0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Jackson and others seem to think they can wave a magic wand and everything will be better. The problem is that the greatest issues that the district faces, the ones that affect student achievement and test scores across the district the most, are well beyond their control.
I just don't agree that trying for the sake of trying, even if the policies instituted end up being damaging, is a good thing. I think there are big issues with what he is proposing.
Quote from: ClevelandOhio on February 07, 2012, 09:28:48 AMThat plan doesn't sound that bad. The system is clearly broken. I think its better then leaving things as they are.Well I don't think it sounds that great, either, though in fairness it was short on details. But the research on the efficacy of teacher merit pay is mixed.
That plan doesn't sound that bad. The system is clearly broken. I think its better then leaving things as they are.
The problem is that many teachers don't get into teaching for the money.
Working as a teacher in CMSD is, as I've come to understand, already not very desirable. To throw another stressor into the mix, and make teachers fight for every penny (of their already meager salaries) based on a lot of factors that are beyond their control, is only likely to make things worse as even more good teachers either avoid taking jobs in the city in the first place or leave at the first suburban job offer they get.
Maybe, but the existing system is a long-running "experiment" on the efficacy of non-merit pay, and the results are clearly negative. I'll take "mixed" over that.
This is a non-sequitur. If it's true (and I have my doubts about that, given that the teachers' unions seem almost 100% interested in pay and benefits rather than in other things that would be more prominent if teachers were not in it for the money), then they would not care whether compensation was merit-based or not. If it's not true, then merit pay is essential to attracting and retaining better teachers.
From personal experience, I also know that my high school district frequently lost good teachers to better-paying districts; it never lost good teachers to lower-paying school districts just because of some intangible benefit of teaching at the latter.
The good ones, particularly the good young ones (i.e., the ones screwed the most by the seniority system), already leave at the first suburban job offer they get. You can't use a drawback of the existing system as an argument against changing the system.
I don't think anyone seriously thinks that any magic wand will make everything better. Even the most dedicated institutional reformers acknowledge the cultural challenges faced by inner city schools, which cannot be entirely addressed by government action. Nevertheless, the fact that reform will not solve everything is not an argument against it: The inability to do everything is never an excuse for doing nothing.
the biggest problem isn't the school board, the principals or the teachers. It's the parents. Far too many parents look upon the schools to do their parenting for them, and to provide the bulk of the student's education.
For-profit charter schools would have no place in my district and would not receive one red cent. Non-profit charters would be watched very closely, both for the good and the bad.
Quote from: Clevelander17 on February 08, 2012, 03:37:34 AMFor-profit charter schools would have no place in my district and would not receive one red cent. Non-profit charters would be watched very closely, both for the good and the bad.So you would theoretically shut down a charter that was outperforming a neighboring public? Some Charters are great. Some are terrible.You're painting with too broad a brush.
But its not all the parents fault. I know a child who went to charter school and was a slow learner. In second grade the very involved mother switched the child into CMSD for a reason I cannot remember, and the child had to skip to the fourth grade because of his level of intelligence. So the standard of knowledge for a second grader at the charter school was equal to the standard of knowledge of a fourth grader at CSMD.
So the standard of knowledge for a second grader at the charter school was equal to the standard of knowledge of a fourth grader at CSMD.
If it's true (and I have my doubts about that, given that the teachers' unions seem almost 100% interested in pay and benefits rather than in other things that would be more prominent if teachers were not in it for the money)
Quote from: Gramarye on February 08, 2012, 02:02:15 AMMaybe, but the existing system is a long-running "experiment" on the efficacy of non-merit pay, and the results are clearly negative. I'll take "mixed" over that.You'd have a point if you can link the school system's failures or shortcomings to teacher performance, which I don't think you can without 'mixed' results.
But what politician is going to issue a plan to tell parents how to raise their kids and expect to be re-elected? Yet politicians can ask Americans to give their lives for their country and still get re-elected....
Quote from: surfohio on February 08, 2012, 03:59:38 AMQuote from: Clevelander17 on February 08, 2012, 03:37:34 AMFor-profit charter schools would have no place in my district and would not receive one red cent. Non-profit charters would be watched very closely, both for the good and the bad.So you would theoretically shut down a charter that was outperforming a neighboring public? Some Charters are great. Some are terrible.You're painting with too broad a brush. The ones that are "great" (and there really aren't that many in this category) tend to be great because they're getting highly-motivated students/families. They're basically magnet schools that have a little more flexibility in certain areas and maybe a little less public funding (though they don't necessarily spend less because oftentimes funding comes from other places).I think charters have some promise and benefits, don't get me wrong, but I don't see them as the panacea for urban education that they're often described as.But to directly answer your question, there would be no such thing as for-profit charter schools in my hypothetical district. Non-profit charters would have a limited role, but I'd want to see them partnered with and sponsored/managed/hosted by other non-profit entities like CSU, CWRU, CC, UH, CMA etc. I'd be very cautious about bringing corporations into the mix, though I think they could potentially have a role to play.
Therefore, why don't you prove that merit pay is a bad idea?
^You grade their papers?Quote from: Gramarye on February 08, 2012, 08:14:12 AMTherefore, why don't you prove that merit pay is a bad idea?For teachers, I don't know if I can. For other public employees, particularly safety forces, history has already proven that it leads to corruption and chronyism.And, to be clear, it is not the CONCEPT of merit pay which I have a problem with. The concern is how do you accurately and fairly measure merit in the teaching profession. If you show me a good merit system, I would be interested to look at it. If you tell me we will measure merit of teachers largely based on standardized test results, I'll be adamant against it.
There seems to be a lot of mis-information about teachers unions in this thread, especially regarding merit pay. While hts has done a great job detailing some of the negatives, there a lot more. if there is interest I would be happy to clarify further.
A nice try but a worthless effort, and we all know it in our hearts.
No initiative, however wonderful, ever accomplishes everything you want. There is always compromise to satisfy divergent stakeholders. I've seen some real progress in the school district over the past decade, with some schools (School of the Arts, Alcott, Whitney Young, John Hay, MC2STEM, etc.) performing as well as if not better than suburban counterparts. Another 20 schools are performing as well. You take every little bit of progress you can get, work to maintain it, and bring up the others that aren't progressing. But you NEVER EVER STOP TRYING when it comes to children. If you're going to stop trying, then how are you any better than the students, parents, teachers, administrators or policymakers you fault?