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.
Under the current system, by some perceptions, better teachers get more money - and teachers' pay levels are in more affluent systems.
Assuming the above is true, then students from wealthier families get better public services (not just private ones), giving them a leg up in future educational opportunities.
Is this something that should be corrected, even if it can be?
How would you go about fixing it, if you could?
Standardized pay across schools, set by the states?
And how would you implement in-school merit pay, rather than just longevity pay (which is the current standard method)?
And how would merit pay be applied? To the teachers whose test scores are the highest? We have one teacher who has only Honors and AP classes. His MD HSA pass rate last year was 100%. I had two low level HSA classes last year (average reading level 6th grade) and my pass rate was 60% (70% in one class, 50% in the other). I was "counseled" about the scores.
And how would merit pay be applied? To the teachers whose test scores are the highest? We have one teacher who has only Honors and AP classes. His MD HSA pass rate last year was 100%. I had two low level HSA classes last year (average reading level 6th grade) and my pass rate was 60% (70% in one class, 50% in the other). I was "counseled" about the scores.
Yes, that's one of the key questions - if merit pay is a notion, then we need a viable way of doing it!
Value added is one of the notions that is at least closer to the mark, but even it has glaring weaknesses. It gets around the problem you mentioned, though.
Under the current system, by some perceptions, better teachers get more money - and teachers' pay levels are in more affluent systems.
Assuming the above is true, then students from wealthier families get better public services (not just private ones), giving them a leg up in future educational opportunities.
Is this something that should be corrected, even if it can be?
How would you go about fixing it, if you could?
Standardized pay across schools, set by the states?
And how would you implement in-school merit pay, rather than just longevity pay (which is the current standard method)?
A state wide payment scale wouldn't work. Good teachers would still vie for the better districts because they have better students. You'd have to pay more to get teachers into the impoverished areas. In some, a lot more. Obviously, the money would have to come from wealthier districts and they will cry foul. There always will be inequity in the system. The best teachers put in the best schools will make more difference than the best teachers put in the worst schools because the students are part of the equation too. It's not just about teachers.
I don't think you can go to merit pay. My student's performance has as much to do with every other teacher they ever had as it does me. There's no real way to gauge my performance next to the next teacher. All you really can do is evaluate teachers but then that's subjective. Assuming schools get rid of incompetent teachers, longevity pay should work. The problem is, once tenured, they can't get rid of incompetent teachers.
Personally, I'd love a state wide pay scale. I'm in a charter school. The wage I hired in at would be the wage I'd retire at if I stayed that long. I won't even if I have to leave the profession because I'll be broke long before then.
A state wide payment scale wouldn't work. Good teachers would still vie for the better districts because they have better students. You'd have to pay more to get teachers into the impoverished areas. In some, a lot more. Obviously, the money would have to come from wealthier districts and they will cry foul. There always will be inequity in the system. The best teachers put in the best schools will make more difference than the best teachers put in the worst schools because the students are part of the equation too. It's not just about teachers.
I don't think you can go to merit pay. My student's performance has as much to do with every other teacher they ever had as it does me. There's no real way to gauge my performance next to the next teacher. All you really can do is evaluate teachers but then that's subjective. Assuming schools get rid of incompetent teachers, longevity pay should work. The problem is, once tenured, they can't get rid of incompetent teachers.
Personally, I'd love a state wide pay scale. I'm in a charter school. The wage I hired in at would be the wage I'd retire at if I stayed that long. I won't even if I have to leave the profession because I'll be broke long before then.
Let me ask you this:
Suppose you're being paid to be a football coach.
You are given 30 players who all weigh less than 200 lbs and have never played the game before.
Somehow, you manage to instill a sense of esprit de corps, you attract 10 more players by the end of the season, and you even win one of your 10 games over a team which finished with a 6-4 record, but had 60 players of which 40 had played Pop Warner Youth Football for at least 2 years prior to high school. That was the only game you won.
You are given 30 players who all weigh less than 200 lbs and have never played the game before.
Somehow, you manage to instill a sense of esprit de corps, you attract 10 more players by the end of the season, and you even win one of your 10 games over a team which finished with a 6-4 record, but had 60 players of which 40 had played Pop Warner Youth Football for at least 2 years prior to high school. That was the only game you won.
Who's the more successful coach?
I'm not arguing for merit pay.
I agree that the issue is in deciding who is the better teacher. Given that schools are rated on their passing rates on state tests, I can tell you what criteria schools will use. The one that impacts their bottom line. Only it's not fair because the students are part of the equation too.
I have one chemistry class that is half special ed kids. Another where the class, as a whole, scored very poorly on the math pretest (algebra and ratios to see if they're ready for chemistry). I could do a lot with those groups and still not make passing rates. My other classes are in good shape. They'll pass but it won't be because of me so much as because of them.
Under the current system, by some perceptions, better teachers get more money - and teachers' pay levels are in more affluent systems.
Assuming the above is true, then students from wealthier families get better public services (not just private ones), giving them a leg up in future educational opportunities.
Is this something that should be corrected, even if it can be?
How would you go about fixing it, if you could?
Standardized pay across schools, set by the states?
And how would you implement in-school merit pay, rather than just longevity pay (which is the current standard method)?
Is it unequal? Yes!
Should it be fixed? Been there done that without success!
Should it be changed? Public school funding is very much local or state and it is their tax dollars going to their children and other children even if disproportional. You need good schools for the more affluent so you keep them in and supporting public schools. Without their support who would pay for the schools in poorer districts?
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.
