Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I think public school teachers can take a collective sigh of relief today. Christie thought he was slick by changing up the application for Race to the Top funds at the last minute. Well, NJ lost.
I think public school teachers can take a collective sigh of relief today. Christie thought he was slick by changing up the application for Race to the Top funds at the last minute. Well, NJ lost.
Why would teachers be happy with this? Why are you?
"New Jersey was one of 19 finalists vying for the second-round of Race to the Top grants. If the federal government had approved the state’s grant application, New Jersey would have received approximately $400 million out of $4.35 billion available through the program"
Why would teachers be happy with this? Why are you?
"New Jersey was one of 19 finalists vying for the second-round of Race to the Top grants. If the federal government had approved the state’s grant application, New Jersey would have received approximately $400 million out of $4.35 billion available through the program"
Christie didnt want the money so its no loss for him. His agenda calls for the destruction of public education therefore the money was no use to him. Really who loses is NJ Taxpayers, instead of getting some help we will have to foot the the total bill ourselves.
"Last week, the NJEA and state Department of Education agreed to continue using seniority in making decisions about teacher layoffs. In a press release describing the new application today, however, the Christie Administration said "educational effectiveness will replace seniority as the main factor in determining who to retain."
"The teachers' union had also objected to a proposal for individual merit pay, which entailed a "bonus pool" of money the state would split between teachers or teacher teams, and their schools"
$400 million dollars sounds great...until you read further and see how it's going to be used.
Do you realize that the Race to the Top application had the support of the NJEA? At the last minute, our honest, trustworthy governor took it upon himself to change the whole thing up to fit his agenda. So yes, I am overjoyed that he failed.
"Last week, the NJEA and state Department of Education agreed to continue using seniority in making decisions about teacher layoffs. In a press release describing the new application today, however, the Christie Administration said "educational effectiveness will replace seniority as the main factor in determining who to retain."
"The teachers' union had also objected to a proposal for individual merit pay, which entailed a "bonus pool" of money the state would split between teachers or teacher teams, and their schools"
More of the same from the NJEA.......
I teach in an urban district where parental involvement is very low. My students come to me each year below grade level for the most part. I can handle the rougher kids, so I usually end up with a class full of them. Those are usually not the kids that are your honors students, as behavior problems and low academic ability usually (not always) go together.
So yes, I am against merit pay. Why should I be penalized, while teachers that get fluff classes are not? There is so much involved with merit pay that the general public does not see. If I am being paid based on test scores, then I'll be damned if kids are going to leave my classroom for things like instrumental music, chorus or any other activity. Currently, kids are pulled from main subjects to do these things. If I'm being paid based on test scores, then I want to be sure that every class on my grade level is balanced. Unfortunately, those things don't happen.
I like where I work because I see the difference I am making in kids lives. I'm sorry, but I don't believe for a second that moving these wonderful teachers from the suburbs into the inner city and paying them more is going to magically increase test scores. It's very easy to teach kids that are self motivated, that have great family support and are on grade level.
I teach in an urban district where parental involvement is very low. My students come to me each year below grade level for the most part. I can handle the rougher kids, so I usually end up with a class full of them. Those are usually not the kids that are your honors students, as behavior problems and low academic ability usually (not always) go together.
So yes, I am against merit pay. Why should I be penalized, while teachers that get fluff classes are not? There is so much involved with merit pay that the general public does not see. If I am being paid based on test scores, then I'll be damned if kids are going to leave my classroom for things like instrumental music, chorus or any other activity. Currently, kids are pulled from main subjects to do these things. If I'm being paid based on test scores, then I want to be sure that every class on my grade level is balanced. Unfortunately, those things don't happen.
I like where I work because I see the difference I am making in kids lives. I'm sorry, but I don't believe for a second that moving these wonderful teachers from the suburbs into the inner city and paying them more is going to magically increase test scores. It's very easy to teach kids that are self motivated, that have great family support and are on grade level.
As Christie so eloquently said to teacher Rita Wilson in Rutherford, "Then you don't have to do it".
I am for merit pay, absolutely. What I think should be changed is the mechanism on how it is dispensed. Your pay shouldn't be based on test scores, no more than it should be based on seniority. There is a better metric out there, somewhere, in which merit should be determined, based on what school district you are teaching in.
I think merit pay is the way to go. It works in just about every field out there, the key is finding the right metric. If the NJEA was smart they would be working on a system based on metrics that they can get behind. One hard business rule most people with P&L responsibility learn is that if you fail to create the metrics by which to measure your success you are simply asking someone else to do it.
As it is with this particular program it was my understanding that while it provided a certain amount of money upfront the money had to be spent on teacher pay and obligated the state to match the funding level in subsequent years. If this could be used as a method to reform teacher pay, than I would be all for it. If not, it was merely a one time hand out that would have obligated the state to spend more money that we don't have in the future.
It kind of reminds me of the billion Corzine got and the schools spent in one year, followed up by complaining they were having their funding cut the following year. Well, one time cash infusions are just that.
I teach in an urban district where parental involvement is very low. My students come to me each year below grade level for the most part. I can handle the rougher kids, so I usually end up with a class full of them. Those are usually not the kids that are your honors students, as behavior problems and low academic ability usually (not always) go together.
So yes, I am against merit pay. Why should I be penalized, while teachers that get fluff classes are not? There is so much involved with merit pay that the general public does not see. If I am being paid based on test scores, then I'll be damned if kids are going to leave my classroom for things like instrumental music, chorus or any other activity. Currently, kids are pulled from main subjects to do these things. If I'm being paid based on test scores, then I want to be sure that every class on my grade level is balanced. Unfortunately, those things don't happen.
I like where I work because I see the difference I am making in kids lives. I'm sorry, but I don't believe for a second that moving these wonderful teachers from the suburbs into the inner city and paying them more is going to magically increase test scores. It's very easy to teach kids that are self motivated, that have great family support and are on grade level.
i think you make a good point, and mike makes a good point as well in the post after yours. we wouldn't want merit pay to destory those other great pieces of education, so there must be some ideas out there on how to better measure performance.
i fully understand your point, but you must see that the current structure has huge flaws in it. there's got to be a better answer somewhere in between.
I think public school teachers can take a collective sigh of relief today. Christie thought he was slick by changing up the application for Race to the Top funds at the last minute. Well, NJ lost.
Although I don't rejoice in the loss of the application, I do however believe it shows that Christie can not go through his term playing the bully. Its one thing to be hell determined not to fall into the same trap as Governors before him, but its another things to be completely bull headed. Can't lead by the "my way or no way" mantra, this is the first failure to that thinking.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
NJEA changes made to application
