3 ms·
That's not the story at all. They meassured actual performance and fired teachers who showed bad performance, and rewarded those showing good performance. This
by jVinc 8y ago
That's not the story at all. They meassured actual performance and fired teachers who showed bad performance, and rewarded those showing good performance. This was not just a test of dangling money in front of teachers and expecting them to improve their performance.
What you could get out of this study is however that it doesn't matter if teachers find the job rewarding or not. It doesn't matter if you keep on bad teachers, in fact the study might point to the fact that teachers are not the bottleneck of student performance at all.
- fancyfish 8y agoGood point here, that we ought to expand the scope of how we look at student performance. We're quick to blame teachers, and indeed teachers probably have as much an impact as anything else, but measuring up teachers and expecting big changes isn't the greatest idea. Yes, it gets more complicated looking at more nuanced measures. Like resources available for the students, their home lives and personal situations, their time available to study and focus. Then again maybe they should look at discrepancies between teachers in districts that pay well and districts that pay less. Perhaps the answer isn't to pay some more and fire others, but rather pay all of them more! I'm a fan of the Education Endowment Foundation(1) on this which looks at all the measures you can think of to try to improve education practices (in the UK). [1]: https://educationendowmentfoundation.org.uk/ https://educationendowmentfoundation.org.uk/