the whole classroom to last the year. When I was in school, if I needed a pencil, the school had pencils. Why am I buying pencils for 30 children? I don't mind the expense, but what's going on with the budgets that they can't afford any themselves?
I agree that's the real question. Where the fuck is our money going? And why aren't we getting top notch educational outcomes for that kind of price tag?
Unfortunately, a good portion of the problem with spending in the country are beyond the scope of the individual school boards to fix.
Transporting students is a uniquely American problem in a lot of ways given our reluctance to embrace public transit. Where Japanese schoolkids can just hop on the subway, any given public school is probably supported by a fleet of buses. Most of which are rented, since buying them is too much of a one-time expenditure to get OK'd by the city council or state legislature. And let's not forget the gas for all those.
Textbooks typically cost more in America than their equivalents in Europe or Japan as well. Programs like free school lunches for the underprivileged are there too. The list goes on.
I'm saying that raising the average teacher's salary by an order of magnitude (i.e. going from $30,000 to $300,000 or so) to put them on par with other professionals with high levels of education and specialization simply isn't something that can be supported by the public school funding system as it is set up. If we really wanted to, sure we could. I hope you like your 400% local tax increase, I'm sure everyone else will.
You are also putting words in my mouth. I did not say to increase their pay by an order of magnitude. I just said to use incentives. The incentives do not have to raise them to a new income level, just be present. I am lacking links, but it has been shown before that having someone make 30k plus 4k incentives, will lead to more productive people than just giving them 34k. (It does drop off, I believe. Offering upwards of 40% incentives hurts, I believe. Can't find the link. )
You're talking about attracting the same type of people that go into engineering or medicine, and doing it the same way; the money. In order to do that, you'd have to have incentives on par with those fields, which far outstrip anything that public school teachers make today. If you can't manage that, those people are still going to go to those other professions and all you're doing is raising the salaries of teachers in general, not attracting new talent.
Can we at least all agree that lack of spending/funds is clearly not the problem with US primary and secondary education?
From OECD Education at a Glance 2009. (No link, institutional subscription required.) The "#REF!" on the orange line legend is there in the original. Sloppy editing I guess.
And I'm not saying that more funding would be a bad idea. That's debatable. I'm saying that relative to other OECD countries, we shouldn't be blaming the problems of the US system on underfunding. Use of funds, distribution of funds, etc.? Perhaps. But not underfunding in general.
I will note that since my daughter has started public school, school supply lists have basically been asking the parents to buy supplies for the whole classroom to last the year. When I was in school, if I needed a pencil, the school had pencils. Why am I buying pencils for 30 children? I don't mind the expense, but what's going on with the budgets that they can't afford any themselves?
I agree that's the real question. Where the fuck is our money going? And why aren't we getting top notch educational outcomes for that kind of price tag?
You have to take into account that school budgets are based on district. Where the median house value is $400k you'll have a better funded school system than where the value is $70k.
Suburban, wealthy kids are not a problem. Our problem is with median and low-income districts. Which also happens to be where the biggest behavioral, social and cultural issues are.
The issue in America isn't that teachers suck, because they don't.
The issue is that cultural, social and income-specific problems prevent children from performing. Want everyone to learn well? Let's provide every family with an annual income of $300k. Then you'll see a huge difference.
I'm saying that raising the average teacher's salary by an order of magnitude (i.e. going from $30,000 to $300,000 or so) to put them on par with other professionals with high levels of education and specialization simply isn't something that can be supported by the public school funding system as it is set up. If we really wanted to, sure we could. I hope you like your 400% local tax increase, I'm sure everyone else will.
You are also putting words in my mouth. I did not say to increase their pay by an order of magnitude. I just said to use incentives. The incentives do not have to raise them to a new income level, just be present. I am lacking links, but it has been shown before that having someone make 30k plus 4k incentives, will lead to more productive people than just giving them 34k. (It does drop off, I believe. Offering upwards of 40% incentives hurts, I believe. Can't find the link. )
You're talking about attracting the same type of people that go into engineering or medicine, and doing it the same way; the money. In order to do that, you'd have to have incentives on par with those fields, which far outstrip anything that public school teachers make today. If you can't manage that, those people are still going to go to those other professions and all you're doing is raising the salaries of teachers in general, not attracting new talent.
Not at all. I am saying that other industries that are also hard to get into use monetary incentives. I've also gone on the record as saying someone that is good at physics might be a terrible physics teacher. So, I would want to make sure not to try and leach from those categories too much.
This idea that you have that only people that want to help kids become teachers is laughable, considering the experiences that most of the nation has with their teachers. Many people become teachers because it is the best paying job they can get. This is true of many people I know that graduated with a BS from GaTech. They graduated into a crappy environment, so decided to become a teacher. They are not sure they will keep at it, but they might.
The issue is that cultural, social and income-specific problems prevent children from performing. Want everyone to learn well? Let's provide every family with an annual income of $300k. Then you'll see a huge difference.
I don't even think you'd have to go that high. If you provided everyone with upwards of 60 to 70k, I think you'd see a good difference. (Your point stands, though.)
Unfortunately, a good portion of the problem with spending in the country are beyond the scope of the individual school boards to fix.
Transporting students is a uniquely American problem in a lot of ways given our reluctance to embrace public transit. Where Japanese schoolkids can just hop on the subway, any given public school is probably supported by a fleet of buses. Most of which are rented, since buying them is too much of a one-time expenditure to get OK'd by the city council or state legislature. And let's not forget the gas for all those.
Textbooks typically cost more in America than their equivalents in Europe or Japan as well. Programs like free school lunches for the underprivileged are there too. The list goes on.
I can't speak to the textbook problem, although I don't think textbook newness is all that important in K-12.
But the transportation is not it. Here's spending on core services* only.
*OECD Definition: Expenditure on educational core services includes all expenditure that is directly related to instruction and education. This should cover all expenditure on teachers, school buildings, teaching materials, books, tuition outside schools, and administration of schools.
You have to take into account that school budgets are based on district. Where the median house value is $400k you'll have a better funded school system than where the value is $70k.
Suburban, wealthy kids are not a problem. Our problem is with median and low-income districts. Which also happens to be where the biggest behavioral, social and cultural issues are.
There's also the problem that even in districts with huge local tax support, they still like to lean on the federal or state governments for funding. So two schools on opposite sides of the same town may be getting roughly the same fed and state money, while one of them is already flush with local school tax from their wealthy constituency and the other would be lucky to feed it's kids using it's pittance of a local income. This leads to shortages on the low end and tons of waste on the other, both of which bring down the average value of our education dollars.
You have to take into account that school budgets are based on district. Where the median house value is $400k you'll have a better funded school system than where the value is $70k.
Suburban, wealthy kids are not a problem. Our problem is with median and low-income districts. Which also happens to be where the biggest behavioral, social and cultural issues are.
There's also the problem that even in districts with huge local tax support, they still like to lean on the federal or state governments for funding. So two schools on opposite sides of the same town may be getting roughly the same fed and state money, while one of them is already flush with local school tax from their wealthy constituency and the other would be lucky to feed it's kids using it's pittance of a local income. This leads to shortages on the low end and tons of waste on the other, both of which bring down the average value of our education dollars.
How is this problem dealt with in other countries? Does it really all relate back to how our local tax revenues are just idiotic? (This was discussed briefly in the money thread.)
This idea that you have that only people that want to help kids become teachers is laughable, considering the experiences that most of the nation has with their teachers. Many people become teachers because it is the best paying job they can get. This is true of many people I know that graduated with a BS from GaTech. They graduated into a crappy environment, so decided to become a teacher. They are not sure they will keep at it, but they might.
The issue is that cultural, social and income-specific problems prevent children from performing. Want everyone to learn well? Let's provide every family with an annual income of $300k. Then you'll see a huge difference.
I don't even think you'd have to go that high. If you provided everyone with upwards of 60 to 70k, I think you'd see a good difference. (Your point stands, though.)
Exactly.
When MCAS (state wide test for MA) began, it was (and still is) exactly what you would expect. The wealthy suburbs scored damn well, while the struggling urban low-income centers tested piss poor.
When we say that our students aren't learning, what we're really saying is that poor, urban kids aren't getting the education they need.
Now, I know enough not to mistake correlation for causation, but damn is that something.
It leads me to my previous points that teachers aren't the issue but socio-economic status and cultural roadblocks are more of an issue for education. And these won't be solved by paying teachers more or giving teachers incentives.
Want these kids to learn? Let's give them incentives. parents have done this forever. Get an "A" get $50. Now that would motivate these kids to learn.
Actually, I think that is now my position: Incentives for students.
This idea that you have that only people that want to help kids become teachers is laughable, considering the experiences that most of the nation has with their teachers. Many people become teachers because it is the best paying job they can get. This is true of many people I know that graduated with a BS from GaTech. They graduated into a crappy environment, so decided to become a teacher. They are not sure they will keep at it, but they might.
Care to elaborate on the bolded portion?
Maybe I should change how it is phrased. If it really is people that just want to help, fuck em. I want people that actually can. Since we have abysmal graduation rates, it doesn't matter how badly the current set of teachers wants to help, it matters if they are.
Anecdote alert! I had as many teachers that were good as I did that clearly just couldn't cut it in industry.
I'm fairly sure that any sane performance metric would take into account if a teacher was a special ed teacher, or a ESL teacher or if they had some other physical or learning handicap.
You assume sanity from Educational Administration? You assume in folly, I think.
I can tell you that right now when teachers are rated based on performance (though it doesn't determine pay) this is not necessarily considered. My wife was a teacher. In a state the didn't believe in special-ed rooms. It didn't matter whether she had multiple autistic and otherwise handicapped students in her room, or whether half the kids handed to her couldn't read at grade level coming into the room. She was rated on her ability to get kids on grade level, period. Even kids that, realistically, would never manage this.
There was absolutely no consideration given for the makeup of individual classrooms.
You have to take into account that school budgets are based on district. Where the median house value is $400k you'll have a better funded school system than where the value is $70k.
Suburban, wealthy kids are not a problem. Our problem is with median and low-income districts. Which also happens to be where the biggest behavioral, social and cultural issues are.
There's also the problem that even in districts with huge local tax support, they still like to lean on the federal or state governments for funding. So two schools on opposite sides of the same town may be getting roughly the same fed and state money, while one of them is already flush with local school tax from their wealthy constituency and the other would be lucky to feed it's kids using it's pittance of a local income. This leads to shortages on the low end and tons of waste on the other, both of which bring down the average value of our education dollars.
How is this problem dealt with in other countries? Does it really all relate back to how our local tax revenues are just idiotic? (This was discussed briefly in the money thread.)
It's generally dealt with on a national level in most places. The way we allocate education funding is equal parts arcane and asinine. Standardizing public funding and reserving the bulk of federal money for schools in low income districts would go a long way. Things like NCLB and it's structure for targetting funding cause death spirals for poorly funded schools. This isn't something you see in Japan or Switzerland.
The issue is that cultural, social and income-specific problems prevent children from performing. Want everyone to learn well? Let's provide every family with an annual income of $300k. Then you'll see a huge difference.
I don't even think you'd have to go that high. If you provided everyone with upwards of 60 to 70k, I think you'd see a good difference. (Your point stands, though.)
Exactly.
When MCAS (state wide test for MA) began, it was (and still is) exactly what you would expect. The wealthy suburbs scored damn well, while the struggling urban low-income centers tested piss poor.
When we say that our students aren't learning, what we're really saying is that poor, urban kids aren't getting the education they need.
Now, I know enough not to mistake correlation for causation, but damn is that something.
It leads me to my previous points that teachers aren't the issue but socio-economic status and cultural roadblocks are more of an issue for education. And these won't be solved by paying teachers more or giving teachers incentives.
Want these kids to learn? Let's give them incentives. parents have done this forever. Get an "A" get $50. Now that would motivate these kids to learn.
Actually, I think that is now my position: Incentives for students.
Good idea I'm semi fond of... I want to say 'Getting money for good grades' is bad, but I can't for the life of me find a reason why. So I think it's good. Maybe.
This idea that you have that only people that want to help kids become teachers is laughable, considering the experiences that most of the nation has with their teachers. Many people become teachers because it is the best paying job they can get. This is true of many people I know that graduated with a BS from GaTech. They graduated into a crappy environment, so decided to become a teacher. They are not sure they will keep at it, but they might.
Care to elaborate on the bolded portion?
Maybe I should change how it is phrased. If it really is people that just want to help, fuck em. I want people that actually can. Since we have abysmal graduation rates, it doesn't matter how badly the current set of teachers wants to help, it matters if they are.
Anecdote alert! I had as many teachers that were good as I did that clearly just couldn't cut it in industry.
Graduation rates have vastly less to do with teacher quality than they do with the area's economy and culture related to education.
The issue is that cultural, social and income-specific problems prevent children from performing. Want everyone to learn well? Let's provide every family with an annual income of $300k. Then you'll see a huge difference.
I don't even think you'd have to go that high. If you provided everyone with upwards of 60 to 70k, I think you'd see a good difference. (Your point stands, though.)
Exactly.
When MCAS (state wide test for MA) began, it was (and still is) exactly what you would expect. The wealthy suburbs scored damn well, while the struggling urban low-income centers tested piss poor.
When we say that our students aren't learning, what we're really saying is that poor, urban kids aren't getting the education they need.
Now, I know enough not to mistake correlation for causation, but damn is that something.
It leads me to my previous points that teachers aren't the issue but socio-economic status and cultural roadblocks are more of an issue for education. And these won't be solved by paying teachers more or giving teachers incentives.
Want these kids to learn? Let's give them incentives. parents have done this forever. Get an "A" get $50. Now that would motivate these kids to learn.
Actually, I think that is now my position: Incentives for students.
Good idea I'm semi fond of... I want to say 'Getting money for good grades' is bad, but I can't for the life of me find a reason why. So I think it's good. Maybe.
Actually, I'd say it is positively American.
What better American lesson can we teach kids that if they work hard they'll get paid?
Posts
Is there an observed problem with teacher effort in US Schools?
They tried to bury us. They didn't know that we were seeds. 2018 Midterms. Get your shit together.
You don't need a problem in order to induce greater effort. If I can incentivize a good teacher to become great or a medoicre teacher to become good, that is a perfectly acceptable result.
I think you misunderstand me. If we are wanting to attract talented and able people into the profession of teaching, than lets start using monetary incentives. Nobody gives a fuck that the reason their doctor became a doctor is that they like to help people. They want the best doctor they can get. We need the same attitude with people teaching our children. I don't give a damned how much you are "in it" to help people. I want you to be able to teach.
This means that the money that would be spent for incentives, even assuming they have some positive effect, would probably be better spent on things like school music programs or hiring new teachers, things that have been proven to have positive impacts on student performance in this country.
They tried to bury us. They didn't know that we were seeds. 2018 Midterms. Get your shit together.
Have you disproven that monetary incentives for teachers will have an effect? Because, it doesn't sound like you have. You have just stated it, and expect us to take your word for it.
They tried to bury us. They didn't know that we were seeds. 2018 Midterms. Get your shit together.
Yes, but I just want to be sure that we're actually trying to fix a problem here. I was in several schools growing up, and now have my own kids in public school, and I have never really noticed a lack of effort being any kind of trend. Nor is this a common complaint I've heard, nor is it something I see reflected in media attitudes toward teachers in America.
My point is, India was incentivizing teachers to show up and do their job. If there is no evidence that the US public education system is saturated with apathy and absenteeism, why would we want to take the same solution?
So, I ask again. What are we talking about incentivizing? I'm not against incentives, I just want to make sure we've clearly defined what we plan to incentivize.
But I have put forward other uses of the limited school funds that are likely to have a much greater impact. Teacher incentives don't exist in a budgetary vacuum.
They tried to bury us. They didn't know that we were seeds. 2018 Midterms. Get your shit together.
You assume sanity from Educational Administration? You assume in folly, I think.
So, you are back to complaining that "it can't be done." If they are chronically under funded as it is, where is the money going? We spend more than any other country per child. Yet we now have one of the worst drop out/graduation rates. link
I see more reason to believe the results would carry over, than to believe that they wouldn't. You have stated differences that say it shouldn't work as well here, but have provided absolutely no studies that show those differences matter. Unless you are basically boiling down to a race based argument, I will insist on more before just taking your word for it.
Also, teachers teaching better will not automatically affect the education of our kids. I'm sorry, but no matter what the teacher is doing, the kids in the class that don't want to learn, won't.
And besides that, our current incentive system has thoroughly fucked up our healthcare system. I don't think doctor pay is a particularly effective argument. The centers around the country that consistently provide the best care are places like Mayo where doctors are salaried and not incentivized.
I'm saying that raising the average teacher's salary by an order of magnitude (i.e. going from $30,000 to $300,000 or so) to put them on par with other professionals with high levels of education and specialization simply isn't something that can be supported by the public school funding system as it is set up. If we really wanted to, sure we could. I hope you like your 400% local tax increase, I'm sure everyone else will.
The reason we spend so much money is tied to the reasons it's so hard to be a teacher; most school districts pay for the costs of classes for recertification. So a school with 20 teachers is probably paying for 4 or so of their teachers to be full time students for every summer (including room and board if the school is far away). This is not a small fee. There are also things like ubiquitously available computers for school kids to use, art programs and their constituent supplies, band instruments, school buses since our country lacks comprehensive public transportation in most places, etc. Another issue is that there are a huge number of public schools that are forced to rent their facilities, including the building housing their classrooms, because the people holding the purse strings are in elected office and unwilling to forward them the funds to buy their buildings outright.
There are a lot of budgetary issues with the American public school system. None of them will be fixed with teacher incentives.
They tried to bury us. They didn't know that we were seeds. 2018 Midterms. Get your shit together.
See, if it were like this, I'd be okay with it, because you're describing not only a merit pay system, but an institutionalized coaching or mentoring system.
My concern is that the actual implementation would be significantly watered down from this.
Teaching to the test isn't necessarily bad, but if the test is a standardized multiple-choice test taken on a Scantron, or something that has very limited application to real world skills like the SAT, then I think there's a solid argument that teaching to the test is a poor use of time.
I agree with this 100%.
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
So no, I can't point you to studies showing it won't work in America anymore than you can point me to some that prove it will.
They tried to bury us. They didn't know that we were seeds. 2018 Midterms. Get your shit together.
Thing is, even when the test isn't a Scantron-type, people will still rally against it. Example: here 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". 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.
People don't like hard things. If you have a hard test, people won't like it. If you have an easy test, then teaching to the test will happen and will be unproductive and students will suffer for it.
From OECD Education at a Glance 2009. (No link, institutional subscription required.) The "#REF!" on the orange line legend is there in the original. Sloppy editing I guess.
And I'm not saying that more funding would be a bad idea. That's debatable. I'm saying that relative to other OECD countries, we shouldn't be blaming the problems of the US system on underfunding. Use of funds, distribution of funds, etc.? Perhaps. But not underfunding in general.
I will note that since my daughter has started public school, school supply lists have basically been asking the parents to buy supplies for the whole classroom to last the year. When I was in school, if I needed a pencil, the school had pencils. Why am I buying pencils for 30 children? I don't mind the expense, but what's going on with the budgets that they can't afford any themselves?
You are also putting words in my mouth. I did not say to increase their pay by an order of magnitude. I just said to use incentives. The incentives do not have to raise them to a new income level, just be present. I am lacking links, but it has been shown before that having someone make 30k plus 4k incentives, will lead to more productive people than just giving them 34k. (It does drop off, I believe. Offering upwards of 40% incentives hurts, I believe. Can't find the link.
On a national level? No, you're right. If you average the whole country, we should have plenty of money to support a functional school system.
On a district level? Where one district's budget might eclipse another district's budget due to higher property taxes? Absolutely, lack of funds can be a problem.
In other words, the way we collect and allocate funds, on a macro level, is part of the problem.
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
The difference between us, is that I am open to being shown wrong. You don't even want to attempt it.
I agree that's the real question. Where the fuck is our money going? And why aren't we getting top notch educational outcomes for that kind of price tag?
Transporting students is a uniquely American problem in a lot of ways given our reluctance to embrace public transit. Where Japanese schoolkids can just hop on the subway, any given public school is probably supported by a fleet of buses. Most of which are rented, since buying them is too much of a one-time expenditure to get OK'd by the city council or state legislature. And let's not forget the gas for all those.
Textbooks typically cost more in America than their equivalents in Europe or Japan as well. Programs like free school lunches for the underprivileged are there too. The list goes on.
They tried to bury us. They didn't know that we were seeds. 2018 Midterms. Get your shit together.
They tried to bury us. They didn't know that we were seeds. 2018 Midterms. Get your shit together.
You have to take into account that school budgets are based on district. Where the median house value is $400k you'll have a better funded school system than where the value is $70k.
Suburban, wealthy kids are not a problem. Our problem is with median and low-income districts. Which also happens to be where the biggest behavioral, social and cultural issues are.
The issue in America isn't that teachers suck, because they don't.
The issue is that cultural, social and income-specific problems prevent children from performing. Want everyone to learn well? Let's provide every family with an annual income of $300k. Then you'll see a huge difference.
Not at all. I am saying that other industries that are also hard to get into use monetary incentives. I've also gone on the record as saying someone that is good at physics might be a terrible physics teacher. So, I would want to make sure not to try and leach from those categories too much.
This idea that you have that only people that want to help kids become teachers is laughable, considering the experiences that most of the nation has with their teachers. Many people become teachers because it is the best paying job they can get. This is true of many people I know that graduated with a BS from GaTech. They graduated into a crappy environment, so decided to become a teacher. They are not sure they will keep at it, but they might.
I don't even think you'd have to go that high. If you provided everyone with upwards of 60 to 70k, I think you'd see a good difference.
I can't speak to the textbook problem, although I don't think textbook newness is all that important in K-12.
But the transportation is not it. Here's spending on core services* only.
*OECD Definition: Expenditure on educational core services includes all expenditure that is directly related to instruction and education. This should cover all expenditure on teachers, school buildings, teaching materials, books, tuition outside schools, and administration of schools.
They tried to bury us. They didn't know that we were seeds. 2018 Midterms. Get your shit together.
How is this problem dealt with in other countries? Does it really all relate back to how our local tax revenues are just idiotic? (This was discussed briefly in the money thread.)
They tried to bury us. They didn't know that we were seeds. 2018 Midterms. Get your shit together.
Exactly.
When MCAS (state wide test for MA) began, it was (and still is) exactly what you would expect. The wealthy suburbs scored damn well, while the struggling urban low-income centers tested piss poor.
When we say that our students aren't learning, what we're really saying is that poor, urban kids aren't getting the education they need.
Now, I know enough not to mistake correlation for causation, but damn is that something.
It leads me to my previous points that teachers aren't the issue but socio-economic status and cultural roadblocks are more of an issue for education. And these won't be solved by paying teachers more or giving teachers incentives.
Want these kids to learn? Let's give them incentives. parents have done this forever. Get an "A" get $50. Now that would motivate these kids to learn.
Actually, I think that is now my position: Incentives for students.
Maybe I should change how it is phrased. If it really is people that just want to help, fuck em. I want people that actually can. Since we have abysmal graduation rates, it doesn't matter how badly the current set of teachers wants to help, it matters if they are.
Anecdote alert! I had as many teachers that were good as I did that clearly just couldn't cut it in industry.
I can tell you that right now when teachers are rated based on performance (though it doesn't determine pay) this is not necessarily considered. My wife was a teacher. In a state the didn't believe in special-ed rooms. It didn't matter whether she had multiple autistic and otherwise handicapped students in her room, or whether half the kids handed to her couldn't read at grade level coming into the room. She was rated on her ability to get kids on grade level, period. Even kids that, realistically, would never manage this.
There was absolutely no consideration given for the makeup of individual classrooms.
They tried to bury us. They didn't know that we were seeds. 2018 Midterms. Get your shit together.
Good idea I'm semi fond of... I want to say 'Getting money for good grades' is bad, but I can't for the life of me find a reason why. So I think it's good. Maybe.
They tried to bury us. They didn't know that we were seeds. 2018 Midterms. Get your shit together.
Actually, I'd say it is positively American.
What better American lesson can we teach kids that if they work hard they'll get paid?