jmsmith314

As a current teacher, I thought I would get in a reply before this entire thread was finished.

First, the entire pay vs. work thing. I think it's pretty much been covered. Some places teachers are paid very well, but most places they are consistently below the national median. Teachers are especially underpaid when compared with others of a similar educational background. Private school teachers tend to make LESS money, not more money than public school teachers (in the United States). This is generally because private schools have less money. However, most teachers are not in it for the money. They really can't be. I myself am a physics teacher with a solid math/physics background. I don't suspect...I KNOW that I would make more money in other fields. I like teaching too much to leave it though.

Teaching is a profession of very long vacations combined with very long work days. Rookie teachers especially need to work very long days just to keep up, which may be why so many leave the profession. Even the veterans have their 2 a.m. days. And unlike most professions, don't show up to work tired.

If you work in an office and are feeling like you need a break, you can pretty much take the break. You can get a drink of water, clear your head, and come back to work. In fact, a good office will realize that occasional breaks of this kind make their workers more efficient. Try doing that in the middle of first period. "Hey, guys. I'm tired. I didn't sleep much last night because I was grading your papers." Try even taking a deep breath for thirty seconds.

The other unfair thing is the student teaching. I am switching over to the public schools right now, so I get the joy of student teaching this fall. Now, here's the kicker: I PAY A UNIVERSITY FOR THE OPPORTUNITY TO WORK FOR A PUBLIC MIDDLE SCHOOL. The school does not pay me. The University gives me very little financial aid. In fact, the school has an official policy against me working anywhere else during the school year. I do not kid you. After I get out, I will have both master's level and the rest of my bachelor's level loans to pay back (including the hefty loan I took out for the student teaching semester). I will be doing that on a teacher's salary.

That's it. I hope I didn't whine too much.

paul30

I am a teacher, and I have held other jobs before that. The other jobs paid better and were easier, but I like teaching better.

A couple of thoughts.

First, abolish or greatly reduce Education Schools. You learn to teach not by going to Education Schools or taking Education courses, but by teaching. Train teachers EXCLUSIVELY by apprenticeship.

(The Educations courses I had to take were the worst imaginable. They made me not a better but a worse teacher. This is because they were taught by professors who apparently had never met a kid. They were full of pointless and inapplicable theory, and they were totally hierarchical in structure. They were difficult just to be difficult: as though you were forced to memorize pages of the phone book. It would be hard but useless. The profs did not seem to know that the sine qua non of teaching is to establish a rapport with the students--approach them where THEY are, not where you are.)

Second, the actual education system in the US is not the schools. It is television. Television is extraordinarily effective. It renders people passive and helpless and anxious and misguided. To counter this, parents must be heavily involved and must restrict television.

This second point is the ultimate in heresy, but it is true.

I gave up my own TV years ago, and my IQ took a thirty point bounce, and my life became much more tranquil and happier.

Third (sort of a corollary to number one), hire people who have not always been teachers. Lifetime teachers are sometimes not the best teachers. Very often, the best teachers are those who have held jobs in the "real" world first, and (a) know how to treat everyone--including students--with respect, and (b) can see beyond the classroom to where it is all leading, and hence judge what is truly important.

Kat_Somm_Faen

Hmmm can one become a teacher by having just a normal degree with not "education degree" or whatever? Asking the teachers of course

paul30

Can you be a teacher without an Education Degree or at least Education courses?

The short answer: it depends.

It depends on where you live and what state requirements are, and whether you are in public or private schools.

I live in Georgia, and unfortunately the State Department which issues Teaching Licences has been handed over completely to the Education Departments of the universities.

This is like handing over control of the banks to the mafia.

The Education Schools are not interested in turning out better teachers, but only in making teachers take more and more (and MORE) Education courses, which they do.

It would be far cheaper for the state and far more beneficial to students, just to abolish Education Schools, pension off Education professors, and train teachers by apprenticeship.

The just-previous Governor in GA set up a Teach for Georgia program whereby people with a degree in a real subject (that is, not education), like math or science, or with lots of experience in something, could teach without jumping through the Education School hoops.

Check it out where you live.

jmsmith314

So I'm going to disagree about the education school thing-somewhat.

I have heard that some education schools are really bad. No doubt, many teachers find themselves at those kinds of schools. I personally started teaching in a private school with no education background at a school with a very strong mentoring/apprenticeship program. It was quite effective.

I can't see how anyone could survive in a school as a new teacher without any support at all though-something that unfortunately happens to many teachers who go through "alternative licensure programs". Look at the problems that Teach for America Teachers have, for instance. To anyone looking to become a teacher without going to ed. school, my recommendation would be to find a private school with a lot of support. Private schools go by the philosophy of "Know your content. Want to teach. We will teach you how to teach."

However, I have come down to take some courses at one of the better education schools in the country since then. Far from not understanding children, most of my professors get frequent contact with children. Most were experienced teachers themselves. Most of what they teach about education is research based, and they encourage us to take a similar approach. "Where is the data to back up your idea that this method is working?" is a frequent question. The theory/apprenticheship mix has also allowed me to organize what was basically a jumble of techniques I learned in the private schools.

My apprenticeship in a private school worked, but the theory/apprenticeship combination I have at an education school is working out well too. I wouldn't say get rid of education schools-just get rid of the bad ones.

HaysooChreesto!

Are teachers our best asset? No, no, and no.
The best asset in developing kids who want to learn, do well in school and become responsible and productive citizens are parents.

If a parent cares enough to teach their child basic reading and math skills before they ever get to school, if they help their child with homework, if they're involved with what's going on their kid's life, basically if they care then their child will far more than likely do fine in school and life in general.

What's any teacher supposed to do with a kid who doesn't give a damn? That kid doesn't care because his parents don't or didn't start caring until it was too late. A high school teacher who sees each student for approximately one hour each day can't be expected to somehow mold an apathetic or disruptive teen into a responsible and productive person. It's impossible.

Paying teachers more isn't going to get results. Throwing bucketloads of money at a symptom is hopeless. The problem isn't low wages for teachers. The problem is apathetic parents who send their kids to school with the idea that it's a free babysitting institution. They take no responsibility or interest in their child's education.

Values need to be taught to kids from a very young age. That's right, I said values. The concepts of hard work, responsibility, and empathy. From high school on every kid should have to take child raising and parenting courses every semester of every year. They need to learn that they have responsibilities to themselves and society at large. I could go on and on. It would take some money to develop a project like that but the emphasis is on a shift in philosophy which will in the long run be much cheaper and get better results.

IMO, this would lead kids having a better sense of themselves and others so that maybe the next generation of kids will have parents who better understand what it takes to raise a child responsibly.

Over the last 25 years in California, spending for public education has increased by over 300% yet our children's grades are getting worse and worse. So why would the solution be to throw even more money at the situation? What will happen when teachers are being paid what they believe they should be paid (however much that may be) and the results keep getting worse? Will pay cuts happen? Of course not. Then we'll be stuck with even more debt and more irresponsble and listless kids.

Majestyk

I know someone who left teaching for two reasons. The Bureaucracy and the Parents. The bureaucrats imposed regulations on the teacher in order to protect themselves from legal actions by the parents. The Parents are apathetic towards their children�s education until a teacher admonishes their children in attempt to maintain order in the classroom.

She loves teaching but hated being a Teacher in the Public School system.

One other thing: She also stated that part of the disparity between public and private school salaries was due to the decreased level of stress resulting from teaching to a student body that can be purged of disruptive students. Private schools can pay less because their environment has value.

The lack of compensation for teachers is not monetary. It�s the lack of respect that the profession gets that is the problem. Beyond the occasional lip service paid, there is none.

I�ve seen two proposals here that have merit: *edit* Lamma raises some good points that I did not see until after posting.

One being the OP where, debts, incurred for educational expenses, are forgiven upon a 6(5) year teaching commitment.

The other being, an apprenticed program for people from the private sector to enter the profession. I like this because it serves on many levels. It brings in real world experience. It acknowledges the value of teachers. And it can help ease the daily burden of the existing teaching staff which will result in a better educational experience for the students.

The only thing that I�d add is that every classroom should be monitored, recorded, and made available for parents to view live via web access.

LeftCoast

Yes, parental involvement is important, but without good teachers parental involvement can only do so much. Given the current climate where most families require two incomes just to maintain a decent standard of living, kids are spending more time with teachers M-F than their parents. Do you really want your children spending that much time with sub-standard teachers?

And those kids who are not lucky enough to have such devoted parents? We just abandon them and perpetuate the problem?

That's why good teachers are needed at every grade level. Yes, some cannot be salvaged, but many can.

Again, so what do we do? Do we abandon those children unfortunate enough to be born to parents who do not have the inclination or because of their sub-standard education cannot, or simply don't have the time to help their children?

Ah a classic unsubstantiated assertion! Just how have you determined that this philosophical shift will in fact be cheaper? And even if it will be, without more and better teachers, just how are we going to impart this philosophical shift? In the long-run it might be cheaper but in the short run it'll be damned expensive.

Your prescription here seems to be at odds with your assertion above that a high-school teacher cannot be expected to "mold an apathetic or disruptive teen�" Which is it going to be?

And this is supposed to happen how? By magic?

Hate to call "Bullshit", Lamma, but "Bullshit". It took me exactly 20 seconds to find the data that shows that public spending per pupil, the critical number, has not gone up anywhere near 300% and in fact has failed even to keep up with the national average.

You can look here and specifically at this chart


California has lost ground over the last 25 years on a per-capita basis, total spending may have increased by 300%, but the number of students in school has gone up even more.

Schools should be well funded and teachers should be encouraged and supported. I find it repulsive how the right-wing in this country have spent the last 40 years denigrating teachers and consistently resisting any increases in teachers compensation and are not "shocked, shocked I tell you" that it is hard to find a sufficient number of quality people to get into the profession.

ohwilleke

On how we train teachers I'm definitely in accord. Our education schools are dismal failures that create disincentives for people who are good at academics to get involved.

I also disagree with the hours per day comparaison. Most non-teachers work 8-5, not 9-5, and most people in the professional occupations to which teachers typically compare themselves work longer hours than that. And, while there are dedicated and rookie teachers who work ten hour days (there is a lot of effort that goes into a first set of lesson plans from scratch, which after several years in the process turns into an annual but not complete overhaul), there are also plent of teachers who work the same 8-9 hours days as most workers (typically six hours at school and two or three hours of preperation and grading and extracurricular supervision).

Now, keep in mind that private sector people work typically about 245 days (two weeks vacation and about five paid holidays in a 52 week year with weekends off). So the 190/245 day comparison implies teachers work roughly 75-80% of the time that a typical worker does.

Many teachers teach summer school or get another job during the summer increasing their pay. Many other teachers have children of their own whom they can supervise during the summer and after school without having to quit their jobs or get day care.

Could teachers be paid more? Yes. But the disparity is not quite as gross as it seems when you are just comparing annual salaries. But limits on entry to the profession are in my opinion a bigger quality problem than pay.

Many people don't want to spend a third of their time in college taking education classes. While there are some committed people who know at age 18 that they want to be teachers, the pool would be much stronger if it were easier for liberal arts graduates who suddenly realize that jobs that use the specific knowledge acquired with a BA in History or English or Political Science are scarce to get jobs teaching in K-12 (and especially grades 7-12 which are more subject knowledge oriented).

There are also plenty of laid off tech boomers who have math and science skills sufficient to teach in Jr. High and HS who lack the appropriate credentials but would make great teachers.

paul30

This is a fantastic thread.

Even people who disagree have points worth considering.

Let me add two more.

First, the overuse of college. Today in the US there is a premium--almost an obligation--on going to college.

But this is not such a good idea. It is largely the result of how bad our high schools have become. Colleges now teach subjects and teach at a level that I got when I was in high school.

So high school learning should be beefed up--and should be targeted toward more real-world occupations. (This is not to say high schoolers should be left ignorant of history and basic scientific theory and languages and how to write clear English just because they elect not to go on to college.)

Only about 25% of the population are really motivated enough and intellectually equipped enough to go to college.

We should steer more people toward vo tech schools and other kinds of training.

Second: how about a DE-EMPHASIS ON ATHLETICS?

Talk about heresy.

There are two actual religions in the US: Capitalism and Sports. So I know I will come in for criticism.

Still, I think sports could be left to other institutions--the YMCA, local leagues, and so on.

Stress on sports in schools is not merely a distraction, it has harmful social effects. It teaches mindless competition, and mindless loyalty to one's "side"--and these tend to make people blind supporters of jingoistic militarism, of the Bush/Cheney sort.

Thoughts?