JamesInFlorida
Senior Member
- Dec 18, 2010
- 1,501
- 186
- 48
A value-added system sounds good on paper, but how would it work? Testing in every subject every year? Do you know how much that would cost? How much time would be wasted? How would special education teachers be paid?
Is it fair to hold teachers responsible for truancy, transiency, and neglect?
Tenure needs to be reformed; not eliminated. "Bad teachers" need to be fired, but student test scores do NOT measure "bad teachers". When a 4th grader is tested in October, does that reflect what he has learned in 4th grade, or in K-3?
Believe it or not folks, good teachers are rewarded and bad teachers are punished. In the first 3 years, many new teachers are denied tenure. After that, certain favorites are given perks like good classes, duties, and paid extracurricular positions.. Consequently, less popular teachers are given those that nobody else wants. Good teachers are left alone; bad teachers are watched constantly.
Every single year, I have gotten all the classes I have requested. When I ask for supplies, maintenance requests, or anything else to make the job less stressful, it is granted. When others bitch about all of the above, I just smile. That's worth far more than money.
Well first of all I think the most accurate way to determine whether a teacher is good or not, is by monitoring how much their students learn/improve from the start of the school year to the end. I don't think it should be a knee-jerk reaction. I think if over a few years the teacher consistently has students that just aren't learning enough-they should be fired.
Not sure how it is in your state, or school district but here when teachers go into a pool and apply for an open position the principal HAS to hire the first person who walks in the door. If person A walks in at 10:00 and wants the job, but person B who's much more qualified (has better results, awards, recognitions, higher degree) walks in-they don't get the job.
The principals have to hire based on the longevity of the teacher, and who looks better on paper-even if a newer teacher would make a much better teacher.
Then when schools get money, instead of using it for new computer labs, or other educational tools-what do they do? Build new football facilities, and new locker rooms. And people wonder why our education system sucks.
edit: And the amount of money we spend on the education system shouldn't be an issue. If a better way of measuring teacher's effectiveness is expensive-so? Our education system here is crumbling, and I think it's completely unacceptable. We used to be #1. We used to be the country that produced the most scientists, the most inventors, education was the backbone of this country-and it just isn't anymore. We need to invest (and yes that means spend money) on our education system. But the problem is when we've done that in the past-we just blindly threw money at the problem, we didn't address the needs. I don't think people really mind if we spend money on education-it's how the money gets spent which is the problem.
Last edited: