SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Brumar89 who wrote (220530)2/23/2007 2:20:51 PM
From: one_less  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 281500
 
I disagree. We've tried to look at it often and it doesn't work.

The Calculous teacher may have the highest performing students in the school who practically self teach; while the remedial reading teacher has to work extremely hard on many different levels with little or no performance change among the students.

It would work if it were applied to teachers of homogenous groupings like gifted and talented. But we aren't even funding those programs due to our commitment to the one's who might have gotten left behind. That's also why other countries are kicking our butts in science, math, and technological innovation. Throughout history, the winning cultures have always been those that brought the best tech, so what does that tell you?



To: Brumar89 who wrote (220530)2/23/2007 2:48:32 PM
From: Katelew  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 281500
 
Nope. The weakest teachers would not receive pay cuts. Their pay, their working conditions, etc. all remain the same.

The better teachers get the pay raises.

So again, why would the NEA do such an obviously nonsensical thing??

HINT: Google is your friend.


HomeMailHotSubjectMarksPeopleMarksKeepersSettings
Terms Of UseContact UsCopyright/IP PolicyPrivacy PolicyAbout UsFAQAdvertise on SI
© 2025 Knight Sac Media.  Data provided by Twelve Data, Alpha Vantage, and CityFALCON News