Anonymous wrote: I think when we talk about paying more for results, we're talking about each student's growth. Obviously if you get a class of gifted kids you will have higher test scores. An outstanding teacher differentiates and takes that gifted child farther, but even the child with the lowest scores in the class shows significant progress. I have seen teachers who can do this and they deserve much higher salaries.

As others have mentioned, we all know people who barely made it through college and they are now teaching. I've taken many ed classes and they are the gut classes as compared to every other class I took in college. Our standards are so darn low.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

I think it is hard to measure teachers. As PPs have noted, it's unfair to evaluate a teacher based on the performance of students that have a horrible home life. Not sure what the best measure is, though.

Easy, measure on improvement, not on meeting a standard. So if the goal is 80 points, and these kids start the school year scoring 40 points, then look at where they stand after the end of the school year -- maybe getting their scores up by 15% is reasonable.

Anonymous wrote:MD former teacher here. I'm currently a pediatric oncologist and let me tell you there is absolutely no way in hell anyone (including insurers) are hassling me about patient outcomes. I am trusted to do the best I can to save my patients' lives.

When I was a teacher, I wasn't given this deference. It was so, so different and if you don't get it, you really do not understand what a sad, messed up state our education system is in right now.

Everyone wants to innovate. Even doctors. But you have to implement and that's where the respect goes out the window. We don't respect teachers like our medical treaters. It suckss.

Anonymous wrote:I knew people who had good grades from good schools who went on to get a teaching cert. Many didn't have ed major or minor [not offered at their colleges or universities]. Why did they do? Reduced hours and summer off and extra-curricular interests. Some people wanted to coach.

Some friends also had ed majors or minors for similar reasons. Usually people wanted to stay in their home town area.

Anonymous wrote:

I think it is hard to measure teachers. As PPs have noted, it's unfair to evaluate a teacher based on the performance of students that have a horrible home life. Not sure what the best measure is, though.

Anonymous wrote:Some of the lack of respect comes from the lack of control teachers have within the classroom. The are given a ready made curriculum, instead of being allowed to meet the children whee they are. If there employers don't trust them, why should we respect them? They are asked to hit nearly impossible and arbitrary milestones while playing psychologist with behavior probs through a ready made script. They are social workers spotting, documenting and reporting home life issues that go nowhere. Teachers aren't respected because they are asked to do everything but teach.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

But you're not working a full-year job. Teachers can't pay the mortgage with the money they would earn if they were paid for 52 weeks.

WTH does that even mean?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:http://www.usnews.com/news/national/articles/2009/12/21/dc-schools-chief-michelle-rhee-fights-union-over-teacher-pay

From the article:
" Chancellor Michelle Rhee is pushing innovative but con­tentious ideas, one of which has garnered her national at­tention: whether teacher pay can be tied directly to stu­dent performance."

In what other industry would it be considered conentious and gain national attention if pay was tied for performance?

In what other industry is performance based on variables completely out of one's control? Do your billable hours not have enough to eat? Do they have a bed? Undiagnosed learning disabilities? Disinterested parents? A lack of background knowledge and experiences that the curriculum assumes they have? Oh, billable hours and people can't be compared? Ok, then.

Should doctors' pay be tied to the number of patients whose Type 2 diabetes they reverse? Therapists on the number of mental illnesses they cure? Dentists on the number of cavities a patient doesn't get due to their preventative education? Police officers on the number of crimes they prevent? Firefighters on the number of people who don't set their house on fire? By your logic, shouldn't their pay be tied to performance too?

As soon as other professionals who work with humans see their pay equitably tied to human performance then I'm all for it for teachers. Until then, not so much.

*Standing and applauding the PP.*

Truly, imagine if medicine were based on cure rates. We'd have a surplus of dermatologists and a dearth of oncologists.

Let's also think about the incentive structure that would be created if pay were tied to performance. Teachers will vie for positions teaching the students most likely to succeed-- the kids who already have economic, parental, and social advantages. The best teachers would get those jobs while the worst teachers would be left with the kids who most need a skilled, thoughtful, dedicated teacher. Frankly, those advantaged students will pretty much succeed regardless of their teachers' ability, whereas an excellent teacher can change the life of an at-risk kid. Teachers are not in it for the pay, and young, idealistic teachers would certainly be drawn to positions teaching the neediest kids. But those young teachers will eventually have families and economic demands, probably right about the time they really have the experience to be at the top of their game.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

We're not PAID during those 8 weeks, genius. Many take classes to keep up with certification. Others train in special programs b/c their schools offer signatures. And others are working toward an advanced degree.

Interesting you bring up that you're not paid during those 8 weeks. That makes the "teachers are underpaid" trope even more ridiculous.

So where most of us are paid for 52 weeks, you're paid for 44 weeks (just using your numbers - I'm sure it is less but let's factor in days off equally across the two - even though we know teachers get more days off).

Average DC teacher pay of $77,512, spread across 44 weeks is equal to $91,605 if you were working a full year job.

Equivalent pay of $91k + lots of time off and a child-friendly schedule - no wonder so many people want to become teachers.

But you're not working a full-year job. Teachers can't pay the mortgage with the money they would earn if they were paid for 52 weeks.

And "no wonder so many people want to become teachers" indeed. If being a teacher is so grand, why aren't all the high-achievers striving to become teachers instead of doctors>

Anonymous wrote:One of the unintentional consequences of increasing opportunities for women in the 70s meant that the teaching force declined in quality. Bright female college graduates used to be mostly limited to teaching, but now they go to law school, medical school etc. instead. Not justifying a return to the sexist division of labor of the 1950s, but now the teaching profession needs to work harder to attract top quality applicants.