Education Reform Thread

[kuronosan]

It's more like asking 150 of the workers that happen to be lazy and want unjustified pay raises how much they like their boss, and then firing the boss because of worker dissatisfaction.

[Byrthnoth]

Teachers need to be objectively evaluated, but it should be introduced as incentives rather than punishments and shouldn't be as poorly implemented as NCLB was.

[Salodin]

Agreed, sort of. I'd rather tie incentives to performance, not immediately add it to their salary because I've now seen what a terrible teacher can do and how hard it can sometimes be to get rid of them. There's a pseudo system for performance in place now (in fl), but it's completely subjective based on how much your principle likes you. My gf went over it with me and all I took from it was she'll never get the full bonus no matter how well she teaches or her kids do on exams because if her principle does not say, consistently and over the course of a year, that she is innovating the classroom, then she will not get the bonus. It's ridiculous and pretty frustrating, and were hoping we can vote in people who can change it.

[BaneTheBrawler]

principal is your pal

principle is a concept and not really capable of friendship

or, the rhyming version:

Spoiler: show

THERE IS NO RHYME SUCK IT

anyway carry on.

[Ksandra]

I know I will sound like a broken record, but if they want accountability, it should be a committee that goes to the school and assesses what the teachers are doing based on the circumstances of the student demographics. I think it impossible to analyze a teacher's performance with a test that had no brain to know who it taking it.

[dasva]

Agreed, sort of. I'd rather tie incentives to performance, not immediately add it to their salary because I've now seen what a terrible teacher can do and how hard it can sometimes be to get rid of them.

Hard doesn't even begin to cover it. iirc last year California struck down teacher tenure citing specific cases of teachers just not showing up or sleeping in class. Or how the process is so long and expensive that a lot just don't bother in one case taking 10 years and $450k to fire one teacher. Incentives for good performance kind of go hand and hand with penalties for bad

[Salodin]

I know I will sound like a broken record, but if they want accountability, it should be a committee that goes to the school and assesses what the teachers are doing based on the circumstances of the student demographics. I think it impossible to analyze a teacher's performance with a test that had no brain to know who it taking it.

To counter, why shouldn't a teacher be graded upon by the performance of their student? Their sole job is to prepare that child for the next step, whether it be the next grade or entering the work force. This isn't education for the sake of education; we're doing this for a purpose and whether we achieved that goal should consistently be evaluated (like when we promote a child to the next grade).

I have no problem basing bonuses on student performance, that's what we're paying these teachers for. What I do have a problem with is not letting teachers deviate in teaching the subjects their own way, in ways that either work specifically for the student or in ways that the teacher has seen success. So many times a subject has to be taught a specific way, or a concept approached a specific way, that just doesn't resonate well with the student.

Florida had this problem with common core, among other things, where a teacher might have more success teaching a concept one way which could then be applied to other areas of study as the child develops critical thinking, but because of the kind of funding that is lost should your school grade low on the FCAT (Florida's standardized test), these type of strategies are discouraged or downright forbidden in favor of just teaching the FCAT and hoping the kids learn enough in other areas of their own. It does the student a disservice, the teacher a disservice, and tax payers a disservice when their money is going to partially educated/critical thinking void young adults that are graduating and moving into the real world. It's a sad sad situation indeed.

[Melena]

To counter, why shouldn't a teacher be graded upon by the performance of their student? Their sole job is to prepare that child for the next step, whether it be the next grade or entering the work force. This isn't education for the sake of education; we're doing this for a purpose and whether we achieved that goal should consistently be evaluated (like when we promote a child to the next grade).

I have no problem basing bonuses on student performance, that's what we're paying these teachers for. What I do have a problem with is not letting teachers deviate in teaching the subjects their own way, in ways that either work specifically for the student or in ways that the teacher has seen success. So many times a subject has to be taught a specific way, or a concept approached a specific way, that just doesn't resonate well with the student.

Florida had this problem with common core, among other things, where a teacher might have more success teaching a concept one way which could then be applied to other areas of study as the child develops critical thinking, but because of the kind of funding that is lost should your school grade low on the FCAT (Florida's standardized test), these type of strategies are discouraged or downright forbidden in favor of just teaching the FCAT and hoping the kids learn enough in other areas of their own. It does the student a disservice, the teacher a disservice, and tax payers a disservice when their money is going to partially educated/critical thinking void young adults that are graduating and moving into the real world. It's a sad sad situation indeed.

Because just like adults, some kids are just fucking stupid, don't care, etc. You will see it in more urban city areas, especially if gangs are more the norm. How students do should be a part of the equation, but in cases of like NCLB it was the entire equation and that was a problem.

[Salodin]

Well if the entire equation means a teacher won't bonus because two in her class of 18 refuse to perform, then there's a problem with the equation. What I'm saying is I agree with the concept, but it's implementation needs an overhaul.

[dasva]

So here is something interesting. Schools near me have decided to try something rather revolutionary...

tl;dr F is now 0-19, D 20-39 and so forth... and missing assignments gets you a 50% on it instead of 0. So not even showing up gets you a C...

[Melena]

So here is something interesting. Schools near me have decided to try something rather revolutionary...

tl;dr F is now 0-19, D 20-39 and so forth... and missing assignments gets you a 50% on it instead of 0. So not even showing up gets you a C...

what the fucking fuck?

[BerenTebogo]

So here is something interesting. Schools near me have decided to try something rather revolutionary...

tl;dr F is now 0-19, D 20-39 and so forth... and missing assignments gets you a 50% on it instead of 0. So not even showing up gets you a C...

Well this is just dumb as fuck.

[Byrthnoth]

Finally bothering to look it up on wikipedia, it turns out NCLB did not mandate any kind of teacher evaluation system. It requires teachers to be "highly qualified," which consists of possessing a college degree of some sort and having full certification to teach their subject. Certification procedures for a given subject vary state-by-state, but they consist of passing a test on the subject matter in question.

As far as the testing glut that people complain about, NCLB mandates that students receive a state-wide annual reading and math test (again, created by each state) from grades 3 to 8, the results of which must be made public. Schools must make "Adequate yearly progress" (AYP) on these tests, with "adequate progress" being partially defined by the states. The rules are:
* They can make different definitions of "adequate progress" for different socioeconomic groups, groups with disabilities, etc.
* The ultimate objective is to make students "proficient" in reading and math within 12 years. (unclear how this term is defined and I don't know what the endpoint is considering SATs are voluntary)
* Determination of AYP must include one factor that is not standardized testing.
* You need >95% attendance for each of your groups in the test results.
* Despite having different groups within one school, the AYP designation can only be assigned to schools (although it can be displayed broken down for individual groups in a school).

There are some problems with that, but where they really screwed the pooch in NCLB was their federally mandated punishments for failing to make AYP. After two years of failing to make AYP, your students must be given the opportunity to transfer out. Year three, mandatory free tutoring (without extra funding to pay for it). Year four, corrective action (which can include firing everyone). Year five they plan to restructure the entire school substantially (close it, turn it into a charter school, hire a private contractor, etc.), which is implemented if they hit year six without improving.

I mean, look at how that punishment scheme is structured. Your school basically unavoidably collapses after failing to make AYP two years in a row. Your good students head elsewhere, which drives you further into the shitter. You have to spend your already limited resources hiring tutors, which is honestly probably inefficient compared to forms of group instruction. Meanwhile, I'm sure any teacher that can get out and transferring districts. Worst of all, it takes 4 years to go from year 2's "obviously impending doom" to finishing the destruction in year 6. That's an entire pass through highschool for a graduating class.




As far as the teacher evaluations depending on student test scores, you can thank individual school districts (or perhaps states) for that. It's obviously motivated by the incredible punishments of the AYP system, but there's nothing explicitly in NCLB about it. Having teacher evaluation systems in place also apparently makes it easier to obtain Rise to the Top grants for further school funding.

[Ksandra]

To counter, why shouldn't a teacher be graded upon by the performance of their student?

Well first, I gave a better solution to grading teachers. Secondly, as others mentioned there are too many factors into teaching. We have no choice who we get, and have 20+ random kids in one room to try and teach.

The committee makes a million times more sense. Teachers already have to document everything about a struggling student. Committees can actually be presented the circumstances surrounding a student failing a class, a test cannot.

Even then a committee is not a perfect system. They may assume a teacher didn't try hard enough when they really did. But it is definitely a step above a test.

[Salodin]

It's a job, you shouldn't be able to pick and choose who you teach. If you could then senior staff would stack their class and even fewer people would want to join the profession at the bottom of the pole where the majority of their class is a behavior problem.

I don't agree with your committee idea. There's so many teachers in every county; having a committee review each teachers performance to assess whether they "deserve" a bonus is far too time consuming and costly, and doesn't even matter since its not like that committee replaces standardized testing that all students need to take at some point in their life. You want to add more costs to a system that is looking to reduce costs, and even if that'd happen you'd have people wanting to appeal decisions from a committee based on reasons you yourself stated (i promise I'm a good teacher, this child just has a terrible home life so I should still get my bonus!).

I'm sympathetic to your problem, I really am, but it doesn't matter what kind of job you have, in some fashion you will, and must, be evaluated. What better way to evaluate a teacher than to see how well said teachers student performs? After all, that is what we're paying them for (educate our children, and not just in "book smarts"). You can cry all day about how the tests are too hard, etc, but too bad. Do they ever plan on going to college or vocational school? They're going to be taking tests, more challenging ones at that. Are they going straight into the work force? There's tests there too. Being challenged and overcoming it is a part of growing up; these kids need it, and their teachers need to prepare them for it.

Now we could argue over what should be included in these tests, and how to prevent teaching the tests like we do now, but that's more of a principal/county issue than teacher bonus issue. If we can fix those, then I doubly believe that teachers should bonus based on performance. If not, then at least base bonuses on school performance since we're already basing some funding on this as it is.

[Ksandra]

I am not talking about bonuses, who gives a fuck about that? I am talking about assessing teachers.

I don't care that we don't choose our students. I mentioned that as a point to why tests are completely ineffective at assessing teachers.

[Ksandra]

Note: I don't like the idea of bonuses until teacher pay becomes better. Otherwise they will just be another way to pay teachers crap with the idea of, "You may win the bonus lottery though!"

[Salodin]

Why aren't you talking about bonuses? Who gives a shit what people think about the teachers if it doesn't affect their take home pay? Fuck them, let them think you're not as good a teacher and have them move their child to another class. It lowers your responsibility and makes it easier to teach the rest of the little shits. Yes, teacher pay needs to be better, but the whole point to a bonus is to encourage teachers to stay in their A game and not just do enough to skirt by. Standardized tests help evaluate teachers on this, as well as where the student currently stands.

[Ksandra]

Who gives a shit what people think about the teachers if it doesn't affect their take home pay?

The teachers who want to keep their jobs.

Standardized tests help evaluate teachers on this, as well as where the student currently stands.

People keep telling you why they don't help evaluate the teachers.

I don't want stupid bonuses added to testing that can get you fired. I want the testing to go away.

You want to give us one more piece of shit to deal with, and you think we'll be happy with it?

[Salodin]

No, I want people to stop thinking that teachers should, for some reason, be excluded from evaluations on their performance. How do you evaluate how well a teacher has taught? You want a committee? What is that committee going to look at? They're going to look at test scores. What do you expect them to do, look at grades the teacher in question is giving her own kids? *eye roll*

And no, what you've done is explain why it's an unfair system to evaluate a teacher based on a child's performance; and I concur, it's rough and borderline unfair. However, teaching is the one profession where that is exactly the easiest way you can evaluate them.

I'm sorry Ksandra, but people need to judge your performance in the class. If the child is a bad test taker, then take the time to fix that. Innovate, experiment. We don't care how involved your children are with your new chinchillas if they can't perform to the already low standards we set for them. Yes, you should get paid more, but that doesn't mean it's a bad idea to give incentives to teachers who consistently produce children better than their peers. Those types of people would (more like should) get a raise in the real world, and bonusing based on that makes sense. Making the excuse that the bonuses shouldn't replace better salaries is stupid, we should be doing both and not getting rid of one because we haven't fixed the other.