Closing the Achievement Gap

  Schools must deploy  the best  teachers  to where  they are most needed.
  In California, more than half of the teachers who are  in  training are working  in  the schools with  the highest numbers of minority students. Only 3% of  these  interns teach  in  schools with a majority of white  students. What this means  is  that  the youngest,  least-experienced  teachers are assigned  to  the children who,  in many cases, are most in need of expertise. Yes, the state continues to defne theseteachers as “highly qualifed” under the requirements of No Child Left Behind. But that’s a dodge that serves adminis-trators, not children. We hope a current  lawsuit against  the practice prevails. Beyond this, providing a better education for black, Latino and,  in fact, all students will require bold new thinking.
  First, schools must pay  teachers  for  their actual perfor-mance—not merely an ability to endure. Merit pay antago-nizes some teachers unions, which see it as outside interfer-ence in the classroom, while the rest of the world is judged by performance. Teachers must accept that some version of merit pay is essential in sorting out great teachers from bad ones. Moreover, merit pay—or some version of  it—can be used to lure good teachers to low-performing schools.
  Second, because under union contracts  teachers get  to choose where they work, education money follows teachers instead of students. A certain amount should be allocated for each student, wherever  that student  is  enrolled.  In schools with higher-paid  teachers,  that might mean  fewer extras such as music;  in schools with  lower-paid  teachers, more counselors and classroom aides. And money should never be used  to pretend  that students are  receiving equal amounts from a school district. That’s federal money meant to supplement  resources at schools with  large numbers of poor children.
  Finally, it’s time for everyone—unions, teachers, admin-istrators and parents—to acknowledge  that districts must be allowed  to  reassign good  teachers  to  low-performingschools. Wise  administrators,  of  course, would  avoid forcing teachers into schools where they would be unhappy or resentful—and  thus  ineffective. But districts  should have  the option of sending  their best  teachers where  they are most needed—something  that’s now almost  impossible under union rules.
  These  tough measures are worth  it because  the conse-quence of  inaction  is so high: Successful school districts simply do not permit  instruction gaps  that  leave minority students behind. Some create  their own excellent  teachers by working closely with  the universities  from which  they graduate. Others ask  their best  teachers  to undergo rota-tions of one to three years in struggling schools.
  This  is a  touchy  issue, but only because of outdated funding formulas  that pit students of different classes and races against one another. It doesn’t have  to be a winner-take-all contest  in which  some kids get  the best  teaching and others do not. We can value  teachers  for effort and performance, and assign them according to need. In today’s topsy-turvy system, all it will take is a 180-degree revolu-tion.

不让一个孩子落后

    学校应当把的教师分配到最需要他们的地方。
    在加州，正在参加培训的教师中一半以上在有色人种学生占大多数的学校里工作，只有 3%的实习教师在白人学生占多数的学校里工作。这就意味着，在大多数情况下，最年轻、最没经验的教师大多被分配去教那些最需要有经验的教师的孩子。在布什政府推出的 “不让一个孩子落后”的政策要求下，这个州仍然认为这些教师是“非常合格的” 。然而这只是为了行政管理之便，而不是为了对孩子负责。我们希望政府马上立法来制止这种现象盛行。除此之外，我们还要大胆开拓新思路，为学生们，尤其是黑人和拉丁美洲的学生们提供更好的教育。
    首先，学校必须按照教师的实际表现进行奖惩，而不仅仅是他们的忍耐力。一些教职工会反对实行绩效工资，他们认为这是对课堂教学的一种外在干预，但现在学校外的各行各业都在按表现领工资。教师们一定得明白：实行绩效工资是必要的，这样能分出教师的好坏。而且，实行绩效工资或这种类似的制度可以为不太好的学校吸引好老师。
    其次，由于工会合同规定教师有权选择到哪儿工作，所以教育经费的派发应当跟随教师而不是学生。不管学生在哪儿入学都应该派发一定量的教育经费。这就是说，在教师收入高的学校里，他们的额外经费就少些，比如音乐；老师收入低的学校里，课内、课外辅导的经费就多些。但是，永远不要把这些钱当作是学生从校区得到的平等份额，这是联邦政府为贫困孩子较多的学校补充的财政经费。
    ，是时候让所有人（包括教工会、教师、官员和家长）认识到必须允许地区政府向办得不好的学校重新派遣教师了。当然，明智的官员不会强迫教师去他们不喜欢或者不愿意工作的学校工作，而且这样做也起不了什么作用。但地方政府应该有权将教师派遣到最需要他们的地方，而按照现在教职工会的规定这几乎是不可能的。
不采取行动的后果非常严重，所以这些强硬措施值得一用。学校办得成功的地区不能允许出现教育缺口，使有色人种的学生落在后面。一些地区通过和他们的教师毕业的大学密切合作培养自己的教师，另一些地方则要求他们的教师有一到三年的时间到正在发展的学校轮职。
    这件事办起来很棘手，仅仅是因为过时的经费分配惯例使得不同种族和阶层的学生彼此竞争。这不是一场胜者为王的比赛，在这场竞争中一些孩子得到的教育，而其他的孩子却无权享用。我们可以根据教师的努力和成绩来评价他们，并且把他们分配到最需要的地方。在今天这个正反颠倒的体制里，我们要做的就是给它来个 180 度的转变。
——选自《我爱读英文》