I was doing some investigative work, and being from the Green Bay area, i always thought public school systems were generally pretty good. In the Green Bay area there graduation rate is above 90%, most students do attend college of some sort, etc.
Long story short, i was talking to a coworker about the education level down here in Milwaukee and asked if her daughter went to a public school, her response was "hahahahaha, are you being serious?" I looked at her with a dumbfounded look and said "yes" She said, search MPS online and you'll find your answer....
So after doing some research i see the MPS gets about 1 billion dollars a year, which comes out to around 3.2million a day to spend on all public schools in the Milwaukee area. There is 6100 teachers/staff and if you multiply the amount of teachers times an average salary of 60k/year that comes to about $366,000,000 (now granted not every teacher is making 60k/year...) so where is the other over 600 million going? It's astounding to me that the dropout rate is in the top 5 in the nation and literacy is at about 35% of GRADUATING students!!!
Anybody have any answers or opinions on why MPS is a complete failure?
http://www2.milwaukee.k12.wi.us/portal/FY13/Supt_Overview_2.pdf
And are you seriously just realizing that MPS is a disaster? (BTW, you can send your kid to Rufus King or Reagan and they'll be fine.)
Quote from: The Sultan of South Wayne on August 11, 2012, 12:32:42 PM
http://www2.milwaukee.k12.wi.us/portal/FY13/Supt_Overview_2.pdf
And are you seriously just realizing that MPS is a disaster? (BTW, you can send your kid to Rufus King or Reagan and they'll be fine.)
I knew the public system down here wasn't stellar, but being 24 and not having kids, i guess i didn't know to what extent that was.
http://www.sequenceinc.com/fraudfiles/2008/11/milwaukee-public-schools-wasteful-spending-exposed/
Quote from: The Sultan of South Wayne on August 11, 2012, 12:32:42 PM
http://www2.milwaukee.k12.wi.us/portal/FY13/Supt_Overview_2.pdf
And are you seriously just realizing that MPS is a disaster? (BTW, you can send your kid to Rufus King or Reagan and they'll be fine.)
....or Riverside. It's surprising you wouldn't know how bad MPS truly is, and it's not getting any better.
the public schools outside of mps aren't too bad-nicolet, waukesha-all three, northshore suburbs, whitnall, new berlin west and eisenhower, to name a few. ya just have to get out of the city a little-not really sure why that is though ::)
I'm a product of MPS
Quote from: 4everwarriors on August 11, 2012, 10:17:44 PM
I'm a product of MPS
The ancient days of MPS weren't so bad...
Quote from: wadesworld on August 11, 2012, 10:19:57 PM
The ancient days of MPS weren't so bad...
MPS had a extensive scroll and script collection.
After spotting this conversation, I wanted to share a few pieces of information regarding Milwaukee Public Schools that I thought would inform the discussion.
Specifically, I think they refute the point that "it's not getting better." No one would argue that the district as a whole is where it needs to be, but the indicators are pointing in the right direction.
Milwaukee Public Schools' graduation rate for the class of 2011 (the most recent data available) was 69%, 17 points higher than the rate for the class of 2000. Using both the traditional and the more stringent four-year graduation rate methodology, MPS' graduation rate improved between 2010 and 2011 at a faster rate than the state as a whole.
Data released during the 2011-12 school year shows that during the second year of a program to dramatically boost ACT participation (the rate now stands at 85%), scores rose.
MPS' math proficiency on the state standardized test has grown by 10 percentage points over the last six years.
While overall performance is, once again, not where it needs to be, a number of individual MPS schools boast extremely high academic achievement. We have schools with proficiency rates above 90%. Twenty-eight MPS schools are roughly at or above the state average in reading. Twenty-six are roughly at or above the average in math.
Rufus King and Reagan, which an earlier poster mentioned, were ranked by U.S. News and World Report as the top two high schools in Wisconsin and among the 200 best in the nation. Milwaukee School of Languages was ranked seventh in the state.
Many of our top-performing schools have waiting lists. And just as we have closed schools that were underperforming or not enrolling enough students to thrive, we are growing schools that are both popular and successful to lessen wait lists.
Four popular and successful MPS schools are in new locations for 2012-13 so that they have room to grow. We're opening a new Montessori school near Howard and Howell avenues because of the 100-plus-student-long wait list at our nearby Fernwood Montessori School.
We also continue to attract high performing charter schools and the operators of the highly-successful Carmen High School of Science and Technology are now planning an MPS-authorized second campus to serve the northwest side of the city.
To raise achievement across the district, MPS began implementing comprehensive literacy (in 2010-11) and math/science plans (in 2011-12) that are aligned to the tough, rigorous Common Core State Standards that ensure all students are prepared for college and careers. A $20-million grant from the GE Foundation is assisting us in implementing the Common Core. And in the coming year, we'll be naming 10 'demonstration' schools that will develop best practices that can be modeled by schools across the district and perhaps across the country.
Also, to be clear, MPS does not administer "all of the public schools in the Milwaukee area" as one poster indicated. We serve roughly 80,000 students in 166 schools throughout the city of Milwaukee. The schools do draw some families from suburban communities, but we do not operate public schools in suburban communities.
Please feel free to email me if you have any questions about Milwaukee Public Schools.
Sincerely,
Tony Tagliavia
Communications and Public Affairs | Milwaukee Public Schools
(email address is tagliaaj at milwaukee.k12.wi.us)
Holy Schnikes, MUScoop has hit the big time. It looks like the $600 million may be going into PR ;)
Actually, that was a pretty informative post. Doesn't address per pupil spending and the like, but still...
Quote from: mu03eng on August 13, 2012, 11:17:04 AM
Holy Schnikes, MUScoop has hit the big time. It looks like the $600 million may be going into PR ;)
LOL'd!
Our budget companion website addresses how money is spent: www5.milwaukee.k12.wi.us/dept/budget
I should add that the $1B total budget includes fee-for-service recreation programs and tens of millions of dollars the district sends to privately-operated schools through the voucher program and to suburban schools through Chapter 220 and Open Enrollment.
Since the companion was published, we were able to realize better-than-expected health care savings to bring teaching positions back that were slated to be cut. We are not laying off any teachers this summer.
In the most general sense, budget expenditures include staff (teachers, principals, educational assistants/paraprofessionals, psychologists/social workers, physical/occupational therapists, speech pathologists, food service workers, nurses, safety, central administrative staff, etc.), utility costs, technology, textbooks/supplies, transportation, food service and other items.
Again, specific questions can be sent my way any time.
Tony
Quote from: JDuquaine on August 11, 2012, 12:12:14 PM
There is 6100 teachers/staff and if you multiply the amount of teachers times an average salary of 60k/year that comes to about $366,000,000 (now granted not every teacher is making 60k/year...) so where is the other over 600 million going?
Point of information .. $60k may be about right for average salary, but you missed the fastest growing cost: Benefits. After taking that into consideration, the average compensation package for a teacher is just a bit over $101,000 per year.
Naturally, with health insurance costs rising at 5-20% per year .. you can see how quickly MPS is sinking into a financial hole.
Quote from: mu_hilltopper on August 13, 2012, 11:47:26 AM
Point of information .. $60k may be about right for average salary, but you missed the fastest growing cost: Benefits. After taking that into consideration, the average compensation package for a teacher is just a bit over $101,000 per year.
Naturally, with health insurance costs rising at 5-20% per year .. you can see how quickly MPS is sinking into a financial hole.
40k for health, dental, vision, 401k, and Pension plans? Holy F! Well What's the excuse then for the MPS being a FAILURE? A TEACHER...making about 100k to work 8 months out of the year is a joke.
It's quite simple to me, if i do bad at my job, if i don't meet expectations, i'm gone. Yet these teachers aren't held accountable? Obviously they're not... Facts are facts and MPS has failed, the blame should be placed on the teachers.
Quote from: JDuquaine on August 13, 2012, 01:06:54 PM
40k for health, dental, vision, 401k, and Pension plans? Holy F! Well What's the excuse then for the MPS being a FAILURE? A TEACHER...making about 100k to work 8 months out of the year is a joke.
It's quite simple to me, if i do bad at my job, if i don't meet expectations, i'm gone. Yet these teachers aren't held accountable? Obviously they're not... Facts are facts and MPS has failed, the blame should be placed on the teachers.
Well, what about the statistics that the PR guy listed above? What about the parents and family situations those students come from? If you have kids from impoverished families whose parents don't care about school, don't you think simply blaming the teachers is right course of action?
And the reason they are paid 60k is becuase they have to pay that much to get bodies.
So being 15-19 years old, you don't think kids understand the importance of school because of their dead beat parents? I don't believe that. Each individual has their own opportunity to become anything they want to become. I agree that not having a good support system will make things much more difficult, but to insinuate that these kids cannot do their own homework and stride for something more than what their parents have i think is false.
I still believe teachers hold the majority of the blame here, every kid should be taught how to read, and write. Knowing coworkers who tell me there are students who teachers PASSED knowing they cannot read road signs, or simple words is in comprehendable to me.
Quote from: JDuquaine on August 13, 2012, 01:27:58 PM
So being 15-19 years old, you don't think kids understand the importance of school because of their dead beat parents? I don't believe that. Each individual has their own opportunity to become anything they want to become. I agree that not having a good support system will make things much more difficult, but to insinuate that these kids cannot do their own homework and stride for something more than what their parents have i think is false.
I still believe teachers hold the majority of the blame here, every kid should be taught how to read, and write. Knowing coworkers who tell me there are students who teachers PASSED knowing they cannot read road signs, or simple words is in comprehendable to me.
Most 22 year olds don't understand the importance of school, and yes, it starts at home. Parents who think the school should basically raise their kids between the hours of 8 and 3 and refuse to put in any outside work with their kids will lead to developmental issues no matter how good the teacher is.
Quote from: Bocephys on August 13, 2012, 01:50:45 PM
Most 22 year olds don't understand the importance of school, and yes, it starts at home. Parents who think the school should basically raise their kids between the hours of 8 and 3 and refuse to put in any outside work with their kids will lead to developmental issues no matter how good the teacher is.
Bingo. JDuquaine .. while I think everyone (should) agree .. there's a bell curve on the quality of teachers (and accountants, and cashiers, and doctors) where there are some awful ones, some fantastic ones, and a load of ones in the middle .. generally speaking, there aren't enough "bad teachers" to explain MPS' massive failures: the vast majority of the terrible results of MPS is due to horrendous parenting and the cycle of poverty, 18 year olds having children -- who have opportunity, yes, but only a slim glimmer of breaking out of poverty themselves due to their terrible environment, lack of role models, and terrible personal decision making.
Wash, rinse, repeat.
Quote from: JDuquaine on August 13, 2012, 01:27:58 PM
So being 15-19 years old, you don't think kids understand the importance of school because of their dead beat parents? I don't believe that. Each individual has their own opportunity to become anything they want to become. I agree that not having a good support system will make things much more difficult, but to insinuate that these kids cannot do their own homework and stride for something more than what their parents have i think is false.
I still believe teachers hold the majority of the blame here, every kid should be taught how to read, and write. Knowing coworkers who tell me there are students who teachers PASSED knowing they cannot read road signs, or simple words is in comprehendable to me.
It is incredibly naive of you to think that teachers, who deal with 25 or so kids a day, 8 hours a day, 180 days a year, should have more influence on kid's education than parents and conditions that they deal with pretty much every other hour of their life.
One way to break that.....year round school. Break up the summer into small chunks through out the year and limit the lost knowledge with students almost literally doing nothing over the summer.
^ Don't they do that in Japan and other countries?
Quote from: mu03eng on August 13, 2012, 04:12:13 PM
One way to break that.....year round school. Break up the summer into small chunks through out the year and limit the lost knowledge with students almost literally doing nothing over the summer.
While I have nothing against that, I'm not sure it's the cure for the lack of parental involvement. They get a new teacher every year, so they'll follow the lead of what the see at home far more often that what they see at school.
Quote from: Bocephys on August 13, 2012, 04:30:10 PM
While I have nothing against that, I'm not sure it's the cure for the lack of parental involvement. They get a new teacher every year, so they'll follow the lead of what the see at home far more often that what they see at school.
Not intended as a cure, but it will at least reduce the impact of the lack of parental involvement.
Quote from: JDuquaine on August 13, 2012, 01:27:58 PM
So being 15-19 years old, you don't think kids understand the importance of school because of their dead beat parents? I don't believe that.
You don't have to believe it, but it's true.
If you never teach your kids eat vegetables, do you think they are magically start asking for them when they are teenagers? Probably not.
Good habits start at home. That includes school/diet/exercise/decision making etc.
Quote from: JDuquaine on August 13, 2012, 04:15:33 PM
^ Don't they do that in Japan and other countries?
Yes, also typically other countries like Germany pipeline students into two different high schools: professional and technical. Crudely this would be white collar and blue collar, with the reflection that not every one can or should go to college. Goes to the proper application of resources. Similar in concept to how Madison's business school works...you get into Madison but you have to "reapply" to the business school at a year or two.
Quote from: mu03eng on August 13, 2012, 04:43:40 PM
Yes, also typically other countries like Germany pipeline students into two different high schools: professional and technical. Crudely this would be white collar and blue collar, with the reflection that not every one can or should go to college. Goes to the proper application of resources. Similar in concept to how Madison's business school works...you get into Madison but you have to "reapply" to the business school at a year or two.
Not anymore. Started direct admit last year.
Quote from: mu03eng on August 13, 2012, 04:43:40 PM
Yes, also typically other countries like Germany pipeline students into two different high schools: professional and technical. Crudely this would be white collar and blue collar, with the reflection that not every one can or should go to college. Goes to the proper application of resources. Similar in concept to how Madison's business school works...you get into Madison but you have to "reapply" to the business school at a year or two.
I like this, it would be interesting to make school/apprenticeship combo program, especially for economically challenged students/families.
Quote from: Guns n Ammo on August 13, 2012, 07:56:40 PM
I like this, it would be interesting to make school/apprenticeship combo program, especially for economically challenged students/families.
Not sure what admitting that college isn't for everyone makes one (elitist? racist? generic bigot?) but I know it's not good. Funny, it used to be common knowledge.
Quote from: Lennys Tap on August 13, 2012, 08:09:38 PM
Not sure what admitting that college isn't for everyone makes one (elitist? racist? generic bigot?) but I know it's not good. Funny, it used to be common knowledge.
In my mind, there is a significant HS population that is failing to graduate because HS doesn't directly lead to them becoming financially stable. If you can get these kids into programs that offer them a chance to make some decent money, attend HS, and get on-the-job training, you could keep those kids in school.
$10/hr x 20 hours/week = approx. $10K/year. If you can show kids that working hard and staying in school can give them some short term financial benefits, you have a better chance of them staying in school.
It might take 6 years to get through HS with this type of program, but I think it would be interesting to try.
Now, the question is: Are there really enough technical labor jobs out there for programs like this to be successful?
Hell, this type of program would be great for all HS kids if there were enough jobs out there to support it.
There is a definite shortage of skilled labor, especially in Milwaukee. I know a guy who runs a business there and he has told me, "If I put an ad in the paper for a assembly worker, I have 50 applicants for every opening. But I can't find good welders for the life of me."
Part of the problem with this is due to the weakening of labor unions, and the apprenticeship programs that went along with them.
Quote from: The Sultan of South Wayne on August 14, 2012, 07:30:25 AM
There is a definite shortage of skilled labor, especially in Milwaukee. I know a guy who runs a business there and he has told me, "If I put an ad in the paper for a assembly worker, I have 50 applicants for every opening. But I can't find good welders for the life of me."
Part of the problem with this is due to the weakening of labor unions, and the apprenticeship programs that went along with them.
Well, maybe a HS apprenticeship/combo would work then. The one glaring downside is that traditionally, HS kids can be a bit fickle and immature, so if you are running a business and really depending upon their output, it could be a challenge.
The key would be good mentors in the workplace. If you think finding good welders is hard, imagine trying to find one that wants to teach/supervise a couple of HS students for 1/2 the day.
Companies would probably want some sort of subsidy for taking on these students, but now we are getting into a whole different conversation.
My personal opinion is that summer 'vacation' needs to be eliminated. You condense all of the learning that goes on in K-12 and have it take two less years. At that time the "real life" courses start. Financial Independence, and various other job skills with a work --> job placement for average students which will take up approx 20 hours of their week. For students which plan to go to college they can choose to enroll in college prep classes which will take up their 20 hours/week.
I know this is just a silly thing I dreamed up a few minutes ago, and it will probably create strange caste systems... but hey, I think its pretty good for zero long term thoughts!
Part of the issue is we are continuing to use a system that was invented in the 50s and is no more relevant to the current society than vacuum tubes are.
More basic life classes need to become mandatory, I think its criminal that kids come out of high school not understanding how mortgages/loans work. Back in the day this was something the parents educated their kids on, but more and more the parents don't even understand it.
Additionally, everything is catered to get kids placed into college, again there is too much emphasis placed on college. That's also why you have kids coming out with 6 figure debt and a degree in mid-16th century Flemish Iambic Pentameter. There is no connection between talent, skill set development and careers in college and high school. Mostly I attribute this to the "everyone is special policy", when the point of fact is nobody is special, just some people have enough skill, talent, opportunity, and luck to do special things.
Clearly MPS is broken, I'd love to see them take a chance and try and change the paradigm. Try a whole new way of approaching things, especially once they are out from under their currently labor contract. Not debating the merits of Act 10, but clearly once operating under it, MPS has the ability to set the rules as they see fit without negotiation. Go to year round school, develop after school homework centers, develop a committee that determines the latest career paths or jobs with a low supply of workers and alter curriculum to match people with those jobs. Technology and information have gotten to the point that once you get to high school you should not have to cookie cutter your education. What's the harm, the current method doesn't work, try something else.
I don't think summer vacation should be "eliminated," but I think the entire schedule needs to be looked at. Right now, kids go to school about 36 weeks a year. Bump that up to 40...shorten summer vacation to six weeks... and spread the rest around with a fall break, a winter break and a spring break. Having kids getting off school at the end of June, and going back around mid-August gives them enough time to enjoy the summer.
Quote from: The Sultan of South Wayne on August 14, 2012, 08:34:37 AM
I don't think summer vacation should be "eliminated," but I think the entire schedule needs to be looked at. Right now, kids go to school about 36 weeks a year. Bump that up to 40...shorten summer vacation to six weeks... and spread the rest around with a fall break, a winter break and a spring break. Having kids getting off school at the end of June, and going back around mid-August gives them enough time to enjoy the summer.
You mean forget half of what they learned during school ;D
QuoteClearly MPS is broken, I'd love to see them take a chance and try and change the paradigm. Try a whole new way of approaching things, especially once they are out from under their currently labor contract. Not debating the merits of Act 10, but clearly once operating under it, MPS has the ability to set the rules as they see fit without negotiation. Go to year round school, develop after school homework centers, develop a committee that determines the latest career paths or jobs with a low supply of workers and alter curriculum to match people with those jobs. Technology and information have gotten to the point that once you get to high school you should not have to cookie cutter your education. What's the harm, the current method doesn't work, try something else.
I believe Germany or some of the Scandinavian countries do something like this.
They also guarantee free education through graduate school, which incentivizes staying in school as well as delaying entering the work force.
Trust me I'm not a European socialist, but I do think some things they do have merit. Another idea I would steal is compulsory service for two years after high school ala Switzerland. Give them the option of the military, some sort of internal work program similar to the CCC during FDRs days, and the Peace Corps, etc. More opportunity to learn skills, teamwork, working for the greater good, and a sense that American's in general have it really good.
You could structure it such, that if you added 4 weeks to the general school calendar, you could trim a year, maybe two off the current high school graduating timeframe. You could then still be going to college after your service at say 19 and only be a year "behind" where you would be now. You also come into college with a more comprehensive understand of how the real world works.
So year around school, compulsory service, and technical/professional pipelines.
K-8th grade all the basic skills anyone will need(reading, writing, math, basic sciences, history)
9th grade(more advanced math, science and social science classes as well as classes on basic real word issues like how loans work, career planning, etc)
10th and 11th grade(pipeline classes for technical or professional path)
12th grade and freshman college(service activites, perhaps with some more advance classes integrated as part of the services if requested)
Sophmore college(new freshman year)
Done and done ;D
Quote from: tower912 on August 14, 2012, 09:06:01 AM
They also guarantee free education through graduate school, which incentivizes staying in school as well as delaying entering the work force.
I wouldn't go that far, because again that pushes people into college that maybe shouldn't be in college and devalues the college degree for everyone. I think you need to educate as to what the value of college is and the cost and then say make the decision but live with the consequences ie debt you can't pay off if you get a degree with no career path.
Quote from: mu03eng on August 14, 2012, 09:35:18 AM
I wouldn't go that far, because again that pushes people into college that maybe shouldn't be in college and devalues the college degree for everyone. I think you need to educate as to what the value of college is and the cost and then say make the decision but live with the consequences ie debt you can't pay off if you get a degree with no career path.
You misunderstand. It is much more difficult to get into college there. It is regulated that way. More of a competition.
I have found this discussion fascinating and very enlightening.
The only question I would have (and no this is not talking about politics) is whether changes would have to be federally mandated or instituted on a state by state basis. With the nature of colleges bringing in students from across the country, I feel like it would have to come from the top down as having each state running its own program could lead to a lot of confusion.
Nevertheless, something does need to happen. I have friends who did Teach for America straight out of college (teaching in both Milwaukee and Chicago public schools) and it was the worst two years of their lives. Good teachers are hard to come by, and nearly impossible to keep in the inner city schools that need them most.
Quote from: pux90mex on August 14, 2012, 10:15:35 AM
I have found this discussion fascinating and very enlightening.
The only question I would have (and no this is not talking about politics) is whether changes would have to be federally mandated or instituted on a state by state basis. With the nature of colleges bringing in students from across the country, I feel like it would have to come from the top down as having each state running its own program could lead to a lot of confusion.
Nevertheless, something does need to happen. I have friends who did Teach for America straight out of college (teaching in both Milwaukee and Chicago public schools) and it was the worst two years of their lives. Good teachers are hard to come by, and nearly impossible to keep in the inner city schools that need them most.
I have thought about this some, I know apparently I don't have enough to do. I think you mandate structure(year round, length of school year, years in school) and milestones(broad concepts/goals students should meet within a timeline, etc). You then let the states implement within that framework.
My incoming-freshman son's roommate at MU is a graduate of the Milwaukee School of Languages, which is an MPS magnet high school and was recently ranked the 7th best public school in the state of Wisconsin bu US News. We haven't met him yet, but based on what we know about him so far, he appears to be a smart, high-achieving kid who will do well at Marquette.
There were two other MPS schools ranked even higher, including the #1 school in the state, Rufus King (which is 78% non-traditional, BTW).
You have to at least give MPS credit for creating opportunities for kids with high potential that have parents who care about education. I am far from being a public school supporter/apologist, but the adage of leading a horse to water is never more true than when it comes to education.
Quote from: warriorchick on August 15, 2012, 10:26:06 AM
My incoming-freshman son's roommate at MU is a graduate of the Milwaukee School of Languages, which is an MPS magnet high school and was recently ranked the 7th best public school in the state of Wisconsin bu US News. We haven't met him yet, but based on what we know about him so far, he appears to be a smart, high-achieving kid who will do well at Marquette.
There were two other MPS schools ranked even higher, including the #1 school in the state, Rufus King (which is 78% non-traditional, BTW).
You have to at least give MPS credit for creating opportunities for kids with high potential that have parents who care about education. I am far from being a public school supporter/apologist, but the adage of leading a horse to water is never more true than when it comes to education.
Sure, I do think that's great stuff. I'd love to see a school by school break down of spend vs a success metric. I'm betting that the top schools like Rufus King not only perform better but they do so at a low cost point(high cost efficiency).
This type of stuff is why I think its insane that superintendents and school administrators tend to come from the teaching ranks. Running a successful business(like a school) and teaching are two wildly different skill sets.
a lot to digest since I started reading this topic, though something I chat with my friends about a lot since they're teachers... and a lot of similar ideas here are things we kick around. Plus recently milwaukee magazine ranked the 50 best area school districts. It listed all the metrics that went into it. If I remember correctly, most if not all the districts highlighted spend around $11-12k per student, whereas MPS spends $14k per student. 4th highest in the country yet they can't achieve similar results. (Oddly enough Nicolet wasn't in the list, but that may be due to it only being a High School and not part of a district.)
Its been argued that year round schooling leads to better greats. Uniforms improve academic standing and safety..
But all that is nibbling at the corners.
A way that was kicked around, yet seemingly abandoned was to break MPS up into smaller districts. I'll argue that MPS is a bureaucratic nightmare (Especially the equally failing school board), but I think just about any level of government is. Splitting up MPS into smaller, more manageable districts would allow focus in on a smaller percentage of schools and students.
There was a bill going around that was supported by Willie Hines that would allow the creation of more choice and voucher schools by allowing Choice groups to buy and refurbish closed schools. It would probably save MPS some money and allow parents to get their students out of failing schools and into High Performing Charter schools. I would have supported this because this would have created a level of competition and schools would become more responsive to the needs and interests of parents and students. However I don't think that came up for a vote.
The other augment being made is regarding parental involvement. Pointing to the importance of parental engagement is a way to downplay failing schools, failing teachers and out of touch bureaucrats. If you're going to blame a lack of parental involvement as a way downplay failing schools, you're speaking to a broader issue surrounding all most urban areas.
Seriously, anyone see a legit scenario, 5-10-25+ years from now where MPS isn't a considered a failing district? Where the dropout rate, reading and math scores are within a few points of state averages?
I just don't see it. Not under the current societal and fiscal constraints.. nor if MPS's budget was magically doubled.
Quote from: mu_hilltopper on August 15, 2012, 01:47:28 PM
Seriously, anyone see a legit scenario, 5-10-25+ years from now where MPS isn't a considered a failing district? Where the dropout rate, reading and math scores are within a few points of state averages?
I just don't see it. Not under the current societal and fiscal constraints.. nor if MPS's budget was magically doubled.
I completely agree, I think they will get a bit of a reset when Act 10 kicks in for them, but 15 years from now unless something unforeseen changes I'm willing to bet they will be the worst performing district in the country.
So again, why not change, especially radically? What hurts you by doing that? Hell, you could probably attract high caliber teachers at lower salaries simply because they are trying something new and exciting.
The funny thing is I think everyone in SE Wisconsin agrees and yet no one does anything, EVER. What is that?
Quote from: Guns n Ammo on August 13, 2012, 07:56:40 PM
I like this, it would be interesting to make school/apprenticeship combo program, especially for economically challenged students/families.
It's worked very well for their manufacturing sector as well.
Quote from: Ari Gold on August 15, 2012, 01:17:39 PM
a lot to digest since I started reading this topic, though something I chat with my friends about a lot since they're teachers... and a lot of similar ideas here are things we kick around. Plus recently milwaukee magazine ranked the 50 best area school districts. It listed all the metrics that went into it. If I remember correctly, most if not all the districts highlighted spend around $11-12k per student, whereas MPS spends $14k per student. 4th highest in the country yet they can't achieve similar results. (Oddly enough Nicolet wasn't in the list, but that may be due to it only being a High School and not part of a district.)
Its been argued that year round schooling leads to better greats. Uniforms improve academic standing and safety..
But all that is nibbling at the corners.
A way that was kicked around, yet seemingly abandoned was to break MPS up into smaller districts. I'll argue that MPS is a bureaucratic nightmare (Especially the equally failing school board), but I think just about any level of government is. Splitting up MPS into smaller, more manageable districts would allow focus in on a smaller percentage of schools and students.
There was a bill going around that was supported by Willie Hines that would allow the creation of more choice and voucher schools by allowing Choice groups to buy and refurbish closed schools. It would probably save MPS some money and allow parents to get their students out of failing schools and into High Performing Charter schools. I would have supported this because this would have created a level of competition and schools would become more responsive to the needs and interests of parents and students. However I don't think that came up for a vote.
The other augment being made is regarding parental involvement. Pointing to the importance of parental engagement is a way to downplay failing schools, failing teachers and out of touch bureaucrats. If you're going to blame a lack of parental involvement as a way downplay failing schools, you're speaking to a broader issue surrounding all most urban areas.
Good idea, but that also can cause bureaucratic nightmares. New Jersey has one of the best public school systems in the country, but facing massive budget shortfalls. Why? Cause instead of having, say, 50 superintendents, they have nearly 500. While they have a more targeted focus and close involvement, the state has to pay nearly 500 people superintendents level salaries. Plus, asst superintendents, and so on.
There are a lot of innovative ways we can improve education in America. Lots of plans, roadmaps, trainings, etc. But ANY solution that does not address the low value our society places on teacher careers will continue to fall short.
Quote from: The Sultan of South Wayne on August 14, 2012, 08:34:37 AM
I don't think summer vacation should be "eliminated," but I think the entire schedule needs to be looked at. Right now, kids go to school about 36 weeks a year. Bump that up to 40...shorten summer vacation to six weeks... and spread the rest around with a fall break, a winter break and a spring break. Having kids getting off school at the end of June, and going back around mid-August gives them enough time to enjoy the summer.
Sounds easy, unless you're a single parent or couple who can't afford to have one parent stay home. Finding affordable child care for a long summer break is hard enough when kids home for college and various summer camps are available. Finding it for lengthier fall, winter and spring breaks will prove a challenge for many.
Also, be prepared to pay higher taxes. More school days = higher school employee salaries, higher utility costs - especially for AC in summer months - higher maintenance costs, higher transportation costs, more free meals, etc.).
I don't disagree with the concept of a longer school year - and as the spouse of an educator, I'd be happy to have the additional family income - but it's a far more complex and costly proposal than most proponents let on.
Quote from: Aughnanure on August 15, 2012, 03:08:19 PM
Good idea, but that also can cause bureaucratic nightmares. New Jersey has one of the best public school systems in the country, but facing massive budget shortfalls. Why? Cause instead of having, say, 50 superintendents, they have nearly 500. While they have a more targeted focus and close involvement, the state has to pay nearly 500 people superintendents level salaries. Plus, asst superintendents, and so on.
There are a lot of innovative ways we can improve education in America. Lots of plans, roadmaps, trainings, etc. But ANY solution that does not address the low value our society places on teacher careers will continue to fall short.
If MPS put a value on Teachers they wouldn't have laid off a teacher of the year because she didst have seniority and kept other teachers that have been a part of the failing district
Quote from: Ari Gold on August 15, 2012, 11:07:41 PM
If MPS put a value on Teachers they wouldn't have laid off a teacher of the year because she didst have seniority and kept other teachers that have been a part of the failing district
Don't blame MPS for union rules. In a post-Act 10 world (when their union contract runs out next year) .. laying off the Teacher of the Year won't happen.
Quote from: Aughnanure on August 15, 2012, 03:08:19 PM
..ANY solution that does not address the low value our society places on teacher careers will continue to fall short.
Disagree with the premise. Our society places a high value on teachers and by extension, their careers. There's a vocal minority of severely anti-union/teacher folks who are disparaging, spawning indignant teachers (or observers) who say things like you just did.
Quote from: mu_hilltopper on August 16, 2012, 08:04:48 AM
There's a vocal minority of severely anti-union/teacher folks who are disparaging, spawning indignant teachers (or observers) who say things like you just did.
Bingo. This is the problem with a lot of political hot-button issues. People become further entrenched and farther apart, when in reality their views probably aren't that different to begin with.
If you strip away all of the rhetoric, most people could get on board with a revised MPS/Union plan. But, when the extreme voices are heard, it polarizes the groups and expands the divide.
Part of the problem is that our elected officials need to be unifiers on these issues.
Quote from: mu_hilltopper on August 16, 2012, 08:04:48 AM
Disagree with the premise. Our society places a high value on teachers and by extension, their careers. There's a vocal minority of severely anti-union/teacher folks who are disparaging, spawning indignant teachers (or observers) who say things like you just did.
Just cause you say you value teachers doesn't make it true. Tell me how much you think they should get paid and I'll tell you want you value.
Quote from: Aughnanure on August 16, 2012, 10:37:56 AM
Just cause you say you value teachers doesn't make it true. Tell me how much you think they should get paid and I'll tell you want you value.
Compensation is based on supply and demand. Simply put, an average teacher can be replaced with an average teacher at very little cost. Even "good" or "very good" teachers are easier to replace then say....a "good" or "very good" division one college basketball coach.
Quote from: mu_hilltopper on August 16, 2012, 08:04:48 AM
Don't blame MPS for union rules. In a post-Act 10 world (when their union contract runs out next year) .. laying off the Teacher of the Year won't happen.
Disagree with the premise. Our society places a high value on teachers and by extension, their careers. There's a vocal minority of severely anti-union/teacher folks who are disparaging, spawning indignant teachers (or observers) who say things like you just did.
I think people are more anti-union than anti-teacher. The problem is just like you said, rewarding length of tenure over skills or process improvements. That (for the most part) only happens in union jobs.
Quote from: The Sultan of South Wayne on August 16, 2012, 10:53:24 AM
Compensation is based on supply and demand. Simply put, an average teacher can be replaced with an average teacher at very little cost. Even "good" or "very good" teachers are easier to replace then say....a "good" or "very good" division one college basketball coach.
This, the idea that we can replace teachers for a low cost proves we don't value them. You get the quality you pay for, and for $50,000/yr you are only going to get that level, and that quality, which attracts those candidates. Teacher careers do not attract the most talented professionals because we don't want them to. When our society learns to value teachers as they do doctors and lawyers, you will see the change. It sickens me when I see and hear people bitching about teachers making 100k plus. That's what they
should be making, and what their importance to our society is worth (at the very least).
In Finland, just one in 10 applicants wins a place to train as a teacher. Why? Cause being a teacher is valued. We don't treat teachers like experts (in comparison to, say, doctors), we don't require most of them to hold advanced degrees, and teachers usually have little say in the policies and standards of their profession.
Tell me which professions we actually value. Other than entertainment and sports, I can't think of many. Certainly it's not doctors, lawyers, accountants or other professionals. They're all a dime/dozen.
Quote from: Aughnanure on August 16, 2012, 10:37:56 AM
Just cause you say you value teachers doesn't make it true. Tell me how much you think they should get paid and I'll tell you want you value.
As Sultan suggested .. you can't just base the level of "society's value of teachers" on their compensation level alone. There's an aspect of supply and demand that cannot be ignored.
That being said, do I think teachers should be paid more for what they do? Sure. Speaking as a spouse of a teacher, I'd say new teachers are preposterously underpaid .. mid- and late-career teachers are ~25% underpaid. I believe there are 15% truly fantastic teachers who are underpaid, and 15% poor teachers who are over-paid (just like any other career.)
Quote from: 4everwarriors on August 16, 2012, 11:21:34 AM
Tell me which professions we actually value. Other than entertainment and sports, I can't think of many. Certainly it's not doctors, lawyers, accountants or other professionals. They're all a dime/dozen.
All those you mentioned make significantly more than teachers. Entertainment and sports is in a world of it's own.
Quote from: The Sultan of South Wayne on August 16, 2012, 10:53:24 AM
Compensation is based on supply and demand. Simply put, an average teacher can be replaced with an average teacher at very little cost. Even "good" or "very good" teachers are easier to replace then say....a "good" or "very good" division one college basketball coach.
A system that includes tenure after 3 years and salaries/benefits negotiated with politicians they contribute millions of dollars to skews the compensation based on supply/demand thing a bit.
Quote from: mu_hilltopper on August 16, 2012, 11:24:36 AM
As Sultan suggested .. you can't just base the level of "society's value of teachers" on their compensation level alone. There's an aspect of supply and demand that cannot be ignored.
That being said, do I think teachers should be paid more for what they do? Sure. Speaking as a spouse of a teacher, I'd say new teachers are preposterously underpaid .. mid- and late-career teachers are ~25% underpaid. I believe there are 15% truly fantastic teachers who are underpaid, and 15% poor teachers who are over-paid (just like any other career.)
But it's not about paying current teachers more, it's about attracting future teachers. Who would choose being a teacher over a doctor. Based on pay and respect, doctor. I don't think people assume so openly, as we do with teachers, that somewhere around 10-25% of doctors are "poor."
There's a reason for that - there is a significant barrier and process one has to go through to become a doctors, or a lawyer, etc. It shows that you can't just walk in and become a teacher (looking at you Teach for America), it shows it takes skill, expertise and is very hard to achieve. And the ones that go through it are highly rewarded for the most part. Compensation IS how we value different careers over others.
All government talk about plans to improve and 'No child left behind" is nonsense. All the talk on this thread about teachers is wasted effort. Better teachers aren't going to make much difference. It's not just Milwaukee, its all big city schools. Here in Connecticut the public schools in Bridgeport (where my wife is a speech pathologist for the very young kids - pre-K) have terrible results. They have some new, beautiful schools (and are always building more), magnet schools, small class sizes, you name it. My wife is very dedicated and works with very dedicated teachers who not only teach, but reach into their pocket to buy the kids necessities. You can come up with whatever plans you want, you can spend however much money you want, you can pay teachers whatever you want, but you can't teach kids who refuse to be taught. It all starts at home. My wife regularly gets 3 and 4 year olds for speech therapy who can't talk, because nobody talks to them!
Quote from: Aughnanure on August 16, 2012, 11:26:54 AM
All those you mentioned make significantly more than teachers. Entertainment and sports is in a world of it's own.
first, whats so bad about 50k a year? thats pretty respectable and with the benefits that teachers can enjoy, they're compensation rises. feel free to look up some of your former teachers: http://www.jsonline.com/watchdog/dataondemand/33534649.html
Furthermore, the market dictates that Doctors, Lawyers and such can get paid what they do IF they are good at their job. to piggyback off what Sultan was saying about supply and demand. Now that Wisconsin has merit based hiring and firing for teachers hopefully the same will be true with teachers. Shitty doctors and lawyers get weeded out and are as successful as others. Though its also incredibly detrimental to your argument that you arbitrarily decided that you think teachers DESERVE a 6 figure salary. the most glaring counter argument to that is simply, all those other professions work in June July and August, and don't have extra days off during their year built into their schedule. In a simple comparison, teachers work less days than other professions.
And to speak to Lenny's argument, I think Act 10 took care of those problems.
Quote from: Aughnanure on August 16, 2012, 11:37:52 AM
But it's not about paying current teachers more, it's about attracting future teachers. Who would choose being a teacher over a doctor. Based on pay and respect, doctor. I don't think people assume so openly, as we do with teachers, that somewhere around 10-25% of doctors are "poor."
There's a reason for that - there is a significant barrier and process one has to go through to become a doctors, or a lawyer, etc. It shows that you can't just walk in and become a teacher (looking at you Teach for America), it shows it takes skill, expertise and is very hard to achieve. And the ones that go through it are highly rewarded for the most part. Compensation IS how we value different careers over others.
Who would choose to be a teacher over a doctor? Well, among other things a) people unqualified or uninterested in going to medical school, b) people who like the idea of 180 work days a year with job security unavailable in the private sector c) people desiring early retirement with very generous pensions and d) very rarely, people who consider teaching a vocation, not a job.
Quote from: Lennys Tap on August 16, 2012, 11:57:25 AM
Who would choose to be a teacher over a doctor? Well, among other things a) people unqualified or uninterested in going to medical school, b) people who like the idea of 180 work days a year with job security unavailable in the private sector c) people desiring early retirement with very generous pensions and d) very rarely, people who consider teaching a vocation, not a job.
Also people that don't want to do 12 years of schooling and rack up massive debts.
Quote from: Lennys Tap on August 16, 2012, 11:30:51 AM
A system that includes tenure after 3 years and salaries/benefits negotiated with politicians they contribute millions of dollars to skews the compensation based on supply/demand thing a bit.
With all due respect, teacher unions
do not contribute millions of dollars to the people with whom they negotiate salaries and benefits, i.e. local school boards.
The vast majority teacher union donations go to state and federal lawmakers, i.e. the people who make educational policies .... not the people who negotiate salaries.
Not suggesting teachers don't try to influence political dealings in their favor. They do. But what they do is no different than any other business entity who donates to a politician/PAC in hopes of legislation to their benefit. If you're going to rail against teacher union donations, then you should do the same for banking organizations, doctors' groups, lawyers' groups, the US chamber of Commerce, etc.
As for your later swipes at teachers, you obviously don't know many.
Quote from: Lennys Tap on August 16, 2012, 11:57:25 AM
Who would choose to be a teacher over a doctor? Well, among other things a) people unqualified or uninterested in going to medical school, b) people who like the idea of 180 work days a year with job security unavailable in the private sector c) people desiring early retirement with very generous pensions and d) very rarely, people who consider teaching a vocation, not a job.
So, yeah - a lower level of candidates...cause its easier to get to and pays less. Thanks. By the way, I don't know any teachers who work only 180 days a year. Most summers on the east coast its like 6 weeks off and they start going back for trainings and set-up 2-3 weeks before school even starts. Also, no one is choosing teacher over a doctors for "pensions and retirement." Maybe over other more equally-compensated careers - but not the ones that pay 4-5 times more every year (at least).
Quote from: Ari Gold on August 16, 2012, 11:53:36 AM
first, whats so bad about 50k a year? thats pretty respectable and with the benefits that teachers can enjoy, they're compensation rises. feel free to look up some of your former teachers: http://www.jsonline.com/watchdog/dataondemand/33534649.html
Furthermore, the market dictates that Doctors, Lawyers and such can get paid what they do IF they are good at their job. to piggyback off what Sultan was saying about supply and demand. Now that Wisconsin has merit based hiring and firing for teachers hopefully the same will be true with teachers. crapty doctors and lawyers get weeded out and are as successful as others. Though its also incredibly detrimental to your argument that you arbitrarily decided that you think teachers DESERVE a 6 figure salary. the most glaring counter argument to that is simply, all those other professions work in June July and August, and don't have extra days off during their year built into their schedule. In a simple comparison, teachers work less days than other professions.
And to speak to Lenny's argument, I think Act 10 took care of those problems.
You think 50k a year is good? I mean it's okay. But I think we should want to pay the people who influence and teach our future to be paid a little more than "okay." Oh, and their benefits are not always that great, that just been the assumption we've all made for years. Its probably not much different from what the average employee conmpensation at most office jobs. My girlfriend's healthcare coverage is a joke, and she works in DC public schools.
Oh, and no. Teacher's don't get off a full 3 months. But that still doesn't remove the high importance that their job holds. You get what you pay for.
I'd kill for 6 weeks vacation (I get the max of 12 days even though 25 years at same company)
I think teachers' compensation is just 'OK' but it varies by district. I do have several friends that teach and vacation abroad in summer.
Quote from: Red Stripe on August 16, 2012, 12:15:01 PM
I'd kill for 6 weeks vacation (I get the max of 12 days even though 25 years at same company)
If you're getting only 12 days after 25 years with the same company, you're working for the wrong company.
Quote from: Aughnanure on August 16, 2012, 12:12:23 PM
You think 50k a year is good? I mean it's okay. But I think we should want to pay the people who influence and teach our future to be paid a little more than "okay." Oh, and their benefits are not always that great, that just been the assumption we've all made for years. Its probably not much different from what the average employee conmpensation at most office jobs. My girlfriend's healthcare coverage is a joke, and she works in DC public schools.
Oh, and no. Teacher's don't get off a full 3 months. But that still doesn't remove the high importance that their job holds. You get what you pay for.
So what's your solution, other than just doubling teacher's salaries? You really think that will somehow produce better results? Not as long as tenure after 3 years is part of the picture. I live in Chicago, where teacher's and administrator's salaries/benefits have risen significantly over the last 3 decades while student performance has not.
You're right, though, about teachers not getting a "full 3 months off". When you add summer, winter and spring vacations plus all federal and/or state holidays it's considerably more than that.
Quote from: Pakuni on August 16, 2012, 12:16:15 PM
If you're getting only 12 days after 25 years with the same company, you're working for the wrong company.
Yeah, what? That's awful.
Quote from: Pakuni on August 16, 2012, 12:16:15 PM
If you're getting only 12 days after 25 years with the same company, you're working for the wrong company.
no, wrong career choice but there weren't too many options open to me back in the early 80's recession - this is my 2nd career after the factory I was a press operator at went bankrupt in '82
unfortunately there are not too many other choices in my field, basically there is only 1 other employer in the state and I'd be worse off there in other catagories like salary and job security
I should have followed my mother's advice 30 years ago and gone to work at the post office
Quote from: Lennys Tap on August 16, 2012, 12:37:00 PM
So what's your solution, other than just doubling teacher's salaries? You really think that will somehow produce better results? Not as long as tenure after 3 years is part of the picture. I live in Chicago, where teacher's and administrator's salaries/benefits have risen significantly over the last 3 decades while student performance has not.
You're right, though, about teachers not getting a "full 3 months off". When you add summer, winter and spring vacations plus all federal and/or state holidays it's consierably more than that.
I completely agree on tenure. No 1st grade teacher position should ever be guaranteed like that. What we need is to put in place are rigorous standards to become a teacher - not too much unlike doctors and lawyers. It should be a requirement for all to hold advanced degrees, go through a full training process, get certified, etc. Basically a whole program beyond undergrad that justifies and ensures the high pay-grade I think they deserve. This would remove the people who just get into teaching cause they get the guarantees you complain about, and those that think they can just get up and decide to go teach. It should be treated as more of a commitment than that.
But, yeah.... I guess you're just jealous of their vacation time. As someone dating a teacher, I'm not jealous of their jobs in any way.
Good read for people who don't like the union set-up, and for people who don't hate it.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2011/03/02/AR2011030203236.html
The one thing I know for sure, however, is this: The future of the country depends on the public-sector workers known as teachers. That's because unless we dramatically improve our educational performance, America's standard of living will be at risk.
"The second thing I know for sure is that we'll never attract the kind of talented young people we need to the teaching profession unless it pays far more than it does today. With starting teacher salaries averaging $39,000 nationally, and rising to an average maximum of $67,000, it's no surprise that we draw teachers from the bottom two-thirds of the college class; for schools in poor neighborhoods, teachers come largely from the bottom third. We're the only leading nation that thinks it can stay a leading nation with a "strategy" of recruiting mediocre students and praying they'll prove excellent teachers.
And I know one more thing - which is as inconvenient for me to acknowledge as it should be for others who've criticized archaic teacher union practices in the United States. The highest-performing school systems in the world - in places such as Finland, Singapore and South Korea - all have strong teachers unions. Anyone serious about improving American schooling has to reckon with this paradox: Unions here are often obstacles to needed reform, even as the world's best systems work hand in glove with their unions to continually improve their performance.
Why this difference?
The main reason, according to Linda Darling-Hammond of Stanford, who has studied these questions, is that the entire public policy culture (and thus resource allocation) in these high-performing nations is built around attracting, rigorously training and retaining top talent for teaching. "The dynamic in the top-performing nations is about supporting good teachers, not about getting bad teachers out," she says, because there just aren't many bad teachers.
"The union role is problematic at this point," in the United States, Darling-Hammond adds, "but it's a creature of what we've constructed" by not being serious about luring top talent into teaching and preparing that talent to succeed."
Quote from: Aughnanure on August 16, 2012, 12:47:25 PM
I completely agree on tenure. No 1st grade teacher position should ever be guaranteed like that. What we need is to put in place standards to become a teacher - not too much unlike doctors and lawyers. It should be a requirement for all to hold advanced degrees, go through a full training process, get certified, etc. Basically a whole program beyond undergrad that justifies and ensures the high pay-grade I think they deserve. This would remove the people who just get into teaching cause they get the guarantees you complain about, and those that think they can just get up and decide to go teach. It should be treated as more of a commitment than that.
But, yeah.... I guess you're just jealous of their vacation time. As someone dating a teacher, I'm not jealous of their jobs in any way.
Augh, you make some good points. I don't know if the answer is more training, getting teachers with more of a "knack" for teaching or maybe a little bit of both. You mention Washinton, D.C. Isn't there a successful "merit pay" program going on in some of the schools there? I could definitely get behind that.
On the vacation stuff, I'm not jealous but think it's only fair to point out that a 60,000 stipend for 3/4 of a year =an 80,000 one for a full year. Just sayin'.
Quote from: Red Stripe on August 16, 2012, 12:44:42 PM
no, wrong career choice, unfortunately there are not too many other choices in my field, basically there is only 1 other employer in the state and I'd be worse off there in other catagories like salary and job security
I should have followed my mother's advice 30 years ago and gone to work at the post office
There's always work at the post office.
(http://media.reason.com/mc/mwelch/2011_02/HollywoodShufflePS.jpg?h=176&w=320)
Quote from: Lennys Tap on August 16, 2012, 12:58:58 PM
Augh, you make some good points. I don't know if the answer is more training, getting teachers with more of a "knack" for teaching or maybe a little bit of both. You mention Washinton, D.C. Isn't there a successful "merit pay" program going on in some of the schools there? I could definitely get behind that.
On the vacation stuff, I'm not jealous but think it's only fair to point out that a 60,000 stipend for 3/4 of a year =an 80,000 one for a full year. Just sayin'.
So, Lenny, if teachers have it so good, why aren't you one?
Quote from: Lennys Tap on August 16, 2012, 12:58:58 PM
Augh, you make some good points. I don't know if the answer is more training, getting teachers with more of a "knack" for teaching or maybe a little bit of both. You mention Washinton, D.C. Isn't there a successful "merit pay" program going on in some of the schools there? I could definitely get behind that.
On the vacation stuff, I'm not jealous but think it's only fair to point out that a 60,000 stipend for 3/4 of a year =an 80,000 one for a full year. Just sayin'.
Its true, but we don't have to deal with screaming crazy kids and even crazier parents - they need the break more than I do. But generally, I think America has a problem with the lack of vacation days. So its not that I don't see that they do get paid more vs their work time -but that we all should get more time-off. You go to Europe and you are STARTING at 25 days.
And yes, they do have the merit pay in DC. My girlfriend missed it by ONE point. That hurts, and she gets no support (its ridiculous how much of her own money she forks over to help her kids. Im at an office, I print stuff out in color for her...cause she can't). The only other biggest problem is the parents and family life. Some of these kids grow up and don't think education is that serious cause there are no role models. They try to encourage it, each teacher's class is named corresponding to the university they went to - but at the end of the day, she can't even get the parents to show up (1-2 at most) to parent-teacher conferences. And when she did get a few, she had to offer food.
Augh, I am not going to quote you, but in reference to European teachers, a top teacher in Europe earns roughly what a GP MD makes. Of course, MD's have unions in Europe, too (who doesn't?) And the unions there, as your article says, have made driving up standards part of their raison d'etre. And they don't have to negotiate health care and pensions, as those are taken care of by the state. But that is a whole different kettle of fish.
Quote from: tower912 on August 16, 2012, 01:08:15 PM
Augh, I am not going to quote you, but in reference to European teachers, a top teacher in Europe earns roughly what a GP MD makes. Of course, MD's have unions in Europe, too (who doesn't?) And the unions there, as your article says, have made driving up standards part of their raison d'etre. And they don't have to negotiate health care and pensions, as those are taken care of by the state. But that is a whole different kettle of fish.
Sorry, what's a GP MD? Google told me 'Great Planes Model Dist' But you are correct, there are aspects of their socialist programs that remove a lot of the negotiation problems unions and states face here. Its not a 1-to-1 comparison. I think the biggest part about the more Euro model that I like is that the nation takes the teacher career, training, etc really fucking seriously - and thus making the higher pay scale worth it.
Quote from: tower912 on August 16, 2012, 01:02:02 PM
So, Lenny, if teachers have it so good, why aren't you one?
The question isn't why any one individual isn't one. Lots of factors go into those choices. The fact remains that we have many more qualified teachers than teaching positions. So plenty of people think it's a pretty good gig. That, along with the abysmal scores of today's students tells me that doubling salaries/increasing benefits is unnecessary and unmerited. When and if teachers are trained and produce results like Augh envisions I'll be all for higher salaries. I like pay for performance, not negotiated, one size fits all models.
General Practitioner Doctor. Well played sidestep, Lenny.
Quote from: Lennys Tap on August 16, 2012, 01:19:17 PM
The question isn't why any one individual isn't one. Lots of factors go into those choices. The fact remains that we have many more qualified teachers than teaching positions. So plenty of people think it's a pretty good gig. That, along with the abysmal scores of today's students tells me that doubling salaries/increasing benefits is unnecessary and unmerited. When and if teachers are trained and produce results like Augh envisions I'll be all for higher salaries. I like pay for performance, not negotiated, one size fits all models.
Which means our teaching standards are woefully low. Becoming a teachers should be hard to do and a challenge, not something a random Comm grad (like me) can just decide to go and do one day *cough* Teach for America *cough*
Quote from: Aughnanure on August 16, 2012, 11:37:52 AM
But it's not about paying current teachers more, it's about attracting future teachers.
Here's something I don't know, but would settle this line of debate: Do colleges with education programs have open seats in their classrooms?
If, as you suggest, the teaching profession isn't compensated high enough, isn't respected well enough .. then the pipeline of teachers-in-training should be running low, right?
Unfortunately, I can't google the answer to that, but I'd guess the ed programs around the country are as full as they usually are. Your thesis is that compensation is the driver for future career paths. That's obviously faulty, as, for example, education has NEVER been highly compensated, yet we have about 7 million teachers in the US. You think a 5-10% one-time compensation cut in the middle of the largest recession in 80 years is going to stop teens from enrolling? While Act 10 has created a compensation cut for educators in Wisconsin, teaching salaries are still a solidly middle class option for 18 year olds picking a major.
On top of that, teaching is a calling for many -- some kids will value compensation and go into banking, law* .. plenty of others would NEVER consider a job like that, and will continue to see teaching as a desirable and viable career path, salaries and controversy notwithstanding. (*And those who go into law will discover the world is lousy with lawyers and they'll be lucky to get a job, let alone a high paying one.)
Purly anecdotally, my boss is down in Iowa dropping his freshman daughter off right now .. major: education. I asked: Gosh, so she's not dissuaded by what happened to the teachers in 2011 in Wisconsin? Answer: Nope. She's always wanted to be a teacher.
Quote from: Aughnanure on August 16, 2012, 11:37:52 AM
.. I don't think people assume so openly, as we do with teachers, that somewhere around 10-25% of doctors are "poor."
[/quote]
I think that's 100% wrong. There are plenty of examples of bad doctors for the populace to assume a chunk of them are poor. Indeed, bad doctors get FAR more publicity, because when they are bad, they end up being sued, with media attention. The populace knows bad/failed doctors, lawyers, NBA players, bankers, stockbrokers, ad infinitum.
Quote from: mu_hilltopper on August 16, 2012, 01:25:09 PM
Here's something I don't know, but would settle this line of debate: Do colleges with education programs have open seats in their classrooms?
If, as you suggest, the teaching profession isn't compensated high enough, isn't respected well enough .. then the pipeline of teachers-in-training should be running low, right?
Unfortunately, I can't google the answer to that, but I'd guess the ed programs around the country are as full as they usually are. Your thesis is that compensation is the driver for future career paths. That's obviously faulty, as, for example, education has NEVER been highly compensated, yet we have about 7 million teachers in the US. You think a 5-10% one-time compensation cut in the middle of the largest recession in 80 years is going to stop teens from enrolling? While Act 10 has created a compensation cut for educators in Wisconsin, teaching salaries are still a solidly middle class option for 18 year olds picking a major.
No I think that proves that our teacher-standards are too low - making it easier for so many kids to enroll in the programs and to justify low salaries.
I'm not really addressing Act 10, I'm not in Wisconsin and am not familiar with it. But I disagree with your argument that because there's 7 million teachers, they are being compensated adequately. It means there are 7 million positions. Just because you are attracting a great number of students, doesn't mean you are attracting the candidates you want to.
I think we should strive for teaching to be treated more than just a "solidly middle class option."
Quote from: mu_hilltopper on August 16, 2012, 01:25:09 PM
I think that's 100% wrong. There are plenty of examples of bad doctors for the populace to assume a chunk of them are poor. Indeed, bad doctors get FAR more publicity, because when they are bad, they end up being sued, with media attention. The populace knows bad/failed doctors, lawyers, NBA players, bankers, stockbrokers, ad infinitum.
Disagree with this as well. Just because there are some highly publicized stories of doctor malpractice or banker fraud doesn't mean that society "assumes" that 15-25% of them are really that bad. Especially doctors. The programs, classes and standards we all know they have to pass gives us a sense of greater trust in their skill and expertise. Parents openly think that teacher's don't know what they're talking about at a level unlike other professions - and are undermined by that lack of respect.
I think people's problems with bankers and stockbrokers, etc aren't that they they are 'poor' at their job. Quite the opposite, that they are too good at it and they don't trust their motivations and goals.
Quote from: tower912 on August 16, 2012, 01:20:58 PM
General Practitioner Doctor. Well played sidestep, Lenny.
I guess I don't understand, Tower. There are a lot of careers out there that I think people are fairly compensated for that didn't end up being my choice. Teachers, doctors, real estate salespeople, botanists, deep sea fishermen, etc. I'm not advocating cutting salaries or benfits for teachers, but given what the private sector is going through and given our public schooler's performance I just don't see teachers as underpaid.
Quote from: Lennys Tap on August 16, 2012, 12:37:00 PM
So what's your solution, other than just doubling teacher's salaries? You really think that will somehow produce better results? Not as long as tenure after 3 years is part of the picture. I live in Chicago, where teacher's and administrator's salaries/benefits have risen significantly over the last 3 decades while student performance has not.
You're right, though, about teachers not getting a "full 3 months off". When you add summer, winter and spring vacations plus all federal and/or state holidays it's considerably more than that.
Don't forget Sundays. Teachers also don't work Sundays, the lazy slobs.
Of course, to really throw the (BTW, really thoughtful and insightful) discussion into chaos, bring up charter schools and catholic schools. Why aren't charter schools significantly outperforming the public schools in their area if the obstacles are truly the teachers' unions? After all, many are for profit and most profess to be cutting edge and have higher parental participation than traditional public schools? How do Catholic schools continually get such superior results with teachers who make less than their public school counterparts? That last one is easy, parents who make it clear to their children that education matters and that if they don't take it seriously, they will get sent to public schools. At least, that is the threat I used on my daughter (4.3 GPA, 33 ACT)
Quote from: tower912 on August 16, 2012, 01:58:43 PM
Of course, to really throw the (BTW, really thoughtful and insightful) discussion into chaos, bring up charter schools and catholic schools. Why aren't charter schools significantly outperforming the public schools in their area if the obstacles are truly the teachers' unions? After all, many are for profit and most profess to be cutting edge and have higher parental participation than traditional public schools? How do Catholic schools continually get such superior results with teachers who make less than their public school counterparts? That last one is easy, parents who make it clear to their children that education matters and that if they don't take it seriously, they will get sent to public schools. At least, that is the threat I used on my daughter (4.3 GPA, 33 ACT)
Good points/questions. Congrats on your daughter - awesome numbers!
Quote from: Aughnanure on August 16, 2012, 01:32:33 PM
I think we should strive for teaching to be treated more than just a "solidly middle class option."
wtf is wrong with being "solidly middle class"?
many would be quite content at that level, and many teachers exceed that level. one of my friends teachers high school history in MPS and when I looked her up on that website her salary is $77K not including benefits, that's UMC territory AKAIK
Quote from: Lennys Tap on August 16, 2012, 01:19:17 PM
The question isn't why any one individual isn't one. Lots of factors go into those choices. The fact remains that we have many more qualified teachers than teaching positions. So plenty of people think it's a pretty good gig. That, along with the abysmal scores of today's students tells me that doubling salaries/increasing benefits is unnecessary and unmerited. When and if teachers are trained and produce results like Augh envisions I'll be all for higher salaries. I like pay for performance, not negotiated, one size fits all models.
Where are teachers salaries being doubled (factoring for inflation)?
According to this, teacher salaries, when adjusted, have gone up 3 percent over the last 20 years.
http://nces.ed.gov/fastfacts/display.asp?id=28
Also, since you've cited the test score thing, could you point me in the direction of some actual historical data on that?
I did find some for the SAT. It shows that the cumulative score in 1972 was 1039. In 1982 it was 997. In 1992 it was 1001. In 2002 it was 1030. Not exactly a massive drop, nor surprising given that there were
far fewer borderline kids taking college entrance exams 50 years ago than there are today.
As for the ACT, in 1997 (oldest year I've been able to find so far), the national average for composite score was 21.0. Last year, it was 21.1. Again, where's the evidence of "abysmal" test scores.
Lastly, you complain about the amount of time teachers spend working (a mere 180 days a year, according to you ... less than half a year), and yet hold them solely responsible for child's educational progress. Heck, even on those rare days when kids are in school, teachers spend only about six hours a day with their students (and that's not even factoring in things like recess, lunch, arts, gym, etc.).
So, realistically, if kids are spending only about 12 percent of their lives in a classroom, why do teachers bear the entire burden here? Might there be, oh, I dunno, some factors outside the classroom to consider? Perhaps some social and cultural issues? Like, say, the steep rise in single-parent households? Or the steep rise of families in which both parents work? Or the increase in children of immigrants who are required to take some of these achievement tests, their knowledge and understanding of English notwithstanding?
Nah, forget it. That's far too nuanced. Let's just get mad at teachers.
Quote from: Red Stripe on August 16, 2012, 02:19:05 PM
wtf is wrong with being "solidly middle class"?
many would be quite content at that level, and many teachers exceed that level. one of my friends teachers high school history in MPS and when I looked her up on that website her salary is $77K not including benefits, that's UMC territory AKAIK
$77,000 is middle class.
Quote from: mu_hilltopper on August 16, 2012, 01:25:09 PM
I think that's 100% wrong. There are plenty of examples of bad doctors for the populace to assume a chunk of them are poor. Indeed, bad doctors get FAR more publicity, because when they are bad, they end up being sued, with media attention. The populace knows bad/failed doctors, lawyers, NBA players, bankers, stockbrokers, ad infinitum.
Speaking of 100 percent wrong .... malpractice lawsuits very rarely wind up in the media, and when they do it's usually because there's something very unusual about them (i.e. doctor removed the wrong limb, doctor molested a patient, etc.) That's the equivalent of the teacher who sleeps with his/her student. As someone who once worked in the media covering a courthouse in a metro market, I'd estimate that for every one malpractice case you read about, at least 50, and probably more, receive zero coverage.
By the way, name the last doctor in your community to face a malpractice judgement or settle a malpractice suit. Can't do it, right? Because nobody pays attention to those suits and the "populace" most certainly is not aware of them.
Quote from: Pakuni on August 16, 2012, 02:27:07 PM
Speaking of 100 percent wrong .... malpractice lawsuits very rarely wind up in the media, and when they do it's usually because there's something very unusual about them (i.e. doctor removed the wrong limb, doctor molested a patient, etc.). As someone who once worked in the media covering a courthouse in a metro market, I can assure for every one malpractice case you read about, at least 50, and probably more, receive zero coverage.
By the way, name the last doctor in your community to face a malpractice judgement or settle a malpractice suit. Can't do it, right? Because nobody pays attention to those suits and the "populace" most certainly is not aware of them.
Correct, but everyone
knows their kid's 5th grade math teacher doesn't know what she's talking about.
Quote from: Pakuni on August 16, 2012, 01:49:39 PM
Don't forget Sundays. Teachers also don't work Sundays, the lazy slobs.
Snarky and childish.
Quote from: Lennys Tap on August 16, 2012, 02:29:09 PM
Snarky and childish.
If only I had a good teacher who'd corrected such behavior early in life.
Quote from: Lennys Tap on August 16, 2012, 02:29:09 PM
Snarky and childish.
Ha, I had the longest tangent in a meeting the yesterday about if snarky had a mainly negative connotation. But yeah, guys, let's not fight - its been going well so far.
Quote from: Pakuni on August 16, 2012, 02:20:33 PM
Lastly, you complain about the amount of time teachers spend working (a mere 180 days a year, according to you ... less than half a year), and yet hold them solely responsible for child's educational progress. Heck, even on those rare days when kids are in school, teachers spend only about six hours a day with their students (and that's not even factoring in things like recess, lunch, arts, gym, etc.).
So, realistically, if kids are spending only about 12 percent of their lives in a classroom, why do teachers bear the entire burden here? Might there be, oh, I dunno, some factors outside the classroom to consider? Perhaps some social and cultural issues? Like, say, the steep rise in single-parent households? Or the steep rise of families in which both parents work? Or the increase in children of immigrants who are required to take some of these achievement tests, their knowledge and understanding of English notwithstanding?
Nah, forget it. That's far too nuanced. Let's just get mad at teachers.
Where did I "complain" about the number of days that teachers work? I'll answer that for you: never, but don't let that stand in the way of your ad hominem. I used 180 days as a simple fact, not some sort of indictment - that was the number of school days in my wife's last year as a teacher (2010).
As for your "nuance", I agree. Parents are far more responsible for performance than teachers. Parents who are uninvolved (or even hostile) undermine the learning process. The other side of the argument that exonerates teachers (justifyingly) for many poor outcomes necessarily reduces the credit due them for good ones.
Finally, equating holding the opinion that teachers are fairly being compensated with being "mad" at them is absurd.
Quote from: Lennys Tap on August 16, 2012, 02:52:45 PM
Where did I "complain" about the number of days that teachers work? I'll answer that for you: never, but don't let that stand in the way of your ad hominem. I used 180 days as a simple fact, not some sort of indictment - that was the number of school days in my wife's last year as a teacher (2010).
As for your "nuance", I agree. Parents are far more responsible for performance than teachers. Parents who are uninvolved (or even hostile) undermine the learning process. The other side of the argument that exonerates teachers (justifyingly) for many poor outcomes necessarily reduces the credit due them for good ones.
Finally, equating holding the opinion that teachers are fairly being compensated with being "mad" at them is absurd.
I took your repeated - and inaccurate - snipes at a teacher's workload as a complaint. If that's not correct, I apologize.
(By the way, that's not an ad hominem. Your logic teacher failed you ;))
If your only opinion was that teachers are fairly compensated, I wouldn't suggest you were mad at them. Heck, I'd by and large agree.
However, that wasn't the only opinion you offered. You cited only teachers when bemoaning poor test scores (until your most recent post), said very few of them view their profession as more than just a job, greatly exaggerated their pay raises and minimized the amount of work they do.
Sounds to me like you're mad.
:D
Quote from: Pakuni on August 16, 2012, 02:32:34 PM
If only I had a good teacher who'd corrected such behavior early in life.
There you go again, blamin' it on the poor teacher. What about all your social, cultural and famial disadvantages. For God's sakes, some nuance, please! :D
Quote from: Pakuni on August 16, 2012, 03:08:36 PM
I took your repeated - and inaccurate - snipes at a teacher's workload as a complaint. If that's not correct, I apologize.
(By the way, that's not an ad hominem. Your logic teacher failed you ;))
If your only opinion was that teachers are fairly compensated, I wouldn't suggest you were mad at them. Heck, I'd by and large agree.
However, that wasn't the only opinion you offered. You cited only teachers when bemoaning poor test scores (until your most recent post), said very few of them view their profession as more than just a job, greatly exaggerated their pay raises and minimized the amount of work they do.
Sounds to me like you're mad.
I guess that's the nature of the message board. You read my comments inaccurately enough to think I'm mad at teachers (I'm not) and I read your comments innacurately enough (I hope) to think you're mad at me.
Apologies from my half.
Quote from: Lennys Tap on August 16, 2012, 03:21:12 PM
I guess that's the nature of the message board. You read my comments inaccurately enough to think I'm mad at teachers (I'm not) and I read your comments innacurately enough (I hope) to think you're mad at me.
Apologies from my half.
(http://www.spartanblog.net/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/396729_10101556689428724_2317276_78092862_796576229_n.jpg)
BTW, that was the first Google Image result for "you mad bro"
Quote from: Aughnanure on August 16, 2012, 01:05:56 PM
Its true, but we don't have to deal with screaming crazy kids and even crazier parents - they need the break more than I do. But generally, I think America has a problem with the lack of vacation days. So its not that I don't see that they do get paid more vs their work time -but that we all should get more time-off. You go to Europe and you are STARTING at 25 days.
How's that working out fot the EU? Granted Aug, from your ivory tower, I'm starting to think you wouldn't care if the entire US adopted a European style economic outlook and paid teachers 6 figures, even if the outcome was the same as Greece. I'm sorry you think that teachers should be paid more than the spawn of the pathetic middle class drolls that they're educating.
Also- what's so bad about Teach for America. Can't be any worse than the teachers that spend their days watching the clock wind down on their pension.
Quote from: Aughnanure on August 16, 2012, 02:23:47 PM
$77,000 is middle class.
holy sh!t I had assumed I was middle class but I'm in poverty and didn't know it :o
I'd still venture that $77K is UMC
wouldn't median income be middle class?
QuoteThe median household income in 2010 was $49,445, so that gives many a point of reference when trying to determine what, exactly, is middle class.
http://www.bargaineering.com/articles/middle-class-income-middle-class-family.html
by this link I am below middle class
QuoteWhat Is The Middle Class?
The middle class is more than an income bracket. Over the past 50 years, a middle-class standard of living in the United States has come to mean having a secure job, a safe and stable home, access to health care, retirement security, time off for vacation, illness and the birth or adoption of a child, opportunities to save for the future and the ability to provide a good education, including a college education, for one's children. When these middle-class fundamentals are within the reach of most Americans, the nation is stronger economically, culturally and democratically
http://www.themiddleclass.org/node/164
Quote from: Ari Gold on August 16, 2012, 03:45:31 PM
How's that working out fot the EU? Granted Aug, from your ivory tower, I'm starting to think you wouldn't care if the entire US adopted a European style economic outlook and paid teachers 6 figures, even if the outcome was the same as Greece. I'm sorry you think that teachers should be paid more than the spawn of the pathetic middle class drolls that they're educating.
Also- what's so bad about Teach for America. Can't be any worse than the teachers that spend their days watching the clock wind down on their pension.
Oh cute, someone that knows the bare minimum about the EU economic crisis and thus wants to discredit anything Europeans do (its socialism! run!). To be clear, the countries I mean to refer to as models are Germany, Finland, Sweden and Luxembourg. They invest heavily in education standards, and apprenticeship pgms - and the results shows it. if you knew anything about why Europe is in trouble (and using Greece is an extreme example and misconstrues the point) is because their reaction to trouble was harsh austerity measures that created an economic vacuum that has not allowed for growth
Teach for America is bad because it attracts kids who never thought about being teachers (or wanted to), and who usually couldn't get jobs in their respective fields, to suddenly just become teachers without any prior classes, knowledge or experience. It's like doctor's without borders, except they're not doctors and it encourages people to think that teaching is soo easy, I can wake up one day and Just. Do. It.
I'm sorry you think teachers are as valuable as mechanics.
Quote from: Ari Gold on August 16, 2012, 03:45:31 PM
How's that working out fot the EU?
Germany has the strongest economy in Europe (and stronger than ours). Its workers spend, on average, about 1,400 hours a year on the job and get 40 days off a year (second most in Europe).
Greece is a basket case. It's workers spend, on average, more than 2,000 hours on the job every year and get 33 days off a year.
Just saying, maybe you're oversimplifying a tad.
http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,2109263,00.html
Quote from: Lennys Tap on August 16, 2012, 03:21:12 PM
I guess that's the nature of the message board. You read my comments inaccurately enough to think I'm mad at teachers (I'm not) and I read your comments innacurately enough (I hope) to think you're mad at me.
Apologies from my half.
No, Lenny, I'm not mad at you. Spirited debate is all.
Quote from: Red Stripe on August 16, 2012, 03:59:08 PM
holy sh!t I had assumed I was middle class but I'm in poverty and didn't know it :o
I'd still venture that $77K is UMC
wouldn't median income be middle class?
by this link I am below middle class
The middle-class is very broad. I don't think you get into upper middle class until 85-90+, probably 100. 100k isn't what it was in 1995 or 2003. This then assumes your HHI can be approaching 200,000. The problem I have is that the middle class (myself -included) is more and more accepting 35-70k while an extremely small proportion of the country has seen salaries and benefits skyrocket.
But instead we target teachers making above 80k, when we should all be making above 80+k (or much more of us). Middle-class salaries have been stagnant for so long its ridiculous.
Middle-class does probably run from $40,000-$250,000 depending on the size of the household (i.e., 1 person making 250k is not middle class but 2 parents with 2 kids making that are).
Quote from: JDuquaine on August 13, 2012, 01:06:54 PM
40k for health, dental, vision, 401k, and Pension plans? Holy F! Well What's the excuse then for the MPS being a FAILURE? A TEACHER...making about 100k to work 8 months out of the year is a joke.
It's quite simple to me, if i do bad at my job, if i don't meet expectations, i'm gone. Yet these teachers aren't held accountable? Obviously they're not... Facts are facts and MPS has failed, the blame should be placed on the teachers.
I'm pretty conservative but even I find this thread a joke. The per-pupil costs are very misleading based on the type of student. I can't remember the numbers from my school, but I a normal, healthy student from a middle-class family was a fraction of what it costs either an inner-city student or mentally-challenged students. There are so many social factors involved that you can't blame it all on the teachers.
Quote from: Aughnanure on August 16, 2012, 04:04:45 PM
Oh cute, someone that knows the bare minimum about the EU economic crisis and thus wants to discredit anything Europeans do (its socialism! run!). To be clear, the countries I mean to refer to as models are Germany, Finland, Sweden and Luxembourg. They invest heavily in education standards, and apprenticeship pgms - and the results shows it. if you knew anything about why Europe is in trouble (and using Greece is an extreme example and misconstrues the point) is because their reaction to trouble was harsh austerity measures that created an economic vacuum that has not allowed for growth
Teach for America is bad because it attracts kids who never thought about being teachers (or wanted to), and who usually couldn't get jobs in their respective fields, to suddenly just become teachers without any prior classes, knowledge or experience. It's like doctor's without borders, except they're not doctors and it encourages people to think that teaching is soo easy, I can wake up one day and Just. Do. It.
I'm sorry you think teachers are as valuable as mechanics.
I know I can't fix a BMW, but I know I can teach algebra or geometry.
Just saying.
Quote from: Aughnanure on August 16, 2012, 04:04:45 PM
Teach for America is bad because it attracts kids who never thought about being teachers (or wanted to), and who usually couldn't get jobs in their respective fields, to suddenly just become teachers without any prior classes, knowledge or experience. It's like doctor's without borders, except they're not doctors and it encourages people to think that teaching is soo easy, I can wake up one day and Just. Do. It.
I'm sorry you think teachers are as valuable as mechanics.
From my experience, T4A were recruiting highly successful students. They wanted students with high GPA & leadership involvements. Maybe they have lowered their standards, but I know plenty of qualified people who were turned down by T4A. Not quite the "one's who couldn't get jobs in their respective fields."
Also, in college, I thought the best teachers were professionals who came where either retired or just teaching 1 class a semester. Seemed like they were more on a mission and less likely to get comfortable and lower standards. IMO
I think the biggest part of the argument on teacher pay is what the pay is actually for. Do you really need doctor level training for teachers K-9? Hell no. I honestly think anyone with a college degree SHOULD be able to teach a K-9 class. However, in reality the teachers are expected to do more than teach. They are expected to play juvenile correction officer, parent, counselor, etc. I don't think higher teacher pay solves this problem. We need to look at solving this problem at the family-level. It's hard to think of solutions that aren't extreme that involves classism and Chinese-like mandates.
Quote from: martyconlonontherun on August 16, 2012, 05:25:51 PM
From my experience, T4A were recruiting highly successful students. They wanted students with high GPA & leadership involvements. Maybe they have lowered their standards, but I know plenty of qualified people who were turned down by T4A. Not quite the "one's who couldn't get jobs in their respective fields."
Also, in college, I thought the best teachers were professionals who came where either retired or just teaching 1 class a semester. Seemed like they were more on a mission and less likely to get comfortable and lower standards. IMO
I think the biggest part of the argument on teacher pay is what the pay is actually for. Do you really need doctor level training for teachers K-9? Hell no. I honestly think anyone with a college degree SHOULD be able to teach a K-9 class. However, in reality the teachers are expected to do more than teach. They are expected to play juvenile correction officer, parent, counselor, etc. I don't think higher teacher pay solves this problem. We need to look at solving this problem at the family-level. It's hard to think of solutions that aren't extreme that involves classism and Chinese-like mandates.
Teaching in college is very, very different - and is not the problem. Our secondary education system (i.e., College/university) is second to none.
Where we fail, and fail miserable is early childhood, grade school and high school. Across the board. The single most important time period for a child's learning is early childhood and YES, you need to know what the frack you're doing. Its not a game, its a science and process that is very specialized with teachers with PhDs and multiple master's. Its that fracking important. Your post shows you don't understand this at all.
On to T4A. Its such an insult to the teaching profession that you think you can just waltz right in there and begin. just having a good GPA and 'leadership involvement' (ha) does not prepare you for the challenges and rigors of teaching. Not even close. What other teachers hate most about T4A, is that they come in, teach for a few years and leave. They usually are very poor in the 1st yr (as most teacher are, but they are usually even less prepared), and by the time they are adequate they leave. Its very frustrating for other teachers to see that happen. Basically see someone who has no desire or commitment to be a teacher long-term come in and steal a job from others who may want it - and then just move on. It's an insult. Yes a few stay, but most do not.
Quote from: Aughnanure on August 16, 2012, 04:04:45 PM
Oh cute, someone that knows the bare minimum about the EU economic crisis and thus wants to discredit anything Europeans do (its socialism! run!).
Thanks for reaffirming my suspicion that you're fueled by ivory tower elitism
Oh cute youre a close minded pretentious pretty boy.
Better than a presumptuous idiot.
Quote from: Aughnanure on August 16, 2012, 05:42:54 PM
Teaching in college is very, very different - and is not the problem. Our secondary education system (i.e., College/university) is second to none.
Where we fail, and fail miserable is early childhood, grade school and high school. Across the board. The single most important time period for a child's learning is early childhood and YES, you need to know what the frack you're doing. Its not a game, its a science and process that is very specialized with teachers with PhDs and multiple master's. Its that fracking important. Your post shows you don't understand this at all.
On to T4A. Its such an insult to the teaching profession that you think you can just waltz right in there and begin. just having a good GPA and 'leadership involvement' (ha) does not prepare you for the challenges and rigors of teaching. Not even close. What other teachers hate most about T4A, is that they come in, teach for a few years and leave. They usually are very poor in the 1st yr (as most teacher are, but they are usually even less prepared), and by the time they are adequate they leave. Its very frustrating for other teachers to see that happen. Basically see someone who has no desire or commitment to be a teacher long-term come in and steal a job from others who may want it - and then just move on. It's an insult. Yes a few stay, but most do not.
1. Reread my post. I said SHOULD be able to teach k-8. The skills to teach the subject matter shouldn't be that hard. I also said its not in reality and that teachers are being accountable for stuff they shouldn't. If there were strong family in place they wouldn't need to 'change' the student. We should focus more on improving society as a whole than the kids 7 hours a day after it is usually too late.
2. I wasn't arguing for TFA. I was arguing for the students you collectively called students who couldn't get jobs. I understand both sides of TFA but most of those students aren't dumb or lazy like you were implying.
Quote from: martyconlonontherun on August 16, 2012, 09:17:45 PM
1. Reread my post. I said SHOULD be able to teach k-8. The skills to teach the subject matter shouldn't be that hard. I also said its not in reality and that teachers are being accountable for stuff they shouldn't. If there were strong family in place they wouldn't need to 'change' the student. We should focus more on improving society as a whole than the kids 7 hours a day after it is usually too late.
2. I wasn't arguing for TFA. I was arguing for the students you collectively called students who couldn't get jobs. I understand both sides of TFA but most of those students aren't dumb or lazy like you were implying.
To answer #1: Your idea that teaching is such an easy skill that apparently anyone should be able to do it, easily... is just wrong. I don't have time or the patience to lend any credence to that argument.
To answer #2: I never said they were lazy. I put that poorly, my fault. But generally, especially in the last 5 years - a lot of college students don't get jobs right out of graduation and T4A end up being this backup plan. They eventually get jobs where they wanted, mostly, but T4A being seen as a backup option is a sad reminder of how teaching is thought of in our country.
I had to jump out for a while, and both that took a turn in a hurry. ;D
Am I to understand that one group of folks is saying teachers need to be paid more but has also pointed out that parents have the biggest impact on educational success? Why would we pay teachers more if they aren't even the biggest impact on success?
Its not empirical, but if you look at average teacher salary and the number of days worked, and extrapolate to a full year salary, they make more than my wife does who is a physical therapist with two degrees and 8 years of out patient experience. Not a complaint at all, my wife makes a great living and she loves her job, the point is that its not apples to apples...and that doesn't even account for benefits like health care and retirement.
My brother and mom are teachers and are great at what they do, but I agree with PTM, I can much more easily create an average teacher out of someone than an average doctor, physical therapist, brand manager or consultant.
Augh, you also seem to imply that teachers are holding back, because if they were paid more they would teach better? Is that true, I don't think it is, I think teachers work their tails off so what does paying more accomplish, what would we get out of it?
Lastly, I completely agree the entry level salary for teachers is insane, but to a large extent the teachers have only themselves to blame. The union structure creates a caste system where seniority is rewarded at the expense of fresh teachers. Pay for performance would level the playing field to a certain extent. Plus I think you'd have more of an argument if teaching degrees were going unfilled....we have a shortage of medical professionals but I've not heard a peep about teaching shortages.
Quote from: mu03eng on August 17, 2012, 07:49:57 AM
My brother and mom are teachers and are great at what they do, but I agree with PTM, I can much more easily create an average teacher out of someone than an average doctor, physical therapist, brand manager or consultant.
This is where we will continue to disagree. You think teaching isn't really a skill, not something that has to be trained, learned, studied and, lastly, compensated for expertise. Secondly, you are really going to bring in "consultant" and "brand manager" as examples of careers that require more skill? Wow.
Quote from: mu03eng on August 17, 2012, 07:49:57 AM
Its not empirical, but if you look at average teacher salary and the number of days worked, and extrapolate to a full year salary, they make more than my wife does who is a physical therapist with two degrees and 8 years of out patient experience. Not a complaint at all, my wife makes a great living and she loves her job, the point is that its not apples to apples...and that doesn't even account for benefits like health care and retirement.
I don't know how much money you are implying, but yes I think teaching is more valuable to a society than a physical therapist. Nothing against PT, put teachers just factually have a larger impact on a community and culture than any physical therapist ever has. Still, I doubt they make more unless you are only looking at college professor salaries.
Quote from: mu03eng on August 17, 2012, 07:49:57 AM
Augh, you also seem to imply that teachers are holding back, because if they were paid more they would teach better? Is that true, I don't think it is, I think teachers work their tails off so what does paying more accomplish, what would we get out of it?
No I do not imply current teachers are holding back. I am implying that the salaries and respect teachers are given does not attract the most talented college graduates into teaching careers.
Quote from: Aughnanure on August 17, 2012, 08:32:49 AM
This is where we will continue to disagree. You think teaching isn't really a skill, not something that has to be trained, learned, studied and, lastly, compensated for expertise. Secondly, you are really going to bring in "consultant" and "brand manager" as examples of careers that require more skill? Wow.
Now you are being just as guilty as him. A good brand manger requires a great deal of training, learning, and studying.
Quote from: The Sultan of South Wayne on August 17, 2012, 08:35:15 AM
Now you are being just as guilty as him. A good brand manger requires a great deal of training, learning, and studying.
Never said that, you inferred that. Why is it so ridiculous to say teachers require more?
Quote from: Aughnanure on August 17, 2012, 08:40:09 AM
Never said that, you inferred that. Why is it so ridiculous to say teachers require more?
It's not. But why is it so ridiculous to say they require less? Do you really have a good basis for comparison?
Quote from: Aughnanure on August 17, 2012, 08:40:09 AM
Never said that, you inferred that. Why is it so ridiculous to say teachers require more?
Teaching requires skills, of that there is no doubt. It requires a specific skill set and mentality, I am not taking anything away from the profession. Similarly, being a janitor has a skill set requirement as does a CEO.
I'm simply saying from a competency model, the competencies required of teaching are either more naturally prevalent in people in our society or are more easily developed through educational means then other jobs that pay more.
Why should we pay more for teaching, if teaching is already achieving the best results and they can't do better with more money, why pay more?
Quote from: Aughnanure on August 17, 2012, 08:32:49 AM
This is where we will continue to disagree. You think teaching isn't really a skill, not something that has to be trained, learned, studied and, lastly, compensated for expertise. Secondly, you are really going to bring in "consultant" and "brand manager" as examples of careers that require more skill? Wow.
I don't know how much money you are implying, but yes I think teaching is more valuable to a society than a physical therapist. Nothing against PT, put teachers just factually have a larger impact on a community and culture than any physical therapist ever has. Still, I doubt they make more unless you are only looking at college professor salaries.
No I do not imply current teachers are holding back. I am implying that the salaries and respect teachers are given does not attract the most talented college graduates into teaching careers.
I never once said its not a skill.....it absolutely is a skill, I just think that it is a skill more easily acquired than other skill sets that we "pay" more for.
I'm not making an impact argument, if you want to make that impact then soldiers should be paid even more than teachers(which they very much aren't) because they provide even more societal value than teaching. I'm simply saying from a supply and demand standpoint the supply of "teaching skills" is higher for the market then say a "physical therapist skill set"
Quote from: The Sultan of South Wayne on August 17, 2012, 08:41:29 AM
It's not. But why is it so ridiculous to say they require less? Do you really have a good basis for comparison?
Because they do. Teachers have much more specialized careers and have much more specialized daily work and routines. They work with children as young as three and have to constantly innovate to find new ways to reach kids.
Knowing photoshop and final cut isn't the same. Seriously, I work in marketing, communications, and have been a consultant. Come on, let's not do this where everyone brings in a different career and says the skills are equal. And even if they were equally as skilled, one is significantly more important.
Quote from: Aughnanure on August 17, 2012, 08:55:48 AM
Because they do. Teachers have much more specialized careers and have much more specialized daily work and routines. They work with children as young as three and have to constantly innovate to find new ways to reach kids.
Knowing photoshop and final cut isn't the same. Seriously, I work in marketing, communications, and have been a consultant. Come on, let's not do this where everyone brings in a different career and says the skills are equal. And even if they were equally as skilled, one is significantly more important.
I work in the same field and I disagree with you entirely.
Quote from: mu03eng on August 17, 2012, 08:48:04 AM
I'm simply saying from a competency model, the competencies required of teaching are either more naturally prevalent in people in our society or are more easily developed through educational means then other jobs that pay more.
Why should we pay more for teaching, if teaching is already achieving the best results and they can't do better with more money, why pay more?
Oh, so the classic "some people are called to teaching" to justify giving them low salaries...like how other careers are callings...like...nuns. No seriously, that's totally not a sexist myth that has pervaded our society for decades.
Second, when the hell did we ever try to pay teachers more? I mean, giving them a 10% raise isn't paying them more - its a raise. We have never tried to highly compensate teachers as a strategy to attract more talented students and graduates.
Quote from: mu03eng on August 17, 2012, 08:53:13 AM
I'm not making an impact argument, if you want to make that impact then soldiers should be paid even more than teachers(which they very much aren't) because they provide even more societal value than teaching. I'm simply saying from a supply and demand standpoint the supply of "teaching skills" is higher for the market then say a "physical therapist skill set"
Really? How?
And secondly, we make that market value. As a country with dismal test scores compared to to the rest of the industrialized world, my point has been this whole time maybe we should take teaching skills significantly more seriously than you do.
Quote from: PTM on August 16, 2012, 04:50:18 PM
I know I can't fix a BMW, but I know I can teach algebra or geometry.
Just saying.
Anyone with access to the Internet and the right set of tools can fix a car.
Literally is not rocket science.
Augh, one detail this discussion hasn't tackled. Where are you going to get the money? I think you'll have a very difficult time selling your "let's double teacher's salaries" even in the best of times.
I know this is only anecdotel, but a golfing buddy of mine is a retired teacher/coach (driver's ed and swimming). He retired at 55 and will get $80,000 a year for the rest of his life. I'll grant you that he was in the right school district and his timing for hanging it up was impeccable, but until the economy recovers and these very large pension liabilities come off the books you're going to have a hard time selling your ideas to the taxpayers who foot the bill.
Quote from: Lennys Tap on August 17, 2012, 09:29:23 AM
Augh, one detail this discussion hasn't tackled. Where are you going to get the money? I think you'll have a very difficult time selling your "let's double teacher's salaries" even in the best of times.
I know this is only anecdotel, but a golfing buddy of mine is a retired teacher/coach (driver's ed and swimming). He retired at 55 and will get $80,000 a year for the rest of his life. I'll grant you that he was in the right school district and his timing for hanging it up was impeccable, but until the economy recovers and these very large pension liabilities come off the books you're going to have a hard time selling your ideas to the taxpayers who foot the bill.
This is all true. My counter-argument would be that in times of economic-distress, we need to double-down on the things that make our country, and economy, keep running (i.e., infrastructure improvements, police, teaching, education systems/university, research) and not cut those areas. There's a reason many companies, especially those in manufacturing and engineering industries, are complaining about an enormous skills gap that is preventing them from hiring as many positions as they want.
If we can agree that education is a vital part of making our economy strong, I think the budget shouldn't matter. Let's be honest, it's not our education budget that is causing the deficit (though there is waste that needs to be investigated and removed). Its healthcare costs that have risen at unseen speeds (i.e., Medicare), a massive military-industrial complex that no one can touch, and trillions in tax cuts that were made without anyone knowing how we were going to pay for them. All on top of a massive recession that has lowered revenues immensely.
Still, the extra billions needed to implement the kind of national strategy I am envisioning (along with the rise in teacher pay), would be peanuts to the national deficit.
If you add them all up I would not characterize it as peanuts. Our transportation infrastructure alone requires several hundred billion $ just to maintain roads, bridges, ports and rivers and the gas tax is not sufficient to pay for that.
I guess I don't see how more years of college will make teachers THAT much better. I'm trying to think back to first grade and thinking how ridiculous it would be to have a PhD as a teacher. I have friends who are getting their masters at Marquette in education and all I hear from them is how much of a joke the classes are to them. Then add a few more years of bs work and projects to a PhD. Would you rather have the teacher work with a PhD or would you rather have the first grade teacher have more time and work experience?
Also, money is limited. Would you rather have more teachers who could spend more time on each student or fewer teachers with PhDs?
Quote from: martyconlonontherun on August 17, 2012, 12:05:12 PM
I guess I don't see how more years of college will make teachers THAT much better. I'm trying to think back to first grade and thinking how ridiculous it would be to have a PhD as a teacher. I have friends who are getting their masters at Marquette in education and all I hear from them is how much of a joke the classes are to them. Then add a few more years of bs work and projects to a PhD. Would you rather have the teacher work with a PhD or would you rather have the first grade teacher have more time and work experience?
Also, money is limited. Would you rather have more teachers who could spend more time on each student or fewer teachers with PhDs?
But the current system isn't working. At all. No, I don't think its ridiculous to expect the people who teach our future youth and inspire them to go into their future careers to hold advanced degrees.
Quote from: Red Stripe on August 17, 2012, 12:02:38 PM
If you add them all up I would not characterize it as peanuts. Our transportation infrastructure alone requires several hundred billion $ just to maintain roads, bridges, ports and rivers and the gas tax is not sufficient to pay for that.
I was saying that the cost of such an education system would be peanuts, not all those things I mentioned add up. However, we as a country, don't really have a choice. We HAVE to rebuild our roads and bridges, and underground infrastructure. Not doing that is not an option.
Quote from: Aughnanure on August 17, 2012, 12:37:38 PM
But the current system isn't working. At all. No, I don't think its ridiculous to expect the people who teach our future youth and inspire them to go into their future careers to hold advanced degrees.
Platitudes, Augh. The areas where we most fall down are basic reading and math skills. I learned them very well in a classroom of 54 students taught by a nun who most likely didn't even have a real undergraduate degree. My inspiration came from my parents who expected (more like demanded) and encouraged scholastic achievement. Sorry if I sound like an angry, get off my lawn old guy. I'm not suggesting lower pay, larger class sizes or fewer resouces for our teachers. But I suspect PHDs and six figure salaries would have little affect in the primary and middle school schools (where we need the help most). Parents doing their jobs is the only real answer.
Quote from: Aughnanure on August 17, 2012, 12:37:38 PM
But the current system isn't working. At all. No, I don't think its ridiculous to expect the people who teach our future youth and inspire them to go into their future careers to hold advanced degrees.
It's an attitude like that which has led to teacher shortages in under-served areas because people who would otherwise be qualified to teach cannot because of "degree requirements."
I know enough math that I could comfortably teach algebra to 5th graders or college freshmen... however, I don't have a mathematics and/or education degree, let alone an advanced degree in either of those fields. So while I could probably land an adjunct position at various colleges/universities, there isn't a school district in Wisconsin that would put me in an elementary classroom, even if I volunteered.
It shouldn't be about the education teachers have, it should be about their ability to teach.
Quote from: Benny B on August 17, 2012, 12:59:11 PM
It's an attitude like that which has led to teacher shortages in under-served areas because people who would otherwise be qualified to teach cannot because of "degree requirements."
I know enough math that I could comfortably teach algebra to 5th graders or college freshmen... however, I don't have a mathematics and/or education degree, let alone an advanced degree in either of those fields. So while I could probably land an adjunct position at various colleges/universities, there isn't a school district in Wisconsin that would put me in an elementary classroom, even if I volunteered.
It shouldn't be about the education teachers have, it should be about their ability to teach.
Agree with this. Nothing I've seen leads me to believe the ability to hold a room of children's attention will be greatly (or even somewhat)enhanced by requiring PHDs for primary teachers.
Quote from: Lennys Tap on August 17, 2012, 12:56:30 PM
Platitudes, Augh. The areas where we most fall down are basic reading and math skills. I learned them very well in a classroom of 54 students taught by a nun who most likely didn't even have a real undergraduate degree. My inspiration came from my parents who expected (more like demanded) and encouraged scholastic achievement. Sorry if I sound like an angry, get off my lawn old guy. I'm not suggesting lower pay, larger class sizes or fewer resouces for our teachers. But I suspect PHDs and six figure salaries would have little affect in the primary and middle school schools (where we need the help most). Parents doing their jobs is the only real answer.
No other industrialized nation puts its education policy succeeding on the backs of parents (Shocking Revelation: A lot of kids only have one parent..that works 2 jobs, are not home a lot, whose kids only get one meal a day).
Even so, a higher value on teachers would greatly influence the culture around education in a more positive view for students, which is essentially parents main contribution to education - instilling a culture that values education. Can't have one without the other.
Quote from: Benny B on August 17, 2012, 12:59:11 PM
It shouldn't be about the education teachers have, it should be about their ability to teach.
So, how do we find that out, without...ya know...teaching them.
Quote from: Benny B on August 17, 2012, 12:59:11 PM
I know enough math that I could comfortably teach algebra to 5th graders or college freshmen.
It's arrogant opinions like this "It's not that hard. They're just kids. I could go do it easily" that consistently undermines the value of teaching, and consistently reinforces to prospective teachers that it is not a valuable career path.
Quote from: Aughnanure on August 17, 2012, 01:24:48 PM
So, how do we find that out, without...ya know...teaching them.
Easy. Test teachers. Annually. And not the open-book, multiple choice tests either.... essay question the heck out of them.
But you can't do that, otherwise the teachers' parents would be calling to inquire as to why their son/daughter is failing as a teacher, and you'll have to tell them that education starts in the home... basically implying that they were crappy parents, and there's not a dang thing they can do about it now in their elderly age.
Quote from: Benny B on August 17, 2012, 03:03:50 PM
Easy. Test teachers. Annually. And not the open-book, multiple choice tests either.... essay question the heck out of them.
That's kind of ridiculous.
Quote from: The Sultan of South Wayne on August 17, 2012, 03:07:45 PM
That's kind of ridiculous.
So is the education system in this country.
Quote from: The Sultan of South Wayne on August 17, 2012, 03:07:45 PM
That's kind of ridiculous.
+1. Test teachers on what exactly?
I think two of the most important skills in being an excellent teacher are classroom management and drive/energy. The good ones always seem to excel in both areas.
Quote from: Benny B on August 17, 2012, 03:13:06 PM
So is the education system in this country.
Actually it isn't. Despite protestations otherwise, the American education system is still very strong and well funded. Can it be upgraded? Undoubtedly.
But one problem the system does have is obsession with testing. Testing teachers is just another wrong step in that direction.
Look, principals know who the strong teachers. And that doesn't mean that objective data is useless in that regard. But I think we should weaken many of the teachers unions and let teachers be evaluated and compensated like every other profession in this country.
But charter schools can hire and fire teachers at will, theoretically have more engaged parents, have no legacy costs, are run for profit, and still do not outperform the public schools in their area.
Quote from: Aughnanure on August 17, 2012, 08:55:48 AM
Because they do. Teachers have much more specialized careers and have much more specialized daily work and routines. They work with children as young as three and have to constantly innovate to find new ways to reach kids.
Knowing photoshop and final cut isn't the same. Seriously, I work in marketing, communications, and have been a consultant. Come on, let's not do this where everyone brings in a different career and says the skills are equal. And even if they were equally as skilled, one is significantly more important.
Isn't that what a designer does not a brand manager? If that is what the brand managers you know do, they suck at their jobs and are lying. Brand managers typically have to cover all 4 of the p's or else they suck. Successful marketers put in more hours than almost any other gig I know...hell, I put in about 55-60 a week between the office, out talking with consumers and seeing what is the market place....and this is 365 days a year..granted i work in an industry which is a blast to work in and get to spend my time out with consumers....also, don't get me wrong...my parents both work in education with my mother being a retired teacher....half my family are teachers..and I respect the hell out of what thye do..but to tell me that a good brand manager (i am talking a real one not some designer faux douche one) and a teacher are on the same level is absurd....that's the reason there are much less great branders in this world than teachers....it's not as easy as you make it sound.....
To jump into the higher education levels for teachers debate, its not the amount of schooling for teachers (particularly those of younger children) that is the problem, but what they've learned in those years. Saying that all teachers or more teachers need more education themselves is conflating the educational equivalent of research in the university setting with the education levels of the on-the-ground implementers of that "research."
Frankly, teachers don't learn how to be great teachers while they are majoring in education, etc. - admittedly, most professions are like that. But the problem is that there is nothing even approaching consensus on how to teach in inner city school vs suburban schools, etc. That is a research issue, not an issue with the education levels of the teachers in either of those environments. What is needed more than individual teachers with more education is greater research into what methods work, and appropriate changes into how teachers are trained while getting the degrees they have today, not blindly forcing them to just get more degrees and hope that fixes things. TFA and other nontraditional routes to teaching back that up.
Quote from: Aughnanure on August 17, 2012, 09:05:19 AM
Really? How?
And secondly, we make that market value. As a country with dismal test scores compared to to the rest of the industrialized world, my point has been this whole time maybe we should take teaching skills significantly more seriously than you do.
How???? Without soldiers, sailors, etc you are living in a different country speaking another language. Just because we don't have anyone invading now doesn't mean they wouldn't if we didn't have one. So by your standard of society value they have much more value than a teacher
Quote from: Aughnanure on August 17, 2012, 01:24:48 PM
So, how do we find that out, without...ya know...teaching them.
It's arrogant opinions like this "It's not that hard. They're just kids. I could go do it easily" that consistently undermines the value of teaching, and consistently reinforces to prospective teachers that it is not a valuable career path.
It doesn't undermine the value, teaching is something that a lot of people can do, but that doesn't make it less important. I have coached, taught swim lessons(9 months to 18 years old), tutored underprivileged teens at MU, and trained employees on SAP, I understand what teaching is and how to do it. You could train most people to teach, the critical skills are passion and patience, everything else is training.
But if you say teachers are teaching hard, paying them more wont have an impact, it HAS to be the process/environment that makes the difference so let's change that with year round schools, homework centers, etc
Quote from: Chili on August 17, 2012, 05:30:13 PM
Isn't that what a designer does not a brand manager? If that is what the brand managers you know do, they suck at their jobs and are lying. Brand managers typically have to cover all 4 of the p's or else they suck. Successful marketers put in more hours than almost any other gig I know...hell, I put in about 55-60 a week between the office, out talking with consumers and seeing what is the market place....and this is 365 days a year..granted i work in an industry which is a blast to work in and get to spend my time out with consumers....also, don't get me wrong...my parents both work in education with my mother being a retired teacher....half my family are teachers..and I respect the hell out of what thye do..but to tell me that a good brand manager (i am talking a real one not some designer faux douche one) and a teacher are on the same level is absurd....that's the reason there are much less great branders in this world than teachers....it's not as easy as you make it sound.....
Congrats, you really love yourself. But no, your skills are not equal to the skills of a good teacher. It's not about the skills being harder, it's about that they matter significantly less to our society.
Seriously, don't try to bait me with how hard you work. ALL you do is basically figure our better ways to talk about what everyone else does. Are you seriously trying to bullshit a bullshitter? If you think in ANY way that marketers are as valuable to a society as teachers, i feel sorry for you.
Oh, and stop using ellipsis. I can read sentences.
Quote from: MUBurrow on August 17, 2012, 05:40:18 PM
To jump into the higher education levels for teachers debate, its not the amount of schooling for teachers (particularly those of younger children) that is the problem, but what they've learned in those years. Saying that all teachers or more teachers need more education themselves is conflating the educational equivalent of research in the university setting with the education levels of the on-the-ground implementers of that "research."
Frankly, teachers don't learn how to be great teachers while they are majoring in education, etc. - admittedly, most professions are like that. But the problem is that there is nothing even approaching consensus on how to teach in inner city school vs suburban schools, etc. hat is a research issue, not an issue with the education levels of the teachers in either of those environments. What is needed more than individual teachers with more education is greater research into what methods work, and appropriate changes into how teachers are trained while getting the degrees they have today, not blindly forcing them to just get more degrees and hope that fixes things. TFA and other nontraditional routes to teaching back that up.
Is that what I said? Pretty sure it wasn't. Its about instilling rigorous standards for our teachers (much like doctors) and attracting the top-level talent.
Apparently teaching, unlike ALL other professional careers, doesn't deserve the respect of even its own field, and nor will it. You think that if we just fix how teachers teach, instead of which teachers teach, all problems are solved. Like its a machine that you install numbers and programs into. And no, T4A and non traditional teaching have NEVER backed any of your claims up. Nice try.
You want to instill education as a value in America? Stop treating it like a job anyone can just do. You get the value you put into it.
Quote from: mu03eng on August 17, 2012, 08:39:00 PM
How???? Without soldiers, sailors, etc you are living in a different country speaking another language. Just because we don't have anyone invading now doesn't mean they wouldn't if we didn't have one. So by your standard of society value they have much more value than a teacher
No, we are not. We do not physically defend this country on a daily, yearly basis like other nations and regions. Stop this lie. No one is protecting our freedom 5000 miles away.
One thing I do know, is that NO society sends its most valuable members off to die in a foreign country that does not directly threaten it. Is it really a coincidence that the majority of soldiers in Vietnam, Korea, Iraq, Afghanistan are poor, lower middle class? NO!
How we impact the youth of the future will always be more influential and important to a society.
Quote from: mu03eng on August 17, 2012, 08:51:05 PM
It doesn't undermine the value, teaching is something that a lot of people can do, but that doesn't make it less important. I have coached, taught swim lessons(9 months to 18 years old), tutored underprivileged teens at MU, and trained employees on SAP, I understand what teaching is and how to do it. You could train most people to teach, the critical skills are passion and patience, everything else is training.
But if you say teachers are teaching hard, paying them more wont have an impact, it HAS to be the process/environment that makes the difference so let's change that with year round schools, homework centers, etc
Half of that process/environment has to be raised income. It's, AGAIN, not about paying current teachers more...it's about attracting talent that would otherwise go to investment banks, hospitals, law firms, etc.
But again, I can't not be insulted by your insinuation that anyone can be trained to be teacher. This is a falsehood, and a very sexist classic view of the value of female careers.
This thread successfully straddled the political line for several pages. Augh, I think it's gone off the rails.
Quote from: Pakuni on August 17, 2012, 09:10:42 AM
Anyone with access to the Internet and the right set of tools can fix a car.
Literally is not rocket science.
I said BMW because I need to get a metric socket set, yo.
Quote from: Aughnanure on August 17, 2012, 10:22:36 PM
Is it really a coincidence that the majority of soldiers in Vietnam, Korea, Iraq, Afghanistan are poor, lower middle class? NO!
95% of people in those countries are poor, lower middle class (by American standards) to begin with. Why would you think anybody would be surprised if the soldiers were too?
Quote from: Aughnanure on August 17, 2012, 10:29:06 PM
Half of that process/environment has to be raised income. It's, AGAIN, not about paying current teachers more...it's about attracting talent that would otherwise go to investment banks, hospitals, law firms, etc.
But again, I can't not be insulted by your insinuation that anyone can be trained to be teacher. This is a falsehood, and a very sexist classic view of the value of female careers.
People who pursue teaching more than likely do it because they have a passion to teach, not to get rich. I'm pretty sure those graduating from college and pursuing a teaching job are well aware that they won't be buying a yacht anytime soon.
People that are interested in making more money will most likely pursue other career paths. If you want to attract those who are motivated by other things than a satisfaction of influencing young people you'll have a long difficult road to travel.
Quote from: muarmy81 on August 18, 2012, 09:32:04 AM
People who pursue teaching more than likely do it because they have a passion to teach, not to get rich. I'm pretty sure those graduating from college and pursuing a teaching job are well aware that they won't be buying a yacht anytime soon.
People that are interested in making more money will most likely pursue other career paths. If you want to attract those who are motivated by other things than a satisfaction of influencing young people you'll have a long difficult road to travel.
Yes, because its a predominantly and historically female career. No, I get it. That view totally isn't sexist. ::)
Quote from: Lennys Tap on August 17, 2012, 10:35:07 PM
This thread successfully straddled the political line for several pages. Augh, I think it's gone off the rails.
I know. I knew once someone brought up the military this would have a short life.
Quote from: Benny B on August 18, 2012, 12:35:13 AM
95% of people in those countries are poor, lower middle class (by American standards) to begin with. Why would you think anybody would be surprised if the soldiers were too?
I'm not surprised. I'm surprised (actually not really) that someone wants to equate fighting them with the vital societal importance of teaching.
So first, I respect the consistency of your argument that, as I read it, the primary problem in education for systems such as MPS is the inability to attract top talent which has consistently informed the rest of your opinions. And while I think that such a position problematically leads to an impossibility of solution problem (which I'll explain in a second) I do think it is enlightening on a lot of the ancillary problems. For example, I think that WITHIN the education system itself, financially incentivizing teachers to leave more difficult districts (because they are traditionally poorer) for already succeeding districts is self-defeating. Given that parental involvement and other out of the classroom indicators of success are higher in those districts, I think that if you choose to leave teaching in MPS to teach in Brookfield, etc, that should come with the pay cut (all other things being equal) not a pay raise.
But I don't extend that outside of education to say that the primary issue with attracting good teachers is not enticing them with the needed compensation packages. First and practically, there are too many teachers to pay them highly enough to compete with top private sector jobs. According to this link http://jobs.aol.com/articles/2010/11/11/americas-most-popular-jobs/ (http://jobs.aol.com/articles/2010/11/11/americas-most-popular-jobs/) elementary K-5 teachers are the 15th most common profession in America. Considering that doesn't include middle and high school, that makes teaching one of the ten most common professions in America. How much can you afford to pay the 10th most common profession in America, particularly one that only works 9 months a year? Please don't take this as disrespectful of the profession, because its not an indictment of difficulty or desert of high pay, but merely an economic bell curve situation. It is financially impossible to make teachers more highly paid than most of the private sector workers who fund their salaries if its one of the most common professions in the country. Again, I'm not trying to turn this political or partisan, but am trying to simply say the $$ isn't there during the best or worst of times to publicly fund that kind of system by percentages, without even talking about priorities.
Quote from: MUBurrow on August 18, 2012, 10:31:52 AM
So first, I respect the consistency of your argument that, as I read it, the primary problem in education for systems such as MPS is the inability to attract top talent which has consistently informed the rest of your opinions. And while I think that such a position problematically leads to an impossibility of solution problem (which I'll explain in a second) I do think it is enlightening on a lot of the ancillary problems. For example, I think that WITHIN the education system itself, financially incentivizing teachers to leave more difficult districts (because they are traditionally poorer) for already succeeding districts is self-defeating. Given that parental involvement and other out of the classroom indicators of success are higher in those districts, I think that if you choose to leave teaching in MPS to teach in Brookfield, etc, that should come with the pay cut (all other things being equal) not a pay raise.
But I don't extend that outside of education to say that the primary issue with attracting good teachers is not enticing them with the needed compensation packages. First and practically, there are too many teachers to pay them highly enough to compete with top private sector jobs. According to this link http://jobs.aol.com/articles/2010/11/11/americas-most-popular-jobs/ (http://jobs.aol.com/articles/2010/11/11/americas-most-popular-jobs/) elementary K-5 teachers are the 15th most common profession in America. Considering that doesn't include middle and high school, that makes teaching one of the ten most common professions in America. How much can you afford to pay the 10th most common profession in America, particularly one that only works 9 months a year? Please don't take this as disrespectful of the profession, because its not an indictment of difficulty or desert of high pay, but merely an economic bell curve situation. It is financially impossible to make teachers more highly paid than most of the private sector workers who fund their salaries if its one of the most common professions in the country. Again, I'm not trying to turn this political or partisan, but am trying to simply say the $$ isn't there during the best or worst of times to publicly fund that kind of system by percentages, without even talking about priorities.
Thanks for the good counter-point. But I do not agree that it is impossible to pay teachers, all of them, 100k plus. You cite AOL's report of the top 15 most profitable professions.
Teachers are at 1.5 million. But what about an equally respected profession (in my strategy) such as doctors? The quickest thing I could find is this Wall Street Journal article that states doctors in the US total 945,000. Now, its from 2010, so let's just go with an even 950,000. The article even points out that there is a 150,000 "shortage" of doctors. So to be fair, and make the numbers easy, let's put it at an even 1 million. Now, I'll give you an extra 1/2 million to teachers (I think I'm being more than fair) since it doesn't include special ed and high school. While we find a way to compensate doctors at such a high level [one so high that society has already established a cultural acceptance of it], we don't find a way to pay teachers, who are less than double the size and would not require the same level of salary (probably not even 1/2 in my dream-strategy). Same goes for engineers, lawyers, etc.,. Teachers are not the only highly-employed highly-valuable profession. In fact, because of its field, healthcare, doctors are a profession that is likely to grow faster than teachers in the foreseeable future (though not ever entirely equal to teachers).
I don't think the argument that "they're are a lot of 'em" is a good or correct reason to not pay the level of value they add.
I believe you're society can always afford to pay for what it values most.
Source: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702304506904575180331528424238.html
Where do you get the money? Easy. Borrow from private industry: cut admin, push for less regulations, circumvent unions (see Charter schools), entice top talent like TFA, make sure they don't stay too long, get a new bunch of teachers in every year (their passion makes up for their lack of experience), sell it to the communities with means, get private grants and organizations to provide soft money.
With current funding levels, those parents who give to the school don't see it as a "tax" rather as a donation. Labor costs are low (single teachers as opposed to families, rarely any older teachers who need meds, etc.) and little encumbrance of general fund because special Ed students can be pushed to get services by the nearest public school (much like their private school counterparts can do today). No grievances to deal with so you can fire and hire.
For the other kids, too bad too sad. Thus ends the "entitlement" to a good public education.
Quote from: Aughnanure on August 18, 2012, 09:38:25 AM
Yes, because its a predominantly and historically female career. No, I get it. That view totally isn't sexist. ::)
Ummm...ok? I didn't refer to either sex but thanks for jumping to some sort of conclusion.
I'm sorry the profession you chose doesn't pay as much as you would like it to but I was assuming you knew that before you decided to become an educator.
Social workers don't make a lot of money but people (both men and women) pursue the profession because money isn't their biggest motivator.
Quote from: MUBurrow on August 18, 2012, 10:31:52 AM
So first, I respect the consistency of your argument that, as I read it, the primary problem in education for systems such as MPS is the inability to attract top talent which has consistently informed the rest of your opinions. And while I think that such a position problematically leads to an impossibility of solution problem (which I'll explain in a second) I do think it is enlightening on a lot of the ancillary problems. For example, I think that WITHIN the education system itself, financially incentivizing teachers to leave more difficult districts (because they are traditionally poorer) for already succeeding districts is self-defeating. Given that parental involvement and other out of the classroom indicators of success are higher in those districts, I think that if you choose to leave teaching in MPS to teach in Brookfield, etc, that should come with the pay cut (all other things being equal) not a pay raise.
But I don't extend that outside of education to say that the primary issue with attracting good teachers is not enticing them with the needed compensation packages. First and practically, there are too many teachers to pay them highly enough to compete with top private sector jobs. According to this link http://jobs.aol.com/articles/2010/11/11/americas-most-popular-jobs/ (http://jobs.aol.com/articles/2010/11/11/americas-most-popular-jobs/) elementary K-5 teachers are the 15th most common profession in America. Considering that doesn't include middle and high school, that makes teaching one of the ten most common professions in America. How much can you afford to pay the 10th most common profession in America, particularly one that only works 9 months a year? Please don't take this as disrespectful of the profession, because its not an indictment of difficulty or desert of high pay, but merely an economic bell curve situation. It is financially impossible to make teachers more highly paid than most of the private sector workers who fund their salaries if its one of the most common professions in the country. Again, I'm not trying to turn this political or partisan, but am trying to simply say the $$ isn't there during the best or worst of times to publicly fund that kind of system by percentages, without even talking about priorities.
Excellent point. Parental involvement absolutely makes a difference.
Quote from: Aughnanure on August 18, 2012, 09:41:38 AM
I'm not surprised. I'm surprised (actually not really) that someone wants to equate fighting them with the vital societal importance of teaching.
How about we let those countries decide what's important to their societies?
Going to try and switch this up....
What does Finland, Canada, South Korea, Japan, do that makes their education superior to Americas today?
Quote from: JDuquaine on August 18, 2012, 11:27:12 PM
Going to try and switch this up....
What does Finland, Canada, South Korea, Japan, do that makes their education superior to Americas today?
Is it: A) Predominately homogenious societies in general agreement at the primary (family) level concerning the value of education or
B) First, second and third grade classrooms consisting of teachers with PHDs who make six figure salaries.
Quote from: muarmy81 on August 18, 2012, 07:47:50 PM
Ummm...ok? I didn't refer to either sex but thanks for jumping to some sort of conclusion.
I'm sorry the profession you chose doesn't pay as much as you would like it to but I was assuming you knew that before you decided to become an educator.
Social workers don't make a lot of money but people (both men and women) pursue the profession because money isn't their biggest motivator.
I know you didn't. But its the the classic underlying premise behind traditionally female professions that they are 'callings' and money isn't a motivator...because, ya know, women and a real (read: money-making) career don't mix. Whether you can admit it or not, that argument against raising pay for predominantly female careers is based on a sexist idea.
Oh, and I'm not a teacher or in any career related to education.
Quote from: JDuquaine on August 18, 2012, 11:27:12 PM
Going to try and switch this up....
What does Finland, Canada, South Korea, Japan, do that makes their education superior to Americas today?
Here's a good read that can help answer that.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2011/03/02/AR2011030203236.html
The one thing I know for sure, however, is this: The future of the country depends on the public-sector workers known as teachers. That's because unless we dramatically improve our educational performance, America's standard of living will be at risk.
"The second thing I know for sure is that we'll never attract the kind of talented young people we need to the teaching profession unless it pays far more than it does today. With starting teacher salaries averaging $39,000 nationally, and rising to an average maximum of $67,000, it's no surprise that we draw teachers from the bottom two-thirds of the college class; for schools in poor neighborhoods, teachers come largely from the bottom third. We're the only leading nation that thinks it can stay a leading nation with a "strategy" of recruiting mediocre students and praying they'll prove excellent teachers.
And I know one more thing - which is as inconvenient for me to acknowledge as it should be for others who've criticized archaic teacher union practices in the United States. The highest-performing school systems in the world - in places such as Finland, Singapore and South Korea - all have strong teachers unions. Anyone serious about improving American schooling has to reckon with this paradox: Unions here are often obstacles to needed reform, even as the world's best systems work hand in glove with their unions to continually improve their performance.
Why this difference?
The main reason, according to Linda Darling-Hammond of Stanford, who has studied these questions, is that the entire public policy culture (and thus resource allocation) in these high-performing nations is built around attracting, rigorously training and retaining top talent for teaching. "The dynamic in the top-performing nations is about supporting good teachers, not about getting bad teachers out," she says, because there just aren't many bad teachers.
"The union role is problematic at this point," in the United States, Darling-Hammond adds, "but it's a creature of what we've constructed" by not being serious about luring top talent into teaching and preparing that talent to succeed."[/b]
Quote from: Aughnanure on August 17, 2012, 10:29:06 PM
Half of that process/environment has to be raised income. It's, AGAIN, not about paying current teachers more...it's about attracting talent that would otherwise go to investment banks, hospitals, law firms, etc.
But again, I can't not be insulted by your insinuation that anyone can be trained to be teacher. This is a falsehood, and a very sexist classic view of the value of female careers.
OK, let me see if I understand this.....I said most people could be trained to be a teacher and that is a sexist thought.....however you are arguing that we need to raise income levels to attract more talent, which implies the current talent is not good enough, and if the current talent is predominantly women are you then not saying women are not as talented as those who choose other fields????? And I had the sexist thought, because I think a majority of people can be trained to be teachers??
And for the record, I know plenty of talented people that would have no idea how to teach to someone. I had a brilliant engineer working for me and I tried several different times to get him to mentor/train young engineers....epic fail.
Quote from: Aughnanure on August 17, 2012, 10:22:36 PM
No, we are not. We do not physically defend this country on a daily, yearly basis like other nations and regions. Stop this lie. No one is protecting our freedom 5000 miles away.
One thing I do know, is that NO society sends its most valuable members off to die in a foreign country that does not directly threaten it. Is it really a coincidence that the majority of soldiers in Vietnam, Korea, Iraq, Afghanistan are poor, lower middle class? NO!
How we impact the youth of the future will always be more influential and important to a society.
If you want to get all preachy about foreign wars that's fine, that's on you. I make no reference whatsoever to foreign wars, I simply said, disband the military and see how quickly we continue to exist as a nation. I would put existing as a nation as #1 requirement, without a military that doesn't happen, therefore a higher societal value should be placed on the military....by your standards. Heck, by the same standards police and fire services should have a higher value, lets pay them more. Education is critical but from a societal value that you preach its not even top 2 or 3, where are we getting all this money to pay everything more because they aren't talented enough by your own statement.
Quote from: mu03eng on August 20, 2012, 08:44:57 AM
OK, let me see if I understand this.....I said most people could be trained to be a teacher and that is a sexist thought.....however you are arguing that we need to raise income levels to attract more talent, which implies the current talent is not good enough, and if the current talent is predominantly women are you then not saying women are not as talented as those who choose other fields????? And I had the sexist thought, because I think a majority of people can be trained to be teachers??
No, that is not at what I am saying. You really don't get it, do you?
Quote from: mu03eng on August 20, 2012, 08:49:18 AM
If you want to get all preachy about foreign wars that's fine, that's on you. I make no reference whatsoever to foreign wars, I simply said, disband the military and see how quickly we continue to exist as a nation. I would put existing as a nation as #1 requirement, without a military that doesn't happen, therefore a higher societal value should be placed on the military....by your standards. Heck, by the same standards police and fire services should have a higher value, lets pay them more. Education is critical but from a societal value that you preach its not even top 2 or 3, where are we getting all this money to pay everything more because they aren't talented enough by your own statement.
I believed you were insinuating current soldiers, etc., and thus current fighting/wars. I apologize for that misrepresentation. However, I do think its a bit insulting that you would think without a standing army this country would just disappear and cease to exist (unless you are looking at this only from a historical aspect).
I would agree with you on police, an argument can definitely be made that they are the single most important profession in our society.
My friend's father is a retired MPS teacher. I asked him about this subject the other night.
He said the issues start with:
1. Not enough parental emphasis put on education. Single parent or not, the kids are not consistently told that school is VERY important.
2. Truancy (likely an effect of #1). He said that if he could get a kid to come almost everyday, for 4 years, he had a pretty good chance to get the kid excited about something.
i.e. "Hey, math isn't so bad, maybe I could do something with numbers."
"I'm pretty good with my hands, maybe I could be a carpenter"
etc.
He said keeping a kid in class isn't going to make him/her a rocket scientist, but it allows for growth and exploration that doesn't happen if they drop out at 16. At 18, they might have a little better idea what they want to do, and at least they will have a HS diploma.
With all of this said, I asked him what MPS could do now, and he didn't have a lot of answers.
Quote from: Guns n Ammo on August 20, 2012, 10:37:24 AM
My friend's father is a retired MPS teacher. I asked him about this subject the other night.
Is it difficult to talk to him when he sits up high upon his mound of money?
Quote from: PTM on August 20, 2012, 11:11:59 AM
Is it difficult to talk to him when he sits up high upon his mound of money?
I have to yell for him to hear me.
Ironically (at least to some), he leans right politically.
I never asked him about the Walker stuff though. I'm not into politics. I do find the MPS stuff interesting because the system isn't really working well, so maybe we should re-think the system.
Quote from: Aughnanure on August 20, 2012, 09:54:58 AM
No, that is not at what I am saying. You really don't get it, do you?
If I don't get it, explain it to me again, slower and with smaller words. You indicated the gap is because we don't put enough value on teaching and that we needed to raise income to attract more talent. Agreed so far?
Does this not imply the current talent is insufficient?
Quote from: Aughnanure on August 20, 2012, 10:03:17 AM
I believed you were insinuating current soldiers, etc., and thus current fighting/wars. I apologize for that misrepresentation. However, I do think its a bit insulting that you would think without a standing army this country would just disappear and cease to exist (unless you are looking at this only from a historical aspect).
I would agree with you on police, an argument can definitely be made that they are the single most important profession in our society.
I think you are naive at best if you think eliminating a standing military wouldn't lead to the ruination of this country. Take Cuba for example, what would prevent them from taking control of oil reserves in the gulf? Its not like the UN is a fast reactionary force, talk to Darfur about that. Place NATO would cease to exist, which would take away any leverage we have with the Russians and influence on the European continent.
That's just off the top of my head. No standing army means we are no longer a world power within 5 years and no longer a country within our lifetime. Obviously no way to prove it, and the military would never go away, but I think you grossly underestimate the value of the military in global affairs, simply because it has been there for so long. Unfortunately, you are not alone.
Quote from: mu03eng on August 20, 2012, 11:56:42 AM
I think you are naive at best if you think eliminating a standing military wouldn't lead to the ruination of this country. Take Cuba for example, what would prevent them from taking control of oil reserves in the gulf? Its not like the UN is a fast reactionary force, talk to Darfur about that. Place NATO would cease to exist, which would take away any leverage we have with the Russians and influence on the European continent.
That's just off the top of my head. No standing army means we are no longer a world power within 5 years and no longer a country within our lifetime. Obviously no way to prove it, and the military would never go away, but I think you grossly underestimate the value of the military in global affairs, simply because it has been there for so long. Unfortunately, you are not alone.
Well, on the positive side maybe Finland or Sweden one of the other countries with a top-performing educational system could invade and solve our problems in that area for us. Lutefisk isn't that bad, is it?
Quote from: ATL MU Warrior on August 20, 2012, 12:11:25 PM
Well, on the positive side maybe Finland or Sweden one of the other countries with a top-performing educational system could invade and solve our problems in that area for us. Lutefisk isn't that bad, is it?
Its actually pretty good, but then again I'm 50% Swedish, so genetically predisposed to like it. Same with Herring. ;D
Brings an interesting question.....if we were to be invaded and taken over, what country would we want to do it?
Quote from: Guns n Ammo on August 20, 2012, 10:37:24 AM
My friend's father is a retired MPS teacher. I asked him about this subject the other night.
He said the issues start with:
1. Not enough parental emphasis put on education. Single parent or not, the kids are not consistently told that school is VERY important.
2. Truancy (likely an effect of #1). He said that if he could get a kid to come almost everyday, for 4 years, he had a pretty good chance to get the kid excited about something.
i.e. "Hey, math isn't so bad, maybe I could do something with numbers."
"I'm pretty good with my hands, maybe I could be a carpenter"
etc.
He said keeping a kid in class isn't going to make him/her a rocket scientist, but it allows for growth and exploration that doesn't happen if they drop out at 16. At 18, they might have a little better idea what they want to do, and at least they will have a HS diploma.
With all of this said, I asked him what MPS could do now, and he didn't have a lot of answers.
^This. Its amazing how many of my girlfriend's kids don't show up every day. Not many can even go one full week in attendance.
Quote from: mu03eng on August 20, 2012, 11:47:27 AM
If I don't get it, explain it to me again, slower and with smaller words. You indicated the gap is because we don't put enough value on teaching and that we needed to raise income to attract more talent. Agreed so far?
Does this not imply the current talent is insufficient?
Yes, it does. But it does not prove that the current talent is insufficient because it is primarily women.
Quote from: mu03eng on August 20, 2012, 11:56:42 AM
I think you are naive at best if you think eliminating a standing military wouldn't lead to the ruination of this country. Take Cuba for example, what would prevent them from taking control of oil reserves in the gulf? Its not like the UN is a fast reactionary force, talk to Darfur about that. Place NATO would cease to exist, which would take away any leverage we have with the Russians and influence on the European continent.
That's just off the top of my head. No standing army means we are no longer a world power within 5 years and no longer a country within our lifetime. Obviously no way to prove it, and the military would never go away, but I think you grossly underestimate the value of the military in global affairs, simply because it has been there for so long. Unfortunately, you are not alone.
As long as we are the most powerful consumer base on the planet, we will continue to be a world power. Maybe I am naive, but I think any type of global war will be become less and less likely as our economies become ever more dependent on each other.
But, yeah I get it. We would be susceptible to being abused by other powers. I guess my bigger point is that I don't think we, in any way, need 493,000 active-duty soldiers, 900+ bases, etc to maintain our existence as a country.
Oh, and I think Exxon-Mobil would have quite something to say about Cuba taking control of the oil reserves. But now I'm just getting silly.
Quote from: mu03eng on August 20, 2012, 12:25:06 PM
Its actually pretty good, but then again I'm 50% Swedish, so genetically predisposed to like it. Same with Herring. ;D
Brings an interesting question.....if we were to be invaded and taken over, what country would we want to do it?
Puerto Rico
Quote from: mu03eng on August 20, 2012, 12:25:06 PM
Its actually pretty good, but then again I'm 50% Swedish, so genetically predisposed to like it. Same with Herring. ;D
Brings an interesting question.....if we were to be invaded and taken over, what country would we want to do it?
France. Because we could kick them the hell back out whenever we wanted to.
Quote from: mu03eng on August 20, 2012, 12:25:06 PM
Its actually pretty good, but then again I'm 50% Swedish, so genetically predisposed to like it. Same with Herring. ;D
Brings an interesting question.....if we were to be invaded and taken over, what country would we want to do it?
Brazil.
Assuming they send an all female armed forces.
Quote from: Pakuni on August 20, 2012, 03:30:18 PM
Brazil.
Assuming they send an all female armed forces.
I'd go back to Sweden if that's the conditions we are dealing with.
Quote from: Aughnanure on August 20, 2012, 02:45:01 PM
Yes, it does. But it does not prove that the current talent is insufficient because it is primarily women.
OK, so you agree that you are saying that the current talent is insufficient. You are also saying the current talent is majority women correct? So then are the men the ones providing the talent gap???
For the record you are the one that leveled the sexism charge, I just want to point out that my position has been consistent, the talent we have is good and properly compensated. The changes I advocate are the tools and system that talent is working with/in. You seem to think we need better talent.
Quote from: mu03eng on August 20, 2012, 12:25:06 PM
Its actually pretty good, but then again I'm 50% Swedish, so genetically predisposed to like it. Same with Herring. ;D
Brings an interesting question.....if we were to be invaded and taken over, what country would we want to do it?
I always thought the USSR was onto something...
Quote from: mu03eng on August 20, 2012, 04:19:38 PM
OK, so you agree that you are saying that the current talent is insufficient. You are also saying the current talent is majority women correct? So then are the men the ones providing the talent gap???
For the record you are the one that leveled the sexism charge, I just want to point out that my position has been consistent, the talent we have is good and properly compensated. The changes I advocate are the tools and system that talent is working with/in. You seem to think we need better talent.
What? No. Your original position was pretty simple - that teacher skills are less difficult to develop than other professions and are not valuable enough to pay more.
"I'm simply saying from a competency model, the competencies required of teaching are either more naturally prevalent in people in our society or are more easily developed through educational means then other jobs that pay more."My counter-point was that this is a largely sexist view, that careers traditionally dominated by female are seen as less skillful than those traditionally dominated by men - thus justifying the practice that we don't need to pay them more.
Then you tried to skew this all by saying what if the military didn't exist? Wouldn't that cause the country to not exist? Which is a pretty disingenuous statement, as one could make that same point about many industry/fields.
Quote from: Aughnanure on August 20, 2012, 04:36:45 PM
What? No. Your original position was pretty simple - that teacher skills are less difficult to develop than other professions and are not valuable enough to pay more.
"I'm simply saying from a competency model, the competencies required of teaching are either more naturally prevalent in people in our society or are more easily developed through educational means then other jobs that pay more."
My counter-point was that this is a largely sexist view, that careers traditionally dominated by female are seen as less skillful than those traditionally dominated by men - thus justifying the practice that we don't need to pay them more.
Then you tried to skew this all by saying what if the military didn't exist? Wouldn't that cause the country to not exist? Which is a pretty disingenuous statement, as one could make that same point about many industry/fields.
Given that most of the menial, unskilled jobs in this world are dominated by men, I'm not buying this. And how skilled your job is usually has very little to do with what you're paid. Examples: sanitation workers, real estate agents & President of the United States.
Quote from: Benny B on August 20, 2012, 08:17:33 PM
Given that most of the menial, unskilled jobs in this world are dominated by men, I'm not buying this. And how skilled your job is usually has very little to do with what you're paid. Examples: sanitation workers, real estate agents & President of the United States.
Those aren't men slaving away in Asian garment factories, cleaning your hotel room or working the checkout line at the Kroeger.
Quote from: Benny B on August 20, 2012, 08:17:33 PM
Given that most of the menial, unskilled jobs in this world are dominated by men, I'm not buying this. And how skilled your job is usually has very little to do with what you're paid. Examples: sanitation workers, real estate agents & President of the United States.
Historically, MOST all jobs have been dominated by men.
Quote from: Pakuni on August 20, 2012, 08:26:05 PM
Those aren't men slaving away in Asian garment factories, cleaning your hotel room or working the checkout line at the Kroeger.
Again... what's with all the Asian references? Are there not enough Asian students enrolled at MPS to justify the teachers' pay or something. Or is there some sort of law saying a thread can't go 8 pages without multiple mentions of Asians and their plight?
Quote from: Aughnanure on August 20, 2012, 08:31:37 PM
Historically, MOST all jobs have been dominated by men.
Is it most or all? Or are you just making an ironic statement about the effect of having a male English teacher at MPS has on one's grammatical prowess?
Quote from: Aughnanure on August 20, 2012, 04:36:45 PM
What? No. Your original position was pretty simple - that teacher skills are less difficult to develop than other professions and are not valuable enough to pay more.
"I'm simply saying from a competency model, the competencies required of teaching are either more naturally prevalent in people in our society or are more easily developed through educational means then other jobs that pay more."
My counter-point was that this is a largely sexist view, that careers traditionally dominated by female are seen as less skillful than those traditionally dominated by men - thus justifying the practice that we don't need to pay them more.
Then you tried to skew this all by saying what if the military didn't exist? Wouldn't that cause the country to not exist? Which is a pretty disingenuous statement, as one could make that same point about many industry/fields.
You can think its a sexist view all you want but you are drawing conclusions not in evidence. Women have been pretty dominant in healthcare and those are some of the toughest jobs to train for.
Let me lay out your moving target for you....
-we need to pay teachers more
-teachers are teaching hard the money is to attract more talent
-the talent in teaching is fine we need to pay teachers more
-if you think teach is something a lot of people could do, you are sexist
What are we paying more money to teachers for in your world exactly?
Quote from: Pakuni on August 20, 2012, 08:26:05 PM
Those aren't men slaving away in Asian garment factories, cleaning your hotel room or working the checkout line at the Kroeger.
How about the Chinese men used in a 60 ton press to make stampings?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hDG9XtIuDY0&feature=youtube_gdata_player
This is the schedule Chicago Public Schools has been experimenting with in a select number of schools for a few years now. It's called Track E and is what they call year-round schooling.
http://www.cps.edu/Programs/DistrictInitiatives/FullDay/Documents/SY12_13CalendarTRACK_E.pdf
Quote from: mu03eng on August 20, 2012, 10:03:02 PM
You can think its a sexist view all you want but you are drawing conclusions not in evidence. Women have been pretty dominant in healthcare and those are some of the toughest jobs to train for.
Let me lay out your moving target for you....
-we need to pay teachers more
-teachers are teaching hard the money is to attract more talent
-the talent in teaching is fine we need to pay teachers more
-if you think teach is something a lot of people could do, you are sexist
What are we paying more money to teachers for in your world exactly?
You don't need to increase pay when you have 500 applicants for 1 job opening. If I were advising my child, I would advise against a job as a teacher because there are so few jobs.
Quote from: ringout on August 22, 2012, 05:07:06 PM
You don't need to increase pay when you have 500 applicants for 1 job opening. If I were advising my child, I would advise against a job as a teacher because there are so few jobs.
This isn't exactly accurate.
According to the number Dept. of Labor, teaching positions will grow between 16 (elementary) and 17 (high school) percent by 2020.
Also, a significant number of today's teachers - as much as half, by some estimates - are Boomers. And when they retire over the next decade, that means lots of openings.
Even now, there are plenty of teaching jobs to be had. Just not in the high-paying suburban school districts. If you're willing to move to a small town, jobs are plentiful.
Same thing for the medical fields, fwiw.
I'd steer them away from education and towards the medical field.
With on-line learning and distance learning really starting to take off with video/tablet integration and improved networks and household (and readily available cheap) computers, rural classrooms may no longer exist. They may continue to exist because the people in those areas still want a human present and willing to teach humans.
Furthermore, there has been a desire to cut from school funding. Lots of reasons why but as long as schools continue to do more with less, the cuts will continue. If the aspiring teacher can identify communities that value education with their money and time, then I would nudge them to pursue their vocation with those targeted communities in mind.
As an aside, the Baby Boomers will continue to define and impact our lives greatly, even after their passing. The economic wave they continue to ride on is great.
Quote from: mu03eng on August 20, 2012, 10:03:02 PM
You can think its a sexist view all you want but you are drawing conclusions not in evidence. Women have been pretty dominant in healthcare and those are some of the toughest jobs to train for.
Let me lay out your moving target for you....
-we need to pay teachers more
-teachers are teaching hard the money is to attract more talent
-the talent in teaching is fine we need to pay teachers more
-if you think teach is something a lot of people could do, you are sexist
What are we paying more money to teachers for in your world exactly?
So women entering the working world on an semi-equal playing foot for the first time....EVER, means that sexism is dead. Thanks for the heads-up.
I'm not going to answer your BS insinuations of my opinions that I have clearly explained, it's quite clear you have more fun not trying to understand me.
Quote from: Aughnanure on August 23, 2012, 08:59:05 AM
So women entering the working world on an semi-equal playing foot for the first time....EVER, means that sexism is dead. Thanks for the heads-up.
I'm not going to answer your BS insinuations of my opinions that I have clearly explained, it's quite clear you have more fun not trying to understand me.
Listen, I understand you just fine....you are passionate about education and think its critical to our future, which I agree with. However you have an idealistic(some would even say unrealistically naive) view of how society should work and you think anyone that doesn't agree with your viewpoint is some sort of mouth breathing neanderthal and you have throw this sexism charge in there because it muddies the water so your argument seems more compelling. I merely wanted to point out the inconsistencies in your argument, I've accomplished that based on your last response, I'm moving on.
At the end of the day, there is no appetite right now for significant expenditures of money on teaching; not arguing if that's right or wrong, just that it is reality. Also if you look at MPS it has plenty of cash and is just wasting it IMHO. So the whole point is make changes that don't impact the bottom line. Even if we can't expand the school year(b/c teachers would have to be paid more) go to year round schooling, change the way you judge teacher performance, change how you measure the success of children. Control moderately difficult things and then see if you can get the big things done. Cause I tell you, doing nothing means we only get worse.
Quote from: 77ncaachamps on August 23, 2012, 12:08:12 AM
I'd steer them away from education and towards the medical field.
With on-line learning and distance learning really starting to take off with video/tablet integration and improved networks and household (and readily available cheap) computers, rural classrooms may no longer exist. They may continue to exist because the people in those areas still want a human present and willing to teach humans.
I don't see a big push for online kindergarten and distance learning fourth graders anytime soon.
Nor do I see a titanic shift in the economy that would allow all families to have at least one grown up at home making sure little Johnny is doing his schoolwork and not playing video games and/or burning down the house.
Quote from: mu03eng on August 23, 2012, 10:55:45 AM
Listen, I understand you just fine....you are passionate about education and think its critical to our future, which I agree with. However you have an idealistic(some would even say unrealistically naive) view of how society should work and you think anyone that doesn't agree with your viewpoint is some sort of mouth breathing neanderthal and you have throw this sexism charge in there because it muddies the water so your argument seems more compelling. I merely wanted to point out the inconsistencies in your argument, I've accomplished that based on your last response, I'm moving on.
At the end of the day, there is no appetite right now for significant expenditures of money on teaching; not arguing if that's right or wrong, just that it is reality. Also if you look at MPS it has plenty of cash and is just wasting it IMHO. So the whole point is make changes that don't impact the bottom line. Even if we can't expand the school year(b/c teachers would have to be paid more) go to year round schooling, change the way you judge teacher performance, change how you measure the success of children. Control moderately difficult things and then see if you can get the big things done. Cause I tell you, doing nothing means we only get worse.
Yeah, the inconsistencies you made up and then continued to say existed such as"
Why should we pay more for teaching, if teaching is already achieving the best results and they can't do better with more money, why pay more?
Nope, it's quite clear teaching isn't achieving the best results. The classic, why pay more for something I don't know exists.
Augh, you also seem to imply that teachers are holding back, because if they were paid more they would teach better? Is that true, I don't think it is, I think teachers work their tails off so what does paying more accomplish, what would we get out of it?
Where was this? I implied teachers are holding back? News to me. And you just did that type of crap over and over again.
So listen, my point, this WHOLE time, is that the low pay and low respect the teaching profession receives in our society is indicative of the results it achieves. High-performing countries put in place high standards to just become teachers, have very rigorous training programs and only require a advanced levels of education and degrees (i.e., teachers are treated with the value the country places on it).
If you want teachers to become great, than treat teaching that way and not lollygag around with half-ass solutions like longer school years (its a systemic problem, not a time issue). If you think that would take too much money? Fine, I think you're wrong, but fine. Just don't blame teachers in 20 years when we are in the exact same, or even worse, position as we are now.
I don't want to rain down gasoline on anyone's parade of fire here, but I'm going to any way:
- In America, everyone has an opportunity to be whatever they want or earn the salary they want (within reason); however, not everyone gets both. Complaining about how much you're paid (or others are paid) or how you're "stuck" in a job/career makes you a crybaby.
- If a woman is paid less to do a job - any job - it's only because she's willing to accept less to do the job.
- If a teacher is paid less than his/her true "value" to society, it's because he/she is willing to accept less.
- A person who believes that his/her job's "undervaluation" is detrimental to society himself/herself becomes an even greater detriment to society by not exiting that job.
- No combination of performance, pay, and gender have a correlation anywhere close to |1|.
Couple points here:
In california many teachers dress worse than the maintenance staff, blue jeans and old t-shirts. If you are a professional act like one and dress like one. With all the laws, kids know the teachers' limitations and don't respect the system.
secondly, I have always told my children that "People treat you the way you Allow them to treat you."hool s
I taught in the Milwaukee school system in the 70's and there was some discipline and some parents supported you.
- In America, everyone has an opportunity to be whatever they want or earn the salary they want (within reason)
Yeah sure, you see a lot of hedge fund managers rising up from inner city poverty.
- If a woman is paid less to do a job - any job - it's only because she's willing to accept less to do the job
And she knows she is accepting less exactly how?
- If a teacher is paid less than his/her true "value" to society, it's because he/she is willing to accept less.
How exactly do I calculate my true "value" to society so I know if I am being compensated apppropriately?
Quote from: Aughnanure on August 23, 2012, 11:58:29 AM
Yeah, the inconsistencies you made up and then continued to say existed such as"
Why should we pay more for teaching, if teaching is already achieving the best results and they can't do better with more money, why pay more?
Nope, it's quite clear teaching isn't achieving the best results. The classic, why pay more for something I don't know exists.
Augh, you also seem to imply that teachers are holding back, because if they were paid more they would teach better? Is that true, I don't think it is, I think teachers work their tails off so what does paying more accomplish, what would we get out of it?
Where was this? I implied teachers are holding back? News to me. And you just did that type of crap over and over again.
So listen, my point, this WHOLE time, is that the low pay and low respect the teaching profession receives in our society is indicative of the results it achieves. High-performing countries put in place high standards to just become teachers, have very rigorous training programs and only require a advanced levels of education and degrees (i.e., teachers are treated with the value the country places on it).
If you want teachers to become great, than treat teaching that way and not lollygag around with half-ass solutions like longer school years (its a systemic problem, not a time issue). If you think that would take too much money? Fine, I think you're wrong, but fine. Just don't blame teachers in 20 years when we are in the exact same, or even worse, position as we are now.
Reread your statement especially
If you want teachers to become great, you are implying the talent is not sufficient right now. I completely disagree, there is plenty of talent in teaching currently, we need to put a system in place that leverages that talent. If you took an entry level teacher to Europe right now, I bet they'd flourish because the expectations and system are better. Having a masters degree in teaching does virtually nothing that they can't learn on the job. Teachers are not succeeding now because we are not creating an environment for them to succeed, it has nothing to do with salary or talent.
And quite frankly low pay and low respect is a myth. Extrapolate a 9 month salary to 12 months and compare it to most jobs....guarantee its in the top half of the salary bracket and that doesn't include the benefits, like not having to pay for day care in the summer when the kids aren't in school, health insurance, etc.
- In America, everyone has an opportunity to be whatever they want or earn the salary they want (within reason)
Yeah sure, you see a lot of hedge fund managers rising up from inner city poverty.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chris_Gardner
Yes, some people are born with an easier path, but every American has an easier path than most of the world.
- If a woman is paid less to do a job - any job - it's only because she's willing to accept less to do the job
And she knows she is accepting less exactly how?
By using the same resources we all use to determine if we're being appropriately compensated. Internet, recruiters, job listings, etc.
- If a teacher is paid less than his/her true "value" to society, it's because he/she is willing to accept less.
How exactly do I calculate my true "value" to society so I know if I am being compensated apppropriately?
Your value is kind of up to you, but if you think you're worth something, then find someone willing to pay that price. If you can't, then you're probably misguided about the value you bring to the table.
Quote from: ATL MU Warrior on August 23, 2012, 12:34:08 PM
- In America, everyone has an opportunity to be whatever they want or earn the salary they want (within reason)
Yeah sure, you see a lot of hedge fund managers rising up from inner city poverty.
When did hedge fund managers become the go to standard? Do you have any studies that lays out the background of hedge fund managers? If you are a teacher you went to a 4 year college, same requirement typically to be a hedge fund manager, they have every opportunity to be one. America is about ensuring equality of opportunity, not result
[/quote]
- If a woman is paid less to do a job - any job - it's only because she's willing to accept less to do the jobAnd she knows she is accepting less exactly how?
[/quote]
Talk to coworkers, look at the database of salaries available to the public as public employees, talk to their union rep. It's no different than looking at houses, comparing houses near by and assessing value. These are intelligent people, figure it out....everyone else in the workplace does.
[/quote]
- If a teacher is paid less than his/her true "value" to society, it's because he/she is willing to accept less.How exactly do I calculate my true "value" to society so I know if I am being compensated apppropriately?
[/quote]
See above. How do you determine your value at your job? How do you decide whether to fix a leaking pipe in your house by yourself as opposed to paying someone. To borrow from Pakuni, it is literally not rocket science.
All of these things are within peoples control to a degree. Take control of the things you can and let the devil take the hindmost.
Quote from: Bocephys on August 23, 2012, 12:44:47 PM
- In America, everyone has an opportunity to be whatever they want or earn the salary they want (within reason)
Yeah sure, you see a lot of hedge fund managers rising up from inner city poverty.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chris_Gardner
Yes, some people are born with an easier path, but every American has an easier path than most of the world.
Fallacy of exception proving the rule.
Weren't you forced to endure Logic 101 like the rest of us?
Quote- If a woman is paid less to do a job - any job - it's only because she's willing to accept less to do the job
And she knows she is accepting less exactly how?
By using the same resources we all use to determine if we're being appropriately compensated. Internet, recruiters, job listings, etc.
Talk about blaming the victim.
The notion that someone "accepts" (and therefore deserves?) unequal pay, discrimination, etc. if they remain in that situation is not only wrong and naive, but kind of insulting. Many people out there, especially in today's economy, don't have an option to just leave their job if they find the conditions unfair. Nor should they have to. Anti-discrimination laws exist for a reason.
Quote from: Pakuni on August 23, 2012, 01:02:12 PM
Fallacy of exception proving the rule.
Weren't you forced to endure Logic 101 like the rest of us?
Talk about blaming the victim.
The notion that someone "accepts" (and therefore deserves?) unequal pay, discrimination, etc. if they remain in that situation is not only wrong and naive, but kind of insulting. Many people out there, especially in today's economy, don't have an option to just leave their job if they find the conditions unfair. Nor should they have to. Anti-discrimination laws exist for a reason.
What If I'm making less at my company than people with similar experience to me at other companies? Would you tell me that wasn't fair and I should sue, or would you tell me to go get paid at one of those other companies? I'm not blaming the victim, I'm just saying that the same resources are available to everyone, but they have to use them. Sitting there whining and playing the victim card guarantees negative results. Plenty of people have had to endure crappy jobs while they worked toward a better future. Everything isn't handed to you.
Quote from: Pakuni on August 23, 2012, 01:02:12 PM
Talk about blaming the victim.
The notion that someone "accepts" (and therefore deserves?) unequal pay, discrimination, etc. if they remain in that situation is not only wrong and naive, but kind of insulting. Many people out there, especially in today's economy, don't have an option to just leave their job if they find the conditions unfair. Nor should they have to. Anti-discrimination laws exist for a reason.
Where is the fallacy of seeing victimhood everytime someone bitches addressed in Logic 101? Good times, bad times and in between the world is replete with folks who think they drew the short straw. Blame someone else as a way of exonerating yourself. To those who are actually being discriminated against there are protections available, but from what I see that's a small % of those who think they got a raw deal.
Logic 101 in Olin Engineering....good times.
Quote from: Pakuni on August 23, 2012, 01:02:12 PM
Talk about blaming the victim.
The notion that someone "accepts" (and therefore deserves?) unequal pay, discrimination, etc. if they remain in that situation is not only wrong and naive, but kind of insulting. Many people out there, especially in today's economy, don't have an option to just leave their job if they find the conditions unfair. Nor should they have to. Anti-discrimination laws exist for a reason.
1) Who said anything about victims? I never said anything about inequality or discrimination. What I was saying is that when a person willfully accepts a job, that person accepts all conditions of that job, including the wage as fair. If conditions change or pay is cut, that's a completely different issue that affects people of all genders. If there's a victim to be found here, it's only because the person chose to be a victim.
2)
Everybody has the option to leave their job. (Even coaches who have (had) several years remaining on their contract.) Everyone has the option to make a better life for him/herself. The paths might be easier for some than others, but when people permanently resign themselves to an undesirable situation, typically it's because they prefer status quo to sacrifice.
Quote from: ATL MU Warrior on August 23, 2012, 12:34:08 PM
- In America, everyone has an opportunity to be whatever they want or earn the salary they want (within reason)
Yeah sure, you see a lot of hedge fund managers rising up from inner city poverty.
I must have missed the federal law that says children who are born into inner-city poverty are prohibited from managing another person's money.
Quote from: Bocephys on August 23, 2012, 01:07:19 PM
What If I'm making less at my company than people with similar experience to me at other companies? Would you tell me that wasn't fair and I should sue, or would you tell me to go get paid at one of those other companies?
Why are you changing the subject? This has nothing to do with what one company pays in comparison to another. It's about Benny's example that the only reason a woman might earns less than her male co-workers is because she "accepts" it that way.
QuoteSitting there whining and playing the victim card guarantees negative results. Plenty of people have had to endure crappy jobs while they worked toward a better future. Everything isn't handed to you.
So expecting equal treatment qualifies as "whining and playing the victim card?"
That darn MLK should have stopped whining and playing the victim card. If he and other blacks living in the South didn't like their unequal treatment, they had the option to move elsewhere. It's a free country, after all. By choosing to live there, they accepted discrimination.
Nobody is arguing against working hard, enduring crappy jobs, etc. At least I'm not. I'm talking about a poster's assertion that anyone facing job discrimination - such as his example of woman getting paid less because she's a woman - either "accepts" it or goes and gets another job. She shouldn't have to make that choice.
Quote from: Benny B on August 23, 2012, 01:52:32 PM
1) Who said anything about victims? I never said anything about inequality or discrimination. What I was saying is that when a person willfully accepts a job, that person accepts all conditions of that job, including the wage as fair. If conditions change or pay is cut, that's a completely different issue that affects people of all genders. If there's a victim to be found here, it's only because the person chose to be a victim.
So, at every job you've ever accepted you had full knowledge of the compensation and conditions under which all your peers worked? You knew your employment conditions before you walked through the door?
Quote2) Everybody has the option to leave their job. (Even coaches who have (had) several years remaining on their contract.) Everyone has the option to make a better life for him/herself. The paths might be easier for some than others, but when people permanently resign themselves to an undesirable situation, typically it's because they prefer status quo to sacrifice.
Well, I suppose you're right that since slavery and indentured servitude no longer exist, everybody theoretically does have the option to leave their job. But in the real world, where job opportunities for most are scarce, leaving a job is not quite so simple if, say, you're a single mom trying to provide for your kids. Or a blue collar dad trying to get your kids through college. Not everybody can just walk away from an income. Nor should they be forced to in order to be treated equally.
Seriously can't believe I have to argue this point.
Quote from: Lennys Tap on August 23, 2012, 01:30:07 PM
Where is the fallacy of seeing victimhood everytime someone bitches addressed in Logic 101? Good times, bad times and in between the world is replete with folks who think they drew the short straw. Blame someone else as a way of exonerating yourself. To those who are actually being discriminated against there are protections available, but from what I see that's a small % of those who think they got a raw deal.
What?
Good to know, however, that you have a firm grip on the validity of all Americans' grievances.
Quote from: Pakuni on August 23, 2012, 02:23:26 PM
What?
Good to know, however, that you have a firm grip on the validity of all Americans' grievances.
BS.
I never said I had a firm grip on ALL Americans' grievances. But I've certainly heard enough "the coach, the teacher, my boss, etc. is unfair, doesn't like me," etc., gripes over the years to know it's part of the human condition. That you reflexively confer "victim" status on anyone who claims to be one pretty much says it all.
Quote from: Lennys Tap on August 23, 2012, 03:02:13 PM
BS.
I never said I had a firm grip on ALL Americans' grievances. But I've certainly heard enough "the coach, the teacher, my boss, etc. is unfair, doesn't like me," etc., gripes over the years to know it's part of the human condition. That you reflexively confer "victim" status on anyone who claims to be one pretty much says it all.
You said:
"To those who are actually being discriminated against there are protections available,
but from what I see that's a small % of those who think they got a raw deal."
On the other hand, making up arguments I never made doesn't help your case.
Quote from: Pakuni on August 23, 2012, 02:22:11 PM
So, at every job you've ever accepted you had full knowledge of the compensation and conditions under which all your peers worked?
Why should I care? I'm taking a job to work, not to socialize and compare myself or my status with other people.
Quote from: Pakuni on August 23, 2012, 02:22:11 PM
You knew your employment conditions before you walked through the door?
Of course. What kind of person takes a job not knowing what it entails? I'm sure there are 15 year olds who apply to be lifeguards and then complain about there being too much sun, but at some point you have to grow up and take responsibility for the decisions you make.
Quote from: Pakuni on August 23, 2012, 02:22:11 PM
Well, I suppose you're right that since slavery and indentured servitude no longer exist, everybody theoretically does have the option to leave their job. But in the real world, where job opportunities for most are scarce, leaving a job is not quite so simple if, say, you're a single mom trying to provide for your kids. Or a blue collar dad trying to get your kids through college. Not everybody can just walk away from an income. Nor should they be forced to in order to be treated equally.
Seriously can't believe I have to argue this point.
Nice try. I know enough single mothers and "blue collar dads" who have walked to hell and back in order to give their kids a better life to know that your argument is utter BS. I'm not talking about walking away from an income; I'm talking about not wallowing around in self-pity and laziness waiting for the next freebie to come along and throwing a tantrum when it doesn't.
What a nice, comfortable, entitled perspective on life you have. The rest of us who have been working our rears off since we were old enough to have a paper route know otherwise.
Quote from: Pakuni on August 23, 2012, 02:12:54 PM
That darn MLK should have stopped whining and playing the victim card. If he and other blacks living in the South didn't like their unequal treatment, they had the option to move elsewhere. It's a free country, after all. By choosing to live there, they accepted discrimination.
We had MLK, an absolute giant, when we needed him. Now we have Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton. Thanks for making my point.
Quote from: Pakuni on August 23, 2012, 02:12:54 PM
Why are you changing the subject? This has nothing to do with what one company pays in comparison to another. It's about Benny's example that the only reason a woman might earns less than her male co-workers is because she "accepts" it that way.
So expecting equal treatment qualifies as "whining and playing the victim card?"
That darn MLK should have stopped whining and playing the victim card. If he and other blacks living in the South didn't like their unequal treatment, they had the option to move elsewhere. It's a free country, after all. By choosing to live there, they accepted discrimination.
Nobody is arguing against working hard, enduring crappy jobs, etc. At least I'm not. I'm talking about a poster's assertion that anyone facing job discrimination - such as his example of woman getting paid less because she's a woman - either "accepts" it or goes and gets another job. She shouldn't have to make that choice.
Discrimination still exists to this day, thankfully much less than before, but still there. However, if someone determines their is discrimination, we have legal remedies for that. But just because you are somehow paid less than you think you should isn't discrimination.
Besides, how is it easy to determine you are paid less because of discrimination but its difficult to determine if you are paid in comparison to your peers?
If you can determine you are being discriminated against you can determine if you are paid what you think you should be paid. If you are not, then either get more from your employer or get a different job.
Quote from: Benny B on August 23, 2012, 03:49:16 PM
What a nice, comfortable, entitled perspective on life you have. The rest of us who have been working our rears off since we were old enough to have a paper route know otherwise.
You worked a paper route? So, you totally understand what it takes to overcome poverty and historical prejudices.
Actually, I've often found it's the most privileged among us who preach loudest about all their hard work, how they pulled themselves up by their bootstraps and how they can't understand why everyone can't be just like them (sloth, naturally).
What's the saying? Born on third base and thinks he hit a triple.
Quote from: mu03eng on August 23, 2012, 05:16:59 PM
Discrimination still exists to this day, thankfully much less than before, but still there. However, if someone determines their is discrimination, we have legal remedies for that. But just because you are somehow paid less than you think you should isn't discrimination.
I haven't suggested anything different.
What I'm saying is that the notion that one who experiences job discrimination "accepts" it by not quitting, or by taking the job in the first place, is woefully wrong. A person shouldn't have to quit his or her job to avoid discrimination, right?
Quote from: Pakuni on August 23, 2012, 05:44:49 PM
You worked a paper route? So, you totally understand what it takes to overcome poverty and historical prejudices.
Actually, I've often found it's the most privileged among us who preach loudest about all their hard work, how they pulled themselves up by their bootstraps and how they can't understand why everyone can't be just like them (sloth, naturally).
What's the saying? Born on third base and thinks he hit a triple.
So a person who doesn't rely on society as a crutch is therefore a spoiled brat?
Quote from: Pakuni on August 23, 2012, 05:49:53 PM
I haven't suggested anything different.
What I'm saying is that the notion that one who experiences job discrimination "accepts" it by not quitting, or by taking the job in the first place, is woefully wrong. A person shouldn't have to quit his or her job to avoid discrimination, right?
I absolutely agree with this. The key is distinguishing between true discrimination and false victimhood.
Quote from: Bocephys on August 23, 2012, 12:44:47 PM
- In America, everyone has an opportunity to be whatever they want or earn the salary they want (within reason)
Yeah sure, you see a lot of hedge fund managers rising up from inner city poverty.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chris_Gardner
Yes, some people are born with an easier path, but every American has an easier path than most of the world.b]
The relative ease of someone born in America vs the rest of the world was not how I read that. If you think Americans born into abject poverty have the same career/earning opportunities as someone born into the middle or upper class then you are living in a fantasy. In some theoretical idealistic version of the world, yes. In reality, not a chance.
Quote from: Bocephys on August 23, 2012, 12:44:47 PM
- If a woman is paid less to do a job - any job - it's only because she's willing to accept less to do the job
And she knows she is accepting less exactly how?
By using the same resources we all use to determine if we're being appropriately compensated. Internet, recruiters, job listings, etc.
All that any of these online salary tools (at least the ones I have used) do is provide a range or an average salary for a particular job title. I just used one for my title and it gave me a range from $73,500 to $126,200. How useful! I make towards the upper end of that range so I guess I'm all good. I guess the person of the opposite sex sitting in the next cube over from me doing the same exact job must make the same as me since that's what the internet told me.
Quote from: Bocephys on August 23, 2012, 12:44:47 PM
- If a teacher is paid less than his/her true "value" to society, it's because he/she is willing to accept less.
How exactly do I calculate my true "value" to society so I know if I am being compensated apppropriately?
Your value is kind of up to you, but if you think you're worth something, then find someone willing to pay that price. If you can't, then you're probably misguided about the value you bring to the table.
I guess Benny put "Value" in quotes because he knew it is impossible to calculate your "value" to society. The idea that someone is willing to accept being paid less than some impossible-to-calculate number makes no sense. Your "value" as a worker is defined by the salary companies are willing to pay people with your particular abilities/skills/knowledge. As you pointed out above there are a multitude of ways you can assess your "value" as a worker. But, unless during the interview process you ask your potential coworkers how much money they make (not recommended), you have ZERO idea if the salary you are offered is fair relative to theirs.
Women in the workplace had been a recurring subject over the last year at The Atlantic magazine. It's long but an interesting read. Last month's edition contained the latest article titled:
Why Women Still Can't Have It All
It's time to stop fooling ourselves, says a woman who left a position of power: the women who have managed to be both mothers and top professionals are superhuman, rich, or self-employed. If we truly believe in equal opportunity for all women, here's what has to change.
By Anne-Marie Slaughter
LINK:
http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2012/07/why-women-still-cant-have-it-all/309020/
Quote from: ATL MU Warrior on August 23, 2012, 08:44:23 PM
I guess Benny put "Value" in quotes because he knew it is impossible to calculate your "value" to society. The idea that someone is willing to accept being paid less than some impossible-to-calculate number makes no sense. Your "value" as a worker is defined by the salary companies are willing to pay people with your particular abilities/skills/knowledge. As you pointed out above there are a multitude of ways you can assess your "value" as a worker. But, unless during the interview process you ask your potential coworkers how much money they make (not recommended), you have ZERO idea if the salary you are offered is fair relative to theirs.
Partially correct. Value was put in quotes because I know full well that people define that word differently; however, the ability to calculate value is dependent upon how you define the term. If the only way for you to determine your value is to compare yourself relative to others, then yes, it's virtually impossible to ascertain your value. If you determine your value based upon satisfaction and self-actualization, then it's quite easy to define.
At issue here is the fact that most people want to equate value to income; while I believe that's unfortunate, I also understand that a dollar amount is a relatively simple and objective measure, and therefore, that methodology - right or wrong - is most appealing to our society.
Quote from: Pakuni on August 23, 2012, 05:49:53 PM
I haven't suggested anything different.
What I'm saying is that the notion that one who experiences job discrimination "accepts" it by not quitting, or by taking the job in the first place, is woefully wrong. A person shouldn't have to quit his or her job to avoid discrimination, right?
I don't think anyone was suggesting discrimination should be fought by quitting. The point is if you think you are undervalued its because of one of three things, you are undervalued and you need to fight for the value, you are actually valued correctly but overvalue yourself, or you are discriminated against. The first two are much more likely these days.
Lastly my whole thing is I get sick of people throwing their hands in the air and saying its out of my control. Control the things you can and make stuff happen. Lots of people do it every day, no reason everyone can't make their life better by trying
Quote from: mu03eng on August 24, 2012, 09:21:54 AM
I don't think anyone was suggesting discrimination should be fought by quitting.
How is one to take these statements?
"If a woman is paid less to do a job - any job -
it's only (
ed: emphasis mine) because she's willing to accept less to do the job."
" If there's a victim to be found here,
it's only because the person chose
(ed: emphasis mine) to be a victim."
QuoteThe point is if you think you are undervalued its because of one of three things, you are undervalued and you need to fight for the value, you are actually valued correctly but overvalue yourself, or you are discriminated against. The first two are much more likely these days.
Lastly my whole thing is I get sick of people throwing their hands in the air and saying its out of my control. Control the things you can and make stuff happen. Lots of people do it every day, no reason everyone can't make their life better by trying
I don't disagree with any of this. Where I've taken with issue is with those who suggest that those who are treated unfairly should just quit and get another job rather than be "whiners" and "crybabies," and stop "playing the victim card."
Quote from: Pakuni on August 24, 2012, 09:49:06 AM
How is one to take these statements?
"If a woman is paid less to do a job - any job - it's only (ed: emphasis mine) because she's willing to accept less to do the job."
" If there's a victim to be found here, it's only because the person chose (ed: emphasis mine) to be a victim."
Pakuni, you're the one who brought up the topic of discrimination. You can spin my words any way you want, but I never said anything about applicability of those statements to a person who is being subjected to discrimination. If you took a moment to read the context instead of instinctively (or deliberately) reacting to a couple of keywords that were typed too close together for your own comfort, you'd realize that nobody was talking about discrimination here. That's an entirely different argument, and one which I'd be willing to bet you'd find it quite challenging to take an adversarial position to mine.