Teachers who teach in 'poverty areas' should be given the most pay

[Rosa Luxemburg]

this is an incentive for good teachers to go into difficult areas where they will make a difference. Why give more money to teachers in 'posh' areas where there are usually better schools (and more parent participation). We need to help disadvantaged students and find new methods to do so. It is not the teachers who should be scrutinized so much but the people on school boards and politicians!

[FrenchieCat]

1. September 2008.....

"And that's why I proposed last year a new Service Scholarship program that will recruit top talent into the profession, and place these new teachers in overcrowded districts and struggling rural towns, or hard-to-staff subjects like special education, in schools across the nation. To prepare these new teachers, I'll create more Teacher Residency Programs that will build on a law I recently passed and train 30,000 high-quality teachers a year, especially in math and science. (Applause.) To support our teachers, we'll expand mentoring programs that pair experienced, successful teachers with new recruits.

And when our teachers succeed in making a real difference in our children's lives, we should reward them for it by finding new ways to increase teachers' pay across the board -- (applause) -- and to find ways to increase teachers' pay that are developed with teachers, not imposed on them. We can do this. From Prince George's County in Maryland to Denver, Colorado, we're seeing teachers and school boards coming together to design performance pay plans.

So yes, we must give every teacher the tools they need to be successful. But we also need to give every child the assurance that they'll have the teacher they need to be successful. And that means setting a firm standard not based on a single, high-stakes standardized test, but based on assessments developed with teachers and educators so that teachers have confidence that they are being judged effectively based on their own -- the own tools that they put together with their peers."
http://blogs.suntimes.com/sweet/2008/09/obama_education_speech_in_ohio.html

[Leo The Cleo]

15. Most Pay? I don't know!

I am not sure if being the highest paid is what is needed. Certainly they should be given the same level of resources that schools in "better districts are getting. Part of the problem is that the school systems get the shaft. They aren't given the resources to compete on the same level with other districts. Money is put into things that they don't need while the necessary tools are looked over.

[Sarah Ibarruri]

2. I absolutely agree! nt

[Hanse]

3. But they do more poorly on standardized tests.

Standardized tests are supposed to be a good measure, right?

And rich white schools do markedly better on standardized tests.

So clearly teachers with white students should be paid more.

It's all so simple.

:crazy:

[ClarkUSA]

8. Merit pay will not be based on testing. Pres.Obama has made that clear.

He's said it all along during the campaign and he said it during his speech announcing his education initiative this week.
Read about his plan at whitehouse.gov before you snark.

[proud2BlibKansan]

17. I have read his plan as well as every other merit pay plan I can find

They all base merit pay on student achievement. Just because they don't use test scores to determine the level of achievement doesn't make one plan any more acceptable than another.

[proud patriot]

4. agreed , they have far more challenges to overcome

From empty stomachs to raising siblings .

[TexasObserver]

5. Indeed. The more attractive the school district, the less the pay.

And the reverse.

The problem with the approach that we will "reward" good teachers is that the standard for being a good teacher is really "getting hired at a district where children have inherent advantages of wealth and heredity."

This illusion that the goal is to benefit good teachers is the problem with the proposals that "reward" those allegedly good teachers. It's much, much harder to be a good teacher in a poor district. The poorer the district, the harder the job.

These ridiculous tests they've used now for some time to "measure" the knowledge of students are a disaster. They are the enemy of good teaching. They encourage schools to cull their weak testers in middle school. We need a system that encourages retention of students, and recognizes how much harder the job of teaching is at poor schools.

[WinkyDink]

6. Coming from what source? Do you know U.S. public-school funding is from LOCAL property taxes?

Blood from a stone, when you're referring to poverty zones.

But then, every time I hear an emphasis on and elevation of the sciences and mathematics over the humanities (AKA, Liberal Arts), I get incensed. Somehow 16-Century Europe knew to esteem both the former and the latter.

[karynnj]

9. That depends on the state

NJ has some funding coming from the state income tax. This was done specifically because of the problem you state. This was started to comply with a NJ SC ruling.

[WinkyDink]

23. Heh; I should've known that one, living about 10 miles from Jersey. But my larger point is :

FEDERAL $$ must go where the FEDERAL mouth is!

[karynnj]

7. You do realize that the teachers in posh areas will then

not be able to live anywhere near their schools. In NJ, the state provides some aid to local districts, so teachers' salaries are as high in the inner cities. (I have no first hand information, but allowing poor areas to spend what the rich areas do was the intent behind state aid formulas - and the NJ SC ordered it years ago.) There likely is a NJ teacher here with better info.

[olkaz]

10. I think the best teachers should receive the most pay.

You know, like in any other profession.

[DesertRat]

22. The challenge is in determining

who are the "best teachers".

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

11. As soon as we change the entire process for funding education, that can happen.

Unfortunately, as long as education is locally funding through property taxes, it's not going to happen. Push to change the funding system first - I guarantee you that will solve about 1/4 of the problems with education.

[Rosa Luxemburg]

12. yes

[MasonJar]

13. Merit pay is not legitimate. It turns the education world upside down.

Pay all teachers commensurate with their education and experience. Do not pit them against each other through principal (who are in my experience usually egregious losers) recommendations or test scores. Most teachers, whether assigned to deprived or accelerated environments, do their best for students they are assigned. The number of unqualified teachers is so minimal that it is really not a problem. They are frequently rooted out anyway.

[WindRiverMan]

14. I disagree.

Sending the best teacher to the poorest or the richest schools makes no sense. Good teachers should be everywhere! The poor have no more right to the best teachers than the rich do. They are public schools, so all members of the public who send their children there should have an opportunity to have their children exposed to a few of the brightest and best teachers.

[Mass]

18. It is a way to rebalance the system. At this point, good teachers tend to go to rich areas

as they are better paid and work in better conditions. Who would not? But this means that those who accept to work in these difficult conditions should get an incentive so that as you save, all of our children are exposed to a few of the brightest and the best teachers.

[proud2BlibKansan]

16. And what we really want is the resources we need to teach our kids

I didn't go into this business to get rich. I am satisfied with my pay and don't want it increased because I don't want people teaching our kids because they like the salary.

I just want a modern building, the best technology and enough supplies to do my job.

[salguine]

19. But feeding good teachers into war-zone schools as cannon fodder doesn't fix the

systemic problems. There's a lot more at work here than just good teacher/bad teacher.

[dkofos]

20. I agree. Call it Hazardous duty pay.

[TexasObserver]

21. Yes. Merit pay should mean highest salaries in the worst schools.

If we paid based upon the worst schools paying the most, we'd have a merit system that had more meaning.

[Fire1]

24. How about 'combat' pay? LOL!

[MurrayDelph]

26. 30 years ago,

when I taught in Watts, that is EXACTLY what we called it!

[anonymous171]

25. Agreed. nt

[LWolf]

27. Ineffective.

If you want to make a difference, first address POVERTY. The best teachers in the world don't overcome all the negative, long-term effects on learning poverty creates.

Equitable funding helps, too. Clean, safe, modern schools in those "difficult" areas might also make a difference.

As would before and after programs to tutor, to help with homework, etc..

Offering to pay veteran teachers more to teach in "difficult" areas is a cheap way to avoid investing in what those schools, and those communities, really need.

Edited to add:

I teach in a "difficult" area. Not an inner-city, but a rural area rife with poverty. It's a different set of problems, but the effect is the same.

Many students whose home lives are chaotic and dysfunctional. Many who are homeless, many in foster care, many who live with family other than their parents. A meth culture. An anti-intellectual culture. High rates of adult illiteracy, low rates of adult education and income.

We have some great teachers. We spend more time worrying about making sure Johnny got to eat today, Susie is going to get the glasses she needs, everything is okay at Ben's house, because they don't have a phone and we haven't been able to reach them, whether it's safe to let Fred's parents know about his misbehavior, whether Jane has a ride to school from where ever she stayed last night, whether Annie's family is going to yank her out of school again, like they've done every year, and "homeschool" her out in the back of beyond, because they don't trust "the system," whether any of them ever read any of the newsletters, notices, or announcements we send home, whether Jorge's family will be going back to Mexico again, whether we can overcome Sam's resistance to school in general; he wants to drop out at the end of this year when he's done with 8th grade, and his family will probably let him. Whether we can get past the social/emotional/behavioral dysfunctions of so many kids who have grown up abused or neglected or just in need...

We spend way more time worrying about all of that than whether or not Billy, our class, or our school is going to make AYP. We see that Carol is 3 years behind in skill levels, and we breathe a sigh of relief that she is at school every day, that she has made some friends, and that she is able to function without going into a violent rage or a catatonic state; she wasn't last year. We're glad when she learns, of course.

We're also intimately aware of Maslow's hierarchy, and that the state content standards are higher on that pyramid than some of our kids can reach without interventions in their lives outside of school.




If you really want to address learning in "difficult" areas, address the lower levels of the pyramid.

[ulysses]

28. first address POVERTY

Knew I loved you for some reason. :D

[LWolf]

29. Because I love our kids.

:hi: