Should Teachers Pay Be Linked To Student Grades

[Lady's Human]

LOL, politically biased teaching? J must not be getting his fair share! He will have spent 3 years in preschool, before he enters K this fall (as a 6 year old). His first 'year' was 2 days a week, for 2.5 hours, each. Not exactly rigorous by anyone's standards, I am sure. He then went to 3 days a week, again, 2.5 hours, the following year. Both of those years were less than the traditional school calendar, with a little extra at Christmas break time. They were both in a church based program. So, no politics, but some religion.

That's by your choice, which you, as a parent should have.

PC mentioned mandatory, not optional preschool. Axel was in a 1/2 day program for a year before he went to kindergarten by our CHOICE, not a mandate from a politician.

[pomtzu]

When I was a kid, back in The Dark Ages, there was no K or pre-school. I started school in 1st grade and went thru grade 12. However - way back then, we learned a whole lot more each school year than the kids do now. We were learning "cursive" writing in 2nd and 3rd grade, and I can remember, plain as day, blowing my 3rd grade teacher away when I correctly spelled "carbohydrates". No big deal now, but it sure was when I did it. And we learned by repetition. Maybe not much fun at the time, but it will always stick with you learning it that way - especially the math. I always thought it was fun. My 14 year old grandson can't seem to grasp it, and I believe it's the method of teaching that is his biggest problem. I lost it with the "new math" that was taught when my kids were in school - a dozen or so steps to come up with the same answer I could come up with in 2 or 3 steps. What was the purpose of that - other than a waste of time???

[Cataholic]

^^ I absolutely shudder to think of J and math. I will probably have to get a tutor for him beginning in the 3rd grade if I am expected to help him at all. OR, I will have to order a book and teacher's text and get some tutoring myself. No joke. Math was and still is a huge struggle for me. I think I have a form of math dyslexia.

[Pembroke_Corgi]

LH- While I don't agree with what you are saying exactly, I think I understand and agree with the principle behind it. You want your children to be able to think for themselves and not just believe what they are told. Critical thinking, in my opinion, is one thing schools ARE NOT teaching enough of, and I think this a big failure of schools which is caused from thoughtless mandates like NCLB and linking a teacher's pay to a student's letter grade. (Grades do not necessarily measure real learning). Also, I think it is great that you actually care what and how your kids learn. Many parents do not. Or they are so busy/distracted/whatever that they may act like they care but actually do nothing to ensure their child's success in school. This is why I believe there needs to be free, high quality daycare (yes, I think it should be mandatory) because there are many kids who probably have never been read to before school starts, so they have missed out on a HUGE learning opportunity that most likely, they will never be able to "make up" for with later education.

Also, I wanted to point out that education/ the world is changing. You can google anything and have an answer to your question in 30 seconds. Education is shifting so kids know how to understand and synthesize information in a changing world. It's great if someone found drilling in school beneficial to them, but research shows not everyone learns this way. There are only a few good hours in a school day and teaching kids to write perfect cursive is not a good use of time in today's world (especially since there is so much pressure to get your students to perform in other areas).

Also, if I may share a big pet peeve of mine, it's that a lot of people think they are experts on education who have no training or background in it. Being a student and the study of pedagogy are very different things, and many teachers today are highly qualified to teach. Yes, parents know their kids best, but a good teacher will communicate with parents in order to help their students more. Teaching is based on science, not anecdotes or feelings or how we were taught as kids.

[Cataholic]

Also, if I may share a big pet peeve of mine, it's that a lot of people think they are experts on education who have no training or background in it. Being a student and the study of pedagogy are very different things, and many teachers today are highly qualified to teach. Yes, parents know their kids best, but a good teacher will communicate with parents in order to help their students more. Teaching is based on science, not anecdotes or feelings or how we were taught as kids.

I agree, completely. I am in no way, shape or form, an expert on education. I readily agree that while I know how to write, read, and learn...I have NO idea how to teach how to write, read and learn or , why to do it a certain way, etc.

I do know my child best, but, that doesn't mean I know how or why to teach him best. That is prolly my biggest criticism of homeschooling. Frankly, I am not qualified to teach my child, from an educational standpoint, despite having plenty of education myself.

[Puckstop31]

I do know my child best, but, that doesn't mean I know how or why to teach him best. That is prolly my biggest criticism of homeschooling. Frankly, I am not qualified to teach my child, from an educational standpoint, despite having plenty of education myself.

As I see it, the most important thing a homeschooling parent must do is first know, then admit when they are over their head. Then, find and use the resources that are available to meet the need. Do some people home school because only they want to be the teaacher of their children? Sure. I do not think that is the correct attitude to have about it.

We are going to home school our children because we believe it is our responsibility to do so. Plus, we can. Plus, they (eventually 'they' that is) will get an education that is better geared to their learning style.

I am not sure if we covered it here, but what does 'qualified' mean anyway?

[Cataholic]

As I see it, the most important thing a homeschooling parent must do is first know, then admit when they are over their head. Then, find and use the resources that are available to meet the need. Do some people home school because only they want to be the teaacher of their children? Sure. I do not think that is the correct attitude to have about it.

We are going to home school our children because we believe it is our responsibility to do so. Plus, we can. Plus, they (eventually 'they' that is) will get an education that is better geared to their learning style.

I am not sure if we covered it here, but what does 'qualified' mean anyway?

I think people- in general- are composed of strenghts and weaknesses. Things the parent excels at, and doesn't excel at. I think I have strenghts that lie in areas other than teaching my own (or anyones, for that matter) child. I prefer to leave that up to people qualified. To me, qualified means qualified to teach, have a degree, certification, training, experience, etc. Yes, I recognize that there are "qualified" teachers that stink and have no business being around kids, and that there are "unqualified" people that excel at teaching. In fact, in some industries, there are "trainers". People that are not educationally diploma'd, that train employees. My SIL is one of them. Frankly, she is good at what she does, and has a four year degree in psych or soc, I think. Not education.


In general, though, I like to believe that being "qualified" to teach means something. Perhaps I buy into the whole formal education thing a little bit too much.

[pomtzu]

^^ I absolutely shudder to think of J and math. I will probably have to get a tutor for him beginning in the 3rd grade if I am expected to help him at all. OR, I will have to order a book and teacher's text and get some tutoring myself. No joke. Math was and still is a huge struggle for me. I think I have a form of math dyslexia.

I was always good in math - at least the way it was taught to me. Fortunately my kids were good in the "new math" which was Greek to me, or I would have needed tutoring just so I could help them.

They have a system in Japan, not sure what they call it, but if children can't grasp a particular lesson then they stay back after school with the teachers, who tutor them. They are allowed to go home after they have displayed that they have fully understood the lesson. Some kids grasp it quickly, others don't.......and they are not allowed to go home until they have achieved the desired result.
Think about the advantages............
These lessons are cutting into the kids free time, so they are gonna really try and understand the lesson so they can get on back home for dinner and their TV's.
And of course, one on one tutoring/learning has got to be more advantageous than one on forty.
And......the teachers don't like staying back after work either, so that in itself would give the teachers more impetus to ensure they did their job more effectively in the classroom.
I admire that system....beats our system hands down.

Sounds like a winner Wom, but I don't ever see that happening here. Too much opposition from teachers and parents alike. I'd love to see my grandson have to do that, and his parents would too. It would be worth my while to have to pick him up from school everyday if it would help him.

[IRescue452]

Am I the only one who thinks the problem lies not in school, but in society as a whole? I learned to read when I was 3. Well before I started school. We didn't have cable, we didn't have playstation (though we did have atari), we didn't have cell phones or facebook or email to keep up on, we didn't go to the mall every other day. Both of my parents actually had time to sit down and read with us or do learning things. Now I have little sisters and they don't read or do math as well. They've got a single mother who has no time and they have a tv for a babysitter. They spend hours on the computer daily. This is just how society is now. We've got no time to devote to teaching children. No, machines do the work now. They don't have to learn anything. Its just that point in our culture's evolution where we can stop teaching math because computers do it for us, we can stop teaching reading because we have e-books that fit in our pockets and can read for us, we can stop teaching history and science and everything else because we have internet. Kids know this. They may not consciously choose this way of thinking, but they grew up in a time when they could refer to the internet if they needed an answer. The attitude of "why should I sit through school and learn the old-fashioned way" is built right in.

[Lady's Human]

Also, if I may share a big pet peeve of mine, it's that a lot of people think they are experts on education who have no training or background in it. Being a student and the study of pedagogy are very different things, and many teachers today are highly qualified to teach. Yes, parents know their kids best, but a good teacher will communicate with parents in order to help their students more. Teaching is based on science, not anecdotes or feelings or how we were taught as kids.

I beg to differ. What, praytell is the educational equivalent of Ohm's law?

Calling it a science doesn't make it one.

[Pembroke_Corgi]

I beg to differ. What, praytell is the educational equivalent of Ohm's law?

Calling it a science doesn't make it one.

Have you never heard of the social sciences? Still perfectly possible to use the scientific method and gather empirical data.

[Cataholic]

Am I the only one who thinks the problem lies not in school, but in society as a whole? I learned to read when I was 3. Well before I started school. We didn't have cable, we didn't have playstation (though we did have atari), we didn't have cell phones or facebook or email to keep up on, we didn't go to the mall every other day. Both of my parents actually had time to sit down and read with us or do learning things. Now I have little sisters and they don't read or do math as well. They've got a single mother who has no time and they have a tv for a babysitter. They spend hours on the computer daily. This is just how society is now. We've got no time to devote to teaching children. No, machines do the work now. They don't have to learn anything. Its just that point in our culture's evolution where we can stop teaching math because computers do it for us, we can stop teaching reading because we have e-books that fit in our pockets and can read for us, we can stop teaching history and science and everything else because we have internet. Kids know this. They may not consciously choose this way of thinking, but they grew up in a time when they could refer to the internet if they needed an answer. The attitude of "why should I sit through school and learn the old-fashioned way" is built right in.

I have always heard that the early readers, or talkers, or writers of their name, all pretty much balance out by the 5th grade. Like early walkers..not exactly a fortelling of great physical prowess. I am curious, what did you go on to do after that? AND- I don't mean that in any insulting way..just curious. Did you then go on to skip grades? Graduate from high school at 15? Graduate college at 18, etc.?

I learned to read at a more "normal" time...and to this day, read, read and read- 4 books a week is not unusul for me. I love to read. I graduated college and law school at 'normal' times, enjoyed school ok in general, didn't do overly well, etc. But, I read like a fool.

That is where my curiosity comes from. What did such an early start in reading do for you? Are you still an avid reader? I can remember, as a kid, literally- looking around me for cereal boxes to read at breakfast. I read the wall of stuff at J's school last night, while waiting for a parent's meeting to begin. I. Must. Read.
But, I was not an early reader by any means.

[Pembroke_Corgi]

I have always heard that the early readers, or talkers, or writers of their name, all pretty much balance out by the 5th grade. Like early walkers..not exactly a fortelling of great physical prowess. I am curious, what did you go on to do after that? AND- I don't mean that in any insulting way..just curious. Did you then go on to skip grades? Graduate from high school at 15? Graduate college at 18, etc.?

I learned to read at a more "normal" time...and to this day, read, read and read- 4 books a week is not unusul for me. I love to read. I graduated college and law school at 'normal' times, enjoyed school ok in general, didn't do overly well, etc. But, I read like a fool.

That is where my curiosity comes from. What did such an early start in reading do for you? Are you still an avid reader? I can remember, as a kid, literally- looking around me for cereal boxes to read at breakfast. I read the wall of stuff at J's school last night, while waiting for a parent's meeting to begin. I. Must. Read.
But, I was not an early reader by any means.

I don't think being an early reader give students an advantage per se, but research shows that being exposed to books, text, and lots of adult conversation gives students a big advantage in school. Kids who have a rich environment before school learn things like phonemic awareness and how print looks before they begin K, and tend to have larger vocabularies (in many cases this is true throughout academic careers).

I agree with IRescue452 that too many parents just turn on the TV instead of helping their kids. Schools cannot (and should not) do everything. Parents actually need to do their job, too. I have a relative whose kid has reading comprehension problems that has been brought up repeatedly in conferences, and the parents do absolutely nothing to help him despite the fact the teacher has given them numerous tips, help, etc. They were also offered FREE tutoring twice a week after school and didn't take it because they didn't want to have to pick him up from school (1 mile away) instead of having the bus take him. That is just lazy and ignorant IMO. This is actually not that uncommon either in my experience. At what point are parents responsible for their own child's grades?

[wombat2u2004]

They have a system in Japan, not sure what they call it, but if children can't grasp a particular lesson then they stay back after school with the teachers, who tutor them. They are allowed to go home after they have displayed that they have fully understood the lesson. Some kids grasp it quickly, others don't.......and they are not allowed to go home until they have achieved the desired result.
Think about the advantages............
These lessons are cutting into the kids free time, so they are gonna really try and understand the lesson so they can get on back home for dinner and their TV's.
And of course, one on one tutoring/learning has got to be more advantageous than one on forty.
And......the teachers don't like staying back after work either, so that in itself would give the teachers more impetus to ensure they did their job more effectively in the classroom.
I admire that system....beats our system hands down.