Education Reform........

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by rowech

Most research says that 33-50% of teachers are out of the profession within the first five years they teach.

Considering that (as of a few years back at least) the major is the state university system of Georgia with the highest percentage of students in remedial studies was {drum roll} education, I'm not going to mourn the absence of a lot of those teachers.

is it not better to have a body in the classroom than nobody at all?

Actually one of the rare things that gave me a slight hope for slight improvement was reading just last week about the continuation of an electronic campus here in Georgia. Results from the first couple of years were mixed but the prospect of being able to reduce the number of buildings needed + the ability to essentially job share teachers (there's actually two different programs run by different groups doing this) from around the state
seemed to have definite positive potential.

Yeah, I know that's not what you meant, but that's what it made me think of.

[rowech]

Originally Posted by Edward64

Sunday editorial I read today on Charter schools. I would have thought Charter schools would perform better than PS schools but maybe not ... can anyone with more knowledge comment on the validity of the study?
Report casts doubt on charter schools 071209 - The Columbia County News-Times

I don't know about that particular study but in most of the studies done, charter schools are a waste of money. I'm one of the few teachers who supported their use but the more time they are given, the less value they are showing to have.

[wade moore]

I jump into these discussions as a general rule as my wife is a teacher and I find a lot of these discussions interesting.

I think that molson is being far too harsh, at least from my experience, about the number of poor teachers there are. That being said, I agree with his general premise - that there needs to be a better system of evaluation of teachers that includes the ability to remove poor teachers.

The problem becomes - how do you evaluate that? I've had many a lengthy discussion with my wife and I'm not sure the answer - so I'd be curious as to what molson thinks. How do you evaluate teachers?

[King of New York]

Originally Posted by wade moore

I jump into these discussions as a general rule as my wife is a teacher and I find a lot of these discussions interesting.

I think that molson is being far too harsh, at least from my experience, about the number of poor teachers there are. That being said, I agree with his general premise - that there needs to be a better system of evaluation of teachers that includes the ability to remove poor teachers.

The problem becomes - how do you evaluate that? I've had many a lengthy discussion with my wife and I'm not sure the answer - so I'd be curious as to what molson thinks. How do you evaluate teachers?

I think you have to use a combination of evaluative methods--each one of them may be flawed, but if they all point in the same direction, then you can be fairly confident that you are getting accurate feedback. We should use:

1) Parent and student evaluations. By themselves, they do not tell you everything that you want to know. Those who get low grades tend to give their teachers low grades; some parents and students are apathetic and/or dumb as sticks. So you also need

2) Classroom evaluations by administrators and good teachers from outside the school. Those do not tell you everything that you want to know either, because teachers have a tendency to rate the quality of their peers according to how closely those peers' teaching methods resemble their own. So you also want to look at

3) How students score on standardized tests. Those scores need to be part of the mix, but because those scores tend to reflect the child's innate ability and home environment far more than what any teacher has taught him or her, they do not tell you that much by themselves.

[wade moore]

Originally Posted by King of New York

2) Classroom evaluations by administrators and good teachers from outside the school. Those do not tell you everything that you want to know either, because teachers have a tendency to rate the quality of their peers according to how closely those peers' teaching methods resemble their own. So you also want to look at

Hmm.. I've never heard the peer evaluation mentioned - and I like it. I think one of the big concerns with administrators evaluating is that as bad as some teachers are, many administrators are very out of touch with current teach practices.

My concern with evaluations, though, is do we really get a real picture of how a teacher teaches? As evaluations go now they're scheduled, formal, etc. Teacher has time to get their ducks in a row - and I know for sure of teachers that are TOTALLY different when they are being evaluated.

Ok, so you do it impromptu, does that work? The teacher is stressed out, they still teach differently because someone is in the room, they just may be caught unprepared and show they don't plan ahead with nice plans, etc.

I've suggested that there needs to be a "secret" way of monitoring. I am a Help Desk Manager by career. When I've managed larger Help Desks, we could remotely monitor Help Desk calls without the technician knowing. This gave the truest sense of how they really work.

I would, seriously, advocate hidden cameras. Even if it is one camera that you move around in off-hours, etc. My wife goes nuts when I suggest this - but I'm not sure how else and administrator gets a true picture.

[rowech]

There is no way a union would ever allow hidden cameras. Ever. They mostly won't even allow unannounced evaluations. Quite simply, you have to stick with what is currently done...administrators doing the work. Your boss evaluates you. That's just the way business works.

Peer evaluation won't work because of time needed to actually conduct the process.

Outside evaluators is really the only real solution that deviates from what is currently done.

[wade moore]

Originally Posted by rowech

There is no way a union would ever allow hidden cameras. Ever. They mostly won't even allow unannounced evaluations. Quite simply, you have to stick with what is currently done...administrators doing the work. Your boss evaluates you. That's just the way business works.

Peer evaluation won't work because of time needed to actually conduct the process.

Outside evaluators is really the only real solution that deviates from what is currently done.

Well, Virginia doesn't have a teacher's union.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by rowech

I agree that it's no different that any other professional job. However, it's never seen that way. You don't really believe that based upon some of the things you said in your previous post.

Your comment about people seeing out to teachers being easily able to accomplish it. Do they get their degree? Yes. Do they stay in teaching? No. Most research says that 33-50% of teachers are out of the profession within the first five years they teach. So while you say people easily get the degree (and I agree because education classes are a joke) the truth is that people don't see that part of things.

You will get no argument from me about cutting crappy teachers loose. I'd love nothing more to see some of the teachers in this country say good-bye. Then who are you going to replace them with? Say you have a crappy math teacher and you are in a below-average district...is it not better to have a body in the classroom than nobody at all?

Do you know what grades that statistic is for? I do know that a lot of people teach in college as a stop-gap before moving on to more prestiguous careers. My brother is teaching chemistry classes at a major university but is only doing so because it helps him get his phd. So would he count as leaving the profession within the first 5 years? Because a lot of people do that.

[wade moore]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

Do you know what grades that statistic is for? I do know that a lot of people teach in college as a stop-gap before moving on to more prestiguous careers. My brother is teaching chemistry classes at a major university but is only doing so because it helps him get his phd. So would he count as leaving the profession within the first 5 years? Because a lot of people do that.

I would assume, based on previous stats I've seen, that it is based on K-12.

[RainMaker]

I think most teachers are compensated more than fairly. They receive a fair salary for working 9 months out of the year. They are given extended breaks during all holidays, health benefits, as well as a pension in some cases. I know teachers in the North Suburbs of Chicago can get over $50,000 a year in pension once they retire. When you factor that into time actually worked, they are getting paid quite well.

It's not a knock on teachers as their jobs are important. But unfortunately, the standards aren't particularly high. These are typically not people who majored in very difficult stuff in college and are not held under the same microscope as other professions.

[wade moore]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

I think most teachers are compensated more than fairly. They receive a fair salary for working 9 months out of the year. They are given extended breaks during all holidays, health benefits, as well as a pension in some cases. I know teachers in the North Suburbs of Chicago can get over $50,000 a year in pension once they retire. When you factor that into time actually worked, they are getting paid quite well.

It's not a knock on teachers as their jobs are important. But unfortunately, the standards aren't particularly high. These are typically not people who majored in very difficult stuff in college and are not held under the same microscope as other professions.

It's pretty simple to me, as others have put it. If teachers are compensated well, then why are very few of the "best and brightest" teaching? Sure, they are compensated "ok". But if you really want good teachers, the compensation is not nearly enough.

[gstelmack]

My dad used to mow lawns during the summer to help fill in the salary gaps. And I can promise you he worked a lot more than 40 hrs/week during the school year.

[sterlingice]

Originally Posted by rowech

There is no way a union would ever allow hidden cameras. Ever. They mostly won't even allow unannounced evaluations. Quite simply, you have to stick with what is currently done...administrators doing the work. Your boss evaluates you. That's just the way business works.

Peer evaluation won't work because of time needed to actually conduct the process.

Outside evaluators is really the only real solution that deviates from what is currently done.

Seriously, tho- who else has a hidden camera to evaluate their job? I guess if we knew, it wouldn't be hidden, but you know what I mean. Sure, there are security cameras all around the building I'm in, but they are for the purposes of protecting the equipment and people, not doing job evaluations. Who on this board that isn't a police officer (and those are basically for the purpose of "who watches the watchmen") has cameras evaluating what they do?

SI

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by wade moore

Well, Virginia doesn't have a teacher's union.

For which the general population of Virginia should get down on their knees and thank God for on a regular basis.

[AENeuman]

Originally Posted by molson

I think most teachers are overpaid, though if it were easy to fire teachers to bring in more talented ones, I'd be all for raising their salaries.

I think the reason it is so popular to say teachers are overpaid, bad ones should be fired, etc, is the traditional methods of dealing with incompetence is not available: competition and suing.

typically we have a choice in our products and services. k-12 public edu does not give parents much choice. The other weapon used, particularly with professional services is the threat of being sued for incompetent work, also not an option.

one big problem, besides unions, is the lack of universally accepted expectations. many parents do not care, or really want there child to be college ready. they certainly do not want to see it as being their responsibility too.

finally, if we live in an economy where most people will be working retail, why should k-12 be judged on how well they prepare students for college?

i think the absolute lack of any rigor required in community colleges (basically turning it into 13th grade) has done just as much damage as poor k-12 teachers. cc colleges are great ways to teach vocations and provide a cheaper alternative to 4 year schools. however, they have become re-education institutions for the lazy and bored, and they seem to be fine with that. btw, i teach at a community college program for high school students.

[wade moore]

Originally Posted by sterlingice

Seriously, tho- who else has a hidden camera to evaluate their job? I guess if we knew, it wouldn't be hidden, but you know what I mean. Sure, there are security cameras all around the building I'm in, but they are for the purposes of protecting the equipment and people, not doing job evaluations. Who on this board that isn't a police officer (and those are basically for the purpose of "who watches the watchmen") has cameras evaluating what they do?

SI

Well, I gave a specific example where I have seen remote monitoring of employees for evaluation.

Every time you hear a "your call may be recorded" message this is what is happening. The only difference here is it includes video.

[wade moore]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

For which the general population of Virginia should get down on their knees and thank God for on a regular basis.

That's the impression that I get. I'm not sure, to be honest, exactly what concessions these unions are able to achieve in other states - but it seems that the Teacher Lobby still has a fair amount of influence.

[panerd]

To address the recent topics in this thread I wish more teachers would be open and honest like the teachers are willing to be on this board. We know who the great teachers and really shitty teachers are at our schools and the NEA is doing nothing to reward the good ones or not block getting rid of the bad ones. I attribute most of this to how a typical union is set-up. The guys that are in the high offices and doing the negotiating are life time teachers either close to the end of their careers or at least 15-20 years in. So they don’t see a problem with their peers and friends making $80,000 to ride out a paycheck while a ten year teacher circles around them for $30,000 less. (or even worse a 1st year teacher is getting paid a quarter the salary and often obtaining similar results.)

I am not sure what the solution is but it just isn’t right. There is always going to be a negative to any proposal but not to even consider some of them? I am tired of the direction NCLB is leading public schools and equally as sick about the NEA’s indifference to that destruction.

The government/school boards across the country agree to turn their back on incentive/merit pay while the union agrees to put up with NCLB whose end result sadly is going to leave a lot of talented and smart students behind of where they should be. The schools cater and spend a completely disproportionate amount of money towards the families that don’t attempt to raise their kids and away from the parents who do raise their kids but want us to challenge them in ways they can’t. A dad might want his son to take geometry to a level that he never could achieve and the school district instead will teach all the kids rote computational skills because some of the subgroups won’t do well on the state tests and a little more practice can’t hurt anyone. Can you imagine if we applied this same logic to any other field?

[AZSpeechCoach]

I'm not really interested in getting into a huge debate tonight (despite my choice of occupation), but to share how evaluation occurs in my district:

It is supposed to be a surprise. Sure, you have some administrators who let you know to be prepared, but for the most part, an administrator just shows up at your door on some random day. They stay for a bit, take some notes, and leave. Some of them want you to jump to and immediately interrupt what you are doing to print out all of your lesson plans for the immediate past and future, but most of them just want you to keep working. The formative evaluation happens for 30 minutes minimum, and then you have an evaulation conference within 5 days.

Every 5 years, we have a summative evaluation where we are judged on many specific outcomes and scored from "Does not meet minimum standard" to "Exceeds." It is supposed to be every 5 years, except that the administrators just removed that from our agreements, because it is too difficult to get around to do all of their evaluations as it is...now the summative is done at will...you may have one every year if an administrator doesn't like you, or you may never have one again.

For awhile, the prevailing theme in my district was "No teacher is adequate." Every evaluation had to include a poison pill that could be held over your head. I once received a comment that my classroom management was "too strong" because one student told another to stay on topic because I would get mad if they started talking about something else. This past year, my evaluation was off-loaded onto some random district office person because the assistant principal didn't want to do her evaluations. Turns out that the district person was a former debater herself, and so spent more time talking to me about debate in the classroom than actually evaluating the class.

The major issue with the evaluation document is the vagueness of the language and objectives. Fact is, teaching is more of an art than a science. The way that I deal with specific classes or specific students varies according to the day, the lesson, and the mood of the class. If 4 different administrators were to see the same lesson, they would probably have 4 different opinions. One of them would be upset that I didn't ask leading questions to make the students participate more(rather than make the students think and search for the answers on their own); one would look at the posted grade sheets and decide my worth as a teacher based on the average class grade; one would be upset if I didn't include seek to better reach my students and try to understand that they are all suffering and can't be held accountable for things like behavior and attendence; and the last would look at everything and decide that it is just fine.

You can usually tell who is an exceptional teacher, but that can be faked. Sometimes teachers are popular because they let the kids get away with murder rather than really educating them. Other teachers are unpopular because they hold the kids to such an exacting standard and don't like to babysit the kids who don't want to learn. Those in the very upper end, and those who are completely incompetent are a small part of the whole. In reality, most teachers fall somewhere in the middle.

For those who equate teaching with manufacturing and only want to look at test scores, a good teacher may bring a kid who is 4 or 5 years behind up 3 years...the kid won't pass a standardized test, but the teacher did some good work. A percentage of the class may decide not to come to school, or may choose not to work due to issues outside of school (home life, pressures, needing medication). The popular teacher who gets Honors classes but doesn't really do much with the kids will have a high passage rate on the tests, but that is due to the nature of the kids, parental involvement, etc. In the end, it comes down to how buddy-buddy you are with the administration.

I believe I need some sleep. That came out way too long and ranty. Sorry...

[Barkeep49]

Originally Posted by AZSpeechCoach

Other teachers are unpopular because they hold the kids to such an exacting standard and don't like to babysit the kids who don't want to learn.

This was a truly exemplary post. I'll just take exception to that statement there. Those are bad teachers. If you don't care about kids you aren't a good teacher. Caring and standards are independent of each other, as I know many a teacher who is extremely demanding and yet who is well regarded by parents, teachers, and students because they care.

Like I said though AZ really hits a lot of nails on the head in that post. It certainly rings true to me.

[AZSpeechCoach]

Originally Posted by Barkeep49

This was a truly exemplary post. I'll just take exception to that statement there. Those are bad teachers. If you don't care about kids you aren't a good teacher. Caring and standards are independent of each other, as I know many a teacher who is extremely demanding and yet who is well regarded by parents, teachers, and students because they care.

Like I said though AZ really hits a lot of nails on the head in that post. It certainly rings true to me.

Like I said...it was late. Point taken. How I meant to communicate the message is: at my school, if you don't allow ipods, gum, texting, and tardiness, then you are unpopular as a teacher. It is possible to care for the students and want them to succeed, and still not like to spend more time on behavioral issues and prodding refusing learners along than on guiding all of the students to where they need to be. In a class of 34, when you have 10 students who choose to be a problem and keep other students off topic, it becomes very difficult to provide everyone with the necessary attention.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by wade moore

It's pretty simple to me, as others have put it. If teachers are compensated well, then why are very few of the "best and brightest" teaching? Sure, they are compensated "ok". But if you really want good teachers, the compensation is not nearly enough.

The problem is that teachers don't really get paid based on how good they are. So if you raised salaries to attract better teachers, you'd still be paying shitty ones more than they are worth.

[Barkeep49]

I think teachers, in general, don't have a level of professional respect that say doctors or lawyers do and I would argue the sociatal good provided by teachers is about the same as doctors and greater than lawyers. If you want to attract top notch people that professional respect is the key. Having a high salary is just a simple signal of that respect.

[AZSpeechCoach]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

The problem is that teachers don't really get paid based on how good they are. So if you raised salaries to attract better teachers, you'd still be paying shitty ones more than they are worth.

The crux of the problem is how to quantify a good teacher. Is it by test scores only? See my above post. By student survey? All you need are a few yahoos to drag down the average. Parent survey? So many parents are apathetic and wouldn't respond (even if they could speak the language, but that's a debate I don't care to get into). Administrative evaluation? See my above statement.

Because of a law passed a decade ago in Arizona, we have "Performance-Based Pay." Which equals a potential $2000. Some districts tied the money to the completion of "projects" as assigned and judged by the administration. In an attempt to make things more objective and less about whether or not you are well-liked, my district tied it to several factors, including dropout rate, graduation rate, student attendance, parent survey, student performance on state standardized tests, and teacher attendance. The only thing that I have any real direct affect on is my attendance. I cannot compel the students to attend, I cannot directly influence dropout of graduation, I teach the students after they take the standardized test (they take it in 10th grade and I teach 11th), and good luck getting the surveys back, even when I tie it to participation points. Yes, I have some impact, but so many more things influence the students.

Life is not like the movies, where one teacher comes in and makes an entire school whip into shape. You see the students one hour a day. Mind you, I am speaking from an inner-city public schooling environment. And, I've been ranting again. I go back to the classroom 2 weeks from today. I spent a good chunk of June working with the students who went to Alabama for the National Speech and Debate tournament, spent a week at Nationals, spent time in Tucson with my newborn niece, worked on yet another course proposal for the fall, worked on the Junior english curriculum, worked on stuff for the Speech Coach Convention in the fall, and I am about to take a week in San Diego to clear my head before I have to go back to the grind. Yippee!

[ShaqFu]

There are some great discussion points being shared here. I again will stand my ground that teachers really are not paid enough, when you start factoring in per hour calculations. There are few districts left that give three months off in the summer. Maybe two months, but certainly not three. Factor in the time being used during off hours and breaks, a teacher really ends up working close to or more than the average 40-hour/week worker.

The issue of teacher firing is a tragic one. In any other profession, if you are inept, you will be fired. You may have some provisions to protect you, to require due process, but the reality is that if you do a bad job, you're fired. If it is a wrongful termination, you sue. If it was proved wrongful, you might be entitled to compensation. In New York City, there are special places setup for bad teachers (and certificated educators) to go. They get paid a full salary while awaiting a due process hearing. Some reports are that teachers have been in this process for seven years. Why go anywhere else, when you can get paid a full salary for doing nothing all day? This should not be happening.

Evaluations differ from place to place. Some of the best efforts involve administrators making random drop-in visits. These visits might last just a few minutes, enough to just jot down a note or two. These visits might go longer, but they are otherwise completely informal. The administrator may or may not provide feedback/constructive criticism. These visits get documented and tie into the more formal observations. They help create a focal point. The idea is that the evaluation is not just an issue of keeping your job, but a chance to coach/develop teachers. For younger teachers, this is critical. For the most part, the standard I have seen is two observations during an observation year, sometimes three. The first typically is announced. The second is not, though the union contract typically specifies that "does not have to be" since some admins will advise teachers of all formal visits.

Peer evaluations tend not to be popular in more traditional schools, but in smaller learning communities and charters, they are quite popular. In these non-traditional academic settings, there may or may not be a traditional administrative team. The idea is that the teachers are the leaders. Teachers observe each other, provide critical feedback, and gather data used in deciding who stays/goes.

It should be noted that charters typically are non-union. Some unions have attempted to infiltrate charters, only to be shot down, on the basis that the union is not needed. This tends to be accurate, as charters typically have a higher rating of teacher satisfaction in general.

Student evaluations also are another possibility. This is again popular in the charters/SLCs.

I am not a fan of teacher unions in general, because I feel that they do not have the interest of the students in hand. They tend to protect the upper echalon, nothing more.

If you think about it, bad teachers have no incentive to improve, because they have nothing to lose. Worst case, they get paid to do nothing, as in the NYC case. Veteran teachers have every reason to fight salary cuts, because pensions typically are based on an individual teachers highest two years of salary. A teacher making $40/K this year could make $100/K next year as an administrator. They could work as a principal for two years, return to the classroom for their $40/K salary. When they retire, the pension is based on the $100K. It pays to become an administrator, even if only for a few years. This probably is why you do not hear too many administrators balk when asked to return to the classroom. Those close to retirement age can finish out their last few years, than collect a nice check in the end.

Speaking of administrators, they typically work on a year-to-year contract. Unlike teachers, they can be terminated at the end of their contract. No tenure.

[gstelmack]

Originally Posted by Barkeep49

I think teachers, in general, don't have a level of professional respect that say doctors or lawyers do and I would argue the sociatal good provided by teachers is about the same as doctors and greater than lawyers. If you want to attract top notch people that professional respect is the key. Having a high salary is just a simple signal of that respect.

I may have to start a thread to find out who the most important folks / jobs to our society are, thinking along the lines of "without these where would our society be"?. I'd say the top of the list involves (but not necessarily in this order):

firefighter
police
doctor
nurse
soldier
teacher

Only one of those is paid commensurate with their value to the society as a whole.

[wade moore]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

The problem is that teachers don't really get paid based on how good they are. So if you raised salaries to attract better teachers, you'd still be paying shitty ones more than they are worth.

I agree that with a raised salary should come a more stringent review process.

[Malificent]

We're sending our daughter to private school (a Waldorf school) and one of the most interesting changes in philosophy for me is the fact that teachers stay with their students from 1st-8th grade. My daughter will have the same teacher until she hits high school. It lets the teacher really get to know the kids, their strengths and weaknesses. Downside is that the teacher has to be really broad spectrum to teach across the range and if for some reason my daughter really dislikes her teacher, she's out of luck - although that's a life lesson in and of itself, I guess.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by Malificent

We're sending our daughter to private school (a Waldorf school) and one of the most interesting changes in philosophy for me is the fact that teachers stay with their students from 1st-8th grade. My daughter will have the same teacher until she hits high school. It lets the teacher really get to know the kids, their strengths and weaknesses. Downside is that the teacher has to be really broad spectrum to teach across the range and if for some reason my daughter really dislikes her teacher, she's out of luck - although that's a life lesson in and of itself, I guess.

That's a really unique way of doing it. I see a lot of pros and cons. My biggest issue besides the broad spectrum you proposed above is that the kids could get too comfortable with the same teacher. If you spend 8 years with the same teacher, high school could be a big shock having to deal with 5-6 different teachers and different styles.

[molson]

I see people comparing teacher salaries to other "professional" jobs, but that's a meaningless comparison, unless the the professional job is also public service. Government pays less, in any field.

Teachers make as much as government lawyers, and in some cases, more. Starting prosecutor/public defender/civil attorney jobs are in the 30s and 40s (Even in NYC it hasn't broken $50k for Assistant DA positions), and you get north of 50 in maybe 5-10 years, and then the growth pretty much slows to cost-of-living adjustments. Obviously the top government attorney jobs make way more (District Attorneys, Attorney Generals), but those salaries are comparable to the top education administrators. Lawyers for the federal government do better - but that's such a tiny relative number of jobs - comparable to top eduation policy jobs in the federal government, which I'm sure pay very well. And government attorneys, especially the lower-level ones, work far more hours than teachers (even when liberally trying to strech teachers' hours to something resembling a 40 hour work week).

To me, it kind of balances out because while law is a more rigorous discipline and law school is more difficult than a education master's degree (and far more expensive), there is a glut of qualified attorneys in the market place right now, and it's much harder to find a good teacher than a good lawyer.

So for teachers to be considered underpaid, someone in public service needs to be considered overpaid. And who's that? I don't think there's much room to go down for anyone. While some teachers deserve to make more than the average government lawyer, the thought of ALL of them doing so kind of makes me ill. There's definitely situations where I could make more teaching government to high schoolers than actually being an attorney in government, which seems off. If that disparity continues, I'd try to make the jump - just for the better pay, hours, and vacation time.

[QuikSand]

Originally Posted by gstelmack

I may have to start a thread to find out who the most important folks / jobs to our society are, thinking along the lines of "without these where would our society be"?. I'd say the top of the list involves (but not necessarily in this order):

firefighter
police
doctor
nurse
soldier
teacher

Only one of those is paid commensurate with their value to the society as a whole.

Public sector employees -- teachers, public safety, hell even garbage collectors -- all undoubtedly perform very valuable services. And without them, we'd all suffer. Little disagreement from anyone there.

The thing is, you need a lot of these people. So, in practice, you can't have standards that are so high that we'd build in a shortage of "qualified" people. We nominally want teachers to get fully certificated and to carry a masters degree... but the reality is that for this to work with the sheer number of people we need to have serving as teachers, we are obliged to dumb down the degree so it's accessible academically to a rather wide swath of people, many of whom simply aren't really "advanced degree" material in general respects.

So, why not pay them more? Basically, you're asking taxpayers to invest $100,000 into a position when you can get "someone" for, say, $60,000... or something along those lines. In some limited cases, this is sellable to the taxpaying public, but in general, it simply isn't. The market for public sector jobs is not a perfectly functioning one, but it's not a total misfit, either. If the voters/taxpayers really demanded exceptional schools that can recruit and retain outstanding and highly qualified teachers... they can do that. In some case (mostly with the benefit of a high tax base) it happens. But in general, the people don't really want that. They want lower taxes, or other public priorities. And we reach a certain equilibrium that way... and that means that if you offer compensation of $60K for a rank-and-file teacher, you get enough applicants and at least some of them are nominally qualified, and some turn out to be really good. And on the whole, we judge that to be "good enough," as evidenced by the lack of protest in the street over the state of teacher compensation/qualifications.

Pretty much the same story goes for most other public employees. We need lots of them, so we can't be all that demanding in their skill sets or qualifications. And once you drop most of the barriers to entry into the profession (rigorous schooling, high proficiency in select skills) then you place yourself into a labor market where you don't have to pay all that much. We get plenty of police trainees for our opening salary offers, we get plenty of future firefighters with what we pay there, and we get plenty of applicants for street-sweeping or trash-hauling or road-grading jobs in the public sector. And again, nobody is protesting that these htings are being done so poorly that we need to reform the system.

It's possible that if we made a national commitment to improve teacher salaries wholesale, we'd see more of the elite and promising students commit to that career path, rather than seeking to become investment bankers or corporate attorneys or astronauts or whatever else they do now. And maybe in the longer haul, that would be great for our schoolchildren. But in the short term, it would essentially mean taking many of the same mediocre teachers we gripe about today, and just paying them more for their same mediocrity. Tough sell.

[Malificent]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

That's a really unique way of doing it. I see a lot of pros and cons. My biggest issue besides the broad spectrum you proposed above is that the kids could get too comfortable with the same teacher. If you spend 8 years with the same teacher, high school could be a big shock having to deal with 5-6 different teachers and different styles.

Yeah, although she will get some exposure to other teachers. They do music, sculpture and handcraft work, plus learn two languages, so she'll get exposure to other teachers for that stuff, just most of her primary stuff from the same teacher.

There's no standard testing required and the kids make their own textbook. It's definitely very different from the standard public school setup.

Their high school is a little more traditional, since students will have to eventually take the ACT/SAT. Most of their high school teachers are people formerly working in the "real" world, doing early retirement and wanting to teach the subject to kids. Their math teacher is a former NASA engineer, for example. It's a cool (but I imagine not cheap) way to get more teachers - grab from the end of the career spectrum rather than at the beginning.

[Edward64]

Past couple weeks, 2 items related to this thread.

School chief willing to negotiate on mass firing of teachers - CNN.com

CNN) -- The Rhode Island school superintendent who last week fired all the teachers and staff from a school whose students were performing poorly said Wednesday she is willing to negotiate now that the union has agreed to support changes.
:
:
Gallo's statement came a day after the Central Fall Teachers Union recommended a number of changes, including increasing instructional time for students, enhancing their support and increasing teaching quality.

Last week, the school board approved Gallo's plan to discharge 93 people -- classroom teachers, administrators and other personnel -- at the high school. The school is in a low-income area, and many of its students are Latino with English as their second language.

The firings, which were to have become effective at the end of the school year, came after the district failed to reach an agreement with the teachers' union on a plan for teachers to spend more time with students to improve test scores.

[Edward64]

More interesting is this Newsweek article.

Why We Must Fire Bad Teachers - Newsweek.com

Nothing, then, is more important than hiring good teachers and firing bad ones. But here is the rub. Although many teachers are caring and selfless, teaching in public schools has not always attracted the best and the brightest. There once was a time when teaching (along with nursing) was one of the few jobs not denied to women and minorities. But with social progress, many talented women and minorities chose other and more highly compensated fields. One recent review of the evidence by McKinsey & Co., the management consulting firm, showed that most schoolteachers are recruited from the bottom third of college-bound high-school students. (Finland takes the top 10 percent.)

At the same time, the teachers' unions have become more and more powerful. In most states, after two or three years, teachers are given lifetime tenure. It is almost impossible to fire them. In New York City in 2008, three out of 30,000 tenured teachers were dismissed for cause. The statistics are just as eye-popping in other cities. The percentage of teachers dismissed for poor performance in Chicago between 2005 and 2008 (the most recent figures available) was 0.1 percent. In Akron, Ohio, zero percent. In Toledo, 0.01 percent. In Denver, zero percent. In no other socially significant profession are the workers so insulated from accountability. The responsibility does not just fall on the unions. Many principals don't even try to weed out the poor performers (or they transfer them to other schools in what's been dubbed the "dance of the lemons"). Year after year, about 99 percent of all teachers in the United States are rated "satisfactory" by their school systems; firing a teacher invites a costly court battle with the local union.

[Edward64]

Here are responses to the Newsweek article.

Schools Matter: Boycott Newsweek Disinfomercials
Schools Matter: Ravitch on the Newsweek Disinfomercial Against Teaching

The key argument that I got from the Newsweek article is there are a bunch of bad teachers but they are protected. However, the tone of the Newsweek article was pretty harsh.

Overall, implement a performance management system and do remove/retire the bottom x%.

[Marc Vaughan]

One thing I've never understood is most countries (happens in England as well as America) is the unwillingness of goverments to promote the link between getting an education and getting ahead.

I come from a fairly poor economic background and know a fair few people back home who've stumbled through life after getting poor grades, they're happy enough but work poorly paid jobs - because this is the 'norm' for them they pass their attitude towards education onto their children (eg. No point learning trigonometry you won't need it in the 'real world' - that sort of thing).

This means their kids don't feel the need to focus on homework or learning and thus the family cycle of low educational achievement continues.

The 'strangest' thing for me in this is that these people aren't unintelligent at all and indeed I'd rate some of them as being more intelligent than I am, just that their life experience has given them a skewed view of the world where they see people acquiring better jobs as being 'lucky' rather than other factors.

This view is reinforced by the media who repeatedly promote people as being instant successes rather than showing the reality which is that most people achieve success through education and hard work combined.

IMHO until you educate the less achieving sections of society that education IS important there is only so much that any teacher can do without support from the families involved.

(sorry that turned into a bit of a ramble)

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by Edward64

Past couple weeks, 2 items related to this thread.

I'll add a third, as Beach HS in Savannah, GA will dismiss all 200 teachers & administrators at the conclusion of this school year. The school has been in the state's bottom tier of performance for 7 straight years. Can't be ignored though that the move will make them eligible for up to $6m in additional federal funding.

Struggling Georgia school firing entire staff *| ajc.com

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by Marc Vaughan

One thing I've never understood is most countries (happens in England as well as America) is the unwillingness of goverments to promote the link between getting an education and getting ahead.

Not sure what unwillingness you mean, unless you're talking about a balls-to-the-wall mass media ad campaign or something.

The link between your future job/earnings prospects and education is something that's pretty much drummed into kids from a fairly early age.

[ColtCrazy]

Okay, just reading this last page has been interesting.

I am a teacher, I teach elementary education which makes me a bit of a rarity around here being a male. I love my job and find it extremely rewarding. The recent education bashing by my governor (Indiana) and some media types has irritated me some.

Anyway, about some of the points listed on here....

I find it ironic that the state and the federal government preach higher standards in education, yet one of the first places to get cuts seems to be education. I remember Indiana initiating the lottery as a way of paying for certain things in the state, one of which being education. I wonder where that money as gone to.

My particular school is rural and is in the state's 3rd poorest county. We don't use that as an excuse, my school is consistently in the state's top 20% of schools and we've ranked as high as 44th in the state (out of roughly 1300). The rest of the district is a mixed bag, and things seem to get progressively worse as you work your way to high school.

Our district announced cuts of 9 teachers for next year, several I know are good, young teachers. There's strong indication that they'll be 9 more before next year. 18 teachers would be roughly 12% of our district's teaching staff. This would mean increased class sizes for the rest of us. I really don't care if I end up with 20 kids or 35 kids (I've been on both sides of the spectrum in my 12 years of teaching) but how is that fair to the kids?

There are a lot of great teachers in the county, but of course there are some that have tenure that really ought to go. This is where the unions are flawed (for the record, I am not a member of the teacher's union as I find them to be useless in negotiations). The union also seems to get bent out of shape over the slightest change in "working conditions".

I know my economic struggles aren't because of my salary scale, but more to do with the fact my wife graduated with an education degree in the middle of this miserable recession. My salary is good, but the cost of living here is low. We are regarded as well paid in an area where the median salary is considerably lower than ours. During discussions of recent cuts, more people complained about closing the old basketball gym than complained about cutting teachers. Never mind the old gym is located in the old middle school which is not being used and maintenance for the gym is over $90K a year.

That said, teacher salaries need to go up to draw in teachers to the cities, where standards of living are higher. I wouldn't mind a small increase in salary, but I'm also in the minority because I favor stronger teacher evaluations, etc.

As for 12 months of school, that won't happen anytime soon. teacher salaries would have to go up considerably, and there's no money for that type of overhaul. Try to extend the calendar with that, and you'd have a mass exodus of teachers. Teaching is stressful, and there's a surprisingly high burn out rate, especially for primary and special ed positions. That would increase with a 12 month school year. Also, the students need some sort of break, at least a month, between grades. Students get surprisingly burnt out as well by the time the school year ends (at least they should be if you are teaching them!)

With so many cuts nationwide, I think we are heading for some particularly rough days in education. Scores are going to fall across the board in places that had significant cuts, there's no way around that. It'll be interesting to see how politicians respond to that. Blame the teachers, and that will just make things worse.

[sterlingice]

Originally Posted by Marc Vaughan

One thing I've never understood is most countries (happens in England as well as America) is the unwillingness of goverments to promote the link between getting an education and getting ahead.

I dunno- every single politician says it because it's cheap, easy points. Every President I can recall has always wanted to be thought of as an "education President" and especially in the last decade or so, there has been a lot of talk of needing to go to college to get a good job, etc.

Later on in your post, you were talking about the media and who they glorify and that's a whole other matter. Particularly when you have a large group of under-educated in the populace and thus a market, there's going to be a demand and that will be filled by companies catering to the lowest common denominator.

SI

[Marc Vaughan]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

Not sure what unwillingness you mean, unless you're talking about a balls-to-the-wall mass media ad campaign or something.

I do indeed mean a "balls to the wall" media campaign in the same way which is frequently done for things like anti-drugs campaigns etc.

The link between your future job/earnings prospects and education is something that's pretty much drummed into kids from a fairly early age.

You'd 'think' that - but what I've personally seen is that this is only generally the case in some families, normally those who have more educated/aspirational parents.

In families which lack this aspect education is almost a dirty world - if you doubt this consider the amount of negative connotations within working class society for people who are talented academically (swot, teachers pet etc.) .... you don't see those sorts of terms being applied to people gifted in sports

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by Marc Vaughan

I do indeed mean a "balls to the wall" media campaign in the same way which is frequently done for things like anti-drugs campaigns etc.

Thanks for clarifying, I wasn't sure what else you could/might have meant.

You'd 'think' that - but what I've personally seen is that this is only generally the case in some families, normally those who have more educated/aspirational parents.

I don't "think" that, I "know" that it's been a part of the discussion with not only every private school I'm familiar with but also every public school I'm familiar with as well, covering at least the last 30 years. YMMV of course, but it's definitely around in some areas, often pretty bluntly.

[Marc Vaughan]

Originally Posted by sterlingice

I dunno- every single politician says it because it's cheap, easy points. Every President I can recall has always wanted to be thought of as an "education President" and especially in the last decade or so, there has been a lot of talk of needing to go to college to get a good job, etc.

Possibly thats true in America generally (apologies in that case I haven't seen anything along those lines in Florida much, just continued cutting of the education services) - in England little is done to promote the link at all.

[Marc Vaughan]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

I don't "think" that, I "know" that it's been a part of the discussion with not only every private school I'm familiar with but also every public school I'm familiar with as well, covering at least the last 30 years. YMMV of course, but it's definitely around in some areas, often pretty bluntly.

Fair enough - it just amazes me in the schools here locally that such a huge percentage of kids are being 'held back*' in grades and their parents really don't seem to care.

The problem is that while the schools are aware of this and undoubtably try and encourage the students (some of the best teachers I've ever met have been based in American incidentally, I've met teacher here who are amazing - my daughters High school program especially has some fantastic educators in it) ... its the students parents who have a huge influence on the kids attitudes and whether they aspire to achieve.

The kids with parents who interact with the school will generally be those are care about education already (so you're preaching to the converted) - its the ones who don't interact with the school, turn up to PTA meetings etc. which need to be converted imho.

*There was a child in one of the schools here who'd been held back twice already at the age of 12, something which to me seems inherantly wrong - surely when he's 14 and in a class with 12 year olds; not only will his social development be skewed poorly but his hormones will be wholly innappropriate for his peer group.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by Marc Vaughan

Fair enough - it just amazes me in the schools here locally that such a huge percentage of kids are being 'held back*' in grades and their parents really don't seem to care.

It amazes me too ... but only from the standpoint that there's actually a school system left in America that has the courage to avoid "social promotion".

Guessing from the location in your profile, are we talking about the Brevard County, FL school system?

If so, it's interesting (to me at least) to note that they're consistently rated as one of the top systems in the state of Florida over the past several years and were #3 statewide (behind St. John's & Gilchrist) in terms of student achievement scores overall.

And that's even more impressive considering that, according to one online database at least, there are almost the same number of private schools in the district as there are public schools, with roughly 20% of ostensibly high performers skimmed off the top before they're even measured.

Of course none of that is even slightly relevant if I'm guessing wrong about what system you're referring to

[flere-imsaho]

Not sure if this was already posted, but I found this fascinating a few weeks ago in the NYT Sunday Magazine: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/07/ma...l?ref=magazine

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

Not sure if this was already posted, but I found this fascinating a few weeks ago in the NYT Sunday Magazine: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/07/ma...l?ref=magazine

Interesting read, although I have to say that it puts faces & a few figures to what I realized quite a few year ago: that for all the blame that the education establishment tries to put in as many places as possible, there's a portion that comes straight back to their own doorstep. That's a 500 pound gorilla in discussions with most educators that I've encountered & rarely have I seen any progress in a discussion that tries to include it ... but there can be no real progress without including it either, which helps bring us to our current sorry state.

I think the most interesting thing was the study from more than 20 years ago that highlighted the problems with how teachers were (or weren't) being educated but in spite of that acknowledgment & so many people in positions of authority over that process "signing on" to at least some of those findings, we still see the same problems today.

Ultimately though, I wonder if it actually starts to come down to the same dilution of talent that we've seen with, say, MLB pitching staffs or sports officiating. More slots = a lower standard. More kids + smaller class sizes = more teachers, meaning the amount of mediocrity is almost certain to rise no matter what we do.

[Marc Vaughan]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

It amazes me too ... but only from the standpoint that there's actually a school system left in America that has the courage to avoid "social promotion".

Could you possibly explain what you mean by 'social promotion' as I'm not familiar with the term.

(do you mean holding kids back from their natural age range if they don't succeed educationally? - if so then its something which is very 'new' to me, but doesn't intuitively seem right to me for the reasons I've indicated, however I'll readily admit my exposure to it is limited having grown up elsewhere)

Guessing from the location in your profile, are we talking about the Brevard County, FL school system?

You're correct that I'm talking about Brevard county - again don't get me wrong some of the schools here are great.

And that's even more impressive considering that, according to one online database at least, there are almost the same number of private schools in the district as there are public schools, with roughly 20% of ostensibly high performers skimmed off the top before they're even measured.

There are a LOT of private schools here you're right about that - we sent our kids to one initially after emigrating (a Catholic school which was fantastic) because it was much smaller than the public schools and more akin to what they were used to back home.

They're all now in the public school system and are at very good schools and doing very well, please don't take my comments as being against any countries educational system - its more a statement that without parental support educators are always going to struggle to succeed ...

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by Marc Vaughan

Could you possibly explain what you mean by 'social promotion' as I'm not familiar with the term.

"Social promotion" is essentially the practice of allowing students to advance from one grade to the next in spite of academic failure in one or more subjects (i.e. outright failing, doesn't pass the class with at least a 70 or even a 60 in some cases) in order to keep them with their age group.

It was fairly uncommon in the US, at least as far as I'm aware, until probably somewhere in at least the 1970's but fairly quickly became commonplace.

You're correct that I'm talking about Brevard county - again don't get me wrong some of the schools here are great.

Based on the publicly available numbers that I found, it looks as though most of the schools in the system are in the highest tier in the state, and not a single school in the system graded out lower than a B in the past several years, which looked to relate to being somewhere around "average" to "a bit better than average". Now as with the case here in Georgia, sometimes being among the best is still akin to damning with faint praise, I'm not as familiar with what the average or median caliber in Florida really is one way or the other.

They're all now in the public school system and are at very good schools and doing very well, please don't take my comments as being against any countries educational system - its more a statement that without parental support educators are always going to struggle to succeed ...

No worries with me on that score, you aren't likely to find too many harsher critics of public education in the U.S. than me.

[Marc Vaughan]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

"Social promotion" is essentially the practice of allowing students to advance from one grade to the next in spite of academic failure in one or more subjects (i.e. outright failing, doesn't pass the class with at least a 70 or even a 60 in some cases) in order to keep them with their age group.
It was fairly uncommon in the US, at least as far as I'm aware, until probably somewhere in at least the 1970's but fairly quickly became commonplace.

Wht disadvantages do you see with this system out of interest compared to simply having different 'ability strands' in a common age group (which is how its undertaken in Europe - for instance in my high school in the UK the 200 or so students were split up into (approximately) 9 classes for each subject with 3 definite ability groups between them).

No worries with me on that score, you aren't likely to find too many harsher critics of public education in the U.S. than me.

I think there's generally good and bad in all systems; when a situation is complex (like education) its impossible to have something which is fool-proof for all people passing through it.

The US setup is very different to what I'm used to back home; but I'm trying not to just react in equating a difference = scary = bad.