Tuesday, January 17, 2012
The Value of Teachers
Due 27 Jan 2012. What are the economic implications of having a bad teacher? How would you change the payment system to give incentives to good teachers?? How do we get rid of bad teachers under contract??
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
The economic implications of having a bad teacher include their students having a lower risk of graduating high school. Additionally, a bad teacher is equivalent to his or her student "missing 40 percent of the school year." Teachers who are not successful in their profession do not benefit the students in their classes. I would pay teachers more and more every year. Teachers should have a base salary and get a higher salary as they become more experienced. Good teachers should be rewarded for their hard work and dedication to their students. We can get rid of bad teachers by paying them to quit. If students are not benefiting, it is cheaper to fire the bad teachers and hire individuals who are suited for the job. The students' futures greatly depend on the teachers and their ability to teach the material.
ReplyDeleteThe economic implications of having a bad teacher would be the quality for the future human capital will decrease. "Having a good fourth-grade teacher makes a student 1.25 percent more likely to go to college, the research suggests, and 1.25 percent less likely to get pregnant as a teenager." Students will have better grades, morale, manner, etc. if they have a better teacher. On the other hand, if they have a bad teacher, they won't be prepared for colleges and their careers. Technically they will be unskilled labor I guess? Too many unskilled workers will impose a threat on our economy. I don't how I could change the payment system to make it fair because there is no way to measure a teacher's quality. We could use the standardized test or the midterm/final, but I feel like in that way students might lose their opportunities to learn other stuff besides "how to score higher on a test". I would fire the teacher whether or not he/she is still under the contract because the opportunity cost of keeping the bad teacher is much higher than the opportunity cost of paying the fee and hiring a better teacher.
ReplyDeleteHaving a good teacher does a lot for the child. “Having a good fourth-grade teacher makes a student 1.25 percent more likely to go to college, the research suggests, and 1.25 percent less likely to get pregnant as a teenager.” Although these percentages are low, the teacher can be the inspiration a child is looking for to continue on. Having a bad teacher does impact a child, behaviorally and mentally. “Conversely, a very poor teacher has the same effect as a pupil missing 40 percent of the school year.” So I definitely do not think firing the bad teachers is a good idea. That is just like saying that the school should get rid of the bad kids to allow for the schools test scores to go up. Bad idea. So instead, I think there should be incentives for teachers. Many teachers go into the profession because they enjoy working with children. Instead of paying a teacher how many years they work, (teachers can work for 40 years and still be bad), I think there should be a test once a year to test teachers to make sure they are up to date with their material. Just like how insurance employees need to take text to make sure they are up to date on codes, teachers should take tests on their subject. With the testing, there should be brackets of how a person is paid. 0-3 years they receive a base pay, 4-6 promotion of a higher salary, etc. The more years spent, the more benefits. Let’s face it, the smarter college students do not want to go and teach, most of them want to go out and physically do something other than teaching. Higher salaries should also be granted to higher forms of educated teachers. If an English teacher has a doctorate, I think they should be paid more than the teacher with a bachelors teaching the same subject.
ReplyDeleteBad teachers are a waste of taxt payer money given that they actually reduce education levels rather than increase it. They also contribute to the pool of unskilled workers that are often unemployed. In other words, bad teachers produce uneducated children, which breeds unemployment. As much as Meachum may hate it, I believe that the payment of a teacher should be based off of how they teach. Inspectors should come in at variable time periods (so the teachers wont know) and anylize how they teach. Teachers that have a high median score on standardized test will be paid the most and the less the median score the less you will be paid. Poor teachers under contract should be given the worst possible classes to make their lives miserable as punishment until their contracts are up. then you can fire them. if the teacher improves while their in the bad classes then they wont be fired
ReplyDeleteThere are many economic implications of having a bad teacher. The education that a student gets from teachers is what either helps or hurts them in the future. For example, I have an amazing economics teacher, MS. MEACHUM, so I will be likely to succeed. The article says, as other quoted above, "having a good fourth-grade teacher makes a student 1.25 percent more likely to go to college." We can give incentives to good teacher in several ways. First, we can increase their salary. Also, we can allow them to get more paid vacation etc. In order to assess a good teacher we can look at grades in comparison to previous scores. This means that if students have a history of not trying it won't be the teachers fault. We can get rid of bad teachers by placing them first on probation and examining their teaching styles. If they continue to be bad teachers then they should be fired. Teachers are very valuable to students and are one of the main factors in their economic success; thus, we must reward the good teachers and fire the bad ones.
ReplyDeleteA good teacher is much more effective on students than a poor one. By having a bad teacher, it increases your chance of not going to college, increases your likelihood of getting pregnant as a teenager, and earning less money than you would have with a good teacher. When a teacher cannot do their job effectively, it does not benefit the students in any way. It is comparable to a student missing 40% of the year which would not be allowed. So why do we allow bad teachers that will not be educating the children, only putting them at risk for a poor education. I would change the payment system by raising the teachers salaries. Some teachers aren't going to teach to the best of their ability knowing that they could be doing the complete opposite and still be making the same amount of money. Even if you give the teachers who excel a bonus, it would encourage other teachers to step up and enhance their own teaching capabilities.Action should be taken immediately if the school knows that a teacher is doing a poor job and get rid of the teachers who simply can't perform the task of teaching these children. It is crucial for young kids at the 4th grade level to be getting the best education they can and the good teachers should have an incentive to stay and teach them.
DeleteThe economic implications of having a good teacher (a good teacher will be defined as someone who puts all their effort into teaching their students) is that students will most likely move on to college when they graduate from high school. Attending college allows them to be able to get a job eventually, earning anywhere from $25,000 to $700,000 a year, or even more. A good teacher benefits the students more than the teacher benefits from us in the future. A bad teacher (will be defined as someone who does not teach students to their fullest potential) will not benefit the economies' future since the students will earn a bad education and can lead to a bad future; not only for the student but the teacher too. As a payment to a good teacher, I think since teachers start at a base salary and then move up, I think good teachers who benefit students should get a raise every so often or get a bonus at the end of the year. We can measure if students benefit teachers by giving them a standardized test, and like Feyaaad said to compare the grades of previous years to see if their are any improvements in their grades. We can try to get rid of bad teachers by each year measuring the students grades of the standardized test and seeing if they went up or down. If the grades were to go down, then they could be demoted to a class where the students are not as hard-working and keep them their till either their contract ends or until they improve.
ReplyDeleteHaving a bad teacher could mean risking a child's earnings of $25,000 in their lifetime, the time at which they graduate (or do not graduate at all), and the knowledge they could have learned with a good teacher. All of these factors hurt our chances, as a nation, to progress; these children the foundation for our society. Bonuses for all teachers would be the best way to motivate or compliment teachers as a whole. The problem arises, however, when deciding who are the BEST teachers. Because of the diversity among children to learn and attain, strict knowledge (facts, facts, and more facts) could be a skewed way to determine what kind of teacher they have. However, it does seem to be the only way to standardize the playing field among all subjects and teachers. In order to get rid of the bad teachers, the same method used to decide the bad teachers would single them out. Then, we would be able to pay them to leave, as Nicholas Kristof suggested, so not to jeopardize their life or those we hold in our hands.
ReplyDeleteA bad teacher, even if it's at a young age, can really hurt the future economic well being of a student. The article gives the statistic that a good fourth grade teacher will make a student 1.25 percent more likely to go to college, which backs up my point. I believe that a payment system is really difficult to implement. For example, a teacher might be great at his or her job, but be in a classroom where the students just don't care about their education. The teacher will be doing everything he or she can to try to help the students, but if the student is not willing to learn, it's useless. On the same note, a teacher can be horrible at his or her job, but be lucky enough to be teaching kids that actually care about their grades and will go out on their own and learn the material without the teacher's assistance. If we evaluate the teachers solely on their pass rates, than excellent teachers like the one mentioned before will not be rewarded and lazy teachers like the other one may keep their positions and be rewarded. I think the only effective way to get rid of bad teachers is to have someone sit in in their classrooms and evaluate their teaching techniques.
ReplyDeleteThe economic implications of having bad teachers in the education sysytem is eventually having less educated people in the work force who compete for low skilled jobs which could lead to low wages and bad working conditions. The only way to determine if a teacher is doing their job well is through a testand even then I,m not sure the student would benefit from that. I suppose the only way to get rid of bad teachers under contract would be to pay them off, which I see as very unlikely to happen.
ReplyDelete