Paying teachers based on their worth is tricky business. In theory, it's certainly the perfect solution. In reality, if I'm a teacher, and you pay me according to test results, I sure as heck am going to teach to the test at the expense of all else. This is, of course, the whole problem behind NCLB. I'd prefer to think that administrators could better use the evaluation tool already in place to weed out the bad ones.
Assistant principals....I can see the need for an assistant principal at each middle school and the high school, but we've got more than one. Agree....don't need more than one. And if we got back to suspending the chronic problem students, we might not even need one.
Drug testing....absolutely.
And you already know my thoughts on administrative pay cuts. Right now is the right time. I guarentee that in today's market, we could find a qualified superintendent willing and able to do the job for a heckuva lot less money.
I agree in concept, but your points lack solutions. Or at least detailed solutions. NCLB does encourage good teachers to simply teach a test for self reward, but how can we correct that? If tools are already in place and are not being used, can we blame the teacher?
Asst. Principals I think could be cut down to one, if not eliminated altogether. But to whom do you expect to pass that increase work load onto? The teachers? The Principal? Who?
Drug testing? Absolutely.... But again you failed to mention how? Are you talking pre-employment or random? I believe pre-employment drug testing is being used now. So are you leaning towards random test or just when a incident or accident occurs? What role would the teachers union play in those policies. I think it's much more complex than stating we should have drug testing. JMO
