[Mike1306]

Originally Posted by Momma_bear

I am not against performance pay for teachers, but I can't see having standardized test scores being the sole determining factor.

In addition, we have county wide school districts here. In the larger counties (where I live) there will be teachers lining up to teach at the better schools:

Cypress Bay
Douglas
Taravella
Western
Nova

and not to teach at:

Coconut Creek
Parkway Academy
Boyd Anderson
Hallandale
Plantation

So while the state may not make Broward a high performing district, there is a huge discrepancny in test scores between the large number of high schools in our district (there are over 30 in Broward).

I am all for merit pay for teachers. But the kids at Coconut Creek HS deserve good teachers just as much as the kids at Cypress Bay. Basing pay SOLELY on standardized test scores guarantees that those students, who already have more problems that the kids at Cypress Bay, will not have the best teachers.

They are not basing it solely on standardized testing. There are other factors. Where i mentioned about high performing districts it also includes high performing and low performing schools. Just too much in the bill to post all here.

[DailyJournalist]

Originally Posted by Swimmom32

so even if a school is performing well, what about those kids that dont test well and bring down scores? I DONT see why a teacher should be paid that way...My dad was a HS teacher in NYC for 21 years...

Exactly, they will deny teachers raises for this which is another way of reducing teachers pay. This bill is nothing more than a way to pay teachers less and save money.

[heydade]

Unions will not allow it.

[MovedfromFL]

This bill says the new plan would start in 2014. Ok, maybe the funding crisis will be at least stabilzed by then. Right now, I don't see how there is any money for additional teacher bonuses. The stimulus money runs out next year, which means we will have a "funding cliff" of tens of millions of dollars gone poof in each district!

Now, I have to admit that I was all riled up about this bill at first. Various reports said it would put 50% of a teacher's salary at risk. That doesn't seem feasible, esp since test scores don't come out until after the school year is over! However, I do think we need more accountability in the classroom. When I taught in FL, I was very lucky to work at a school with high performing teachers. Since then, I have seen other schools and teachers (albeit here in Georgia, not FL) & this experience has really opened my eyes. There are some very, very bad teachers here. Teachers that are not doing even the most basic functions of their jobs. Principal leaderhip here is dismal also. If the principal would do her job, these "deadwood" teachers would not be here.

So it comes down to the question of why should I, as a 3rd year teacher, get paid a lot less than someone who just takes up space and is outright hostile towards new technology? Why should I be the first to be cut if the budget tanks, and all of the other teachers get to sit back and relax?

I'm starting to think that a merit pay plan (if done properly and fully funded!) would be beneficial for someone like myself, who gives 100% everyday and really cares. I love to enhance my own education through workshops and the like. I embrace new technology and new ideas. My students consistently made high gains on the state tests. If merit pay works, I should not be worried.

I also support paying more for high quality teachers in areas like math and science. (most teachers don't support this, but folks, the reality is a math or science expert can make a LOT more in the private sector). If we want these people in the classroom, we have to make it worth their while. Ditto for increased pay at low performing schools.

So I am waiting to see how this pans out. (by the way, GA is proposing almost the exact same thing). I think we need to tread carefully in the area of merit pay/ pay for performance. One good first step would be to get principals to actually do their jobs and get rid of poor performing teachers in the first 3 years. The system is there, it is just not being utilized. I guess back in the days of "teacher shortage" we just needed to get bodies in the classroom.

[BioAdoptMom3]

I teach kindergarten. So if half of my pay is based on test scores, then first, I will be testing children at an age where it has been determined by research that testing is totally ineffective (children at this stage of development may know that c begins with c, but will circle the bunny because they think its cute). Second, children enter school with all sort of experiences, or lack thereof. One or more child(ren) may come in (and yes, I have had them, way more than once) having hardly ever been talked to, played with and not only not read to, but not even owning a book or even ever seeing one! That child may be printing his name at the end of the year, may recognize 3/4 of the alphabet letters, go from knowing three colors to ten and be able to read 10 of 33 high frequency words. Still, that child would appear to be very low on a standardized test, even though he or she had made such tremendous strides! I have taught children how to get along with each other, share, recognize and print their names, tie their shoes, open their milk cartons, eat with a fork instead of their fingers, use words to deal with conflict and identify colors. None of this is tested.

What about my colleagues who are media specialists, guidance counselors, band directors, home ec teachers and PE coaches, among others? How will they be evaluated and paid?

How will we deal with administrators who are less than fair? Yes, they are out there and not few and far between. Its all very political and after 27 years of teaching I am speaking from experience.

And higher pay in Title I schools? I have taught in one and can tell you that there is a tremendous difference in the abilities of these children compared to those who attend schools in middle and upper-middle class neighborhoods. Yes, some of those children come from wonderful families who have given their children valuable experiences, but most haven't had those opportunities. They can learn and they do learn, but like I mentioned above, it is not usually to a level where they are consider proficient in all academic areas. Unless they are going to pay a much higher percentage to teach in those schools, the lack of higher test scores is probably going to level it out and make it not worth it to many if not most.

Taking into account the various needs and differences in children (gifted, ESE, ESL, slow learners, ADHD, other serious behavior issues, etc.) and evaluating me based on what those children learn in a year would be like evaluating a surgeon based on how many of his/her patients survive surgery without considering if he/she is a podiatrist or a cardiologist. There is going to be a big difference in survival rates, just like there is going to be a big difference in learning gains, based on the ability levels and experiences of students.

Nancy

[MovedfromFL]

Nancy, I used to teach 1st grade. Here in GA, they start standardized testing in 1st grade. I always thought that was nuts. Now they are poposing to push it back to begin in 3rd grade to save money.

We used to measure growth in FL using tools like Dibels or STAR testing. (of course, that was reading only) Here in GA, they are big on "pre-testing" and "post-testing". Basically you give a 10 question pre-test and then the same question at the end of the unit. This model has been nationally recognized by the way. However, I do NOT agree with it at all. It takes teaching to the test to a whole new low. Teachers actually teach like this "Ok, question #7 is going to be about fossils. Here's what you need to know about fossils." Makes me sick. Almost anyone can train their kids to show "growth" on a 10 question test over the course of 9 weeks or 1 year. But it did make for cute graphs to post on the school walls.