quote:

One problem I find with your logic is that your premise is a TOTAL lack of accountability. That's really not true, but if you use that false premise you can argue the merits of any educational reform system, no matter how poor.

Okay, let me speak more precisely. I suppose what I should have said was 'almost total lack of accountability after tenure is granted around year 5 of employment,' but "total lack of accountability" just sounded snappier. I don't know, maybe you can tell me something I don't know but what I have heard from the many teachers in my family and numerous news articles tells me that short of gross misconduct (showing up to work drunk, having an affair with a student, stealing from the school, etc.) you will not be disciplined in any meaningful way. So you may assign junk projects to kill time, show movies on a regular basis, assign no homework, not grade assignments, and nothing will happen. In fact, you will make the exact same amount of money as the person in the next classroom who stayed up until midnight drafting lesson plans and grading assignments and spending his own money on classroom supplies. If job retention and salary are entirely unrelated to performance, I would characterize that as a lack of accountability.

To quote GESM2 "Shouldn't we demand more than that for our kids? Shouldn't we provide more than that for our kids? Don't they deserve more? Weren't we provided with more?"

I think GESM2 misunderstood my point. I'm not arguing that we should be happy with teaching to the test. I was arguing that things are so bad now in many schools, that teaching to the test would be a significant improvement and might provide a mechanism for getting rid of the very worst teachers and identifying some of the better ones.

I suspect many people think of Glenbard West when they consider these issues, but GW is one of the better high schools in the country and wouldn't need to teach to a test. Most GW students would probably exceed minimum standards solely by virtue of their socioeconomic status without ever showing up to class. This is more about the have-nots than the haves.

So yes, I find it ridiculous and unconscionable that there is no real accountability for teachers in rich suburban schools, but the wealthy and moderately wealthy will usually do fine with a mix of good and mediocre teachers, it is the poor that are most hurt by it.

I knew what your point was, but mine was that we shouldn't have that "take what we can get" mentality and that it's a sad state of affairs when we adopt that. Socioeconomic status aside.

Alert! Alert!

I agree with Gus on this. Teacher evaluations should be included in high school just like college. Then come to the bargaining table with the survey results vs. performance of students. The kids know the good teachers.

Given that we're discussing primarily public schools, the surveys should be done by the parents....the students don't contribute financially to any of their education at that age. Then again....we've seen how accurate surveys are, regardless of who takes them....

Gus....did you mean "biting", I hope?!

quote:

Originally posted by GESingleMom2:
Then again....we've seen how accurate surveys are, regardless of who takes them....

For a summary of actual studies on accuracy and consistency of student evaluations, see here.

Compare to this on evaluations by principals.

If we're going on the basis of who pays, then we should dole out evaluation forms only to landowners since most schools are primarily funded with property taxes.

The Chicago Tribune clarified that there is nothing wrong with paying competent teachers 100K. (And they only get that amount after decades of teaching and taking many graduate hours at their expense.) My son, in his third year out of college, already surpasses this salary.
So why don't you complain about the outrageous salaries in business?
I want my kids educated by teachers worth 100K--they are the ones who know what they are doing and they are the ones who helped my son get where he is today. A good education is priceless.
Stop whining about teacher salaries and start giving teachers credit for what they did with your children. Despite flaws, West is a top school and the Glenbard system is a top district.

Bio, I thought you said that only the private sector gave out bonuses.

Bonues to Park District Execs

quote:

Originally posted by RMK:
Alert! Alert!

I agree with Gus on this. Teacher evaluations should be included in high school just like college. Then come to the bargaining table with the survey results vs. performance of students. The kids know the good teachers.

Alert! Alert!
I agree as well!
As a counselor, I insist on a "senior exit survey" that gives me feedback from the kids about how I am doing in helping them through school and in accessing future plans.
I do think that parent/student evaluations should figure in to my overall evaluation. I will say though, that outliers should be eliminated from the data (really, super high and really, super low) because as a counselor or teacher, there will always be parents who don't like to hear that their child needs to grow up/act decent/stop screwing around/isn't god's gift to the world. And, there are always some parents/students that you end up really doing something special for and that's not necessarily typical job performance (though I'd like to think that my families believe I'm giving my all to my job).

I would have them count but only as a percentage of an overall grade. And perhaps for only a small percent say ten to twenty percent.

I do agree Students are better judges of teachers than you might think. For the most part kids I've met don't complain to much about the ones who are tough but the ones who are just going through the motions.

Read through the book, show movies, use scantron or the publishers tests. Those are the ones my kids complain about the most.

quote:

there will always be parents who don't like to hear that their child needs to grow up/act decent/stop screwing around/isn't god's gift to the world.

My dad mentioned he spoke with you at my birthday party.

quote:

Originally posted by Bastiat:
since most schools are primarily funded with property taxes.

If most schools are primarily funded by property taxes, then why does it cost hundreds of dollars simply to register and enroll?? Not to mention, as others have pointed out, the cost of property tax is figured into monthly rental fees....so it should probably be residents, not property owners.

Amy, I love the way you put things

I took a look at the 2007-2008 budget for D87. Of total receipts of $101,208,199, Local sources were $87.5M, State was $7M, and Fed was $1.5. Basically 100% of the local came from "Ad Valorem taxes" aka property taxes.

"Admissions - Other" accounted for $33,500 of revenue (0.033% of total). So, yes, while parents may pay something to the school, it is a relative nuissance fee compared to the total cost of educating children at local schools which is borne by all landowners in the district.

Perhaps property taxes are figured into rental fees, but that is economic theory. You can't prove that it is coming out of your rent and not out of the landlord's profit or out of his capital budget for repairs. Anyway, my whole point was that it is irrelevant who pays for schools, the people in the best position to evaluate a service are those receiving it, in this case the students, not the parents as you suggested.

quote:

Originally posted by Bastiat:
Anyway, my whole point was that it is irrelevant who pays for schools, the people in the best position to evaluate a service are those receiving it, in this case the students, not the parents as you suggested.

It's actually not irrelevant. The person paying for the education is the one who should have a say in whether or not it meets his or her expectations. The people paying for the service are the ones who should have a say in it.

Granted those receiving it should also have SOME say in things, but that's why parents should discuss these things with their children. There are too many kids who aren't mature enough to give accurate feedback based solely on objective experience rather than feelings and emotions. Not to mention, there's this whole sense of entitlement everyone keeps talking about with our younger generations, what's to say that wouldn't play into the results either?

quote:

So, yes, while parents may pay something to the school, it is a relative nuissance fee compared to the total cost of educating children at local schools which is borne by all landowners in the district.

So if it's a "nuissance fee", why bother continuing with it?

quote:

"Admissions - Other" accounted for $33,500 of revenue (0.033% of total)

Wow, don't know where they got that # from- when my kids were at South we paid hundred in fees for books and activities, etc. and that was years ago.

$33,500 divided by all the 87 students would be a few dollars per student. uh, no, that is not what we paid in fees annually.

I think I pulled the wrong line from the finanicial statements, they have one and two words descriptions with no explanation. Its probably "Fees" which were $1,990,300. Assuming 8,000 students in D87 that's $250 per student which sounds closer to your experience. So in relative terms, around 2% of the budget.

Regarding GESM2, when was the last time the government dropped a source of revenue just because it was inconvenient for taxpayers and didn't collect much revenue? I think there was a long thread on here recently about village auto stickers. They bring in a tiny share of total village revenue, are a big inconvenience for everyone, a trap for new residents, regressive, and probably never going away.

Bio, you're right....and it's only getting worse for per student fees....registration fees, gym uniform fees, locker rental fees, library usage fees (whether they use the library or not)....it just goes on and on and on....and you still have to pay book fees sometimes even when you have to purchase the books (as we did at North years ago).

FYI: $250 per student is NOT accurate either.

and while the government "manages" (and I use the term loosely) our schools, they are still OUR schools. Point being, if enough people push for something about it, it will change....just like the market, the buyer sets the standards....they just don't often realize it.

You hit it on the head, sort of- sometimes it's a tax disguised as a fee which po's a lot of people. A user "tax" is illegal as it discriminates and thankfully requires voter approvals to make it a tax. A user "fee" is legal as it supposedly is payment for a specific service for the individual and actual cost to provide the service must be clearly documented and not a penny more can be charged.

It's gets gray with education due to the citizens right to a public education. So below a certain income level or with a proven hardship the school district's waive the fees. Not sure that's what the constitution meant but I don't recall it ever being challenged in court

Yeah....a lot like these government programs....the income level that's set is below liveable. I was making $10/hour with two kids and didn't qualify for child care assistance....that's just assistance. I don't even wanna know what the poverty level for school enrollment assistance is set at