Glory Days;868602 wrote:parents already pull their kids from school early for vacations etc. you really think people would go for more school?

Unfortunately not, and we'll never get back to the position we should be in the world without doing so.

i bet your penis is 12 inches long, you aced the ACT and SAT, and you can bench press 1000lbs?

You'd lose those bets, but can take to the bank that I can sit in a classroom for a week, and tell you if the teacher is excellent, good, or poor.

Sonofanump;868606 wrote: What do you want answered?

From post #88:

"Why do you equate subjectivity with favoritism? "

queencitybuckeye;868657 wrote:
You'd lose those bets, but can take to the bank that I can sit in a classroom for a week, and tell you if the teacher is excellent, good, or poor.

and little johnny's parent might sit in the same classroom and disagree when they find out little johnny got a C in that class.

Post #107: your weiner is 12, you aced the SAT's, and you bench press 1000.....Priceless!

Captures the essence of the know-it-all posters who lnow what's best.

Post #107: your weiner is 12, you aced the SAT's, and you bench press 1000.....Priceless!

Captures the essence of the know-it-all posters who know what's best.

BRF;868704 wrote:Post #107: your weiner is 12, you aced the SAT's, and you bench press 1000.....Priceless!

Captures the essence of the know-it-all posters who lnow what's best.

Those who can...

Teachers would not be rated on the overall performance of the scores of every student. Right now most school districts can predict how a student will perform on a test based on past standardized tests, if a student reaches a certain score a district (more or less) can determine if a student received a years education for a years worth of time. Not surprisingly it is called a year for a year. A problem arises when a student takes a test like the OGT (Ohio graduation test) their sophomore year. The science portion contains information pertaining to earth science, biology, and physical science (basic chemistry and physics). You have essentially three subjects that were taken over 3 years. In my district earth science is a middle school class, physical science is a freshmen level course and biology is a sophomore class. The test is given in spring of their sophomore year before they have had all of the biology class. A student needs approximately 50% on the test to be proficient and pass the science portion.

If a student moves in part way through their sophomore year and takes the OGT and fails the science portion who is to "blame"?

If a student who has been in the district the entire time passes but scores low in earth science, who is to "blame" and which teacher gets the merit pay? Not all subjects have a state or national test to test achievement and not all teachers teach core subjects.

I personally think a high school math or science teacher should get paid more than an art or phys ed teacher. So how is the merit system addressed between these groups of teachers?

Grades are not indicative of learning, I've taught many students who have come back to visit after a year or 2 in college and told me that they really did learn a lot in my class but did not really realize it at the time and not all of these students were "A" students.

Every year I have a few students who should be getting a grade or 2 higher than what they are earning but their current life situation makes it difficult for them. A student who has to play mom after school because she is in charge of her younger siblings while mom works or goes out on dates. A student who is so focused on his hockey career and does not study at all after school. ( He is playing semi-pro hockey this year and not finishing his senior year.)

I'm not against merit pay I just want to make sure it is a fair system.

queencitybuckeye;868717 wrote:Those who can...

Hater.

Next time you visit my Profile, leave a message.

BRF;868736 wrote:Hater.

Next time you visit my Profile, leave a message.

Message left!

queencitybuckeye;868659 wrote:From post #88:

"Why do you equate subjectivity with favoritism? "

From post #86.

Sonofanump;868350 wrote:The criteria for what makes a good teacher is very subjective. I'd gather that if a school district were to pay the "best" teachers more, that would come down to favortism, nepatism, buddy system, who kisses the best ass, etc...

But what incentive would a school district have to pay more than they are required to do so?

I’ll try to restate this for you to understand. The first sentence implies that the criteria will be measured in opinion, not facts since there is no way to accurately measure success in the classroom.

Second sentence states that if a school district was to pay more (third sentence states they won’t) that it would be based upon factors more involved in who knows or likes who as opposed to who might be a better teacher if that could indeed be measured.

Sonofanump;868964 wrote:From post #86.



I’ll try to restate this for you to understand. The first sentence implies that the criteria will be measured in opinion, not facts since there is no way to accurately measure success in the classroom.

Second sentence states that if a school district was to pay more (third sentence states they won’t) that it would be based upon factors more involved in who knows or likes who as opposed to who might be a better teacher if that could indeed be measured.

What I am looking for is why you make the assumption in the 2nd sentence that any subjective measure would be based on favoritism rather than an honest opinion (albeit subjective) of performance.

As I understand it, you officiate sports (thank you for that). When doing so, you would make a decent number of judgment calls in a game. If you're going to be consistent, your position would be something like: "yeah, those idiots in the stands think I call them like I see them when the truth is that my calls are based on which coach I hate the least". I'm confident that you believe your calls, right or occasionally wrong, are made with a high level of integrity. Why do others not get this same courtesy?

queencitybuckeye;868967 wrote:What I am looking for is why you make the assumption in the 2nd sentence that any subjective measure would be based on favoritism rather than an honest option (albeit subjective) of performance.

As I understand it, you officiate sports (thank you for that). When doing so, you would make a decent number of judgment calls in a game. If you're going to be consistent, your position would be something like: "yeah, those idiots in the stands think I call them like I see them when the truth is that my calls are based on which coach I hate the least". I'm confident that you believe your calls, right or occasionally wrong, are made with a high level of integrity. Why do others not get this same courtesy?

An excellent question.

I don't see why merit pay is such a bad idea. There are plenty of jobs where your job security as well as pay raises and cuts are determined not by directly measurable things like sales, etc but by how valuable your supervisors feel you to be. Are they always right? Nope. Do some supervisors and such play stupid office politics? Yes. Does the system work pretty well most times because it's in the best interest of the supervisors to actually use the system correctly and reward those who are better employees with things like keeping their job and better pay? Yes.

queencitybuckeye;868967 wrote:What I am looking for is why you make the assumption in the 2nd sentence that any subjective measure would be based on favoritism rather than an honest option (albeit subjective) of performance.

I am not saying it would be the sole measure, I am saying that a bias will be heavily involved since performance standards would be hard to measure.

queencitybuckeye;868967 wrote:If you're going to be consistent, your position would be something like: "yeah, those idiots in the stands think I call them like I see them when the truth is that my calls are based on which coach I hate the least". I'm confident that you believe your calls, right or occasionally wrong, are made with a high level of integrity. Why do others not get this same courtesy?

I have no prejudice going into the game since I do not personally know any of these persons involved in the game, unlike the admins who interact with the teachers on a daily basis. Public employment politics is worse than private employment politics since productivity can not be accurately measured. Officials do not answer to the coaches or fans, we answer to the commissioners, our level of work can not be disputed, it is right there on film for the world to see, right judgement or wrong judgement.

Sonofanump;869050 wrote:I am not saying it would be the sole measure, I am saying that a bias will be heavily involved since performance standards would be hard to measure.



I have no prejudice going into the game since I do not personally know any of these persons involved in the game, unlike the admins who interact with the teachers on a daily basis. Public employment politics is worse than private employment politics since productivity can not be accurately measured. Officials do not answer to the coaches or fans, we answer to the commissioners, our level of work can not be disputed, it is right there on film for the world to see, right judgement or wrong judgement.

So if you know the parties involved, you wouldn't be able to call a fair game. Got it.

queencitybuckeye;869054 wrote:So if you know the parties involved, you wouldn't be able to call a fair game. Got it.

No, I said "no prejudice". Got it?