Teachers’ pay should be based on performance, not years worked: report

I realize I am working YF's corners here but found this report interesting on how best to compensate teachers.

The report dismisses the idea of merit pay, a controversial program that rewards teachers for rising test scores. But it does question the current salary model, which is based on seniority and academic credentials. The report argues that it does not offer any financial incentive for teachers to become more effective in the classroom.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/education/teachers-pay-should-be-based-on-performance-not-years-worked-report/article16471184/

 

Boy, there's a new and fresh take on the issue.

 

Teachers do not like this idea, and they'll turn away money that could help kids, rather than embrace the idea:

 

No problem.

I'm busy fighting the devil scourge of marijuana, and transphobia/transmisogyny.

And, I'm way behind in posting cocktail pictures.

 

I realize the source of the report obviously has a bias but I did think it was an interesting way of potentially evaluating teachers rather than test scores. Seems to me that some incentive for performance is a good thing.

 

This is not a news article. It is a column written by a member of a group that runs a website devoted to attacking the American Federation of Teachers and the newspaper that published it has a well-earned reputation for a strong right-wing political bias.

 

Is there something factually wrong with what it says?

 

Most of what it says is opinion, not fact. It is a one-sided hack job. You are presenting evidence from a biased source and you don't seem to care to find out the truth because it suits your point of view. It comes back to a point I've made on this site before. A knowledgeable source is useless if you can't trust the person to tell you the truth.

I do know that the Gates Foundation has been behind other educational initiatives that parents, school districts and teachers have found serious problems with. One is inBloom, a non-profit company that provides a platform for storing and sharing student information. The problem is, they take no responsibility whatsoever for protecting the security of student data. That is why out of nine states that initially signed up to use inBloom, all nine either dropped them or delayed the use of the program. New York was the ninth, though the state education department claims it was a technical issue that delayed the uploading of student names and addresses from January to April, but they have been under heavy pressure from elected officials, school districts, teachers and parent groups to at least get some better answers before going forward.

Point being, given some of the other issues, it is worth wondering what stings might be attached to the grant in Pittsburgh given some of the issues with other Gates Foundation initiatives.

I'm curious about this one. Will have to check in with some media folks and teachers I know back in Pittsburgh to see what they know about it.

The more simple answer to your question is, I don't know for sure if they are presenting facts or not. I just now the source is biased as hell and I can see at least one reason to question the grant.

 

Well, for one thing, it wouldn't cost Pittsburgh $40 million, because more than $25 million has already been used:

http://www.edweek.org/ew/articles/2014/01/22/18pittsburgh.h33.html?tkn=LSLFrLHoDL6wEDIefIIoyM2eiyrrJCfemG5X&cmp=clp-edweek

 

Get rid of any teacher with more than 10 years of service or making more than $25,000 a year. Bring in a young hungry crew and keep 'em hungry.

Get rid of all the goldbrick administrators and subcontract with a major retail organization to run the schools. Someone experienced in keeping labor costs low. Bentonville, Ark. might be a good place to look.

Problem solved.

 

Am i the only one who clicked on this thread hoping it was a poin files alert?