Education in the US -- FUCK IT!

[cmoon]

As some of you know, I've been a science teacher now for 7 years both at the middle and high school level; and while the bullshit has never stopped being present, the most recent copy of newsweek has got me fuming yet again.

An editorial from a couple months back (sorry I can't cite it, I don't keep the things around too long) suggested that we could improve education in the US by paying more successful teachers more. This is an old, incredibly stupid idea because #1) in general, the administrators evaluating are in general much less educated than the teachers themselves, #2) schools are hotbeds of personal drama, #3) the resulting evaluations which would be subjective to begin with could never escape the problems of #1 & #2. Indeed, during my seven years I've seen a lot of teachers I would personally rate as quality educators as having been unfairly attacked by young, aspiring principles who want to assure their own position by attacking old teachers--a very popular public view who can't accept that the failing education system is a reflection of a larger cultural dilemma.

And speaking of that, this new article by George F. Will (3/23, last page), picks no bones about firing those old worn out teachers and hiring brand new teachers. It even endorses 'alternative certifications'...ie, accepting people who haven't actually taken classes in education--because you know, the real problem with education is those old, tired teachers.

Behind Mr. Will's article is an underlying philosophy that it isn't the money we invest in education, but rather all the bad teachers, and it's the second time the issue has been put so bluntly in only a few months. The idea that class sizes ARE too large and actually represent a major hurdle for any educator is dismissed, while various social/economic factors aren't even acknowledged. I say all this because what Mr. Will has written is a very popular idea---because blame games like this are always popular. Taking personal responsibility for a larger problem where education is neither respected nor valued is too amorphous for arm-chair critics like Mr. Will who can easily get a lot of people excited and angry about a profession they don't even understand.

I guess I knew going into this that being an educator would be a job where you turn on the news and they tell you that you suck; but it does feel good now and then to point out these peoples' ignorance. Thanks for reading.

[Free in Freeport]

Pleased to meet you, CMoon! I'm one of those 'seasoned educators' being pushed out the door for a much cheaper, inexperienced person. Got no tenure, so there's nothing I can do.

The public school systems are an entirely different scene than when I started, 24 years ago. It's no longer enough just do to do your job and do it well, and be professional in all your interactions. You have to schmooze, flirt, suck up and brown-nose; games I'm constitutionally incapable of playing.

Fuck it. I'm done.

[cmoon]

*nods* If I saw a good exit plan, I'd consider it. I'm psychologically exhausted by the job yet intellectually bored. I'd gladly take a steep pay cut to do something that was both intellectual stimulating and had only a fraction of the drama.

[Notta]

Hey, I was a public school teacher for 14 years and I saw PLENTY of the 'older' teachers who were doing a minimal job at best, and, at worst, did almost NOTHING and were paid over TWICE what I was paid as a new teacher.

The majority of older teachers I knew did much less in terms of projects, grading (seriously -- giving a + for a completed assignment that was completely WRONG?), extra-curricular activities, keeping up with current research, keeping up with advances in their field, etc.

If the evaluations of teachers are based on the improvement in content knowledge over the course of a year, how can a principal game that? Let's say that Teacher A's students score about 65% proficient & advanced on the state science assessment, and Teacher B's students score about 75%. Then suppose that Teacher A's students score 70% one year and 69% another year, while teacher B's are still hovering around 75%. Wouldn't you say that Teacher A has improved instruction & student content knowledge? (Setting aside the entire controversy over whether state tests are valid, of course.)

There's a lot of deadwood in public education, and you know it. You've seen those teachers who are in it for the summers off and their retirement accounts. They shut their doors and do the same old shit they've done for over a quarter of a century, regardless of advances in learning, teaching, and technology. They should be removed and their positions opened up for people who REALLY want to make a difference in a student's life and who have a passion AND a knowledge base about teaching & learning. But it's not brain surgery -- anyone who can read at a college level can learn to be an adequate teacher. It's whether they can learn to be an EFFECTIVE teacher that makes the difference.

[cmoon]

The summer's off thing is a farce. If most teachers do what I do, then that means a work day that often starts effectively around 5:30 am and often runs into the evening hours. I've seen myself clocking many 12 hour days, never mind the professional development. Also, don't forget part of those two months off (why do people say 3?), is spent prepping for the next year, going to special school functions and yes, going to yet more classes.

No one is arguing there isn't lots of deadwood, but there is quite a bit of deadwood in ALL professions. Teaching in general is too punishing for those who would be genuinely lazy. As far as using the standardized test as a way of evaluating teachers--this is also dangerous since now you are encouraging teachers to simply TEACH TO THE TEST. I'd also caution this sort of thing since so much really depends on the starting aptitude and history of each individual kid; while ignoring much in-school politics (and student shuffling). Without going into enormous detail, the truth of the matter is that the situation is far more complicated than the public is in general aware of, and that same mechanism which might seem so just in cutting some dead wood is also (and I say this with previous experience) going to be used to cut quality teachers that for political reasons have been put on the chopping block.

It also, as I tried to get at in my initial post, ignores some of the larger problems present in the US education system.

[BWE]

Bullshit. There's a bell curve everywhere. You can't change the system by changing the teachers. The new ones will not and can not be better than the old ones. cmoon, i concur 100%.

[Loren Pechtel]

Bullshit. There's a bell curve everywhere. You can't change the system by changing the teachers. The new ones will not and can not be better than the old ones. cmoon, i concur 100%.

If you lop off the bottom of the curve you will improve it. Not all the replacements will be as bad.

[PostMortem]

Hi Cmoon,

I'd like to give you a piece of advice that I've found helps to lower my stress levels significantly, NEVER, EVER READ ANYTHING BY GEORGE WILL! It's done wonders for me.:)

Anyone who wants to spout off about teachers being the problem with education should be forced to go teach for a year and then see what they have to say.

[cmoon]

If you lop off the bottom of the curve you will improve it. Not all the replacements will be as bad.

But, that's just what I have been trying to explain: the mechanism for doing this will also allow good teachers to be fired by corrupt administrators. What you are suggesting as a good idea in more cases than not, will also be abused. I only have so many ways to say that this sort of thing will rarely if ever be objective.

I have seen ONE truly incompetent teacher removed (from the school but not the system) by these sort of mechanisms. I have seen several good teachers harassed to the point of calling out sick for several months by incompetent administrators using these same mechanisms to support their own bigotry. Again, what might seem sensible from the outside becomes nonsensical once you understand what is going on INSIDE.

NEVER, EVER READ ANYTHING BY GEORGE WILL! It's done wonders for me.

I'm thinking you are dead on here.

[Albion]

But how is this any different from companies, where managers and directors are also in charge of deciding who gets pay raises and who gets sidelined or laid off? There's corruption, empire-building, drama, harassment, pressure to replace expensive older workers with cheaper younger ones, and all these other things going on in the private sector and in nonprofit organisations. I'm not sure about this argument that you can't have evaluations and merit pay in schools because it'll be abused, because I don't think the schools are a special case - the abuse happens when there are corrupt people in the mix, not just because it's a school.

When I was a schoolkid we had some truly awful teachers, and there was nothing that could be done about it because they couldn't be fired for incompetence. Year after year the kids in those teachers' classes were failing exams they should have been passing, including O-levels (as well as getting lower A-level results than they might have done and sometimes missing out on university as a result), and there was nothing anyone could do. My cousin's son was trying to get into university to do chemistry, and his chemistry teacher at school was well known to be useless - my cousin had to pay for special private tuition so her son could get through the A-level of the subject he wanted to study at university. She and her husband complained to the principal, and he more or less said that yes, the guy's worthless, everybody complains, but too bad, we're stuck with him. It's ridiculous.

[darjeeling]

But how is this any different from companies, where managers and directors are also in charge of deciding who gets pay raises and who gets sidelined or laid off? There's corruption, empire-building, drama, harassment, pressure to replace expensive older workers with cheaper younger ones, and all these other things you see in schools.

I imagine the difference is that with companies, the bottom line is to make a profit. Why should a school feel pressure to replace experienced older workers with cheaper younger ones? Why should a school cut back on the quality of teachers for financial reasons? The bottom line shouldn't be getting kids through the process with the smallest budget possible and without regards for the quality of the actual instruction. If it's more expensive to keep good teachers (regardless of their age/experience), why shouldn't we just pay for it?

Schools aren't businesses and they shouldn't be run like businesses. That's all bullshit, and I see it as one of the big problems with education in the US, particularly in higher education.

[trendkill]

If the evaluations of teachers are based on the improvement in content knowledge over the course of a year, how can a principal game that?Not sure about principals, but teachers can probably do so, simply by being lax in their anti-cheating measures.

But how is this any different from companies, where managers and directors are also in charge of deciding who gets pay raises and who gets sidelined or laid off?It's different because companies are private organizations which are subject to the profit motive, of course. If drama takes precedence over functionality, the company will make less money or go out of business, and if that's the way the people running the company want it, well, it's pretty much theirs to run into the ground. Neither of these apply in a public bureaucracy.

[dancer_rnb]

Bullshit. There's a bell curve everywhere. You can't change the system by changing the teachers. The new ones will not and can not be better than the old ones. cmoon, i concur 100%.

If you lop off the bottom of the curve you will improve it. Not all the replacements will be as bad.

Better work extra hard at keeping your best performers then. If they leave their replacements will likely be worse.

Regarding performance payments, since I didn't get one this year because my employer is doing poorly should I work about 10% less? (/sarcasm)

[BWE]

You can't lop off the bottom of the curve.

[Notta]

All I'm saying is I've seen, met, worked with, and mentored more poor teachers than good teachers every year I've been in education. They always have tenure and more years of teaching than I did.

They came late; left early (right at the closing bell of the day). They did not attend any professional development that was not mandatory. They took home little to no work. They did nothing related to education over the summer; either worked a second job or traveled.

And they complained bitterly and constantly about being asked to do ANYTHING that extended their time beyond their contract, that changed the requirements of what they were teaching, or that involved anything regarding the evaluation of their students.

I would estimate that about 20 - 30% of all teachers I have met & worked with did on a regular basis. I've done teacher professional development all over the country, and my FIRST question at my workshops is, "Did you CHOOSE to come here, or were you SENT here?" Those who were sent will sit in the back, reading their laptop, and will ignore whatever I'm trying to do. I've had teachers say that they didn't need any professional development EVER, because they knew what they were doing.

If the majority of teachers are so great, why do so many of our kids leave high school unable to understand algebra, high-school level reading materials, or general science? You can't blame everything on politics or social ills.

The single most important influence on a student's level of achievement is the classroom teacher. Studies have shown this time & again. Yet the unions still protect ALL teachers the same, regardless of their ability to teach.

I was awarded a national honor for exemplary teaching a couple of years ago (not the President's Award - something that only 10 - 15 people get per year), and my fellow award-winners and I had similar tales to tell of how bad public education was. Even with all the politics about curriculum, testing, lack of resources, and poor schools, it still boils down to the individual teacher.

cmoon, I have no doubt that you are a fine teacher, given your description of what you do in your position. However, you, unfortunately, are the outlier, not the norm. And until our nation addresses THAT problem, our schools and our students will continue to degenerate.

[Free in Freeport]

A LOT Of cheating and gaming goes on with mandated assessments! One of the biggies is trumping up phony disabilities and 504 plans on lower-achieving kids, so they can be given "accommodations" for testing, or exempted altogether. I worked in one school where fully 25% of the children were receiving testing accommodations: extended time, individual/small group testing, reading the test aloud (INCLUDING the parts assessing reading skill!), eliminating one or more of the incorrect answer choices for multiple choice options (increasing the chance of guessing correctly to 50%), giving away the correct answer by inflection, pointing, etc.

Principal in a certain middle school appointed a committee to examine the science and social studies texts chapter by chapter, determine which topics are and are not covered by the state exam, then TORE OUT the chapters he deemed "irrelevant", because they aren't on the test. No longer even giving the teacher the option of presenting those topics!

Notta- I have to take exception to your stereotype. yes there are burnt out cronies who need to retire in every system, but they are far out-numbered by bright, dedicated teachers OF ALL AGES. I see lots of spoiled little princesses enter systems, blatantly discriminate against difficult students and get away with outright child abuse because they are cute and manipulate the principals.

[Notta]

Notta- I have to take exception to your stereotype. yes there are burnt out cronies who need to retire in every system, but they are far out-numbered by bright, dedicated teachers OF ALL AGES. I see lots of spoiled little princesses enter systems, blatantly discriminate against difficult students and get away with outright child abuse because they are cute and manipulate the principals.
I have no problem with you disagreeing with me on my stereotype, but I HAVE been to hundreds of districts around the country and return saddened every time.

As far as the 'spoiled princesses' part, I worked with a superintendent who only hired fresh-out-of-college blond girls for three years in a row. No matter what the position or candidate pool, a pretty blond girl got the job every single time.

Most principals and superintendents I meet are perfect examples of the Peter Principle.

[sohy]

I'm surprised that none of you teachers have mentioned the problem of poor parenting. I did volunteer work for three years in a local elementary school and while the teachers were pretty good, I can't say that same for some of the parents that sent tired children with poor nutrition and little guidance to school. I think that is probably a much bigger problem than poor teachers. It's a much more challenging problem to solve too. Sure there are some extremely talented educators that have had success with poorly prepared students, but is it fair to expect all teachers to be so far beyond the limits of normal performance? Doesn't it take innovation and inspiration from the school system and community to help these teachers improve their outcomes? Shouldn't the parents bare more responsibility for the success of their children? Teachers are humans, not miracle workers.


My volunteer experience was in the most highly rated school where such unprepared children were in the minority. I can't imagine what the teachers on the other side of town, which is haunted by uneducated parents, single parent homes, poverty, and crime, have to do to have successful outcomes. With few exceptions I'm pretty sure that such areas attract the teachers that can't find a job in the better areas. Perhaps large salary incentives should be given to the brightest teachers that are willing to take on the challenge of working in areas that suffer from social problems and economic hardship.

[dancer_rnb]

....... With few exceptions I'm pretty sure that such areas attract the teachers that can't find a job in the better areas.

They probably also lose any good teachers over time. Or destroy them. Dedication only goes so far.

I'm not a teacher, but work in the electronics industry. I've seen a lot of good people leave, or adapt to not being able to change things. I doubt schools are any different

[Free in Freeport]

Notta- I have to take exception to your stereotype. yes there are burnt out cronies who need to retire in every system, but they are far out-numbered by bright, dedicated teachers OF ALL AGES. I see lots of spoiled little princesses enter systems, blatantly discriminate against difficult students and get away with outright child abuse because they are cute and manipulate the principals.
I have no problem with you disagreeing with me on my stereotype, but I HAVE been to hundreds of districts around the country and return saddened every time.

As far as the 'spoiled princesses' part, I worked with a superintendent who only hired fresh-out-of-college blond girls for three years in a row. No matter what the position or candidate pool, a pretty blond girl got the job every single time.

Most principals and superintendents I meet are perfect examples of the Peter Principle.

Maybe it's time to question your own perceptions, of 100% of the time you are returning saddened from your travels. Seriously. You're looking for reasons to confirm your stereotype.

[Notta]

Maybe it's time to question your own perceptions, of 100% of the time you are returning saddened from your travels. Seriously. You're looking for reasons to confirm your stereotype.
I just meet all too many slackers and people looking to put the blame of the failure of our educational system on everyone else instead of admitting that maybe, just maybe, THEY could do a bit better themselves.

I also meet a bunch of fully committed, excited, effective teachers. But they are always in the minority no matter where I go, except at the national science teacher's conference. And they have tales to tell that are similar to mine.

[sohy]

Originally posted by Notta I also meet a bunch of fully committed, excited, effective teachers. But they are always in the minority no matter where I go, except at the national science teacher's conference. And they have tales to tell that are similar to mine.
Yesterday 10:39 AM

My experience has been that fully committed teachers have always been in the minority. It was that way when I was growing up and when I raised my son, who is now 38. What has drastically changed is parenting. At least that's how I see it. Exceptional teachers may be able to make a difference with the children coming from homes with with poor parenting, but I think it's unrealistic to expect all teachers to be able to overcome the barriers presented by the socioeconomic problems of their students.

What kinds of changes do you think it would take to improve the quality of teachers as well as eliciting more parental responsibility? How would you attract more quality people into your profession? What would you do to keep them from getting burned out? I place a very high value on basic education for all of our young citizens, so I'm very interested in hearing ideas from those that have practiced in your field.

[DMB]

They came late; left early (right at the closing bell of the day). They did not attend any professional development that was not mandatory. They took home little to no work. They did nothing related to education over the summer; either worked a second job or traveled.

And they complained bitterly and constantly about being asked to do ANYTHING that extended their time beyond their contract, that changed the requirements of what they were teaching, or that involved anything regarding the evaluation of their students.

I don't know anything about American schools. I used to teach in British and international schools and I gave it up 35 years ago. But I have to say that Notta's evaluation above chimed with mine. I had wonderful colleagues who worked hard and inspired kids. But I remember some who really shocked me. Not only did they have this attitude that Notta has described, they also struck me as people who should never have been allowed to teach in the first place. They had no intellectual background, no love of learning for themselves. They would sit in the staff common room reading the bloody Sun (http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/), a truly loathesome Murdoch tabloid.

I had students come to my department for teaching practice who were both lazy and sloppy. Despite a poor report from me, they still got passed to continue into teaching. They're probably still doing it now.

[Notta]

What kinds of changes do you think it would take to improve the quality of teachers as well as eliciting more parental responsibility?

That's actually two questions. Here's my philosophy: We (education specialists) can't change society. We can't change how parents raise their children. So we have to deal with what we have. We need to change our educational system to provide much more than 'the three R's' to our students. We need to provide adequate food, lessons on manners, clothing, a safe place to be during most daylight hours, in addition to providing an education. We can moan and bitch all we want about how parents aren't doing their job, but that won't change what we have to do to teach the children we actually have. Schools need to do more than they ever have before. And you know what? The school systems that recognize this, and adapt to the meet the needs of their students, have the most successful educational outcomes.

The quality of teachers is often (but not always) dependent upon the quality of the college they attend. Teach for America teachers can often do great things, but I think this is by virtue that ToA teachers are only recruited from the top universities. Traditional education programs (of which I am a graduate) need to focus less on theory and more on application, especially on English-language learners, urban students, and students with special needs. We need universal mentoring programs for all teachers for the first 2 years. Professional development programs at schools need to be targeted to specific teacher needs, not some add-on program with a guest speaker at the last minute.

How would you attract more quality people into your profession? You have to pay them according to a business model instead of a union model. I worked with a kindergarten teacher who earned $85,000 per year (in a state different from mine). Even if I had gotten my PhD while teaching, my salary would NEVER have reached that amount. So, a PhD teaching science (a critical need) who earned LESS than a first year business major, engineer, dental assistant, or nurse? No wonder people leave the profession -- there is no merit pay, no promotions, no bonuses tied to performance, etc. You get paid for years of service and degree (to a certain point), and that's it. Pay people according to the critical need they fill: urban districts, special education, science & math, etc., and their ability to make a difference in their students' ability to understand their content and use critical thinking skills.

What would you do to keep them from getting burned out?
There HAS to be a mechanism in place so the very best teachers are able to be promoted. Teachers have no where to go when they master their profession other than administration or curriculum development. Each of these options removes them from the classroom. Why not have master teachers who teach part-time and mentor new teachers part-time? Why not have a professional development school at each district where master teachers can plan PD activities for their content areas and implement them over the course of a year? Once you've reached your peak as a teacher, you have no where to go. And, frequently, nobody cares that you've mastered your work and want to do more. You get no reward for doing better than most others; you often receive no recognition.

A good friend of mine explained rewards in education like this:

The first time you win an award, everyone is pleased. Your principal or superintendent makes an announcement, colleagues stop by to congratulate you, everyone is happy.

When you win a second award, the principal usually stops in to congratulate you, and your friends are happy.

When you win a third award, people start talking about you behind your back, no one comes to see you, and you hear, "Who does she think she IS??" when you walk into the faculty room. People avoid you. If you leave, no one is sorry to see you go, with the exception of the superintendent, perhaps. The perception is that you, as a teacher, are so full of yourself that you can't possibly be as good as others think, and you probably did something illegal or sexual to get to where you are.

I know someone who won a national award that included a one-year fellowship with the federal government. When she told her superintendent, he said, "If you take this I will fire you!" She resigned and took the award. I know another teacher who won the President's Award for science teaching (given to only 2 teachers per state per year) AND the national fellowship award. His principal told him, "If you take this, don't bother coming back. I don't need someone like you teaching in this school."

I know someone who won the President's Award, and when her $10,000 check came to her school district, her PRINCIPAL took it and placed it in the school's reserve fund, explaining that she would not have won that award if she hadn't been teaching in HIS school. She quit.

I place a very high value on basic education for all of our young citizens, so I'm very interested in hearing ideas from those that have practiced in your field. It's in a sad and sorry state. Principals have NCLB breathing down their necks, so the entire focus is on getting kids to pass the tests. The teacher's unions are concerned with losing power. New teachers to the field are often left unmentored, and given the absolute worst kids to deal with. Urban schools have the least experienced teachers in the worst conditions, while the white suburban schools go merrily along, having fine teachers who get the highest wages while teaching the most advanced kids with the most involved parents.

EVERY school in the country should have the SAME AMOUNT of money for teachers, students, and supplies. It shouldn't matter what county or state you live in, each student should have the same opportunity. And public schools shouldn't be able to get away with spending $5000 per student in one area but $250 per student in another.

[Notta]

I don't know anything about American schools. I used to teach in British and international schools and I gave it up 35 years ago. But I have to say that Notta's evaluation above chimed with mine. I had wonderful colleagues who worked hard and inspired kids. But I remember some who really shocked me. Not only did they have this attitude that Notta has described, they also struck me as people who should never have been allowed to teach in the first place. They had no intellectual background, no love of learning for themselves. They would sit in the staff common room reading the bloody Sun (http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/), a truly loathesome Murdoch tabloid.

I had students come to my department for teaching practice who were both lazy and sloppy. Despite a poor report from me, they still got passed to continue into teaching. They're probably still doing it now.
I taught with an English literature teacher who never read books. I couldn't understand it. Her favorite evening activity was to watch "The Bachelor" and "Survivor."

[cmoon]

So why do you think there are so many burnt out teachers? Did they really just go through all that education just for the summers off?

I mean, if we're going to say it is the bad teachers that are the problem (and bad teachers are a problem), we might as well ask why there are so many bad teachers. I'd also like to know why schools that seem to have a lot of good teachers still have high failure rates?

I'm not asking this to be an asshole, and I never meant in my initial post to imply there aren't bad teachers, but perhaps the problem is a bit more complex and larger than this--AND, perhaps just blaming bad teachers isn't exactly the right way to go about addressing the larger problem.

[Free in Freeport]

I've never met a teacher making anything close to 85K! I've got a M.S. + 42 and 23 years, and am below that by a fair measure - even if you include my insurance allowance. When contract negotiations roll around, school boards are infamous for greatly inflating salaries to the press, by adding benefit packages to the quoted figure, or stipended positions such as coaching. Effective for turning public sentiment against the cause of fair wages.

[Notta]

So why do you think there are so many burnt out teachers? Did they really just go through all that education just for the summers off?

I mean, if we're going to say it is the bad teachers that are the problem (and bad teachers are a problem), we might as well ask why there are so many bad teachers. I'd also like to know why schools that seem to have a lot of good teachers still have high failure rates?

I'm not asking this to be an asshole, and I never meant in my initial post to imply there aren't bad teachers, but perhaps the problem is a bit more complex and larger than this--AND, perhaps just blaming bad teachers isn't exactly the right way to go about addressing the larger problem.

That's the subject of a body of research right now. An enormous part of the problem is the type of person attracted to the teaching profession (and its attendant identification with young women), plus the colleges of education themselves. Here in PA, literally every single college/university has an education program. Some of the state schools are mostly teacher ed. schools. They churn out thousands of teachers each year. Everyone in the hiring business knows that graduates from some colleges are far better prepared than graduates from other ones. It has a lot to do with time in the classroom and the mentoring one gets while doing field experiences. But there are no easy ways to determine which college does it right, and which one miserably fails. But there are many colleges for which the entrance requirements to a teaching program are so low that literally any high school graduate in the country could meet them. Contrast that with entry requirements for an engineering or scientific field, and you'll find that many people who choose to enter education could never make it in any other field of study.

I've never met a teacher making anything close to 85K! I've got a M.S. + 42 and 23 years, and am below that by a fair measure - even if you include my insurance allowance. When contract negotiations roll around, school boards are infamous for greatly inflating salaries to the press, by adding benefit packages to the quoted figure, or stipended positions such as coaching. Effective for turning public sentiment against the cause of fair wages.
She was from Seattle. Teachers in the DC metro area make that much and more. Where I taught, 85K was the salary for a principal with a couple of years of experience. Suburban schools around Philly have teachers who routinely come close to 100K per year, depending on their years of service.

I would have NEVER made that much money, no matter how long I taught or how many degrees and awards I had, at my former school district.

[BWE]

I've never met a teacher making anything close to 85K! I've got a M.S. + 42 and 23 years, and am below that by a fair measure - even if you include my insurance allowance. When contract negotiations roll around, school boards are infamous for greatly inflating salaries to the press, by adding benefit packages to the quoted figure, or stipended positions such as coaching. Effective for turning public sentiment against the cause of fair wages.

Yep. It is public info -the union contracts. That's the only place the info should be sourced to.

85k is a fabrication or iotherwise intentionally dishonest.

[Notta]

85k is a fabrication or iotherwise intentionally dishonest.
You should see what a suburban teacher in the DC or Philly area makes. I was offered a job in Maryland near DC without an interview for 75K to start, with the opportunity to earn up to 95K within 10 years.

[Free in Freeport]

85k is a fabrication or iotherwise intentionally dishonest.
You should see what a suburban teacher in the DC or Philly area makes. I was offered a job in Maryland near DC without an interview for 75K to start, with the opportunity to earn up to 95K within 10 years.

Was the job a part of a package deal with a nice bridge they were selling?

[BWE]

85k is a fabrication or iotherwise intentionally dishonest.
You should see what a suburban teacher in the DC or Philly area makes. I was offered a job in Maryland near DC without an interview for 75K to start, with the opportunity to earn up to 95K within 10 years.

Hazard pay? :p

Wow. Oregon simply doesn't do things in a messed up way. Things work here. I dunno how the rest of the country does it so badly. Republicans I guess. :/

But, the union makes the contract, no? Are there districts which offer contracts outside the union contract?

Those don't sound right somehow.

[Notta]

85k is a fabrication or iotherwise intentionally dishonest.
You should see what a suburban teacher in the DC or Philly area makes. I was offered a job in Maryland near DC without an interview for 75K to start, with the opportunity to earn up to 95K within 10 years.

Was the job a part of a package deal with a nice bridge they were selling?
You simply cannot believe the amount of money teachers in these wealthy districts make.

In PA, we have 501 school districts; most are itty-bitty, and all are funded primarily through property taxes. I taught in a 2,000 student district nine miles from my home; my kids went to a different 9,000 student district from a wealthier town. I earned, on average, $9,000 - $10,000 a year LESS than a teacher in my kids' district - just down the road from the one I taught in.

I had a yearly budget for all my science supplies (plus shipping & handling) of $500 for every year for ten years in a row. At my kids' school, science teachers had a budget of nearly $1200, and that didn't count regular supplies for the entire department; that was for the teacher's discretionary classroom use. My $500 had to go for everything: paper for printing, markers, chemicals, equipment, etc.

The disparity in teacher pay and student support services is criminal. The districts with expensive properties get the best schools, while the poorest districts get diddly-squat for their kids & teachers.

[Notta]

Wow. Oregon simply doesn't do things in a messed up way. Things work here. I dunno how the rest of the country does it so badly. Republicans I guess. :/

But, the union makes the contract, no? Are there districts which offer contracts outside the union contract?

Those don't sound right somehow.
There are 501 PA school districts; each one negotiates its own contract with the school board. The union oversees the negotiations, but doesn't set wages that compare to neighboring districts; it depends on the property tax base in the district. Wealthy suburbs + high property taxes + expensive properties = high teacher wages. Rural farms + low property taxes = lower teacher wages.

[BWE]

still, 85k salary? I don't know.

And too: districts that spend that much, do they turn out better results? I bet they do.

[Notta]

still, 85k salary? I don't know.

And too: districts that spend that much, do they turn out better results? I bet they do.
I saw her paycheck stubs - yep, $85K for kindergarten (wealthy Seattle suburb).

Of COURSE they turn out better results! Most of the time, wealthy parents = educated parents = providing enriching learning activities for their kids = better students.

[Free in Freeport]

I don't disbelieve what you are saying. What does the average 2 bedroom home cost in those areas? A one-bedroom apartment? When you weigh the wages in those terms, it's a lot less impressive. What does the average nurse or business manager of comparable education earn?

As to the supposed "superiority" of education systems in suburbia, don't overlook the skewing caused by the limited sampling pool. Let's see those teachers achieve the same results with ghetto children in Detroit. Or Cabrini Green. Or Battle Creek. 9th ward of New Orleans. There are schools where teachers consider the day successful if nobody bleeds in their room.

[Notta]

As to the supposed "superiority" of education systems in suburbia, don't overlook the skewing caused by the limited sampling pool. Let's see those teachers achieve the same results with ghetto children in Detroit. Or Cabrini Green. Or Battle Creek. 9th ward of New Orleans. There are schools where teachers consider the day successful if nobody bleeds in their room.
That describes my kids' school -- lots of National Merit Scholars, nationally award-winning kids in every academic competition --- and the majority of the students are children of faculty members at the local university. Teachers can break their arms patting themselves on the back for 'teaching' kids that are born with every advantage possible.

Meanwhile, nine miles away, I had 20 - 25% of my students identified as having learning disabilities, with a near equal amount qualifying for free or reduced lunches.

I'd like to see suburban teachers catapulted into needy schools, too, to see what they can achieve when almost every student is behind in reading and math.

[Notta]

This story is all too familiar to many principals and school districts, particularly in areas where it is difficult to attract good teachers: It's hard to fire teachers. (http://www.tampabay.com/news/education/k12/article987898.ece)

[Free in Freeport]

Actually if not tenured, teachers can be fired for any or NO reason. If they've been with the district less than 4 years, they don't even have to be given a reason. It happens all the time. It's happened to me more than once.

[Notta]

My district granted tenure after 2 years. My kids' district had a habit of telling teachers after one year that they weren't sure they had a position for them the next year. Then, in August, they'd call and say, "Oh, we have a full-time position for you." Since they considered each year a 'temporary' teaching position, they didn't have to count it for tenure. I know several people who left for poorer paying jobs just so they could know whether they'd have a job year after year.

I also know someone who stole thousands of dollars worth of equipment and materials from his school district, was caught, and returned a couple of hundreds of dollars' worth, had no sanctions, and continues to teach to this day. Plus, he's the most illiterate person with a college degree I've ever met.

[Loren Pechtel]

This story is all too familiar to many principals and school districts, particularly in areas where it is difficult to attract good teachers: It's hard to fire teachers. (http://www.tampabay.com/news/education/k12/article987898.ece)

Thief! How dare you steal my link! And where did you get the time machine to steal it with?

[laughing dog]

I also know someone who stole thousands of dollars worth of equipment and materials from his school district, was caught, and returned a couple of hundreds of dollars' worth, had no sanctions, and continues to teach to this day. Plus, he's the most illiterate person with a college degree I've ever met. No offense, but that is just piss poor management.

[sohy]

Thank you for all the responses Notta. Sad to say but much of what you said reminded me of my own profession, nursing. Do you think your profession is negatively influenced by paternalism?

I don't totally agree that increased salary would help that much. In the first place, most school districts can't afford that type of salary, although I agree the current salaries do need to be raised. My experience has been that most people are far more motivated by favorable working conditions rather than salary. I know that is true for nurses. Hospital nurses usually make the most money but they also have the most stressful, difficult jobs. Most work 12 hour shifts with mandatory overtime. Hospitals are often very short of help and nurses are frequently the scapegoats for everything that goes wrong. Additional education brings very little monetary reward. The possible exception would be an advanced practice nurse working with a specialty physician. An Atlanta nurse working in a hospital with shift diff, holiday pay etc. might make 60-70K but there are always vacancies for these positions. Compare that to a public health nurse, or medical reviewer position with a state agency paying about 30-32K per year. These lower paying positions are usually in demand with many applicants. Having done all of these types of positions, I'll take the low pay over the high stress any day. Another example is my own spouse who gave up a high paying IT project manager job with horrible working conditions for an engineering job with 25% less pay but much better working conditions and job satisfaction. Money motivates but only to a point. I think this is especially true in the serving professions like teaching and nursing. If working conditions could be improved, I think you'd have happier, more dedicated teachers. The school I volunteered in had a low student to teacher ratio and many volunteers, as well as very supportive management.

I would think that the fact that both of our professions are female dominated and women have more options these days might be one factor as to why you are seeing fewer highly qualified applicants. Nursing suffers from this as well, except whenever there is an economic downturn, people flock to the nursing profession since nurses usually have more job security than other professionals do. This was the reason I chose my profession so I can't be too critical of that motivator.

Maybe this discussion will motivate me to return to volunteering in a local school. I had to teach my own son to read when the school was unable to do it, despite the fact that my son had a very good first grade teacher. While I would have never had the patience to home school, teaching him to read was a very rewarding experience. If I do more volunteer work, I think I will insist that it be limited to coaching poor readers. So many children these days never learn good reading or writing skills. I was shocked that there were so many third graders incapable of writing a complete sentence. We do have a big problem on our hands in the US when it comes to education.

I have no idea how to solve what I believe is one of our biggest related problems, the one parent household. In my county, 50% of white children and 70% of black children come from one parent homes. It's hard enough for most of us to raise successful children with two parents. Having been a single mom between marriages, I had a taste of just how difficult it is to raise a child by yourself. Education can't solve that problem but it certainly impacts the success of education. Well, I've rambled long enough and now I digress. I enjoyed reading all the input.

[Notta]

This story is all too familiar to many principals and school districts, particularly in areas where it is difficult to attract good teachers: It's hard to fire teachers. (http://www.tampabay.com/news/education/k12/article987898.ece)

Thief! How dare you steal my link! And where did you get the time machine to steal it with?
FARK (http://www.fark.com/) rules the world.....

[Worldtraveller]

Originally posted by Notta I also meet a bunch of fully committed, excited, effective teachers. But they are always in the minority no matter where I go, except at the national science teacher's conference. And they have tales to tell that are similar to mine.
Yesterday 10:39 AM

My experience has been that fully committed teachers have always been in the minority. It was that way when I was growing up and when I raised my son, who is now 38. What has drastically changed is parenting. At least that's how I see it. Exceptional teachers may be able to make a difference with the children coming from homes with with poor parenting, but I think it's unrealistic to expect all teachers to be able to overcome the barriers presented by the socioeconomic problems of their students.

What kinds of changes do you think it would take to improve the quality of teachers as well as eliciting more parental responsibility? How would you attract more quality people into your profession? What would you do to keep them from getting burned out? I place a very high value on basic education for all of our young citizens, so I'm very interested in hearing ideas from those that have practiced in your field.
^^ This.

Study after study has shown that the biggest contributor to how well students do is the involvement of parents. My limited personal experience in the educational field bears this out.

The certification process in most states, for teachers and even moreso for administrators, is outdated and more of a hindrance to good educators, IMO.

I had teachers from the worst end of the spectrum when going through school, and growing up in the military, I saw a wide range. I also had a few phenomenal teachers.

I plan on teaching one of these days, when I'm ready for semi-retirement, either at the high school or community college level, but I'm going to make my money as an engineer first. :p

[DMB]

I certainly think that parents ought to have a big input to children's education, but it's hard for parents who are uneducated themselves, even if they want to help. It's quite wrong to think that you hand your children over to a school and that's that. Look at Oolon and how he is teaching his daughter about evolution.

I know that I always tried to help my children learn, regardless of whether they had good teachers or not. For example, when my son was doing world literature for the International Baccalaureate two of his texts were the plays A Dolls House and Waiting for Godot. I was able to take him to excellent productions of both of them on the London stage. I think Godot in particular would have been much harder to understand just from the printed page. Naturally, since I used to teach maths myself I helped them with that. But really one can help in all sorts of subjects without being a specialist in them.

[sohy]

My parents weren't educated but they did take an interest in our school and exposed us to cultural things and that took an effort on their part. Too bad we spent so much time in church or we may have had even more opportunities to learn. Of course, I can remember quite a few Bible verses. For what that's worth. :D

I know we can't change the parents, although there are probably ways to get more of them interested in the education of their children. I just think that teachers often get more blame for the failures than they deserve.

But really one can help in all sorts of subjects without being a specialist in them.

Very true. I know home schooling is a controversial topic but I have met several home schooling mothers that have done an excellent job of teaching their children. Is home schooling an American phenomena or is it an option in other countries? It probably needs more regulation here, but it seems as if parents often make much better teachers of their own children than those who have been formally educated in the field. It's not just religious parents that are home schooling. Quite a few secular people in Georgia are doing it, with good results.

[Notta]

As far as parental involvement goes, when you're a single parent trying to scrap together enough money from one or more jobs to support you and your children, you probably don't have enough time or energy to help them learn to read, understand their homework, or even keep them in clean clothes every day. We can repeat how much responsibility parents have for teaching their children, but the reality is that our social system (in the US) has broken down in many areas, and not only do kids come to school unprepared to learn, they have little to no resources at home to help them do so.

We must work with the kids we have, not the ones we wish we had.

[Worldtraveller]

I certainly think that parents ought to have a big input to children's education, but it's hard for parents who are uneducated themselves, even if they want to help. It's quite wrong to think that you hand your children over to a school and that's that. Look at Oolon and how he is teaching his daughter about evolution.
As far as parental involvement goes, when you're a single parent trying to scrap together enough money from one or more jobs to support you and your children, you probably don't have enough time or energy to help them learn to read, understand their homework, or even keep them in clean clothes every day.
True as that may be, I think the important part of the studies (I need to see if I can dig up the actual data and verify this) were that the parents were involved. I don't think the parents' education level was as much of a factor, although it would obviously be so in many cases.

Just asking your child every day or so if they've done their homework, and glancing over it to see if it's completed would potentially be enough if there was encouragement. My dad stopped being able to help me with math around my sophomore year in high school (geometry), but he still nagged me every day to make sure I had my homework done.

[Loren Pechtel]

I also know someone who stole thousands of dollars worth of equipment and materials from his school district, was caught, and returned a couple of hundreds of dollars' worth, had no sanctions, and continues to teach to this day. Plus, he's the most illiterate person with a college degree I've ever met. No offense, but that is just piss poor management.

No. That's the result of your #1 friend, the union.

[Loren Pechtel]

Study after study has shown that the biggest contributor to how well students do is the involvement of parents. My limited personal experience in the educational field bears this out.

But this doesn't let us blame society and discrimination for what's happening.

Since discrimination is the cause of all evils you must have the wrong answer.

[Loren Pechtel]

As far as parental involvement goes, when you're a single parent trying to scrap together enough money from one or more jobs to support you and your children, you probably don't have enough time or energy to help them learn to read, understand their homework, or even keep them in clean clothes every day. We can repeat how much responsibility parents have for teaching their children, but the reality is that our social system (in the US) has broken down in many areas, and not only do kids come to school unprepared to learn, they have little to no resources at home to help them do so.

We must work with the kids we have, not the ones we wish we had.

But without parental support the schools simply can't do it.

I'm sure you've heard the old adage about horses and water.

[Notta]

But without parental support the schools simply can't do it.

I'm sure you've heard the old adage about horses and water.
Yes, they can and do. But they don't resemble the schools we attended. They're open longer during the day, on Saturdays, and during the summer. They feed and clothe kids who need it. They have extensive after-school programs and tutoring.

In actuality, they replace the parents because the parents are incapable of parenting. And it results in students who CAN and DO achieve.

But it certainly isn't education in the way you remember it - just as our society is no longer similar to the one we grew up in.

[Joykins]

Hi Cmoon,

I'd like to give you a piece of advice that I've found helps to lower my stress levels significantly, NEVER, EVER READ ANYTHING BY GEORGE WILL! It's done wonders for me.:)



Hehehe read these

http://www.michaelberube.com/index.php/weblog/comments/1252/

http://www.michaelberube.com/index.php/weblog/comments/1242/


When I was in school I could have told you the quality educators I studied under. Unfortunately no one asked. (And no, I'm not suggesting asking the general population. You need NERD opinion).

[cmoon]

In actuality, they replace the parents because the parents are incapable of parenting. And it results in students who CAN and DO achieve.

But it certainly isn't education in the way you remember it - just as our society is no longer similar to the one we grew up in.

You read Brave New World lately?