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."
Easier Exams On The Way (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:This is cronyism at its finest (Score:1, Interesting)
Shouldn't various students of various abilities be judged to their level by what the market needs?
Only if you're a fan of holding a kid to a metric that's going to change several times over their intellectual development. A competitor in a free market can be expected to do that, depending on product and consumer demands. But children already have enough conflicting demands to balance (school, sports, parents, peers, acne, college aspirations) that constantly adjusting their focus and historically revising their performance against today's market needs is likely to create a bunch of little meltdowns.
Frankly, schooling is in the mess it's in because of capitalism, not in spite of it. The whole system was made to churn out a bunch of passive factory workers, but sadly the market is shipping all the factory work to countries that work cheaper and have better schooling.
Statistics catches bad treatment of kids? (Score:3, Interesting)
<sarcasm>
Yes, I'm sure their system will catch this stuff, too [bloomberg.com]. How? Magic, maybe.
</sarcasm>
Re:Do first things first! (Score:4, Interesting)
I have some experience which proves that Americans can learn discipline in school: here in Niceville Florida, some high school students are allowed to attend what is called a "collegiate high school." What this means is that they are taking college level courses with other high school and college students at Okaloosa Walton College. They are given high school credit AND college credit, and after two years taking a college work load they are given a high school diploma AND a two-year AA degree, which transfers 100% to any Florida university or college. Obviously this explanation is greatly simplified, but the system works and the students are far more disciplined than those at any high school I ever attended. Note that I'm just a college student at OWC, so I don't have much info on the college high school system, but I'm sure you could find more on their website: http://www.owcollegiatehigh.org/ [owcollegiatehigh.org] . I believe the system is funded by state taxes and the students pay absolutely nil, but they are dropped from the system if they do not maintain a reasonable GPA, and attendance is as strict as high school.
Re:This is cronyism at its finest (Score:5, Interesting)
This is unbelievable and one of the reasons I've always "lobbied" against public education where teachers are also graders. It is my firm belief that you don't grade your own work.
You've never taught, have you ? Grading is by far the most time consuming part of the job, and the most unpleasant. It's so f*cking boring that I'd have rather filtered raw sewage by hand than do it, sometimes. Why ? Because after reading 10 times the same half-learned, half out-of-ass statements, including blatant ripoffs of the immediate neighbours, you're completely fed up, and you know you've still got 30 to go. In my branch, one essay is roughly 15 minutes worth of my time, do the maths.
Teaching is pleasant ; I'd be more than happy to have someone else grade for me. But it's so damn exhausting that it takes a teacher dedication to do it. I can't count how many times I was offered money to grade some private inter-universities competitions between students (sort of extracurricular events to know who's pissing farther) and flatly turned them down. Nobody in his right mind would grade alone, even for money.
Learn for tests, that's all you need it for. (Score:2, Interesting)
Also, this whole system is flawed into thinking that every class has an equal potential for results. Sadly it isn't. The whole thing will be like a lottery, seeing which teachers get the smart kids rather than the less smart ones.
It takes more than money to fix the system.
Re:Statistics catches bad treatment of kids? (Score:2, Interesting)
However I read this interesting chapter from the book Freakonomics [bsx.ru] [PDF] where they identify the teachers who might be trying to fudge the system to make their students score better! Read the chapter called "What Do Schoolteachers and Sumo Wrestlers Have in Common?" to identify how the economist Levitt is identifying the people.
Having said that, I am not sure it helps doing this at all! Some professions like nursing and teaching are better off not being measured in terms of incentives. Some acts like blood donations are not even paid for in most countries. Incentives can only help trivialise these things. I do not mean that the people should be paid peanuts (infact they should be paid a lot more than they are paid - especially in India, where I have stayed for the most part of my life!).
However, creating a competition of who throws out patients from thier wards faster or who makes most students pass with higher grade will do serious damage to the patients and the students!
Somethings should be sacrosanct - education and human lives are two of them!
supply the teachers (Score:4, Interesting)
Between the pharmaceutical companies and the bureaucrats kids today are being used as test subjects. I'm considering home schooling.
Re:This is cronyism at its finest (Score:2, Interesting)
Here's a clue. Wal*Mart can charge so little for two reasons: they are gigantic, and their product are crap.
For point one, the government is gigantic. For good or bad, they do have the infrustructure already in place to handle this shit. We aren't funding our schools enough. I mean for fuck's sake I don't have a degree and I make better money than most teachers, and I'm only 21. No one of skill will want to be a teacher unless it pays well, passion for the job only stretches so far.
And here's a news flash, making all schools private won't decrease the cost. I swear, what do you think there is left to cut? Instead, you'll have the overhead of: turning a profit, advertising, and appeasing parents. Remember, if you privatize the school system, it's no longer the children who are the customer, it's the parents. It's no longer about actually doing what's best for the child, it's about showing the parents you are doing what's best for the child, whether or not what's actually best for the child gets done.
For point two, sometimes you only need something crappy because you need it now, and you probably won't need it later. Education is not one of those things. What you're promoting with the privatization of schools, whether or not you realize it, is throwaway education. It's an education even more heavily geared towards passing standardized tests than we have currently, because the school's financial solvency depends upon it. And you know grade fraud will be more widespread than it is currently, because the school's financial solvency depends upon it. And what do you propose we do to fight it? Government Regulation?
In conclusion, dada, you're a hyper-conservative blowhard who has been listening to far too much Neil Borts, or Sean Hannity, or Rush Limbaugh, or whatever the hell you listen to, who probably still thinks the "Fair Tax" is a good idea, in spite of how rediculously broken it is. And you would do well to have an actual reevaluation of your stances after you figure out what the fuck is going on. kthxbai.
PS: Pays their employees well? You'd do well in a career in comedy at least.
They're going the wrong way (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:This is cronyism at its finest (Score:5, Interesting)
That the "buyer" of public education is a citizen. But it doesn't have to be.
The "buyer" of public education can remain, as it is now, the government. By this criteria, the government decides how to reward schools for good performance and part of that could be rewarding for improving education in poor areas. In other words, the system breaking down under your analysis assumes that the citizens pay and rich citizens can pay more. This part of the free market system actually already exists. It's called a private school.
What the department of education is doing is creating competition within their suppliers of education (i.e. public schools).
I'd say, if you "objectively" rate education levels and reward based on objective criteria, this system has a chance of working.
Make no mistake, an algorithm for doing this requires some thought, but I think it can be done.
For example, consider this:
Schools earn x-y dollars per student where the actual value is determined by an objective performance measurement
Objective performance measurements are done nationally.
The performance measurement changes year by year based on national averages.
Of course, this does mean that areas pre-disposed to have smarter kids (e.g. rich kids who can afford better education aids, tutors, books, etc.) would tend to have better schools because it is easier to get better results but these schools would also tend to have more competition.
The free market would come up with innovative ways to tap the lower end market with new education ideas. Possibly things like more computer aided teaching so that there could be a lower teacher/student ratio without sacrificing education quality. Never underestimate the power of a free market and the desire to earn a buck.
Imagine if you were an entertainment company and you could sell software to schools that would teach kids how to read at an accelerated pace in a fun environment with less teacher involvement. Make kids want to learn. You'd have an automatic market for your product because the schools would want to buy it to increase their bottom line.
I know there are issues with this model but I also believe that a model can be designed that would ultimately be quite simple that would work and, I bet you almost any amount of money, you'd see amazingly innovative ideas that would give us better education cheaper.
Sunny
Obviously (Score:3, Interesting)
Guess what, it isn't money that makes a school better. If so you could not have systems that spend 10k doing worse than those spending 6k per student by your logic.
The only good point you had was getting the feds out of education. Everything they touch turns into a mess. You must also get the unions out of education. The various teacher unions must not have the control they do over schools. Don't think they do? Your only fooling yourself. Most changes that occur are because of the unions. The DoE in your county and state? Most likely union members or so indebted to them that their decisions are basically bought.
Oh, lets dispell one more myth. CORPORATIONS PAY NO TAXES.
Its an indirect tax on you and me. Tell me, just where does the money that GM, IBM, or Amazon, gets to pay their taxes comes from? Huh? Please? Do they have a magical machine that prints out money just for taxes? Oh, but I forget its so much easier to assign the "burden" to someone else, especially "eveel" corporations. Moron. "We the people" pay ALL the damn taxes. "We the people" are constantly shafted by politicians because of idiots like you who bought into the idea that "corporations are eveel and not paying their fair share"
Shit, don't ask for a better education system when you don't use the education you were provided.