Milwaukee Public Schools

[mu03eng]

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?

[mu03eng]

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"

[Aughnanure]

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.

[GGGG]

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.

[Aughnanure]

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.

[Aughnanure]

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.

[Pakuni]

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.

[Lennys Tap]

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.

[Aughnanure]

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.

[Spotcheck Billy]

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.

[martyconlonontherun]

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?

[Aughnanure]

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.

[Aughnanure]

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.

[Lennys Tap]

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.

[Benny B]

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.

[Lennys Tap]

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.

[Aughnanure]

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.

[Aughnanure]

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.

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.

[Benny B]

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.

[GGGG]

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.

[Benny B]

That's kind of ridiculous.

So is the education system in this country.

[RJax55]

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.

[GGGG]

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. 

[tower912]

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.   

[Chili]

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.....