So you think that poor kids hav eless ability to learn than rich kids do??? This confuses me, please explain your reasons behind this highly twisted view, because I know lots of smart poor kids and lots of dumb rich kids (also lots of dumb poor kids and smart rich kids). If a teacher can teach, then thier students can learn. Rich kids have no motivation to excel, because they can always fall back on mommy and daddy, so the teachers in affluent areas are at a substantial disadvantage. (I can twist logic, too):mrgreen:"Performance Based Teacher Bonuses"
The notion of performance based teacherr bonuses is retarded.
The more financially affluent schools can expect better student performance. The expectation is due in part to the disposition of the students and instruction facilitated by a nonrisk location and better paid and therefore qualified faculty.
Instructors of at risk children get no recognition.
It likely has teacher favoritism built into it.
The notion that it can be fair and impartial is pure ignorance.
Independent assessment is good, yet Stanley Kaplan and others make tremendous amounts of money preparing students for standardized tests.vague said:I agree with Patrickt.Patrickt said:Assuming performance can be properly defined, it can be beneficial.
However, the testing should be done independently of the school system because this increases the likelihood of tampering.
The idea of improvement from benchmark is interesting but hardly reasonable when teaching for an average baseline, through which, specialization would seem a seldom realization.paulmarkj said:In the UK, the pupils are tested and are their results known, they are then expected to improve from that level to another (though we don't get paid any bonus).
You have a keen grip of classroom reality.Has anyone here had any classroom experience to base their theories on?
I'll admit that your theories would bring about good things, but you will all have trouble in implementation. My parents have been educators for years, so my arguments may be a little biased.
...
When there is no way to permanently stop classroom disruptions, you can not hold the teacher, through his or her paycheck, accountable to the progress of the class.
You would have teachers pitted against each other for the high achievers. Teachers refusing to go to some schools. And then again.......biased administrators picking some teachers over others.
Say you had 90 kids and three classrooms, three teachers.
Which teacher would get the top achievers? What do you do divide them all up as best you can? How does this benefit kids?
And if you teach in a large school district with hundreds of schools, (inner city) how do you make the bonuses equal among teachers who happen to teach in areas where test scores are considerably lower?
I live in Arizona. Many schools have more illegals attending them and minorities that score lower.
How do you make the playing field level?
I still think experience and the level of education a teacher has is a better way to go. You can't just go with teacher performance by measuring student achievement.
I would start with a management performance system. What percentage of the budget is spent on the classroom and what percentage is spent on management perks? What is the ratio of number of students per employee to number of students per teacher? In principle, I see no problem with management performance standards, teacher performance standards, and student performance standards.
faithful_servant
So you think that poor kids hav eless ability to learn than rich kids do??? This confuses me, please explain your reasons behind this highly twisted view, because I know lots of smart poor kids and lots of dumb rich kids (also lots of dumb poor kids and smart rich kids). If a teacher can teach, then thier students can learn. Rich kids have no motivation to excel, because they can always fall back on mommy and daddy, so the teachers in affluent areas are at a substantial disadvantage. (I can twist logic, too)
As the parent of children who all did extremely well in school, I think I should get a bonus.:mrgreen:
Originally Posted by PolySciGuy
In my humble opinion, the school system does exactly what it is designed to do. It cranks out a multitude of dilligent workers that obey authority with little or no question. This should not be how schools work! Schools should teach! This is part of the reason why I advocate for the voucher system. With the voucher system, only the good schools would get funding, and how do you define a good school, whether on not it has good teachers of course! With the voucher system, the good teachers would get more funding.
Originally Posted by PolySciGuy
I think a more accurate way to measure teacher performance would be periodic cumulative exams, that don't have to have any on the grade necessarily.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?