Education Thread

[mu03eng]

[Pakuni]

I am not a teacher, but nearly every other profession has figured it out for themselves. However, the teaching profession has decided that they will stick with years of service and education level (as in a masters from University of Phoenix with a 2.0 average counts the same as a Masters summa cum laude from Princeton) as the primary drivers to determine compensation.

So your solution is "I don't have a solution, but they should figure it out to my satisfaction!"
I suspect the reason you're not offering a solution is because you realize how difficult and complex it is to fairly evaluate a teacher.
It's easy to benchmark when a surgeon succeeds or fails. Or a firefighter. Or a salesman. Or an engineer. Or a trader. And so on and so forth.
but unlike most professions, teachers have no control over the most important factors in their "production." (Production here being educated students).
Teachers can't mandate parental involvement and they can't move low-income families into the middle and upper classes.
So, given that, how do we evaluate? Is it fair to evaluate based on test scores, when students of a lazy teacher in Barrington are going to do way better than those of a hard-working teacher in Austin?
If not, then how?
I know ... you don't care. They should just figure it out.

For what it's worth, teachers and school districts in your state are working on these issues and trying to come up with fair solutions. But, as I think you can admit, it's a complex question and will take time.

And you said that I claimed that "teachers are overpaid".

No, I didn't. I said you whined about how overpaid teachers are. Scroll up and see for yourself.

[forgetful]

Maybe that's the case at your cushy job, but nearly every working professional I know puts in more than 40 hours a week.  The difference between them and teachers is they don't share Facebook memes complaining about how unappreciated they are.

How many of those other "working professionals" get paid on average 48k per year, while having to shell out a good chunk of their salary to provide needed supplies to their own workplace?

$48K per year is the average salary for a high school teacher.

I am not a teacher, but nearly every other profession has figured it out for themselves. However, the teaching profession has decided that they will stick with years of service and education level (as in a masters from University of Phoenix with a 2.0 average counts the same as a Masters summa cum laude from Princeton) as the primary drivers to determine compensation.

And you said that I claimed that "teachers are overpaid".  I said the bad ones were. I wasn't painting with the broad brush you implied I was. 

Your statements here are not well formulated.  Different school districts pay teachers more money.  If you have a Masters from Princeton, you will be able to work for the highest paying schools.  If you have a masters from the University of Phoenix, you cannot get those same jobs. 

In terms of raises, most jobs work very similarly, you get a raise each year of service provided that you perform the bare minimum your job requires.  You can then get promotions in addition to raises for actually performing above the bare minimum.  If you go get an additional degree (say an MBA), you get an automatic raise regardless of if you got the MBA at Princeton or the University of Phoenix.  The big difference is that in contrast to business/other fields, there really aren't promotions one can get in addition to annual raises, there are no end of the year performance bonuses etc.  If we treated teachers like every other field, the same pay structure with service/education level would essentially say the same.  The metrics for terminating a teacher would stay the same.  They would just get all kinds of titles that come with massive pay raises and annual year end bonus. 

As for evaluating job performance.  They do it very similar to every other business.  They are evaluated largely based on evaluations by supervisors.  Typically the ones that people are complaining about are being called "bad teachers" because they actually hold students accountable and do not just give out free grades.  Some of the people that are referred to as "great teachers" by students and parents are actually terrible teachers.  Similarly, if you use test performance as a metric you will often find that the students from classes that are performing excellent on tests (and by virtue the teacher/school gets a high ranking), actually do terrible in college or real world scenarios, because they were taught to beat a test, not to actually learn. 

Many want student evaluations to play a bigger role; they have repeatedly been shown to be extremely unreliable to the actual teaching ability, and have extreme biases specifically against women and minorities. 

The bottom line is, the people complaining that the bad teachers are getting fired, typically have zero idea of what a good/bad teacher looks like.

[jesmu84]

Babysitters make way more per kid per hour compared to teachers. And people expect teachers to, you know, teach. And get their kids into Harvard.

But then complain that they make too much.

[CTWarrior]

Curious why you call it unpaid overtime when they are paid a salary, not an hourly rate, to accomplish a specific result.

The term unpaid overtime was used by the poster I was quoting who said teachers work unpaid overtime.  I was just pointing out that pretty much all salaried employees work unpaid overtime.  Teachers are salaried workers, so if your argument holds for regular workers, it holds for teachers.

Now I don't want to make people think that I think teachers are overpaid or whatever.  My wife is a teacher and therefore I know many teachers.  I like them, they work hard and do a great job and go the extra mile.  So do a lot of other people. 

[jsglow]

I find it interesting that views on education seem to have a very high correlation with an individual's political leanings. I suspect much of that is tied up in one's view on public sector unions along with one's view on the free market determining wages. I wonder how many other professions are viewed through a similar lens?  Perhaps health care.

[rocket surgeon]

I find it interesting that views on education seem to have a very high correlation with an individual's political leanings. I suspect much of that is tied up in one's view on public sector unions along with one's view on the free market determining wages. I wonder how many other professions are viewed through a similar lens?  Perhaps health care.

i don't know that political leanings are the barometer, but fiscal positions probably are very pertinent.  one could be of either leaning and be either fiscally conservative or liberal.  i believe it comes down to tax payer values and if one feels they are getting a good value for their money

[jsglow]

i don't know that political leanings are the barometer, but fiscal positions probably are very pertinent.  one could be of either leaning and be either fiscally conservative or liberal.  i believe it comes down to tax payer values and if one feels they are getting a good value for their money

Perhaps they all fit together.

[MerrittsMustache]

i don't know that political leanings are the barometer, but fiscal positions probably are very pertinent.  one could be of either leaning and be either fiscally conservative or liberal.  i believe it comes down to tax payer values and if one feels they are getting a good value for their money

[Juan Anderson's Mixtape]

i don't know that political leanings are the barometer, but fiscal positions probably are very pertinent.  one could be of either leaning and be either fiscally conservative or liberal.  i believe it comes down to tax payer values and if one feels they are getting a good value for their money

Political leanings cover both social and fiscal viewpoints. One can be liberal in both, conservative in both, or conservative in one and liberal in the other. There are also different ranges of how liberal and conservative one can be, even varying from topic to topic.

[TAMU, Knower of Ball]

I find it interesting that views on education seem to have a very high correlation with an individual's political leanings. I suspect much of that is tied up in one's view on public sector unions along with one's view on the free market determining wages.

I'm not surprised. As Rocket said, it comes down to your values. This is an oversimplification, but in my experience all political decisions can be classified as either social justice or economic. The left is usually most correct on social justice issues whereas the right is usually most correct on economic issues. If you value social justice more, you will lean left, if you value economics more then you will lean right. That's not to say that the right doesn't value social justice or the left doesn't value economics, its just priorities. The left wants to help people and worry about the money later. They are also willing to take a financial hit if it means helping more people. The right wants to help people but only after the money has been figured out. They are always willing to help fewer people if it means keeping the finances sustainable.

The left looks at teachers and sees a profession that is greatly benefiting society but whose pay is not reflective of that. The right looks at teachers and sees an inefficient system that has the potential to (and often does) reward mediocre teachers.

Some good old fashioned bi-partisanship would probably be great for the teaching profession. I would be all for reworking the promotion system so it rewards good teachers and gets rid of bad ones. As long as that came with an increased value being placed on teachers (in the form of better compensation). But alas, things are so polarized right now that I'm not sure that's possible.

I wonder how many other professions are viewed through a similar lens?

I think I might know of one

[mu_hilltopper]

It is appropriate to note for the out-of-WI-staters .. since 2010, there are no teachers union contracts.  They've been replaced by school district handbooks, written by entirely by school boards.

If a school wants to fire a teacher for any reason, they can.   Salaries and benefits are completely controlled by the district alone.  No step raises, no lane raises.  If they want to change insurance, reduce pensions, hire a new teacher at whatever rate they want to pay .. they can do that.

Wisconsin has a student revenue cap, which means districts can only spend X per year, and cannot raise (property) taxes beyond the annual limit increase -- which has been zero dollars in multiple years, forcing districts to cut, cut, cut due to inflation.  Teachers raises are minimal, and a 1% raise would be a whopper.   

* Sidenote ..  Wisconsin is now 3 weeks late on passing a budget, but currently, it surprisingly includes a $200/year increase in the per student revenue cap in year 1, $204 in year 2, which the GOP has lauded as a huge investment in education.  This amounts to a 1.28% increase, which is below the inflation rate, meaning districts need to continue to cut services, just not as much as usual.

[Spotcheck Billy]

In terms of raises, most jobs work very similarly, you get a raise each year of service provided that you perform the bare minimum your job requires.  You can then get promotions in addition to raises for actually performing above the bare minimum.  

I wish my employer even gave an annual review let alone an annual 1% cost of living increase.

[CTWarrior]

In terms of raises, most jobs work very similarly, you get a raise each year of service provided that you perform the bare minimum your job requires. 

That's now quite how it works where I work, and most places I am aware of.  A department is given a budget for annual raises.  The employees in that department are basically competing with each other for their share within that budget.  If you want to reward your top workers, you've got to penalize others.  Keep in mind that everyone is doing their job and at more than the bare minimum level, because if they are just functioning at the bare minimum, you normally put them on an improvement plan and if they don't improve you get someone else.  Unless they're drinking buddies with their boss or something, poor employees don't last. 

[MU Fan in Connecticut]

Kudos to your wife. I would say her experience is in the minority. Most teachers I know work around 10 hours a day between lesson planning, getting to school early to prepare, grading, communicating with parents, tutoring, and any extra duties that might be mandated for them. I'm sure it varies by geographic location.

I too know many salaried people who work more than our allotted 8 hours day but for the most part those are by choice. They can get their work done in 8 hours a day but choose to work longer in order to get ahead (or catch up because they were slacking off during their 8 hours as is the case with many I know). That usually isn't the case with teachers.

My wife is a teacher.  Three Masters Degrees.  First off it's more like 10 months instead of 9 months.  She is at school for 8 hours a day and she does spend off hours writing lesson plans, reviewing homework and tests, shopping for school supplies and reference books.  At tax time I always have to comment that she spent way way over the max IRS deduction.  I decline my work benefits and we are on her plan also but her plan is only marginally better than the manufacturing companies I've worked for.  When my kids were wearing braces we even switched Dental Insurance to my company because they actually covered a portion of orthodontic work. 

[jsglow]

I'm not surprised. As Rocket said, it comes down to your values. This is an oversimplification, but in my experience all political decisions can be classified as either social justice or economic. The left is usually most correct on social justice issues whereas the right is usually most correct on economic issues. If you value social justice more, you will lean left, if you value economics more then you will lean right. That's not to say that the right doesn't value social justice or the left doesn't value economics, its just priorities. The left wants to help people and worry about the money later. They are also willing to take a financial hit if it means helping more people. The right wants to help people but only after the money has been figured out. They are always willing to help fewer people if it means keeping the finances sustrightble.

The left looks at teachers and sees a profession that is greatly benefiting society but whose pay is not reflective of that. The right looks at teachers and sees an inefficient system that has the potential to (and often does) reward mediocre teachers.

Some good old fashioned bi-partisanship would probably be great for the teaching profession. I would be all for reworking the promotion system so it rewards good teachers and gets rid of bad ones. As long as that came with an increased value being placed on teachers (in the form of better compensation). But alas, things are so polarized right now that I'm not sure that's possible.



I think I might know of one

TAMU, that's a pretty big oversimplification.  I trust you admit that.  The difference come down to what folks think is the most effective way and what is best for society in the long run.  I know your paragraph tries to lay that out but it's unfair to paint a right wing person as 'not interested' in social justice just like it's unfair to paint a left wing person as not interested in fiscal limitations.

So back to education and Act 10 as it was brought up.  I suspect 90% or more of right leaning people supported that while 90% of left leaning folks opposed.

[MUBurrow]

I'm not surprised. As Rocket said, it comes down to your values. This is an oversimplification, but in my experience all political decisions can be classified as either social justice or economic. The left is usually most correct on social justice issues whereas the right is usually most correct on economic issues. If you value social justice more, you will lean left, if you value economics more then you will lean right. That's not to say that the right doesn't value social justice or the left doesn't value economics, its just priorities. The left wants to help people and worry about the money later. They are also willing to take a financial hit if it means helping more people. The right wants to help people but only after the money has been figured out. They are always willing to help fewer people if it means keeping the finances sustrightble.

Because its probably my biggest personal soapbox, I just want to jump in (and then right back out) to push back against this. The fact that democrats have permitted the "conservatives get the economy and liberals are bleeding hearts" narrative to be our controlling political narrative is the biggest single failure of the democratic party over the past 30 years, and we're all paying for it, evidenced by the parties' inability to agree on even low hanging fruit of socially and economically beneficial policy. Its lead to a total bastardization of what it means to be "conservative" or "liberal." As I'm typing this, I'm realizing that I'm in danger of expanding this into a thread-hijacking rant, but the traditionally liberal goal-based economic philosophy of being striving for a wealth bell curve is not inherently any less informed or less fiscally responsible than the traditionally conservative means-based economic philosophy of striving to create markets unaffected by regulatory forces.

[jsglow]

Because its probably my biggest personal soapbox, I just want to jump in (and then right back out) to push back against this. The fact that democrats have permitted the "conservatives get the economy and liberals are bleeding hearts" narrative to be our controlling political narrative is the biggest single failure of the democratic party over the past 30 years, and we're all paying for it, evidenced by the parties' inability to agree on even low hanging fruit of socially and economically beneficial policy. Its lead to a total bastardization of what it means to be "conservative" or "liberal." As I'm typing this, I'm realizing that I'm in danger of expanding this into a thread-hijacking rant, but the traditionally liberal goal-based economic philosophy of being striving for a wealth bell curve is not inherently any less informed or less fiscally responsible than the traditionally conservative means-based economic philosophy of striving to create markets unaffected by regulatory forces.

Took me a couple of tries to find a smaller pic! Any time he landed in Chicago we'd put up the tire spikes around Hyde Park.

[mu03eng]

Babysitters make way more per kid per hour compared to teachers. And people expect teachers to, you know, teach. And get their kids into Harvard.

But then complain that they make too much.

[TAMU, Knower of Ball]

TAMU, that's a pretty big oversimplification.  I trust you admit that.  The difference come down to what folks think is the most effective way and what is best for society in the long run.  I know your paragraph tries to lay that out but it's unfair to paint a right wing person as 'not interested' in social justice just like it's unfair to paint a left wing person as not interested in fiscal limitations.

As I said in my post it was an oversimplification and it was "in my experience" which probably should have been "in my opinion." I also never said that the right wasnt interested in social justice or the the left wasnt interested in fiscal matters. Its just a matter of priorities. We all want the best for our people and our country,  we just disagree on how to get there.

What's the old adage?  Old democrats have no brains and young republicans have no heart.

[TAMU, Knower of Ball]

Because its probably my biggest personal soapbox, I just want to jump in (and then right back out) to push back against this. The fact that democrats have permitted the "conservatives get the economy and liberals are bleeding hearts" narrative to be our controlling political narrative is the biggest single failure of the democratic party over the past 30 years, and we're all paying for it, evidenced by the parties' inability to agree on even low hanging fruit of socially and economically beneficial policy. Its lead to a total bastardization of what it means to be "conservative" or "liberal." As I'm typing this, I'm realizing that I'm in danger of expanding this into a thread-hijacking rant, but the traditionally liberal goal-based economic philosophy of being striving for a wealth bell curve is not inherently any less informed or less fiscally responsible than the traditionally conservative means-based economic philosophy of striving to create markets unaffected by regulatory forces.

I didn't mean to suggest that the left is ill informed on economics. They aren't. But what I've observed is that the left wins over more people with their social justice platform and the right wins over more people with their economic platform.

[forgetful]

That's now quite how it works where I work, and most places I am aware of.  A department is given a budget for annual raises.  The employees in that department are basically competing with each other for their share within that budget.  If you want to reward your top workers, you've got to penalize others.  Keep in mind that everyone is doing their job and at more than the bare minimum level, because if they are just functioning at the bare minimum, you normally put them on an improvement plan and if they don't improve you get someone else.  Unless they're drinking buddies with their boss or something, poor employees don't last.

That is exactly how it works in many/most educational institutions in this nation also.  Slightly modified in some, because defining a department in some educational levels is more complicated.  The annual raises are far less common in academia/education (see WI), just as they are becoming less common in all industries.  The trends in how raises work has evolved similarly in all disciplines. 

Even those that are called "bad teachers" are actually working at well above the bare minimum level too, and those that are at the bare minimum level also get put on improvement plans, and if they do not perform, they also will usually get removed. 

In some cases they can't be removed, but often not for the reasons people like to think.  Bottom line is there are not enough teachers, if you fire one for being at bare-minimum level, there is no guarantee you are able to hire someone of equal quality, because the salaries are too low to create a lot of supply.  You want better teachers, and an improved ability to fire poorer teachers to find better ones, increase the salaries substantially.

I would argue that there at least equal numbers of completely incompetent people in every field that are not fired.  Doctors, lawyers, CEOs...the business community is saturated with them, service industry...but for some reason people fixate on the teachers, because they have this strange idea that they pay their salary.

News flash, you are paying the salaries of every type of employee in this nation regardless of industry.

[jsglow]

As I said in my post it was an oversimplification and it was "in my experience" which probably should have been "in my opinion." I also never said that the right wasnt interested in social justice or the the left wasnt interested in fiscal matters. Its just a matter of priorities. We all want the best for our people and our country,  we just disagree on how to get there.

What's the old adage?  Old democrats have no brains and young republicans have no heart.

I think I missing you my friend.  It's not one priority vs. the other driving this.  Let me try to explain a right leaning position on social justice as an example.  The right leaner will say that the Great Society programs of the 60s actually caused much of the social unrest and disfunction in the minority community.  Let's not argue the merits of that position.  But let's agree that holding that position passionately is an equivalently 'committed' social justice position as a person who holds a different viewpoint.  We agree that both sides see different methods.  But I don't think that one side is more committed to one vs. the other.

[jsglow]

I didn't mean to suggest that the left is ill informed on economics. They aren't. But what I've observed is that the left wins over more people with their social justice platform and the right wins over more people with their economic platform.

Yes.  Agreed.

[Pakuni]

I think I missing you my friend.  It's not one priority vs. the other driving this.  Let me try to explain a right leaning position on social justice as an example.  The right leaner will say that the Great Society programs of the 60s actually caused much of the social unrest and disfunction in the minority community.  Let's not argue the merits of that position.  But let's agree that holding that position passionately is an equivalently 'committed' social justice position as a person who holds a different viewpoint.  We agree that both sides see different methods.  But I don't think that one side is more committed to one vs. the other.

I'm going to disagree a bit.
Simply arguing that the Great Society programs of the 60s were counterproductive (and I also can happily skip debating the merits of that) is not being committed to social justice. It's being committed to opposing the Great Society programs.
However, holding that position while also offering/advocating/supporting alternative solutions could be a sign of commitment.
It's akin to arguing that members of the GOP eager to repeal Obamacare are in favor expanding healthcare coverage because they oppose Obamacare.