3 ms·

First, the environment was toxic because the school administration was corrupt at the top and the school system had too much influence over the testing. To prev

First, the environment was toxic because the school administration was corrupt at the top and the school system had too much influence over the testing. To prevent further such abuse all testing should be done by accredited third party groups. Second, get off this silly mantra that they are underpaid. In some areas yes, but in Atlanta that is not the case. A simple query of various counties here produces results and for the number of days worked their pay is actually quite good; that and anecdotal being friend with a 10 year teacher who makes good money and who berates the system(which includes the union) for the problems. They cannot fix what they are not allowed too.

deleted 12y ago
[deleted]
neumann 12y ago
> all testing should be done by accredited third party groups. These 'accredited third party groups' would need to be a) accredited, b) be paid. And it's already happening here in the US[0]. What you have now is an overhead of bureaucracy that 'accredits' and outsources the testing to these private companies, who pay call center wages to mark high school exams based on shoddy metrics that are aimed at maximising profits. All the markers are temps/contract, and this accreditation system is essentially a cartel of companies that lobby to ensure their business remains. I cannot see the logic how this can end up benefiting the students. Secondly, teachers being underpaid is not a mantra - it is a fact [1]. In the US, the worth society places on a job is strongly correlated to the pay. The accreditation and pay, resources and social respect that teachers (do not) receive I wager is directly correlated with the quality of the education students receive. The system is so broken as to rely on standardized testing as to further punish 'under-performing' schools by limiting availability to funding based on scores. [0] http://www.theatlantic.com/features/archive/2014/07/why-poor-schools-cant-win-at-standardized-testing/374287/ http://www.theatlantic.com/features/archive/2014/07/why-poor... [1] http://www.nea.org/home/2012-2013-average-starting-teacher-salary.html http://www.nea.org/home/2012-2013-average-starting-teacher-s...
- Shivetya 12y ago
  Neither source you give is reliable, both are heavily biased. I prefer actual charts from counties that pay, given 190 days of work http://www.dekalb.k12.ga.us/human-resources/teacher-salary-schedule http://www.dekalb.k12.ga.us/human-resources/teacher-salary-s... in a respectable county in Georgia this isn't what I would called underpaid. This is before benefits. Its not hard to find these charts for most counties. The areas that need attention is all the money spent on administrative people other than teachers. The US has spent increasing amounts of money on education with near zero results.
DanBC 12y ago
> To prevent further such abuse all testing should be done by accredited third party groups. How do those groups earn money? By charging for their testing? So groups that produce better results are selected for, which risks groups that have easier tests or more relaxed scoring being selected for by schools. This has happened in some parts of England for GCSE exams. (These exams are taken by schoolchildren aged 16. )

deleted 12y ago

[deleted]

neumann 12y ago

> all testing should be done by accredited third party groups. These 'accredited third party groups' would need to be a) accredited, b) be paid. And it's already happening here in the US[0]. What you have now is an overhead of bureaucracy that 'accredits' and outsources the testing to these private companies, who pay call center wages to mark high school exams based on shoddy metrics that are aimed at maximising profits. All the markers are temps/contract, and this accreditation system is essentially a cartel of companies that lobby to ensure their business remains. I cannot see the logic how this can end up benefiting the students. Secondly, teachers being underpaid is not a mantra - it is a fact [1]. In the US, the worth society places on a job is strongly correlated to the pay. The accreditation and pay, resources and social respect that teachers (do not) receive I wager is directly correlated with the quality of the education students receive. The system is so broken as to rely on standardized testing as to further punish 'under-performing' schools by limiting availability to funding based on scores. [0] http://www.theatlantic.com/features/archive/2014/07/why-poor-schools-cant-win-at-standardized-testing/374287/ http://www.theatlantic.com/features/archive/2014/07/why-poor... [1] http://www.nea.org/home/2012-2013-average-starting-teacher-salary.html http://www.nea.org/home/2012-2013-average-starting-teacher-s...

Shivetya 12y ago
Neither source you give is reliable, both are heavily biased. I prefer actual charts from counties that pay, given 190 days of work http://www.dekalb.k12.ga.us/human-resources/teacher-salary-schedule http://www.dekalb.k12.ga.us/human-resources/teacher-salary-s... in a respectable county in Georgia this isn't what I would called underpaid. This is before benefits. Its not hard to find these charts for most counties. The areas that need attention is all the money spent on administrative people other than teachers. The US has spent increasing amounts of money on education with near zero results.

DanBC 12y ago

> To prevent further such abuse all testing should be done by accredited third party groups. How do those groups earn money? By charging for their testing? So groups that produce better results are selected for, which risks groups that have easier tests or more relaxed scoring being selected for by schools. This has happened in some parts of England for GCSE exams. (These exams are taken by schoolchildren aged 16. )