<p>
[quote]
I wonder how many days this post will go on? Even I am getting tired of it.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Isn't clicking on a thread optional in Mayberryland?</p>
<p>I disagree that teachers need to be paid more. At least in NNJ teachers are being fairly compensated. I know that annual compensation for teachers "appear" to be low. However, if you consider that they work from September - June and have July-August out of the classroom. Their hourly rate is very competitve. I recently read a NY Times Op Ed article that stated that teachers hourly rate is about $36 per hour. In addition, teachers still earn pensions. Not too many defined benefit plans (pensions) left in Corporate America. </p>
<p>Lets stop drinking the Kool-aid and believing everything that the AFT is telling us!</p>
<p>My opinion may be controversial, but common sense often is :)</p>
<p>Not every child is destined for college. It is a fact folks. What we need to do is bring back the respectability of vocational work. What is wrong with being an auto mechanic, hairdresser, computer tech, secretary, health care assistant, receptionist etc.?</p>
<p>Now how to address the schools. We need high schools that are specifically for quality vocational training. Schools that kids can opt into with dignity knowing they will leave with a quality vocational education. This kind of program could easily be sponsored by the very industries that are looking to hire quality employees. These industries constantly complain about the lack of qualified employees. Schools constantly complain about being forced to have unmotivated and unhappy students in class rooms. Students constantly complain about being forced to learn subject areas that they feel are irrelevant to their futures. Where is the disconnect here?</p>
<p>test test test test</p>
<p>test test test </p>
<p>this is the 2nd time that i posted, and previewed a note, and most of it is gone when i do the final post. I have never had this happen before - in case you wonder why these strange shorts posts, with no relevance to the topic.</p>
<p>Collegemom16, we had some discussion about vocational schools in a past thread</p>
<p>This is what I wrote: "I'm not sure why the author seems to believe that 2 year colleges are producing competent craftsmen? Are the four year colleges really responsible for "soft" degrees ... or should we look at the abysmal performance of our secondary system? </p>
<p>Technical and vocational schools offer true alternatives but should be part of a comprehensive system of education, and not carry the negative stigmas they currently do."</p>
<p>
[quote]
We need high schools that are specifically for quality vocational training.
[/quote]
It's slightly off topic but I think the problem with this is that it can pre-dispose one to particular segment and limit their options in life at a time when they likely don't have any idea what to do with the rest of their life. If you take a look at how many college students switch majors and how even more haven't figured out what to major in by 12th grade, what chance does an 8th grader have of 'knowing' that they want one particular vocation or another and that they definitely don't want college? I think a student is better off getting the 'general' education in HS and then deciding what the next best step for them should be. Up through HS they should be enabled to go to college if that's what they end up deciding or they could go into whatever other vocation they choose. Note that for auto mechanics this will often mean going onto another school for that specialized training.</p>
<p>I agree with you that there's nothing wrong vocational work and that it's IMO very respectable. Not only are those vocations necessary but in many cases they can be quite lucrative.</p>
<p>I'm not suggesting we shirk the basic education of high school. Going to one of these vocational schools one would still graduate with a basic high school degree. The big difference is that they would also have a viable vocation right out of high school. The problems I have run into with unmotivated/unhappy students mixed in with the highly motivated college bound students is monumental. Why not give the kids who want to learn a viable vocation the opportunity? Why force them to mix in a school population that makes them feel less competent? Vocational high schools are a great alternative for potential drop outs and kids who don't want to be in a traditional high school. In the end it would give more of these kids’ opportunities for their futures. If they can graduate with a vocation later they will be more likely to be able to work and pay for further education should they decide they want to continue their education. Why is it necessary to look at this as taking away opportunity vs. giving more to under performing kids? What they need is some hope for their future and a measure of success at doing something worthwhile.</p>
<p>I have a friend who has been in education for many many years. He and his wife have both been teachers. In his later years, he worked at the university level, and he taught teachers in both undergraduate as well as graduate degree levels. He is a very kind, calm, intelligent man with a great sense of humor. He sent me a copy of an email that he exchanged with someone who objected to one of his columns in the paper. I think he would be fine with my sharing a portion of his email response As preface, he loves his wife, and highly respects women - so when you read the comment about airlines, his point is about seniority and not at all about women. </p>
<p>I will let him remain anonymous, but these are his words (not mine).</p>
<p>*Is tenure a schooling failing. Absolutely! Are Teacher Unions an anathema to children's development. Absolutely! Are these the only impediments to children in a classroom. No! </p>
<p>The first and most important reason for failing students is failing teachers. About 10 years ago, Massachusetts gave a literacy exam to incoming teachers and the results were a front-page disaster in the Boston Globe -- we are not talking about poor teachers we are talking a majority who were illiterate! Illiterate! By strong leadership, that has changed, but in California 100% pass the California Teacher's exam. 100%! What kind of exam is that? </p>
<p>At the same time, MORE than 60% of our California students are not working at the "grade level" -- 75% of students entering the Cal State system require remediation, and throughout the state the "exit exam" (written at the 8th & 9th grade level) has 10% of high schoolers still FAILING! </p>
<p>Why are teachers failing? Bad Schools of Education. Easy schools. The lowest SAT exam scores attend the School of Education on every campus. Why? Partially because teaching, nursing, and stenography once were the ONLY paths to success for women, and really bright, strong women went into education. </p>
<p>(I married a second grade teacher with an "education degree"...50 years ago this next year...)</p>
<p>Now (thankfully) bright, strong women go into Engineering, Science, Theoretical math, Astronomy...</p>
<p>The "pool" from which education draws has been diminished, and until we find a methodology to pay, challenge, and professionalize the teaching profession, we will continue to get too many of the dregs of the university into the classrooms of our children. </p>
<p>I once wrote a column, many years ago proposing that teachers be paid a minimum of $100,000+ a year, on several conditions. First, they abandon tenure, unions, and submit to rigorous exams. Secondly, no Teaching Degree" -- no teacher should be able to teach in a subject for which they do not have a specific degree. I admitted in my column that would require the taxpayers pay a lot of incompetent, or at least less than competent teachers for years, perhaps decades, but eventually it would weed out the less than competent and lure back those (primarily women) currently going into engineering, science, etc.</p>
<p>The problem with young, inexperienced teachers is that they are aggregated into minority neighborhoods. There is a state law requiring that EACH SCHOOL publish its salaries. The school system REFUSES to obey the law, knowing that if salaries were "normalized" there would be a mix of inexperienced and experienced teachers in each school -- but by publishing only the salaries by DISTRICT, the district can (and does) assign new and inexperienced teachers largely to minority schools rather than a mixture throughout the district. It is the same system that gives us the Gray Hair Brigade on flights to Hawaii. Senior stews want the Hawaiian flights, and Senior teachers do not want to teach in inner city schools. Seniority counts both times. I want the law enforced so that inexperienced and experienced teachers serve in inner city schools -- and on Hawaiian flights." *</p>
<p>I know many private schools that would prefer that their teachers NOT have teaching degrees because they think that much of what they are taught is nonsense. I hope Zoosermom's daughter doesn't get scared out of teaching high school science. All my older son's high school science teachers have been great, very competent and are highly regarded and respected. One was a Phd., another an ex-lawyer by the way. Unfortunately I can't say that I am crazy about my younger son's chemistry teacher.</p>
<p>Another area of teachers pay that baffles me is the pay system treats all teachers, no matter what the discipline that they teach, alike. Why is it that a phys ed teacher gets the identical pay as the physics teacher as long as they both have the same number of years experience. In looking at the ads for teachers, there always seems to be a need for science and math teachers. Couldn't this be solved by letting the free market work? That is, let the schools pay whatever it takes to get a quality science or math teacher. Conversely, the same market economics should apply to phys ed teachers or any other discipline. I would think this would drive up the salaries for the hard-to-get disciplines and thus help direct higher quality individuals into the profession. At the same time it would remove much of the negative stigma mentioned above about being a teacher.</p>
<p>I'm getting a little tired of these generalizations. </p>
<p>Mathmom, a top-notch teaching program is hardly "nonsense." I frankly question the knowledge of any private school who cannot distinguish an excellent educational training program from a substandard one. They are hardly all alike. In fact, more than ever now, teachers who have not been updated in the newest findings about cognitive development should get on board: it has a direct bearing on <em>how</em> to teach.</p>
<p>I am quite aware that private (esp. high) schools often do not require credentials of any kind, & would prefer an advanced degree to that. Once again we have the simplistic either/or. The best high school teachers have BOTH training from an excellent program which stresses applied theory of education AND a single-subject specialty.</p>
<p>My daughter's Private is among those dismissing the importance of professional training in education along with subject knowledge. It has compromised some of the coursework and the learning confidence/mastery of these students in 2 subjects I can think of -- not to mention causing a great deal of wasted time unlearning/relearning/repeating. I can trace it directly back to the lack of preparation by those teachers. </p>
<p>I, OTOH, am not a simpleton and can do 2 things at once. Not a B/C student, either -- whoever made that charming remark. Yeah, you're all real experts. (NOT, and that's clear from your statements.) </p>
<p>"A little knowledge is a dangerous thing." Oh, that was for you, too, Mr Jobs.</p>
<p>TOTAL PUBLIC SCHOOL TEACHERS: 2,997,748
Elementary: 1,686,336
Secondary: 1,078,501
Unclassified: 232,911
TOTAL CHARTER SCHOOL TEACHERS: 36,019 </p>
<p>TOTAL PRIVATE SCHOOL TEACHERS: 395,317
Elementary: 187,833
Secondary: 62,737
Combined: 144,746
TOTAL CATHOLIC SCHOOL TEACHERS: 149,600
Elementary: 100,565
Secondary: 41,301
Combined: 7,734</p>
<p>So xiggi, you of the awful newsarticles.....and all pumped up! </p>
<p>What percentage you venture to guess of the 2.9 MILLION public school teachers are bad??? Anyone? </p>
<p>You know there's a couple articles on the 8 marines/sailors who executed that Iraqi a year ago that are going to prison. Should we condem all Marines and Sailors for those 8? ;) </p>
<p>Life in Mayberry is just fine thank you. Folks around here, realize you don't destroy the good while fixin the bad. If your solution is gonna harm folks whom you have no issue with...is it a good idea? I reckon we are a bit slow here and all, but we don't reckon to fix things by throwing the baby out with the bath water. </p>
<p>We also understand that all those city folks demanding all these durn ideas on how to fix the farm, never been there. They only see things the big city way, they should spend some time down on the farm. :)</p>
<p>Teacher pay issues vary by state. In California (with low quality schools, per capita student expenditures, etc., compared to most other states), starting teacher pay is about $34,000. Starting high-tech pay is about $80,000, for about the same number of years of training. Of those able to do both jobs, only the most dedicated and altruistic will choose teaching.</p>
<p>bad is a spectrum
for instance my daughter had a 4th grade teacher who was in her 2nd year of teaching- she was a computer professional who have gotten bored with her job. Her 1st year of teaching, she taught 1st graders. Unfortunately, in her 4th grade classroom, she had similar expectations of the 9 year olds, as she I assume she did the 6 year olds.Lots of coloring in worksheets and drawing pictures. My daughter had done more writing in 3rd grade, before she could read, than she did in 4th grade.
Not a "bad" teacher, but in need of guidance. Unfortunately, she didn't get much, because the kids whose parents were really involved, wangled teachers on the other side of the building. I had tried to do that- but too late apparently. My daughter liked her teacher very much- she didn't want to have to do homework or practice writing or math & it was difficult if not impossible to get her to do what I knew to be 4th grade level work, when it wasn't reinforced in the classroom.</p>
<p>When that year was combined with her 5th grade year, the year in which the teacher was absent for most of the year, it made a huge difference to the kids because they didn't get what they needed to know. Not a bad teacher, but an instance in which the combination of self absorbtion by the teacher, and site based management in the building with little oversight by the district combined for a real mess & one of which parents weren't informed for months.</p>
<p>Incidentally in this building- state test scores are among the lowest in the district- I wonder why.</p>
<p>Students in the community where I live witness adults treating teachers like personal servants (not public servants). Insults are slung at school board meetings and in letters to the editors. I've seen educators attacked by community members viciously for reasons as diverse as assigning a controversial book or piercing a body part other than an ear. It's obvious that these students will not elect to teach in a place like this - tenure, high pay or not - if they are called to the teaching profession. Some of these teachers are Ivy League grads and some are on their second-careers with multiple degrees. In fact, not only is a little knowledge a dangerous thing when it comes to those outside the field casting stones, but generalizations are not going to work, either. When one reads through this thread, it's obvious that some principals are strong and some are disasters, some unions have power and some do not, etc. All of the schools we are writing about are broken in different places. One fix won't address every problem. That's the main reason NCLB is a failure - every child is unique, not a widget. Teachers are people, too, though expectations for what each parent would like to see transpire with each child might be better handled by someone who wasn't bound by the restrictions of the institution itself (administration, school board, state and national mandates). Private schools have complicated structures as well and institutional cultures impact hiring decisions, not always in the best interests of the students.</p>
<p>Thank you for post 194 because it's one of the few accurate ones on this thread.</p>
<p>You are correct, babar: many teachers are Ivy or Elite U grads, & indeed with multiple degrees. I recently met one in my area who graduated not long ago from Yale. Also correct on the observation of the dismissive attitudes & behavior toward teachers.</p>
<p>Many parents may not know of the more accomplished & intelligent teachers because they're not "bad" enough to come to public attention. If they're the minority, I'm very sorry, but the fact remains that even if they all had IQ's to be rocket scientists, a failed system is a failed system. It is very hard for me to know objectively which came first: the importation of a blue-collar teacher mentality via teacher labor unions, or vice versa. Either way, it does not elevate my field to the profession in which I view my role. And I do not think that the <em>orientation</em> and <em>priorities</em> of teacher's unions support the professional status of teachers or encourages public respect.</p>
<p>
[quote]
and throughout the state the "exit exam" (written at the 8th & 9th grade level) has 10% of high schoolers still FAILING!
[/quote]
I don't think this can be blamed on teachers. I live in one of those California areas where there's a high failure rate on this exceedingly simple HS exit exam. People who don't live here may not realize it but there's a significant number of students who are ESL; often they're kids of illegal aliens, and many of them perform at a very low level. Many can barely understand the language and many who do understand it may have missed many of the early basics in language and math. In addition to this many are saddled with parents who don't understand English, have no idea what their kids are doing in school, are unable and unwilling to help with homework, and put no emphasis at all on the value of education. These are general statements and there are exceptions but speak to any K-12 teacher and you'll find that this is true.</p>
<p>
[quote]
starting teacher pay is about $34,000. Starting high-tech pay is about $80,000, for about the same number of years of training. Of those able to do both jobs, only the most dedicated and altruistic will choose teaching.
[/quote]
I might be misunderstanding the post but I disagree with this conclusion on a couple of points. </p>
<p>The reason 'High-Tech' pay is higher is simply a matter of supply and demand. There are far fewer people qualified to be engineers than teachers. If you take a look at the course-load, the difficulty of the courses, and the amount of work required, an engineering degree takes considerably more effort to achieve than a typical teaching degree. Almost anyone who can obtain any kind of college degree can become a teacher but many people can't handle the difficult material and rigor of obtaining an engineering degree. Any engineers or parents of engineering majors will know what I'm talking about.</p>
<p>Additionally, many people end up becoming teachers because they don't really know what else to do and any undergrad degreee suffices. I'm not talking about the truly altruistic or people like Epiphany or some other teachers I've known but the statement is true for many. There are a lot of students who work on getting their history, lit, polisci, women's studies, ancient dead languages, etc. degrees, decide not to become a doctor, lawyer, PHD, or MBA and end up not knowing what else to do with the degree and end up teaching. </p>
<p>I know I'll likely get flamed for this opinion but keep in mind I'm generalizing and take a look at many of those you know where the above logic applied.</p>
<p>ucsd<em>ucla</em>dad - I appreciate your courage to post your convictions. I admire that. You mention at the end of your thread that you might get flamed for your opinion. I respect your opinions, and your post. </p>
<p>With that said, I will add a comment, and it is almost guranteed that I will get grinded for my comments (but i dare say that there is a nugget of truth in what i am about to say). In reference to your post #198, and the many students who are ESL, I believe strongly that many in the media, and many politicians, and certain organizations are doing those ESL students a huge disservice by promoting the continued use of their native language. How can we expect them to compete on an equal basis, when we help to hold them down by encouraging the continued use of their non-english native language. (I do realize that if their parents do not speak english, then while at home they have no alternative but to continue the use of the native language, for the must communicate with the family members. However, we cripple them by not doing all we can to teach them, to help them, to learn english. The sooner, and more completey that they are fluent in english, the sooner they will be able to compete on an equal basis - which is what they deserve. (No, i am not prejudiced against any minority. Quite the contrary, I long for them to be happy, and to prosper, and to realize the American dream.)</p>