Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
(1) Teachers be assessed based on only those students with 90 percent or higher attendance.
(2) Teachers be allowed to remove disruptive students from their classroom on a day-to-day basis.
(3) Students who don't achieve "basic" proficiency in a state test be prohibited from moving forward to the next class in the progression.
(4) That teachers be assessed on student improvement, not an absolute standard -- the so-called value-added assessment.
I suspect that my conditions will go nowhere, precisely because they are reasonable. Teachers can't be evaluated on students who miss 10 percent of the class or don't have the prerequisite knowledge for success. Yet accepting these reasonable conditions might reveal that common rhetorical goals for education (everyone goes to college, algebra for eighth-graders) are, to put it bluntly, impossible. So we'll either continue the status quo at a stalemate or the states will make the tests so easy that the standards are meaningless.
Yes, some students are doing poorly because their teachers are terrible. Other students are doing poorly because they simply don't care, their parents don't care, their cognitive abilities aren't up to the task or some vicious combination of factors we haven't figured out -- with no regard to teacher quality. No one is eager to discover the size of that second group, so serious testing with teeth will go nowhere.
That's too bad. We need to know how many students are failing because they don't attend class, how many students score "below basic" on the algebra test three years in a row, how many students fail all tests because they read at a fourth-grade level. We need to know if our education rhetoric is a pipe dream instead of an achievable reality blocked by those nasty teachers unions. And, of course, if it turns out that all our problems can be solved by rooting out bad teachers, we need to find that out, too.
washingtonpost.com
(1) Teachers be assessed based on only those students with 90 percent or higher attendance.(2) Teachers be allowed to remove disruptive students from their classroom on a day-to-day basis.
(4) That teachers be assessed on student improvement, not an absolute standard -- the so-called value-added assessment.
I suspect that my conditions will go nowhere, precisely because they are reasonable. Teachers can't be evaluated on students who miss 10 percent of the class or don't have the prerequisite knowledge for success. Yet accepting these reasonable conditions might reveal that common rhetorical goals for education (everyone goes to college, algebra for eighth-graders) are, to put it bluntly, impossible. So we'll either continue the status quo at a stalemate or the states will make the tests so easy that the standards are meaningless.
Yes, some students are doing poorly because their teachers are terrible. Other students are doing poorly because they simply don't care, their parents don't care, their cognitive abilities aren't up to the task or some vicious combination of factors we haven't figured out -- with no regard to teacher quality. No one is eager to discover the size of that second group, so serious testing with teeth will go nowhere.
That's too bad. We need to know how many students are failing because they don't attend class, how many students score "below basic" on the algebra test three years in a row, how many students fail all tests because they read at a fourth-grade level. We need to know if our education rhetoric is a pipe dream instead of an achievable reality blocked by those nasty teachers unions. And, of course, if it turns out that all our problems can be solved by rooting out bad teachers, we need to find that out, too.
what do you think? reasonable conditions for teachers to assessed (and paid!) on their students' scores?
washingtonpost.com
(1) Teachers be assessed based on only those students with 90 percent or higher attendance.
Bad Attendance cannot be held against a Teacher's pay.
(2) Teachers be allowed to remove disruptive students from their classroom on a day-to-day basis.
Yes to the removal of disruptive students, but again, teachers pay should not be based on a disruptive student.
(4) That teachers be assessed on student improvement, not an absolute standard -- the so-called value-added assessment.
Yes, 100%, how a student is taught should be considered in a Teachers pay and/or bonuses.
I suspect that my conditions will go nowhere, precisely because they are reasonable. Teachers can't be evaluated on students who miss 10 percent of the class or don't have the prerequisite knowledge for success. Yet accepting these reasonable conditions might reveal that common rhetorical goals for education (everyone goes to college, algebra for eighth-graders) are, to put it bluntly, impossible. So we'll either continue the status quo at a stalemate or the states will make the tests so easy that the standards are meaningless.
Yes, some students are doing poorly because their teachers are terrible. Other students are doing poorly because they simply don't care, their parents don't care, their cognitive abilities aren't up to the task or some vicious combination of factors we haven't figured out -- with no regard to teacher quality. No one is eager to discover the size of that second group, so serious testing with teeth will go nowhere.
That's too bad. We need to know how many students are failing because they don't attend class, how many students score "below basic" on the algebra test three years in a row, how many students fail all tests because they read at a fourth-grade level. We need to know if our education rhetoric is a pipe dream instead of an achievable reality blocked by those nasty teachers unions. And, of course, if it turns out that all our problems can be solved by rooting out bad teachers, we need to find that out, too.
what do you think? reasonable conditions for teachers to assessed (and paid!) on their students' scores?
Yes to the removal of disruptive students, but again, teachers pay should not be based on a disruptive student.
washingtonpost.com
(1) Teachers be assessed based on only those students with 90 percent or higher attendance.
Bad Attendance cannot be held against a Teacher's pay.
Yes to the removal of disruptive students, but again, teachers pay should not be based on a disruptive student.
Yes, 100%, how a student is taught should be considered in a Teachers pay and/or bonuses.
I suspect that my conditions will go nowhere, precisely because they are reasonable. Teachers can't be evaluated on students who miss 10 percent of the class or don't have the prerequisite knowledge for success. Yet accepting these reasonable conditions might reveal that common rhetorical goals for education (everyone goes to college, algebra for eighth-graders) are, to put it bluntly, impossible. So we'll either continue the status quo at a stalemate or the states will make the tests so easy that the standards are meaningless.
Yes, some students are doing poorly because their teachers are terrible. Other students are doing poorly because they simply don't care, their parents don't care, their cognitive abilities aren't up to the task or some vicious combination of factors we haven't figured out -- with no regard to teacher quality. No one is eager to discover the size of that second group, so serious testing with teeth will go nowhere.
That's too bad. We need to know how many students are failing because they don't attend class, how many students score "below basic" on the algebra test three years in a row, how many students fail all tests because they read at a fourth-grade level. We need to know if our education rhetoric is a pipe dream instead of an achievable reality blocked by those nasty teachers unions. And, of course, if it turns out that all our problems can be solved by rooting out bad teachers, we need to find that out, too.
what do you think? reasonable conditions for teachers to assessed (and paid!) on their students' scores?
The Teachers pay and/or bonuses should be based on how well they Teach, not based on when a student is absent or sent out of class for bad behavior.
.
Yes to the removal of disruptive students, but again, teachers pay should not be based on a disruptive student.
Here is an example of why I think that people who do not work in education are perhaps, less able to judge how a teacher's "value" should be assessed.
So the teacher who teaches math, English, science and social studies to a class of 10-15 emotionally disturbed middle-school students who are below grade level and who frequently swear, throw things, have tantrums, etc. deserves the same salary as the teacher who teaches honors level English to a class of 8-12 well-behaved, intelligent, eager to learn students working above grade level?
By your assertion, if both teachers manage to bring their students 1 grade level ahead of where they were in the beginning of the school year then they deserve the same salary. But I would argue that this simplification overlooks the complications and additional requirements of the 1st teachers job that the 2nd teacher will never experience.
We now have $300 netbooks with 160 gigabyte drives.
The entire years curruculum can be loaded onto a netbook. We should give the kids debit cards so they can pay THE TEACHER OFTHEIR CHOICE for whatever help they need. There should be testing days once a month where the kids can demand their next level of tests on their subject. The testing should be completely separate from the teachers. The teachers shouldn't even know the results besides what was the last level that the kid passed.
So the teaches that can teach will attract the kids that want to learn. The teachers that can't teach won't get any kids.
Alexei Panshin's Rite of Passage
Citizen of the Galaxy by Heinlein reviewed
psik
washingtonpost.com
(1) Teachers be assessed based on only those students with 90 percent or higher attendance.(2) Teachers be allowed to remove disruptive students from their classroom on a day-to-day basis.(4) That teachers be assessed on student improvement, not an absolute standard -- the so-called value-added assessment.what do you think? reasonable conditions for teachers to assessed (and paid!) on their students' scores?I suspect that my conditions will go nowhere, precisely because they are reasonable. Teachers can't be evaluated on students who miss 10 percent of the class or don't have the prerequisite knowledge for success. Yet accepting these reasonable conditions might reveal that common rhetorical goals for education (everyone goes to college, algebra for eighth-graders) are, to put it bluntly, impossible. So we'll either continue the status quo at a stalemate or the states will make the tests so easy that the standards are meaningless.
Yes, some students are doing poorly because their teachers are terrible. Other students are doing poorly because they simply don't care, their parents don't care, their cognitive abilities aren't up to the task or some vicious combination of factors we haven't figured out -- with no regard to teacher quality. No one is eager to discover the size of that second group, so serious testing with teeth will go nowhere.
That's too bad. We need to know how many students are failing because they don't attend class, how many students score "below basic" on the algebra test three years in a row, how many students fail all tests because they read at a fourth-grade level. We need to know if our education rhetoric is a pipe dream instead of an achievable reality blocked by those nasty teachers unions. And, of course, if it turns out that all our problems can be solved by rooting out bad teachers, we need to find that out, too.
We now have $300 netbooks with 160 gigabyte drives.
The entire years curruculum can be loaded onto a netbook. We should give the kids debit cards so they can pay THE TEACHER OF THEIR CHOICE for whatever help they need. There should be testing days once a month where the kids can demand their next level of tests on their subject. The testing should be completely separate from the teachers. The teachers shouldn't even know the results besides what was the last level that the kid passed.
So the teacher that can teach will attract the kids that want to learn. The teachers that can't teach won't get any kids.
Alexei Panshin's Rite of Passage
Citizen of the Galaxy by Heinlein reviewed
psik
This is the most original proposal that I have seen...
I have put forth an idea of a 'G.I. Bill' type of system, where families can use education funds in any institution of their choice, and the results of standardized tests determine whether or not the institutions remained licensed...
But if we are dealing with motivated students/families, I just love your idea!
