Financial Incentives vs. Good Work Environment: Which Would You Pick?
Recent data compiled by the Center on Education Policy in Washington shows that many schools defined as “failing” by No Child Left Behind have been doubling the amount of time students spend in reading and math classes. This makes sense: if the students don’t have the reading and math skills, they could use more time practicing them.
There has been an outcry among some educators over this, however: if schools are doubling up on math and reading, they must be getting rid of other programs, other classes. This is the attitude today's NYT editorial takes issue with.
The editorial points out that the data from the Center on Education Policy doesn’t support the idea that music or art classes are getting cut by the score, or that science instruction is somehow falling behind. If the students don’t have the basic skills they need to succeed in other classes, the editorial says, then those skills should be given more time in school. “The real crime is that millions of them are still being passed along without mastering basic language skills.” Amen.
The editorial next puts forth the idea that No Child Left Behind will dramatically change education if it forces schools to stop hiring sub-par, under-qualified teachers and to start finding ways of attracting expert teachers—something that isn’t happening all that rapidly. “In this school year only about a fifth of districts say they have intensified efforts to find expert teachers for high-needs schools and only about 5 percent are offering financial incentives to attract good teachers to those schools. That will need to change if children in poor neighborhoods are to be given the chance to succeed.”
Great idea: pay teachers more money to work in high-needs schools. Financial incentives will undoubtedly work to attract teachers, and NCLB mandates that schools only hire “highly-qualified” teachers. But here’s the reality: teachers who want to work in high-needs schools with high-needs children will work there anyway, financial incentives or no. Many of these people are excellent, highly-motivated and highly-qualified teachers.
Here’s more reality: the more excellent the teacher, the more job prospects that teacher has. For many teachers—heck, for many employees, period—the work environment is as important as, sometimes more important than, the money to be made. Teachers who can get jobs in better schools will get jobs in better schools, even if those schools pay less.
NCLB is a well-intentioned law. It will undoubtedly improve some things about education, if only that teacher-education colleges will have no choice but to start churning out “highly-qualified” teachers. In a few years, every teacher who gets certified from an accredited institution will meet those requirements. But what NCLB fails to take into account is that poorly-qualified teachers are only part of the problem. As long as guns and knives and violence and gangs and all of the other stereotypically bad things are present in poor schools, good teachers will continue to seek jobs elsewhere, financial incentives be damned.
There has been an outcry among some educators over this, however: if schools are doubling up on math and reading, they must be getting rid of other programs, other classes. This is the attitude today's NYT editorial takes issue with.
The editorial points out that the data from the Center on Education Policy doesn’t support the idea that music or art classes are getting cut by the score, or that science instruction is somehow falling behind. If the students don’t have the basic skills they need to succeed in other classes, the editorial says, then those skills should be given more time in school. “The real crime is that millions of them are still being passed along without mastering basic language skills.” Amen.
The editorial next puts forth the idea that No Child Left Behind will dramatically change education if it forces schools to stop hiring sub-par, under-qualified teachers and to start finding ways of attracting expert teachers—something that isn’t happening all that rapidly. “In this school year only about a fifth of districts say they have intensified efforts to find expert teachers for high-needs schools and only about 5 percent are offering financial incentives to attract good teachers to those schools. That will need to change if children in poor neighborhoods are to be given the chance to succeed.”
Great idea: pay teachers more money to work in high-needs schools. Financial incentives will undoubtedly work to attract teachers, and NCLB mandates that schools only hire “highly-qualified” teachers. But here’s the reality: teachers who want to work in high-needs schools with high-needs children will work there anyway, financial incentives or no. Many of these people are excellent, highly-motivated and highly-qualified teachers.
Here’s more reality: the more excellent the teacher, the more job prospects that teacher has. For many teachers—heck, for many employees, period—the work environment is as important as, sometimes more important than, the money to be made. Teachers who can get jobs in better schools will get jobs in better schools, even if those schools pay less.
NCLB is a well-intentioned law. It will undoubtedly improve some things about education, if only that teacher-education colleges will have no choice but to start churning out “highly-qualified” teachers. In a few years, every teacher who gets certified from an accredited institution will meet those requirements. But what NCLB fails to take into account is that poorly-qualified teachers are only part of the problem. As long as guns and knives and violence and gangs and all of the other stereotypically bad things are present in poor schools, good teachers will continue to seek jobs elsewhere, financial incentives be damned.
posted by Christopher at
11:33 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home