The Globe reports half of Boston's teachers haven't been evaluated in at least two years, at least, according to a study by the Massachusetts Business Alliance for Education, which is right put out this morning because the Boston Teachers Union distributed its findings to the media a couple days early.
Neighborhoods:
Free tagging:
Like the job UHub is doing? Consider a contribution. Thanks!
Ad:
Comments
Why go through the trouble?
By Sarcastic Sam
Tue, 02/23/2010 - 10:55am
They never get rid of the underperforming teachers anyway, so why go through the BS when they won't do anything about it afterward?
(edited to remove grammar error.....yes, I went to public schools!)
(edited again because I decided to glance at the article!)
I didn't know about that new law. This could lead to true improvement of the system, if the administrators had the balls to get rid of the tons of dead wood.
Dead wood or no wood?
By Kaz
Tue, 02/23/2010 - 10:58am
We pay teachers squat compared to their importance in the improvement of our future economy.
If you wipe out any number of teachers as "bad", then with what pool of eligible teachers just chomping at the bit are you planning on replacing them? Is a bad teacher better than no teacher at all?
champing at the bit, not chomping
By anon
Tue, 02/23/2010 - 11:20am
...that bit aside, the good teachers normally go for the higher paying positions at private schools. This probably will never change. With that in mind, I really think it's up to the parents to step it up when it comes to supplementing their child's education at home. My parents did it for me -- my father most certainly helped me with math and science. If my grades started to slip, my parents spent more time going over the parts of my homework and lessons I was taught in class that I didn't understand. Education was a priority in my household. If grades slipped, then there was less playtime outside with my friends. No excuses for not getting decent grades. I just wonder, has this changed?
good teachers normally go for
By anon²
Tue, 02/23/2010 - 12:03pm
[img]http://images1.fanpop.com/images/image_uploads/Cit...
good teachers normally go for
By anon²
Tue, 02/23/2010 - 12:03pm
[img]http://images1.fanpop.com/images/image_uploads/Cit...
Higher-paying positions?
By Marc
Tue, 02/23/2010 - 3:46pm
Yeah, from what I hear from friends and family who are teachers, private schools pay less than public schools. Especially in the first few years. And are subject to much more rigorous paths to pay-raises and promotions than in public schools.
People just like to teach at them for other reasons apparently...
job security
By KellyJMF (not l...
Tue, 02/23/2010 - 4:51pm
I don't know about the pay, but a friend who teaches at a private school told me that private schools put out their job openings and make hiring decisions much earlier in the year. So good teachers are taking the bird in the hand rather than wait for possible public school jobs that may or may not be available. Because if you don't find a position for the fall it's pretty much a whole year before you can try again.
Not to beat a pedant to death
By Kaz
Tue, 02/23/2010 - 12:27pm
The idiom "chomping at the bit" has gained widespread acceptance as a valid turn of phrase. Considering the definition of "champ" is "chomp"...it's hardly a stretch and isn't any different to say "chomping" instead of "champing". If you want to complain about abused language, stick to the big ones where the original meaning has been completely obliterated like "begs the question". I used to care about that one...but it's been a lost cause for quite a few years now.
You're wrong. Chomping is
By anon
Tue, 02/23/2010 - 12:53pm
You're wrong. Chomping is still incorrect. The correct word is champing. If I get something wrong, I would hope someone would tell me. Otherwise I'd feel like an idiot. Learning isn't a bad thing and you shouldn't feel embarrassed if you are corrected. Just because many people get something wrong, doesn't make it right. That's pretty basic!
Ok, fine, let's beat it some more
By Kaz
Tue, 02/23/2010 - 2:07pm
Well then, Anon, consider this you getting something wrong and someone telling you so you don't feel like an idiot.
Languages are studied in one of two ways: descriptive or prescriptive. Your requirement that it only remain "champing" is prescriptive. You can think of it as "that's the way it was, therefore that's the way it should always remain". Taking linguistic prescription at such a hard line assumes near-zero evolution of a language...which would make it a dead language. A more descriptive stance on "champ" v. "chomp" would say that since Google finds 86,600 hits for "champing at the bit" as a phrase, and 2,020,000 hits for "chomping at the bit", well, it's pretty clear a LOT more people are using "chomping at the bit" these days and therefore it's part of the lexicon now...thus, it's perfectly correct English by current usage.
Descriptive linguistics describes the way things ARE with a language and lets it evolve as the users see fit. Prescriptive linguistics try to prescribe the rules of the language based on how it WAS and formalize it in a way that may no longer fit current usage. The extremes are vastly different. If you are extremely prescriptive, you will strangle the language to death. If you are extremely descriptive, you are very laissez faire and will always be able to accept that the users ultimately define their own languages. I'd be happy to give you a few links on these issues in linguistics, if you want.
When you think about it.
By Pete Nice
Tue, 02/23/2010 - 6:52pm
The sound that a horse makes is more of a 'chomp' than a 'champ'.
Chomp is a much better word.
It depends
By Kaz
Tue, 02/23/2010 - 11:44pm
On how hard and long you want to beat it.
Wait...that didn't come out right.
Wait...sigh.
It is rare for private
By cowsandmilk
Tue, 02/23/2010 - 7:36pm
It is rare for private schools to pay better than public. Private schools typically don't require teacher certification, which I always considered a benefit growing up as my teachers actually did things like major in Physics, not major in Education and just take some introductory college science courses on the side.
There are LOTS of qualified potential teachers out there....
By Sarcastic Sam
Tue, 02/23/2010 - 2:21pm
I personally know a good number of people who went through college aspiring to be teachers, couldn't find jobs in the area and either moved elsewhere or chose a different career.
There is a separate, but related, group of people out there who have years of private sector experience and WOULD make the jump to teaching if the opportunity was out there.
The Boston school system is loaded with teachers who have 20+ years of seniority and know they are in no danger of losing their jobs if they don't perform well. As a result, they sit on their asses and read the newspaper during their classes while the kids chat/text/play games. I've not only heard about this anecdotally, I've actually *seen* evidence of this. I don't expect anyone to believe me, but I really have seen it.
Not anymore
By Stevil
Tue, 02/23/2010 - 3:33pm
Read through Dr. Johnson's budget review. She calls 2011 a "transitional year" and 2012 a "transformational year". Reading through the lines it's pretty obvious she is telling BPS teachers that the coasting days are over (not that all teachers coast - but some do as in all professions). Few if any charters can open this fall - really too late for all the logistics. However, a lot of charters can probably be up and running for 2012, thus the transitional v. transformational point.
If BPS doesn't shape up - the charters, both in and out of district, will make them ship out. The good teachers will land in a charter. The coasters will land on their rumps.
Competition is a wonderful thing - not perfect - but still wonderful.
Yes
By Sarcastic Sam
Tue, 02/23/2010 - 4:16pm
In my earlier post above I acknowledged that I'd made that first post without clicking on the article. But I saw my errant ways a bit quickly and read a bit about the new policies.
The cynic in me says "I'll believe it when I see it" but it *sounds* very promising.
No evaluations? That's wierd.
By anon
Tue, 02/23/2010 - 3:04pm
On the other hand, if somebody on patronage has tenure, why bother?
FYI
By Pete Nice
Tue, 02/23/2010 - 4:16pm
Private school teachers get paid less than public school teachers, and Boston Public School teachers are the highest paid in the state. That's a fact. (or it was 5 years ago).
I think the above poster meant to say that a lot of the "best" teachers choose to teach in rich suburbs.
Now they are 6th
By Stevil
Tue, 02/23/2010 - 4:52pm
Here:
http://profiles.doe.mass.edu/state_report/teachers...
A little misleading - we have a very high percentage of teachers with long tenures - I think that older cohort is gradually retiring so our average teacher salaries are actually declining even though teachers have COL, step etc. built into their wages.
Yea I was talking about the top step salaries.
By Pete Nice
Tue, 02/23/2010 - 6:37pm
Which had been Boston as of a few years ago. I believe I remember the top step being almost 5K more than the next district actually. They deserve it though.
Also I believe a lot of young teachers (low step/low salary) start in the Boston Public Schools and then end up going elsewhere after some experience. That is true for many student teachers anyway.
Really. I know people, great
By anon
Thu, 04/01/2010 - 11:49pm
Really. I know people, great teachers, who would love a shop at teaching in the Boston Public Schools. The problem is that Boston is a tough market for teachers looking for work who have no connections.