Milwaukee Public Schools

[MUBurrow]

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.

[mu03eng]

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

[mu03eng]

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

[Aughnanure]

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.

[Aughnanure]

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.

[Aughnanure]

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.

[Aughnanure]

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.

[Lennys Tap]

This thread successfully straddled the political line for several pages. Augh, I think it's gone off the rails.

[🏀]

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.

[Benny B]

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?

[muarmy81]

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.

[Aughnanure]

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.  

[Aughnanure]

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.

[Aughnanure]

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.

[MUBurrow]

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/ 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.

[Aughnanure]

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/ 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

[77ncaachamps]

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.

[muarmy81]

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.

[muarmy81]

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/ 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.

[Benny B]

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?

[JD]

Going to try and switch this up....

What does Finland, Canada, South Korea, Japan, do that makes their education superior to Americas today?

[Lennys Tap]

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.

[Aughnanure]

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.

[Aughnanure]

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]

[mu03eng]

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.