<p>The account you offer sounds eerily familiar to what I hear all the time. But the question is about how often this happens and where. Compare what you just describe with the old New York policies that regimented the workdays of the Weingarten brigades. </p>
<p>What we have is a wildly swinging pendulum. There are PLENTY of dedicated teachers who go early, stay late, take late night phone calls, and care deeply about theri students. However, there are plenty of stay in the profession for three reasons, namely Christmas, Easter, and Summer. </p>
<p>We should NOT expect from our best teachers to have to spend countless unpaid hours and work late at night. But neither should we tolerate the ones that NEVER show such dedication and require others to carry their load. By requiring that MOST if not ALL work be done at school, you go to the heart of the problem, stop the abuses that require too much from, and stop the abuses that allow too many to take advantage of a system that fosters mediocrity. </p>
<p>Good teachers are the biggest victims of the current system.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>We can --actually should-- have the professionals working the so-called 50 weeks, and have the children attending fewer days of schools.</p>
<p>actually, probably many low-income parents would LOVE for their kids to be in school for 50 weeks. that eliminates the stress of having to figure out something free (or very low cost) for the child to do with those long summer breaks.</p>
<p>We put our older in our good public school when we moved out to suburb. When asked about her day, she would tell us that fights broke out when her teacher wasn’t in the room. I asked her why her teacher had to leave, she said, “to take a call,” or “another teacher wanted to talk to her.” I then found out that teacher in third grade was teaching everything, from English to art. They really didn’t have any time during the day to prep for their classes, or able to meet with other teachers to share any ideas. Whereas at a private school they would have art, language, gym, library…teachers. While students were at those special classes, homeroom teachers would have time to grade papers, speak with parents and prep for next day lessons. </p>
<p>This all comes down to funding. If public school teachers spend all day teaching(dealing) with kids, then they would have no time to do any planning. This is no different than me going to meetings all day, and then expecting me to strategize during my off hour. I may be able to do it for a short period of time, but at some point, I would be burned out. </p>
<p>I have a good friend who quite her banking job to teach at a public school. She workedin Aug to plan for new curriculum. If she wad teaching the same grade again, it’s easier, otherwise a lot more work. She usually worked from 7-4, then graded testes/papers at night. She didn’t get much time at work to do anything. She went in earlier or stayed later to meet some working parents. She said teaching was a lot more difficult than banking, but to her it was a lot more rewarding. </p>
<p>I disagree that teachers should be required to work at home. School administrators should make sure teachers have enough time during regular working hours to get all of their work done during normal work hours. In my business we are required to work long hours, but we are paid well for our over time.</p>
<p>There are charter schools with longer school years and a summer program that puts the kids in school almost year-round. In our state we have been dealing with furlough days and cuts everywhere. I’m not sure how we’d get teachers to work fifty weeks without compensating them more, and I can’t imagine where the money for that would come at this time. It’s not realistic to expect them to work more days for the same pay. What would these teachers be doing while the kids weren’t there that would be worth the taxpayer’s money?</p>
<p>I don’t think they should be required to work at home either. I just don’t think they should be required to do every last thing at school unless they want to. Sometimes my daughter just wanted to thrown on her pajamas and grade papers on her couch at home as opposed to staying even later at her school (which was not in the safest neighborhood). My husband is a lawyer and sometimes works from home on the weekend rather than going to the office. I think the trend in many fields is to let people have some flexibility in how they choose to get the job done.</p>
<p>Teachers are not getting paid enough to work from home. What happens is students do not get their papers or tests back on time, and many teachers do not like to assign papers because it would mean extra work for them. At the end it’s our kids who suffer because of unreasonable expectation from school administrators. Teachers are paid the same whether they grade 5 papers a semester or 1. Like all people, at some point they would want to spend time with their families and friends. To read 30+ 10 page papers takes time. It is the main reason that students from private school could read and write better. It’s not because they are smarter or teachers are better. It is because their teachers have enough time to read those papers to give them timely corrections. </p>
<p>As a parent, I never had any problem in meeting any of my kid’s teachers. They usually had enough time during the day to meet with me to address any issues I may have.</p>
<p>Is it more realistic to expect a teacher with 2-3 years experience to do the same job as a teacher who is 2-3 years from retirement, but at half the cost? Why is more realistic that Teacher A would do the job you described earlier at 36,000 per year when a more “seasoned” teacher who does 1/3 of it gets paid 60,000 per year?</p>
<p>Our problem is that we believe that all benefits and work conditions have been grandfathered. While some still cling to the benefits provided by generous CBA, the reality is that many states are “right to work” states. The private sector recognizes that certain jobs come at a certain cost, and that when the ratio gets excessive, changes are made. Why is it wrong to declare that Position X for a Chemistry teacher requires ABC qualifications and will be paid XXX dollars for a twelve month assignment? If the “incumbent” teacher believes that this too little pay for too much work, chances are that a younger teacher will jump at the opportunity. </p>
<p>Obviously, the above is at the antipode of what the current system that rewards seniority and tenure over competence and qualifications is in 2011. </p>
<p>In the past weeks, we have heard plenty about living within our means. Many recent graduates have learned what that means in the past 36 months. Have the rules changed for them? Are the signing bonus in the financial industry as high as they used to be? Are the working conditions and expectations the same in 2011 as they were in 2008? </p>
<p>In the case of teachers, we are NOT talking about organizing massive layoffs and changing the older guard overnight. That is extreme. But not more extreme than believing that bringing back some sanity to our education financial model will come without sacrifices. Asking teachers to abandon yesterday’s ultra-generous agreements should not be considered a sacred cow of entitlements. </p>
<p>Our public education system has shown that to be particularly resistant to improve through throwing more money at it. Time has come to do more with less.</p>
<p>I am not sure if anyone has suggested teachers SHOULD be required to work at home. I believe Mimk6 replied to my suggestion that most if not all work should be done at school with a position that working at home should not be discouraged. I think the difference is about grading papers in a teacher’s class or lounge versus the comfort of doing it in pajamas at home, and perhaps at 11pm. </p>
<p>To clarify my position … I believe that doing work at home should not be a substitute for the basic work that should be done AT THE SCHOOL, and should not be offered as an excuse for the absence of after-class support. We are going from one extreme to another.</p>
<p>I should add to my last post. I was a teacher for a number of years before I had children of my own. I was selected as teacher of the year for my school and my school district, and a finalist for the state I in which I taught. I was a great teacher. It takes an incredible amount of time and energy to teach well. I was the teacher who got the troubled kids, the kids with IEPs, the kids who needed a little extra love and direction. I helped write the curriculum for my district’s gifted and talented program, and was one of the original building facilitators when we started serving the needs of those students. I left home at 7 and rarely got home before 6, and then I had papers to grade. When my oldest child was born I “retired” from teaching (in a school setting). To teach, to teach really well, to be the kind of teacher that all of us the want for our own children, to be the kind of teacher that every child deserves, is more than a job. I chose to retire because I knew that I could no longer do it the way that I felt it should be done. I resent anyone saying that teachers should be spending more time at school, without more compensation. And I would never think a teacher hired for a 180 day contract should be asked to give more than that without compensation.</p>
<p>I hope the OP is still reading his thread so he has a better appreciation of his parents reaction. Pay attention to these comments, OP. We, as teachers, work for the taxpayers of our districts, and this is what our employers think of us, good and bad, accurate or not. Can you see yourself working for them? Lots of interesting perspectives here to consider.</p>
<p>Well, now we are getting into merit-based pay, seniority and all kinds of issues that trigger a lot of strong opinions and feelings. I think the upcoming generation of teachers, especially those who have faced yearly lay-offs every year (in our state) are going to demand some changes. It’s definitely a conversation that is happening in my state.</p>
<p>Fwiw, I happen to agree with you regarding increasing the percentage of our education spending to pay teachers better. But that does NOT de facto equate to pay them more to abandon the 9/12 work/pay model. Most discussions about raising salaries are based on average salaries that distort the fact that the distribution of salaries is top-heavy. </p>
<p>Our largest problem is to retain the highly qualified and competent teachers at the same time as we need to attract younger, better qualified, and better trained classes of teachers. Our answer to this combined problem as been to keep the entry cost as low as possible to allow for a minimally higher average that masks the increases needed for the higher costs of salaries and benefits of the most senior tenured faculty. </p>
<p>The answer to our education woes and abysmal performance is to attract better candidates, and this entails paying the new cohorts much better. In exchange of better pay, we could demand more selective qualifications from future classes of teachers composed of more specialists from highly competitive schools and fewer generalists from our most mediocre colleges of education.</p>
<p>An issue I’ve heard (hearsay, no data) is that burnout by young, enthusiastic incoming teachers is at least partially caused by the entrenchment of protected, ineffective, tired-of-being-bashed old timers (my generation). This could improve through high numbers of baby-boom retirements, which may also help lower some costs over time.</p>
<p>If there are “protected, ineffective, tired-of-being-bashed old timers”…who are not doing the job…you have the school administration to blame. School adminstrators are SUPPOSED to evaluate these folks, provide assistance if necessary…and if improvements are not made…move for dismissal. </p>
<p>I was a union rep for years and NEVER supported a teacher who was not doing their job. AND it annoyed me to no end when an inaffective adminstrator refused to do anything about dead weight. Teachers who ARE doing their jobs are less than thrilled with carrying the weight for those who are NOT. </p>
<p>Folks, I’m not saying public education here is not without its issues…there are plenty of them (which would have to be taken over to Yahoo for the political discussion it would become)…but please try not to kick those who are doing a good job in the gut too many times. There are thousands upon thousands of excellent teachers who do an excellent job of working with their students and families. And yes…there are a few rotten eggs…yoohoo…admins…get rid of the rotten eggs!!!</p>
<p>And for the record…I agree with Xiggi’s post #175. I’m not sure it would solve all the problems but it would help.</p>
<p>Agreed…where I am…this is the case. Student instruction days are 180…but all PD, teacher enrichment, conferences and union business are NOT done during the student instruction days/times. Also, our student instruction day has increased (and it NEEDED to) which is a good thing as well.</p>