Merit pay for teachers may not work, research shows

[chanel]

Paying teachers bonuses to improve student test scores may not work after all, according to a new study researchers say is the first scientifically rigorous test of merit pay.

Vanderbilt University researchers studied a program in Nashville that offered bonuses of $5,000 to $15,000 to middle school math teachers if their students scored higher than expected on a statewide exam, according to a report released today.

After three years, the program proved to be a bust, the study said. Except for some temporary gains, students did not progress any faster in classrooms where teachers were offered bonuses.

The small study could be a cautionary flag to the Obama administration and state governments — including New Jersey — that consider tying teacher pay to students’ academic performance as a central piece of their education reform efforts.

Merit pay for teachers who improve students scores may not work, research shows | NJ.com

 

[California Girl]

I feel quite sorry for teachers. Being set unachievable targets to teach kids who don't want to learn is just mindless.

Merit pay won't work. Throwing money at these problems never works. The only way to solve it is to force parents to take their children's education seriously.

 

[chanel]

Exactly. I read an interesting article recently that said although test scores may look abysmal, the fact is that graduation rates have soared. So the statistics are skewed. More and more disaffected, unmotivated, and just plain dumb kids are staying in school. That's not necessarily a bad thing, however it does make teaching that much more difficult, and ultimately pulls down the scores (and the rigor of the curriculum).

The only practical solution I've heard is Samson's. Vocational ed. for the non-academic kid. Learning a skilled trade would benefit the child AND society as a whole. Forcing Physics on kids with an 80 IQ just doesn't make a whole lotta sense to people in the real world.

But the academia and bureaucrats always think money is the magic bullet. There is no magic bullet.

 

[Annie]

Exactly. I read an interesting article recently that said although test scores may look abysmal, the fact is that graduation rates have soared. So the statistics are skewed. More and more disaffected, unmotivated, and just plain dumb kids are staying in school. That's not necessarily a bad thing, however it does make teaching that much more difficult, and ultimately pulls down the scores (and the rigor of the curriculum).

The only practical solution I've heard is Samson's. Vocational ed. for the non-academic kid. Learning a skilled trade would benefit the child AND society as a whole. Forcing Physics on kids with an 80 IQ just doesn't make a whole lotta sense to people in the real world.

But the academia and bureaucrats always think money is the magic bullet. There is no magic bullet.

While the US has always been for educating 'all,' in reality it used to be that those who couldn't do secondary school would leave and work in factories or in trades of one sort or another. Since Sputnik, it changed. Slowly but surely the Fed has crept into the education business, culminating in NCLB, entrenching/punishing schools with what began with Public Law 94-142 and IDEA.

It's pretty common sense what works, tracking. Special classes for those with handicaps or behavior that cannot be overcome by modifications in a regular classroom.

 

[random3434]

Amen to all your posts ladies!

As educators, we've "been there/done that" and know things need to change, but how that will come about is the million/billion dollar question.


The FIRST THING is getting parents more involved in their child's education, and the next step is fixing what's not working.

And yes, more Voc Ed for those students not on the college track will not only help them, but society as a whole too.

 

[Annie]

Amen to all your posts ladies!

As educators, we've "been there/done that" and know things need to change, but how that will come about is the million/billion dollar question.


The FIRST THING is getting parents more involved in their child's education, and the next step is fixing what's not working.

And yes, more Voc Ed for those students not on the college track will not only help them, but society as a whole too.

You know we are in total agreement regarding parents parenting. I think it imperative that schools try to educate parents through meetings and newsletters what 'good parents' should expect and do to help their kids. However, we can only deal with what we can control and parents are not one of those things. Encourage? Of course. Make them do right? No in this lifetime.

We all bemoan how bad parents are today. My guess, if our great grandparents had been teachers way back when, they too would have had to deal with the results of bad parents.

 

[xotoxi]

The only practical solution I've heard is Samson's. Vocational ed. for the non-academic kid. Learning a skilled trade would benefit the child AND society as a whole. Forcing Physics on kids with an 80 IQ just doesn't make a whole lotta sense to people in the real world.

I've always been in agreement with this.

Starting early, there should be two tracks of education that students would take...either traditional college prep, or vocational. A student wouldn't be forced into one or the other, or locked into one or the other, or be unable to take classes from either...but based on the students own wishes and goals, and based on teacher recommendations, students would enter one of the two tracks.

The vocational ed track would still have math and reading and other classes that would enhance critical thinking...but the main emphasis would be on classes that would teach the student skills and a trade. I believe that shifting education to this style would help America in the long run.

 

[Kalam]

I feel quite sorry for teachers. Being set unachievable targets to teach kids who don't want to learn is just mindless.

Merit pay won't work. Throwing money at these problems never works. The only way to solve it is to force parents to take their children's education seriously.

I agree with this statement completely. The question in front of us now is how do we foster an understanding of the importance of education in parents who never received the benefit of a good education themselves?

 

[Samson]

Amen to all your posts ladies!

As educators, we've "been there/done that" and know things need to change, but how that will come about is the million/billion dollar question.


The FIRST THING is getting parents more involved in their child's education, and the next step is fixing what's not working.

And yes, more Voc Ed for those students not on the college track will not only help them, but society as a whole too.

for your comments regarding voc ed.

However, I invite you to define what you mean by, "Getting parents more involved in their child's education."

http://www.usmessageboard.com/educa...ave-been-called-to-the-principals-office.html

It appears to me that this is only so much lip-service from bureaucrats: On the one hand they LOVE to talk about the evils of uninvolved parents, but on the other they passively resist parents that may be deemed, "too involved."

Essentially, they want parents to solve problems that exist, but are highly critical of anything parents may suggest that may PROACTIVELY prevent the same problems. While THEY KNOW what the best parenting techniques should be, HEAVEN FORBID a parent should make any pedagoglogical suggestion!!!!

BTW: You heard it hear first folks: I'm writing a Book Titled: Called to The Principal's Office.

 

[Article 15]

The only practical solution I've heard is Samson's. Vocational ed. for the non-academic kid. Learning a skilled trade would benefit the child AND society as a whole. Forcing Physics on kids with an 80 IQ just doesn't make a whole lotta sense to people in the real world.

I've always been in agreement with this.

Starting early, there should be two tracks of education that students would take...either traditional college prep, or vocational. A student wouldn't be forced into one or the other, or locked into one or the other, or be unable to take classes from either...but based on the students own wishes and goals, and based on teacher recommendations, students would enter one of the two tracks.

The vocational ed track would still have math and reading and other classes that would enhance critical thinking...but the main emphasis would be on classes that would teach the student skills and a trade. I believe that shifting education to this style would help America in the long run.

My town has two high schools, one of which is a vocational school.

 

[Samson]

The only practical solution I've heard is Samson's. Vocational ed. for the non-academic kid. Learning a skilled trade would benefit the child AND society as a whole. Forcing Physics on kids with an 80 IQ just doesn't make a whole lotta sense to people in the real world.

I've always been in agreement with this.

Starting early, there should be two tracks of education that students would take...either traditional college prep, or vocational. A student wouldn't be forced into one or the other, or locked into one or the other, or be unable to take classes from either...but based on the students own wishes and goals, and based on teacher recommendations, students would enter one of the two tracks.

The vocational ed track would still have math and reading and other classes that would enhance critical thinking...but the main emphasis would be on classes that would teach the student skills and a trade. I believe that shifting education to this style would help America in the long run.

My town has two high schools, one of which is a vocational school.

Most districts that have a larger proportion of "Title I" students (economically disadvantaged enough to qualify for free and reduced cost lunches) have a pretty strong vocational program.

However, districts that are in more affluent areas have split students into two tracks:

1. Those that are College bound, AP;
2. Those that are being warehoused 4 years.

Group 2 is basically composed of parents that either don't care, or don't want to know what their kids are doing. Teachers and Administration know EXACTLY what they're doing with these kids. The kids, as kids, are just along for the ride, and are happy to be given a box of crayons to color pictures of whales in Biology, and learn the same number line in Geometry that they learned in 4th grade.

 

[xotoxi]

Amen to all your posts ladies!

As educators, we've "been there/done that" and know things need to change, but how that will come about is the million/billion dollar question.


The FIRST THING is getting parents more involved in their child's education, and the next step is fixing what's not working.

And yes, more Voc Ed for those students not on the college track will not only help them, but society as a whole too.

for your comments regarding voc ed.

However, I invite you to define what you mean by, "Getting parents more involved in their child's education."

http://www.usmessageboard.com/educa...ave-been-called-to-the-principals-office.html

It appears to me that this is only so much lip-service from bureaucrats: On the one hand they LOVE to talk about the evils of uninvolved parents, but on the other they passively resist parents that may be deemed, "too involved."

Essentially, they want parents to solve problems that exist, but are highly critical of anything parents may suggest that may PROACTIVELY prevent the same problems. While THEY KNOW what the best parenting techniques should be, HEAVEN FORBID a parent should make any pedagoglogical suggestion!!!!

BTW: You heard it hear first folks: I'm writing a Book Titled: Called to The Principal's Office.

I think that teachers should be incentivized for getting parents involved. I think that high risk, poorly performing students should be identified, and then efforts should be made to design an interactive curriculum involving the parents and the students.

The incentive would be given for making the effort to reach out to parents. Teachers would not be penalized for parents that do not respond or do not participate, as long as there was a documented effort that the teacher attempted to reach the parents.

 

[Samson]

Amen to all your posts ladies!

As educators, we've "been there/done that" and know things need to change, but how that will come about is the million/billion dollar question.


The FIRST THING is getting parents more involved in their child's education, and the next step is fixing what's not working.

And yes, more Voc Ed for those students not on the college track will not only help them, but society as a whole too.

for your comments regarding voc ed.

However, I invite you to define what you mean by, "Getting parents more involved in their child's education."

http://www.usmessageboard.com/educa...ave-been-called-to-the-principals-office.html

It appears to me that this is only so much lip-service from bureaucrats: On the one hand they LOVE to talk about the evils of uninvolved parents, but on the other they passively resist parents that may be deemed, "too involved."

Essentially, they want parents to solve problems that exist, but are highly critical of anything parents may suggest that may PROACTIVELY prevent the same problems. While THEY KNOW what the best parenting techniques should be, HEAVEN FORBID a parent should make any pedagoglogical suggestion!!!!

BTW: You heard it hear first folks: I'm writing a Book Titled: Called to The Principal's Office.

I think that teachers should be incentivized for getting parents involved. I think that high risk, poorly performing students should be identified, and then efforts should be made to design an interactive curriculum involving the parents and the students.

The incentive would be given for making the effort to reach out to parents. Teachers would not be penalized for parents that do not respond or do not participate, as long as there was a documented effort that the teacher attempted to reach the parents.

Well, my tact is similar, however, we may have different ideas about how to "incentivize" teachers. My principal made the incentive very simple: You will contact all parents for any and all discipline or academic problems that students may, or may not have, and you will document all parent contact, or you're contract will not be renewed.

This is basic Teaching 101, however, if the principal is some wuss, he/she will not demand it of teachers, and they will not do it for themselves.

On a personal note, xot, I find the "CrimsonWhite" and "Bootneck" tags in your signature to be an unsettling display of man-love.

 

[chanel]

Our vocational school is now called the "technical school" They still must comply with the state's core curriculum goals which now include 3 years of math and science. They also have the privilege of expelling kids who cause trouble, don't make the grade or are handicapped. It's become a taxpayer funded private school, as many charter schools have become. Sooooo. These stats are not comparing apples to apples.

And Annie is right. You can't force people to properly parent their children. However, enforcing truancy laws might be a good start. My district does not.

 

[ConHog]

The only practical solution I've heard is Samson's. Vocational ed. for the non-academic kid. Learning a skilled trade would benefit the child AND society as a whole. Forcing Physics on kids with an 80 IQ just doesn't make a whole lotta sense to people in the real world.

I've always been in agreement with this.

Starting early, there should be two tracks of education that students would take...either traditional college prep, or vocational. A student wouldn't be forced into one or the other, or locked into one or the other, or be unable to take classes from either...but based on the students own wishes and goals, and based on teacher recommendations, students would enter one of the two tracks.

The vocational ed track would still have math and reading and other classes that would enhance critical thinking...but the main emphasis would be on classes that would teach the student skills and a trade. I believe that shifting education to this style would help America in the long run.

I disagree, the student shouldn't have a say, well that's not quite right. They do have a say, based on t heir performance. Perform like a student who wishes to go to college and you go into the college program , perform otherwise and you go into the vocational program. There are a lot of kids out there who just don't care about their education, and that's fine whatever, but the problem is that they affect the education of other children. Separate them out. Japan and Germany both do it that way, and both are kicking our asses in virtually every measure.

Also , as EZ points out parents need to be more involved; but what she doesn't mention is that yes some teachers need to be fired.

I also think school should be year round, with more short breaks rather than one long summer break.

 

[ConHog]

Our vocational school is now called the "technical school" They still must comply with the state's core curriculum goals which now include 3 years of math and science. They also have the privilege of expelling kids who cause trouble, don't make the grade or are handicapped. It's become a taxpayer funded private school, as many charter schools have become. Sooooo. These stats are not comparing apples to apples.

And Annie is right. You can't force people to properly parent their children. However, enforcing truancy laws might be a good start. My district does not.

Our school is very aggressive. If a child isn't at school without notifying the office, we turn the names over to our on campus police officer who in turn reports the name to his department who makes every effort to contact the parent(s) that day. Parents don't like being visited by the police when they are at work.

 

[Baruch Menachem]

The big things the Russians did right with schools is the parents were required to be involved, and the parents were responsible for the discipline. If little Vanya was to much of a disruption in class, the parents would get a visit from the secret police and told to do something about it. What they did was up to them, but if they did nothing, there would be consequences.

In Japan, everything is standardized tests. You pass the tests or else. And the available slots for the good schools are very few. Kids get tons of tutoring. Cram schools for middle schoolers are everywhere.

 

[parentrap]

oF COURSE IT DOESN'T WORK.


The key is to hire competent teachers and tax Rupert Murdoch, to provide them with decent salaries.

 

[Samson]

The big things the Russians did right with schools is the parents were required to be involved, and the parents were responsible for the discipline. If little Vanya was to much of a disruption in class, the parents would get a visit from the secret police and told to do something about it. What they did was up to them, but if they did nothing, there would be consequences.

In Japan, everything is standardized tests. You pass the tests or else. And the available slots for the good schools are very few. Kids get tons of tutoring. Cram schools for middle schoolers are everywhere.

I'm curious what the Soviets paid teachers.

I'm under the impression that Soviet teachers received a better deal under communism.

 

[ConHog]

The big things the Russians did right with schools is the parents were required to be involved, and the parents were responsible for the discipline. If little Vanya was to much of a disruption in class, the parents would get a visit from the secret police and told to do something about it. What they did was up to them, but if they did nothing, there would be consequences.

In Japan, everything is standardized tests. You pass the tests or else. And the available slots for the good schools are very few. Kids get tons of tutoring. Cram schools for middle schoolers are everywhere.

I'm curious what the Soviets paid teachers.

I'm under the impression that Soviet teachers received a better deal under communism.

30,000 rubles a year, or about $1.59