MUScoop
MUScoop => The Superbar => Topic started by: Lennys Tap on July 18, 2017, 08:00:46 AM
-
Except that, when controlling for socioeconomic status, studies show there is no benefit to private schools vs public schools. Socioeconomic status and parental involvement are the two biggest factors in how a child does in school.
I'd actually go the other way, increasing public school funding. Lengthen the school year and get creative.
More field trips, especially museums and exposure to the arts. Real life skills classes, like finances, how to apply to college and for financial aid, how to right a resume, how to dress for a job interview.
More teachers, better teachers, smaller class sizes, and special classrooms for at risk students that are failing to achieve success in school. Make public schools better for all.
I'm not sure what you mean when you say "no benefit" to private schools vs public schools, but I assume you mean when eliminating certain factors they produce similar results.
But they don't spend nearly the same amount per student for equal results. CPS spends $13,433 per student, Chicago charter schools spend $11,400 and Chicago Catholic schools $7557. Why pour more money into the organization that's the least efficient in spending the resources they have?
-
My solution, to the extent that there is one, would start with the expansion of choice - vouchers, tax credits, even local co-ops that might serve the community (at least segments of it) better than the present system. The public school system is a reality that will never be undone regardless of my thoughts on the issue. More competition to rather than more money for a system producing poor results seems logical to me - especially when the failing system operates under a conflict of interest where teacher's rights/benefits supersede student's performance.
I mentioned this before but I love the idea of choice schools. It should work. But so far, it doesn't. I got my masters degree in education from a school in Michigan. I got to see firsthand what some of Devos' schools are like. Most of them are awful. Subpar facilities, subpar teachers, no support structure, and a curriculum that does not match state requirements, is flawed, and often very selective in what is taught and that is motivated by personal politics. I'm not willing to throw out the idea of choice schools. They should work in theory. I think they just need the proper oversight to make it happen.
-
I'm not sure what you mean when you say "no benefit" to private schools vs public schools, but I assume you mean when eliminating certain factors they produce similar results.
But they don't spend nearly the same amount per student for equal results. CPS spends $13,433 per student, Chicago charter schools spend $11,400 and Chicago Catholic schools $7557. Why pour more money into the organization that's the least efficient in spending the resources they have?
One of the primary reasons public schools spend more per pupil is because, unlike private schools, they don't have a choice of which students they accept and are mandated to perform a host of services private schools do not.
Private schools, for example, don't have to take kids with special needs that require a full-time teacher's aide in the classroom and the development of intensive individual education plans to guide them through school.
Private schools don't have to accommodate kids with physical disabilities that require aides and classroom modifications.
Private schools don't have to take on kids with learning disabilities that require additional staff and services.
Private schools don't have to fund "alternative" schools for kids with behavioral issues.
Private schools don't have to pay to transport their students to and from school.
I could go on, I'm sure.
If it appears for any reason that educating a kid is going to require an additional expenditure of time or money, a private school simply refuses admission or kindly asks his/her parents to go away. I've seen this happen at private schools I attended and the one my kids attend. This isn't because those school officials are cruel. It's because they run on extremely tight budgets and can't afford kids whose education costs twice that of a more typical student.
Public schools don't have that choice. They're lawfully mandated to educate every student, no matter what the cost.
You're correct that there are inefficiencies in the public school system. Lots of them. But juxtaposing the per pupil costs of public schools vs private schools is a bad comparison because it's nowhere close to apples to oranges.
And one of the biggest problems with the voucher system is it takes the funding for the least costly students away from the public schools, leaving those schools to educate the most expensive kids with even fewer resources.
-
nm
-
One of the primary reasons public schools spend more per pupil is because, unlike private schools, they don't have a choice of which students they accept and are mandated to perform a host of services private schools do not.
Private schools, for example, don't have to take kids with special needs that require a full-time teacher's aide in the classroom and the development of intensive individual education plans to guide them through school.
Private schools don't have to accommodate kids with physical disabilities that require aides and classroom modifications.
Private schools don't have to take on kids with learning disabilities that require additional staff and services.
Private schools don't have to fund "alternative" schools for kids with behavioral issues.
Private schools don't have to pay to transport their students to and from school.
I could go on, I'm sure.
If it appears for any reason that educating a kid is going to require an additional expenditure of time or money, a private school simply refuses admission or kindly asks his/her parents to go away. I've seen this happen at private schools I attended and the one my kids attend. This isn't because those school officials are cruel. It's because they run on extremely tight budgets and can't afford kids whose education costs twice that of a more typical student.
Public schools don't have that choice. They're lawfully mandated to educate every student, no matter what the cost.
You're correct that there are inefficiencies in the public school system. Lots of them. But juxtaposing the per pupil costs of public schools vs private schools is a bad comparison because it's nowhere close to apples to oranges.
And one of the biggest problems with the voucher system is it takes the funding for the least costly students away from the public schools, leaving those schools to educate the most expensive kids with even fewer resources.
One of the primary reasons public schools spend more per pupil is because teacher pensions aren't cheap.
-
One of the primary reasons public schools spend more per pupil is because teacher pensions aren't cheap.
Actually, most teacher pensions (at least in my state) are funded almost entirely by the state and employee contributions. The school districts themselves - other than Chicago Public Schools - contribute very little. CPS funds its pensions itself, without state funding.
And, keep in mind, those teachers do not receive Social Security benefits. That is a huge cost savings for the districts ... far larger than the amount they contribute to the pension system.
So, you're entirely wrong.
-
Actually, most teacher pensions (at least in my state) are funded almost entirely by the state and employee contributions. The school districts themselves - other than Chicago Public Schools - contribute very little. CPS funds its pensions itself, without state funding.
And, keep in mind, those teachers do not receive Social Security benefits. That is a huge cost savings for the districts ... far larger than the amount they contribute to the pension system.
So, you're entirely wrong.
Same in Texas.
I dont think there are very many overpaid teachers in the USA.
-
Same in Texas.
I dont think there are very many overpaid teachers in the USA.
Many bad teachers are overpaid; many good teachers are underpaid.
-
One of the primary reasons public schools spend more per pupil is because, unlike private schools, they don't have a choice of which students they accept and are mandated to perform a host of services private schools do not.
Private schools, for example, don't have to take kids with special needs that require a full-time teacher's aide in the classroom and the development of intensive individual education plans to guide them through school.
Private schools don't have to accommodate kids with physical disabilities that require aides and classroom modifications.
Private schools don't have to take on kids with learning disabilities that require additional staff and services.
Private schools don't have to fund "alternative" schools for kids with behavioral issues.
Private schools don't have to pay to transport their students to and from school.
I could go on, I'm sure.
If it appears for any reason that educating a kid is going to require an additional expenditure of time or money, a private school simply refuses admission or kindly asks his/her parents to go away. I've seen this happen at private schools I attended and the one my kids attend. This isn't because those school officials are cruel. It's because they run on extremely tight budgets and can't afford kids whose education costs twice that of a more typical student.
Public schools don't have that choice. They're lawfully mandated to educate every student, no matter what the cost.
You're correct that there are inefficiencies in the public school system. Lots of them. But juxtaposing the per pupil costs of public schools vs private schools is a bad comparison because it's nowhere close to apples to oranges.
And one of the biggest problems with the voucher system is it takes the funding for the least costly students away from the public schools, leaving those schools to educate the most expensive kids with even fewer resources.
Your right that public/private isn't an exact apples to apples comp. Some of the additional $6000 per student per year legit. How much I don't know.
But private schools have much lower administrative overhead and lower teacher salaries and benefits. And many non teaching positions are manned by volunteers rather than paid staff. Lots of cuts to non essentials, too. They do what they need to do in order to survive. Public schools don't need to be efficient for survival.
Regarding charter schools (15% less expensive in Chicago than CPS), do they reject special needs children? Asking because I don't know.
-
I mentioned this before but I love the idea of choice schools. It should work. But so far, it doesn't. I got my masters degree in education from a school in Michigan. I got to see firsthand what some of Devos' schools are like. Most of them are awful. Subpar facilities, subpar teachers, no support structure, and a curriculum that does not match state requirements, is flawed, and often very selective in what is taught and that is motivated by personal politics. I'm not willing to throw out the idea of choice schools. They should work in theory. I think they just need the proper oversight to make it happen.
In urban areas charter schools already outperform their public school counterparts. Students on average gain 40 days in math and 28 days in reading. Results aren't nearly as good in non urban areas, but they're not really the focus of our discussion.
-
In urban areas charter schools already outperform their public school counterparts. Students on average gain 40 days in math and 28 days in reading. Results aren't nearly as good in non urban areas, but they're not really the focus of our discussion.
You are cherry picking studies. Many studies come to opposite conclusions, and nationwide averages say otherwise.
Nationwide and in most metro areas, the expenditures for charter schools, christian schools, independent schools are as much or more than the expenditures for public schools. Also, the actual performance of students is lower than at public schools. The biggest differences is variability in expenditures and performance from school to school.
The best private schools indeed due often perform better, but they will also spend sometimes double or more per student than public schools. The bottom line is if you use nationwide averages, you find you get what you paid for, and public schools are as or more efficient.
For Charter schools you also see statistics in performance boosted, because they do not have to accept everyone and often cherry pick the students that they know will perform better...already proven high performing students. That way the can tout better success numbers and charge more money for what is actually a subpar education.
-
You are cherry picking studies. Many studies come to opposite conclusions, and nationwide averages say otherwise.
Nationwide and in most metro areas, the expenditures for charter schools, christian schools, independent schools are as much or more than the expenditures for public schools. Also, the actual performance of students is lower than at public schools. The biggest differences is variability in expenditures and performance from school to school.
The best private schools indeed due often perform better, but they will also spend sometimes double or more per student than public schools. The bottom line is if you use nationwide averages, you find you get what you paid for, and public schools are as or more efficient.
For Charter schools you also see statistics in performance boosted, because they do not have to accept everyone and often cherry pick the students that they know will perform better...already proven high performing students. That way the can tout better success numbers and charge more money for what is actually a subpar education.
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/commentary/ct-charter-schools-public-teachers-unions-20161015-story.html
-
Many bad teachers are overpaid; many good teachers are underpaid.
Fair. But honestly, I think many of the bad teachers are paid just about right. That's how underpaid teachers are in most places in this country.
-
(I split the minimum wage thread as it had moved to Education.. not all ed posts got here, though.)
-
(I split the minimum wage thread as it had moved to Education.. not all ed posts got here, though.)
Gerrymandering!
Just kidding.
-
Fair. But honestly, I think many of the bad teachers are paid just about right. That's how underpaid teachers are in most places in this country.
Seriously? In a system where it is almost impossible to get fired if you are an ineffective or even harmful teacher, where despite your results you are guaranteed to get a raise every year per your union contract?
-
there's a website where you can look up the compensation for any MPS teachers, people I know are shown to be receiving approximately $100K in total compensation, not bad for seasonal work.
-
Fair. But honestly, I think many of the bad teachers are paid just about right. That's how underpaid teachers are in most places in this country.
Bad teachers should be paid at all. They should be let go, just like other people who are ineffective at their jobs. Unfortunately, unions don't allow this to happen.
The average public school teacher's salary in the US is $50k (as of 2013). That's right about the national average and only requires going to work 9 months of the year. The problem with teachers' salaries is that they're largely based on years of service, earning a Master's degree, completing certain certifications, etc. Very little of it has to do with their actual ability to teach.
-
Bad teachers should be paid at all. They should be let go, just like other people who are ineffective at their jobs. Unfortunately, unions don't allow this to happen.
The average public school teacher's salary in the US is $50k (as of 2013). That's right about the national average and only requires going to work 9 months of the year. The problem with teachers' salaries is that they're largely based on years of service, earning a Master's degree, completing certain certifications, etc. Very little of it has to do with their actual ability to teach.
In my neck of the woods their are plenty of teachers who are in the six figures, including Drivers Ed teachers.
-
Many bad teachers are overpaid; many good teachers are underpaid.
Many bad cops are overpaid; many good cops are underpaid.
Many bad plumbers are overpaid; many good plumbers are underpaid.
Many bad nurses are overpaid; many good nurses are underpaid.
Many bad soldiers are overpaid; many good soldiers are underpaid.
Etc.
Etc.
Etc.
-
I'm not sure what you mean when you say "no benefit" to private schools vs public schools, but I assume you mean when eliminating certain factors they produce similar results.
But they don't spend nearly the same amount per student for equal results. CPS spends $13,433 per student, Chicago charter schools spend $11,400 and Chicago Catholic schools $7557. Why pour more money into the organization that's the least efficient in spending the resources they have?
By no benefit, I mean that public schools and private schools made up of roughly the same demographics will perform about the same. Here are a couple thought exercises:
Scenario 1
Public School A vs Private School B have similar socioeconomic and racial demographics (most important being the socioeconomic factor). These schools would perform roughly the same.
Scenario 2
Public School A has more poor students and minorities than Private School B (with socioeconomic status still being most important factor). In the first semester, Private School B out performs Public School A. At semester break, the schools do a complete 100% student swap. In the second semester, Public School A would out perform Private School B.
So the benefit of private schools isn't better education but a better environment. Tuition acts as a gate keeper that separates the wheat from the chafe. But not all private schools are created equally. There are good ones and bad ones, just as there are for public schools.
-
Your right that public/private isn't an exact apples to apples comp. Some of the additional $6000 per student per year legit. How much I don't know.
But private schools have much lower administrative overhead and lower teacher salaries and benefits. And many non teaching positions are manned by volunteers rather than paid staff. Lots of cuts to non essentials, too. They do what they need to do in order to survive. Public schools don't need to be efficient for survival.
You never disappoint me, Lenny. :D I just knew it would come down to a Union thing.
Maybe we can take away the teacher's insurance. That would save us all money.
-
The Madison Metropolitan School District is a good example of how a public school's success can be affected by poverty. The WI Department of Instruction 2015-16 grades for the public high schools:
Madison West
Overall Score: 78.5 (Exceeds Expectations)
Economically Disadvantaged Students: 35.8%
Madison Memorial
Overall Score: 65.5 (Meets Expectations)
Economically Disadvantaged Students: 35.4%
Madison East
Overall Score: 54.7 (Meets Few Expectations)
Economically Disadvantaged Students: 58.4%
Madison Lafollette
Overall Score: 51.6 (Fails to Meet Expectations)
Economically Disadvantaged Students: 57.1%
It should be noted that Madison West is located right next to the UW campus and near the UW hospital. Property in this sub-district is more expensive. They're are also a lot students that have professors, nurses, or doctors. For full report cards see here:
https://apps2.dpi.wi.gov/reportcards/ (https://apps2.dpi.wi.gov/reportcards/)
-
Many bad cops are overpaid; many good cops are underpaid.
Many bad plumbers are overpaid; many good plumbers are underpaid.
Many bad nurses are overpaid; many good nurses are underpaid.
Many bad soldiers are overpaid; many good soldiers are underpaid.
Etc.
Etc.
Etc.
... I'm pretty sure that was her point...
-
there's a website where you can look up the compensation for any MPS teachers, people I know are shown to be receiving approximately $100K in total compensation, not bad for seasonal work.
Always amazing how when people talk about public sector employees, we always tend to talk about "total compensation," always making sure to include every penny of benefits.
"That 20 year veteran teacher with her masters is compensated $100k/year" sure sounds richer than "$68k/year + benefits."
-
Always amazing how when people talk about public sector employees, we always tend to talk about "total compensation," always making sure to include every penny of benefits.
"That 20 year veteran teacher with her masters is compensated $100k/year" sure sounds richer than "$68k/year + benefits."
Well it's been a few years but as I recall that's the only way it's listed, no break down of that comp to just salary.
-
Always amazing how when people talk about public sector employees, we always tend to talk about "total compensation," always making sure to include every penny of benefits.
"That 20 year veteran teacher with her masters is compensated $100k/year" sure sounds richer than "$68k/year + benefits."
Is your argument that public sector employees have worst health benefits than private sector????
-
Is your argument that public sector employees have worst health benefits than private sector????
I think his argument was that with public sector employees people usually talk about the total compensation whereas many only talk about salary in private sector jobs.
I don't know how accurate Hilltopper's example is but $68K +benefits for a 20 year teaching veteran with a masters seems like an underpaid employee to me. But to just say $100K people assume you are talking about salary and say that employee is overpaid. (I would argue that a 20 year teaching veteran with a masters deserves 100K in salary but that's another argument).
-
Bad teachers should be paid at all. They should be let go, just like other people who are ineffective at their jobs. Unfortunately, unions don't allow this to happen.
The average public school teacher's salary in the US is $50k (as of 2013). That's right about the national average and only requires going to work 9 months of the year. The problem with teachers' salaries is that they're largely based on years of service, earning a Master's degree, completing certain certifications, etc. Very little of it has to do with their actual ability to teach.
When I said bad teacher, I meant below average. I agree that there are terrible teachers who need to be let go who aren't but I was more talking more about teachers who do their jobs, they just aren't stellar at it.
The only going to work 9 months is irrelevant. The trade off for that is mandatory unpaid overtime for the 9 months they are working. Not to mention that in many cases classroom supplies come out of a teacher's personal budget.
While I am sure that there are examples of overpaid undeserving teachers, it is the vast minority. I would categorize most teachers as underpaid.
-
The only going to work 9 months is irrelevant. The trade off for that is mandatory unpaid overtime for the 9 months they are working. Not to mention that in many cases classroom supplies come out of a teacher's personal budget.
First off their base day is 6.5 hours, so they have to work 1.5 hours "unpaid overtime" just to get to 8 hours/day, and I'd wager the average teacher does not do much more than that. My wife is a teacher (speech therapist for a poor school district with some 60-80 kids on her caseload every year, which includes writing reports, etc), and an excellent one who wins school district awards. I, and all the other salaried people I work with, work more hours a day than do any teachers I know, and we do it for 12 months/year.
I'm not saying teachers are underpaid, just pointing out that pretty much ALL salaried workers work unpaid overtime. You are right about the school supplies. My wife sends a good chunk of money every year for classroom materials and stuff she thinks will help her teach the kids. They have fantastic benefits and insurance, though. I decline medical insurance at work and we use hers.
-
First off their base day is 6.5 hours, so they have to work 1.5 hours "unpaid overtime" just to get to 8 hours/day, and I'd wager the average teacher does not do much more than that. My wife is a teacher (speech therapist for a poor school district with some 60-80 kids on her caseload every year, which includes writing reports, etc), and an excellent one who wins school district awards. I, and all the other salaried people I work with, work more hours a day than do any teachers I know, and we do it for 12 months/year.
I'm not saying teachers are underpaid, just pointing out that pretty much ALL salaried workers work unpaid overtime. You are right about the school supplies. My wife sends a good chunk of money every year for classroom materials and stuff she thinks will help her teach the kids. They have fantastic benefits and insurance, though. I decline medical insurance at work and we use hers.
Kudos to your wife. I would say her experience is in the minority. Most teachers I know work around 10 hours a day between lesson planning, getting to school early to prepare, grading, communicating with parents, tutoring, and any extra duties that might be mandated for them. I'm sure it varies by geographic location.
I too know many salaried people who work more than our allotted 8 hours day but for the most part those are by choice. They can get their work done in 8 hours a day but choose to work longer in order to get ahead (or catch up because they were slacking off during their 8 hours as is the case with many I know). That usually isn't the case with teachers.
-
I too know many salaried people who work more than our allotted 8 hours day but for the most part those are by choice. They can get their work done in 8 hours a day but choose to work longer in order to get ahead (or catch up because they were slacking off during their 8 hours as is the case with many I know). That usually isn't the case with teachers.
Teachers work hard but pretending like everyone else doesn't probably is a winning arguement (or factual -- at least in the business world)
-
Kudos to your wife. I would say her experience is in the minority. Most teachers I know work around 10 hours a day between lesson planning, getting to school early to prepare, grading, communicating with parents, tutoring, and any extra duties that might be mandated for them. I'm sure it varies by geographic location.
I too know many salaried people who work more than our allotted 8 hours day but for the most part those are by choice. They can get their work done in 8 hours a day but choose to work longer in order to get ahead (or catch up because they were slacking off during their 8 hours as is the case with many I know). That usually isn't the case with teachers.
Maybe that's the case at your cushy job, but nearly every working professional I know puts in more than 40 hours a week. The difference between them and teachers is they don't share Facebook memes complaining about how unappreciated they are.
-
Always amazing how when people talk about public sector employees, we always tend to talk about "total compensation," always making sure to include every penny of benefits.
"That 20 year veteran teacher with her masters is compensated $100k/year" sure sounds richer than "$68k/year + benefits."
First of all, any job where you get benefits equal to 50% of your base salary is a pretty damn good job. I work at a place that has amazing benefits, and it is closer to 30-35% - and I am the person in the company that calculates that stuff.
Secondly, the salary number I mentioned is only cash money - salary, extra pay for coaching, etc., and any sick and vacation payouts (which would be a one-time thing). Here is a link to all of the teacher salaries of the school district next to mine - and this is 2012 data, so add at least another 10-15% to these numbers.
http://www.familytaxpayers.org/ftf/ftf_district.php?did=14313&year=2012
-
... I'm pretty sure that was her point...
I'm not so sure.
-
I'm not so sure.
Yep.
There is next to no correlation between a public school teacher's pay and their job performance.
-
First off their base day is 6.5 hours, so they have to work 1.5 hours "unpaid overtime" just to get to 8 hours/day, and I'd wager the average teacher does not do much more than that. My wife is a teacher (speech therapist for a poor school district with some 60-80 kids on her caseload every year, which includes writing reports, etc), and an excellent one who wins school district awards. I, and all the other salaried people I work with, work more hours a day than do any teachers I know, and we do it for 12 months/year.
Your statements are ridiculous. I know my daughter averages more than 8 hours a day. And she also spends a lot of her own money providing for supplies for students. She also stays late 2 days a week (her own time) to run a creative writing workshop for all interested students. She also spends several hours every Sunday grading papers and preparing lessons.
Maybe that is why I so often see kids run up and hug her when she is out and about. Or maybe it is because when a kid needs to talk about something, she gives her full attention for as long as necessary.
I don't mean this as an insult, but if your wife is only averaging 6.5 hours per day, she is underachieving as a teacher.
-
Maybe that's the case at your cushy job, but nearly every working professional I know puts in more than 40 hours a week. The difference between them and teachers is they don't share Facebook memes complaining about how unappreciated they are.
You really dislike teachers, don't you.
The difference that I see is that "professionals" take to forums like Scoop to complain that others, including TAMU in your opinion, aren't working hard enough. The insinuation, of course, is that you do work extra hard.
-
First of all, any job where you get benefits equal to 50% of your base salary is a pretty damn good job. I work at a place that has amazing benefits, and it is closer to 30-35% - and I am the person in the company that calculates that stuff.
Secondly, the salary number I mentioned is only cash money - salary, extra pay for coaching, etc., and any sick and vacation payouts (which would be a one-time thing). Here is a link to all of the teacher salaries of the school district next to mine - and this is 2012 data, so add at least another 10-15% to these numbers.
http://www.familytaxpayers.org/ftf/ftf_district.php?did=14313&year=2012
Curious, isn't it?
Whenever a profession is overpaid, people tend to flock to it. Yet we have a teacher shortage. Hmmm....
Cushy job. 6.5 hrs. a day for 9 months. Huge salary and benefits. Why haven't you jumped on the gravy train?
-
Curious, isn't it?
Whenever a profession is overpaid, people tend to flock to it. Yet we have a teacher shortage. Hmmm....
Cushy job. 6.5 hrs. a day for 9 months. Huge salary and benefits. Why haven't you jumped on the gravy train?
I don't dislike teachers. I dislike bad teachers. I love good teachers. Good teachers don't get paid enough. Bad teachers shouldn't be teaching at any pay amount.
And why haven't I jumped on the gravy train? Because union rules dictate that I would have to start at the very bottom of the pay grade, even if I was teaching accounting classes with a CPA and 30 years of real world experience in the subject. And if there were job cuts, I would be the first one laid off, even if I was far and away the best teacher.
-
Curious, isn't it?
Whenever a profession is overpaid, people tend to flock to it. Yet we have a teacher shortage. Hmmm....
Cushy job. 6.5 hrs. a day for 9 months. Huge salary and benefits. Why haven't you jumped on the gravy train?
teacher shortage isn't due to pay, imho-i wouldn't teach as a profession if you doubled it
-
First off their base day is 6.5 hours, so they have to work 1.5 hours "unpaid overtime" just to get to 8 hours/day, and I'd wager the average teacher does not do much more than that. My wife is a teacher (speech therapist for a poor school district with some 60-80 kids on her caseload every year, which includes writing reports, etc), and an excellent one who wins school district awards. I, and all the other salaried people I work with, work more hours a day than do any teachers I know, and we do it for 12 months/year.
I'm not saying teachers are underpaid, just pointing out that pretty much ALL salaried workers work unpaid overtime. You are right about the school supplies. My wife sends a good chunk of money every year for classroom materials and stuff she thinks will help her teach the kids. They have fantastic benefits and insurance, though. I decline medical insurance at work and we use hers.
Curious why you call it unpaid overtime when they are paid a salary, not an hourly rate, to accomplish a specific result.
-
I, and all the other salaried people I work with, work more hours a day than do any teachers I know, and we do it for 12 months/year.
So, you know that for sure. All teachers. And all salaried workers work the hardest. All of them. Pretty broad sweep.
-
In Michigan, teaching program enrollments are off 40%. For 15 years, teachers have been the whipping boy of politicians. Traditional pension have been closed to new hires for over a decade. 401K set up now. Funding for education at the state level is a yearly hacky sack with legislators who want better results for free.
Most people on this board would have to take a significant pay cut if they became a teacher. And then have to teach. What age group do you want to spend 38 weeks with, having to teach the whole broad spectrum of humanity. The smart and the challenged. The pampered and the hungry. The children of nasty divorce and the homeless. The children of addiction. All while being told that you are the root of all evil in society because you receive an adequate paycheck and may actually get a pension.
Cowboy up. Sign up for that.
-
Maybe that's the case at your cushy job, but nearly every working professional I know puts in more than 40 hours a week. The difference between them and teachers is they don't share Facebook memes complaining about how unappreciated they are.
Respectfully, I don't think you would last a day in my job (I've actually had someone break down in tears and quit on the first day before!). Just like I probably wouldn't a last a day in yours. And I would guess that neither of us would be able to be a teacher for a day without losing our minds! I wouldn't go around throwing stones at other people's professions.
I brought up the mandatory unpaid overtime to counteract the argument about "they only have to work 9 months." My main point is that the work teachers do is undervalued and underpaid. Educating youth is much more important and beneficial to society than many other jobs that are paid higher. I mean, I have friends who are "social media coordinators" who make close to 6 figures after a few years. I feel the same way about police officers, firefighters, our military, and many other professions.
-
Wow ... leave Scoop alone for a few hours and you miss a lot.
My biggest surprise here is that some people are aghast that 1. 20+-year professional 2. with at least one advanced degree 3. who takes on additional assignments after the regular working day and 4. is located in a well-to-do suburb, makes $100K a year.
If we met a lawyer, accountant, doctor, chemist, veterinarian, actuary or engineer with those credentials in that location and he/she made less than six figures, we'd assume that person is bad at their job.
But a well-compensated teacher????
(https://max-media.imgix.net/transfers/2016/5/12/4433ea21f9807f77533c629f8bde41c37d0d9ed9.gif)
A couple more thoughts:
1. No, it's not impossible to fire a bad teacher. In fact, before a teacher gets tenure, it's exceedingly easy. Once a teacher gets tenure, it's just time consuming. That's because teachers have the right to due process when it comes to discipline and termination. Just like cops, firefighters, truck driver and many other professions. One downside of that is that those protections are afforded to everyone, good or bad, fairly terminated or not. But let's not pretend that our schools are rife with ne'er do wells and child sex offenders who are protected by unions. It's simply not true.
2. Anyone who claims they know lots of teachers who put in less than 8 hours a day during the school year is either a liar or hangs around the laziest teachers in the country. Not one teacher I know - and I know several pretty well - works that little during the school year. An all of them work on weekends during the school year.
-
Maybe that's the case at your cushy job, but nearly every working professional I know puts in more than 40 hours a week. The difference between them and teachers is they don't share Facebook memes complaining about how unappreciated they are.
Is that because they instead go on internet message boards to whine about how overpaid teachers are?
Curious ... in regards to another post you made. How in joeychick's utopia are teachers evaluated for pay-for-performance?
-
Is that because they instead go on internet message boards to whine about how overpaid teachers are?
Curious ... in regards to another post you made. How in joeychick's utopia are teachers evaluated for pay-for-performance?
How does it work in the rest of the working world?
And where did I say that all teachers are overpaid?
-
How does it work in the rest of the working world?
That's not an answer.
To answer your question, it's different for different parts of the working world. A cop is evaluated differently than an actuary who is evaluated differently than an administrative assistant who's evaluated differently than a trash collector who's evaluated differently than a nurse.
But that's all irrelevant since we're not talking about cops, actuaries, administrative assistants, trash collectors or nurses.
We're talking about teachers, a unique profession.
Now, again, how does joeychick evaluate a teacher for pay for performance.
And where did I say that all teachers are overpaid?
I don't know. Where did I say you said that?
-
That's not an answer.
To answer your question, it's different for different parts of the working world. A cop is evaluated differently than an actuary who is evaluated differently than an administrative assistant who's evaluated differently than a trash collector who's evaluated differently than a nurse.
But that's all irrelevant since we're not talking about cops, actuaries, administrative assistants, trash collectors or nurses.
We're talking about teachers, a unique profession.
Now, again, how does joeychick evaluate a teacher for pay for performance.
I don't know. Where did I say you said that?
I am not a teacher, but nearly every other profession has figured it out for themselves. However, the teaching profession has decided that they will stick with years of service and education level (as in a masters from University of Phoenix with a 2.0 average counts the same as a Masters summa cum laude from Princeton) as the primary drivers to determine compensation.
And you said that I claimed that "teachers are overpaid". I said the bad ones were. I wasn't painting with the broad brush you implied I was.
-
(https://media.giphy.com/media/128UMaujdjX7Pi/giphy.gif)
-
I am not a teacher, but nearly every other profession has figured it out for themselves. However, the teaching profession has decided that they will stick with years of service and education level (as in a masters from University of Phoenix with a 2.0 average counts the same as a Masters summa cum laude from Princeton) as the primary drivers to determine compensation.
So your solution is "I don't have a solution, but they should figure it out to my satisfaction!"
I suspect the reason you're not offering a solution is because you realize how difficult and complex it is to fairly evaluate a teacher.
It's easy to benchmark when a surgeon succeeds or fails. Or a firefighter. Or a salesman. Or an engineer. Or a trader. And so on and so forth.
but unlike most professions, teachers have no control over the most important factors in their "production." (Production here being educated students).
Teachers can't mandate parental involvement and they can't move low-income families into the middle and upper classes.
So, given that, how do we evaluate? Is it fair to evaluate based on test scores, when students of a lazy teacher in Barrington are going to do way better than those of a hard-working teacher in Austin?
If not, then how?
I know ... you don't care. They should just figure it out.
For what it's worth, teachers and school districts in your state are working on these issues and trying to come up with fair solutions. But, as I think you can admit, it's a complex question and will take time.
And you said that I claimed that "teachers are overpaid".
No, I didn't. I said you whined about how overpaid teachers are. Scroll up and see for yourself.
-
Maybe that's the case at your cushy job, but nearly every working professional I know puts in more than 40 hours a week. The difference between them and teachers is they don't share Facebook memes complaining about how unappreciated they are.
How many of those other "working professionals" get paid on average 48k per year, while having to shell out a good chunk of their salary to provide needed supplies to their own workplace?
$48K per year is the average salary for a high school teacher.
I am not a teacher, but nearly every other profession has figured it out for themselves. However, the teaching profession has decided that they will stick with years of service and education level (as in a masters from University of Phoenix with a 2.0 average counts the same as a Masters summa cum laude from Princeton) as the primary drivers to determine compensation.
And you said that I claimed that "teachers are overpaid". I said the bad ones were. I wasn't painting with the broad brush you implied I was.
Your statements here are not well formulated. Different school districts pay teachers more money. If you have a Masters from Princeton, you will be able to work for the highest paying schools. If you have a masters from the University of Phoenix, you cannot get those same jobs.
In terms of raises, most jobs work very similarly, you get a raise each year of service provided that you perform the bare minimum your job requires. You can then get promotions in addition to raises for actually performing above the bare minimum. If you go get an additional degree (say an MBA), you get an automatic raise regardless of if you got the MBA at Princeton or the University of Phoenix. The big difference is that in contrast to business/other fields, there really aren't promotions one can get in addition to annual raises, there are no end of the year performance bonuses etc. If we treated teachers like every other field, the same pay structure with service/education level would essentially say the same. The metrics for terminating a teacher would stay the same. They would just get all kinds of titles that come with massive pay raises and annual year end bonus.
As for evaluating job performance. They do it very similar to every other business. They are evaluated largely based on evaluations by supervisors. Typically the ones that people are complaining about are being called "bad teachers" because they actually hold students accountable and do not just give out free grades. Some of the people that are referred to as "great teachers" by students and parents are actually terrible teachers. Similarly, if you use test performance as a metric you will often find that the students from classes that are performing excellent on tests (and by virtue the teacher/school gets a high ranking), actually do terrible in college or real world scenarios, because they were taught to beat a test, not to actually learn.
Many want student evaluations to play a bigger role; they have repeatedly been shown to be extremely unreliable to the actual teaching ability, and have extreme biases specifically against women and minorities.
The bottom line is, the people complaining that the bad teachers are getting fired, typically have zero idea of what a good/bad teacher looks like.
-
Babysitters make way more per kid per hour compared to teachers. And people expect teachers to, you know, teach. And get their kids into Harvard.
But then complain that they make too much.
-
Curious why you call it unpaid overtime when they are paid a salary, not an hourly rate, to accomplish a specific result.
The term unpaid overtime was used by the poster I was quoting who said teachers work unpaid overtime. I was just pointing out that pretty much all salaried employees work unpaid overtime. Teachers are salaried workers, so if your argument holds for regular workers, it holds for teachers.
Now I don't want to make people think that I think teachers are overpaid or whatever. My wife is a teacher and therefore I know many teachers. I like them, they work hard and do a great job and go the extra mile. So do a lot of other people.
-
I find it interesting that views on education seem to have a very high correlation with an individual's political leanings. I suspect much of that is tied up in one's view on public sector unions along with one's view on the free market determining wages. I wonder how many other professions are viewed through a similar lens? Perhaps health care.
-
I find it interesting that views on education seem to have a very high correlation with an individual's political leanings. I suspect much of that is tied up in one's view on public sector unions along with one's view on the free market determining wages. I wonder how many other professions are viewed through a similar lens? Perhaps health care.
i don't know that political leanings are the barometer, but fiscal positions probably are very pertinent. one could be of either leaning and be either fiscally conservative or liberal. i believe it comes down to tax payer values and if one feels they are getting a good value for their money
-
i don't know that political leanings are the barometer, but fiscal positions probably are very pertinent. one could be of either leaning and be either fiscally conservative or liberal. i believe it comes down to tax payer values and if one feels they are getting a good value for their money
Perhaps they all fit together.
-
i don't know that political leanings are the barometer, but fiscal positions probably are very pertinent. one could be of either leaning and be either fiscally conservative or liberal. i believe it comes down to tax payer values and if one feels they are getting a good value for their money
(https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/originals/6b/8a/f5/6b8af5844978c78f0f8703a2fcad8ac3.jpg)
-
i don't know that political leanings are the barometer, but fiscal positions probably are very pertinent. one could be of either leaning and be either fiscally conservative or liberal. i believe it comes down to tax payer values and if one feels they are getting a good value for their money
Political leanings cover both social and fiscal viewpoints. One can be liberal in both, conservative in both, or conservative in one and liberal in the other. There are also different ranges of how liberal and conservative one can be, even varying from topic to topic.
-
I find it interesting that views on education seem to have a very high correlation with an individual's political leanings. I suspect much of that is tied up in one's view on public sector unions along with one's view on the free market determining wages.
I'm not surprised. As Rocket said, it comes down to your values. This is an oversimplification, but in my experience all political decisions can be classified as either social justice or economic. The left is usually most correct on social justice issues whereas the right is usually most correct on economic issues. If you value social justice more, you will lean left, if you value economics more then you will lean right. That's not to say that the right doesn't value social justice or the left doesn't value economics, its just priorities. The left wants to help people and worry about the money later. They are also willing to take a financial hit if it means helping more people. The right wants to help people but only after the money has been figured out. They are always willing to help fewer people if it means keeping the finances sustainable.
The left looks at teachers and sees a profession that is greatly benefiting society but whose pay is not reflective of that. The right looks at teachers and sees an inefficient system that has the potential to (and often does) reward mediocre teachers.
Some good old fashioned bi-partisanship would probably be great for the teaching profession. I would be all for reworking the promotion system so it rewards good teachers and gets rid of bad ones. As long as that came with an increased value being placed on teachers (in the form of better compensation). But alas, things are so polarized right now that I'm not sure that's possible.
I wonder how many other professions are viewed through a similar lens?
(http://68.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_mbhss5KQ2n1ror6v2.gif)
I think I might know of one
-
It is appropriate to note for the out-of-WI-staters .. since 2010, there are no teachers union contracts. They've been replaced by school district handbooks, written by entirely by school boards.
If a school wants to fire a teacher for any reason, they can. Salaries and benefits are completely controlled by the district alone. No step raises, no lane raises. If they want to change insurance, reduce pensions, hire a new teacher at whatever rate they want to pay .. they can do that.
Wisconsin has a student revenue cap, which means districts can only spend X per year, and cannot raise (property) taxes beyond the annual limit increase -- which has been zero dollars in multiple years, forcing districts to cut, cut, cut due to inflation. Teachers raises are minimal, and a 1% raise would be a whopper.
* Sidenote .. Wisconsin is now 3 weeks late on passing a budget, but currently, it surprisingly includes a $200/year increase in the per student revenue cap in year 1, $204 in year 2, which the GOP has lauded as a huge investment in education. This amounts to a 1.28% increase, which is below the inflation rate, meaning districts need to continue to cut services, just not as much as usual.
-
In terms of raises, most jobs work very similarly, you get a raise each year of service provided that you perform the bare minimum your job requires. You can then get promotions in addition to raises for actually performing above the bare minimum.
I wish my employer even gave an annual review let alone an annual 1% cost of living increase.
-
In terms of raises, most jobs work very similarly, you get a raise each year of service provided that you perform the bare minimum your job requires.
That's now quite how it works where I work, and most places I am aware of. A department is given a budget for annual raises. The employees in that department are basically competing with each other for their share within that budget. If you want to reward your top workers, you've got to penalize others. Keep in mind that everyone is doing their job and at more than the bare minimum level, because if they are just functioning at the bare minimum, you normally put them on an improvement plan and if they don't improve you get someone else. Unless they're drinking buddies with their boss or something, poor employees don't last.
-
Kudos to your wife. I would say her experience is in the minority. Most teachers I know work around 10 hours a day between lesson planning, getting to school early to prepare, grading, communicating with parents, tutoring, and any extra duties that might be mandated for them. I'm sure it varies by geographic location.
I too know many salaried people who work more than our allotted 8 hours day but for the most part those are by choice. They can get their work done in 8 hours a day but choose to work longer in order to get ahead (or catch up because they were slacking off during their 8 hours as is the case with many I know). That usually isn't the case with teachers.
My wife is a teacher. Three Masters Degrees. First off it's more like 10 months instead of 9 months. She is at school for 8 hours a day and she does spend off hours writing lesson plans, reviewing homework and tests, shopping for school supplies and reference books. At tax time I always have to comment that she spent way way over the max IRS deduction. I decline my work benefits and we are on her plan also but her plan is only marginally better than the manufacturing companies I've worked for. When my kids were wearing braces we even switched Dental Insurance to my company because they actually covered a portion of orthodontic work.
-
I'm not surprised. As Rocket said, it comes down to your values. This is an oversimplification, but in my experience all political decisions can be classified as either social justice or economic. The left is usually most correct on social justice issues whereas the right is usually most correct on economic issues. If you value social justice more, you will lean left, if you value economics more then you will lean right. That's not to say that the right doesn't value social justice or the left doesn't value economics, its just priorities. The left wants to help people and worry about the money later. They are also willing to take a financial hit if it means helping more people. The right wants to help people but only after the money has been figured out. They are always willing to help fewer people if it means keeping the finances sustrightble.
The left looks at teachers and sees a profession that is greatly benefiting society but whose pay is not reflective of that. The right looks at teachers and sees an inefficient system that has the potential to (and often does) reward mediocre teachers.
Some good old fashioned bi-partisanship would probably be great for the teaching profession. I would be all for reworking the promotion system so it rewards good teachers and gets rid of bad ones. As long as that came with an increased value being placed on teachers (in the form of better compensation). But alas, things are so polarized right now that I'm not sure that's possible.
(http://68.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_mbhss5KQ2n1ror6v2.gif)
I think I might know of one
TAMU, that's a pretty big oversimplification. I trust you admit that. The difference come down to what folks think is the most effective way and what is best for society in the long run. I know your paragraph tries to lay that out but it's unfair to paint a right wing person as 'not interested' in social justice just like it's unfair to paint a left wing person as not interested in fiscal limitations.
So back to education and Act 10 as it was brought up. I suspect 90% or more of right leaning people supported that while 90% of left leaning folks opposed.
-
I'm not surprised. As Rocket said, it comes down to your values. This is an oversimplification, but in my experience all political decisions can be classified as either social justice or economic. The left is usually most correct on social justice issues whereas the right is usually most correct on economic issues. If you value social justice more, you will lean left, if you value economics more then you will lean right. That's not to say that the right doesn't value social justice or the left doesn't value economics, its just priorities. The left wants to help people and worry about the money later. They are also willing to take a financial hit if it means helping more people. The right wants to help people but only after the money has been figured out. They are always willing to help fewer people if it means keeping the finances sustrightble.
Because its probably my biggest personal soapbox, I just want to jump in (and then right back out) to push back against this. The fact that democrats have permitted the "conservatives get the economy and liberals are bleeding hearts" narrative to be our controlling political narrative is the biggest single failure of the democratic party over the past 30 years, and we're all paying for it, evidenced by the parties' inability to agree on even low hanging fruit of socially and economically beneficial policy. Its lead to a total bastardization of what it means to be "conservative" or "liberal." As I'm typing this, I'm realizing that I'm in danger of expanding this into a thread-hijacking rant, but the traditionally liberal goal-based economic philosophy of being striving for a wealth bell curve is not inherently any less informed or less fiscally responsible than the traditionally conservative means-based economic philosophy of striving to create markets unaffected by regulatory forces.
-
Because its probably my biggest personal soapbox, I just want to jump in (and then right back out) to push back against this. The fact that democrats have permitted the "conservatives get the economy and liberals are bleeding hearts" narrative to be our controlling political narrative is the biggest single failure of the democratic party over the past 30 years, and we're all paying for it, evidenced by the parties' inability to agree on even low hanging fruit of socially and economically beneficial policy. Its lead to a total bastardization of what it means to be "conservative" or "liberal." As I'm typing this, I'm realizing that I'm in danger of expanding this into a thread-hijacking rant, but the traditionally liberal goal-based economic philosophy of being striving for a wealth bell curve is not inherently any less informed or less fiscally responsible than the traditionally conservative means-based economic philosophy of striving to create markets unaffected by regulatory forces.
(http://www.bbc.co.uk/staticarchive/bb0b2589ed780f7fe5c1b17c5c293a3bd3220d7d.jpg)
Took me a couple of tries to find a smaller pic! Any time he landed in Chicago we'd put up the tire spikes around Hyde Park.
-
Babysitters make way more per kid per hour compared to teachers. And people expect teachers to, you know, teach. And get their kids into Harvard.
But then complain that they make too much.
(http://i.imgur.com/okp66FD.gif)
-
TAMU, that's a pretty big oversimplification. I trust you admit that. The difference come down to what folks think is the most effective way and what is best for society in the long run. I know your paragraph tries to lay that out but it's unfair to paint a right wing person as 'not interested' in social justice just like it's unfair to paint a left wing person as not interested in fiscal limitations.
As I said in my post it was an oversimplification and it was "in my experience" which probably should have been "in my opinion." I also never said that the right wasnt interested in social justice or the the left wasnt interested in fiscal matters. Its just a matter of priorities. We all want the best for our people and our country, we just disagree on how to get there.
What's the old adage? Old democrats have no brains and young republicans have no heart.
-
Because its probably my biggest personal soapbox, I just want to jump in (and then right back out) to push back against this. The fact that democrats have permitted the "conservatives get the economy and liberals are bleeding hearts" narrative to be our controlling political narrative is the biggest single failure of the democratic party over the past 30 years, and we're all paying for it, evidenced by the parties' inability to agree on even low hanging fruit of socially and economically beneficial policy. Its lead to a total bastardization of what it means to be "conservative" or "liberal." As I'm typing this, I'm realizing that I'm in danger of expanding this into a thread-hijacking rant, but the traditionally liberal goal-based economic philosophy of being striving for a wealth bell curve is not inherently any less informed or less fiscally responsible than the traditionally conservative means-based economic philosophy of striving to create markets unaffected by regulatory forces.
I didn't mean to suggest that the left is ill informed on economics. They aren't. But what I've observed is that the left wins over more people with their social justice platform and the right wins over more people with their economic platform.
-
That's now quite how it works where I work, and most places I am aware of. A department is given a budget for annual raises. The employees in that department are basically competing with each other for their share within that budget. If you want to reward your top workers, you've got to penalize others. Keep in mind that everyone is doing their job and at more than the bare minimum level, because if they are just functioning at the bare minimum, you normally put them on an improvement plan and if they don't improve you get someone else. Unless they're drinking buddies with their boss or something, poor employees don't last.
That is exactly how it works in many/most educational institutions in this nation also. Slightly modified in some, because defining a department in some educational levels is more complicated. The annual raises are far less common in academia/education (see WI), just as they are becoming less common in all industries. The trends in how raises work has evolved similarly in all disciplines.
Even those that are called "bad teachers" are actually working at well above the bare minimum level too, and those that are at the bare minimum level also get put on improvement plans, and if they do not perform, they also will usually get removed.
In some cases they can't be removed, but often not for the reasons people like to think. Bottom line is there are not enough teachers, if you fire one for being at bare-minimum level, there is no guarantee you are able to hire someone of equal quality, because the salaries are too low to create a lot of supply. You want better teachers, and an improved ability to fire poorer teachers to find better ones, increase the salaries substantially.
I would argue that there at least equal numbers of completely incompetent people in every field that are not fired. Doctors, lawyers, CEOs...the business community is saturated with them, service industry...but for some reason people fixate on the teachers, because they have this strange idea that they pay their salary.
News flash, you are paying the salaries of every type of employee in this nation regardless of industry.
-
As I said in my post it was an oversimplification and it was "in my experience" which probably should have been "in my opinion." I also never said that the right wasnt interested in social justice or the the left wasnt interested in fiscal matters. Its just a matter of priorities. We all want the best for our people and our country, we just disagree on how to get there.
What's the old adage? Old democrats have no brains and young republicans have no heart.
I think I missing you my friend. It's not one priority vs. the other driving this. Let me try to explain a right leaning position on social justice as an example. The right leaner will say that the Great Society programs of the 60s actually caused much of the social unrest and disfunction in the minority community. Let's not argue the merits of that position. But let's agree that holding that position passionately is an equivalently 'committed' social justice position as a person who holds a different viewpoint. We agree that both sides see different methods. But I don't think that one side is more committed to one vs. the other.
-
I didn't mean to suggest that the left is ill informed on economics. They aren't. But what I've observed is that the left wins over more people with their social justice platform and the right wins over more people with their economic platform.
Yes. Agreed.
-
I think I missing you my friend. It's not one priority vs. the other driving this. Let me try to explain a right leaning position on social justice as an example. The right leaner will say that the Great Society programs of the 60s actually caused much of the social unrest and disfunction in the minority community. Let's not argue the merits of that position. But let's agree that holding that position passionately is an equivalently 'committed' social justice position as a person who holds a different viewpoint. We agree that both sides see different methods. But I don't think that one side is more committed to one vs. the other.
I'm going to disagree a bit.
Simply arguing that the Great Society programs of the 60s were counterproductive (and I also can happily skip debating the merits of that) is not being committed to social justice. It's being committed to opposing the Great Society programs.
However, holding that position while also offering/advocating/supporting alternative solutions could be a sign of commitment.
It's akin to arguing that members of the GOP eager to repeal Obamacare are in favor expanding healthcare coverage because they oppose Obamacare.
-
That is exactly how it works in many/most educational institutions in this nation also. Slightly modified in some, because defining a department in some educational levels is more complicated. The annual raises are far less common in academia/education (see WI), just as they are becoming less common in all industries. The trends in how raises work has evolved similarly in all disciplines.
That's not how it works in the school districts around here. A pay scale is established for your position and your salary is based solely on the level of education you've completed and your years of service. There is no wiggle room.
I think a lot of people don't go into teaching for that reason. Because you are working less official hours your salary is lower and your ability increase that through hard work/excellence is not there. It was great my family. When our kid was in school we could save on day care because my wife could get him and go home every day. If she had homework she could do it after I got home. She was off in the summer when he was off. It is an ideal profession for a mom or dad with a working spouse. It is not an ideal profession for a sole supporter of a family, which is why Walter White became Heisenberg.
-
I'm going to disagree a bit.
Simply arguing that the Great Society programs of the 60s were counterproductive (and I also can happily skip debating the merits of that) is not being committed to social justice. It's being committed to opposing the Great Society programs.
However, holding that position while also offering/advocating/supporting alternative solutions could be a sign of commitment.
It's akin to arguing that members of the GOP eager to repeal Obamacare are in favor expanding healthcare coverage because they oppose Obamacare.
Yep. Agreed. Perhaps not the best example.
-
Well then...it appears we made it this far without hearing from an actual teacher! Lemme fix that. (Thanks TAMU for telling me this was going on)
1. Teachers are underpaid. This is due to the historical view of teaching, in that it was a a career reserved for young, single, and other-wise unemployable women. Persons in other careers with similar levels of education and experience make more than teachers. (Note: this is all on average, and rich suburban schools do not have the same problem that urban schools do...heck even Illinois teachers make way more than Wisconsin)
2. Teachers work about the same as everyone else, maybe more. I take home more work than my wife (who is a Physical therapist), but she works longer hours at work. She gets more actual days off than me, even when you add in my summer break. And lots of teachers work second (umpiring) and third (summer IT) jobs in addition to coaching (cross country), attending professional development, planning curriculum, and grad school during the summer. I feel busier now than during the school year.
3. Teachers deal with children. Lots of them at the same time. All day.
4. I teach at a private Catholic voucher school in an urban area. I get paid ~35K, and I won't go over 50K when I get my Masters. The top of the pay scale is less than 60K. I'll never make 50% of my wife's salary. How can you expect to attract and retain qualified individuals when the pay is so scanty? Public schools have the same problem. I actually wouldn't make much, if any, more if I moved to Racine Unified or even Oak Creek.
5. On the voucher/choice debate: Choice is a great idea in principle, but if voucher schools aren't held to the same high standards as public, it will fail. I know that the standards at my school aren't what is expected of public school teachers and it's like pulling teeth to get my colleagues to implement proven effective teaching strategies because the older ones are very used to not being accountable for anything.
6. Teachers suffer from a problem that no other career has: everyone thinks they can be a teacher because they have spent so much time observing and modeling teachers. There's some mystery about what your doctor actually does and there's some question about the math an engineering used to make something work, but teaching, "that's easy." No one would EVER suggest that you can be a lawyer without a law degree or license, but there are states (Wisconsin among them) that don't require a teaching degree to teach in certain situations. This is especially true in private and voucher schools not held to the same requirements as public.
7. Teaching actually does weed out most of the bad teachers. The rate of teachers leaving the profession is absurd, something like 40-50% leave in the first five years (I will survive being part of this statistic on day one of this year!) There's two reasons for this: teaching is hard, and teaching doesn't pay well. The fact that teaching is hard weeds out many of the bad teachers. Unfortunately, teaching not paying well weeds out good teachers too.
Now, I'm going to go drive in to school (in the summer) to work in the IT department getting student iPads ready for next year. Y'all can have fun posting here while you sit at your desks in your office jobs.
-
Well then...it appears we made it this far without hearing from an actual teacher! Lemme fix that. (Thanks TAMU for telling me this was going on)
1. Teachers are underpaid. This is due to the historical view of teaching, in that it was a a career reserved for young, single, and other-wise unemployable women. Persons in other careers with similar levels of education and experience make more than teachers. (Note: this is all on average, and rich suburban schools do not have the same problem that urban schools do...heck even Illinois teachers make way more than Wisconsin)
2. Teachers work about the same as everyone else, maybe more. I take home more work than my wife (who is a Physical therapist), but she works longer hours at work. She gets more actual days off than me, even when you add in my summer break. And lots of teachers work second (umpiring) and third (summer IT) jobs in addition to coaching (cross country), attending professional development, planning curriculum, and grad school during the summer. I feel busier now than during the school year.
3. Teachers deal with children. Lots of them at the same time. All day.
4. I teach at a private Catholic voucher school in an urban area. I get paid ~35K, and I won't go over 50K when I get my Masters. The top of the pay scale is less than 60K. I'll never make 50% of my wife's salary. How can you expect to attract and retain qualified individuals when the pay is so scanty? Public schools have the same problem. I actually wouldn't make much, if any, more if I moved to Racine Unified or even Oak Creek.
5. On the voucher/choice debate: Choice is a great idea in principle, but if voucher schools aren't held to the same high standards as public, it will fail. I know that the standards at my school aren't what is expected of public school teachers and it's like pulling teeth to get my colleagues to implement proven effective teaching strategies because the older ones are very used to not being accountable for anything.
6. Teachers suffer from a problem that no other career has: everyone thinks they can be a teacher because they have spent so much time observing and modeling teachers. There's some mystery about what your doctor actually does and there's some question about the math an engineering used to make something work, but teaching, "that's easy." No one would EVER suggest that you can be a lawyer without a law degree or license, but there are states (Wisconsin among them) that don't require a teaching degree to teach in certain situations. This is especially true in private and voucher schools not held to the same requirements as public.
7. Teaching actually does weed out most of the bad teachers. The rate of teachers leaving the profession is absurd, something like 40-50% leave in the first five years (I will survive being part of this statistic on day one of this year!) There's two reasons for this: teaching is hard, and teaching doesn't pay well. The fact that teaching is hard weeds out many of the bad teachers. Unfortunately, teaching not paying well weeds out good teachers too.
Now, I'm going to go drive in to school (in the summer) to work in the IT department getting student iPads ready for next year. Y'all can have fun posting here while you sit at your desks in your office jobs.
(https://media.tenor.com/images/5d4c55c9f204e270eb6f2a98aae5420d/tenor.gif)
-
(https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/originals/6b/8a/f5/6b8af5844978c78f0f8703a2fcad8ac3.jpg)
An obvious product of the failing public school system.
-
Outstanding post, SaveOD. I truly appreciate that you work so hard for kids.
A few observations from my peanut gallery ...
+++ My kids grew up on the North Side of Chicago and spent all of their years in CPS. They went to Bell Elementary, which has 3 components - neighborhood, gifted and school for the deaf. We moved to Chicago (from Minny) in November of my daughter's second-grade year. Her teacher was a hoot - the bell would sound and she literally would beat the kids out of the school. When my wife and I would go pick up our kids, we would laugh watching her practically race out of the schoolyard. We'd say that for an end-of-year gift, the kids should give her a new pair of track shoes. We never knew where she was going; maybe she had a sick parent to take care of or a second job or maybe she just couldn't wait to escape the kiddies and grab a drink. Talking to her during parent-teacher days, reading her comments about my daughter's work, etc, made me honestly believe that my 7-year-old daughter was more intelligent than this teacher.
+++ She, however, was an outlier. Both of my kids moved to the gifted program the next year (their first full year at the school), and they mostly had wonderful teachers. And the majority of the neighborhood-school teachers were very well respected; people moved into our neighborhood just so their kids could go to Bell. My kids (now 30 and 29 years old) STILL talk in glowing terms about a couple of their teachers from Bell!
+++ Bell's reputation was very good for those of us who owned homes in the district, as it drove up their worth. It was a two-way street, though - most parents in the district were very engaged and had well-above-average income for CPS parents. The neighborhood schools on either side of ours were not as fortunate. They might have had some incredible teachers but the results were nowhere near the same because of high poverty, poor parental involvement, etc, etc.
+++ After Bell, my kids went to Payton Prep, a (then) new "magnet" high school. It, along with Northside Prep, were Daley's two educational jewels. Ever since it opened, Payton has performed right up there with New Trier and all of the other acclaimed suburban schools. Look up test scores, and you'll still see Payton and Northside at or near the top. The racial makeup of Payton when my kids went there was roughly 35% white, 30% black, 20% Latino, 15% Asian. I loved that my kids got to interact with peers from so many different races, nationalities, religions and socio-economic groups. Parents cared, and the teachers were excellent. Still, there were a few teachers we didn't think were as good as others - name any profession where that's not the case.
+++ Ever since she was 2, my daughter wanted to be a teacher. She kept the same goal for her entire time at Bell and Payton. But while in college, some of her older friends, family members and acquaintances started talking about how much they hated teaching - how difficult it was, how little support they received, how bad the pay was relative to peers who had gone into accounting or engineering or hundreds of other professions. And so my daughter - who would have been a SPECTACULAR teacher - ended up choosing a different career path. She now works in the mortgage industry and makes twice as much as she would have teaching. In this job, parents are not blaming her for things out of her control; teenagers are not calling her a beyotch; she doesn't have to break up fights; she doesn't have to buy her own supplies; and she gets paid OT.
+++ My wife and I moved to NC in 2010. Ever since we arrived, teacher pay has been a major issue, regardless of which party has been in charge. NC has ranked near the bottom in teacher pay for years. There are no teachers unions in NC. You get the salary and benefits they give you - period. I coached basketball at the best middle school (by test scores) in the state, a charter school for gifted kids. The teachers there are amazing. And they are paid absolute peanuts. A sixth-year teacher whose students produce the best test scores for his/her grade in the entire state ... not making even $50K! True! As a resident of this state, it's humiliating.
+++ My future daughter-in-law teaches 4th grade at a public school in Northbrook. She just completed her fifth year there and she's paid about $60K. Not too bad, but cost of living is outrageous there, of course.
+++ Folks have brought up the great benefits teachers get. Well, this was a real eye-opener for me: My future daughter-in-law has a good health plan that costs her about $100/month in payroll deductions. When she inquired into how much more it would be to get my son on her plan after they get married next year, the cost was - you're not gonna believe this! - nearly $900/month!!! They are talking about wanting to start a family fairly soon after they get married, but that health insurance will be a real issue. So here you have a teacher in a very well-to-do Chicago suburb ... and the health-benefits package for those with families sucks big time.
+++ I don't pretend to have all the answers. Hell, I don't really have any. I do know it's about more than just throwing money at failing schools. One thing I'm pretty sure isn't an answer is vouchers. Early results from the voucher program started here a few years ago show kids from private schools who received vouchers are actually doing worse on test scores than their public-school peers. Charter schools have some promise, but we've had a bunch of them fail here. Now you have corporations getting into for-profit charter schools; not sure how that will work out.
+++ One thing I am certain of is that the VAST majority of public-school teachers (and private-school teachers, for that matter) work their keisters off, most of them for relatively little money. For all of the stories of $100K driver's ed teachers, check out the salaries of teachers in just about any red state - you know, the places where it supposedly is all about "family values."
That's all I've got. I know, I know ... who asked me?!!?!?
-
+++ Folks have brought up the great benefits teachers get. Well, this was a real eye-opener for me: My future daughter-in-law has a good health plan that costs her about $100/month in payroll deductions. When she inquired into how much more it would be to get my son on her plan after they get married next year, the cost was - you're not gonna believe this! - nearly $900/month!!! They are talking about wanting to start a family fairly soon after they get married, but that health insurance will be a real issue. So here you have a teacher in a very well-to-do Chicago suburb ... and the health-benefits package for those with families sucks big time.
It's probably expensive because the benefits are so rich. And CPS's claims experience is probably terrible on top of everything else, which is not surprising if the deductibles and co-pays are low.
Does your future son-in-law not get health insurance at his own place of work? He can probably get EE+children coverage for way less than $900.
If he can't, he would be eligible for Obamacare for less than half of that (last I checked).
-
It's probably expensive because the benefits are so rich. And CPS's claims experience is probably terrible on top of everything else, which is not surprising if the deductibles and co-pays are low.
Does your future son-in-law not get health insurance at his own place of work? He can probably get EE+children coverage for way less than $900.
If he can't, he would be eligible for Obamacare for less than half of that (last I checked).
My son's employer just now has started offering a healthcare plan and he has signed up for it. Their fiscal year starts Aug. 1, so it will kick in for him then. It's more expensive than the high-deductible catastrophic plan he has had the last few years, but it offers much more coverage. He'll stay on that after they get married. After they have kids? Who knows. They'll have to compare costs of various plans.
By that time, I'm sure Comrade President will have lived up to his campaign promise: Healthcare for "everyone," it will be better than Obamacare, and it will cost less. I mean, the man NEVER lies, so book it!
-
By that time, I'm sure Comrade President will have lived up to his campaign promise: Healthcare for "everyone," it will be better than Obamacare, and it will cost less. I mean, the man NEVER lies, so book it!
Perhaps he'll win "Lie of the Year" for it like President Obama did for his "If you like your plan, you can keep it" lie he repeated so many times that I almost believed it!
-
The right leaner will say that the Great Society programs of the 60s actually caused much of the social unrest and disfunction in the minority community. Let's not argue the merits of that position.
I'm not sure I know what you are saying, Glow.
It sounds like it is that giving blacks rights that were equal to those that whites enjoyed since our nations birth is what caused social unrest in the minority community. That allowing them to eat in the same restaurant as whites caused social unrest.
I'm guessing either I am reading you wrong or your message didn't come out as you intended.
Either way, I would like to hear your further thoughts on this.
-
3. Teachers deal with children. Lots of them at the same time. All day.
And in public schools, you get all kinds of these little monsters >:(
Kids that want to learn and kids that don't want to be there. Kids that are even-tempered and kids that, realistically, should be locked up. The teacher has to deal with them all - sometimes 30 or more at a time.
When a kid is disruptive, it tales away from the entire class. They can't just be sent to the principal's office because they can't be trusted to go there, so the teacher must accompany them - leaving the other 30+ kids unsupervised.
Most of us could not deal with that everyday. I applaud that you are able to do so. I know a private school is not nearly as bad that way as public schools, but it is still no piece of cake.
-
It's probably expensive because the benefits are so rich. And CPS's claims experience is probably terrible on top of everything else, which is not surprising if the deductibles and co-pays are low.
Does your future son-in-law not get health insurance at his own place of work? He can probably get EE+children coverage for way less than $900.
If he can't, he would be eligible for Obamacare for less than half of that (last I checked).
No, without qualifying for subsidies (which they would not), there is no Obamacare plan for $450.
-
I've deliberately waited until now to weigh in on this one. My experiences are in some ways very different, having been exposed to the best and the worst of the public and private systems.
1) The reason Catholic schools almost consistently perform more efficiently than public schools is twofold. First is, as another poster noted, they don't deal with special needs children. Your standardized tests will be much higher when and if you eliminate the negative outliers from your pupil base. Secondly, Catholic and other private schools are more efficient because they don't have the administrative overhead of a public system. Take money from the federal or state government or exist on public dole and you have compliance issues, reporting requirements and anti-discrimination expectations. Those of you who think the federal government will ultimately give vouchers, no strings attached... well, I have a bridge in Brooklyn for you.
2) The abuse of Catholic School teachers is borderline shameful. Our church teaches social justice and spares no opportunity to jam it down our throats (not saying we don't deserve it from time to time). Until it comes time for them to hire teachers. Then it's a calling and the teachers are paid dirt. When I served on a Catholic School board in Chicago, starting teachers qualified for food stamps .. and that in one of the wealthier communities in Chicago. When I spoke with our principal about it, his comment was that it was a calling and that "we're thankful most of these are second jobs and women." I asked if we wanted to say that in front of his teachers, who probably would have sued them if they heard it.
3) The abuse of the system comes with tenure. I know of no other profession where you have a job for life, no matter how good or bad you are. Our teachers at our grade school are up for tenure after four years. Burned out or not, there's nothing you can do about them if they don't perform. Period. Likewise, 30 years in and teachers can retire at 55 to 60 with very strong benefits. I know of few other circumstances where a high quality professional can retired in his or her mid-50s, pursue other employment and still pull down a full pension before 65.
4) Our experiences were a mixed bag, despite being in a high-tax, good reputation suburban Chicago suburb. Both of our children were adopted from Eastern Europe and had severe learning disabilities. Our grade school was an embarrassment to public education in America. The LD specialist sought to teach LD students only because she would get fewer students. Our District was drawn in a way that it pulled in Hispanic students. OK, but an LD class at our grade school had six ESL students and my daughter, who is Russian and had a very different set of issues. When we wanted adjustments, one of the District Officers told us, "wouldn't we all like that." Suffice to say, her tone changed when she faced the real threat from an LD parent of a "No Child Left Behind" style lawsuit.
5) By contrast, our public high school was about as good as a school gets in dealing with LD students. They were incredible and made investments in doing for their pupils everything they could. I never saw a more caring and concerned group of teachers in my life. They were so strong that the vast majority of the kids that went in went on to some form of higher education. These teachers all probably are making more than $100,000 a year, plus benefits. And they're worth every dime of it, and then some. The proof is in the performance. In my children's case, both are now enrolled in a four-year national university and one is 1.5 years away from a degree.
6) Most of this group who posts in here knows what it takes to raise and educate children. I'd gather than most of us are very committed parents who spent more than a few long, long, long hours in teachers meetings, homework, reteaching things that seem so obvious but aren't and generally being there when it mattered. I'm also guessing that most of us stood up for our children when we needed to but we also held them accountable. Educational failures happen because accountability is not at the core of what one does. Parents have to hold themselves accountable to do the best they can and get the resources they need when they can't. Schools must be held accountable as much for LD as they are for football and other sports and the kids have to understand why we do this. In effect, it's easier to blame than it is to fix.
-
Now, I'm going to go drive in to school (in the summer) to work in the IT department getting student iPads ready for next year. Y'all can have fun posting here while you sit at your desks in your office jobs.
Just post from the iPads, duh. Fricking teachers, I tell ya.
-
I think what this argument boils down to is the same argument with any tenure/pension system. You have the good that deserve it, the bad that don't deserve it and the ugly that game the system.
It's the ugly that makes the rest of the working people angry. I can do through my district and easily pull 10+ teachers that will retire before 60, clearing $110k a year that haven't changed their curriculum or really gave a unnatural carnal knowledge since 2000 when I got to high school.
However, I won't be able to find the teachers that actually made an impact on me because they've been district hopping trying to grind out a career with decent pay.
It's a broken system, but that's well-known.
-
It sounds like it is that giving blacks rights that were equal to those that whites enjoyed since our nations birth is what caused social unrest in the minority community. That allowing them to eat in the same restaurant as whites caused social unrest.
You are misinterpreting the Great Society.
The Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Public Accommodations Act of 1965 were strictly civil rights issues designed to put teeth in the Constitutional Guarantees that all of us enjoy. Combined with the Voting Rights Act of 1965, these are the core civil rights laws that exist at the federal level.
The Great Society arose out of Lyndon Johnson's War on Poverty. The Great Society was a 1965 speech at the University of Michigan that evolved into a legislative program. It was a series of federal laws that created Medicaid, housing, food stamps, educational opportunities, job training, block grants and a host of other programs to alleviate suffering and poverty. Most of these occurred after the civil rights laws became law as there is no way President Johnson could have raided the federal Treasury the way he did and get Civil Rights passed simultaneously. Ev Dirksen and Richard Russell never would have tolerated it -- even from LBJ!
Keep in mind that the Civil Rights programs were aimed at our African American brothers' and sisters' grievances. The poverty programs in the Great Society were aimed at all America and grew out of LBJ's early in life experience with poverty.
-
I've deliberately waited until now to weigh in on this one. My experiences are in some ways very different, having been exposed to the best and the worst of the public and private systems.
1) The reason Catholic schools almost consistently perform more efficiently than public schools is twofold. First is, as another poster noted, they don't deal with special needs children. Your standardized tests will be much higher when and if you eliminate the negative outliers from your pupil base. Secondly, Catholic and other private schools are more efficient because they don't have the administrative overhead of a public system. Take money from the federal or state government or exist on public dole and you have compliance issues, reporting requirements and anti-discrimination expectations. Those of you who think the federal government will ultimately give vouchers, no strings attached... well, I have a bridge in Brooklyn for you.
2) The abuse of Catholic School teachers is borderline shameful. Our church teaches social justice and spares no opportunity to jam it down our throats (not saying we don't deserve it from time to time). Until it comes time for them to hire teachers. Then it's a calling and the teachers are paid dirt. When I served on a Catholic School board in Chicago, starting teachers qualified for food stamps .. and that in one of the wealthier communities in Chicago. When I spoke with our principal about it, his comment was that it was a calling and that "we're thankful most of these are second jobs and women." I asked if we wanted to say that in front of his teachers, who probably would have sued them if they heard it.
3) The abuse of the system comes with tenure. I know of no other profession where you have a job for life, no matter how good or bad you are. Our teachers at our grade school are up for tenure after four years. Burned out or not, there's nothing you can do about them if they don't perform. Period. Likewise, 30 years in and teachers can retire at 55 to 60 with very strong benefits. I know of few other circumstances where a high quality professional can retired in his or her mid-50s, pursue other employment and still pull down a full pension before 65.
4) Our experiences were a mixed bag, despite being in a high-tax, good reputation suburban Chicago suburb. Both of our children were adopted from Eastern Europe and had severe learning disabilities. Our grade school was an embarrassment to public education in America. The LD specialist sought to teach LD students only because she would get fewer students. Our District was drawn in a way that it pulled in Hispanic students. OK, but an LD class at our grade school had six ESL students and my daughter, who is Russian and had a very different set of issues. When we wanted adjustments, one of the District Officers told us, "wouldn't we all like that." Suffice to say, her tone changed when she faced the real threat from an LD parent of a "No Child Left Behind" style lawsuit.
5) By contrast, our public high school was about as good as a school gets in dealing with LD students. They were incredible and made investments in doing for their pupils everything they could. I never saw a more caring and concerned group of teachers in my life. They were so strong that the vast majority of the kids that went in went on to some form of higher education. These teachers all probably are making more than $100,000 a year, plus benefits. And they're worth every dime of it, and then some. The proof is in the performance. In my children's case, both are now enrolled in a four-year national university and one is 1.5 years away from a degree.
6) Most of this group who posts in here knows what it takes to raise and educate children. I'd gather than most of us are very committed parents who spent more than a few long, long, long hours in teachers meetings, homework, reteaching things that seem so obvious but aren't and generally being there when it mattered. I'm also guessing that most of us stood up for our children when we needed to but we also held them accountable. Educational failures happen because accountability is not at the core of what one does. Parents have to hold themselves accountable to do the best they can and get the resources they need when they can't. Schools must be held accountable as much for LD as they are for football and other sports and the kids have to understand why we do this. In effect, it's easier to blame than it is to fix.
As a non-Catholic who is a strong believer in public schools, I found this to be very interesting. Thanks for telling us your story.
-
No, without qualifying for subsidies (which they would not), there is no Obamacare plan for $450.
For an individual? If so, they have really gone up since I looked a couple of years ago. I thought that wasn't supposed to happen.
-
For an individual? If so, they have really gone up since I looked a couple of years ago. I thought that wasn't supposed to happen.
Obamacare is flawed and needs to be fixed.
Either that, or the Comrade In Chief can stomp his feet and make threats because Congress can't seem to deliver his campaign promise of healthcare for "EVERYONE" that will be better and less expensive than the ACA.
-
Obamacare is flawed and needs to be fixed.
Either that, or the Comrade In Chief can stomp his feet and make threats because Congress can't seem to deliver his campaign promise of healthcare for "EVERYONE" that will be better and less expensive than the ACA.
If by "flawed" you mean a bill of goods based on lies and sold on lies that were known to be lies all along it was "flawed".
-
If by "flawed" you mean a bill of goods based on lies and sold on lies that were known to be lies all along it was "flawed".
OK, you get the last word. Not gonna argue it here.
-
You are misinterpreting the Great Society.
The Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Public Accommodations Act of 1965 were strictly civil rights issues designed to put teeth in the Constitutional Guarantees that all of us enjoy. Combined with the Voting Rights Act of 1965, these are the core civil rights laws that exist at the federal level.
The Great Society arose out of Lyndon Johnson's War on Poverty. The Great Society was a 1965 speech at the University of Michigan that evolved into a legislative program. It was a series of federal laws that created Medicaid, housing, food stamps, educational opportunities, job training, block grants and a host of other programs to alleviate suffering and poverty. Most of these occurred after the civil rights laws became law as there is no way President Johnson could have raided the federal Treasury the way he did and get Civil Rights passed simultaneously. Ev Dirksen and Richard Russell never would have tolerated it -- even from LBJ!
Keep in mind that the Civil Rights programs were aimed at our African American brothers' and sisters' grievances. The poverty programs in the Great Society were aimed at all America and grew out of LBJ's early in life experience with poverty.
Thanks for the correction, dgies.
I should have known better.
-
"So pre-existing conditions are a tough deal. Because you are basically saying from the moment the insurance, you’re 21 years old, you start working and you’re paying $12 a year for insurance, and by the time you’re 70, you get a nice plan. Here’s something where you walk up and say, 'I want my insurance.' It’s a very tough deal, but it is something that we’re doing a good job of."
Huh????
-
Well then...it appears we made it this far without hearing from an actual teacher! Lemme fix that. (Thanks TAMU for telling me this was going on)
1. Teachers are underpaid. This is due to the historical view of teaching, in that it was a a career reserved for young, single, and other-wise unemployable women. Persons in other careers with similar levels of education and experience make more than teachers. (Note: this is all on average, and rich suburban schools do not have the same problem that urban schools do...heck even Illinois teachers make way more than Wisconsin)
2. Teachers work about the same as everyone else, maybe more. I take home more work than my wife (who is a Physical therapist), but she works longer hours at work. She gets more actual days off than me, even when you add in my summer break. And lots of teachers work second (umpiring) and third (summer IT) jobs in addition to coaching (cross country), attending professional development, planning curriculum, and grad school during the summer. I feel busier now than during the school year.
3. Teachers deal with children. Lots of them at the same time. All day.
4. I teach at a private Catholic voucher school in an urban area. I get paid ~35K, and I won't go over 50K when I get my Masters. The top of the pay scale is less than 60K. I'll never make 50% of my wife's salary. How can you expect to attract and retain qualified individuals when the pay is so scanty? Public schools have the same problem. I actually wouldn't make much, if any, more if I moved to Racine Unified or even Oak Creek.
5. On the voucher/choice debate: Choice is a great idea in principle, but if voucher schools aren't held to the same high standards as public, it will fail. I know that the standards at my school aren't what is expected of public school teachers and it's like pulling teeth to get my colleagues to implement proven effective teaching strategies because the older ones are very used to not being accountable for anything.
6. Teachers suffer from a problem that no other career has: everyone thinks they can be a teacher because they have spent so much time observing and modeling teachers. There's some mystery about what your doctor actually does and there's some question about the math an engineering used to make something work, but teaching, "that's easy." No one would EVER suggest that you can be a lawyer without a law degree or license, but there are states (Wisconsin among them) that don't require a teaching degree to teach in certain situations. This is especially true in private and voucher schools not held to the same requirements as public.
7. Teaching actually does weed out most of the bad teachers. The rate of teachers leaving the profession is absurd, something like 40-50% leave in the first five years (I will survive being part of this statistic on day one of this year!) There's two reasons for this: teaching is hard, and teaching doesn't pay well. The fact that teaching is hard weeds out many of the bad teachers. Unfortunately, teaching not paying well weeds out good teachers too.
Now, I'm going to go drive in to school (in the summer) to work in the IT department getting student iPads ready for next year. Y'all can have fun posting here while you sit at your desks in your office jobs.
Really? Are you sure about that?
No snark here. I'm genuinely curious if you are sure about that.
I ask because one of my good friends was a teacher at Pius high school and, IIRC, he made appx $32k with a masters degree his first year there. He would complain, saying that if he were at an MPS high school he would make appx $48k.
-
5. On the voucher/choice debate: Choice is a great idea in principle, but if voucher schools aren't held to the same high standards as public, it will fail. I know that the standards at my school aren't what is expected of public school teachers and it's like pulling teeth to get my colleagues to implement proven effective teaching strategies because the older ones are very used to not being accountable for anything.
Some thoughts on vouchers:
1) If the country were ever to go to vouchers for private and Roman Catholic schools nationally, it would dramatically change private education in America. There is no way the Catholic system in the United States as it stands today could be publicly funded and continue to operate as it is.
2) Most Catholic Schools in the United States operate a preference system for admissions. Active Parish members as well as other Catholic Parishes get preference on grounds that their communities built and support the school. Catholics theoretically get a lower tuition due to this support. We Catholics call this priorities. Federal and State governments call it discrimination. If vouchers ever go nationwide, look for more push on this point.
3) As I noted before, "No Child Left Behind" is the exception rather than the norm in Catholic Schools and Private Schools. As a consequence, LD programs, programs dealing with behaviorally challenged students and other students with special needs tend to be dealt with by encouraging students to attend public schools. At some point, again, that smacks of discrimination and runs afoul of the Americans With Disabilities Act. Don't be surprised if this becomes an issue as well.
4) Compliance will become huge. At Chancery Offices across the nation, expect a construction boom to build office space to house Catholic Bureaucrats to deal with the reporting requirements and compliance burden.
5) At some point, don't be surprised if the NEA and AFT begin unionizing Catholic School teachers. I know this is not a big issue in Wisconsin, but in Illinois.... If you're getting vouchers, the sales pitch is, "you're doing the work but getting the pay...." If that ever happens, it will be fascinating to see the Church's response, since Catholic Leaders have ALWAYS supported the right of workers to organize!
6) Vouchers will be a horrible tax on most property owners. Advocates of Catholic and other private education claim there is a cost-savings associated with vouchers. I don't see it. The fixed assets are already in place and the incremental loss of students due to vouchers won't save any administrative costs nor would teacher costs be dramatically reduced in most cases. So what happens? Taxes rise to pay for it! Yikes.
Final thought: We Catholics have done it ourselves, through our contributions and hard work for more than 1.5 centuries. We educate Americans from pre-school through PhDs mostly on our own. Do we really want the federal government to be a very vocal education partner. That should worry every advocate of Catholic education.
-
There are plenty of Catholic schools in Wisconsin that are voucher schools, some nearly completely funded by them.
-
There are plenty of Catholic schools in Wisconsin that are voucher schools, some nearly completely funded by them.
Of course there are. But keep in mind the difference between a state with between 5.0 million and 6.0 million and a roll-out of vouchers to a country with 320.0 million people. At some point, you cross a threshold where the federal bureaucracy and the state bureaucracy become involved.
-
I'm not sure I know what you are saying, Glow.
It sounds like it is that giving blacks rights that were equal to those that whites enjoyed since our nations birth is what caused social unrest in the minority community. That allowing them to eat in the same restaurant as whites caused social unrest.
I'm guessing either I am reading you wrong or your message didn't come out as you intended.
Either way, I would like to hear your further thoughts on this.
No, of course not Jockey. I was referring to the merits of the massive social welfare programs that were enacted, not rights issues like voting, discrimination, etc. In other words, what dgies said. And while I'm not revisiting it, I was suggesting that folks positions on education often mirror their positions politically. I was purposefully not entering the fray. Thanks for allowing me to clear that up.
-
There are plenty of Catholic schools in Wisconsin that are voucher schools, some nearly completely funded by them.
The one in which I teach is a prime example. If we didn't have vouchers, we wouldn't be open.
-
No, of course not Jockey. I was referring to the merits of the massive social welfare programs that were enacted, not rights issues like voting, discrimination, etc. In other words, what dgies said. And while I'm not revisiting it, I was suggesting that folks positions on education often mirror their positions politically. I was purposefully not entering the fray. Thanks for allowing me to clear that up.
Gracias. But, if I could ask your opinion on one more thing.....
Will more vouchers and school choice programs promote more segregation in schools? Is that the goal of some of the people pushing for more choice? There have been studies that show that this is the case. While minority parents are being given more choices about where to enroll their kids, these choices rarely extend to schools that are more integrated.
Often, the choices in minority school districts are between low-performing public schools and charters or voucher-schools with similar student bodies.
Betsy Devos has argued that it’s unrealistic to demand racial integration in charter schools. Why shouldn't we demand it?
I think we are seeing the results of her school of thought as schools are becoming more and more segregated.
-
Gracias. But, if I could ask your opinion on one more thing.....
Will more vouchers and school choice programs promote more segregation in schools? Is that the goal of some of the people pushing for more choice? There have been studies that show that this is the case. While minority parents are being given more choices about where to enroll their kids, these choices rarely extend to schools that are more integrated.
Often, the choices in minority school districts are between low-performing public schools and charters or voucher-schools with similar student bodies.
Betsy Devos has argued that it’s unrealistic to demand racial integration in charter schools. Why shouldn't we demand it?
I think we are seeing the results of her school of thought as schools are becoming more and more segregated.
I don't mind you asking. I hope you don't mind that I'm not interested in engaging the discussion.
-
I only have a periphery knowledge of the Public Education system in the US. I have been a volunteer in introducing and discussing STEM and the career prospects to several inner city Milwaukee schools. My observations from my 5 plus years involvement.
The current problems with Education will not be solved by the current Education establishment. Education is the most incestuous field I have ever experienced. Teachers become Administrators, Principals, Vice Principals, etc. No new blood from the outside world seems to permeate this environment. There is a real group think and an us against the world mentality that prevents outside ideas or any form of real change.
I’m old enough to have gone through the revolution in manufacturing. I’m a Neutron Jack casualty. Thousands of people were “rightsized” out of their existing positions but the end result was a more competitive sector producing better and more innovative products.
If we start by accepting that what we are currently doing is not effectively educating a significant portion of the students, regardless of other mitigating factors, then we need to try new and innovative ideas.
I would end all Federal involvement in Education. The solution is not going to come from an universal rule making body. We should be trying dozens of different approaches. Personally I would grant diplomas following the successful completion of Sophomore year. If you are planning on going to college you would go two more years and get an Advanced High School Diploma (or whatever you call it). I’d allow students that can get a job to do so. This would require massive changes in Child Labor Laws. Many of the students I witnessed over the years could have probably been helped by removing them from the education system and putting them to work. Then they also would not be disrupting the students that do want to learn. You could take the money you save from the final two years and use it to fund other new ideas
I would try boarding schools
I would try same sex schools
I would have Trade Schools in conjunction with Carpentry, Welding, Long-Term Care, Concrete, Electrical, Machining, Medical, and Plumbing Associations and Hospitals and Manufacturers. I would allow paid employment during school/Training Hours maybe even subsidized for a short period of time.
I would do away with social promotion and allow anyone under 23 or maybe 25 to re-enroll with minimum commitment tests.
I would not allow the courts to use these as an alternative to other punishment
Current is not working. It’s a massive failure.
There is a huge looming shortage of all kinds of workers and their wages will be going up.
I recommend getting involved. It was personally humbling to come from the C-Suite and be ignored so completely. In small group discussion some kids are really interested in what is available and what you do, etc. Some have there own conversations and will not even acknowledge your presence or voice.
-
I only have a periphery knowledge of the Public Education system in the US. I have been a volunteer in introducing and discussing STEM and the career prospects to several inner city Milwaukee schools. My observations from my 5 plus years involvement.
The current problems with Education will not be solved by the current Education establishment. Education is the most incestuous field I have ever experienced. Teachers become Administrators, Principals, Vice Principals, etc. No new blood from the outside world seems to permeate this environment. There is a real group think and an us against the world mentality that prevents outside ideas or any form of real change.
I’m old enough to have gone through the revolution in manufacturing. I’m a Neutron Jack casualty. Thousands of people were “rightsized” out of their existing positions but the end result was a more competitive sector producing better and more innovative products.
If we start by accepting that what we are currently doing is not effectively educating a significant portion of the students, regardless of other mitigating factors, then we need to try new and innovative ideas.
I would end all Federal involvement in Education. The solution is not going to come from an universal rule making body. We should be trying dozens of different approaches. Personally I would grant diplomas following the successful completion of Sophomore year. If you are planning on going to college you would go two more years and get an Advanced High School Diploma (or whatever you call it). I’d allow students that can get a job to do so. This would require massive changes in Child Labor Laws. Many of the students I witnessed over the years could have probably been helped by removing them from the education system and putting them to work. Then they also would not be disrupting the students that do want to learn. You could take the money you save from the final two years and use it to fund other new ideas
I would try boarding schools
I would try same sex schools
I would have Trade Schools in conjunction with Carpentry, Welding, Long-Term Care, Concrete, Electrical, Machining, Medical, and Plumbing Associations and Hospitals and Manufacturers. I would allow paid employment during school/Training Hours maybe even subsidized for a short period of time.
I would do away with social promotion and allow anyone under 23 or maybe 25 to re-enroll with minimum commitment tests.
I would not allow the courts to use these as an alternative to other punishment
Current is not working. It’s a massive failure.
There is a huge looming shortage of all kinds of workers and their wages will be going up.
I recommend getting involved. It was personally humbling to come from the C-Suite and be ignored so completely. In small group discussion some kids are really interested in what is available and what you do, etc. Some have there own conversations and will not even acknowledge your presence or voice.
Most intriguing post in this thread. Thanks for sharing your experiences and ideas.
-
I only have a periphery knowledge of the Public Education system in the US. I have been a volunteer in introducing and discussing STEM and the career prospects to several inner city Milwaukee schools. My observations from my 5 plus years involvement.
The current problems with Education will not be solved by the current Education establishment. Education is the most incestuous field I have ever experienced. Teachers become Administrators, Principals, Vice Principals, etc. No new blood from the outside world seems to permeate this environment. There is a real group think and an us against the world mentality that prevents outside ideas or any form of real change.
I appreciate your perspective, but I think you're way off here.
What's the alternative to hiring experienced people to run schools? And how is what the schools are doing any different from every other profession on the planet?
Are we better off with a system in which the people overseeing teachers and running schools have never been in the classroom? Where the people who shape curricula have no educational experience? Where the people who are hiring teachers have never taught?
Nobody would suggest hiring a high school teacher to run a tech firm. Or a veterinarian to serve as CEO of a car manufacturer. Or a chef to manage a professional baseball team.
But apparently one needs no knowledge of education to be a principal.
This goes back to the silly notion that's been discussed previously in this thread that everyone seems to think they can teach. Apparently now everyone can also be a principal, curriculum director and superintendent, too.
If we start by accepting that what we are currently doing is not effectively educating a significant portion of the students, regardless of other mitigating factors, then we need to try new and innovative ideas.
But this is a false narrative. The reality is that the US is one of the most educated countries on the planet (8th, according to the World Economic Forum). People come here from around the globe seeking education. Are there areas we could do better? Of course. But the notion that we're not effectively educating a significant portion of the students, regardless of other mitigating factors, is patently false. Most kids in this country receive a quality education. Instead of messing with those kids by trying to change everything, let's focus on the ones being left behind.
As for your other suggestions, innovation is great and should be pursued arduously, but as a parent, the last thing I want is my kid of be a guinea pig in a school trying a host of unproven methods trying to find something that might work. I'll stick with a school that only uses methods that have been thoroughly tested and shown to work.
Lastly, I'd be very careful about forcing kids to decide their career path (i.e. college or vocation) at 15 years old. I had no clue what I was going to do at that age, and I'd venture to guess I wasn't an outlier.
-
I appreciate your perspective, but I think you're way off here.
What's the alternative to hiring experienced people to run schools? And how is what the schools are doing any different from every other profession on the planet?
Are we better off with a system in which the people overseeing teachers and running schools have never been in the classroom? Where the people who shape curricula have no educational experience? Where the people who are hiring teachers have never taught?
Nobody would suggest hiring a high school teacher to run a tech firm. Or a veterinarian to serve as CEO of a car manufacturer. Or a chef to manage a professional baseball team.
But apparently one needs no knowledge of education to be a principal.
This goes back to the silly notion that's been discussed previously in this thread that everyone seems to think they can teach. Apparently now everyone can also be a principal, curriculum director and superintendent, too.
But this is a false narrative. The reality is that the US is one of the most educated countries on the planet (8th, according to the World Economic Forum). People come here from around the globe seeking education. Are there areas we could do better? Of course. But the notion that we're not effectively educating a significant portion of the students, regardless of other mitigating factors, is patently false. Most kids in this country receive a quality education. Instead of messing with those kids by trying to change everything, let's focus on the ones being left behind.
As for your other suggestions, innovation is great and should be pursued arduously, but as a parent, the last thing I want is my kid of be a guinea pig in a school trying a host of unproven methods trying to find something that might work. I'll stick with a school that only uses methods that have been thoroughly tested and shown to work.
Lastly, I'd be very careful about forcing kids to decide their career path (i.e. college or vocation) at 15 years old. I had no clue what I was going to do at that age, and I'd venture to guess I wasn't an outlier.
The European system prepares people for specific jobs. Our system prepares people to think for themselves. In fact we here in America have the most powerful motivator in education: failure; and when we fail we have the power and FREEDOM to pull ourselves up and start over and completely go in a different direction and pursue that which makes us happy. It is just a shame that large segments of our population do not experience that freedom and waste it.
http://sites.psu.edu/berkmancivicissue/2014/03/26/12/
-
Pakuni
responses below
I appreciate your perspective, but I think you're way off here.
What's the alternative to hiring experienced people to run schools? And how is what the schools are doing any different from every other profession on the planet?
I’m not in favor of hiring inexperienced individuals just adding some differently experienced.
Are we better off with a system in which the people overseeing teachers and running schools have never been in the classroom?
Maybe, I’ve never ran a 5 axis lathe, installed a water removal system, scheduled a manufacturing plant, etc. but I have effectively managed these activities. Different skill sets are required and sometimes you are unable to see things from inside that an outsider could provide perspective.
Where the people who shape curricula have no educational experience? Where the people who are hiring teachers have never taught?
You act like it is one or the other. Maybe someone who is hiring the final product or the Education system could provide insight into what a future curriculum roadmap should include. And your response would be to allow the system to remain closed to any of the other stakeholders. Just trust the Education syste,.
Nobody would suggest hiring a high school teacher to run a tech firm. Or a veterinarian to serve as CEO of a car manufacturer. Or a chef to manage a professional baseball team.
Or a nurse to run a hospital, or a window installer to run a construction firm, or a the person putting tires on a car to run an automobile company, or ??? Whose point were you trying to make?
But apparently one needs no knowledge of education to be a principal.
Not what I said but whatever fits your “siege mentality” narrative. And again every organization I have been part of has run remedial/ continuing education programs, training, lunch and learn, etc. The if you haven’t taught in the classroom you couldn’t possibly add value to the institution is ridiculous.
This goes back to the silly notion that's been discussed previously in this thread that everyone seems to think they can teach. Apparently now everyone can also be a principal, curriculum director and superintendent, too.
Not everyone but certainly some people
But this is a false narrative. The reality is that the US is one of the most educated countries on the planet (8th, according to the World Economic Forum). People come here from around the globe seeking education. Are there areas we could do better? Of course. But the notion that we're not effectively educating a significant portion of the students, regardless of other mitigating factors, is patently false. Most kids in this country receive a quality education. Instead of messing with those kids by trying to change everything, let's focus on the ones being left behind.
My post was specifically about my experience with inner city schools and declaring it a false narrative even allowing for your sanctimonious pomposity is more a reflection of comprehension and realizing distinctions (or lack thereof). I am saying one size does not fit all. Suburban schools may be ok (I’d still argue room for improvement) but many Urban schools are abject failures.
As for your other suggestions, innovation is great and should be pursued arduously, but as a parent, the last thing I want is my kid of be a guinea pig in a school trying a host of unproven methods trying to find something that might work. I'll stick with a school that only uses methods that have been thoroughly tested and shown to work.
Even when any realistic metric would show the product to be inferior to competitors. And AGAIN I was speaking specifically of failing inner city schools. And "shown to fail" would be more accurate
Lastly, I'd be very careful about forcing kids to decide their career path (i.e. college or vocation) at 15 years old. I had no clue what I was going to do at that age, and I'd venture to guess I wasn't an outlier.
Not forcing anything. AGAIN, my observation was there was a significant segment that had already checked out. Requiring them to sit through two more years adds zero value (assuming they even show up), prevents them from entering workforce, consumes time, money, and energy from kids who want to be there. And I specifically allowed for a return to the system when a person might be more mature, know what they want to do or at least what they do not want to do
-
The European system prepares people for specific jobs. Our system prepares people to think for themselves. In fact we here in America have the most powerful motivator in education: failure; and when we fail we have the power and FREEDOM to pull ourselves up and start over and completely go in a different direction and pursue that which makes us happy. It is just a shame that large segments of our population do not experience that freedom and waste it.
http://sites.psu.edu/berkmancivicissue/2014/03/26/12/
I wouldn't say all Americans have the "freedom to pull ourselves up and start over and completely go in a different direction and pursue that which makes us happy." I think in theory everyone has the opportunity to pull themselves up but in actuality its only those with a certain level of privilege.
-
PBR ... was hoping for a civil discussion, instead get accused of a 'siege mentality' and ' sanctimonious pomposity.'
OK, then.
Anyhow, I'll address a few of your points and then allow you to get angry and insulting again. Fair?
1. To you point about outside viewpoints and "differently" experienced, that's why we have elected school boards. These, in theory and usually in practice, are people from outside the educational establishment - doctors, lawyers, stay-at-home moms, firefighters, marketing managers, etc. - who hold the ultimate authority in setting district policy and hiring the top administrators charged with carrying out that policy. Contrary to your claims, the system is not closed. The people with the most authority come from outside the establishment. Pretty much any law-abiding adult living in the community can run for a school board, and be elected by other stakeholders. And most school districts have numerous other committees, panel, commissions, etc., in which members of the public can serve and help shape policy.
2. Nobody here said one without teaching experience can't add value. That's a total straw man. Rather, I disagreed with your suggestion that teaching experience is a negative - incestuous is the word you used, to be exact - for principals and administrators. You're entitled to that belief, but I'd venture to guess I'm in the majority when I say I want the person in charge of my kids' school to have some working knowledge.
3. Not forcing anything? Perhaps I misunderstood, but didn't you say kids should go to high school for two years and then decide whether they wanted to go to college or get a job? How is that not forcing a career choice on a high school sophomore?
Saying "a return to the system" is nice and all, but studies show very few kids who leave high school early ever go back, and most of those who do struggle and drop out again before graduating.
Perhaps a better solution - one that's actually being introduced all over the country and has wide bipartisan support - is the addition of more vocational training and apprenticeships within the high school environment. That way, kids aren't closing off all their options, yet can still pursue a non-college path if that's their preference.
4. "Or a nurse to run a hospital, or a window installer to run a construction firm, or a the person putting tires on a car to run an automobile company,"
I'm not sure what your point is here? That a teacher who becomes a superintendent is analogous to a tire installer becoming CEO of GM? If you'd like me to explain how bad that analogy is, I will.
-
Pakuni
responses below
I was going to respond to Pakuni with a +1, but will now reply here instead.
I’m not in favor of hiring inexperienced individuals just adding some differently experienced.
Maybe, I’ve never ran a 5 axis lathe, installed a water removal system, scheduled a manufacturing plant, etc. but I have effectively managed these activities. Different skill sets are required and sometimes you are unable to see things from inside that an outsider could provide perspective.
You act like it is one or the other. Maybe someone who is hiring the final product or the Education system could provide insight into what a future curriculum roadmap should include. And your response would be to allow the system to remain closed to any of the other stakeholders. Just trust the Education syste,.
You are acting here as if the administrators only have teaching experience. Those in administrative jobs usually have specialized training in education, school finance, management etc. They are very well trained and have different experiences, and training that positions them to understand the complex aspects of the education process. On top of that, administration often has people with business training, psychology etc.
It is not closed to any of the other stakeholders. It is just found that people with some actual education experience are better suited for the job. Frankly, your stances here have no merit, because the premise that it is closed to outside stakeholders is false.
But apparently one needs no knowledge of education to be a principal.
Not what I said but whatever fits your “siege mentality” narrative. And again every organization I have been part of has run remedial/ continuing education programs, training, lunch and learn, etc. The if you haven’t taught in the classroom you couldn’t possibly add value to the institution is ridiculous.
You are right, that almost every organization runs remedial/continuing education programs. The vast majority contract out to firms run by people who are trained as educators, who provide the curricula/materials to educate those at the firm. Often, then the actual program is taught by someone with specific training in what is going to be taught. The bottom line is, the systems you are talking about rely on teachers/educators for the actual teaching materials.
The reason they contract out to them is that they have specific training on different teaching methods, there relative utility and success rate and how to implement them properly to be most effective.
Everyone can sing, and most in their life have done so, but if you are producing a record you are not going to grab someone off the street to sing the lyrics, you will bring someone in who has been trained and has a proven track record to get it done.
My post was specifically about my experience with inner city schools and declaring it a false narrative even allowing for your sanctimonious pomposity is more a reflection of comprehension and realizing distinctions (or lack thereof). I am saying one size does not fit all. Suburban schools may be ok (I’d still argue room for improvement) but many Urban schools are abject failures.
Here you have another massive logical fallacy. You now say that you are speaking specifically from your experience with inner city schools, but you are suggesting that this is an inherent problem with the education system. Simple logic refutes that. If the problem was in the system, then it would be a universal problem. The fact is that our education system is one of the best in the world.
The question should be then, is there something that makes this not work in inner cities. The answer is a simple yes. I have also worked with inner city schools and the problem is not in the education structure/system. It is in the homes, and the community. The biggest problem for inner city schools is poverty and hopelessness. That even if you work hard and do well, you almost will never escape the reality of your situation. That leads the majority of students to give up, as they have no hope. The lack of seriousness on the part of the majority, exacerbates the problem.
Many of the things you ask for, e.g. vocational training, are offered at some inner city schools or as after school programs. Many are not attended, because they still do not offer any hopes of escaping poverty.
If you have an interest in improving education in some areas, I'd advise for you to immerse yourself in inner city schools (that are successful), and in suburban schools that are successful. Talk to the educators and administrators about problems/concerns and ideas of improvement. In other words research it through experience and training and then see what you think is the best way to rectify the inner city school problems. One of the biggest problems you'll find is that no one wants to provide funding for many of the ideas of the educator experts.
-
I wouldn't say all Americans have the "freedom to pull ourselves up and start over and completely go in a different direction and pursue that which makes us happy." I think in theory everyone has the opportunity to pull themselves up but in actuality its only those with a certain level of privilege.
I can't disagree with this more. My degree from MU was in Journalism and I went into the field. By the mid-1980s, it became clear that I would not accomplish what I hoped to do in Journalism. It also was becoming clearer that the media was changing and I needed a profession with a long-term capability to contribute to our family's well being.
Even then it was clear that contributing to our family's well-being was not coming from journalism.
My employer offered as a perk a commitment to pay 75 percent of the costs of what it called "higher education," so long as my supervisors signed off on it. The other 25 percent at the time was tax deductible. The perk was largely used by our administrative and support staff to pursue BA or BS degrees. But, the perk was available to anyone who was a full-time employee. Up to that point, nobody had used it for an MBA or other law degree.
I changed that almost overnight.
I was awarded an MBA 2.75 years after I started, largely by going to school at night and studying heavily on weekends. I earned my degree and am now a Managing Director for a large consulting firm. Ironically, after I did it, four of my departmental colleagues did the same thing and the cost of the program shot through the roof (Serves 'em right for not paying us!).
So yes, YOU CAN CHANGE! I wasn't privileged. I was a lowly journalist with a lowly journalist's salary. If I was truly special, there there are an awful lot of truly special people in the world!
-
dgies, I've already debated this ad naseum in the minimum wage thread so I'm not going to repeat it all here. I don't know you, but my guess is that you do have some level of privileged higher than who I was referring to. A vast majority of those living below the poverty line in theory have the opportunity to pull themselves up but very few are ever going to do a job solely because it makes them happy. They are going to do whatever job they can get that will allow them and their family to survive.
-
I don't think the education system is as broken in our country as many seem to think it is. Our higher education system is ranked #1 in the world. Our primary and secondary education is among the top 5% of countries in the world. It could absolutely be improved but I don't think we need to trash the whole system and start over.
I love the idea of more apprenticeship and internship programs in high schools. Give students an opportunity to get real world job experience at white collar jobs or valuable trade jobs. It gives them valuable skills, experience, and better opportunity to succeed in college or to succeed when entering the work force after graduation. I think the Christo Rey schools have an excellent model for this. I haven't read any studies about their effectiveness but I have met several graduates of those schools and they all loved their experience.
I think home ec is a subject that is sorely undervalued in American high schools. There should be more class time dedicated to practical skills like creating a personal budget, writing a resume, writing a cover letter, doing taxes, how to dress professionally, how to cook, how to eat a nutritious diet, how student loans work, etc. Many students come to college or enter the work force with no experience in these areas and they are expected to know all of this information. The lack of education on student loans and making a good decision on college is especially troubling. Many student who have never been educated are making decisions that will put them in debt for the next few decades of their lives.
-
I don't think the education system is as broken in our country as many seem to think it is. Our higher education system is ranked #1 in the world. Our primary and secondary education is among the top 5% of countries in the world. It could absolutely be improved but I don't think we need to trash the whole system and start over.
I love the idea of more apprenticeship and internship programs in high schools. Give students an opportunity to get real world job experience at white collar jobs or valuable trade jobs. It gives them valuable skills, experience, and better opportunity to succeed in college or to succeed when entering the work force after graduation. I think the Christo Rey schools have an excellent model for this. I haven't read any studies about their effectiveness but I have met several graduates of those schools and they all loved their experience.
I think home ec is a subject that is sorely undervalued in American high schools. There should be more class time dedicated to practical skills like creating a personal budget, writing a resume, writing a cover letter, doing taxes, how to dress professionally, how to cook, how to eat a nutritious diet, how student loans work, etc. Many students come to college or enter the work force with no experience in these areas and they are expected to know all of this information. The lack of education on student loans and making a good decision on college is especially troubling. Many student who have never been educated are making decisions that will put them in debt for the next few decades of their lives.
Much like sex ed, why should the burden of these things be placed on the school system? These things are to be taught through parents/family.
-
Much like sex ed, why should the burden of these things be placed on the school system? These things are to be taught through parents/family.
Because ...
1. Having a populace educated in these matters - including sex ed - is good for society as a whole.
2. Many parents are either incapable or unwilling to teach their kids about these things (and, just my opinion, it's the kids who need it most who have the least willing and able parents).
-
Because ...
1. Having a populace educated in these matters - including sex ed - is good for society as a whole.
2. Many parents are either incapable or unwilling to teach their kids about these things (and, just my opinion, it's the kids who need it most who have the least willing and able parents).
Sorry. Didn't think I needed the teal.
-
Sorry. Didn't think I needed the teal.
In hindsight, your sarcasm should have been obvious, but one never knows these days.
-
dgies, I've already debated this ad naseum in the minimum wage thread so I'm not going to repeat it all here. I don't know you, but my guess is that you do have some level of privileged higher than who I was referring to. A vast majority of those living below the poverty line in theory have the opportunity to pull themselves up but very few are ever going to do a job solely because it makes them happy. They are going to do whatever job they can get that will allow them and their family to survive.
TAMU, c'mon.
Yes, my privilege is having a set of decent, caring parents who believed in education. Both of 'em did. My privilege is having a set of parents who stood with us when they needed to and corrected us when we needed it. My parents made sure we had a roof over our head, food to keep us going and the discipline to take advantage of the God-given abilities we had.
If that's privilege, I plead guilty and openly offer the same to my children who are now in college.
I would note that neither of my children are extremely gifted or impoverished. As a consequence, I'm paying the full rate at an Illinois university. Based on the cost structure of the university, I'm putting about 1.5 students through college for each of my own children. I accept that and hope the 1.5 students end up with degrees and find a way to foster the growth of the State of Illinois.
You're beginning to make us sound like some stuck-up, European kingdom. We're not and if you think we are, take a walk through the commons at Texas A&M. Sure the frat boys and girls are there. But I'll betcha if you look, you'll find some folks from the Valley whose family has given all they could to get their children to A&M. Or, an oil-worker's daughter from Houston. They know what I know ... you can still do anything if you make the effort and put your mind to it.
-
TAMU, c'mon.
Yes, my privilege is having a set of decent, caring parents who believed in education. Both of 'em did. My privilege is having a set of parents who stood with us when they needed to and corrected us when we needed it. My parents made sure we had a roof over our head, food to keep us going and the discipline to take advantage of the God-given abilities we had.
If that's privilege, I plead guilty and openly offer the same to my children who are now in college.
I would note that neither of my children are extremely gifted or impoverished. As a consequence, I'm paying the full rate at an Illinois university. Based on the cost structure of the university, I'm putting about 1.5 students through college for each of my own children. I accept that and hope the 1.5 students end up with degrees and find a way to foster the growth of the State of Illinois.
You're beginning to make us sound like some stuck-up, European kingdom. We're not and if you think we are, take a walk through the commons at Texas A&M. Sure the frat boys and girls are there. But I'll betcha if you look, you'll find some folks from the Valley whose family has given all they could to get their children to A&M. Or, an oil-worker's daughter from Houston. They know what I know ... you can still do anything if you make the effort and put your mind to it.
That's way more than a lot of people have. So, yes, you are indeed privileged.
-
I don't think the education system is as broken in our country as many seem to think it is.
Agree, with a caveat. Really, we have three school systems in the US. Urban, suburban, and rural. Each have some similarities, but unique strengths and weaknesses. Any conversation about "fixing" the "system" is silly unless it specifies which type of district being addressed. Most suburban districts are succeeding, most urban districts are failing .. with rural districts as a mixed-bag, floating near the average.
There are, however, three top unifying characteristic strengths: Parents, parents, parents.
If Johnny has parents who are engaged and actively installing language and critical thinking software on their children from the day they were born .. the school district they attend will be quite good.
If not .. the district still has a shot to "meet expectations" but more often than not, will be considered a failing district. All the other chatter is around the edges. The end.
-
Agree, with a caveat. Really, we have three school systems in the US. Urban, suburban, and rural. Each have some similarities, but unique strengths and weaknesses. Any conversation about "fixing" the "system" is silly unless it specifies which type of district being addressed. Most suburban districts are succeeding, most urban districts are failing .. with rural districts as a mixed-bag, floating near the average.
There are, however, three top unifying characteristic strengths: Parents, parents, parents.
If Johnny has parents who are engaged and actively installing language and critical thinking software on their children from the day they were born .. the school district they attend will be quite good.
If not .. the district still has a shot to "meet expectations" but more often than not, will be considered a failing district. All the other chatter is around the edges. The end.
Sad but true.
-
There are, however, three top unifying characteristic strengths: Parents, parents, parents.
If Johnny has parents who are engaged and actively installing language and critical thinking software on their children from the day they were born .. the school district they attend will be quite good.
My wife worked for several years on the kids Psych floor in a hospital. She always said these kids would do so much better and recover quicker if the parents were the ones getting treatment.
-
Pakuni
My apologies for offending. Just a little tired of the defensiveness against anyone thinking differently than the Education Establishment position on education at failing Urban schools.
1. To you point about outside viewpoints and "differently" experienced, that's why we have elected school boards. These, in theory and usually in practice, are people from outside the educational establishment - doctors, lawyers, stay-at-home moms, firefighters, marketing managers, etc. - who hold the ultimate authority in setting district policy and hiring the top administrators charged with carrying out that policy. Contrary to your claims, the system is not closed. The people with the most authority come from outside the establishment. Pretty much any law-abiding adult living in the community can run for a school board, and be elected by other stakeholders. And most school districts have numerous other committees, panel, commissions, etc., in which members of the public can serve and help shape policy.
//I’d say School Boards are as effective at affecting change as a Corporate BoD’s and they can be just as chummy. This may be our fault and in Wisconsin it seems school board elections are never with a major election in November but some low turn out election that no one participates. Even if the Board takes the responsibility seriously you have a part time School Board taking on an entrenched Bureaucracy. Also, there are a lot of Federal and State rules imposed that reduce the ability to create change and innovate. Just like it is our fault when we vote our shares in corporate governance elections, entrenched existing management has a significant advantage because risk is great.
2. Nobody here said one without teaching experience can't add value. That's a total straw man. Rather, I disagreed with your suggestion that teaching experience is a negative - incestuous is the word you used, to be exact - for principals and administrators. You're entitled to that belief, but I'd venture to guess I'm in the majority when I say I want the person in charge of my kids' school to have some working knowledge.
//I did not say teaching experience was a negative. My reference was that there is very few other experiences present. Everyone started as a teacher. Very few have outside experiences so there are very few outside perspectives. I’ve worked in organizations where the team has individuals from Government, Consulting Firms, Manufacturing Lifers, Service and Distribution, Law, Consumer Product, Education, etc. I guess diversity is good except in Education. And you specifically stated that you would stick to the proven method. If the schools I was in are an example of the “proven method” then the “proven method” is failing and I’d say we agree to disagree.
3. Not forcing anything? Perhaps I misunderstood, but didn't you say kids should go to high school for two years and then decide whether they wanted to go to college or get a job? How is that not forcing a career choice on a high school sophomore?
//I said I would grant the diploma after Sophomore year. Not kick anyone out. But I was referring to the students that have already checked out and are more a hindrance to the educational process. There needs to be efforts to reengage these kids that have no other prospects. That is also why I said we need to change child labor laws because employment opportunities are even more limited to those under 18 years old. There is a personal worth to finding something you are good at and for many of these kids it isn’t school. I also think it removes the stigma of being labelled a “high school dropout”.
3A. Saying "a return to the system" is nice and all, but studies show very few kids who leave high school early ever go back, and most of those who do struggle and drop out again before graduating.
//What do those studies say about those that those that don’t officially drop out but stop participating? And what do the studies say about the distraction to having 1 or 2 or 6 or more kids who are disruptive, or bored, or just taking up space and time of the teacher from kids who may be trying to learn. I’m not trying to save everyone, just making the improving the net potential. We need to find ways of incrementally improving the percentage of kids moving to productive members of society in these schools.
3B. Perhaps a better solution - one that's actually being introduced all over the country and has wide bipartisan support - is the addition of more vocational training and apprenticeships within the high school environment. That way, kids aren't closing off all their options, yet can still pursue a non-college path if that's their preference.
//I’m all for this. I’m not sure doing this through the high schools is the most effective way. I’d be inclined to offer to subsidize wages for a Plumbers helper or insert job here (cable installer, Carpenter, Home Aide, etc.). Maybe even several different occupations to allow kids to try them out. It has to be hands on and where they see what working people are doing.
4. "Or a nurse to run a hospital, or a window installer to run a construction firm, or a the person putting tires on a car to run an automobile company,"
I'm not sure what your point is here? That a teacher who becomes a superintendent is analogous to a tire installer becoming CEO of GM? If you'd like me to explain how bad that analogy is, I will.
//My point here was that your examples were absurd and I just continued more absurd examples. Not quite as absurd as people come here from around the world to get an education (because no one is coming here from a First World Country to be educated in an inner city school). My point was just because you are great and getting 6 year olds to spell or 16 year olds to do geometry, or are a great speech therapist, does not equate to running a school. Where you are dealing with Facilities, parents, budgets, School Boards, etc. These are completely different skill sets. Can some individuals migrate to these positions …. YES. Should it be a prerequisite? I guess we will have to disagree again.
Forgetful
No idea how to respond. Your opinions are presented as absolutes. I get it. Trust the Education establishment …. They got this.
Cedo maiori
-
Some silliness, but all in all this has been a very interesting thread.
Carry on ...
-
TAMU, c'mon.
Yes, my privilege is having a set of decent, caring parents who believed in education. Both of 'em did. My privilege is having a set of parents who stood with us when they needed to and corrected us when we needed it. My parents made sure we had a roof over our head, food to keep us going and the discipline to take advantage of the God-given abilities we had.
If that's privilege, I plead guilty and openly offer the same to my children who are now in college.
I would note that neither of my children are extremely gifted or impoverished. As a consequence, I'm paying the full rate at an Illinois university. Based on the cost structure of the university, I'm putting about 1.5 students through college for each of my own children. I accept that and hope the 1.5 students end up with degrees and find a way to foster the growth of the State of Illinois.
You're beginning to make us sound like some stuck-up, European kingdom. We're not and if you think we are, take a walk through the commons at Texas A&M. Sure the frat boys and girls are there. But I'll betcha if you look, you'll find some folks from the Valley whose family has given all they could to get their children to A&M. Or, an oil-worker's daughter from Houston. They know what I know ... you can still do anything if you make the effort and put your mind to it.
I don't think you understand exactly what privilege means in this context. It isn't a yes / no thing. "I am privileged," or "I am not privileged."
It's more of a scale. For instance, we have worked tremendously hard at the where I work to increase the graduation rates of under-represented minority and disadvantaged students to those of majority students. However, even when you normalize for academic achievement, those rates are consistently 10-15 percentage points lower. You can give that population more direct support, in terms of scholarships and on-campus jobs, and meet their financial needs at the same level as the majority students and they STILL don't perform as well.
What we found is that it's the little things. The car that my son used in college to travel to his job broke down and it cost us $500 to repair. I was able to pay that bill. Others cannot. My wife was sick when he was in school and had to miss about six weeks of work. We figured it out and moved on. In other scenarios, the college student would be called home to work.
"Privilege" is simply a term to acknowledge that people in society have a better "safety net" than others do. And that pulling yourself up from your own boot-straps is nowhere as easy as some people portray it. Kids from certain backgrounds can do almost EVERYTHING right. They can go to school, work hard, avoid drugs, etc., and through circumstances that are due to no fault of their own, can still be stuck in the same rut that their family has for generations.
And it's getting worse. Higher education costs more. But the income gap between those with a degree and those without keeps increasing. Financial aid has shifted more from grants to loans. It is so much harder for students who have a setback to keep moving forward than it was 50 years ago. We plow so many resources into helping these students - scholarships, academic support, emergency funds - because without those resources, it is extremely rare for kids from those backgrounds to succeed.