Musings from a Not-So-Master Teacher

In listening to the State of the Union, I noticed Bush touting the need for measurable results.  He cited improved test scores as evidence that NCLB was working.  It is always hard for me to listen to a guy ramble on about education when he makes up words and cannot figure out which syllable to place the accent.  Yet, despite his choppy delivery, I understood his point: teachers were a key problem to our declining educational system. 

A few months ago, I heard a I heard a different proposal from a charismatic candidate running on two important issues: change and hope. So this candidate, we'll call him Obama (since that's his name) suggested that the best way to hold teachers accountable was to pay for performance. I cringed.  It was hard for me, because I tend to agree with the guy on most issues.  I just wonder how long it's been since he's been in a classroom for more than a photo-op.

I doubt that the idea would work, because it misses the point.  Yes, teachers need more money; but not as an incentive. We need it so we can feed our families.  Trying to motivate me with money is a bad idea, because I never went into this profession for the money.  If they motivated teachers with better resources, smaller classes or more time, I have a hunch it might work . . . maybe.  The problem is that extrinsic motivation rarely works.  Instead it ruins community by creating mini-competitions.  It forces teachers to say, "What's in it for me?"  It leads students to believe they are nothing more than a means to a prize.

My other issue is how they would judge me.  Standardized tests are not reliable.  There is too much room to guess.  They assess in basic knowledge rather than critical thinking.  They are culturally biased (I'm going to write a post about this idea soon).  So, in the long run, it will scare off teachers who refuse to sell out.