news-record.com

Good questions. I'd say off the cuff that teacher pay should be linked to student performance across the board, but corrected for socioeconomic factors. The down side of that is that the biggest gains (or losses) are at the bottom end of the class, so teachers will direct their efforts there and let the top half ride, knowing that they'll do fine anyway. The longterm threat here (as with the year-round schooling) is that what's best for the lower end isn't popular at the higher end, and therefore threatens to drive more upper half kids into private schools.

Eliminating the achievement gap won't happen; it's a persistent statistical fact that derives from cultural factors (mainly the absence of dads). The smallish but significant gains we've seen are probably near the limit, but IMO are worth the cost.

The gap can be vertually closed. Why is there little or no gap between races in overseas dependent schools operated by the Department of Defense? Parents being goine does not seem to be a factor in their schooling. Most of Mission Possible should be scraped. When it was put in, all agreed that if significant progress was not made, it would be scrapped and the money would be used on other programs that might work.

My understanding is that teachers in the Mission Possible schools agreed to stay for several years or have to pay back their bonuses. If true, any boost in retention results more from contractual demands than from a major desire on the part of teachers to stay at those schools. I have several friends who would love to leave but can't afford to pay back the bonus money. Thus, it's not clear that there has been much real improvement in achievement or in the desire of teachers to teach at certain identified schools.

Mission possible has not lived up to expectations. Most of the teachers have few qualifications other than they want the money. Other factors, besides money, play a big part in where a teacher teaches. Some teachers that are not diverse are treated very poorly in inter-city schools. A great teacher has to have the support of her/his colleagues, principal, staff and parents if much improvment takes place. I would support a program where each teacher in they system spends two of each ten years in the inter-city schools. This would only work if everyone supported the idea. As long as we have schools where students don't know how to sit down and be quiet, we will have a hard time getting the best teachers in those schools. In addition, a lot of people are very happy to have the best teachers teach the rich white kids. They think inter-city students don't deserve the best teachers. Mission Possible should be scrapped at any school where significant improvment in the subjects the teachers teach has not occurred. This is what the BOE promised to do when they implemented the program.

I am amazed at how people who DO NOT teach think they know how to "fix" the system. PLEASE walk in my shoes for a month - no - just a week. It is very difficult to tie teacher pay to student performance because not all teachers have classes with measurable data. Is it fair to pay the Spanish or Drama teacher less just because they don't teach an EOC class? I don't think so. Also, I teach a "Big 5" EOC - but yet my course is not one of the ones that is given an incentive at the Mission Possible schools. Only classes tied to AYP are given an incentive. Do I feel any less pressure for my students to succeed - NO. I am evaluated yearly on my students value added scores - yet even if they are off the chart (which they are), I get nothing extra. This is an extrememly complicated issue.