Thread: What do you think about this???

In Florida a law is passing where teachers pay will be based upon how their students perform.
Teachers are pissed off, which i can understand...
But I think my sons teacher has taken it a bit far...

She is now charging if students want after school help..$30
If you want a letter of referance $10
and there were more...
she informed her class she will do nothing outside of school hours, so getting grades and such will now take longer...

I think it is crap that she is charging now for her services, what do you think...
I was wondering if I should call the school and find out if she can do it, but my son didnt want me to..He is afraid of what she will do if she found out it was me asking...

I can see that they are tying teacher's pay into students performance - but that is only part of the equation. What about the PARENTS ? They are just as responsable for their child's education - are they going to tie a families tax returns or welfare payments into student performance as well ? I worked in a "low income" school where I had 16/17 yo's in the SIXTH GRADE - they really showed any interests beyond bullying the younger kids and making a minimal attendance because they had welfare tied into ATTENDANCE. As long as they showed up, it didn't matter - to the child or the parents - if they passed, failed, or learned anything at all. If the parents are not helping their kids get their homework done, or supporting good grades, how can the teachers get the job done. How about tax credits or bonuses if your child makes "A" Honor Roll ?

I agree with the other posters, I would contact the school.... paying for the extra tutoring is one thing; but the rest is part of the job description.

I don't blame the teacher for "charging" for additional things/help beyond her school day/responsibilities.

Not sure if I agree with tying their pay into the class' performance. If she teaches in a neighborhood where parental involvement is zilch, their grades/test scores will be lower compared to a teacher in a wealthier area where the parents are involved and have tutors for their kids keeping their grades up. So realistically, the lower end teacher may in fact be a better teacher than the higher end teacher.

Teachers should be evaluated by other teachers/board with input from class grades as well. It shouldn't be solely upon grades. Bad teachers should go, not have a pay reduction, that does nothing for the children. So for the "bad" teacher who can afford to take a pay cut, the children get dis-serviced and the bad teacher whose parents get tutoring outside school to keep their grades up gets the rewarded? Makes no sense.

Jolie...I agree with you. I can also see tying a portion of a teacher's pay increases on how well their students do. But, so much of how students perform is based on how much support they get at home.

And...if I was a teacher, then I would work my darndest doing school hours...but it would probably end there. And anything outside of my regular duties in the classroom would be charged extra. That would include tutoring AND writing any letters of reference. I don't see in any job description of a teacher that writing a letter of reference is part of the job! It doesn't fall under 'teaching' by any stretch of the imagination!

I also see how this type of system could set up children for future failure. What I mean by this is that children would get good grades but not really learn anything. What's to say that you don't teach children to 'pass the test'? Or, that tests become very quantitative (multiple choice, one-word answers) as opposed to qualitative (essay)? That doesn't prepare them for future courses, but they would certainly 'score' well and get good grades in one's class.

I don't know. I can see why, at first blush, people would think it was a good thing. But...in the long run, I don't think it will be good for the school system.

Originally Posted by SLance68

I do not have a problem with them tying the pay to student performance. There was a letter to the editor in yesterday's Orlando Sentinel that also wanted to add the teachers must pass the THIRD grade FCAT test in order to be paid. If they can't pass the 10th grade level they should not be teaching.

As for kids in low income areas and non-involvement of parents - well then maybe we should only educate the rich kids who's parents are really really involved - oops that sounds racist or not nice - well that is how it sounds when you say that a kid can't do well in school if their parents are not wealthy. Should parents be involved - yes, is it a requirement - no. Because you cannot force them to, they are "adults" and they have free will and can do whatever they want - as long as they send their kids to school every day per state laws. Do kids in lower income families do well in school - yes lots of them do very well and have a better chance of getting a college education than most average income parented children. I call playing the welfare card the same as playing the race card - neither should ever be done.

I hope I wasn't giving the impression that I felt that because a child went to a low income school that they would fail. That wasn't my intent at all. As it happens, both of my children went to private school. We were fortunate to be able to afford it (because we did without elsewhere). But, both my husband and I worked our tails off at school volunteering our time and being there for our kids. (Which our children really didn't appreciate...LOL.) Unfortunately, there were a lot of 'rich' kids who just slid by academically. There parents paid the bills and weren't there for much else. These were also the same parents who bought their kids a brand new (high end) car for their 16th birthday...and then bought another car when that kid totalled it within the first month.

My point was that teachers aren't the only ones responsible for how well a child exceeds at school.

Oh...but I do agree that teachers should pass standardized testing to be able to teach. And, that testing should re-occur periodically throughout a teacher's career.

Lance - I wasn't talking about "low-income schools" in general - I was talking about the one I have personal experience with; the particular neighborhood and classes *I* worked with.

Originally Posted by SLance68

Kelsey I was making that statement in general. I get so tired of hearing how "low income" kids can't learn because their parents are not involved. A lot of it also depends on the kids. I have friends that were super involved in their kids education and they still barely graduated. While I have a couple of other friends that felt since they dropped out of High School that school wasn't important - thankfully all of their kids were smarter than their parents and fought their way through school and college. I have helped more than one of them find funding for college when their parents refused to help them even fill out the paperwork for financial aid.

I think the funniest part about these standardized tests is that most people act like they just came out of no where recently (last 10 years). I KNOW in Florida starting in 1980 you had to take and pass the 11th grade assessment test or you would not graduate - I only know because I graduated in 1981 and there were lots of people taking make up classes to get their diploma. Our schools were "so bad" back then that you had to do essays in each class at least once a month. Do you know how much my calculus teacher liked having to grade our essays? But we did them and he graded them and he graded way harder than any of the English teachers EVER graded.

Okay, I absolutely get where you are coming from. I actually came from a very low income family...my parents divorced...but my dad never gave my mom much money anyway. However, my education was always a given and a priority. My mother wanted me to be able to support myself, without ever depending on a man for anything. She drilled in me from a very young age that the only way to success was to get a college education. Of course, it isn't the only way...LOL. And...I didn't finish my degrees until I was in my 30's...but the foundation was laid. Even though my background was very humble...my mother supported and encouraged me.

But if we are going to make 'statements in general', statistics support the fact that most children in low-income families don't, as a whole, do as well as children from affluent families. There could be a variety of factors for that to include lack of support from parents AND lack of educational opportunities. I mean, if you are struggling to put food on the table, there probably isn't extra money for remedial tutoring for children who are struggling. But, those people who are, by nature, high achievers will probably do well regardless of their circumstances. And sometimes they do well because of their circumstances.

Certainly, in an effort to create more diversity in campuses, many Ivy League universities are offering wonderful scholarship and grant programs to young people who fall within certain profiles. Who am I to criticize? When I first started college in 1968, EOP (Educational Opportunity Programs) were brand new! Because of high SAT scores, I had already been accepted into the local state University. (It was what we could afford and I could continue to live at home.) But, after the fact, I was offered all sorts of 'special treatment' (early registration, grants, etc.) because I'm half-Mexican. Fellow senior classmates were also recruited, given special treatment and allowed entrance, even with low SAT scores, just to fill the Affirmative Action quotas!

But...this all digresses from the original topic. I am just very ambivalent on whether or not teacher's pay being based on how well their students succeed is a good idea. I can see both sides...but it just doesn't seem fundamentally right to me.