It's not wrong. Act has always had good policies but have never managed to sell them to voters. I intend to vote National this time, but may switch to Act if it looks like they will get over the hump for a second MP, or hopefully - even a third.
Printable View
If you have excellent teachers but in an area of increasing poverty, increasing overcrowding and/or substandard housing and poor quality equipment, the chances are their performance will suffer. If some teachers increasingly have students who are inadequately nourished and clothed and the students continually fall ill, then some teachers have a deteriorating environment in which they try to teach
Sure. And will it differ from rich to poor areas? So you think excellence for teachers in areas becoming more deprived will be constantly changing to include expertise in social work? Whilst those in continually prosperous areas will be judged on their ability to teach? So teaching ability will not necessarily mean teaching ability depending on where you teach?
Question - are underprivileged kids going to be better off or worse off with teachers now being incentivised greatly for their performance and their rapport with students?
Perhaps, teachers in a decile 1 school might find it more difficult to earn 80k a year under this scheme, but at least the opportunity is there and where there is opportunity there will always be those who rise.
As it is now ( with 4 teachers in my family who obviously love this policy ) the only monetary reward teachers can hope for is a chance at moving into a leadership position - essentially the teachers who are performing well and are considered for a promotion can now, through this policy be rewarded without having to leave the classroom where the real work with students occurs...
The opportunity to work 60 hour weeks and earn under 60k did not sell a lot of great candidates on the idea of going into teaching, perhaps this might?
Are you expecting different things from teachers in different areas? My issue is mainly in assessing "performance" in areas and schools with changing circumstances. Will a good teacher one year, be deemed to be not so good in subsequent years because they do not have the social work skills needed to cope with increasing poverty? So would their salary be cut as result of inadequate funding of social work in the community with deteriorating living conditions?
Question - is it easier to develop rapport with healthy children from stable backgrounds, from a warm dry house and who have been well fed?
...You teach in a privileged area with healthy well fed kids, you deserve an easier way to earn more money? Shouldn't teachers in underprivileged areas be paid higher salaries anyway, as not only do they need to be skilled teachers, they need to have greater skills in social work.Quote:
Perhaps, teachers in a decile 1 school might find it more difficult to earn 80k a year under this scheme,
There are always some that shine no matter how grim the circumstances. Although the numbers who will be able to succeed become fewer and fewer as the circumstances become worse and worse.Quote:
but at least the opportunity is there and where there is opportunity there will always be those who rise....
I think you arte taking an overall elitist view. Suggestign those in "poor" areas are trouble and those in "rich" areas aren't.
Schools in poor areas turn out excellent students. Hoi polio private schools can turn out toe rags - though you wont see them in the NCEA stats as they are kept out of that part of the system.
The Ministry for Vulnerable Children should be knocking at those doors then, with a view to removing those children to a home where they will be fed, clothed, not overcrowded, get the health care they need, and be supported at school.
That would remove the burden from teachers, who are supposed to be there to teach. And from parents who are not caring properly for their children,