California Parents Pull the "Trigger"

[Jackson]

wow...

very revealing.

According to this Victorville, California - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


27% of households have a single parent
23 % hispanic
many hispanics may be ELL too.


I'll bet this school district doesn't pay very well. Maybe this is a blessing in disguise for the teachers that will be "fired".

No teacher got rich in their field. Teaching for good teachers is really more of a "calling." Good teachers would go there for the challenge in itself.

Only good teachers accept less than they are worth?

Is there any other profession where that is the case?

Is there any other profession that gets so much disrespect?

Do you see threads bashing doctors or automotive OEM supervisors?

I'm not expecting to get rich, but for crissakes we need to put a roof over our heads the same as anyone else.

teaching is my second career, so don't say I don't know what private industry is all about.

I have been a teacher for 5 years now.I'm getting better at it and acquiring more qualifications.

My question, why should I go to a school with a troubled past and a history of firing teachers indiscriminately?

Why should I go to a school that pays sub-par and has a low SES demographic of Victorville? Why should I take that chance?

What's going to happen is that only teachers that are inexperienced or desperate will go to troubled schools. No one will stick around long enough to get fired.

If trends in education continue,no one will want to be a teacher. Why take the abuse?

Just call Kelly services and get another teacher after the morning teacher walks out of the door in disgust.

I believe in merit pay for teachers and administrators. Perhaps you shouldn't go to a school with a troubled past if you feel that is not the place for you. A teacher has to feel they can make a difference and the administrators will support them. Inexperienced teachers may not be the best teachers for troubled schools unless they have a good mentor to help them with their first years.

You seem to talk about abuse of a teacher and getting parents off your back so it seems as though you have had negative experiences. You are in a difficult field and perhaps changing it to a regular classroom would help.

 

[atlasshrugged]

No teacher got rich in their field. Teaching for good teachers is really more of a "calling." Good teachers would go there for the challenge in itself.

Only good teachers accept less than they are worth?

Is there any other profession where that is the case?

Is there any other profession that gets so much disrespect?

Do you see threads bashing doctors or automotive OEM supervisors?

I'm not expecting to get rich, but for crissakes we need to put a roof over our heads the same as anyone else.

teaching is my second career, so don't say I don't know what private industry is all about.

I have been a teacher for 5 years now.I'm getting better at it and acquiring more qualifications.

My question, why should I go to a school with a troubled past and a history of firing teachers indiscriminately?

Why should I go to a school that pays sub-par and has a low SES demographic of Victorville? Why should I take that chance?

What's going to happen is that only teachers that are inexperienced or desperate will go to troubled schools. No one will stick around long enough to get fired.

If trends in education continue,no one will want to be a teacher. Why take the abuse?

Just call Kelly services and get another teacher after the morning teacher walks out of the door in disgust.

I believe in merit pay for teachers and administrators. Perhaps you shouldn't go to a school with a troubled past if you feel that is not the place for you. A teacher has to feel they can make a difference and the administrators will support them. Inexperienced teachers may not be the best teachers for troubled schools unless they have a good mentor to help them with their first years.

You seem to talk about abuse of a teacher and getting parents off your back so it seems as though you have had negative experiences. You are in a difficult field and perhaps changing it to a regular classroom would help.

There's a problem with merit pay: How do we determine what amount of success is due to the teacher. If parents in one area read daily with their children and help them understand their homework, while those in another area do not, which area will teachers want to teach in? The first one! Because the kids will get good scores and it will reflect well on the teachers. Now administrators aren't dumb. They know which teachers are best when they interview them. So, the best teachers will be hired by well off communities and the worse teachers will be left for the areas with bad test grades. The struggling schools will struggle more.

States and counties need to see school as an investment. They need to pay teachers more in order to entice better college grads to become teachers. Some of our best prospects for teaching are going into business, engineering, and medicine. We don't need to pay them that much, but enough that the salary isn't a downside of the profession. Finally, why don't schools offer bonuses to teachers at certain schools for improving scores? That would entice great teachers to work for struggling schools.

 

[Jackson]

Only good teachers accept less than they are worth?

Is there any other profession where that is the case?

Is there any other profession that gets so much disrespect?

Do you see threads bashing doctors or automotive OEM supervisors?

I'm not expecting to get rich, but for crissakes we need to put a roof over our heads the same as anyone else.

teaching is my second career, so don't say I don't know what private industry is all about.

I have been a teacher for 5 years now.I'm getting better at it and acquiring more qualifications.

My question, why should I go to a school with a troubled past and a history of firing teachers indiscriminately?

Why should I go to a school that pays sub-par and has a low SES demographic of Victorville? Why should I take that chance?

What's going to happen is that only teachers that are inexperienced or desperate will go to troubled schools. No one will stick around long enough to get fired.

If trends in education continue,no one will want to be a teacher. Why take the abuse?

Just call Kelly services and get another teacher after the morning teacher walks out of the door in disgust.

I believe in merit pay for teachers and administrators. Perhaps you shouldn't go to a school with a troubled past if you feel that is not the place for you. A teacher has to feel they can make a difference and the administrators will support them. Inexperienced teachers may not be the best teachers for troubled schools unless they have a good mentor to help them with their first years.

You seem to talk about abuse of a teacher and getting parents off your back so it seems as though you have had negative experiences. You are in a difficult field and perhaps changing it to a regular classroom would help.

There's a problem with merit pay: How do we determine what amount of success is due to the teacher. If parents in one area read daily with their children and help them understand their homework, while those in another area do not, which area will teachers want to teach in? The first one! Because the kids will get good scores and it will reflect well on the teachers. Now administrators aren't dumb. They know which teachers are best when they interview them. So, the best teachers will be hired by well off communities and the worse teachers will be left for the areas with bad test grades. The struggling schools will struggle more.

States and counties need to see school as an investment. They need to pay teachers more in order to entice better college grads to become teachers. Some of our best prospects for teaching are going into business, engineering, and medicine. We don't need to pay them that much, but enough that the salary isn't a downside of the profession. Finally, why don't schools offer bonuses to teachers at certain schools for improving scores? That would entice great teachers to work for struggling schools.

Indeed. scores can indicate how much improvement in months each child has made in terms of months and that is how they should be reporting progress. If a child has been instructed for 8 months between testings, anything over 8 months shown on the test would be a gain.

 

[koshergrl]

maybe the students are not that bright?

And isn't that where a good educator comes in Berry?

I've got to say the circling of the wagons on this issue by teachers and unions is as much the problem as anything else. Why should your field have such lowered expectations in regard to performance? Would you not agree that education in one of the most important fields out there?

So far you've implied the problem may lay with the kids twice now.
With all due respect, I pity the child who falls behind in your classroom.

with all due respect my ass......

Let's use some logic.

most students are average students
most teachers are average teachers

If I had 100 bright and eager students they would all pass the state test. I would be a super teacher.

What if I got 100 lazy and not so bright students and none passed the test. I'm a bad teacher right?

how do you know that in the first case I don't come into class and drink martinis and just let the kids do workshhets and in the second case do a brilliant job but they just don't get it?

Remember, half of the population is on the left side of the bell curve when it comes to intelligence. None of them are teachers.

That being said, I teach MR and autistic students. I must teach them all the core subjects witout a curriculum and no text books. I have to pull everything out of my ass. If you think it's eay, try it. On top of that I have to do all kinds of administrative bullshit. That leaves less time for actual teaching.

Now, riddle me this. If my MR students show little to no progress should i be canned? Remember, they have been in school for over ten years and in some cases can't tie their shoes or blow their noses. My brightest students are at the first grade level at age 17. It's my fault they can't read on grade level?


And I'll stste that my literacy program is top notch. I'm one of the few teachers at the high school level that can teach phonics and comprehension skills.

Do you think you can do this smart alec?

PS no teacher can inject IQ points into someone's brain or give them a shock to get them to do the work.

Progressives, sheesh. "It's the kids' fault they aren't learning! Dumb kids! We need to breed smarter kids, and get rid of all this chaff!"

 

[squeeze berry]

And isn't that where a good educator comes in Berry?

I've got to say the circling of the wagons on this issue by teachers and unions is as much the problem as anything else. Why should your field have such lowered expectations in regard to performance? Would you not agree that education in one of the most important fields out there?

So far you've implied the problem may lay with the kids twice now.
With all due respect, I pity the child who falls behind in your classroom.

with all due respect my ass......

Let's use some logic.

most students are average students
most teachers are average teachers

If I had 100 bright and eager students they would all pass the state test. I would be a super teacher.

What if I got 100 lazy and not so bright students and none passed the test. I'm a bad teacher right?

how do you know that in the first case I don't come into class and drink martinis and just let the kids do workshhets and in the second case do a brilliant job but they just don't get it?

Remember, half of the population is on the left side of the bell curve when it comes to intelligence. None of them are teachers.

That being said, I teach MR and autistic students. I must teach them all the core subjects witout a curriculum and no text books. I have to pull everything out of my ass. If you think it's eay, try it. On top of that I have to do all kinds of administrative bullshit. That leaves less time for actual teaching.

Now, riddle me this. If my MR students show little to no progress should i be canned? Remember, they have been in school for over ten years and in some cases can't tie their shoes or blow their noses. My brightest students are at the first grade level at age 17. It's my fault they can't read on grade level?


And I'll stste that my literacy program is top notch. I'm one of the few teachers at the high school level that can teach phonics and comprehension skills.

Do you think you can do this smart alec?

PS no teacher can inject IQ points into someone's brain or give them a shock to get them to do the work.

Progressives, sheesh. "It's the kids' fault they aren't learning! Dumb kids! We need to breed smarter kids, and get rid of all this chaff!"

you have me tagged waaay wrong.

My point is that many students are below average intelligence and are not motivated.

Is that inorrect? if so show me how I'm wrong.

 

[rightwinger]

And isn't that where a good educator comes in Berry?

I've got to say the circling of the wagons on this issue by teachers and unions is as much the problem as anything else. Why should your field have such lowered expectations in regard to performance? Would you not agree that education in one of the most important fields out there?

So far you've implied the problem may lay with the kids twice now.
With all due respect, I pity the child who falls behind in your classroom.

with all due respect my ass......

Let's use some logic.

most students are average students
most teachers are average teachers

If I had 100 bright and eager students they would all pass the state test. I would be a super teacher.

What if I got 100 lazy and not so bright students and none passed the test. I'm a bad teacher right?

how do you know that in the first case I don't come into class and drink martinis and just let the kids do workshhets and in the second case do a brilliant job but they just don't get it?

Remember, half of the population is on the left side of the bell curve when it comes to intelligence. None of them are teachers.

That being said, I teach MR and autistic students. I must teach them all the core subjects witout a curriculum and no text books. I have to pull everything out of my ass. If you think it's eay, try it. On top of that I have to do all kinds of administrative bullshit. That leaves less time for actual teaching.

Now, riddle me this. If my MR students show little to no progress should i be canned? Remember, they have been in school for over ten years and in some cases can't tie their shoes or blow their noses. My brightest students are at the first grade level at age 17. It's my fault they can't read on grade level?


And I'll stste that my literacy program is top notch. I'm one of the few teachers at the high school level that can teach phonics and comprehension skills.

Do you think you can do this smart alec?

PS no teacher can inject IQ points into someone's brain or give them a shock to get them to do the work.

Progressives, sheesh. "It's the kids' fault they aren't learning! Dumb kids! We need to breed smarter kids, and get rid of all this chaff!"

Yes, there are dumb kids. There are kids who will never give a shit. Kids who belong in jail rather than school

To pretend otherwise and blame their teachers is nonsense

 

[IGetItAlready]

with all due respect my ass......

Let's use some logic.

most students are average students
most teachers are average teachers

If I had 100 bright and eager students they would all pass the state test. I would be a super teacher.

What if I got 100 lazy and not so bright students and none passed the test. I'm a bad teacher right?

how do you know that in the first case I don't come into class and drink martinis and just let the kids do workshhets and in the second case do a brilliant job but they just don't get it?

Remember, half of the population is on the left side of the bell curve when it comes to intelligence. None of them are teachers.

That being said, I teach MR and autistic students. I must teach them all the core subjects witout a curriculum and no text books. I have to pull everything out of my ass. If you think it's eay, try it. On top of that I have to do all kinds of administrative bullshit. That leaves less time for actual teaching.

Now, riddle me this. If my MR students show little to no progress should i be canned? Remember, they have been in school for over ten years and in some cases can't tie their shoes or blow their noses. My brightest students are at the first grade level at age 17. It's my fault they can't read on grade level?


And I'll stste that my literacy program is top notch. I'm one of the few teachers at the high school level that can teach phonics and comprehension skills.

Do you think you can do this smart alec?

PS no teacher can inject IQ points into someone's brain or give them a shock to get them to do the work.

Progressives, sheesh. "It's the kids' fault they aren't learning! Dumb kids! We need to breed smarter kids, and get rid of all this chaff!"

Yes, there are dumb kids. There are kids who will never give a shit. Kids who belong in jail rather than school

To pretend otherwise and blame their teachers is nonsense

To offer failing teachers cover by implying the whole GD class consists of poor students is the kind of half baked bs excuse I expect to hear from kids..."dumb kids".

 

[rightwinger]

Progressives, sheesh. "It's the kids' fault they aren't learning! Dumb kids! We need to breed smarter kids, and get rid of all this chaff!"

Yes, there are dumb kids. There are kids who will never give a shit. Kids who belong in jail rather than school

To pretend otherwise and blame their teachers is nonsense

To offer failing teachers cover by implying the whole GD class consists of poor students is the kind of half baked bs excuse I expect to hear from kids..."dumb kids".

I don't care if a teacher can get kids to pass an arbitrary exam

I look at what you were given and what did you do with what you were given?

It may mean taking kids who would have dropped out and getting them to stay in school. If these kids can be slightly motivated to the point they are capable of holding a job, the teacher has been successful......even if the kid can't pass a test

If a D student is turned into a C student or a C student becomes college material....the teacher has been successful

Any teacher can take motivated, yuppy spawn and get them through their SATs. It takes a great teacher to take an unmotivated kid from a bad background and get them to the point where they are employable.

 

[koshergrl]

with all due respect my ass......

Let's use some logic.

most students are average students
most teachers are average teachers

If I had 100 bright and eager students they would all pass the state test. I would be a super teacher.

What if I got 100 lazy and not so bright students and none passed the test. I'm a bad teacher right?

how do you know that in the first case I don't come into class and drink martinis and just let the kids do workshhets and in the second case do a brilliant job but they just don't get it?

Remember, half of the population is on the left side of the bell curve when it comes to intelligence. None of them are teachers.

That being said, I teach MR and autistic students. I must teach them all the core subjects witout a curriculum and no text books. I have to pull everything out of my ass. If you think it's eay, try it. On top of that I have to do all kinds of administrative bullshit. That leaves less time for actual teaching.

Now, riddle me this. If my MR students show little to no progress should i be canned? Remember, they have been in school for over ten years and in some cases can't tie their shoes or blow their noses. My brightest students are at the first grade level at age 17. It's my fault they can't read on grade level?


And I'll stste that my literacy program is top notch. I'm one of the few teachers at the high school level that can teach phonics and comprehension skills.

Do you think you can do this smart alec?

PS no teacher can inject IQ points into someone's brain or give them a shock to get them to do the work.

Progressives, sheesh. "It's the kids' fault they aren't learning! Dumb kids! We need to breed smarter kids, and get rid of all this chaff!"

you have me tagged waaay wrong.

My point is that many students are below average intelligence and are not motivated.

Is that inorrect? if so show me how I'm wrong.

No, you need to prove the assertion. What evidence that they're below average intelligence?

 

[rightwinger]

Progressives, sheesh. "It's the kids' fault they aren't learning! Dumb kids! We need to breed smarter kids, and get rid of all this chaff!"

you have me tagged waaay wrong.

My point is that many students are below average intelligence and are not motivated.

Is that inorrect? if so show me how I'm wrong.

No, you need to prove the assertion. What evidence that they're below average intelligence?

Do you understand what average intelligence means?

 

[atlasshrugged]

I believe in merit pay for teachers and administrators. Perhaps you shouldn't go to a school with a troubled past if you feel that is not the place for you. A teacher has to feel they can make a difference and the administrators will support them. Inexperienced teachers may not be the best teachers for troubled schools unless they have a good mentor to help them with their first years.

You seem to talk about abuse of a teacher and getting parents off your back so it seems as though you have had negative experiences. You are in a difficult field and perhaps changing it to a regular classroom would help.

There's a problem with merit pay: How do we determine what amount of success is due to the teacher. If parents in one area read daily with their children and help them understand their homework, while those in another area do not, which area will teachers want to teach in? The first one! Because the kids will get good scores and it will reflect well on the teachers. Now administrators aren't dumb. They know which teachers are best when they interview them. So, the best teachers will be hired by well off communities and the worse teachers will be left for the areas with bad test grades. The struggling schools will struggle more.

States and counties need to see school as an investment. They need to pay teachers more in order to entice better college grads to become teachers. Some of our best prospects for teaching are going into business, engineering, and medicine. We don't need to pay them that much, but enough that the salary isn't a downside of the profession. Finally, why don't schools offer bonuses to teachers at certain schools for improving scores? That would entice great teachers to work for struggling schools.

Indeed. scores can indicate how much improvement in months each child has made in terms of months and that is how they should be reporting progress. If a child has been instructed for 8 months between testings, anything over 8 months shown on the test would be a gain.

First, if you measure improvement, you invite mediocrity. If I'm a teacher given a state exam to set a benchmark at the beginning of the year, it's fairly easy to "encourage" low scores on the first exam to increase "improvement." All the teacher has to do is tell the kids that they will be graded on improvement. Or by telling the kids to only answer if they know for sure, they've effectively dropped test scores between 10% and 20%.

Offering bonuses to great teachers is a good idea, but attaching those bonuses to test scores breeds teachers who teach their students to take tests well. Why can't we have a system where principals can observe teachers and nominate them to the school district for a raise? They have eyes and they know what makes a good teacher. This way, merit based pay would be attached to the teacher's performance.

 

[westwall]

School's sole responsibility is to educate children. There should be no political indoctrination or anything even remotely similar to that. Emphasis must be placed on the basics. I agree that education begins at home but look at the facts, parents (who work to pay the bills and the taxes that the teachers are then paid) arguably spend less waking time with their children than teachers do.

Here in my state the public education system basically sucks. If you are a poor student you will remain a poor student (even at the best high school), if you are average (where a teacher can have the greatest impact) you will remain average unless some other outside force affects you, but if you are a good student you will do well because the top 10% get all of the attention of the teachers.

We send our daughter to a private school because she is very smart and we don't want her to be bored. She gets plenty of additional mathematical and scientific education here at home, but she gets supplamental education and social training at school.

But, and this is a huge but, my wife is an educator and we work at home so our daughter is oftentimes relieved to get to go to school! You see we have the time to do it. 99% of the parents don't. You teachers on the other hand do. That's your sole responsibility.
You don't have to feed them, clothe them, take care of them when they're sick etc.

I do agree that parents who don't care about education make your job harder, of that there is no doubt. That's what sets a good teacher apart from an average one. They can counter the bad parent effect. Average teachers don't and poor teachers do even more harm. The problem is of course the unions that protect the bad teachers.

If the unions made it their mission to serve children first instead of bad teachers i think most of the issues would go away.

 

[westwall]

There's a problem with merit pay: How do we determine what amount of success is due to the teacher. If parents in one area read daily with their children and help them understand their homework, while those in another area do not, which area will teachers want to teach in? The first one! Because the kids will get good scores and it will reflect well on the teachers. Now administrators aren't dumb. They know which teachers are best when they interview them. So, the best teachers will be hired by well off communities and the worse teachers will be left for the areas with bad test grades. The struggling schools will struggle more.

States and counties need to see school as an investment. They need to pay teachers more in order to entice better college grads to become teachers. Some of our best prospects for teaching are going into business, engineering, and medicine. We don't need to pay them that much, but enough that the salary isn't a downside of the profession. Finally, why don't schools offer bonuses to teachers at certain schools for improving scores? That would entice great teachers to work for struggling schools.

Indeed. scores can indicate how much improvement in months each child has made in terms of months and that is how they should be reporting progress. If a child has been instructed for 8 months between testings, anything over 8 months shown on the test would be a gain.

First, if you measure improvement, you invite mediocrity. If I'm a teacher given a state exam to set a benchmark at the beginning of the year, it's fairly easy to "encourage" low scores on the first exam to increase "improvement." All the teacher has to do is tell the kids that they will be graded on improvement. Or by telling the kids to only answer if they know for sure, they've effectively dropped test scores between 10% and 20%.

Offering bonuses to great teachers is a good idea, but attaching those bonuses to test scores breeds teachers who teach their students to take tests well. Why can't we have a system where principals can observe teachers and nominate them to the school district for a raise? They have eyes and they know what makes a good teacher. This way, merit based pay would be attached to the teacher's performance.

Tests can be written where that is not an issue. My wife writes them all the time.

 

[daveman]

with all due respect my ass......

Let's use some logic.

most students are average students
most teachers are average teachers

If I had 100 bright and eager students they would all pass the state test. I would be a super teacher.

What if I got 100 lazy and not so bright students and none passed the test. I'm a bad teacher right?

how do you know that in the first case I don't come into class and drink martinis and just let the kids do workshhets and in the second case do a brilliant job but they just don't get it?

Remember, half of the population is on the left side of the bell curve when it comes to intelligence. None of them are teachers.

That being said, I teach MR and autistic students. I must teach them all the core subjects witout a curriculum and no text books. I have to pull everything out of my ass. If you think it's eay, try it. On top of that I have to do all kinds of administrative bullshit. That leaves less time for actual teaching.

Now, riddle me this. If my MR students show little to no progress should i be canned? Remember, they have been in school for over ten years and in some cases can't tie their shoes or blow their noses. My brightest students are at the first grade level at age 17. It's my fault they can't read on grade level?


And I'll stste that my literacy program is top notch. I'm one of the few teachers at the high school level that can teach phonics and comprehension skills.

Do you think you can do this smart alec?

PS no teacher can inject IQ points into someone's brain or give them a shock to get them to do the work.

Progressives, sheesh. "It's the kids' fault they aren't learning! Dumb kids! We need to breed smarter kids, and get rid of all this chaff!"

you have me tagged waaay wrong.

My point is that many students are below average intelligence and are not motivated.

Is that inorrect? if so show me how I'm wrong.

I can confidently say about half of students are below average intelligence.

 

[squeeze berry]

Progressives, sheesh. "It's the kids' fault they aren't learning! Dumb kids! We need to breed smarter kids, and get rid of all this chaff!"

you have me tagged waaay wrong.

My point is that many students are below average intelligence and are not motivated.

Is that inorrect? if so show me how I'm wrong.

I can confidently say about half of students are below average intelligence.

finally, someone gets it

 

[Jackson]

Yes, there are dumb kids. There are kids who will never give a shit. Kids who belong in jail rather than school

To pretend otherwise and blame their teachers is nonsense

To offer failing teachers cover by implying the whole GD class consists of poor students is the kind of half baked bs excuse I expect to hear from kids..."dumb kids".

I don't care if a teacher can get kids to pass an arbitrary exam

I look at what you were given and what did you do with what you were given?

It may mean taking kids who would have dropped out and getting them to stay in school. If these kids can be slightly motivated to the point they are capable of holding a job, the teacher has been successful......even if the kid can't pass a test

If a D student is turned into a C student or a C student becomes college material....the teacher has been successful

Any teacher can take motivated, yuppy spawn and get them through their SATs. It takes a great teacher to take an unmotivated kid from a bad background and get them to the point where they are employable.

There ya go! And there are teachers who can do just that!

 

[Jackson]

There's a problem with merit pay: How do we determine what amount of success is due to the teacher. If parents in one area read daily with their children and help them understand their homework, while those in another area do not, which area will teachers want to teach in? The first one! Because the kids will get good scores and it will reflect well on the teachers. Now administrators aren't dumb. They know which teachers are best when they interview them. So, the best teachers will be hired by well off communities and the worse teachers will be left for the areas with bad test grades. The struggling schools will struggle more.

States and counties need to see school as an investment. They need to pay teachers more in order to entice better college grads to become teachers. Some of our best prospects for teaching are going into business, engineering, and medicine. We don't need to pay them that much, but enough that the salary isn't a downside of the profession. Finally, why don't schools offer bonuses to teachers at certain schools for improving scores? That would entice great teachers to work for struggling schools.

Indeed. scores can indicate how much improvement in months each child has made in terms of months and that is how they should be reporting progress. If a child has been instructed for 8 months between testings, anything over 8 months shown on the test would be a gain.

First, if you measure improvement, you invite mediocrity. If I'm a teacher given a state exam to set a benchmark at the beginning of the year, it's fairly easy to "encourage" low scores on the first exam to increase "improvement." All the teacher has to do is tell the kids that they will be graded on improvement. Or by telling the kids to only answer if they know for sure, they've effectively dropped test scores between 10% and 20%.

Offering bonuses to great teachers is a good idea, but attaching those bonuses to test scores breeds teachers who teach their students to take tests well. Why can't we have a system where principals can observe teachers and nominate them to the school district for a raise? They have eyes and they know what makes a good teacher. This way, merit based pay would be attached to the teacher's performance.

If test improvement is based only on spring scores, that would not be an issue. Students should not be given Pre and Post tests, but measure the end of the year tests from year to year.

 

[blimpo]

School's sole responsibility is to educate children. There should be no political indoctrination or anything even remotely similar to that. Emphasis must be placed on the basics. I agree that education begins at home but look at the facts, parents (who work to pay the bills and the taxes that the teachers are then paid) arguably spend less waking time with their children than teachers do.

Here in my state the public education system basically sucks. If you are a poor student you will remain a poor student (even at the best high school), if you are average (where a teacher can have the greatest impact) you will remain average unless some other outside force affects you, but if you are a good student you will do well because the top 10% get all of the attention of the teachers.

We send our daughter to a private school because she is very smart and we don't want her to be bored. She gets plenty of additional mathematical and scientific education here at home, but she gets supplamental education and social training at school.

But, and this is a huge but, my wife is an educator and we work at home so our daughter is oftentimes relieved to get to go to school! You see we have the time to do it. 99% of the parents don't. You teachers on the other hand do. That's your sole responsibility.
You don't have to feed them, clothe them, take care of them when they're sick etc.

I do agree that parents who don't care about education make your job harder, of that there is no doubt. That's what sets a good teacher apart from an average one. They can counter the bad parent effect. Average teachers don't and poor teachers do even more harm. The problem is of course the unions that protect the bad teachers.

If the unions made it their mission to serve children first instead of bad teachers i think most of the issues would go away.

You are talking about caring for ONE kid. I applaud you on your effort.

But teachers can have over 30 kids in one class and 6 or 7 classes in one day. Individual attention is impractical in this situation.

On top of this, you have varing degrees of levels from the top to the bottom in each class.
Don't tell me to teach and assign different work within one room. All it takes are a few "top learners" to go home and complain that they must do five times the work to receive an "A" than the others to stop this idea. And complain they will....
You can't (within the same room) require one group to do research and write a paper while another group is in the back of the room playing with Lincoln Logs.

One situation that would help imrove the system is grouping according to ability. In our PC world this is a no-no.
It would allow teachers to narrow the material for the level of specific groups of students.