|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On September 16 2013 09:10 PineapplePizza wrote:
I'm new to the whole collegiate finance universe.
If tomorrow the whole world decided to implement and enforce some sort-of universal minimum wage (say, US$12.00 / hr or something not completely awful), what would things look like?
In most developing countries the minimum wage wouldn't be enforced at all (informal work contracts would proliferate), and if it was it would cause mass unemployment (simply because many workers can't achieve 12 USD/hour worth of productivity).
For reference, at the current exchange rate, raising the brazillian minimum wage to 12 USD/hour would be a 400% increase. Maybe only 300% (pure guess) if you consider purchase power parity.
|
On September 16 2013 11:37 Jormundr wrote:Show nested quote +On September 16 2013 11:16 Sermokala wrote:On September 16 2013 11:01 Jormundr wrote:On September 16 2013 10:44 Sermokala wrote:On September 16 2013 10:04 Roe wrote:On September 16 2013 09:55 Sermokala wrote:
The problem with making schools better is that teachers don't want schools to get better in any measurable way.
Prove it? The strike that chicago teachers went on turning down a 10% raise because having some way to hold them accountable for whats going inside of a classroom is unacceptable. Sounds like one of your fairy tales. Details? Proof? http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/13/education/chicago-teachers-strike-enters-third-day.html?_r=0Like do you doubt that it happened? beacuse thats just what a quick google search gave me. Yes I do. Show the 10% raise in salary. I doubt that it happened because a substantial raise for any government organization would be 3%. Show nested quote +On September 16 2013 11:23 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Teacher's unions have generally been opposed to merit pay and the sacking of poorly performing teachers. Administrators want to impose merit pay as an incentive to keep good teachers around. Currently bad teachers are shuffled around from one school to the next because it's too hard to fire them. It's called "the dance of the lemons." Every public school principal is painfully familiar with being forced to send children to a classroom where she knows the teacher there is not the best fit, but the teacher's placement has been forced on the school by higher-ups at the central district. In an effort to improve classroom instruction, bad teachers are often shuffled from one school to another, an administrative tactic known among principals as "The Dance of the Lemons." link We get it, unions are the great evil of the world. Teachers are no better than terrorists, and more likely to break into your house to steal your hard earned tax dollars.
If you googled the subject you would have found the info you were wanting. Just expecting other people to entertain you with the simple facts of an event that was very public that happened not to long ago is werid.
http://www.cnn.com/2012/09/19/us/illinois-chicago-teachers-strike/index.html
this says they ended up at 4.4% per year for 4 years when originally they wanted 7.5% per year for 4 years.
|
On September 16 2013 11:37 Jormundr wrote:Show nested quote +On September 16 2013 11:23 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Teacher's unions have generally been opposed to merit pay and the sacking of poorly performing teachers. Administrators want to impose merit pay as an incentive to keep good teachers around. Currently bad teachers are shuffled around from one school to the next because it's too hard to fire them. It's called "the dance of the lemons." Every public school principal is painfully familiar with being forced to send children to a classroom where she knows the teacher there is not the best fit, but the teacher's placement has been forced on the school by higher-ups at the central district. In an effort to improve classroom instruction, bad teachers are often shuffled from one school to another, an administrative tactic known among principals as "The Dance of the Lemons." link We get it, unions are the great evil of the world. Teachers are no better than terrorists, and more likely to break into your house to steal your hard earned tax dollars.
I definitely don't think teachers are terrorists, my mom was a teacher ffs 
Neither unions nor employers are always on the side of good or evil.
|
On September 16 2013 11:44 DoubleReed wrote:Show nested quote +On September 16 2013 11:34 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On September 16 2013 11:28 DoubleReed wrote:On September 16 2013 11:23 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Teacher's unions have generally been opposed to merit pay and the sacking of poorly performing teachers. Administrators want to impose merit pay as an incentive to keep good teachers around. Currently bad teachers are shuffled around from one school to the next because it's too hard to fire them. It's called "the dance of the lemons." Every public school principal is painfully familiar with being forced to send children to a classroom where she knows the teacher there is not the best fit, but the teacher's placement has been forced on the school by higher-ups at the central district. In an effort to improve classroom instruction, bad teachers are often shuffled from one school to another, an administrative tactic known among principals as "The Dance of the Lemons." link Merit pay isn't really a good policy. Teachers didn't go into teaching for the moneys. The went into it for the teaching. Sorry, but it's one of these easy-but-dumb solutions. From what I've seen about Merit Pay, the main effect it has is causing good teachers to move to other districts where they don't have to put up with that crap. Merit pay isn't magic, but it's often effective. Lots of people in other industries take jobs for more reasons than the money, but they still respond to it. What's different about teaching that would make them leave (assuming they are, in fact)? Are they fleeing the merit pay or are they running to safe salary? Well, I googled it, and I found things pointing both in favor and against merit pay, so I can't say whether it is effective or not. The general consensus I found is that it hasn't been effective at all so far, and proponents say it needs to be tweaked. I don't quite know why it doesn't work. One thing is that teachers are more motivated by social pressures, not financial pressures. By shifting it to financial pressures it actually diminishes their care of the social pressure. In general I think teachers should be treated with a lot more respect in our society than we give them. Parents and administrators are very quick to blame teachers for everything, including their own issues. That's the main problem, and merit pay really doesn't address that. It's a band-aid at best.
It doesn't work because teachers are likely doing the best job that they can do already. This isn't a farm, where the quality/speed of the worker is dependent on the pay and the whip. It's a high skill job, where each teacher is (roughly) expected to perform at some mostly unattainable level, but we tolerate their inability to all perform perfectly.
|
the problem with merit pay is standardized testing
|
On September 16 2013 12:14 aksfjh wrote:Show nested quote +On September 16 2013 11:44 DoubleReed wrote:On September 16 2013 11:34 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On September 16 2013 11:28 DoubleReed wrote:On September 16 2013 11:23 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Teacher's unions have generally been opposed to merit pay and the sacking of poorly performing teachers. Administrators want to impose merit pay as an incentive to keep good teachers around. Currently bad teachers are shuffled around from one school to the next because it's too hard to fire them. It's called "the dance of the lemons." Every public school principal is painfully familiar with being forced to send children to a classroom where she knows the teacher there is not the best fit, but the teacher's placement has been forced on the school by higher-ups at the central district. In an effort to improve classroom instruction, bad teachers are often shuffled from one school to another, an administrative tactic known among principals as "The Dance of the Lemons." link Merit pay isn't really a good policy. Teachers didn't go into teaching for the moneys. The went into it for the teaching. Sorry, but it's one of these easy-but-dumb solutions. From what I've seen about Merit Pay, the main effect it has is causing good teachers to move to other districts where they don't have to put up with that crap. Merit pay isn't magic, but it's often effective. Lots of people in other industries take jobs for more reasons than the money, but they still respond to it. What's different about teaching that would make them leave (assuming they are, in fact)? Are they fleeing the merit pay or are they running to safe salary? Well, I googled it, and I found things pointing both in favor and against merit pay, so I can't say whether it is effective or not. The general consensus I found is that it hasn't been effective at all so far, and proponents say it needs to be tweaked. I don't quite know why it doesn't work. One thing is that teachers are more motivated by social pressures, not financial pressures. By shifting it to financial pressures it actually diminishes their care of the social pressure. In general I think teachers should be treated with a lot more respect in our society than we give them. Parents and administrators are very quick to blame teachers for everything, including their own issues. That's the main problem, and merit pay really doesn't address that. It's a band-aid at best. It doesn't work because teachers are likely doing the best job that they can do already. This isn't a farm, where the quality/speed of the worker is dependent on the pay and the whip. It's a high skill job, where each teacher is (roughly) expected to perform at some mostly unattainable level, but we tolerate their inability to all perform perfectly.
Lots of high skill jobs successfully employ merit pay.
On September 16 2013 11:44 DoubleReed wrote:Show nested quote +On September 16 2013 11:34 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On September 16 2013 11:28 DoubleReed wrote:On September 16 2013 11:23 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Teacher's unions have generally been opposed to merit pay and the sacking of poorly performing teachers. Administrators want to impose merit pay as an incentive to keep good teachers around. Currently bad teachers are shuffled around from one school to the next because it's too hard to fire them. It's called "the dance of the lemons." Every public school principal is painfully familiar with being forced to send children to a classroom where she knows the teacher there is not the best fit, but the teacher's placement has been forced on the school by higher-ups at the central district. In an effort to improve classroom instruction, bad teachers are often shuffled from one school to another, an administrative tactic known among principals as "The Dance of the Lemons." link Merit pay isn't really a good policy. Teachers didn't go into teaching for the moneys. The went into it for the teaching. Sorry, but it's one of these easy-but-dumb solutions. From what I've seen about Merit Pay, the main effect it has is causing good teachers to move to other districts where they don't have to put up with that crap. Merit pay isn't magic, but it's often effective. Lots of people in other industries take jobs for more reasons than the money, but they still respond to it. What's different about teaching that would make them leave (assuming they are, in fact)? Are they fleeing the merit pay or are they running to safe salary? Well, I googled it, and I found things pointing both in favor and against merit pay, so I can't say whether it is effective or not. The general consensus I found is that it hasn't been effective at all so far, and proponents say it needs to be tweaked. I don't quite know why it doesn't work. One thing is that teachers are more motivated by social pressures, not financial pressures. By shifting it to financial pressures it actually diminishes their care of the social pressure. In general I think teachers should be treated with a lot more respect in our society than we give them. Parents and administrators are very quick to blame teachers for everything, including their own issues. That's the main problem, and merit pay really doesn't address that. It's a band-aid at best.
I'm sorry you live in an area where teachers aren't respected. Move north young TL'er
It should be an option that schools have, IMO. I don't think it's a silver bullet, but I don't see how denying it's use will help either. I've heard a lot of the same for standardized tests. A lot of schools seem to struggle with them, but here in MA they've been used successfully since the 90's.
|
every time a child takes a standardized test a happy angel dies a screaming death of agony
this is one of those things you won't be able to understand, I'm afraid
|
On September 16 2013 12:29 sam!zdat wrote:
every time a child takes a standardized test a happy angel dies a screaming death of agony
this is one of those things you won't be able to understand, I'm afraid
That's fine, not many believe in angels up here. Good schools on the other hand...
|
On September 16 2013 12:24 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On September 16 2013 12:14 aksfjh wrote:On September 16 2013 11:44 DoubleReed wrote:On September 16 2013 11:34 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On September 16 2013 11:28 DoubleReed wrote:On September 16 2013 11:23 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Teacher's unions have generally been opposed to merit pay and the sacking of poorly performing teachers. Administrators want to impose merit pay as an incentive to keep good teachers around. Currently bad teachers are shuffled around from one school to the next because it's too hard to fire them. It's called "the dance of the lemons." Every public school principal is painfully familiar with being forced to send children to a classroom where she knows the teacher there is not the best fit, but the teacher's placement has been forced on the school by higher-ups at the central district. In an effort to improve classroom instruction, bad teachers are often shuffled from one school to another, an administrative tactic known among principals as "The Dance of the Lemons." link Merit pay isn't really a good policy. Teachers didn't go into teaching for the moneys. The went into it for the teaching. Sorry, but it's one of these easy-but-dumb solutions. From what I've seen about Merit Pay, the main effect it has is causing good teachers to move to other districts where they don't have to put up with that crap. Merit pay isn't magic, but it's often effective. Lots of people in other industries take jobs for more reasons than the money, but they still respond to it. What's different about teaching that would make them leave (assuming they are, in fact)? Are they fleeing the merit pay or are they running to safe salary? Well, I googled it, and I found things pointing both in favor and against merit pay, so I can't say whether it is effective or not. The general consensus I found is that it hasn't been effective at all so far, and proponents say it needs to be tweaked. I don't quite know why it doesn't work. One thing is that teachers are more motivated by social pressures, not financial pressures. By shifting it to financial pressures it actually diminishes their care of the social pressure. In general I think teachers should be treated with a lot more respect in our society than we give them. Parents and administrators are very quick to blame teachers for everything, including their own issues. That's the main problem, and merit pay really doesn't address that. It's a band-aid at best. It doesn't work because teachers are likely doing the best job that they can do already. This isn't a farm, where the quality/speed of the worker is dependent on the pay and the whip. It's a high skill job, where each teacher is (roughly) expected to perform at some mostly unattainable level, but we tolerate their inability to all perform perfectly. Lots of high skill jobs successfully employ merit pay.
Lots of high skill jobs don't require that you make 30 random people achieve goals that may have no relation to their skill set. I.E. in high skill jobs, the people you are forced to rely on are generally screened based on their abilities. This is not the same as school, where you get students who may or may not have the skill sets to complete the course material, but are required to take the classes anyway.
And again, since student bodies aren't homogeneous, you wouldn't want to work at places where the students are worse (I.E. poor schools).
On September 16 2013 12:29 sam!zdat wrote:
every time a child takes a standardized test a happy angel dies a screaming death of agony
this is one of those things you won't be able to understand, I'm afraid
I enjoyed them. But then again I got perfects up until I took the actual SAT (1570). Should have studied. Was lucky that they didn't count the essay portion until I graduated because I'm a really slow writer.
|
Education is like farming.
In this case the teachers are the trees.
How can you make the tree grow the fruit better?
|
On September 16 2013 12:32 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On September 16 2013 12:29 sam!zdat wrote:
every time a child takes a standardized test a happy angel dies a screaming death of agony
this is one of those things you won't be able to understand, I'm afraid That's fine, not many believe in angels up here. Good schools on the other hand...
Massachusetts is also one of the most educated states with a top 5 household median income. Its easy to be the coach when you are picking a basketball team and you get to choose the first 5 players.
|
On September 16 2013 12:38 Jormundr wrote:Show nested quote +On September 16 2013 12:24 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On September 16 2013 12:14 aksfjh wrote:On September 16 2013 11:44 DoubleReed wrote:On September 16 2013 11:34 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On September 16 2013 11:28 DoubleReed wrote:On September 16 2013 11:23 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Teacher's unions have generally been opposed to merit pay and the sacking of poorly performing teachers. Administrators want to impose merit pay as an incentive to keep good teachers around. Currently bad teachers are shuffled around from one school to the next because it's too hard to fire them. It's called "the dance of the lemons." Every public school principal is painfully familiar with being forced to send children to a classroom where she knows the teacher there is not the best fit, but the teacher's placement has been forced on the school by higher-ups at the central district. In an effort to improve classroom instruction, bad teachers are often shuffled from one school to another, an administrative tactic known among principals as "The Dance of the Lemons." link Merit pay isn't really a good policy. Teachers didn't go into teaching for the moneys. The went into it for the teaching. Sorry, but it's one of these easy-but-dumb solutions. From what I've seen about Merit Pay, the main effect it has is causing good teachers to move to other districts where they don't have to put up with that crap. Merit pay isn't magic, but it's often effective. Lots of people in other industries take jobs for more reasons than the money, but they still respond to it. What's different about teaching that would make them leave (assuming they are, in fact)? Are they fleeing the merit pay or are they running to safe salary? Well, I googled it, and I found things pointing both in favor and against merit pay, so I can't say whether it is effective or not. The general consensus I found is that it hasn't been effective at all so far, and proponents say it needs to be tweaked. I don't quite know why it doesn't work. One thing is that teachers are more motivated by social pressures, not financial pressures. By shifting it to financial pressures it actually diminishes their care of the social pressure. In general I think teachers should be treated with a lot more respect in our society than we give them. Parents and administrators are very quick to blame teachers for everything, including their own issues. That's the main problem, and merit pay really doesn't address that. It's a band-aid at best. It doesn't work because teachers are likely doing the best job that they can do already. This isn't a farm, where the quality/speed of the worker is dependent on the pay and the whip. It's a high skill job, where each teacher is (roughly) expected to perform at some mostly unattainable level, but we tolerate their inability to all perform perfectly. Lots of high skill jobs successfully employ merit pay. Lots of high skill jobs don't require that you make 30 random people achieve goals that may have no relation to their skill set. I.E. in high skill jobs, the people you are forced to rely on are generally screened based on their abilities. This is not the same as school, where you get students who may or may not have the skill sets to complete the course material, but are required to take the classes anyway. And again, since student bodies aren't homogeneous, you wouldn't want to work at places where the students are worse (I.E. poor schools).
That's more of an issue as to how the merit pay is structured. You're not supposed to just assume that smarter kids = better teacher.
For example, if you have a standardized test at the end of sixth and seventh grade you can judge how well the seventh grade teacher did based on the student's performance at the end of grade six.
|
On September 16 2013 12:41 Sermokala wrote:
Education is like farming.
In this case the teachers are the trees.
How can you make the tree grow the fruit better?
Genetic Engineering?
I'm not sure how far to extend this metaphor.
|
On September 16 2013 12:43 Livelovedie wrote:Show nested quote +On September 16 2013 12:32 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On September 16 2013 12:29 sam!zdat wrote:
every time a child takes a standardized test a happy angel dies a screaming death of agony
this is one of those things you won't be able to understand, I'm afraid That's fine, not many believe in angels up here. Good schools on the other hand... Massachusetts is also one of the most educated states with a top 5 household median income. Its easy to be the coach when you are picking a basketball team and you get to choose the first 5 players.
True but when you compare internationally lots of states are under-performing relative to their income. MA has put a lot of work and experimentation into its education system to get where it is today.
|
On September 16 2013 12:41 Sermokala wrote:
Education is like farming.
In this case the teachers are the trees.
How can you make the tree grow the fruit better?
Monsanto seeds? Forward futures markets? Higher value added processes / services? Better coordination of farm labor via GPS tracking?
|
On September 16 2013 12:43 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On September 16 2013 12:38 Jormundr wrote:On September 16 2013 12:24 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On September 16 2013 12:14 aksfjh wrote:On September 16 2013 11:44 DoubleReed wrote:On September 16 2013 11:34 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On September 16 2013 11:28 DoubleReed wrote:On September 16 2013 11:23 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Teacher's unions have generally been opposed to merit pay and the sacking of poorly performing teachers. Administrators want to impose merit pay as an incentive to keep good teachers around. Currently bad teachers are shuffled around from one school to the next because it's too hard to fire them. It's called "the dance of the lemons." Every public school principal is painfully familiar with being forced to send children to a classroom where she knows the teacher there is not the best fit, but the teacher's placement has been forced on the school by higher-ups at the central district. In an effort to improve classroom instruction, bad teachers are often shuffled from one school to another, an administrative tactic known among principals as "The Dance of the Lemons." link Merit pay isn't really a good policy. Teachers didn't go into teaching for the moneys. The went into it for the teaching. Sorry, but it's one of these easy-but-dumb solutions. From what I've seen about Merit Pay, the main effect it has is causing good teachers to move to other districts where they don't have to put up with that crap. Merit pay isn't magic, but it's often effective. Lots of people in other industries take jobs for more reasons than the money, but they still respond to it. What's different about teaching that would make them leave (assuming they are, in fact)? Are they fleeing the merit pay or are they running to safe salary? Well, I googled it, and I found things pointing both in favor and against merit pay, so I can't say whether it is effective or not. The general consensus I found is that it hasn't been effective at all so far, and proponents say it needs to be tweaked. I don't quite know why it doesn't work. One thing is that teachers are more motivated by social pressures, not financial pressures. By shifting it to financial pressures it actually diminishes their care of the social pressure. In general I think teachers should be treated with a lot more respect in our society than we give them. Parents and administrators are very quick to blame teachers for everything, including their own issues. That's the main problem, and merit pay really doesn't address that. It's a band-aid at best. It doesn't work because teachers are likely doing the best job that they can do already. This isn't a farm, where the quality/speed of the worker is dependent on the pay and the whip. It's a high skill job, where each teacher is (roughly) expected to perform at some mostly unattainable level, but we tolerate their inability to all perform perfectly. Lots of high skill jobs successfully employ merit pay. Lots of high skill jobs don't require that you make 30 random people achieve goals that may have no relation to their skill set. I.E. in high skill jobs, the people you are forced to rely on are generally screened based on their abilities. This is not the same as school, where you get students who may or may not have the skill sets to complete the course material, but are required to take the classes anyway. And again, since student bodies aren't homogeneous, you wouldn't want to work at places where the students are worse (I.E. poor schools). That's more of an issue as to how the merit pay is structured. You're not supposed to just assume that smarter kids = better teacher. For example, if you have a standardized test at the end of sixth and seventh grade you can judge how well the seventh grade teacher did based on the student's performance at the end of grade six.
This would make sense if you could formulate baselines for overall improvement of students by school, by year, by course and by class size. Unfortunately I doubt most public school systems attempt to do an actual analysis of teacher performance. The status quo is to have teachers graded by other teachers, the administration, and by test scores, without the kind of analysis that one would expect from an academic system.
On September 16 2013 12:53 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On September 16 2013 12:41 Sermokala wrote:
Education is like farming.
In this case the teachers are the trees.
How can you make the tree grow the fruit better? Monsanto seeds? Forward futures markets? Higher value added processes / services? Better coordination of farm labor via GPS tracking?
So dumb. You obviously just pay the farmer more so he can synergize the trees better. Or import trees from mexico for a fraction of the cost and keep two sets of books.
|
standardized testing teaches kids to think like cogs
where there is standardized testing, there is no education, there is the opposite of education. The purpose of standardized testing is to terrorize children into hating school and make them think learning is something you do on an assembly line.
|
On September 16 2013 12:53 Jormundr wrote:Show nested quote +On September 16 2013 12:43 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On September 16 2013 12:38 Jormundr wrote:On September 16 2013 12:24 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On September 16 2013 12:14 aksfjh wrote:On September 16 2013 11:44 DoubleReed wrote:On September 16 2013 11:34 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On September 16 2013 11:28 DoubleReed wrote:On September 16 2013 11:23 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Teacher's unions have generally been opposed to merit pay and the sacking of poorly performing teachers. Administrators want to impose merit pay as an incentive to keep good teachers around. Currently bad teachers are shuffled around from one school to the next because it's too hard to fire them. It's called "the dance of the lemons." Every public school principal is painfully familiar with being forced to send children to a classroom where she knows the teacher there is not the best fit, but the teacher's placement has been forced on the school by higher-ups at the central district. In an effort to improve classroom instruction, bad teachers are often shuffled from one school to another, an administrative tactic known among principals as "The Dance of the Lemons." link Merit pay isn't really a good policy. Teachers didn't go into teaching for the moneys. The went into it for the teaching. Sorry, but it's one of these easy-but-dumb solutions. From what I've seen about Merit Pay, the main effect it has is causing good teachers to move to other districts where they don't have to put up with that crap. Merit pay isn't magic, but it's often effective. Lots of people in other industries take jobs for more reasons than the money, but they still respond to it. What's different about teaching that would make them leave (assuming they are, in fact)? Are they fleeing the merit pay or are they running to safe salary? Well, I googled it, and I found things pointing both in favor and against merit pay, so I can't say whether it is effective or not. The general consensus I found is that it hasn't been effective at all so far, and proponents say it needs to be tweaked. I don't quite know why it doesn't work. One thing is that teachers are more motivated by social pressures, not financial pressures. By shifting it to financial pressures it actually diminishes their care of the social pressure. In general I think teachers should be treated with a lot more respect in our society than we give them. Parents and administrators are very quick to blame teachers for everything, including their own issues. That's the main problem, and merit pay really doesn't address that. It's a band-aid at best. It doesn't work because teachers are likely doing the best job that they can do already. This isn't a farm, where the quality/speed of the worker is dependent on the pay and the whip. It's a high skill job, where each teacher is (roughly) expected to perform at some mostly unattainable level, but we tolerate their inability to all perform perfectly. Lots of high skill jobs successfully employ merit pay. Lots of high skill jobs don't require that you make 30 random people achieve goals that may have no relation to their skill set. I.E. in high skill jobs, the people you are forced to rely on are generally screened based on their abilities. This is not the same as school, where you get students who may or may not have the skill sets to complete the course material, but are required to take the classes anyway. And again, since student bodies aren't homogeneous, you wouldn't want to work at places where the students are worse (I.E. poor schools). That's more of an issue as to how the merit pay is structured. You're not supposed to just assume that smarter kids = better teacher. For example, if you have a standardized test at the end of sixth and seventh grade you can judge how well the seventh grade teacher did based on the student's performance at the end of grade six. This would make sense if you could formulate baselines for overall improvement of students by school, by year, by course and by class size. Unfortunately I doubt most public school systems attempt to do an actual analysis of teacher performance. The status quo is to have teachers graded by other teachers, the administration, and by test scores, without the kind of analysis that one would expect from an academic system.
OK, if the school district is going to be lazy like the local RMV, then yes, it has no right implement merit pay.
"the school administration sucks" is a perfectly good argument against giving the school administration moar power.
|
On September 16 2013 12:57 sam!zdat wrote:
standardized testing teaches kids to think like cogs
where there is standardized testing, there is no education, there is the opposite of education. The purpose of standardized testing is to terrorize children into hating school and make them think learning is something you do on an assembly line.
I didn't have that experience at all. MCAS was ezpz so long as you stayed awake in class, and I was retarded as constipated shit back in HS
I haven't seen a drop-off in creative types around here either. If anything, we have too many over educated and pretentious artist types.
|
On September 16 2013 12:57 sam!zdat wrote:
standardized testing teaches kids to think like cogs
where there is standardized testing, there is no education, there is the opposite of education. The purpose of standardized testing is to terrorize children into hating school and make them think learning is something you do on an assembly line.
What if we don't tell the children the results, and instead use the results to tailor the education around said results? Or tell them it's not their absolute mark that matters, but the improvement that they've made since the last year. Or even just put an improvement score in different categories, to inform the student/parent of how far they've progressed, rather than some arbitrary score.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
