Talk:Foundations and Assessment of Education/Edition 1/Foundations Table of Contents/Chapter 7/In the News



Students: Please write your "Reader Responses" on this page.



Below are links to pages on which you can provide peer reviews for this article.

Remember that each peer review page should contain only one peer review.

Peer Review One

Peer Review Two

Author Reflection
I really enjoyed researching this topic and finding current events dealing with problems in educational organization. I was not aware about either of the topics I discussed in my article before starting my research. This has given me a desire to stay on top of educational news and current reform ideas/ issues. I hope to follow both of the issues covered in the article in the weeks and months to come. It seems like the mayoral takeover may occur in many other places, not just Detroit! And I am curious to see how the "pay for performance" project plays out in Utah. There seem to be so many benefits and problems for the project; it seems like a good idea to me. I agree with many others that specific guidelines and goals need to be set (and it could vary by school) so that the teachers know what they are working for and it is not ambigious. It was all very interesting for me to research and I hope it was enjoyable to read! Thanks!

Reader Responses
There were two things I really liked about this article. I enjoyed the very current information (the mayoral takeover happened pretty recently) and I liked the well thought out and researched information about the pay for performance plan. Surprisingly I had never heard of it, but often thought it was a good idea. With good teachers in high demand it surprises me that a plan such as this isn't more common, you think it would work in the favor of highly qualified teachers AND the students. There are arguements for an against it of course, but I liked how you argued both points and the article was great! Ldomm002 (talk) 01:49, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

I really enjoyed reading your article and found it very interesting. I was pleasantly surprised to read about the “Pay for Performance” plan and teacher evaluations. I like the idea Utah has to measure teacher and student success. I agree with your statement that this plan has the potential to increase the quality of education for students as well as to raise and standard and motivation for teachers. I understand the controversy surrounding the issue, but it is always nice to work towards an incentive. I also believe that significant changes need to be made in Detroit in order for the students to succeed. A mayoral takeover may be the first step of the solution. The organization and structure of the school system continues to change, but it is my belief that these changes are for the better as they will increase the educational quality and success of students. Afett001 (talk) 18:01, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

I think I was watching the Colbert Report or Daily Show about a year ago when Pay for Performance was debated. I still cannot believe it actually exists, not because I don't think the idea would work– but because it's just so ridiculously simplistic that I figured no one would ever implement such a thing. It's shocking to see how it's worked in some situations, but I'm not sure it's up to par for every standard. I don't think Pay for Performance is beyond an ephemeral plan, and that they'll need another more solid strategy for those school systems when its effectiveness diminishes. Hsmit022 (talk) 17:31, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

I also really enjoyed reading your article. I have heard of "Pay for Performance" before, but had not heard both sides of the arguements for and against it. I also agree that it will create a better quality of education and motivate teachers, but you are right, it also has the potential to damage that quality as well. I, however, think that it is time for teacher pay to be dependent on something more than education and experience. There are so many professions that get bonuses and incentives for exemplary performance. It does sound very simple, and I'm sure that there would be ammendments and changes throughout time to figure out the right balance and what is most effective. Alucy001 (talk) 02:56, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

You're article was very informative. I had no idea about this new concept of "pay for performance" and thought it to be a very interesting idea. If extra money motivates teachers to go above and beyond with their students so they can reach achievement, then it sounds like a pretty neat idea. Hcogg001 (talk) 16:09, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

I liked reading your article and the overview of the "pay for performance." While I agree that many teachers would benefit from this idea, I am not sure that with the budget crises that we have all been experiencing, that this would be the first program out the window, and therefore it would be a moot point. I do think that this program would give an incentive to some teachers to strategize and think outside the box to help their students to achieve. My argument is why aren't they doing that anyway, and like I said, with budget cuts everywhere that is one thing that will be brought up by cash strapped school administrations. Jnewh001 (talk) 17:55, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

I really enjoyed reading your article. It may be helpful to include the links to the specific articles throughout so readers can easily access the original text should they wish to read further. Your article definitely brings to light some novel ideas. Great job!Scrai010 (talk) 22:59, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

So, what about all the kids that don't take standardized tests? What about kids that get modified diplomas? How do you determine a teachers performance incentives when they work with that type of students? It seems to me that Special Education teachers are already a critical need. If the response to those questions is that you are only looking at general education students, then how can you value their education more than others? If you eliminate performance incentives for special education teachers, it will only exacerbate the problem. Jtmitchem (talk) 02:24, 27 July 2009 (UTC)