More A's, More Pay 366
theodp writes "Little slashdotters may find teacher a tad more upset when they screw up on a test. The Dept. of Education just launched the first federal program that uses bonuses to motivate teachers who raise test scores in at-risk communities, awarding $42M this month to 16 school systems. Any fears that teachers might cook the books to score a typical $5,000 payoff? Not to worry, says Chicago's school chief, there are statistical analyses in place that spot testing irregularities, presumably better at catching Cheaters than those used in the past."
Re:Why this is a corrupt and BAD ideas. (Score:2, Informative)
Why do you think that's what they're doing? It seems more like they're paying bonuses for something like number of students with SAT scores over 1200. I.e. an *external* test, not a test created and graded by the teacher.
The cooking the books issue is about doing things like answering questions during the test.
Freakonomics (Score:2, Informative)
Freakonomics & CPS (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Could Be Useful (Score:3, Informative)
There's an interesting response regarding this subject on Google Answers [google.com]. You'll even find a very pertinent example:
Regina received four A's on her report card.
Re:This is cronyism at its finest (Score:3, Informative)
we have this in the UK. it doesn't work. (Score:3, Informative)
this has lead to a race of "dumbing down" of examinations. while the exams are not set by the schools, there are several examination boards for each subject, and the schools can pick and choose which ones to set. the schools want higher results, obviously, so they gravitate towards the easier curriculums and examinations. the exam boards try to create the easiest courses they can while still operating within their guidelines (i'm not sure how their regulation works), as the more popular they are, the more money they earn. it's worth noting if you get an A-level in Geography, for instance, it is just that, not an A-level in Geography from xxxx exam board.
continue this for 15 years, and you end up with vast numbers of students passing. consult http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/education/2193169.stm [bbc.co.uk] for some statistics. this only covers until 2002, it's continued to rise - 96.2% of entrants passed in 2005. the problem is in effect at the top of the scale too, somewhere around 20% of entrants achieve the top grade, an A or A*. universities are ending up being unable to discern top candidates, and complain about A-grade students lacking skills they used to arrive with in the past. they are considering bringing in their own examinations to grade students' aptitude, a move that would completely undermine A-levels.
qualifications are meant to sort the top candidates from everyone else, they are elitist by nature. they are not meant to be all-inclusive "gold star for everyone who takes part" affairs where all but the dumbest 4% are awarded a qualification. aiming for higher pass rates shifts the standard down for everybody, and, perhaps most importantly, challenges the best candidates less, leaving them behind their counterparts in other countries who get pushed harder.
Re:How about... (Score:5, Informative)
This is a lie that keeps getting repeated as fact. My wife, who, while following my moves, has worked in three different school districts. In each one, she was required to work for 10 months out of the year (between classroom instruction and required continuing education). In addition, her average day was 10 hours long. She works more hours in an average year than the average american worker. This also doesn't count the grading that goes on in the evenings and weekends.
We already provide some of the best health benefits out there.
While teachers generally do get good benefits, that's less and less true with the budget crises that have been hitting local communities. For instance, my employers health insurance is much better than the one offered through my wife's teacher's contract.
The unions that teachers belong to do not allow merit raises
This is a problem that needs to be addressed. I like Tim Pawlenty's idea in MN to create "super teachers". Basically these are teachers who perform well in the suburbs, move to teach in the inner cities, and if they still perform well and get the students to perform, they receive high pay (upwards of $100k). But standardized tests are not the way to judge a teacher's performance.
they do not allow the school to fire poor performing teachers
This is another lie that keeps getting repeated as fact. While it is not easy to fire poor performing teachers, it's possible, and done. What the unions require is that you can show the teacher is actually performing poorly. The problem is that parent's of C children, don't like that, and want there children to get A's. It's much easier to blame the teacher and urge the school board and local politicians to fire the teacher, than it is to accept the fact that junior isn't performing very well. My concern is that if the union wasn't there to help the teacher, that teachers would have to be even more careful about the children of the rich and powerful, and that's not a good thing.
School budgets are out of control, spending is through the roof.
But this spending is going towards testing and not towards attracting and keeping good teachers, and not towards supplies for the classroom (believe me, I have a huge file of receipts for items that my wife has bought for her classroom with our money).
substantially decrease State interference into the curriculum,
Exactly, education should be a local issue. The state and federal dept's of education should make sure that success stories are available to other districts to utilize.
and get rid of all of the staff that just loves throwing around money for magic beans.
I'm not sure if I'm inferring correctly, but the spending comes from the administration and school board, not the teachers.
-dave
Re:How about... (Score:3, Informative)
Yes and no, it would be more stable, but not stable. The lesson plans need to change some every year, maybe not completely, but if you look at the new material being forced down from above (NCLB - written by a bunch of folks who don't send their kids to public school), it is not stable.
Teaching is not the only career that you are expected to work overtime without additional compensation. Take a look into research, IT, or programming, for example, and you see the same thing.
You are absolutely right, which is why this whole comment about 2/3rds of a years work is bull.
Those careers don't give you 20 holidays and two to four months off a year, either.
And neither does teaching. Most days that students have off are professional development days, which means the teachers must be at the school and must participate in what it is that the district decides to do for that day. She does not receive 20 holidays a year. In addition she receives two months off in summer (not 4, I know of no state that has four months off in the summer). Some of this time is required to take additional coursework that varies from state to state. Like I said above, if you total my wifes hours for a year, they exceed the average workers by a fair bit.
In addition, teachers are restricted as to when they can use vacation or personnal time. Union contracts require that the days before and after a break for instance, cannot be taken off. Last time I checked, most people in research, IT or programming were able to take vacation when they wanted.
You keep calling things lies.
I'm sorry, they aren't lies, they are more like great perversions of the truth that critics like to crow about because it helps their cause.
I've personally read teacher contract; I've personally watched tactics used by their unions, and personally seen the budgets involved. I know the waste the occurs, and the horrible methods that are used to prop it up.
You are right, there are bad tactics used by their unions. But guess what, those are the minority. Do you know why when a teacher's union goes on strike or has a sick-out it makes national news? It's because it's so rare. Another post somewhere in this article had the numbers, 0.09% of teachers unions strike in a year. Because one union uses tactics you don't like, doesn't mean that that is the norm. I'll give you an anecdotal example. The town I live in currently has an expired teacher's contract. The union has agreed that the teachers will continue working at the current wages and benefits until a new contract is agreed upon. At that time, the contract will become retroactive to the date of the previous contract expiration. Some tactic huh? That's downright reasonable.
Yes, there are bad teachers and there are bad unions. But they are the minority. Although I must say I am truly curious as to whether I live in the same world as a lot of people who crow in the media and here on slashdot about the declines in our public schools. Every public school I have attended and every district in which I have lived, have been highly achieving, well run schools. Yet from reading here, I must just have had more luck than anybody else.
What I was trying to say is that teachers can be paid what they deserve, but between incompetent administration, ignorant voters, and unfair union practices, it doesn't happen. More money assigned to school systems will not fix it, because the amount of money is not the problem; the allocation of that money is. I want to see teachers get paid what they deserve, too, but other things have to get fixed before "give school money so we can pay teachers more" will ever work.
I agree with you here. Though I think the problem is in the order of: ignorant voters, incompetent administration and lastly the union practices. B