OT: Teachers

"Senate 1585 , sponsored by Sen. Steven Panagiotakos, would allow public
school teachers to credit toward their retirement benefits years spent
teaching in non-public schools after Jan. 1, 1973. (Earlier legislation
allows such buy-backs for non-public school teaching before 1973.)"

Why? Why allow teachers to rob taxpayers?

"Congressman Kevin Brady, Republican from Texas, will get a hearing in a
U.S. House subcommittee on his bill to replace the Windfall Elimination
Provision with a less drastic reduction in Social Security benefits for
school employees and other public servants. Brady has termed the WEP
"terribly unfair," and his H.R. 4391 would put in its place a new benefit
formula that would give back to school employees and others affected an
average of 23 cents out of every dollar taken away by the current WEP
formula. "

Teachers do not pay into the SS system. What is unfair, terribly unfair, is
they get anything at all from SS. These people are really gutsy.

The teacher unions are always complaining that public education is
underfunded. Yesterday's newspaper, the Lowell Sun, reported that Lowell
public schools are losing over $2 million each year because of sick day
abuse. It seems that when a teacher fakes or lies about being ill a
substitute teacher has to be called in to replace them. Monday and Friday
are the most popular sick days. Getting the summer and several weeks off
during the school year isn't enough for these people. I think what needs to
be done is to have that sick teacher fund the cost of the substitute teacher
unless they provide proof from a doctor or medical facility that their
illness was genuine.

Re: OT: Teachers

In article <>, Ed says...
>
>"Senate 1585 , sponsored by Sen. Steven Panagiotakos, would allow public
>school teachers to credit toward their retirement benefits years spent

Ed...Thanks for the teacher bashing..I retired in 1995 after teaching for over
30 years & paying into SS every year...The teacher pay in many states so low the
SS amounted to $700 monthly...this was supplemented by teacher retirement we
paid into amounting to less than $500 monthly...Have to work on various jobs to
survive...What were you making yearly in 1981? Iwas making $12000 yearly.
No we do not get the summers "off"..we sign a 180 day contract & are unemployed
during summers..we get 3 days per year paid vacation. Why don't you do some
research & get your facts straight before bashing!






>teaching in non-public schools after Jan. 1, 1973. (Earlier legislation
>allows such buy-backs for non-public school teaching before 1973.)"
>
>Why? Why allow teachers to rob taxpayers?
>
>"Congressman Kevin Brady, Republican from Texas, will get a hearing in a
>U.S. House subcommittee on his bill to replace the Windfall Elimination
>Provision with a less drastic reduction in Social Security benefits for
>school employees and other public servants. Brady has termed the WEP
>"terribly unfair," and his H.R. 4391 would put in its place a new benefit
>formula that would give back to school employees and others affected an
>average of 23 cents out of every dollar taken away by the current WEP
>formula. "
>
>Teachers do not pay into the SS system. What is unfair, terribly unfair, is
>they get anything at all from SS. These people are really gutsy.
>
>The teacher unions are always complaining that public education is
>underfunded. Yesterday's newspaper, the Lowell Sun, reported that Lowell
>public schools are losing over $2 million each year because of sick day
>abuse. It seems that when a teacher fakes or lies about being ill a
>substitute teacher has to be called in to replace them. Monday and Friday
>are the most popular sick days. Getting the summer and several weeks off
>during the school year isn't enough for these people. I think what needs to
>be done is to have that sick teacher fund the cost of the substitute teacher
>unless they provide proof from a doctor or medical facility that their
>illness was genuine.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Re: OT: Teachers

So, you collect unemployment, too? I live in CT.....I can't help where you
chose to teach. Our property taxes on a small cape cod are $4,500/year... or
$375.00 per month.... 75% of that goes to the school budget, and 65% of that
goes to teachers salaries and benefits.....

boo-hoo........ just go away.....

Average salaries...

California $56,444
Colorado $43,319
Connecticut. $57,337
Delaware $49,366
Dist. of Columbia $57,009

Arne

we sign a 180 day contract & are unemployed
> during summers..

Re: OT: Teachers

I post facts and you call it bashing. I can't help you.
When I graduated from high school most of the kids wanted to become
teachers. Their reasons were varied but in most cases they wanted the
summers off. Can't blame them.

Average teacher pay in Massachusetts is in the mid to high 50's. Not bad for
a part time job. The benefits are outstanding but apparently not good enough
yet.

My post was not a personal attack meant for any individual. Teachers seem to
forget that they are 100% funded by over-burdened taxpayers and taxes are
getting way out of hand. My property taxes are over $100/week, the
automobile excise taxes I pay go to the town I live in. I have to get a tag
for our dog each year. I can't fart without someone wanting to start a fart
tax.

Stay out of my wallet.

For the record, I don't mind paying my fair share. Kids need an education. I
have never had a child of mine attend a public school in my town. I can't
pick up a newspaper or turn on the radio, or watch local news without some
teachers group or union bitching about something. Always money related.

Teachers here in Massachusetts are trying to repeal the anti-strike clause
from the law. I don't know why, they never let it stop them from striking
before.



"pauper" <> wrote in message
news:
> In article <>, Ed says...
>>
>>"Senate 1585 , sponsored by Sen. Steven Panagiotakos, would allow public
>>school teachers to credit toward their retirement benefits years spent
>
> Ed...Thanks for the teacher bashing..I retired in 1995 after teaching for
> over
> 30 years

At 180 days per year, don't you mean 15 years?

What did you think of my idea?

About sick day abuse:

> I think what needs to
>be done is to have that sick teacher fund the cost of the substitute
>teacher
>unless they provide proof from a doctor or medical facility that their
>illness was genuine.

I think it's doable and would work.
Remember, if the sick day is legitimate then there would be no problem. If
Lowell is hit with over $2 million each year for substitute teacher
compensation, state wide the problem could be many tens of millions.

I don't know where you taught but read this:


If you teach in Boston, the average pay is $69,022 for 180 days. A full time
job would pay $138,044 at this rate.

What is not fair about this pay?

OT: Teachers

Oh, forgot the personal property taxes.... the town hits me for another $1k
for them, on car, etc....

As far as education, we have enough people... anyone with more than 2 kids
can pick up the tab on the extras themselves..... and don't come bragging
about your numerous grandchildren... I see them everyday when I get stuck in
traffic jams....

We have a great school system... everybody moving in, and there are tons of
them, brings kids.... some have said after their kids graduate, they were
moving out... taxes are too high..... jackasses.

And I'm getting tired of the "ohhh, we have to do it for the kids" crap.....
get a puppy. All the open space the town buys gets filled up with soccer and
ball fields..... yippee..... your kids are only special to you. And the only
reason your friends listen to your boring kid stories is so they get a
chance to bore you with their kid stories..... I don't mind children, I just
think they are highly overrated....

The dog is only $8...... that I won't complain about. We have a friendly
animal control officer...

Arne
..

Re: OT: Teachers

"pauper" <> wrote in message
news:
> In article <>, Ed says...
>>
>
> Ed...Thanks for the teacher bashing..I retired in 1995 after teaching for
> over
> 30 years & paying into SS every year...The teacher pay in many states so
> low the
> SS amounted to $700 monthly...this was supplemented by teacher retirement
> we
> paid into amounting to less than $500 monthly...Have to work on various
> jobs to
> survive...

You had a shitty teachers union, that's all.
Here in Chicago, no CBE teacher pays into Social Security. No need to,
their pension is terrific.

> What were you making yearly in 1981? Iwas making $12000 yearly.
> No we do not get the summers "off"..we sign a 180 day contract & are
> unemployed
> during summers..

Equates to 24K a year, in 1981 .... not bad.
Maybe you should have taught "summer school" for added income, instead of
talking the other 185 days off.

> we get 3 days per year paid vacation.

Again, horse shit union.
Here, they get Casmir Pulaski day off!!! (whoever he was)

Re: Teachers

"Ed" <> wrote in message
news:
> "Senate 1585 , sponsored by Sen. Steven Panagiotakos, would allow public
> school teachers to credit toward their retirement benefits years spent
> teaching in non-public schools after Jan. 1, 1973. (Earlier legislation
> allows such buy-backs for non-public school teaching before 1973.)"
>
> Why? Why allow teachers to rob taxpayers?

Teachers are vastly underpaid considering the importance of their job of
educating the nation's youth. On the other hand, the brightest young
students, male and female, have always been attracted to fields like
medicine, law, engineering, science, etc., not public school teaching. So
one could argue that the relatively low pay of teachers, compared to other
professionals, reflects the more modest qualifications of people in the
teaching field. The real question is whether or not it should be that way
and stay that way. A good plan for the benefit of the nation in future times
would be to greatly increase the pay of teachers and at the same time insist
that teaching standards and qualifications increase.

Re: What did you think of my idea?

Ed wrote:

> I don't know where you taught but read this:
>
>
> If you teach in Boston, the average pay is $69,022 for 180 days.
> A full time job would pay $138,044 at this rate.
>
> What is not fair about this pay?

How often can teachers get summer jobs that pay nearly as much as their
teaching positions? Also what does the average person with a
bachelor's degree make in Boston?

Here in Arizona the average teacher pay is around $42,000, and AZ ranks
among the bottom five states in education quality. Back in high
school, I remember students who moved here from other states mention
that schools here were about a grade behind their previous schools.

Re: OT: Teachers

Sorry you are so unhappy. I think going to school as a student and
being a teacher is are wonderful experiences. I know mine where. I
taught for a few years. It is a very demanding job, emotionally. I pay
property taxes too. These taxes are put in by our democratically
elected officials. If you chose not to send your kids to public school,
that is your choice.

One thing. I run across these kind of gripes all the time. I usually
think the real culprit is people hate their jobs. You might think about
that.

Life is hard, and sometimes it's discouraging. Try and find something
interesting to do besides listening to Rush Limbaugh and griping like a
angry white male who has had his privileges taken away from him. For me
it's music and a good hobby, aviation. But to each his own. Hope you
can find something meaningful to do with your life. It's the key to
happiness.

Re: Teachers

"Don" <> wrote in message
news:sHjBe.131298$
> "Ed" <> wrote in message
> news:
> > "Senate 1585 , sponsored by Sen. Steven Panagiotakos, would allow public
> > school teachers to credit toward their retirement benefits years spent
> > teaching in non-public schools after Jan. 1, 1973. (Earlier legislation
> > allows such buy-backs for non-public school teaching before 1973.)"
> >
> > Why? Why allow teachers to rob taxpayers?
>
> Teachers are vastly underpaid considering the importance of their job of
> educating the nation's youth. On the other hand, the brightest young
> students, male and female, have always been attracted to fields like
> medicine, law, engineering, science, etc., not public school teaching. So
> one could argue that the relatively low pay of teachers, compared to other
> professionals, reflects the more modest qualifications of people in the
> teaching field. The real question is whether or not it should be that way
> and stay that way. A good plan for the benefit of the nation in future
times
> would be to greatly increase the pay of teachers and at the same time
insist
> that teaching standards and qualifications increase.

Don:

That is the problem. We would get better teachers if we paid more but first
we would have to get rid of the teachers we already have.

Some talented young people DO go into teaching but it is hard to retain them
when only seniority leads to higher pay and they have to put up with the
dead wood already in the system.

What we need is a fair way to evaluate teachers and pay them according to
how much their students learn.

-herb
>
>

Re: OT: Teachers

Ed <> wrote:

> Teachers seem to forget that they are 100% funded by over-burdened
> taxpayers and taxes are getting way out of hand.

I personally think I'm getting a bargain for all the money I pay the
government in terms of the services I use. Heck, the National Park
system alone is worth it.

If I felt I was getting ripped off, or that it's totally unfair, I'd
find an environment where I wouldn't be anymore.

--Ram

Re: What did you think of my idea?

Ed wrote:
> About sick day abuse:
>
>
>>I think what needs to
>>be done is to have that sick teacher fund the cost of the substitute
>>teacher
>>unless they provide proof from a doctor or medical facility that their
>>illness was genuine.
>
Or bring a note from their parents :-)

Re: What did you think of my idea?

"larry moe 'n curly" <> wrote

> How often can teachers get summer jobs that pay nearly as much as their
> teaching positions?

My experience is that they don't want to work summers. Sure, some may be
forced to just to make ends meet.

> Also what does the average person with a
> bachelor's degree make in Boston?

Not even close to $138,044

Re: Teachers

"Don" <> wrote

> Teachers are vastly underpaid considering the importance of their job of
> educating the nation's youth.

I can't speak for every state but I think teachers here are doing well.

> A good plan for the benefit of the nation in future times would be to
> greatly increase the pay of teachers and at the same time insist that
> teaching standards and qualifications increase.

The only way such an increase would be justified is if teachers work full
time rather than 180 six hour days. If teachers salaries were doubled, who
would pay for it? Taxpayers are already strained.

Re: What did you think of my idea?

Ed <> wrote:

> About sick day abuse:

>> I think what needs to
>>be done is to have that sick teacher fund the cost of the substitute
>>teacher
>>unless they provide proof from a doctor or medical facility that their
>>illness was genuine.

This isn't a unreasonable request.

> I think it's doable and would work.
> Remember, if the sick day is legitimate then there would be no problem. If
> Lowell is hit with over $2 million each year for substitute teacher
> compensation, state wide the problem could be many tens of millions.

I'd rather focus first on the tens of billions being "wasted"
elsewhere, I guess.

> If you teach in Boston, the average pay is $69,022 for 180 days. A full time
> job would pay $138,044 at this rate.

> What is not fair about this pay?

That's 180 working days, which translates to about 9-10 months. At
least here, teachers do work significantly beyond the 40 hour workweek
(like many other salaried employees).

--Ram

Re: What did you think of my idea?

Ed wrote:
> "larry moe 'n curly" <> wrote

> If you teach in Boston, the average pay is $69,022 for 180 days

> > Also what does the average person with a
> > bachelor's degree make in Boston?
>
> Not even close to $138,044

How close to $69,022?

Re: OT: Teachers

Ed wrote:

> I think what needs to be done is to have that sick teacher
> fund the cost of the substitute teacher unless they provide
> proof from a doctor or medical facility that their illness
> was genuine.

Better yet, do what NYC does for handicapped parking: Have its own
doctors examine the people. Apparently that's why NYC has fewer than
10,000 handicapped plates, compared to 10-20 times that many in some
Florida communities that are much smaller, where the people can shop
for doctors to get notes.

Re: What did you think of my idea?

"larry moe 'n curly" <> wrote
>
> Ed wrote:
>> "larry moe 'n curly" <> wrote
>
>> If you teach in Boston, the average pay is $69,022 for 180 days
>
>> > Also what does the average person with a
>> > bachelor's degree make in Boston?
>>
>> Not even close to $138,044
>
> How close to $69,022?

I'm not sure I can find figures for part time workers. You are welcome to
try. I wouldn't be surprised to see the average income for full time workers
below $69,022. The average FAMILY income nationwide is less than $69,022

Re: OT: Teachers

"larry moe 'n curly" <> wrote in message
news:
>
>
> Ed wrote:
>
>> I think what needs to be done is to have that sick teacher
>> fund the cost of the substitute teacher unless they provide
>> proof from a doctor or medical facility that their illness
>> was genuine.
>
> Better yet, do what NYC does for handicapped parking: Have its own
> doctors examine the people. Apparently that's why NYC has fewer than
> 10,000 handicapped plates, compared to 10-20 times that many in some
> Florida communities that are much smaller, where the people can shop
> for doctors to get notes.

That would be a good idea except that the doctors would use up any savings
that an end to sick day abuse would produce.

Re: OT: Teachers

"pauper" <> wrote

> Ed...Thanks for the teacher bashing..I retired in 1995 after teaching for
> over
> 30 years & paying into SS every year...The teacher pay in many states so
> low the
> SS amounted to $700 monthly...this was supplemented by teacher retirement
> we
> paid into amounting to less than $500 monthly...

That's $1200/month. The average former full time worker gets $930/month.
You get about 24% more than the average retiree does.

> Have to work on various jobs to
> survive...What were you making yearly in 1981? Iwas making $12000 yearly.

To earn $12,000/year and pull off monthly checks of $1,200 is quite a feat.
You're getting $2,400 more now than when you worked. Don't you think that's
fair?

> No we do not get the summers "off"..we sign a 180 day contract & are
> unemployed
> during summers..we get 3 days per year paid vacation. Why don't you do
> some
> research & get your facts straight before bashing!

With facts like those I posted here, you have no argument. Where you work,
what you choose to do, how much you earn. These are all personal decisions
that were made by you. You could have moved to where the pay was more, you
could have chosen a profession that rewarded a college gradute more
favorably. Mom used to say, you made your bed now lie in it.

You are not the only person that had to work various other jobs to make ends
meet. It's quite common and I've done it myself.

Re: What did you think of my idea?

Ed wrote:
> About sick day abuse:
>
> > I think what needs to
> >be done is to have that sick teacher fund the cost of the substitute
> >teacher
> >unless they provide proof from a doctor or medical facility that their
> >illness was genuine.
>
> I think it's doable and would work.
> Remember, if the sick day is legitimate then there would be no problem. If
> Lowell is hit with over $2 million each year for substitute teacher
> compensation, state wide the problem could be many tens of millions.
>
> I don't know where you taught but read this:
>
>
> If you teach in Boston, the average pay is $69,022 for 180 days. A full time
> job would pay $138,044 at this rate.
>

How is that calculated? 180 days are working days, not counting
weekends and holidays. A full time job is not 360 days.

> What is not fair about this pay?

Re: What did you think of my idea?

"PeterL" <> wrote

>> If you teach in Boston, the average pay is $69,022 for 180 days. A full
>> time
>> job would pay $138,044 at this rate.
>>
>
> How is that calculated? 180 days are working days, not counting
> weekends and holidays. A full time job is not 360 days.

....and the 180 days are not 8 hour days. $69,022 is more than the median
*household* income in Massachusetts. A teacher in Boston gets that all by
himself.

Re: What did you think of my idea?

Ed wrote:
> "PeterL" <> wrote
>
> >> If you teach in Boston, the average pay is $69,022 for 180 days. A full
> >> time
> >> job would pay $138,044 at this rate.
> >>
> >
> > How is that calculated? 180 days are working days, not counting
> > weekends and holidays. A full time job is not 360 days.
>
> ...and the 180 days are not 8 hour days.

Sometimes it's more than 8 hours.

$69,022 is more than the median
> *household* income in Massachusetts. A teacher in Boston gets that all by
> himself.

Re: What did you think of my idea?

In article <>,
Ed <> wrote:
> ....and the 180 days are not 8 hour days. $69,022 is more than the median
> *household* income in Massachusetts. A teacher in Boston gets that all by
> himself.

What is the media household income in Boston? It only make sense
to do an apples to apples comparison. Compare Boston figures to Boston
figures, or Mass figures to Mass figures.

Re: What did you think of my idea?

"PeterL" <> wrote

> Sometimes it's more than 8 hours.

It doesn't have to be.

Re: What did you think of my idea?

"Greg Hennessy" <> wrote

> What is the media household income in Boston? It only make sense
> to do an apples to apples comparison. Compare Boston figures to Boston
> figures, or Mass figures to Mass figures.

You go find it for us. Look right next to FreeCare.

Re: Teachers

"Herb" <> wrote in message
news:nOlBe.418910$
>
> Don:
>
> That is the problem. We would get better teachers if we paid more but
> first
> we would have to get rid of the teachers we already have.
>
> Some talented young people DO go into teaching but it is hard to retain
> them
> when only seniority leads to higher pay and they have to put up with the
> dead wood already in the system.
>
> What we need is a fair way to evaluate teachers and pay them according to
> how much their students learn.
>
> -herb

It seems to me, Herb, that this is a chicken-and-egg problem. We need better
teachers, and to get them we need to pay higher salaries. But it would not
accomplish much to just suddenly throw more money at dead wood in existing
programs and hope something will improve in the future. Maybe a plan that
provides that, say, in 5 years hence, teacher's salaries will increase
rapidly, say at 25% a year until they are double what they are now. That
degree of remuneration might attract the current generation of students now
in college to consider teaching. But they would have to realize that, just
as nowadays not everyone can get accepted in medical school, so also in the
future you would have to have high qualifications to get into teaching.

Re: Teachers

"Ed" <> wrote in message
news:

> The only way such an increase would be justified is if teachers work full
> time rather than 180 six hour days. If teachers salaries were doubled, who
> would pay for it? Taxpayers are already strained.

Perhaps it is true that present day teachers are paid what they deserve for
the work they do, or reasonably close to it. But I think the focus should be
on qualifications rather than the number of hours worked. I would not be
averse to seeing well-qualified, excellent teachers get paid for 180 six
hour days and have long summer vacations, especially if a portion of those
vacations were devoted to further learning and upgrading of qualifications.
The money is there when you look hard enough. After the war in Iraq is over,
lets pretend it is still on but divert all the money that has been spent
there over the past few years to teacher's salaries. Well, maybe that would
work and maybe it wouldn't.

Re: Teachers

"Don" <> wrote

> The money is there when you look hard enough. After the war in Iraq is
> over, lets pretend it is still on but divert all the money that has been
> spent there over the past few years to teacher's salaries. Well, maybe
> that would work and maybe it wouldn't.

The money for Iraq isn't there, no matter how hard you look. It's on Uncle's
credit card. In reality, most of the funding comes from the state and the
city or town you live in. RE taxes are soaring and the biggest chunk of that
money goes to public education. You are right though, why would a talented
young graduate want to teach in the public school system? The private sector
is far too lucrative to ignore.

Re: What did you think of my idea?

In article <>,
Ed <> wrote:
> > What is the media household income in Boston? It only make sense
> > to do an apples to apples comparison. Compare Boston figures to Boston
> > figures, or Mass figures to Mass figures.
>
> You go find it for us. Look right next to FreeCare.

I'm not the one making comparisons.

Re: Teachers

"Don" <> wrote in message
news:1MBBe.108379$
> It seems to me, Herb, that this is a chicken-and-egg problem. We need
better
> teachers, and to get them we need to pay higher salaries. But it would not
> accomplish much to just suddenly throw more money at dead wood in existing
> programs and hope something will improve in the future. Maybe a plan that
> provides that, say, in 5 years hence, teacher's salaries will increase
> rapidly, say at 25% a year until they are double what they are now. That
> degree of remuneration might attract the current generation of students
now
> in college to consider teaching. But they would have to realize that, just
> as nowadays not everyone can get accepted in medical school, so also in
the
> future you would have to have high qualifications to get into teaching.

I think that would just keep a lot of bad teachers from taking early
retirement. I don't know what the answer is. Between the unions and the
local politicians that run the current system it is hard to effect any
change. Here in Massachusetts, the state is trying to step in and impose
standards but they're doing a half-assed job and are meeting a lot of
resistance from teachers and parents.

The fact that so many teachers are retiring should be an opportunity to
bring in new blood.

-herb

Re: What did you think of my idea?

"Greg Hennessy" <> wrote

> Ed <> wrote:
>> > What is the media household income in Boston? It only make sense
>> > to do an apples to apples comparison. Compare Boston figures to Boston
>> > figures, or Mass figures to Mass figures.
>>
>> You go find it for us. Look right next to FreeCare.
>
> I'm not the one making comparisons.

If you don't want to participate then don't.

Re: Teachers

"Herb" <> wrote
> "Don" <> wrote
> > Teachers are vastly underpaid considering the importance of their job of
> > educating the nation's youth. On the other hand, the brightest young
> > students, male and female, have always been attracted to fields like
> > medicine, law, engineering, science, etc., not public school teaching.
So
> > one could argue that the relatively low pay of teachers, compared to
other
> > professionals, reflects the more modest qualifications of people in the
> > teaching field.

Since these same teachers are overwhelmingly educating and graduating these
students who are attracted to and then succeed in medicine, law,
engineering, etc., I challenge your premise that their qualifications are
"modest."

The problems in the public schools overwhelmingly belong to those in the
inner cities and some rural areas, where lack of parental involvement (due
to generational poverty) precludes so many kids' success, regardless of how
talented the teacher is.

snip
> What we need is a fair way to evaluate teachers and pay them according to
> how much their students learn.

You reject tests as any kind of fair measure of what students know. Have you
any idea of the form such a "fair way to evaluate teachers" would take?

Re: Teachers

"Elle" <> wrote in message
news:1uRBe.8356$

> You reject tests as any kind of fair measure of what students know. Have
you
> any idea of the form such a "fair way to evaluate teachers" would take?

First of all, I don't reject ANY test, I reject the SAT which is supposed to
measure a certain kind of aptitude (not achievement). It is becoming
increasingly clear that it is not a good predictor of success (graduation
within 6 years) in college. For students not going on to college, I don't
know what it measures.

I, admittedly reluctantly, support the MCAS being used in Massachusetts, not
because I think it is a good standard but because I think any standard is
better than none. We, as taxpayers, have a right to set some minimum as to
what a student should know before receiving a diploma. Try to tell that,
though, to the parents of students who fail.

It seems a no-brainer to me that students who are supposed to have learned
how to read and write should submit a significant research paper to
demonstrate these abilities before having them certified by the school
board. These would have to be evaluated, independently of the authorities
whose success or failure depend on how many students are passed.

I think you are onto something about the special problems of low-income,
inner-city schools but I fear you are ignoring a vast sea of mediocrity in
the suburbs and exurbs. Personally, I think we need to go back to viewing a
high school diploma as a rare honor won only through hard work and not a
birthright to those whose parents are willing to pressure local officials to
grant them to everyone.

-herb

Re: Teachers

"Herb" <> wrote

> I think we need to go back to viewing a
> high school diploma as a rare honor won only through hard work and not a
> birthright to those whose parents are willing to pressure local officials
> to
> grant them to everyone.

I really hope they don't become rare but I know what you mean.

Re: Teachers

"Elle" <> wrote in message
news:1uRBe.8356$

> Since these same teachers are overwhelmingly educating and graduating
> these
> students who are attracted to and then succeed in medicine, law,
> engineering, etc., I challenge your premise that their qualifications are
> "modest."

I have no data to back it up, but I would bet my bottom dollar that the mean
SAT scores of university students majoring in medicine, law, and engineering
are higher than those of students majoring in education. If you don't like
the SAT, substitute any intelligence test or general aptitude test, and I
would make the same prediction. Many present day teachers have indeed
contributed positively to education in medicine, law, engineering, etc., but
I would venture a wild guess that relatively fewer teachers would themselves
be successful in those professions.

Re: Teachers

"Herb" <> wrote
> "Elle" <> wrote
> > You reject tests as any kind of fair measure of what students know. Have
> you
> > any idea of the form such a "fair way to evaluate teachers" would take?
>
> First of all, I don't reject ANY test, I reject the SAT which is supposed
to
> measure a certain kind of aptitude (not achievement).

This contrasts with your earlier statements.

I'll take it as an amendment.

My question above stands, though: What is a fair way to evaluate teachers?

> It is becoming
> increasingly clear that it is not a good predictor of success (graduation
> within 6 years) in college.

It correlates well with first year GPA.

> For students not going on to college, I don't
> know what it measures.
>
> I, admittedly reluctantly, support the MCAS being used in Massachusetts,
not
> because I think it is a good standard but because I think any standard is
> better than none. We, as taxpayers, have a right to set some minimum as
to
> what a student should know before receiving a diploma. Try to tell that,
> though, to the parents of students who fail.
>
> It seems a no-brainer to me that students who are supposed to have learned
> how to read and write should submit a significant research paper to
> demonstrate these abilities before having them certified by the school
> board.

Huh. Well, I make a distinction between reading, writing, and research
skills.

> These would have to be evaluated, independently of the authorities
> whose success or failure depend on how many students are passed.
>
> I think you are onto something about the special problems of low-income,
> inner-city schools but I fear you are ignoring a vast sea of mediocrity in
> the suburbs and exurbs.

As measured by... ?

> Personally, I think we need to go back to viewing a
> high school diploma as a rare honor won only through hard work and not a
> birthright to those whose parents are willing to pressure local officials
to
> grant them to everyone.

I believe associates, bachelor's, and even PhD degrees have become as
cheapened.

One point that is being ignored here is that a much greater percentage of
the population surely goes to high school (and college) compared to fifty
years ago. That is actually a sign of progress, for the most part, IMO.

Re: Teachers

Don wrote:
> "Elle" <> wrote in message
> news:1uRBe.8356$
>
> > Since these same teachers are overwhelmingly educating and graduating
> > these
> > students who are attracted to and then succeed in medicine, law,
> > engineering, etc., I challenge your premise that their qualifications are
> > "modest."
>
> I have no data to back it up, but I would bet my bottom dollar that the mean
> SAT scores of university students majoring in medicine, law, and engineering
> are higher than those of students majoring in education. If you don't like
> the SAT, substitute any intelligence test or general aptitude test, and I
> would make the same prediction. Many present day teachers have indeed
> contributed positively to education in medicine, law, engineering, etc., but
> I would venture a wild guess that relatively fewer teachers would themselves
> be successful in those professions.

I would guess you are right. But why would a high achieving student
want to go into the teaching profession? The pay is much higher for
doctors, lawyers, engineers (and financial types). Besides, no one
rags on those people here on MIMF for making too much money and not
working enough. Teachers get to make $50,000 a year and still get it
from all sides. Have you seen a post here on mimf saying my doctor is
making too much money?

If we want better teachers, we'd better pay them more and provide them
with the tools to succeed.

Re: Teachers

"Don" <> wrote
> "Elle" <> wrote
> > Since these same teachers are overwhelmingly educating and graduating
> > these
> > students who are attracted to and then succeed in medicine, law,
> > engineering, etc., I challenge your premise that their qualifications
are
> > "modest."
>
> I have no data to back it up, but I would bet my bottom dollar that the
mean
> SAT scores of university students majoring in medicine, law, and
engineering
> are higher than those of students majoring in education.

No need to bet. I am sure this is so.

> If you don't like
> the SAT, substitute any intelligence test or general aptitude test, and I
> would make the same prediction. Many present day teachers have indeed
> contributed positively to education in medicine, law, engineering, etc.,
but
> I would venture a wild guess that relatively fewer teachers would
themselves
> be successful in those professions.

But then isn't it fair to point out how awful the typical doctor, lawyer, or
engineer would be as a teacher?

Their skills lie not simply in how much raw knowledge of subject material
they possess. Instead, they lie in ability to inspire others to study hard;
compel a class effort (demanding the teaching of listening to others, for
example); communications; HONESTY within their jobs. I believe the latter
is particularly lacking in the other professions today. Consider the
scientists of the NIH who yesterday were found to have behaved criminally
(IIRC; someone can google) with their conflicts of interest. These are folks
who are massively educated and must have been high test performers. They do
not serve society, though. I think they become corrupt starting in college,
or courtesy of their professional parents.

Couldn't we extend your argument to the art of mothering (or parenting, if
you prefer)? Aren't there some very low testing parents out there who
nonetheless nurture their children with so much love and moral support that
they are far more effective than a prep school mom with two graduate
degrees, pushing her son into depression, a lack of imagination and so life
failure?

Re: Teachers

"Elle" <> wrote in message
news:9YSBe.3955$
> "Herb" <> wrote
> > First of all, I don't reject ANY test, I reject the SAT which
> > is supposed to measure a certain kind of aptitude (not
> > achievement).

(Above included so that one can see that "it" in writing below refers to
"the SAT.)

> [...]
> > It is becoming increasingly clear
> > that it is not a good predictor of success (graduation
> > within 6 years) in college.
>
> It correlates well with first year GPA.

The coefficient of determination between SAT scores and first year GPA is
10%-20% according to ABC news, and even according to the College Board, is
only 22%.

Correlates well? I don't know about you, but if I saw a mutual fund with an
R^2 in the teens, I would regard it as a great diversifier (i.e.
significantly UNcorrelated with the market).

--
Mark Freeland

Re: Teachers

"Mark Freeland" <> wrote
E wrote
> > [The SAT] correlates well with first year GPA.
>
> The coefficient of determination between SAT scores and first year GPA is
> 10%-20% according to ABC news, and even according to the College Board, is
> only 22%.
>
> Correlates well?

You have zero experience in educational statistics, don't you?

The reason the SAT is still given significant weight as a college admissions
criterion is because its predictive validity is so high. In fact, it's about
as good as high school GPA for predicting first year college GPA, with each
having a correlation coefficient r of around 0.35 to 0.4. When both SAT and
HSGPA are used together to predict first year college GPA, the correlation
coefficient is about 0.5 to 0.7, depending on how one slices it.

No other predictor has proven notably better. Most are worse.

snip irrelevant drivel; mutual fund diversification and educational
predictors are not related. You're way out of your league. Again. You can
complain about the meaning of "correlates well," but only after you indicate
your education research credentials.

Re: Teachers

"Elle" <> wrote

> I believe associates, bachelor's, and even PhD degrees have become as
> cheapened.

I think it's because people, even here in the group, lie about having them.

Re: Teachers

"PeterL" <> wrote >

> Have you seen a post here on mimf saying my doctor is
> making too much money?

Mine is. He is the worst doctor I've ever had. I have tried to replace him
but they all seem to be about the same. Really sad.

> If we want better teachers, we'd better pay them more and provide them
> with the tools to succeed.

Problem here is that when the school budgets are increased the teachers take
it all in benefits and pay increases, nothing left for tools. Why do they do
that? "It's for the kids".

Re: Teachers

Elle, you are even dumber than my doctor. Will you get it right, ever?
It seems that everyone that you get into serious debate with puts you right
in your place. You would think you'd learn. A fake PhD won't help you here.

I think you'd do better at alt.disneyworld discussing your favorite ride or
restaurant.


"Elle" <> wrote

Nonsense deleted....

Re: Teachers

"Elle" <> wrote

> snip irrelevant drivel

If I did that I'd have to put you in my 'block sender' folder. I won't
because you are always good for a laugh.

Re: Teachers

"Elle" <> wrote in message
news:v4TBe.3961$
>
> But then isn't it fair to point out how awful the typical doctor, lawyer,
> or
> engineer would be as a teacher?

As of today, yes, I would agree. But if those bright students who became
doctors, etc. had originally chosen to go into teaching and gone through the
training, I suspect a lot of them, if not most, would have turned out to be
good teachers.


> Their skills lie not simply in how much raw knowledge of subject material
> they possess. Instead, they lie in ability to inspire others to study
> hard;
> compel a class effort (demanding the teaching of listening to others, for
> example); communications; HONESTY within their jobs. I believe the latter
> is particularly lacking in the other professions today.

Consider the
> scientists of the NIH who yesterday were found to have behaved criminally
> (IIRC; someone can google) with their conflicts of interest. These are
> folks
> who are massively educated and must have been high test performers. They
> do
> not serve society, though. I think they become corrupt starting in
> college,
> or courtesy of their professional parents.
>
> Couldn't we extend your argument to the art of mothering (or parenting, if
> you prefer)? Aren't there some very low testing parents out there who
> nonetheless nurture their children with so much love and moral support
> that
> they are far more effective than a prep school mom with two graduate
> degrees, pushing her son into depression, a lack of imagination and so
> life
> failure?

I am inclined to believe that most of the intellectual abilities needed for
success in any profession that requires advanced training and superior skill
and decision making are common to many professions, you are looking at
medicine, teaching, or managing a mutual fund. I think the crux of the
matter is what several other people have mentioned: If we pay teachers good
salaries, we will get good teachers. Bright students who have the ability to
more or less do anything they choose elect certain fields because the pay
and prestige are superior.

Re: Teachers

"Elle" <> wrote in message
news:9YSBe.3955$
> "Herb" <> wrote
> > "Elle" <> wrote
> > > You reject tests as any kind of fair measure of what students know.
Have
> > you
> > > any idea of the form such a "fair way to evaluate teachers" would
take?
> >
> > First of all, I don't reject ANY test, I reject the SAT which is
supposed
> to
> > measure a certain kind of aptitude (not achievement).
>
> This contrasts with your earlier statements.

Perhaps it contrasts with your perception of my earlier statements.
>
> I'll take it as an amendment.

I still don't think a multiple-choice trivia test is enough.

>
> My question above stands, though: What is a fair way to evaluate teachers?

We know what good teaching is and we know it when we see it. Why is it so
difficult to tell who is practicing it?

>
> > It is becoming
> > increasingly clear that it is not a good predictor of success
(graduation
> > within 6 years) in college.
>
> It correlates well with first year GPA.

Do you have a citation for this? I have heard the opposite view from
supporters of Affirmative Action.

>
> > For students not going on to college, I don't
> > know what it measures.
> >
> > I, admittedly reluctantly, support the MCAS being used in Massachusetts,
> not
> > because I think it is a good standard but because I think any standard
is
> > better than none. We, as taxpayers, have a right to set some minimum as
> to
> > what a student should know before receiving a diploma. Try to tell
that,
> > though, to the parents of students who fail.
> >
> > It seems a no-brainer to me that students who are supposed to have
learned
> > how to read and write should submit a significant research paper to
> > demonstrate these abilities before having them certified by the school
> > board.
>
> Huh. Well, I make a distinction between reading, writing, and research
> skills.

But do you doubt that these are skills that should be obtained before
attending college?

>
> > These would have to be evaluated, independently of the authorities
> > whose success or failure depend on how many students are passed.
> >
> > I think you are onto something about the special problems of low-income,
> > inner-city schools but I fear you are ignoring a vast sea of mediocrity
in
> > the suburbs and exurbs.
>
> As measured by... ?

Again with the measures. ;-) Talk to some honors students at your local
high school.

>
> > Personally, I think we need to go back to viewing a
> > high school diploma as a rare honor won only through hard work and not a
> > birthright to those whose parents are willing to pressure local
officials
> to
> > grant them to everyone.
>
> I believe associates, bachelor's, and even PhD degrees have become as
> cheapened.

I believe you are right. Did you see the PBS program, Death by Degrees?
They made it clear that at most schools, a student can coast, doing little
or no reading, never writing a paper and never answering an essay question
but still ending up with a degree.

>
> One point that is being ignored here is that a much greater percentage of
> the population surely goes to high school (and college) compared to fifty
> years ago. That is actually a sign of progress, for the most part, IMO.

Perhaps that is because you are not paying upwards of $40,000 a year for
some kid to play beer pong for four years.

Re: Teachers

"PeterL" <> wrote in message
news:

> I would guess you are right. But why would a high achieving student
> want to go into the teaching profession? The pay is much higher for
> doctors, lawyers, engineers (and financial types). Besides, no one
> rags on those people here on MIMF for making too much money and not
> working enough. Teachers get to make $50,000 a year and still get it
> from all sides. Have you seen a post here on mimf saying my doctor is
> making too much money?
>
> If we want better teachers, we'd better pay them more and provide them
> with the tools to succeed.

Agreed. I would suspect that the salary is one of the main factors that
attracts bright young students into one profession rather than another. It
is true that no one rags on doctors, although it looks like the public is
beginning to question the outlandish salaries paid to CEOs, baseball
players, and rock stars. I think the job of teachers is every bit as
important as that of business executives and more important than that of
entertainers.

Re: Teachers

"Elle" <> wrote in message
news:EjUBe.3989$
> "Mark Freeland" <> wrote
> E wrote
> > > [The SAT] correlates well with first year GPA.
> >
> > The coefficient of determination between SAT scores and first year GPA
is
> > 10%-20% according to ABC news, and even according to the College Board,
is
> > only 22%.
> >
> > Correlates well?
>
> You have zero experience in educational statistics, don't you?

And yours is...?

>
> The reason the SAT is still given significant weight as a college
admissions
> criterion is because its predictive validity is so high. In fact, it's
about
> as good as high school GPA for predicting first year college GPA, with
each
> having a correlation coefficient r of around 0.35 to 0.4. When both SAT
and
> HSGPA are used together to predict first year college GPA, the correlation
> coefficient is about 0.5 to 0.7, depending on how one slices it.

Slice it by race. My understanding is that it correlates better within
races than between them.

You just slip GPA in there as if it is some kind of objective measure. Very
few college professors are in the habit of granting Ds or Fs. As long as
the SAT is used to determine who gets in and as long grade inflation
continues, that correlation is going to get higher. I'm sure you know that
correlation is not causation.

I thought the current trend was for schools not to reqire the SAT favoring
more qualitative evaluation like essays.

>
> No other predictor has proven notably better. Most are worse.

There is a resounding endorsement. ;-)
>
>[snip ad hominem attack]
>
>

Re: Teachers

"Elle" <> wrote in message
news:EjUBe.3989$
> You have zero experience in educational statistics, don't you?

Relevance? Never mind. FWIW, I've done statistical analyses for a "major
university" (thus dispelling your innuendo). That background as well as
other experience, however, is just as irrelevant as your question.

> The reason the SAT is still given significant weight as a college
> admissions criterion is because its predictive validity is so high.

Not in isolation (according to your own statistics, below), which was your
original statement: "[The SAT] correlates well with first year GPA."

> In fact, it's about as good as high school GPA for predicting first
> year college GPA, with each having a correlation coefficient r of
> around 0.35 to 0.4.

That is, predictive ability (R^2) of around 15%. As I wrote already, noting
that this is exactly what ABC News reported.

> When both SAT and HSGPA are used together to predict first
> year college GPA, the correlation coefficient is about 0.5 to 0.7,
>depending on how one slices it.
>
> No other predictor has proven notably better. Most are worse.

Granting your statement, it says nothing about the SAT score correlating
well with FYGPA (i.e. being a good predictor in and of itself without other
factors, as you claimed); it only says it is less bad than others. That
doesn't make it good.

Why not simply acknowledge that you overstated your case - that the SAT is a
better predictor of first year GPA than other metrics? Instead, you seem
adamant on holding to your position that it is a good predictor (correlates
well).

> snip irrelevant drivel; mutual fund diversification and educational
> predictors are not related.

Predictive ability is a mathematical concept that exists independent of
subject domain. What leads you to believe that a number that represents
minimal predictive ability in one domain represents wonderful (or at least
"good", to use your word) predictive ability in another?

>You're way out of your league. Again. You can
> complain about the meaning of "correlates well," but only after you
> indicate your education research credentials.

Right. Ad hominem, as usual.
--
Mark Freeland

Re: Teachers

What does it take to be a good teacher?
Personality. It can't be taught in teachers college. You have it or you
don't.

Why is it that some (few) teachers had the respect of all the students while
others had none?
Personality. It can't be taught in teachers college. You have it or you
don't.







"Don" <> wrote in message
news:fGUBe.132204$
> "Elle" <> wrote in message
> news:v4TBe.3961$
>>
>> But then isn't it fair to point out how awful the typical doctor, lawyer,
>> or
>> engineer would be as a teacher?
>
> As of today, yes, I would agree. But if those bright students who became
> doctors, etc. had originally chosen to go into teaching and gone through
> the training, I suspect a lot of them, if not most, would have turned out
> to be good teachers.
>
>
>> Their skills lie not simply in how much raw knowledge of subject material
>> they possess. Instead, they lie in ability to inspire others to study
>> hard;
>> compel a class effort (demanding the teaching of listening to others, for
>> example); communications; HONESTY within their jobs. I believe the
>> latter
>> is particularly lacking in the other professions today.
>
> Consider the
>> scientists of the NIH who yesterday were found to have behaved criminally
>> (IIRC; someone can google) with their conflicts of interest. These are
>> folks
>> who are massively educated and must have been high test performers. They
>> do
>> not serve society, though. I think they become corrupt starting in
>> college,
>> or courtesy of their professional parents.
>>
>> Couldn't we extend your argument to the art of mothering (or parenting,
>> if
>> you prefer)? Aren't there some very low testing parents out there who
>> nonetheless nurture their children with so much love and moral support
>> that
>> they are far more effective than a prep school mom with two graduate
>> degrees, pushing her son into depression, a lack of imagination and so
>> life
>> failure?
>
> I am inclined to believe that most of the intellectual abilities needed
> for success in any profession that requires advanced training and superior
> skill and decision making are common to many professions, you are looking
> at medicine, teaching, or managing a mutual fund. I think the crux of the
> matter is what several other people have mentioned: If we pay teachers
> good salaries, we will get good teachers. Bright students who have the
> ability to more or less do anything they choose elect certain fields
> because the pay and prestige are superior.
>

Re: Teachers

Herb <> wrote:

> I believe you are right. Did you see the PBS program, Death by
> Degrees? They made it clear that at most schools, a student can
> coast, doing little or no reading, never writing a paper and never
> answering an essay question but still ending up with a degree.

Let me guess: math degrees?

(:

As someone who mentors students that are in high school to post-docs, I
have this to say: classroom teaching is mostly a waste. I view high
school, and undergraduate college (and perhaps even graduate school)
as a place for social learning. I believe only in the mentor/mentee
model for intellectual learning.

And I think the only teachers who are good are those who instill a
love of permanent learning in their students. It doesn't matter if the
student do well in exams, standardised tests, etc. If they love to
learn, then the teacher has succeeded.

Finally, I don't think there is any "crisis" here with regards to
teaching per se. I think the problem is in general with societies in
general that have different values (money, power, etc.) that are not
necessarily consistent with open-minded inquiry and learning.

--Ram

Re: Teachers

PeterL <> wrote:

> I would guess you are right. But why would a high achieving student
> want to go into the teaching profession? The pay is much higher for
> doctors, lawyers, engineers (and financial types).

Well, not everyone is solely motivated by money. Besides doing cutting
edge science, an attraction of what I do which involves mentoring
students (again, ranging from high school to postdoctoral students) is
being able to influence/shape/mold brilliant minds (and have them
influence my own learning and growth). I'd not trade it for a job that
paid a million dollars a year within a company.

--Ram

Re: Teachers

"Don" <> wrote
> "Elle" <> wrote
> > But then isn't it fair to point out how awful the typical doctor,
lawyer,
> > or
> > engineer would be as a teacher?
>
> As of today, yes, I would agree. But if those bright students who became
> doctors, etc. had originally chosen to go into teaching and gone through
the
> training, I suspect a lot of them, if not most, would have turned out to
be
> good teachers.

Your opinion is duly noted.

snip
> If we pay teachers good salaries, we will get good teachers.

I didn't address this before. Just my opinion, but I think public school
teachers are paid pretty well and have great benefits, to boot. My evidence?
The fact that so many move to private schools, where the pay is lower and
the bennies are less, but the classes are smaller; parental involvement is
higher; and they can actually teach instead of control crowds.

Public school teachers, particularly those in environments where poverty is
high, don't want more money. They want more rest.

Re: Teachers

"Mark Freeland" <> wrote
> "Elle" <> wrote
> > You have zero experience in educational statistics, don't you?
>
> Relevance?

To encourage you to read more.

> > The reason the SAT is still given significant weight as a college
> > admissions criterion is because its predictive validity is so high.
>
> Not in isolation (according to your own statistics, below), which was your
> original statement: "[The SAT] correlates well with first year GPA."

It does, and with high statistical significance.

That's a simple fact.

What you're bitching about is the meaning of "correlates well."

Whatever.

Re: Teachers

"Herb" <> wrote
> "Elle" <> wrote
> > "Mark Freeland" <> wrote
> > E wrote
> > > > [The SAT] correlates well with first year GPA.
> > >
> > > The coefficient of determination between SAT scores and first year GPA
> is
> > > 10%-20% according to ABC news, and even according to the College
Board,
> is
> > > only 22%.
> > >
> > > Correlates well?
> >
> > You have zero experience in educational statistics, don't you?
>
> And yours is...?

Extensive, particularly in the area of gender differences in education. I am
in the midst of a (newer) legal case as we speak that involves some
invocation of such statistics.

> > The reason the SAT is still given significant weight as a college
> admissions
> > criterion is because its predictive validity is so high. In fact, it's
> about
> > as good as high school GPA for predicting first year college GPA, with
> each
> > having a correlation coefficient r of around 0.35 to 0.4. When both SAT
> and
> > HSGPA are used together to predict first year college GPA, the
correlation
> > coefficient is about 0.5 to 0.7, depending on how one slices it.
>
> Slice it by race. My understanding is that it correlates better within
> races than between them.
>
> You just slip GPA in there as if it is some kind of objective measure.
Very
> few college professors are in the habit of granting Ds or Fs. As long as
> the SAT is used to determine who gets in and as long grade inflation
> continues, that correlation is going to get higher. I'm sure you know
that
> correlation is not causation.

If you would google on this subject you will find that the correlation
coefficients I noted have in fact been adjusted for self-selection.

But again, I'm done doing your homework for you.

> I thought the current trend was for schools not to reqire the SAT favoring
> more qualitative evaluation like essays.

Why don't you google and see whether I'm wrong?

I believe the overwhelming majority of colleges continue to require the ACT
or SAT for their applicants.

> > No other predictor has proven notably better. Most are worse.
>
> There is a resounding endorsement. ;-)

Sure. Exactly like your endorsement of finding a way to evaluate teachers.

> >[snip ad hominem attack]

But for your embarrassing comments about engineers, this would have meaning.

Re: Teachers

"Herb" <> wrote in message
news:kOUBe.424305$
>
> "Elle" <> wrote in message
> news:9YSBe.3955$
> > "Herb" <> wrote
> > > "Elle" <> wrote
> > > > You reject tests as any kind of fair measure of what students know.
> Have
> > > you
> > > > any idea of the form such a "fair way to evaluate teachers" would
> take?
> > >
> > > First of all, I don't reject ANY test, I reject the SAT which is
> supposed
> > to
> > > measure a certain kind of aptitude (not achievement).
> >
> > This contrasts with your earlier statements.
>
> Perhaps it contrasts with your perception of my earlier statements.
> >
> > I'll take it as an amendment.
>
> I still don't think a multiple-choice trivia test is enough.

That's true; it's not. But with high school GPA, it's about as good as it
gets.

Ya know these institutions have to have _some_ objective measure. (Set aside
the fact you think the fact that you think the SAT is not objective. But you
think no test is objective... ) They have to have some objective measure to
justify turning away applicants.

You still haven't proposed a better plan that is realizable.

> > My question above stands, though: What is a fair way to evaluate
teachers?
>
> We know what good teaching is and we know it when we see it.

lol

Tell this to the poor schmo who was just told by her principal that this is
the justification for her being let go.


Why is it so
> difficult to tell who is practicing it?
>
> >
> > > It is becoming
> > > increasingly clear that it is not a good predictor of success
> (graduation
> > > within 6 years) in college.
> >
> > It correlates well with first year GPA.
>
> Do you have a citation for this? I have heard the opposite view from
> supporters of Affirmative Action.

Oh I'd give you the one I pulled up, with great pain, from the College Board
site today, but this does you a disservice. (The College Board site search
engine sucks eggs, so have fun. I was recollecting from several years ago,
originally, then pulled up more recent numbers, which are similar to the
ones I recall from several years ago.)

> > I believe associates, bachelor's, and even PhD degrees have become as
> > cheapened.
>
> I believe you are right. Did you see the PBS program, Death by Degrees?
> They made it clear that at most schools, a student can coast, doing little
> or no reading, never writing a paper and never answering an essay question
> but still ending up with a degree.

It would be depressing if one spent too much time thinking about it.


> > One point that is being ignored here is that a much greater percentage
of
> > the population surely goes to high school (and college) compared to
fifty
> > years ago. That is actually a sign of progress, for the most part, IMO.
>
> Perhaps that is because you are not paying upwards of $40,000 a year for
> some kid to play beer pong for four years.

lol

But that's the parents' fault, isn't it?

Re: Teachers

"Ram Samudrala" <> wrote
snip
> Well, not everyone is solely motivated by money. Besides doing cutting
> edge science, an attraction of what I do which involves mentoring
> students (again, ranging from high school to postdoctoral students) is
> being able to influence/shape/mold brilliant minds (and have them
> influence my own learning and growth). I'd not trade it for a job that
> paid a million dollars a year within a company.

Indeed, because then you might not be able to post to Usenet so
profligately.

Imagine how many more minds could be shaped if you'd quit playing on the
internet.

Re: Teachers

Ram Samudrala wrote:
> PeterL <> wrote:
>
> > I would guess you are right. But why would a high achieving student
> > want to go into the teaching profession? The pay is much higher for
> > doctors, lawyers, engineers (and financial types).
>
> Well, not everyone is solely motivated by money.

Not everyone is, but most people are.


Besides doing cutting
> edge science, an attraction of what I do which involves mentoring
> students (again, ranging from high school to postdoctoral students) is
> being able to influence/shape/mold brilliant minds (and have them
> influence my own learning and growth). I'd not trade it for a job that
> paid a million dollars a year within a company.
>

Lots of people would. That's the point.

> --Ram

Re: Teachers

"Elle" <> wrote in message
news:IQXBe.8494$
>
> "Herb" <> wrote in message
> news:kOUBe.424305$
> >
> > > It correlates well with first year GPA.
> >
> > Do you have a citation for this? I have heard the opposite
> > view from supporters of Affirmative Action.
>
> Oh I'd give you the one I pulled up, with great pain, from the
>College Board site today, but this does you a disservice.

Herb, here's a start from the College Board site:


You might start with Table 1, that shows a correlation coefficient (r)even
worse than I had been stating - ~0.3, meaning that the predictive ability
(R^2) of the SAT by itself is only about 10%.

Whether this is the one Elle "endured" such "great pain" to locate or not, I
don't know. It's easy enough to find other docs on the site.

--
Mark Freeland

Re: Teachers

"Ed" <> wrote in message
news:
> What does it take to be a good teacher?
> Personality. It can't be taught in teachers college. You have it or you
> don't.
>
> Why is it that some (few) teachers had the respect of all the students
> while others had none?
> Personality. It can't be taught in teachers college. You have it or you
> don't.

I would say "personality" is valuable if combined with qualities such as
technical expertise, knowledge of the subject, technical competence,
perseverance, ability to motivate students to become interested, etc.

Re: Teachers

"Mark Freeland" <> wrote
snip
> You might start with Table 1, that shows a correlation coefficient (r)even
> worse than I had been stating - ~0.3, meaning that the predictive ability
> (R^2) of the SAT by itself is only about 10%.

What's really horrible is that you can't even read a table. Or you're so
stupid that you thought people wouldn't distinguish between r = 0.3 and
0.35, with a sample size of over 45,000, meaning this difference is
meaningful.

SAT r = 0.35, unadjusted
HSGPA r = 0.36, unadjusted

And quit trying to mislead people by expressing r^2 as a percentage.

> Whether this is the one Elle "endured" such "great pain" to locate or not,
I
> don't know.

Nope, babe. Try again.

Adjusting for restriction in range, criterion unreliability, and course
grading, the r's are as follows:

SAT r = .65
HSGPA r = .69
SAT + HSGPA r = .76

> It's easy enough to find other docs on the site.

If it were, you would have cited them to begin with.

You should now write most every college in the country and tell them to stop
using that useless SAT in their student admissions process. You really think
you're smarter than college admissions staffs nationwide?

Re: Teachers

Elle <> wrote:

> "Ram Samudrala" <> wrote
> snip
>> Well, not everyone is solely motivated by money. Besides doing cutting
>> edge science, an attraction of what I do which involves mentoring
>> students (again, ranging from high school to postdoctoral students) is
>> being able to influence/shape/mold brilliant minds (and have them
>> influence my own learning and growth). I'd not trade it for a job that
>> paid a million dollars a year within a company.

> Indeed, because then you might not be able to post to Usenet so
> profligately.

> Imagine how many more minds could be shaped if you'd quit playing on
> the internet.

Part of me "playing on the Internet" is what makes me a brilliant
scientist and mentor. A lot of our group meetings and after group
discussions and arguments put USENET flame wars to shame. I actively
encourage my students to engage in discussions (of any kind) over the
Internet.

--Ram

Re: Teachers

PeterL <> wrote:

> Lots of people would. That's the point.

I would question whether such people could teach effectively, if their
primary motivation is not teaching and rather earning a bigger
salary.

--Ram

Re: Teachers

"Elle" <> wrote in message
news:7DXBe.8486$

> I didn't address this before. Just my opinion, but I think public school
> teachers are paid pretty well and have great benefits, to boot. My
> evidence?
> The fact that so many move to private schools, where the pay is lower and
> the bennies are less, but the classes are smaller; parental involvement is
> higher; and they can actually teach instead of control crowds.
>
> Public school teachers, particularly those in environments where poverty
> is
> high, don't want more money. They want more rest.

And they should have it. I think they should have both more pay and more
benefits. But I would still like to see more of the cream of the crop of
youth become public school teachers in the lower grades, and the only way
that will ever happen is if pay and benefits increase.

Re: Teachers

"Ram Samudrala" <> wrote
e wrote
snip
> > Indeed, because then you might not be able to post to Usenet so
> > profligately.
>
> > Imagine how many more minds could be shaped if you'd quit playing on
> > the internet.
>
> Part of me "playing on the Internet" is what makes me a brilliant
> scientist and mentor.

It's made you a brilliant rationalizer of unethical and possibly illegal
behavior.

Re: Teachers

"Don" <> wrote
snip
> And they should have it. I think they should have both more pay and more
> benefits. But I would still like to see more of the cream of the crop of
> youth become public school teachers in the lower grades, and the only way
> that will ever happen is if pay and benefits increase.

Surely if the hours and lack of breaks during the workday weren't so awful
that would be a big lure, too...

Re: Teachers

Elle <> wrote:

> "Ram Samudrala" <> wrote
> e wrote
> snip
>> > Indeed, because then you might not be able to post to Usenet so
>> > profligately.
>>
>> > Imagine how many more minds could be shaped if you'd quit playing on
>> > the internet.
>>
>> Part of me "playing on the Internet" is what makes me a brilliant
>> scientist and mentor.

> It's made you a brilliant rationalizer of unethical and possibly illegal
> behavior.

My being a brilliant scientist is a matter of public record. You can
contact my mentees to see if I am a brilliant mentor. Ad hominems
aren't argument.

--Ram

Re: Teachers

"Ram Samudrala" <> wrote in message
news:db9lqj$5u4$

> I would question whether such people could teach effectively, if their
> primary motivation is not teaching and rather earning a bigger
> salary.

True, but, still, the most renowned and prestigious U.S. universities are
the ones that have the biggest endowments and are able to attract more
qualified faculty through higher salaries and other benefits. Money isn't
everything, but it certainly plays a major role!

Re: Teachers

Don <> wrote:

> "Ram Samudrala" <> wrote in message
> news:db9lqj$5u4$

>> I would question whether such people could teach effectively, if their
>> primary motivation is not teaching and rather earning a bigger
>> salary.

> True, but, still, the most renowned and prestigious U.S. universities are
> the ones that have the biggest endowments and are able to attract more
> qualified faculty through higher salaries and other benefits. Money isn't
> everything, but it certainly plays a major role!

I agree there's some threshold that generally needs to be crossed,
otherwise the competiveness disappears, but a Stanford or a Harvard
can offer lower salaries and startup packages and get away with it
because of prestige. In fact, my own experience is that the the most
renowned and prestigious universities are slightly more conservative
than an upcoming university trying to attract top talent.

The whole issue of academia vs. industry attests to a lot of
intangible benefits that one can derive in academia (such as academic
freedom, tenure, etc.) that is not compensable by industry salaries
alone. In this regard, money plays a very minor role I'd argue.

--Ram

Re: Teachers

"Ram Samudrala" <> wrote in message
news:db9q8j$9db$

> I agree there's some threshold that generally needs to be crossed,
> otherwise the competiveness disappears, but a Stanford or a Harvard
> can offer lower salaries and startup packages and get away with it
> because of prestige. In fact, my own experience is that the the most
> renowned and prestigious universities are slightly more conservative
> than an upcoming university trying to attract top talent.

> The whole issue of academia vs. industry attests to a lot of
> intangible benefits that one can derive in academia (such as academic
> freedom, tenure, etc.) that is not compensable by industry salaries
> alone. In this regard, money plays a very minor role I'd argue.

Stanford is a good example of what money can do. Leland Stanford decided to
create a great university and name it after his son, and he had plenty of
money to get the job done. From the beginning it was pretty much a sure
thing that Stanford would become a prestigious institution, and in fact it
did so quickly. John D. Rockefeller did much the same thing in Chicago. But
I agree that once these things happen, the university becomes able to
attract faculty through its prestige alone.

Re: Teachers

Ram Samudrala wrote:
>
> I agree there's some threshold that generally needs to be crossed,
> otherwise the competiveness disappears, but a Stanford or a Harvard
> can offer lower salaries and startup packages and get away with it
> because of prestige. In fact, my own experience is that the the most
> renowned and prestigious universities are slightly more conservative
> than an upcoming university trying to attract top talent.

There is the issue of "superstar" academics, who get courted with, let's
face it, money (as well as research facilities, status positions, little
to no teaching load, etc.)

"Top universities like Harvard, Princeton, and Columbia are also
recruiting aggressively, with the huge financial advantage of their
endowment gains from the go-go '90s."


> The whole issue of academia vs. industry attests to a lot of
> intangible benefits that one can derive in academia (such as academic
> freedom, tenure, etc.) that is not compensable by industry salaries
> alone.

In that regard, it is not that much different from industry, where
intangibles can play a significant role (since often the money
differences between one company and another are minor). An industrial
research department I worked in, when recruiting from academia, would
make the point that we could provide better facilities, support for
conferences, etc.

--
Mark Freeland

Re: Teachers

In article <EjUBe.3989$>,
Elle <> wrote:
> The reason the SAT is still given significant weight as a college admissions
> criterion is because its predictive validity is so high.

The reason the SAT is given significant weight is that you are very
unlikely to be sued if you accept a student based on his/her SAT
score.

Re: Teachers

Mark Freeland <> wrote:

> In that regard, it is not that much different from industry, where
> intangibles can play a significant role (since often the money
> differences between one company and another are minor). An industrial
> research department I worked in, when recruiting from academia, would
> make the point that we could provide better facilities, support for
> conferences, etc.

Right; comparing academia and industry, it's easy to see that the
choices are driven by the intangibles. I consider the choices made by
teachers and non-teachers with a similar training to be similar.

--Ram

Re: Teachers

Ed wrote:
> What does it take to be a good teacher?
> Personality. It can't be taught in teachers college.
> You have it or you don't.

But people can be trained to make chalk squeak at exactly the right
moments to stop disturbances or wake up students.

Re: Teachers

"Don" <> wrote

> I would say "personality" is valuable if combined with qualities such as
> technical expertise, knowledge of the subject, technical competence,

This stuff they get in college.

> perseverance, ability to motivate students to become interested, etc.

This stuff is easy for a teacher with personality. A teacher that goes by
the book has a boring class with sleeping and otherwise disinterested
students. A teacher with personality gets respect and makes learning
interesting, even fun.

Re: Teachers

"Elle" <> wrote

> Surely if the hours and lack of breaks during the workday weren't so awful
> that would be a big lure, too...

You can't be from my state.

Re: Teachers

"Elle" <> wrote in message
news:IQXBe.8494$
>
> "Herb" <> wrote in message
> news:kOUBe.424305$
> >
> > "Elle" <> wrote in message
> > news:9YSBe.3955$
> > > "Herb" <> wrote
> > > > "Elle" <> wrote
> > > > > You reject tests as any kind of fair measure of what students
know.
> > Have
> > > > you
> > > > > any idea of the form such a "fair way to evaluate teachers" would
> > take?
> > > >
> > > > First of all, I don't reject ANY test, I reject the SAT which is
> > supposed
> > > to
> > > > measure a certain kind of aptitude (not achievement).
> > >
> > > This contrasts with your earlier statements.
> >
> > Perhaps it contrasts with your perception of my earlier statements.
> > >
> > > I'll take it as an amendment.
> >
> > I still don't think a multiple-choice trivia test is enough.
>
> That's true; it's not. But with high school GPA, it's about as good as it
> gets.
>
> Ya know these institutions have to have _some_ objective measure. (Set
aside
> the fact you think the fact that you think the SAT is not objective. But
you
> think no test is objective... ) They have to have some objective measure
to
> justify turning away applicants.

Why? Look at acceptance rates. Most schools accept most applicants.
"Elite" colleges can accept or reject anyone they choose. Do you really
think that they use objective measures in each and every case? It seems
that you would prefer a bad measure that is more objective than a good one
that is subjective.

>
> You still haven't proposed a better plan that is realizable.

Better minds than yours or mine are on this problem. I know you think that
we can take the analytical skills that we have obtained in one field and,
with the magic of Google, determine best practices in another field. Some
might think us dillitantes and dabblers.

The fact is that a growing list of "elite" colleges no longer require the
SAT or ACT. If they are abandoning "objective" evaluation, why shouldn't
we.

Do you really think Harvard puts a lot of stock in the SAT? Almost all of
their applicants have high SATs. They obviously need other criteria on
which to base acceptance decisions.

>
> > > My question above stands, though: What is a fair way to evaluate
> teachers?
> >
> > We know what good teaching is and we know it when we see it.
>
> lol
>
> Tell this to the poor schmo who was just told by her principal that this
is
> the justification for her being let go.
>
>
> Why is it so
> > difficult to tell who is practicing it?
> >
> > >
> > > > It is becoming
> > > > increasingly clear that it is not a good predictor of success
> > (graduation
> > > > within 6 years) in college.
> > >
> > > It correlates well with first year GPA.
> >
> > Do you have a citation for this? I have heard the opposite view from
> > supporters of Affirmative Action.
>
> Oh I'd give you the one I pulled up, with great pain, from the College
Board
> site today, but this does you a disservice. (The College Board site search
> engine sucks eggs, so have fun. I was recollecting from several years ago,
> originally, then pulled up more recent numbers, which are similar to the
> ones I recall from several years ago.)
>
> > > I believe associates, bachelor's, and even PhD degrees have become as
> > > cheapened.
> >
> > I believe you are right. Did you see the PBS program, Death by Degrees?
> > They made it clear that at most schools, a student can coast, doing
little
> > or no reading, never writing a paper and never answering an essay
question
> > but still ending up with a degree.
>
> It would be depressing if one spent too much time thinking about it.
>
>
> > > One point that is being ignored here is that a much greater percentage
> of
> > > the population surely goes to high school (and college) compared to
> fifty
> > > years ago. That is actually a sign of progress, for the most part,
IMO.
> >
> > Perhaps that is because you are not paying upwards of $40,000 a year for
> > some kid to play beer pong for four years.
>
> lol
>
> But that's the parents' fault, isn't it?

I wonder. All parents know is that a college degree is now necessary for a
middle class lifestyle. I understand why they would want that for their
children. How are they to know that what they are buying (in many cases) is
a sham. I think it will take years for the labor markets to reveal this.


ˆ

Re: Teachers

"Mark Freeland" <> wrote in message
news:veYBe.4404$p%
> "Elle" <> wrote in message
> news:IQXBe.8494$
> >
> > "Herb" <> wrote in message
> > news:kOUBe.424305$
> > >
> > > > It correlates well with first year GPA.
> > >
> > > Do you have a citation for this? I have heard the opposite
> > > view from supporters of Affirmative Action.
> >
> > Oh I'd give you the one I pulled up, with great pain, from the
> >College Board site today, but this does you a disservice.
>
> Herb, here's a start from the College Board site:
>
>
> You might start with Table 1, that shows a correlation coefficient (r)even
> worse than I had been stating - ~0.3, meaning that the predictive ability
> (R^2) of the SAT by itself is only about 10%.
>
> Whether this is the one Elle "endured" such "great pain" to locate or not,
I
> don't know. It's easy enough to find other docs on the site.
>

Mark:

It strikes me as ironic to look to the ETS for objective research on the
SAT; rather like looking to Phillip Morris for cancer research. The fact
that even they find the test less than perfect is quite telling.

This study is over 10 years old and applies to what was then the new SAT and
what is now the old SAT. The fact that the ETS has, itself, introduced more
subjective measures (essay questions) speaks volumes.

-herb

Re: Teachers

"Elle" <> wrote in message
news:OLYBe.8530$

> You should now write most every college in the country and tell them to
stop
> using that useless SAT in their student admissions process. You really
think
> you're smarter than college admissions staffs nationwide?

Or at least as smart as some.



LEWISTON, Maine — In a milestone 20-year study of its well-known policy for
optional SATs for admission, Bates College has found no differences in
academic performance or graduation rates between submitters and
non-submitters.

Re: Teachers

"Herb" <> wrote in message
news:S%FBe.1143080$

> I think that would just keep a lot of bad teachers from taking early
> retirement. I don't know what the answer is.

Maybe make the new crop of teachers take something like the SAT and require
high scores. No, seriously, I agree with you and others that the SAT is far
from a good predictor, but it is better than nothing. When combined with
high school grades, the composite is not bad. It is better to use SAT +
grades than grades alone. Law school applicants have to take the LSAT and,
if I am not mistaken, medical school applicants in some places have to take
a medical school admission test. Teachers should have to take something like
the "ESAT", and maybe in time the cutoff required for admission could be
gradually increased.

Re: Teachers

"Don" <> wrote in message
news:k8gCe.157445$
> "Herb" <> wrote in message
> news:S%FBe.1143080$
>
> > I think that would just keep a lot of bad teachers from taking early
> > retirement. I don't know what the answer is.
>
> Maybe make the new crop of teachers take something like the SAT and
require
> high scores. No, seriously, I agree with you and others that the SAT is
far
> from a good predictor, but it is better than nothing. When combined with
> high school grades, the composite is not bad. It is better to use SAT +
> grades than grades alone. Law school applicants have to take the LSAT and,
> if I am not mistaken, medical school applicants in some places have to
take
> a medical school admission test. Teachers should have to take something
like
> the "ESAT", and maybe in time the cutoff required for admission could be
> gradually increased.

We are trying that here in Massachusetts but only for new teachers
(established teachers don't think tests are fair: ironic, isn't it?). I am
told that it is basically a 10th grade literacy test yet still, most
applicants fail the first few times. The question remains, how do you get
smart people to take the test and go into teaching. Perhaps we could link
pay to test scores.

-herb

Re: Teachers

Ram Samudrala wrote:
> PeterL <> wrote:
>
> > Lots of people would. That's the point.
>
> I would question whether such people could teach effectively, if their
> primary motivation is not teaching and rather earning a bigger
> salary.
>

that's not the discussion. The point is college students who aspire to
be teachers have the lowest SAT scores compared to scientist and
engineers.


> --Ram

Re: Teachers

Herb wrote:
>
> "Elle" <> wrote in message
> news:OLYBe.8530$
>
> > You should now write most every college in the country and tell
> > them to stop using that useless SAT in their student admissions
> > process. You really think you're smarter than college admissions
> > staffs nationwide?
>
> Or at least as smart as some.
>
>
>
> LEWISTON, Maine — In a milestone 20-year study of its well-known
> policy for optional SATs for admission, Bates College has found no
> differences in academic performance or graduation rates between
> submitters and non-submitters.

Herb, thanks for the information, but when the repartee devolves into
schoolyard taunts (you think you're so smart, why don't you ...),
there's little point in posting.
--
Mark Freeland

Re: Teachers

"Mark Freeland" <> wrote in message
news:

> Herb, thanks for the information, but when the repartee devolves into
> schoolyard taunts (you think you're so smart, why don't you ...),
> there's little point in posting.
> --
> Mark Freeland
>

Mark:

You have to make allowances for engineers. ;-)

-herb

Re: Teachers

Don wrote:
> "Herb" <> wrote in message
> news:S%FBe.1143080$
>
> > I think that would just keep a lot of bad teachers from taking early
> > retirement. I don't know what the answer is.
>
> Maybe make the new crop of teachers take something like the SAT and require
> high scores.

The students with high SAT scores tend to go into other professions,
such as engineering or medicine or law, where they can make much more
money.

No, seriously, I agree with you and others that the SAT is far
> from a good predictor, but it is better than nothing.

No it's worse than nothing.

When combined with
> high school grades, the composite is not bad. It is better to use SAT +
> grades than grades alone. Law school applicants have to take the LSAT and,
> if I am not mistaken, medical school applicants in some places have to take
> a medical school admission test.

MCAT.

Teachers should have to take something like
> the "ESAT", and maybe in time the cutoff required for admission could be
> gradually increased.

They do in California. It's called CBEST.

Re: Teachers

Herb wrote:
>
>
> We are trying that here in Massachusetts but only for new teachers
> (established teachers don't think tests are fair: ironic, isn't it?). I am
> told that it is basically a 10th grade literacy test yet still, most
> applicants fail the first few times. The question remains, how do you get
> smart people to take the test and go into teaching.

Pay them the kind of salaries that smart people get in other
professions like law, medicine, engineering, computers, management
consulting, banking etc.

Then you will raise the quality of teachers.

Another possibility which has worked here in the UK is incentives for
middle aged people to go into teaching. Someone who has 15 or 20 years
in the civil service or private industry might well be enticed to spend
15 years in teaching, where the pay is lower, but the emotional rewards
may be higher and the stability greater.

I know of investment bankers who have gone into teaching (albeit at fee
paying 'public' ie private boarding schools )in the UK a 'public'
school is a private boarding school, and a 'state' school is a public
school).

Re: Teachers

"darkness39" <> wrote

> Herb wrote:
>>
>>
>> We are trying that here in Massachusetts but only for new teachers
>> (established teachers don't think tests are fair: ironic, isn't it?). I
>> am
>> told that it is basically a 10th grade literacy test yet still, most
>> applicants fail the first few times. The question remains, how do you
>> get
>> smart people to take the test and go into teaching.
>
> Pay them the kind of salaries that smart people get in other
> professions like law, medicine, engineering, computers, management
> consulting, banking etc.

Property taxes are too high now.

> Then you will raise the quality of teachers.

Studies indicate that salary level has little to do with student success.

Re: Teachers

darkness39 wrote:

>
> Herb wrote:
>
>>
>>We are trying that here in Massachusetts but only for new teachers
>>(established teachers don't think tests are fair: ironic, isn't it?). I am
>>told that it is basically a 10th grade literacy test yet still, most
>>applicants fail the first few times. The question remains, how do you get
>>smart people to take the test and go into teaching.
>
>
> Pay them the kind of salaries that smart people get in other
> professions like law, medicine, engineering, computers, management
> consulting, banking etc.
>
> Then you will raise the quality of teachers.

No, you will just get higher-paid low-quality teachers.

If you arbitrarily increased the salary of computer engineers in some
company by 50% across the board, you would not improve their
productivity one iota.

The part you've left out is that in other professions, salary is
dependent on merit. You get a higher salary increase if you're regarded
as a better engineer. That's the incentive for engineers to do better.

I suggest giving merit raises to high school teachers whose students get
relatively high SAT scores. And that, of course, would require busting
the teachers' unions which are staunchly opposed to any such thing.


--
Steven D. Litvintchouk
Email:

Remove the NOSPAM before replying to me.

Re: Teachers

In article <IztFe.5175$>,
Steven L. <> wrote:
> I suggest giving merit raises to high school teachers whose students get
> relatively high SAT scores. And that, of course, would require busting
> the teachers' unions which are staunchly opposed to any such thing.

Doing this would mean teachers in prosperous neighborhoods would get
the vast majority of any raises. That would make it even harder to
find teachers for poor districts than it is now.

Re: Teachers

I don't think testing is the all encompassing way to measure a
teacher's performance.

Hopefully most of people reading this have finished high school- a
question- what teacher was your favorate and why? is it because that
teacher made you/helped you/allowed you to pass a test?

The teachers I remember are the ones which impacted my life outside the
classroom. How do you measure that?

75% of life is learned outside the classroom. Schools are there to
provide the other 25% and make sure a student is well rounded and able
to adapt when dealing with the other 75%. Schools teach skills, basic
skills and should emphasize problem solving more than how to conjugate
verb...

for example I had a pre-engineering class in high school where we had
to design a car which would go down an incline with an egg in it and
hit a cement wall without the egg breaking. Many problems intertwined
into one... or build a spaghetti bridge which holds the most weight...
and a few other projects designed to stimulate the mind. I remember
the teacher for hw he made us find the answers ourselves and not
regurgitate something from a text book.

Re: Teachers

"jIM" <> wrote in message
news:
> I don't think testing is the all encompassing way to measure a
> teacher's performance.
>
> Hopefully most of people reading this have finished high school- a
> question- what teacher was your favorate and why? is it because that
> teacher made you/helped you/allowed you to pass a test?
>
> The teachers I remember are the ones which impacted my life outside the
> classroom. How do you measure that?
>
> 75% of life is learned outside the classroom. Schools are there to
> provide the other 25% and make sure a student is well rounded and able
> to adapt when dealing with the other 75%. Schools teach skills, basic
> skills and should emphasize problem solving more than how to conjugate
> verb...
>
> for example I had a pre-engineering class in high school where we had
> to design a car which would go down an incline with an egg in it and
> hit a cement wall without the egg breaking. Many problems intertwined
> into one... or build a spaghetti bridge which holds the most weight...
> and a few other projects designed to stimulate the mind. I remember
> the teacher for hw he made us find the answers ourselves and not
> regurgitate something from a text book.

You seem to be describing DestinationImagination: "the best kept secret in
education." I have volunteered for this program (formerly Odyssy of the
Mind) for over 10 years. We try to foster creative, cooperative problem
solving. Educators either love it or hate it.

www.destinationimagination.org

Check it out, there's probably an affiliate near you if you have a couple of
Saturdays to contribute.

-herb


>

Re: Teachers

Greg Hennessy wrote:
> In article <IztFe.5175$>,
> Steven L. <> wrote:
> > I suggest giving merit raises to high school teachers whose students get
> > relatively high SAT scores. And that, of course, would require busting
> > the teachers' unions which are staunchly opposed to any such thing.

Freakonomics by Steven Levitt. on the NYT bestseller list at the
moment. Great chapter about this very problem.




>
> Doing this would mean teachers in prosperous neighborhoods would get
> the vast majority of any raises. That would make it even harder to
> find teachers for poor districts than it is now.

There is a real problem in Labour Economics about how you award 'merit
pay' to professions where you can't measure performance easily or well.
A related problem is how the performance measurement system affects
how the job is done (if you measure cops on arrests, they increase
their arrest rate for petty crimes and avoid working on more serious
ones).

Also all the Organisational Behaviour research shows that individual
merit pay is 1). divisive and 2). causes *lower* productivity. But
firms persist in using it.

The solution I suspect is merit pay at the unit level: eg if a school
improves its scores, everyone gets a bit more money.

*however* we do that in the UK (sort of) with league tables of test
scores of schools. All the schools do is chuck out kids who don't get
the right level of test scores-- the private schools are particularly
adept at this.

Re: Teachers

Greg Hennessy wrote:
> In article <IztFe.5175$>,
> Steven L. <> wrote:
>
>>I suggest giving merit raises to high school teachers whose students get
>>relatively high SAT scores. And that, of course, would require busting
>>the teachers' unions which are staunchly opposed to any such thing.
>
>
> Doing this would mean teachers in prosperous neighborhoods would get
> the vast majority of any raises.

I said "relatively".

If a particular teacher had students whose SAT scores were significantly
above average *for that neighborhood*, that teacher should get a merit
raise.

In a neighborhood where the students (for whatever reason) are already
doing well on their SATs, it would be *harder* for a teacher there to
get a merit raise because there would be less room for improvement.

Whereas in a neighborhood where most of the kids are already failing, a
teacher who did *anything* better than average would get a good raise.


--
Steven D. Litvintchouk
Email:

Remove the NOSPAM before replying to me.

Re: Teachers

jIM wrote:

> I don't think testing is the all encompassing way to measure a
> teacher's performance.
>
> Hopefully most of people reading this have finished high school- a
> question- what teacher was your favorate and why? is it because that
> teacher made you/helped you/allowed you to pass a test?

Yep.

The teachers who gave me the knowledge I needed to get into a good
college and do well there are the teachers I thank the most. Because
90% of what I learned in high school, I no longer remember anyway. It's
been too long ago, and times have changed so much that so much of it is
irrelevant. For example, my high school history class was about 90%
focused on European history. I wish they had focused a lot more on the
history of the Middle East and Asia.


> The teachers I remember are the ones which impacted my life outside the
> classroom. How do you measure that?

Since I went on to get a Master's degree, what I learned in my high
school days didn't "impact my life outside the class room" very much at
all. What does high school algebra or chemistry have to do with "my
life outside the classroom"???


> 75% of life is learned outside the classroom. Schools are there to
> provide the other 25% and make sure a student is well rounded and able
> to adapt when dealing with the other 75%. Schools teach skills, basic
> skills and should emphasize problem solving more than how to conjugate
> verb...

But not all students are innately good at problem solving. They're not
going to end up as scientists or engineers or mathematicians. Some
students are going to go on to get blue-collar skilled jobs, like
plumbers, carpenters, electricians, etc. For those students, ensuring
that they have the basic skills they need to be EMPLOYED at some decent
job is what counts.

The emphasis on "problem solving" has produced a generation of kids who
can't write a sentence, don't know what's in the U.S. Constitution, and
don't know what DNA is.


--
Steven D. Litvintchouk
Email:

Remove the NOSPAM before replying to me.

Re: Teachers

In article <xBMFe.5086$>,
Steven L. <> wrote:
> I said "relatively".

Yes, but you didn't say relative to what.

> If a particular teacher had students whose SAT scores were significantly
> above average *for that neighborhood*, that teacher should get a merit
> raise.

Since any given student will have about 10 teachers, how do you figure
out what teachers to give the raises to?

I also think that if this happens there will be lots of pressure on
marginal kids to not take the SAT in order to keep up the odds of a
teacher getting a raise. Are you sure that is what you want to
encourage?

Re: Teachers

"Greg Hennessy" <> wrote

>> If a particular teacher had students whose SAT scores were significantly
>> above average *for that neighborhood*, that teacher should get a merit
>> raise.
>
> Since any given student will have about 10 teachers, how do you figure
> out what teachers to give the raises to?

All 10, better yet, the whole school. I think they should all get $150,000
per year and still better benefits than they have now. And if that school
can get the US rank from 24th out of 28 in math on a global scale to 23rd,
then they should pay them $250,000 and reduce their class size to two. Pay
for their vacations, all expenses to anywhere in the world they'd like to
go. Get us up to 22nd and you can let them bring 6 friends with them on the
trip, all expenses paid, private jet.

I'll let you figure out how to pay for it.

> I also think that if this happens there will be lots of pressure on
> marginal kids to not take the SAT in order to keep up the odds of a
> teacher getting a raise. Are you sure that is what you want to
> encourage?

Marginal kids should be encouraged to fail. Someone has to sell hamburgers,
wash restrooms, work at Walmart, be janitors at schools, etc.

Re: Teachers

In article <>,
Ed <> wrote:
> All 10, better yet, the whole school. I think they should all get $150,000
> per year and still better benefits than they have now. And if that school
> can get the US rank from 24th out of 28 in math on a global scale to 23rd,
> then they should pay them $250,000 and reduce their class size to two. Pay
> for their vacations, all expenses to anywhere in the world they'd like to
> go. Get us up to 22nd and you can let them bring 6 friends with them on the
> trip, all expenses paid, private jet.
>
> I'll let you figure out how to pay for it.

I'll tax you a dollar for every post to usenet you make. :)

> Marginal kids should be encouraged to fail. Someone has to sell hamburgers,
> wash restrooms, work at Walmart, be janitors at schools, etc.

I wasn't aware that failing a SAT test made someone better at selling
hamburgers.

Re: Teachers

In article <dc8tuh$66l$>,
Greg Hennessy <> wrote:
>In article <>,
>Ed <> wrote:
>> All 10, better yet, the whole school. I think they should all get $150,000
>> per year and still better benefits than they have now. And if that school
>> can get the US rank from 24th out of 28 in math on a global scale to 23rd,
>> then they should pay them $250,000 and reduce their class size to two. Pay
>> for their vacations, all expenses to anywhere in the world they'd like to
>> go. Get us up to 22nd and you can let them bring 6 friends with them on the
>> trip, all expenses paid, private jet.
>>
>> I'll let you figure out how to pay for it.
>
>I'll tax you a dollar for every post to usenet you make. :)
>
>> Marginal kids should be encouraged to fail. Someone has to sell hamburgers,
>> wash restrooms, work at Walmart, be janitors at schools, etc.
>
>I wasn't aware that failing a SAT test made someone better at selling
>hamburgers.

Still have to read and make change to sell hamburgers. But then, a
bachelor's degree doesn't help the fry cook much.



--
"Are those morons getting dumber or just louder?" -- Mayor Quimby

Re: Teachers

"Greg Hennessy" <> wrote

> I wasn't aware that failing a SAT test made someone better at selling
> hamburgers.

Anyone can do it. I think you might even be able to handle it.

Re: Teachers

Teachers are no different than anyone else.... they always want more. But
they have the 'do it for the kids' hook. That gives them a leg up on most
everyone else.

Arne

Re: Teachers

passing the SAT is EASY. I took it twice. One time I guessed on the
portions of the verbal I did not know (I have little skill for reading
comprehension). I gain one point for every correct answer and lose a
quarter point for every wrong answer. If I guess 1 out of 5 correct, I
break even.

so I had a mediocre verbal score, but when I took it the second time, I
only answered the questions I knew and I came out 30 points behind my
previous score.

as for Math, well my Math score doubled my verbal score.

the SAT test is a joke, I was told students can use a calculator now...
what a JOKE.

Re: Teachers

jIM <> wrote:
> as for Math, well my Math score doubled my verbal score.
> the SAT test is a joke, I was told students can use a calculator now...
> what a JOKE.

Jackass. What did you make? Just come out and post it. I scored a
1,300 which in my well funded public school was somewhat above average
but not as good as the several senior students who made greater than
a 1500.

Stupid Republicans!

Re: Teachers

Ah, contentious notes like this are what makes this group interesting...!

Name calling will get the volume of notes up, for sure.. thank you..!

Arne
..
..
>
> Jackass. What did you make? Just come out and post it. I scored a
> 1,300 which in my well funded public school was somewhat above average
> but not as good as the several senior students who made greater than
> a 1500.
>
> Stupid Republicans!

Re: Teachers

I'm still trying to figure out where that came from. Mike sure seems upset
about something.



"Arne" <> wrote in message
news:RehGe.63251$
> Ah, contentious notes like this are what makes this group interesting...!
>
> Name calling will get the volume of notes up, for sure.. thank you..!
>
> Arne
> .
> .
>>
>> Jackass. What did you make? Just come out and post it. I scored a
>> 1,300 which in my well funded public school was somewhat above average
>> but not as good as the several senior students who made greater than
>> a 1500.
>>
>> Stupid Republicans!
>
>