ccrunner609;501923 wrote:there is no possible way to award pay based on merit and even be close to being fair. If any person has ever sat in a classroom and thought how someone was going to get merit pay based on how 25+ kids perform would come out of that and realize its a bad idea.

Tiernan;501134 wrote:As a comparison to a first year teacher - first year enlisted Army & Navy recruits earn $1,365/ mo. Are we as a Nation proud of that fact?

ccrunner609;501923 wrote:there is no possible way to award pay based on merit and even be close to being fair. If any person has ever sat in a classroom and thought how someone was going to get merit pay based on how 25+ kids perform would come out of that and realize its a bad idea.

wkfan;501457 wrote:...

If it is so good...why doesn't everybody do it??

fan_from_texas;501938 wrote:Disagree. There are plenty of possible ways to aware pay based on merit for teachers and have it close to being fair. This is how it's done in virtually every other industry, no matter how soft/unquantifiable the factors are. The fact that there is virtual unanimity among parents, teachers, and students as to who the good teachers are and the bad teachers are suggests that there are certain distinguishing factors between teachers. If everyone knows who the good ones are, why not pay them more?

I agree wholeheartedly that a simplistic, sole-metric approach isn't feasible. But that's not what I (nor the proponents of merit pay) suggest. Like every other industry in the world, the approach would have to be multi-faceted and look at a lot of different aspects, some directly measurable and others not.

Cat Food Flambe';501951 wrote:Given the conditions in some of the inner-city districts, I'd say their teachers may be as deserving of combat pay as a soldier serving in Afghanistan.

Glory Days;502137 wrote:That will never work. Try teaching in an inner city school. Most of the time it isnt the teachers fault the kids are failing. And good luck trying to find students and parents who care about their teachers to want them to get paid more or less.

ccrunner609;501923 wrote:there is no possible way to award pay based on merit and even be close to being fair. If any person has ever sat in a classroom and thought how someone was going to get merit pay based on how 25+ kids perform would come out of that and realize its a bad idea.

fan_from_texas;502208 wrote:As others have pointed out, every other profession seems to find a way to adjust for circumstances, and it seems that there are certainly objective/subjective metrics we could apply to teachers in urban schools to get some idea of quality. Again, the fact that a system is not 100% perfect is no reason to avoid it entirely--e.g., in baseball, it is not always the case that a .400 hitter is a better player and deserves more money than a .250 hitter (especially if the .400 guy plays in a hitter's park, and the .250 plays in a pitcher's park), but that doesn't mean we entirely dismiss batting average as a metric in comparing players. If you aggregate numerous imperfect measures, you can get some snippet of quality.

My fundamental argument is that in every school I've been in or around, there is a consensus on which teachers are better than others. If everyone can already recognize this, how can it be the case that it is impossible to determine it? Shouldn't we pay our better teachers more?

jmog;502235 wrote:I disagree, they do it on the college level. Professors get evaluated for every class they teach, and that combined with their research and other performances helps determine their raises.

Not only that but K-12 education seems to be the only "industry" in the US that doesn't use some "metric" to determine pay increases, well, them and unions.

You don't compare a teacher in inner city youngstown to a teacher in Upper Arlington.

You compare a teacher in inner city Youngstown to a teacher in inner city Youngstown.

You can track each student and see how they perform better or worse each year depending on their teacher and average out over all the students. That's a metric that can be used among other things like attendance/puncuality (used in most private evaluations), ability to work with others (at work, other teachers/admin, etc), and other subjective things that go into private sector's evaluations.

ClayAikenation;502662 wrote:Teachers suck. They are outright sucky people. Many people who I know are teachers are teachers because they can not function in the business or "real world." Like the old saying goes "If you can't do, teach!" In regard to teachers who bitch and moan about their pay, I know many people who would die for stable working hours, being able to spend time with their kids, a strong pension plan, and the summer off, very stable working environment which (usually) doesn't change with regards to the overall economic picture.

Glory Days;502590 wrote:Other private professions or public professions? they seem to be right in line with just about every other public job I think. I don’t know too many public jobs that work that way other than just pay increases for time in service etc.

Teachers already get caught in the habit of teaching just so kids pass their proficiency tests, just imagine if now their pay was based on their kid’s scores on those test.

ClayAikenation;502662 wrote:Teachers suck. They are outright sucky people. Many people who I know are teachers are teachers because they can not function in the business or "real world." Like the old saying goes "If you can't do, teach!" In regard to teachers who bitch and moan about their pay, I know many people who would die for stable working hours, being able to spend time with their kids, a strong pension plan, and the summer off, very stable working environment which (usually) doesn't change with regards to the overall economic picture.

redfalcon;503087 wrote:How about you go thank the teacher who taught you to read and write and then show them this post. Go screw yourself.

On a lighter note, I voted not enough based on the starting salaries of some of my friends who teach in Ohio. A buddy of mine has about 3 years experience and a masters and only makes around $25,000. Thats way too low for anyone.

Also, Lol at the idea of only working nine months out of the year. Lets think about this. Most School districts start in mid August and go well into June. Also, teachers have to be at school a couple of weeks before the school year starts and often stay a few days late.

I am by no means trying to deny that we get time off in the summer, but keep in mind that just because your kids aren't in school doesn't mean we aren't. During the summer we also are required by law to take classes or professional development, often at our own expense. Sure we get a few weeks off, but it is by no means anywhere close to three months. more like 1, maybe 1 1/2.

Also, unless you want massive unemployment and welfare lines for three months a year, this argument needs to stop. Seriously, we may get time off in the summer, but it doesn't mean we get a reprieve from bills, food, gas, etc.

thedynasty1998;501089 wrote:Now that is an interesting point of view.

By market you mean taxpayers? How can a school district operate in the red, yet say they are paying market worth?

Are schools not paid by property taxes? If property values have decreased by 6% over the last few years, should teachers pay not also be decreased?

fan_from_texas;502940 wrote: Who is suggesting that? No one on here has said that we should pay teachers based on test scores. I (and others) have repeatedly said that teachers should be paid on merit. Simply looking at test scores doesn't strike me as a good indicator of merit.

Glory Days;503291 wrote:its not a good indicator, but what is?

redfalcon;503087 wrote:How about you go thank the teacher who taught you to read and write and then show them this post. Go screw yourself.

On a lighter note, I voted not enough based on the starting salaries of some of my friends who teach in Ohio. A buddy of mine has about 3 years experience and a masters and only makes around $25,000. Thats way too low for anyone.

Also, Lol at the idea of only working nine months out of the year. Lets think about this. Most School districts start in mid August and go well into June. Also, teachers have to be at school a couple of weeks before the school year starts and often stay a few days late.

I am by no means trying to deny that we get time off in the summer, but keep in mind that just because your kids aren't in school doesn't mean we aren't. During the summer we also are required by law to take classes or professional development, often at our own expense. Sure we get a few weeks off, but it is by no means anywhere close to three months. more like 1, maybe 1 1/2.

Also, unless you want massive unemployment and welfare lines for three months a year, this argument needs to stop. Seriously, we may get time off in the summer, but it doesn't mean we get a reprieve from bills, food, gas, etc.