Would it be a good thing if teachers had economic incentives based on student performance?
My first answer was unprintable .......then I thought maybe it depends on how you define student performance. Should a teacher be rewarded if s/he enables students to become healthy, happy people who make the world a better place? Well, yes then maybe!
But then we could get in a huge debate about the respective levels of pay, should anyone be rewarded on top of salary and what would be an equitable system of payment for work done?
NO! If you bring money into the mix, teachers will be passing students just to get the money. That won't help anyone. You can't just throw money at a problem and hope it goes away.
In some circumstances yes it would be but it wouldnt work everywhere and would be unfair to some with more challenging students or areas.
Absolutely not.
Well i think so, yes. I believe in incentives but not for student performances. I think incentives work like they do in Holland at this very moment. Teachers that are of more importance for their school and put a lot more energy in to their classrooms can earn more money because they're scaled in a different way. A group of people (parents, principal etc)decide wether a teacher is offered this higher payment. I think that will work.
Maybe that would motivate some, but not me. I don't see teaching as that kind of job. The money is nice (they pay us well in Canada), but it's so far removed from why I teach. There's such a disconnect between money and student performance that I fail to see how it could ever be an effective and/or meaningful incentive.
The other problem with this is that the very question asked assumes that if teachers just tried harder, students would perform better. What does trying harder really mean? Yes, I think some teachers need to change their practice, but I don't think bribing them to do so is the answer.
Depends. Define student performance. Some students come to us deficient in many ways and it is unfair to hold us accountable for them not reaching the "class's level of performance." Student performance must be determined by any and all changes of a student's ability level and not just whether or not we can get him/her to work on grade level.
Absolutely; but this would need to be relative to data; landscape and socio-economic factors linked to the school location.
it would certainly make the lazier staff start working for their money!!!
No - a true teacher teaches and achieves results because they love what they do, not because their focus is on money.
Yes.
Yes & No.
No, I don't think so. Seems like it should be a "no brainer" but it really is difficult to quantify what exactly "learning" is. If I've learned anything as a teacher over the years, it is that learning happens in strange and beautiful ways. Often what we are teaching is just a spark for learning to happen elsewhere. Should we limit learning and put it on a one way street?
I think of all those not so "schooled" like Edison or Farnsworth (who invented the TV). They learned but they didn't do it in a straight, paint by the numbers fashion that standardized curriculum proposes.
I think the calls for basing teacher evaluation and salary on student performance is a hold over (or continuation) of the factory and assembly line school system first developed over 150 years ago. We have to go somewhere else....
Hey, but what about giving students financial incentives for their achievement? That might more truly reflect how our society works and prepare them for "life".
yes i think it would. it would spur the teachers to really get involved with the students so they learn more and get better grades
Strongly disagree with this. I imagine that nobody would accept children with learning difficulties if this could happen
Yes, within limits, particularly when shared with the students, who would be earning over half of the incentive(s) |
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 |
<< PREVIOUS NEXT >>
| |
|
99697 interviews created
INVITE YOUR FRIENDS