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.
Well, how about this. You are making the solid claim that the majority of people get into teaching to help people. Prove it, as I just don't buy it. This would be a laughable claim if someone said the majority of doctors got into the field to help people. Prove that it isn't for education.
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.
Well, how about this. You are making the solid claim that the majority of people get into teaching to help people. Prove it, as I just don't buy it. This would be a laughable claim if someone said the majority of doctors got into the field to help people. Prove that it isn't for education.
The amount of work and time required does not equal the threshold for other, higher-paying positions.
Ergo, the reason one would go through all that, in a cost/benefit analysis like we do in business, would be to assume the existence of a non-economic factor.
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.
Well, how about this. You are making the solid claim that the majority of people get into teaching to help people. Prove it, as I just don't buy it. This would be a laughable claim if someone said the majority of doctors got into the field to help people. Prove that it isn't for education.
Those who can, do.
Those who can not, teach.
Those who can not teach, teach gym.
Well, how about this. You are making the solid claim that the majority of people get into teaching to help people. Prove it, as I just don't buy it. This would be a laughable claim if someone said the majority of doctors got into the field to help people. Prove that it isn't for education.
I'm not really sure what you're asking me to do here.
Teaching in this country requires at least a college degree, a special set of certifications and constant re-upping of your qualifications to keep the same job with roughly the same pay. The salary is somewhere from $20K to $40K depending on where you are in the country and the potential for upward mobility is virtually non-existent. You work 40 hours a week with students and then another 15-30 grading papers and planning classes. You're expected to help raise other people's kids without telling them anything their parents don't want you to, without actually ever getting instructions on what those things are.
I can see virtually no reason to go into this hellish profession if you aren't emotionally compelled to teach. You're vastly better off putting your degree to use somewhere with better pay, better hours and less public scrutiny.
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?
I'm so on board with this. Don't get me wrong; doing so would make a statment about American students. But, fuck it.
Could you imagine the kind of pressure students would put on their teachers if student-quarterly-bonus check depended on performance?
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.
And you completely ignored the point that sometimes those incentives actually fuck up the system and don't help at all. Mayo clinic is recognized around the world as one of the best medical centers for nearly everything. They pay all of their doctors a flat salary. No bonuses. No incentives.
What do you mean by that last part? I'm quite sure that all of my teachers were teachers because they enjoyed it and felt they were helping people. (K-12, not even close to true after that)
There are a lot of other differences between our schools/education system and other countries schools and educational systems. Mostly that our standards are ridiculously low and we punish students who are above the standard.
Kistra on
Animal Crossing: City Folk Lissa in Filmore 3179-9580-0076
Those who can, do.
Those who can not, teach.
Those who can not teach, coach.
:P
My dad taught Jr. High social studies and earth science, and coached high school basketball and volleyball for years. This is one of his favorite jokes.
Those who can, do.
Those who can not, teach.
Those who can not teach, coach.
:P
My dad taught Jr. High social studies and earth science, and coached high school basketball and volleyball for years. This is one of his favorite jokes.
That and BS, MS, PhD.
No one in my school district would trust the gym teacher with the responsibility of coaching. :P
Actually, that's a good idea. No more school-funded sports.
Why, you ask?
Because someone else will inevitably step in to foot the bill.
That is already going on in a lot of places.
And I hope you mean Inter-highschool sports. Intramural sports are something that should probably be maintained considering the problems we have in this country with a lack of physical activity.
Kistra on
Animal Crossing: City Folk Lissa in Filmore 3179-9580-0076
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?
I'm so on board with this. Don't get me wrong; doing so would make a statement about American students. But, fuck it.
Could you imagine the kind of pressure students would put on their teachers if student-quarterly-bonus check depended on performance?
Only one person is ultimately responsible for their success: the student.
This, especially in low-income areas, would shoot test scores through the roof.
Actually, that's a good idea. No more school-funded sports.
Why, you ask?
Because someone else will inevitably step in to foot the bill.
This isn't even remotely true.
for most sports it definitely is.
I could see it being a problem for like . . volleyball.
Nobody is going to pick up the bill for an inner-city Philadelphia school's girl's basketball team.
You might be able to do this in towns with one school or places where specific sports are big (and then only with those sports), but if you drop funding to every sport at all 10 city high schools, you're not going to find people to step up and save them all.
And you completely ignored the point that sometimes those incentives actually fuck up the system and don't help at all. Mayo clinic is recognized around the world as one of the best medical centers for nearly everything. They pay all of their doctors a flat salary. No bonuses. No incentives.
My understanding with the Mayo clinic is not that they have zero incentives, but that they are more accurately aligned with the goals of the patients. Is this not correct? (I tried finding some links, they allude to the fact that they do get more money for having successful outcomes, but not for ridiculous things like ordering tests. I could be misreading, though.)
And you completely ignored the point that sometimes those incentives actually fuck up the system and don't help at all. Mayo clinic is recognized around the world as one of the best medical centers for nearly everything. They pay all of their doctors a flat salary. No bonuses. No incentives.
My understanding with the Mayo clinic is not that they have zero incentives, but that they are more accurately aligned with the goals of the patients. Is this not correct? (I tried finding some links, they allude to the fact that they do get more money for having successful outcomes, but not for ridiculous things like ordering tests. I could be misreading, though.)
they're salaried, so they dont make more money by ordering stupid tests and shit. theres no financial incentives for the doctors involved except doing a good job, and getting a salary for it.
Only one person is ultimately responsible for their success: the student.
First, let me say that I do like this idea.
Second, that is entirely false. Society at large is responsible for the success of its students. (This is part of another rant I have, where I fucking hate the idea that people need more individual responsibility. That is a somewhat true statement, that is mainly used to help people feel better than those in worse situations.)
On Sports: I was mostly joking. I have nothing against physical activity (in others). I do believe there is an inordinate budget bias, though. In my High School, we had to work tooth and nail to secure a grant of a few grand for some computers and A/V equipment.
Then the school spent $20k on new lights for the football field.
Just to clarify, this was a small, rural High School. My graduating class was about 50 people, 250-300 total students in the school. I can think of FAR better uses for $20,000 mother fucking dollars. :P
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.
Even liberals can stop believing in government when it's convenient!
Only one person is ultimately responsible for their success: the student.
First, let me say that I do like this idea.
Second, that is entirely false. Society at large is responsible for the success of its students. (This is part of another rant I have, where I fucking hate the idea that people need more individual responsibility. That is a somewhat true statement, that is mainly used to help people feel better than those in worse situations.)
People definitely need more individual responsibility. It's really not possible to have too much of it, and people aren't exactly maxing out right now.
It's a behavior that can be learned, and has a lot to do with adjusting to a long term time perspective. But hoping that high school students have the maturity to do this is insane.
I can see virtually no reason to go into this hellish profession if you aren't emotionally compelled to teach. You're vastly better off putting your degree to use somewhere with better pay, better hours and less public scrutiny.
Just because you see no reason doesn't mean it doesn't exist. And, graduating with a degree from a lot of the schools that fit the requirement is not exactly tough. Some people do go to hard schools. Quite a few others don't. The ones that don't are looking at the pretty nice benefits of being a teacher, and think that that compared with the pay are enough of a reason to pursue it.
My main problem with monetarily incentivizing students is that it puts the emphasis on exactly what you're incentivizing and nothing else. So the classes with incentives get pushed ahead of those without.
And if you've got a student body of several hundred students each taking half a dozen classes, it's just not logistically possible to give each of them $50 for getting an A in every class. At least not without dropping at least one staff member to make up the difference. So you have to decide which classes deserve incentivizing and which don't.
There are all sorts of other potential problems with it, like potential abuse by angry family members when a kid gets the B+ instead of the $50 A, but simply funding it is a huge hurdle.
On Sports: I was mostly joking. I have nothing against physical activity (in others). I do believe there is an inordinate budget bias, though. In my High School, we had to work tooth and nail to secure a grant of a few grand for some computers and A/V equipment.
Then the school spent $20k on new lights for the football field.
Just to clarify, this was a small, rural High School. My graduating class was about 50 people, 250-300 total students in the school. I can think of FAR better uses for $20,000 mother fucking dollars. :P
Sadly, you probably can't. You can think of places you would rather spend the money, but the sports departments are usually revenue generating and can help the schools make money.
My main problem with incentivizing students is that its very stupid. It introduces market norms into a situation that currently has fairly strong social norms reinforcing it. The research done on behavioral economics is pretty clear on this: bad idea. When you start substituting social norms for market norms you can get very sub-par results.
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.
Even liberals can stop believing in government when it's convenient!
You know, if we keep assuming that government planners are incompetent and that private charter schools are incompetent, then who exactly is supposed to be more competent than the other?
Only one person is ultimately responsible for their success: the student.
First, let me say that I do like this idea.
Second, that is entirely false. Society at large is responsible for the success of its students. (This is part of another rant I have, where I fucking hate the idea that people need more individual responsibility. That is a somewhat true statement, that is mainly used to help people feel better than those in worse situations.)
People definitely need more individual responsibility. It's really not possible to have too much of it, and people aren't exactly maxing out right now.
It's a behavior that can be learned, and has a lot to do with adjusting to a long term time perspective. But hoping that high school students have the maturity to do this is insane.
People could use more individual responsibility. This is far outshadowed by the fact that people need to take responsibility for their society. See this nation the past couple of years. Even if half the nation is personally responsible enough to have good insurance and not take out risky mortgages, the other half isn't and as a nation we need to do something to address this.
Ugh, I can already see the news stories about kids being beaten when they get bad grades, since deadbeat dad was relying on those A's as supplemental income.
Then you get conservative pundits ranting about low income families pumping out kids for "educational welfare" as a thin cover for racism... no. Just no. There is a whole can of worms there best not touched.
Only one person is ultimately responsible for their success: the student.
First, let me say that I do like this idea.
Second, that is entirely false. Society at large is responsible for the success of its students. (This is part of another rant I have, where I fucking hate the idea that people need more individual responsibility. That is a somewhat true statement, that is mainly used to help people feel better than those in worse situations.)
I agree with your second point, there, but money is the ultimate motivator. Hell, youtube is full of clips of people eating disgusting shit for $50.
While the cultural and social issues remain, if money were to motivate students to do better, the returns would come back to the community as the community would generate more wealth. Education is a large part of the class divide.
I can see virtually no reason to go into this hellish profession if you aren't emotionally compelled to teach. You're vastly better off putting your degree to use somewhere with better pay, better hours and less public scrutiny.
Just because you see no reason doesn't mean it doesn't exist. And, graduating with a degree from a lot of the schools that fit the requirement is not exactly tough. Some people do go to hard schools. Quite a few others don't. The ones that don't are looking at the pretty nice benefits of being a teacher, and think that that compared with the pay are enough of a reason to pursue it.
Even those people are looking down the barrel of 60+ hour weeks and a level of public scrutiny (as evidenced by this thread) barely eclipsed by elected officials. If their heart isn't in it, they're going to be headed for the door very quickly unless there are absolutely no comparable jobs available.
I can see virtually no reason to go into this hellish profession if you aren't emotionally compelled to teach. You're vastly better off putting your degree to use somewhere with better pay, better hours and less public scrutiny.
Just because you see no reason doesn't mean it doesn't exist. And, graduating with a degree from a lot of the schools that fit the requirement is not exactly tough. Some people do go to hard schools. Quite a few others don't. The ones that don't are looking at the pretty nice benefits of being a teacher, and think that that compared with the pay are enough of a reason to pursue it.
Even those people are looking down the barrel of 60+ hour weeks and a level of public scrutiny (as evidenced by this thread) barely eclipsed by elected officials. If their heart isn't in it, they're going to be headed for the door very quickly unless there are absolutely no comparable jobs available.
I can tell you that if a portion of my partner's pay was based on her students performance (not her's) she would bolt. Being a teacher is about stable, safe income. If there were incentives, she'd go somewhere where those incentives would be higher.
I mean, she barely makes it by as it working in a troubled urban district with kids who just don't care.
On Sports: I was mostly joking. I have nothing against physical activity (in others). I do believe there is an inordinate budget bias, though. In my High School, we had to work tooth and nail to secure a grant of a few grand for some computers and A/V equipment.
Then the school spent $20k on new lights for the football field.
Just to clarify, this was a small, rural High School. My graduating class was about 50 people, 250-300 total students in the school. I can think of FAR better uses for $20,000 mother fucking dollars. :P
Sadly, you probably can't. You can think of places you would rather spend the money, but the sports departments are usually revenue generating and can help the schools make money.
Actually, yes. I can. The school's "Computing" class consided of several MS-DOS terminals running Microsoft Works for DOS. In 1999. This could have used some upgrades. The Band program was on it's last legs, most of the school-owned instruments were falling apart from wear and tear. The Art class (which was actually across town, at the Elementary school; yes, ONE classroom and ONE teacher for k-12) was constantly low on basic supplies. Many of our textbooks were from the 70s, and in disrepair from being used for so many years in a row.
And let's not get into them holding off the asbestos removal for a year or so due to lack of budget.
In this case, yes. I think they could have "limped along" with the old lights a few years longer. :P
Only one person is ultimately responsible for their success: the student.
First, let me say that I do like this idea.
Second, that is entirely false. Society at large is responsible for the success of its students. (This is part of another rant I have, where I fucking hate the idea that people need more individual responsibility. That is a somewhat true statement, that is mainly used to help people feel better than those in worse situations.)
I agree with your second point, there, but money is the ultimate motivator. Hell, youtube is full of clips of people eating disgusting shit for $50.
While the cultural and social issues remain, if money were to motivate students to do better, the returns would come back to the community as the community would generate more wealth. Education is a large part of the class divide.
Right, I wasn't disagreeing with the idea that money could be a good incentive. Just the statement that the student is ultimately the only one responsible for their grades.
I can see virtually no reason to go into this hellish profession if you aren't emotionally compelled to teach. You're vastly better off putting your degree to use somewhere with better pay, better hours and less public scrutiny.
Just because you see no reason doesn't mean it doesn't exist. And, graduating with a degree from a lot of the schools that fit the requirement is not exactly tough. Some people do go to hard schools. Quite a few others don't. The ones that don't are looking at the pretty nice benefits of being a teacher, and think that that compared with the pay are enough of a reason to pursue it.
Even those people are looking down the barrel of 60+ hour weeks and a level of public scrutiny (as evidenced by this thread) barely eclipsed by elected officials. If their heart isn't in it, they're going to be headed for the door very quickly unless there are absolutely no comparable jobs available.
I can tell you that if a portion of my partner's pay was based on her students performance (not her's) she would bolt. Being a teacher is about stable, safe income. If there were incentives, she'd go somewhere where those incentives would be higher.
I mean, she barely makes it by as it working in a troubled urban district with kids who just don't care.
How does she measure her own performance? If she constantly gets students that are failing despite what she does, she probably should look into moving regardless*. Again, if this presents a void of teachers in a certain area, it will force the issue. Instead of us limping along like we currently are. (By limping, I mean that every other nation in the world is advancing past us in education. See previously quoted studies.)
And a 60+ hour week is not uncommon in the professional world. I don't think I've had a job where I was lucky enough to only work 40 hour weeks in a long long time.
*Edit: I should be clear I mean this for her own sanity.
On Sports: I was mostly joking. I have nothing against physical activity (in others). I do believe there is an inordinate budget bias, though. In my High School, we had to work tooth and nail to secure a grant of a few grand for some computers and A/V equipment.
Then the school spent $20k on new lights for the football field.
Just to clarify, this was a small, rural High School. My graduating class was about 50 people, 250-300 total students in the school. I can think of FAR better uses for $20,000 mother fucking dollars. :P
Sadly, you probably can't. You can think of places you would rather spend the money, but the sports departments are usually revenue generating and can help the schools make money.
Actually, yes. I can. The school's "Computing" class consided of several MS-DOS terminals running Microsoft Works for DOS. In 1999. This could have used some upgrades. The Band program was on it's last legs, most of the school-owned instruments were falling apart from wear and tear. The Art class (which was actually across town, at the Elementary school; yes, ONE classroom and ONE teacher for k-12) was constantly low on basic supplies. Many of our textbooks were from the 70s, and in disrepair from being used for so many years in a row.
And let's not get into them holding off the asbestos removal for a year or so due to lack of budget.
In this case, yes. I think they could have "limped along" with the old lights a few years longer. :P
I'm not saying it wouldn't have been possible to spend the money elsewhere. What I am saying is that the school probably recoups the money spent on the lights rather quickly from increased revenue of attending fans. I don't like this fact, but I sadly have to acknowledge that it is true. (I will gladly point out that this goes directly to the point that our society needs to encourage learning more.)
Only one person is ultimately responsible for their success: the student.
First, let me say that I do like this idea.
Second, that is entirely false. Society at large is responsible for the success of its students. (This is part of another rant I have, where I fucking hate the idea that people need more individual responsibility. That is a somewhat true statement, that is mainly used to help people feel better than those in worse situations.)
I agree with your second point, there, but money is the ultimate motivator. Hell, youtube is full of clips of people eating disgusting shit for $50.
While the cultural and social issues remain, if money were to motivate students to do better, the returns would come back to the community as the community would generate more wealth. Education is a large part of the class divide.
Right, I wasn't disagreeing with the idea that money could be a good incentive. Just the statement that the student is ultimately the only one responsible for their grades.
I get where you're coming from, and I think that you're correct.
But, I think that the relative example is that the focus is on "making teachers better" when the solution is probably closer, in my mind, to "how do we make students care about class more?"
Because they don't. They aren't going to college. They'll get a job and live in the same city their whole life. What's the incentive? They know poverty and believe, firmly, that they will always know poverty. So what's the point?
The point is to illustrate the causal link between effort and income.
There are a lot of issues with this, but the fundamental question isn't a failure of teachers, but a failure of society.
I get where you're coming from, and I think that you're correct.
But, I think that the relative example is that the focus is on "making teachers better" when the solution is probably closer, in my mind, to "how do we make students care about class more?"
Because they don't. They aren't going to college. They'll get a job and live in the same city their whole life. What's the incentive? They know poverty and believe, firmly, that they will always know poverty. So what's the point?
The point is to illustrate the causal link between effort and income.
There are a lot of issues with this, but the fundamental question isn't a failure of teachers, but a failure of society.
I get the impression we are really in violent agreement. In the previous education thread, I went as far as to say that we should focus schools to educate with a local goal. Screw this tract that everyone needs to be prepared for college nonsense. Instead, people need to learn more about the education necessary to live day to day. You could even realign interests by having more partnerships with the local shops and neighborhoods to try to get the kids educated and to elevate the society. Eventually, this should lead to a better neighborhood, which can help lead to better places to educate people. This is basically sacrificing the "perfect" result today in order to attempt it later, though.
There are a lot of issues with this, but the fundamental question isn't a failure of teachers, but a failure of society.
This is what I think a lot of people here are missing.
In India, where that study was done, it's pretty obvious that a lot of the time the teachers are the problem. Teacher absenteeism shows a level of disregard for students and education that dwarfs anything that happens here in the states. I defy anyone to find a single school district in this country that honestly has a problem with teachers simply not showing up for work.
That's why this sort of incentive system is suboptimal here. We don't suffer from unmotivated teachers on anything approaching the level that India apparently does. So even if we assume that teacher incentives would have some sort of a net positive effect in America, instituting that system would simply be throwing money at something that isn't even really the problem. Which is why the support for it coming from the "public schools spend too much money" crowd is somewhat surprising.
I get the impression we are really in violent agreement. In the previous education thread, I went as far as to say that we should focus schools to educate with a local goal. Screw this tract that everyone needs to be prepared for college nonsense. Instead, people need to learn more about the education necessary to live day to day. You could even realign interests by having more partnerships with the local shops and neighborhoods to try to get the kids educated and to elevate the society. Eventually, this should lead to a better neighborhood, which can help lead to better places to educate people. This is basically sacrificing the "perfect" result today in order to attempt it later, though.
I've always been a supporter of "trade" schools. This has become a somewhat dirty word, as of late, as the education system is really only designed for the needs of the middle-class. Therefore "go to college" is always the goal, and a school will get shit on for suggesting that some kids learn to be an electrician as it better suits their needs.
My partner teaches in a "college-bound" urban school. College isn't a reward to most of these kids. It's a fleeting dream if they didn't have to get to work at 18 to help support the family, their own child, etc.
I mean, she's already had THREE pregnancies amongst her students. That's a fucking death sentence on any actual college.
You know what the best option for actual advancement is? The fucking military where they teach you very marketable skills and assist in paying for higher ed.
Posts
Well, how about this. You are making the solid claim that the majority of people get into teaching to help people. Prove it, as I just don't buy it. This would be a laughable claim if someone said the majority of doctors got into the field to help people. Prove that it isn't for education.
The amount of work and time required does not equal the threshold for other, higher-paying positions.
Ergo, the reason one would go through all that, in a cost/benefit analysis like we do in business, would be to assume the existence of a non-economic factor.
Those who can, do.
Those who can not, teach.
Those who can not teach, teach gym.
Teaching in this country requires at least a college degree, a special set of certifications and constant re-upping of your qualifications to keep the same job with roughly the same pay. The salary is somewhere from $20K to $40K depending on where you are in the country and the potential for upward mobility is virtually non-existent. You work 40 hours a week with students and then another 15-30 grading papers and planning classes. You're expected to help raise other people's kids without telling them anything their parents don't want you to, without actually ever getting instructions on what those things are.
I can see virtually no reason to go into this hellish profession if you aren't emotionally compelled to teach. You're vastly better off putting your degree to use somewhere with better pay, better hours and less public scrutiny.
They tried to bury us. They didn't know that we were seeds. 2018 Midterms. Get your shit together.
I'm so on board with this. Don't get me wrong; doing so would make a statment about American students. But, fuck it.
Could you imagine the kind of pressure students would put on their teachers if student-quarterly-bonus check depended on performance?
And you completely ignored the point that sometimes those incentives actually fuck up the system and don't help at all. Mayo clinic is recognized around the world as one of the best medical centers for nearly everything. They pay all of their doctors a flat salary. No bonuses. No incentives.
What do you mean by that last part? I'm quite sure that all of my teachers were teachers because they enjoyed it and felt they were helping people. (K-12, not even close to true after that)
There are a lot of other differences between our schools/education system and other countries schools and educational systems. Mostly that our standards are ridiculously low and we punish students who are above the standard.
My dad taught Jr. High social studies and earth science, and coached high school basketball and volleyball for years. This is one of his favorite jokes.
That and BS, MS, PhD.
They tried to bury us. They didn't know that we were seeds. 2018 Midterms. Get your shit together.
No one in my school district would trust the gym teacher with the responsibility of coaching. :P
Why, you ask?
Because someone else will inevitably step in to foot the bill.
They tried to bury us. They didn't know that we were seeds. 2018 Midterms. Get your shit together.
That is already going on in a lot of places.
And I hope you mean Inter-highschool sports. Intramural sports are something that should probably be maintained considering the problems we have in this country with a lack of physical activity.
for most sports it definitely is.
I could see it being a problem for like . . volleyball.
Only one person is ultimately responsible for their success: the student.
This, especially in low-income areas, would shoot test scores through the roof.
Seriously, I think this is the solution. Really.
You might be able to do this in towns with one school or places where specific sports are big (and then only with those sports), but if you drop funding to every sport at all 10 city high schools, you're not going to find people to step up and save them all.
They tried to bury us. They didn't know that we were seeds. 2018 Midterms. Get your shit together.
My understanding with the Mayo clinic is not that they have zero incentives, but that they are more accurately aligned with the goals of the patients. Is this not correct? (I tried finding some links, they allude to the fact that they do get more money for having successful outcomes, but not for ridiculous things like ordering tests. I could be misreading, though.)
they're salaried, so they dont make more money by ordering stupid tests and shit. theres no financial incentives for the doctors involved except doing a good job, and getting a salary for it.
First, let me say that I do like this idea.
Second, that is entirely false. Society at large is responsible for the success of its students. (This is part of another rant I have, where I fucking hate the idea that people need more individual responsibility. That is a somewhat true statement, that is mainly used to help people feel better than those in worse situations.)
Then the school spent $20k on new lights for the football field.
Just to clarify, this was a small, rural High School. My graduating class was about 50 people, 250-300 total students in the school. I can think of FAR better uses for $20,000 mother fucking dollars. :P
People definitely need more individual responsibility. It's really not possible to have too much of it, and people aren't exactly maxing out right now.
It's a behavior that can be learned, and has a lot to do with adjusting to a long term time perspective. But hoping that high school students have the maturity to do this is insane.
Just because you see no reason doesn't mean it doesn't exist. And, graduating with a degree from a lot of the schools that fit the requirement is not exactly tough. Some people do go to hard schools. Quite a few others don't. The ones that don't are looking at the pretty nice benefits of being a teacher, and think that that compared with the pay are enough of a reason to pursue it.
And if you've got a student body of several hundred students each taking half a dozen classes, it's just not logistically possible to give each of them $50 for getting an A in every class. At least not without dropping at least one staff member to make up the difference. So you have to decide which classes deserve incentivizing and which don't.
There are all sorts of other potential problems with it, like potential abuse by angry family members when a kid gets the B+ instead of the $50 A, but simply funding it is a huge hurdle.
They tried to bury us. They didn't know that we were seeds. 2018 Midterms. Get your shit together.
Sadly, you probably can't. You can think of places you would rather spend the money, but the sports departments are usually revenue generating and can help the schools make money.
You know, if we keep assuming that government planners are incompetent and that private charter schools are incompetent, then who exactly is supposed to be more competent than the other?
People could use more individual responsibility. This is far outshadowed by the fact that people need to take responsibility for their society. See this nation the past couple of years. Even if half the nation is personally responsible enough to have good insurance and not take out risky mortgages, the other half isn't and as a nation we need to do something to address this.
Then you get conservative pundits ranting about low income families pumping out kids for "educational welfare" as a thin cover for racism... no. Just no. There is a whole can of worms there best not touched.
I agree with your second point, there, but money is the ultimate motivator. Hell, youtube is full of clips of people eating disgusting shit for $50.
While the cultural and social issues remain, if money were to motivate students to do better, the returns would come back to the community as the community would generate more wealth. Education is a large part of the class divide.
They tried to bury us. They didn't know that we were seeds. 2018 Midterms. Get your shit together.
I can tell you that if a portion of my partner's pay was based on her students performance (not her's) she would bolt. Being a teacher is about stable, safe income. If there were incentives, she'd go somewhere where those incentives would be higher.
I mean, she barely makes it by as it working in a troubled urban district with kids who just don't care.
Actually, yes. I can. The school's "Computing" class consided of several MS-DOS terminals running Microsoft Works for DOS. In 1999. This could have used some upgrades. The Band program was on it's last legs, most of the school-owned instruments were falling apart from wear and tear. The Art class (which was actually across town, at the Elementary school; yes, ONE classroom and ONE teacher for k-12) was constantly low on basic supplies. Many of our textbooks were from the 70s, and in disrepair from being used for so many years in a row.
And let's not get into them holding off the asbestos removal for a year or so due to lack of budget.
In this case, yes. I think they could have "limped along" with the old lights a few years longer. :P
Right, I wasn't disagreeing with the idea that money could be a good incentive. Just the statement that the student is ultimately the only one responsible for their grades.
How does she measure her own performance? If she constantly gets students that are failing despite what she does, she probably should look into moving regardless*. Again, if this presents a void of teachers in a certain area, it will force the issue. Instead of us limping along like we currently are. (By limping, I mean that every other nation in the world is advancing past us in education. See previously quoted studies.)
And a 60+ hour week is not uncommon in the professional world. I don't think I've had a job where I was lucky enough to only work 40 hour weeks in a long long time.
*Edit: I should be clear I mean this for her own sanity.
I'm not saying it wouldn't have been possible to spend the money elsewhere. What I am saying is that the school probably recoups the money spent on the lights rather quickly from increased revenue of attending fans. I don't like this fact, but I sadly have to acknowledge that it is true. (I will gladly point out that this goes directly to the point that our society needs to encourage learning more.)
I get where you're coming from, and I think that you're correct.
But, I think that the relative example is that the focus is on "making teachers better" when the solution is probably closer, in my mind, to "how do we make students care about class more?"
Because they don't. They aren't going to college. They'll get a job and live in the same city their whole life. What's the incentive? They know poverty and believe, firmly, that they will always know poverty. So what's the point?
The point is to illustrate the causal link between effort and income.
There are a lot of issues with this, but the fundamental question isn't a failure of teachers, but a failure of society.
I get the impression we are really in violent agreement.
In India, where that study was done, it's pretty obvious that a lot of the time the teachers are the problem. Teacher absenteeism shows a level of disregard for students and education that dwarfs anything that happens here in the states. I defy anyone to find a single school district in this country that honestly has a problem with teachers simply not showing up for work.
That's why this sort of incentive system is suboptimal here. We don't suffer from unmotivated teachers on anything approaching the level that India apparently does. So even if we assume that teacher incentives would have some sort of a net positive effect in America, instituting that system would simply be throwing money at something that isn't even really the problem. Which is why the support for it coming from the "public schools spend too much money" crowd is somewhat surprising.
They tried to bury us. They didn't know that we were seeds. 2018 Midterms. Get your shit together.
I've always been a supporter of "trade" schools. This has become a somewhat dirty word, as of late, as the education system is really only designed for the needs of the middle-class. Therefore "go to college" is always the goal, and a school will get shit on for suggesting that some kids learn to be an electrician as it better suits their needs.
My partner teaches in a "college-bound" urban school. College isn't a reward to most of these kids. It's a fleeting dream if they didn't have to get to work at 18 to help support the family, their own child, etc.
I mean, she's already had THREE pregnancies amongst her students. That's a fucking death sentence on any actual college.
You know what the best option for actual advancement is? The fucking military where they teach you very marketable skills and assist in paying for higher ed.