Tweet
was wondering if the fine minds on this board have anything to add to the topic below.
Join the debate!
Published: Wednesday | January 28, 2009
In a recent letter, R. Howard Thompson of Munro College in St Elizabeth argued that the playing field is not level, hence the argument for performance-based pay for teachers is flawed. Here's an excerpt from his letter. Do you agree? Email us: editor@gleanerjm.com or fax: 922-6223.
Until we remove these status-driven schools from the comfort zones they have built for their own self-promotion and force them to compete on a level playing field with the comprehensive and new secondary schools, the comparisons we make with the performance of teachers in the two types of schools remain meaningless, futile and misleading.
The comprehensive schools that some frown on are the only schools that were set up to do the job the way it ought to be done. They take in the entire range of students that exist in this country and they allow the ones who are able to excel to do so. They are not avoiding the problem of teaching weaker students as is done by the status-driven schools. I have seen no evidence to date to suggest that the high-achieving child has a better chance of doing well at any of the status-driven schools than he or she would at a comprehensive school.
Incompetent vs competent Right now, there are, doubt-less, some lazy and incompetent teachers who manage to secure high pass rates because they are strategically placed to do this, while some hard-working, creative and dedicated souls in less prestigious schools heroically get fours and fives from struggling students dumped in their midst because the system insists that they should not darken the doors of some status-driven school, which may even be next door to where they live. Teachers know this and it is for this reason that they oppose the idea of performance-based pay.
Join the debate!
Published: Wednesday | January 28, 2009
In a recent letter, R. Howard Thompson of Munro College in St Elizabeth argued that the playing field is not level, hence the argument for performance-based pay for teachers is flawed. Here's an excerpt from his letter. Do you agree? Email us: editor@gleanerjm.com or fax: 922-6223.
Until we remove these status-driven schools from the comfort zones they have built for their own self-promotion and force them to compete on a level playing field with the comprehensive and new secondary schools, the comparisons we make with the performance of teachers in the two types of schools remain meaningless, futile and misleading.
The comprehensive schools that some frown on are the only schools that were set up to do the job the way it ought to be done. They take in the entire range of students that exist in this country and they allow the ones who are able to excel to do so. They are not avoiding the problem of teaching weaker students as is done by the status-driven schools. I have seen no evidence to date to suggest that the high-achieving child has a better chance of doing well at any of the status-driven schools than he or she would at a comprehensive school.
Incompetent vs competent Right now, there are, doubt-less, some lazy and incompetent teachers who manage to secure high pass rates because they are strategically placed to do this, while some hard-working, creative and dedicated souls in less prestigious schools heroically get fours and fives from struggling students dumped in their midst because the system insists that they should not darken the doors of some status-driven school, which may even be next door to where they live. Teachers know this and it is for this reason that they oppose the idea of performance-based pay.
Comment