re: Teacher Pay Raises

As long as the "dear collegue" policy is in place in public schools you will never have the ability to discipline minority trouble makers. It is the reason why there are mass shootings in schools, teachers and students beaten up, and a myriad of other issues.

I lived in Richmond when a kid carried a gun to school and started shooting, somehow got probation, then sued the school district because education was his "right" and they hired a tutor to home school him when he was suspended.

I lived in NO when a kid brought a gun to school and there was a shooting. The parents showed up screaming bout my babies. Superintendent said, we combined two schools due to funding and warned the parents in the projects to watch the kids. Fights broke out and we held a meeting.....and no parents showed up. A child is shot and you want to blame the school, we do not raise these kids thats your job and if you dont know a 10 or 11 year old is packing and planning to shoot someone I wonder about the home environment of that child....not the school.

The federal and local policies should make it easier to boot the misfits and it would enable teachers to do their job.

This is an easy one, defining merit. It’s growth, pure and simple. You test the children upon entering, you test them upon exiting, and base merit upon a state average.

Need teacher reality shows. Maybe then parents will see and care about what their kids are doing instead of watching Lip Syncing shows and the Masked Singer. They’d probably also learn a thing or two.

Then we would know who are the good teachers and would know who should get paid what salary. Then teachers would get paid hundreds of thousands and athletes would be paid regular salaries.




It’ll never happen, but it would be cool if it did.

I work for a large organization, and pay raise by merit sounds good, but is realistically not possible to implement. Has to be across the board, unfortunately.

quote:

---

Rispone wants to give raises based on merit.

---

That's ok, unless the definition of "merit" is that the students have to be high scoring on standardized tests.

Because what that definition of "merit" does is reward teachers just because they are working in suburban high performing communities. No one would take a job in a low performing community or school because you would never get a raise. So this would concentrate bad teachers at low performing schools, ensuring their future failure.

quote:

---

I think it has to be left up to the school principal to evaluate which teachers are deserving based on merit.

---

Here is the problem. Some principals will do what they are supposed to do and thoughtfully evaluate their teachers. Others will just day frick it and give everyone raises. Last, there is the group that will hook up their friends and screw everyone else.

quote:

---

How do you measure merit though? Student scores? What if the overall class that one year is relatively retarded to other years?

---

Teachers know which of their peers are qualified, which are good and which are excellent. You’d think principals would know Aldo.

You missed critical points.

quote:

---

What is real knowledge? This is a loaded statement. As long as schools are empowered by districts, it is impossible to create any standardized testing to accurately reflect what each district is teaching. This is due to different towns having different cultures and needs regarding education.

---

I’m not advocating “standardized exams”.
School district candidates announce what they advocate as knowledge that we need to teach the young. The population votes the local school board in. The school board defines knowledge, and commissions a test to test that knowledge for every grade.

Now if the winning candidates advocate “standard” goals for a subject, then standardized test meet the criteria of desired knowledge of that district.

quote:

---

You are suggesting by teaching to pass a standardized test then a teacher is passing on real knowledge.

---

I said no such thing, you assumed it.

quote:

---

Standardized tests do not gauge the depth of knowledge and understanding, and students can be taught to pass them without being taught the depths needed to be fully educated. It's the difference between surface area and volume

---

Nice summation, but you are ignoring critical aspects.
1- The local community sets the standards for minimum and average knowledge of what they determine the average whatever grade should know.
2- No one can teach a 1st grader “the depths needed to be fully educated”. But one can teach the minimum standards or better for a 1st grader.
3- A high school diploma does NOT represent that the recipient is “fully educated”. Only that they have obtained minimum knowledge to be a functional member of the local society.
4- There are further levels to obtain a more full education. Bachelorettes, Masters, and Doctorates. Plus further research and continuous learning.
5- Finally “fully educated” is a myth. I know many ignoramuses with PhDs. Unfortunately I also know too many teachers with very poor content knowledge in the subjects they teach. This “fully educated” myth creates a false goal that interferes with real world progress and leads to the cesspool we currently have.

Just saying.

I'd like for everyone here to take a moment and think back to the best teacher you had K-12. Got someone in mind? Good. Now think of the worst teacher you had K-12.

Both of those teachers got paid the same.