Pay Teachers Based on Measurable Results - Georgia

[ArthurWilborn]

http://www.ajc.com/news/teachers-to-be-graded-792562.html

Hoping to attract and keep top teachers in public schools, Georgia is changing the way educators are hired, paid and rated through a new evaluation system with far greater emphasis on student performance.

Certainly a step in the right direction. Like many civil services teaching is poisoned by the seniority system, meaning that after five or ten years you can get away with anything.

 

[Your Funny Uncle]

I'm not sure what the state of US education is, but do you think that rewarding "teaching to the test" is the answer? It doesn't really encourage critical thinking...

 

[RichardMNixon]

I'm not sure what the state of US education is, but do you think that rewarding "teaching to the test" is the answer? It doesn't really encourage critical thinking...

That was my issue too but I'm not clear on where to draw the line between "teaching to the test" and "teaching the curriculum." In theory, if you had a good test representative of what students should know, it wouldn't be a problem, right? I heard the argument all the time while I was in high school but never really felt I was only being taught a test. It could be worse in other schools I suppose; I was in a middle-class rural area.

The bigger issue I see is that this could further discourage teachers from teaching in impoverished areas or to lower-performing students where test scores will undoubtedly be lower and harder to raise.

 

[ArthurWilborn]

I'm not sure what the state of US education is, but do you think that rewarding "teaching to the test" is the answer? It doesn't really encourage critical thinking...

It's not that hard to come up with something to test critical thinking skills. The idea I agree with is greater accountability and reliance on a metric you can actually measure.

 

[ImprobableJoe]

The bigger issue I see is that this could further discourage teachers from teaching in impoverished areas or to lower-performing students where test scores will undoubtedly be lower and harder to raise.

That's sort of the goal. They want schools for poor people to fail. Oh, and they want teachers' unions to fail, don't forget that part. Educating children is maybe 10th down on the list of goals.

 

[ArthurWilborn]

The bigger issue I see is that this could further discourage teachers from teaching in impoverished areas or to lower-performing students where test scores will undoubtedly be lower and harder to raise.

That's sort of the goal. They want schools for poor people to fail. Oh, and they want teachers' unions to fail, don't forget that part. Educating children is maybe 10th down on the list of goals.

So you think unions would fail if their members had to actually prove they were competent? Never change, Joe. :lol:

The bigger issue I see is that this could further discourage teachers from teaching in impoverished areas or to lower-performing students where test scores will undoubtedly be lower and harder to raise.

So you're saying that classes in societies are inevitable? Personally I think that's an extremely derogatory position to take, but maybe I'm just taking the idea the wrong way.

In the article it mentions that the assessment is based on improvements made, not on absolute results. This would actually make poorly performing schools very attractive, as there is much greater room for improvement there.

 

[lrkun]

This will be a big challenge. Teachers will have to revise their way of teaching via trial and error to know what method is the best for their students to learn and maintain their interest in learning.

 

[ArthurWilborn]

This will be a big challenge. Teachers will have to revise their way of teaching via trial and error to know what method is the best for their students to learn and maintain their interest in learning.

Not so much, there's plenty of research and professional journals on the topic.

 

[RichardMNixon]

That's sort of the goal. They want schools for poor people to fail. Oh, and they want teachers' unions to fail, don't forget that part. Educating children is maybe 10th down on the list of goals.

Who is "They?"

It's not that hard to come up with something to test critical thinking skills.

Like what?

So you're saying that classes in societies are inevitable? Personally I think that's an extremely derogatory position to take, but maybe I'm just taking the idea the wrong way.

In the article it mentions that the assessment is based on improvements made, not on absolute results. This would actually make poorly performing schools very attractive, as there is much greater room for improvement there.

No, I'm saying the biggest shortage in quality teachers right now is in areas that have low test scores, and any efforts aimed at improving our education need to focus there first.

The article said no one understands how the assessments will be made; I didn't think bureaucratic hand-waving was up your alley.

I'm not quite sure what they're referring to with the growth curves. Are they expecting the class of 2012 to do better than the class of 2011 and for the class of 2013 to do better still? It seems then that your scores would heavily depend on the teachers before you. I'm also not nearly as optimistic about how "easy" it is when there's "so much room for improvement." There's also a lot more disruption both in the classroom and in the community and much poorer educational resources.

 

[lrkun]

This will be a big challenge. Teachers will have to revise their way of teaching via trial and error to know what method is the best for their students to learn and maintain their interest in learning.

Not so much, there's plenty of research and professional journals on the topic.

Can you provide some of those research or professional journals containing such topics?

 

[Aught3]

My prediction would be that this measure would make things worse but I'm hapy to let Georgia experiment.

 

[televator]

I'm not sure what the state of US education is....

It's....well...it's just... :facepalm:

Here: http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5juGFSx9LiPaur6eO1KJAypB2ImVQ?docId=CNG.5337504e8f65acf16c57d5cac3cfe339.1c1

We're average.

 

[ArthurWilborn]

It's not that hard to come up with something to test critical thinking skills.

Like what?

You can buy books of logic problems at any dollar store. A lot of state tests already include essay response questions that call for deliberation and intelligent extended written answers.

So you're saying that classes in societies are inevitable? Personally I think that's an extremely derogatory position to take, but maybe I'm just taking the idea the wrong way.

In the article it mentions that the assessment is based on improvements made, not on absolute results. This would actually make poorly performing schools very attractive, as there is much greater room for improvement there.

No, I'm saying the biggest shortage in quality teachers right now is in areas that have low test scores, and any efforts aimed at improving our education need to focus there first.

Certainly! How about by giving incentives to teachers who go to those areas and make improvements?

The article said no one understands how the assessments will be made; I didn't think bureaucratic hand-waving was up your alley.

True, true; this is why my enthusiasm was a bit reserved. Obviously I'd like firmer details and evidence of an intelligent scheme in place. Still, as I said, this is certainly a step in the right direction.

I'm not quite sure what they're referring to with the growth curves. Are they expecting the class of 2012 to do better than the class of 2011 and for the class of 2013 to do better still? It seems then that your scores would heavily depend on the teachers before you. I'm also not nearly as optimistic about how "easy" it is when there's "so much room for improvement."

The math to deal with incentives in a system with a theoretical upper bound isn't all that complex. The system would obviously need to have a reactive component. I'm a pragmatist; obviously I'm far more concerned with correct implementation then correct conception (and most concerned of all with actual results). However, correct conception is still important and I'm happy that they're following it here.

Knock-on effects of previous teachers would be hard to gauge, of course, but given what I know of pedagogical research I don't think they'd be that big of a factor.

There's also a lot more disruption both in the classroom and in the community and much poorer educational resources.

Poorer resources? Doesn't follow. This is different and better then NCLB in that the individual teachers are held accountable and not the school as a whole; schools won't lose funding for doing poorly.

And isn't disruption exactly what we want to achieve here? We want to alter the school system to be more effective and have a greater impact.

My prediction would be that this measure would make things worse but I'm hapy to let Georgia experiment.

Oh, why do you think so?

 

[Nashy19]

Here's a recently uploaded TED talk.



Of course it depends on what it's like in the USA right now, some Americans seem impressed by our external exam boards (in the UK), which is worrying...

 

[RichardMNixon]

Certainly! How about by giving incentives to teachers who go to those areas and make improvements?

Poorer resources? Doesn't follow. This is different and better then NCLB in that the individual teachers are held accountable and not the school as a whole; schools won't lose funding for doing poorly.

And isn't disruption exactly what we want to achieve here? We want to alter the school system to be more effective and have a greater impact.

This gives the same incentives to teachers who want to teach at schools that aren't in those areas so it's hardly a focused measure.

But schools without computers, textbooks, and other facilities are going to have a harder time educating their students no matter how good or bad the teachers are.

What do you mean by disruption? I'm talking about students who have trouble learning because of problems at home or with other students. This is a problem we need to surmount, but I think you're way out of touch with reality if you think performance incentives alone (and applied to all schools) will make teachers flock to urban schools specifically.

 

[Aught3]

My prediction would be that this measure would make things worse but I'm hapy to let Georgia experiment.

Oh, why do you think so?

I would guess it would be implemented in a similar fashion to NCLB and result in increasing teaching to the test and 'teacher cheating' in order to get the pay bonus for themselves. A properly set up system with complex measures of a teachers performance that reflects all the different variables that go into making one class a success and another a failure could work. I just really doubt the system will reflect anything like this and will more likely make the problems worse.

 

[ArthurWilborn]

Here's a recently uploaded TED talk.

A bit too optimistic, I think. It would be wonderful if everyone was wise and motivated by altruism, but that's not the world we live in.

I do agree with his points about the foolishness of unbend-able rules.

This gives the same incentives to teachers who want to teach at schools that aren't in those areas so it's hardly a focused measure.

This is where "room for improvement" comes in. In an already successful school, there would be stability but little hope for incentives. In a struggling school, skill and dedication could lead to a big reward.

But schools without computers, textbooks, and other facilities are going to have a harder time educating their students no matter how good or bad the teachers are.

"For example, whereas students' literacy skills, general academic achievements, attitudes, behaviours and experiences of schooling
are influenced by their background and intake characteristics, the magnitude of these effects pale into insignificance compared with class/teacher effects. That is, the quality of teaching and learning provision are by far the most salient influences on students'
cognitive, affective, and behavioural outcomes of schooling, regardless of their gender or backgrounds. Indeed, findings from the related local and international evidence-based research indicate that 'what matters most' is quality teachers and teaching, supported by strategic teacher professional development!"
http://www.nswteachers.nsw.edu.au/IgnitionSuite/uploads/docs/Rowe-The%20Importance%20of%20Teacher%20Quality.pdf

I think you're way out of touch with reality if you think performance incentives alone (and applied to all schools) will make teachers flock to urban schools specifically.

Probably not, but it would certainly help. It's certainly better then the current seniority system, where urban schools are primarily staffed by new teachers, a significant fraction of which leave within five years.

 

[Gnomesmusher]

Here's a recently uploaded TED talk.

A bit too optimistic, I think. It would be wonderful if everyone was wise and motivated by altruism, but that's not the world we live in.

That's not even what that video was saying. He made it very clear that a good chunk of folks are NOT motivated by altruism (as illustrated by his repeated example of the bankers and brokers who broke the financial market through their selfish motivations), and that rules were made as an attempt to make people do the right thing. What this TEDTalk was about is that along with rules there needs to be some sort of flexibility to allow those who DO have altruistic motivations to thrive.

 

[Andiferous]

It would actually be nice if it meant more money filtered into education though, I think? As long as it doesn't turn into a glorified private system. From what I understand and hear from most Americans, is that there does need to be improvement to the system. Perhaps doing such with education (ideally coupled by an honest attempt to address the poverty issue) might be beneficial for now? It's a big issue, and teachers shouldn't have to be recipients of pay charity.

 

[Andiferous]

Certainly! How about by giving incentives to teachers who go to those areas and make improvements?

Poorer resources? Doesn't follow. This is different and better then NCLB in that the individual teachers are held accountable and not the school as a whole; schools won't lose funding for doing poorly.

And isn't disruption exactly what we want to achieve here? We want to alter the school system to be more effective and have a greater impact.

This gives the same incentives to teachers who want to teach at schools that aren't in those areas so it's hardly a focused measure.

But schools without computers, textbooks, and other facilities are going to have a harder time educating their students no matter how good or bad the teachers are.

What do you mean by disruption? I'm talking about students who have trouble learning because of problems at home or with other students. This is a problem we need to surmount, but I think you're way out of touch with reality if you think performance incentives alone (and applied to all schools) will make teachers flock to urban schools specifically.

I empathise and considered this myself while looking into the article, but tackling poverty and tackling education should both be priorities and neither compromise the other. Every student in every situation should have access to the 'best' education resources, and the best teachers, and if there are vast pockets of urban poverty, well, that's bad anyway, and teachers aren't responsible for 'fixing' it by compromising standard. The government is.

Perhaps the formula could also include other points in review, like student improvement and peer evaluation.

Again, if this means more financing for education, it'd be brilliant.