HaysooChreesto!

Left Coast, you seemed to somewhat of missed the point of my post and that is one of systematically teaching children personal responsibility. I also stated that to implement a program like this would indeed cost money up front but would pay dividends in the long run. Not by magic, but through an education that gives students real world tools with which to work with and expand upon as they mature.

I see my kids come home every day with heavy academic workloads, much of which contains things they will never use in the real world. My 13 year old was assigned a three week project in one of her classes on oriental food. What the hell is that about? What good can that possibly do her at any time in her life? There have other useless projects but that one was among the worst.
I would rather that time have been spent on the consequences of teen pregnancy or some other issue that is very real to her and her friends.

And what of two income households? How does that absolve a parent from doing what needs to be done in regards to their children? No one made them have a child. It wasn't required by the state. They made a decision to have sex and then have the child when the act resulted in pregnancy. They had other options like the pill and even abortion if they couldn't afford to raise a child. So the onus is on them to do what it takes to help their child.
"I'm too tired from work to help my child so he/she will understand and do better on their own". Or is it, "We have a two income household so it's someone elses responsibility to make sure my kid is doing what they're supposed to be doing"? That's insane.

On a personal anecdote, one of my best friends is a high school English teacher. A significant portion of my opinion on this matter is based on her similar belief that more than anything else a parent is ultimately responsible for their child's study habits and work ethic.
Her A students overwhelmingly have involved parents. They're the ones who attend parent-teacher functions and open house nights. They're the ones who ask the questions and show concern for the curriculum. And those A students get A's even when they have a crappy teacher in a class or two.

I'm not trying to say that a good teacher can't make a difference because they can sometimes. But a solid student isn't going to be made or broken by one good or bad egg. Conversely, an apathetic student isn't somehow going to see the light and become class validictorian because of one outstanding teacher.
Once again, if a kid has the tools and knows how to use them, they will. If not then they won't.

I just can't see how raising teacher's salaries is going to help anything. You'd still have bad teachers except they'd be getting paid more money.
How much money would it take to start recruiting people into lucrative teaching positions? And how much is lucrative? How much would it cost to develop assessment standards? How loud would the teachers union howl about that?
Those questions are the tip of the iceberg and the costs associated with the above would be astronomical.

And with all that money spent, at the end of the day we'd still have students with apathetic parents who would likely grow up and be the exact same way. Without a real sense of personal responsibility.

My thinking on this holds no malice towards teachers. It is critical first of irresponsible parents and second towards those who think that a nose job can fix a cold.

MrFurious76

A good student who has a crappy teacher LEARNS ON THEIR OWN thanks to the work ethic taught to them by those responsible for them, you know...PARENTS. The lack of responsibility for your offspring in this country just sickens me. You want your kids to have better test scores? Work with them. To blame teachers is simply ludicrous. A teacher has NO WAY to make a child who doesn't want to work, work. That is the parents responsibility. I did not go to school for a babysitter, I went to school to learn. I've had plenty of bad teachers, and pretty much taught myself when I had them. They wouldn't assign things but I knew if I wanted to learn something I should read extra. Good students almost universally have good parents. My fiance is a teacher and she echoes a previous posters sentiments on that. Good students have good parents the majority of the time. You get an occasional rogue genius with crappy parents, or a punk with good parents who want them to learn.

I see this in my profession as well (addictions counselor). I have not once run into a kid who had parents active in their lives concerned about their well being until it was too late. I know theres children out there who take the wrong path regardless of what their parents do, but with over 120 clients I haven't found one yet. WORK WITH YOUR KIDS OR DON"T HAVE ANY! :P

Sci_Fidelity

This is total horse pucky. My wife has a master's in teaching and is making 40K and that is typical for someone in her position. And the argument that teachers work 180 days a year is also false. She is currently setting up her clasroom and preparing lessons for the coming year. Do people honestly think a teacher just walks into the building the first day of school and starts teaching? She works more hours than I do.

ohwilleke

There are some good reasons for sports. First, it and other extracurriculas often provide an incentive to keep kids who otherwise might not care in school.

Second, almost all public schools are funded in substantial part by local communities whose voters must approve school funding. To make that work, schools have to offer something back to their communities. Sports is the venue by which schools give communities heros to root for and an emotional connection with the schools that pays off at election time. It is one of the few ways the schools can remind people without kids that they exist and build emotional ties to them. It isn't just about the kids. College sports hvae much the same purpose for a larger statewide community and for alumni. The mindless loyalty to "ones side" is aimed as much at voters as it is at students.

Graeme

Also, given the current state of the average American's health, I'd think that the costs to society of rampant heart disease, etc. should be mitigated at every opportunity.

Happy Wonderer

I don't think that teachers of grades 1-3 can possibly be paid too much. When my sister was waxing rhapsodical about teaching that age range, my Mom (who taught a wide range of ages over her career) said 'well, if you really want to teach the babies, let me show you some good techniques for removing vomit from your clothes.'

Everyone knows that raising kids is tough. Try raising 15-20 of somebody else's kids.

hw

(My Mom liked teaching 5-6 and middle school. She was rarely home before 7:00pm and would spend much of the evenings grading or calling parents. The vacation is nice, but keep in mind that there are often teacher workshops in the summer time, so it isn't all time off.

Parents; realize that often what is being taught isn't the subject itself, but how to learn. It may seem silly that a kid writes a report on the "history of Chinese food" but the important skills being taught are how to research, how to write a report, how to keep to a schedule, and in general how to stay on task. Important skills, no?)

nermal

Sounds reasonable. I obviously didn't factor in some of the extracarricular time teachers spend. Let's redo the math.

(31K/190days)*241 days gives about 39K equivalent. Ok. Teachers still aren't underpaid.

This doesn't include the benefits packages teachers get which are much better than what you are likely to find in the private sector.
Yeah, they work more than 7 hours a day. Sometimes they even work long days and real hard too. Welcome to adulthood. Many degreed professionals work long hours as well. That's why they invented the salaried employee.

They often have to intern for squat wages during college. The curriculum at my local college credits student teaching as part of the degree track for ed majors, so it's part of the 4 year degree. The comparison is reasonable.
Who said it was cushy? Not me. It's a tough job that pays fair wages. Most professional positions would fit such a description. My point is that teachers don't have it any worse than anyone else, they just bitch louder. I believe that's part of the shortage issue, though I think the shortage is overblown as well. There are a few factors involved:

1. People believe teachers are underpaid, when they are not.

2. Horror stories of beaurocratic nightmares abound, which are likely true.

3. An education degree is difficult to translate into another occupation if you don't like teaching, so by persuing a teaching profession you may be painting yourself into a corner.

4. The avenues for degreed professionals to become teachers are difficult and time consuming for someone likely to take a pay cut (x years as an engineer vs. starting teaching wages.) A local 4 year college requires 40 hours of study to apply a degree to teaching. That's a second major, and it's simply not doable.
Every Job has baggage--teaching isn't unique. As I said, they just bitch louder.

Ed

nermal

What's her master's in? Compared with others with master's degrees in a humanities discipline, 40K is probably about right.
Should a master's be a guarantee of 100K? I knew a motorcycle mechanic who had a master's in physics. He didn't make 40K. So unfair.

Ed

Sci_Fidelity

What the hell did I just say? Her master's IS IN TEACHING. Please read carefully before posting. Who the hell said 100K? how about 50K?

And the mechanic is working outside of his field. 40K for a master's and years of experience for someone working in their field of education is ridiculous. I have only a bachelor's and I make nearly 70K. Yes, it's a science degree, but that's not the point.

Your assertion that teachers in general are paid fairly is nothing more than that- an assertion. Their salaries do not compare favorably with people in other fields with similar education.

nermal

Sorry, is that M.s.T.? How many different master's in teaching are there? I can think of a few. Point is, contrary to your assertions, people with master's degrees in the humanities simply aren't that hightly paid. 40K is pretty good. Tell your woes to all those with master's in art and literature working for 3.00 + tips.

Of course he's working outside his field! He couldn't get work in his field. That's the damn point.

No, it's not. I gave examples of their salaries, not including their much better than average benefits package. That's called supporting one's assertion, and a sufficient rebuttal is called for. Show me that people with humanities degrees are doing significantly better than teachers, or concede the point.

Ed