Did you happen to watch the video I posted previously about whether money actually motivates people to perform better on the job?
Wow, yes. That video was completely cool and got lost in the discussion.
It got me thinking about a lot of things. I remember doing a management course at work around 12 years ago; the guy teaching it was very good. One of the things he mentioned was that some of the happiest employees were train drivers, in large part because they had a lot of autonomy while they were driving the trains. I like the whole purpose-driven work environment idea a lot. In fact, I think that great leaders get this idea completely: they really involve people in the idea that
we're all in it together and we're really going to do something great!The reason that so many people dislike the idea of merit pay is that clearly the objective is to make this merit pay based on standardized test scores rather than any subjective measures.
I also think that merit pay should be based many things and should be at the discretion of the principal rather than codified into a contract (there's that autonomy thing). It could be awarded for helping to find a new math curriculum or starting/running a successful after-school club.
But tests are important too (though I'd redesign them first). I'd structure things around the fact that kids learn at different rates and they shouldn't all be expected to take the same test at the same age. Ahh, there's an idea for a program that should earn some serious merit pay if successfully implemented.
I'm definitely no fan of industrial multiple choice testing. I do see some benefits of it, but think we rely on this type of test too heavily.
(Danger: philosophy alert!) One of our great strengths as a nation is that we try to do big things in a big way (e.g. moon shots; iPhones). The downside of this philosophy is that it gets over-applied in the wrong places (e.g. testing mania). Europeans and other nations use tests that have to be graded individually by humans. This approach gives room for depth over superficiality. But it's slower and old-fashioned, so maybe Americans don't like it so much.
NCLB has been horrible for the upper half of our kids, putting all of the focus on the kids who aren't achieving. IMO, this is exactly the opposite of what our system should be doing....
Double amen to everthing you wrote there.
It definitely comes from both sides, but it is naive to think that a teacher can completely turn around a student's education without parent support.
Agreed. I'd also add that the student needs to eventually dig deep and put in huge effort. In this area, I really have a lot of sympathy for what teachers have to deal with. I'm sure it's hard in an immediate way in the classroom and extremely demoralizing over the longer term.
