No Child Left Behind, soon to be entering its sixth year, has played havoc on school districts nation-wide and is wrought with controversial pieces. One piece that hits a nerve with teachers and parents of school aged-children is connecting educator’s salaries with how well their students score on standardized tests. As a teacher, I dread “the week” of standardized tests and know full well that they are not a perfectly true picture of a student’s abilities. As a parent, however, I take a different perspective when analyzing my own children’s “scores.” If my children don’t score at the proficient to advanced level, what was missed in the classroom instruction that may have caused this outcome? Did the teacher not “teach to the test?” Were there not enough homework assignments? Was the material not covered to enough depth? Who’s to blame? Should teachers be held accountable?
NCLB is currently up for reauthorization in Congress with many changes from the original law. Here’s an overview. One of the new stipulations is incentive pay, which dictates that teacher salaries will be contingent upon test scores. Wow, what kind of impact would that stipulation have???
All teachers would flee to the best schools perhaps?
Competition would heat up among colleagues?
Teamwork would diminish?
Focus would be short-term and narrow-minded?
Loyalty to money rather than children?
Teacher quality would improve?
Maybe you have a strong opinion about teacher incentive pay already, and maybe you need to read more. Here are some links to additional reading about teacher incentive pay.
From the Guildordian
From a Sacramento Teacher
From FreeRepublic
From Barack Obama
Looking forward to hearing from you.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
6 comments:
For the proposals of merit pay based on student test performance, what consideration is given to subject areas that are not tested? For example, Phys. Ed. or Art.
What about teachers who teach both AP classes and non AP classes which may include many learning support students. Is it possible to have a consistent, fair system to determine the pay increase with so many varying factors?
Teachers under this proposed system would have the most gain by working mostly with the lowest scorers in the classroom. Which would put the focus on bringing a student from 40%-60% level instead of moving a student from 90%-95% level.
My thoughts also. As an "elective" teacher, how do we fit in with incentive pay for raising test scores in the areas of math, reading, and science? We don't!
Jamie asks some excellent questions. I'm also very troubled by the idea of linking teacher pay to test results. We're already atuffing all children's abilities and achievements into neat little boxes labeled "below grade level", "at grade level" or "above grade level". Do we now also put teachers into boxes labeled "effective" or "ineffective"?
I know that NCLB is not without some value. As my daughter's middle school principal explained it, NCLB did force schools to start paying attention to students of low income households, English as a second language students, and students with disabilities. But I don't think we should be celebrating and expanding the reach of one of the worst aspects of NCLB, its emphasis on treating all learning as though it is quantifiable through one test.
This is a very interesting topic. I had no idea this was out there because I work at the college level and don't always keep up with K-12 issues. I remember teaching special education. When the test came along, many of the students just filled out the answer sheets into pretty patterns. What kind of merit raise would I have gotten?
Although I'm not in favor of merit raises particularly, I am in favor of some leveling of pay for the really poor teachers vs. those who are good. Some teachers, as I remember, rehashed the same, poor, out-of-date lessons each year. Or some were really mean to the students. I don't think those teachers should get the same raise as those who try, motivate the students, and get results.
Last, I also thought, some years you have better classes than others. So are you a better teacher one year than another? Is the teacher always the constant? And if there is merit pay, I'll bet not to many teachers will volunteer to take the special ed students into their classes.
Thanks for all your excellent responses. True, NCLB has helped certain sects of children and for that it is good. And good point in that teachers shouldn't just be labeled "effective" and "ineffective." There are just way too many factors that effect what happens in our classrooms in any given day and any given year.
Yes, there are areas that NCLB has helped in. But there are many areas where it has been detrimental to education. I have hated seeing how many districts are focusing large amounts of time on how to take tests and practicing testing. This proposal about paying teachers based on test scores would have too many ramifications for me to be comfortable with it. Classrooms of students are not equal. Teachers are faced with different populations and challenges every year. You can't judge a teacher's effectiveness by a child's test score. I really wonder what is in store for the future of NCLB.
Post a Comment