I read a really interesting New York Times article today. If you would like to take a look at it, you can find it at http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/05/education/05charter.html?_r=1&em. Essentially, the article was talking about a new experimental teaching philosophy. A school was opened up in New York where eight teachers who have been selected through a strict interview and observation process will teach. These teachers are considered to be the best of the best. The school is based on the idea that innovative teachers, not technology or small classroom sizes are the key to student success.
As a reward for good teaching, these educators will be paid two and a half times as much as the average teacher. The school will be using public money for everthing except for the lease for the school building. However, because of the large salaries allocated to teachers, there will be cutbacks in other areas. For example, there will be no assistant principle, and teachers will have responsibilities that will extend beyond that of the traditional classroom teacher. For example, there will be no substitute teachers, except for when teachers take extended leaves of absence. Teacher coaches will not exist, and these teachers will not only have to work longer days, but also will work more days throughout the year. In addition, class sizes at this school will be large, averaging about 30 students per class.
I was wondering what you thought about the theory of education at this school. I feel like with all the extra strain put on these teachers, there might be a higer burn out rate at this type of school. Also, although I too believe that the most important factor in student success is the quality of the teacher, I think that classroom size and availability of technology will have an impact in every teacher's classroom. Even the best teachers are only one person and thus can only handle so many children on their own. Do you think that paying teachers more and making them go through a stringent screening process is the best way to attract qualified teachers? Do you think that public funds should pay for these teachers inflated salaries, when other items and positions within the school (such as technology, administrators, coaches, and substitute teachers) are being eliminated?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Jenna,
ReplyDeleteI found this article very interesting, it is something to think about. As a soon to be teacher larger salaries sound great, but why should these few teachers have inflated salaries? They ask the question, "what makes a good teacher?" How do they know that these teachers will meet their expectations? While the idea sounds promising, I'm not sure that getting rid of assistant principles and subsititue teachers will be best for the students or teachers. It will be interesting to find out if strong teachers are enough, or if class size and technology have more to do with student learning than we think.
I would love to read a follow-up article about this school a year from now and see how it is working. I do truly believe that having strong teachers is 90% of the battle, but I just don't know if we can rely on strong teachers for everything. I also worry that if we are asking too much of these teachers, then there will be a high burn out rate. I would hate to lose great teachers because of the system.
ReplyDelete