It’s just not comparable to a system in which all of the funding is allocated directly to the students, and that’s what Andy Freeman had been suggesting.

I don’t think there’s a college in the county that has tuition as it’s only source of funding.

Public colleges get allocations from Federal and State governments and always have. So the GI thing does not equal a “let the money follow the student” funding method. It equals a “give some people who have earned it tuition and fee money” argument.

You’re the one who needs to outline how performance equals pay if you’re the one advocating for a change to the system.

You misrepresent what other people say and present it to justify you’re delusional views of education.

Andy,
At this point it’s clear you’re a disingenuous sniper who simply wants to complain. You’ve got no ideas, no solutions, and no real clue how school funding presently work.

You are living in a dream world if you think three month vouchers will work. (You imagine three month leases for facilities? three month long staff contracts? Good luck with that.)

I’m not changing anything.

The two ideas are separable (one can implement either one without implementing the other) and we’re discussing them both.

NDC’s stated objection to pay for performance is the standards used to measure performance. We’ve yet to get to how different levels of performance map to different levels of pay.

NDC’s objections to school choice are different. The “what if a school doesn’t attract enough students” uncertainty seems unacceptable. I’ve pointed out that almost everyone else in the world has the same uncertainty. Yes, teachers aren’t used to that, but why should that continue?

Yes, there were perfectly wonderful engineers at Rambler who los their jobs when that company went under. NDC has yet to tell us why the existence of a few good teachers at a horrible school justfies keeping that school open?

It’s not about teachers, it’s about students.

I believe that it is wrong to object to an improvement because it won’t deliver perfection.

I also believe that most parents want what’s best for their kids. I don’t believe that they’re always correct, but I do believe that their self-interest is somewhat effective.

I believe that people respond to incentives. I believe that teachers are people.

I believe that when someone says that they’d do something “if only”, but it’s impossible to satisfy their conditions, that they’re not actually willing to do said something.

I responded that way because that’s what NDC actually wrote. I’ll quote.

> If an individual school’s funding is solely based on the number of students enrolled, how will teachers be paid?

One possibility with school choice is that a school won’t get any students. Why should it get money? Another possibility is that it will get only a few students and have way more teachers. Again, proportional to students seems reasonable, even if that means that the many teachers at that school have to split a small pot of money. NDC apparently disagrees. Does NDC really believe that a group of teachers should be paid regardless of whether they have “enough” students?

I’ve repeatedly advocated for per-student funding with a bonus for cost of education (degree of difficulty, level of student, etc.). NDC seems to think that this is wrong without proposing an alternative.

Actually, I do.

Each parent with a school age child is given a voucher every 3 months. Said voucher can be redeemed by an accredited school for cash.

The GI bill machinery works quite well.

What I don’t know how to do is design a pay for performance system that PSAs will accept. Since they don’t either, the only reasonable conclusion is that their stated acceptance of pay for performance is dishonest.

It’s easy enough to prove me wrong….

But in contrast, every other kid worked as hard as he or she could.

If we are going to have pay for performance with testing, I’d pick the TVAAS way.

I suspect though if the kids are also getting some positive result back in terms of growth, not just where they are relative to everyone else, they probably want to do better too.