Are you sick of highly paid teachers?

[soberguy]

Again... where do you suggest this money come from?

 

[movie zombie]

soberguy, i would suggest it be a line item in our security budget. the security of this nation would be better served by paying for public education than it would be for so many of the TSA procedures and scanners.

MoZo

 

[Haven]

This is going to be an unpopular post, but here I go. I do think teachers are under paid, however, I would LOVE to make 50K for 10 months of work after I complete my masters. I won't get that even working 12 months. I think there are pros and cons with any profession. Teachers have awesome vacation time, work hours, and it is great for parents. I am sick of teachers complaining about their pay checks. Pick a different profession then. I certainly did not pick my field for the money. It's about helping people find their true potential. That is a privilege to be part of.

I won't reiterate what's already been discussed (over and over again) about the gross misunderstanding that teachers only work 10 months a year.

I do think you have a good point that teachers shouldn't complain about wanting to earn more money because we choose the profession. The thing is, the piece that I originally posted was NOT written as an outcry for higher pay for teachers. RATHER, it is a RESPONSE to the overwhelming public sentiment that teachers are OVERPAID.

There are numerous (vicious) organizations created for the sheer purpose of promoting the idea that teachers are a drain on society because we are overpaid and underworked. My own state has a particularly strong organization that compiles and publishes searchable "data" about our salaries on a public website. It's laughable, really--my own salary was so inflated I *wish* I earned that much when I taught high school. Nonetheless, these people publish false information in the name of encouraging the public that teachers are overpaid, and obviously, it's working.

Tacori--You came back and posted "I guess my point wasn't clear" but the thing is, you seem to have ignored my response to your first post in this thread. You seem to be focused on the fact that teachers should stop whining about wanting to earn more money, but:

Teachers are not whining that they don't make enough money--instead, we are constantly forced to DEFEND the money that we do earn, which of course leads to discussions about how it isn't even that much in the first place. This piece is a defense of what we earn, not a WHINE about wanting to earn more.

Just a note: Starting teachers with no teaching experience rarely earn close to 50K, either. Some teachers never earn 50K in a year, even after working in the same district for 20 years straight. I don't earn 50K and I have two master's degrees plus an additional 19 hours of graduate credit, and this is my seventh year teaching. I don't wish I earned more, I just wish I wasn't constantly forced to defend what little I do earn.

 

[MichelleCarmen]

I receive lots of letters from schools telling that they have to cut on the budget. I wonder if schools could also attach letters indicating that they wish to have a fundraising event, something a little bit more than selling brownies. Enclosed in the same envelopes.

I believe many parents will respond. ...

Does your son's school hold annual auctions or similar? A LOT of money can be brought in that way. Members of the community donate items/services and the parents bid and win the items and all the funds go to benefit the school. Upgrades like touch screens can be purchased along with other items classrooms need. Every school is different though as far as how much $ parents are able to contribute. At my kids' school, being a member of the PTA is free. When we were in the process of getting the boys' variance, they were in another school for two weeks and to be apart of that PTA, there was a $20 fee, so it simply comes down to some communities have parents with more financial means to help than in other communities.

 

[ksinger]

soberguy, i would suggest it be a line item in our security budget. the security of this nation would be better served by paying for public education than it would be for so many of the TSA procedures and scanners.

MoZo

Also to Soberguy...at least for this state and likely many others, consolidation would help the ridiculously high adminstrative overhead. But when you suggest it, you start messin' with fooball, and them's fightin' words.

Here's a good article about what WE face here in Oklahoma. It isn't those expensive teachers, it's good ol' boy administrators and a complete lack of backbone by the good ol'boy legislators from their podunk towns. As usual.

http://www.newson6.com/Global/story.asp?S=13426536

 

[ksinger]

This is going to be an unpopular post, but here I go. I do think teachers are under paid, however, I would LOVE to make 50K for 10 months of work after I complete my masters. I won't get that even working 12 months. I think there are pros and cons with any profession. Teachers have awesome vacation time, work hours, and it is great for parents. I am sick of teachers complaining about their pay checks. Pick a different profession then. I certainly did not pick my field for the money. It's about helping people find their true potential. That is a privilege to be part of.

I won't reiterate what's already been discussed (over and over again) about the gross misunderstanding that teachers only work 10 months a year.

I do think you have a good point that teachers shouldn't complain about wanting to earn more money because we choose the profession. The thing is, the piece that I originally posted was NOT written as an outcry for higher pay for teachers. RATHER, it is a RESPONSE to the overwhelming public sentiment that teachers are OVERPAID.

There are numerous (vicious) organizations created for the sheer purpose of promoting the idea that teachers are a drain on society because we are overpaid and underworked. My own state has a particularly strong organization that compiles and publishes searchable "data" about our salaries on a public website. It's laughable, really--my own salary was so inflated I *wish* I earned that much when I taught high school. Nonetheless, these people publish false information in the name of encouraging the public that teachers are overpaid, and obviously, it's working.

Tacori--You came back and posted "I guess my point wasn't clear" but the thing is, you seem to have ignored my response to your first post in this thread. You seem to be focused on the fact that teachers should stop whining about wanting to earn more money, but:

Teachers are not whining that they don't make enough money--instead, we are constantly forced to DEFEND the money that we do earn, which of course leads to discussions about how it isn't even that much in the first place. This piece is a defense of what we earn, not a WHINE about wanting to earn more.

Just a note: Starting teachers with no teaching experience rarely earn close to 50K, either. Some teachers never earn 50K in a year, even after working in the same district for 20 years straight. I don't earn 50K and I have two master's degrees plus an additional 19 hours of graduate credit, and this is my seventh year teaching. I don't wish I earned more, I just wish I wasn't constantly forced to defend what little I do earn.

I'd also like to add, that calling legitimate defense of a at least a decent salary, or pointing out that the working conditions are in many cases, almost untenable (see the 5-year 50% attrition rate in teaching), "whining" is the eternal cry of the incompetent manager with no leadership ability.

"This job has crap working conditions, you knew that coming in, and I'm unwilling and/or incapable to do a damn thing about it, so hit the road if you don't like it, crybaby." My, how helpful and problem-solving THAT little litany is.

As usual, we will throw the baby out with the bathwater, and in our zeal to get rid of the supposed scads of "bad" teachers and distract ourselves from the real problems we desperately wish to NOT face, we will get rid of the good ones too.

 

[zoebartlett]

Ksinger -- I was wondering something, and I don't mean to sound snarky or anything AT ALL. I'm truly just curious. From what you've written about your husband's position, he is very fed up. Has he considered looking for a new teaching position at another school maybe in another town/district, some place where his voice would be heard and he'd enjoy his job?

 

[Tacori E-ring]

Haven, teachers should not have to defend their salaries and I do *not* think teachers are overpaid. My point was that there are lots of benefits to being a teacher. One of them is the amount of vacation days a teacher usually has. I was not saying anyone in particular was whining but for someone who is getting a Masters under the school of education I hear the whine OFTEN. That may not have been the point of your thread but it triggered something for me. I knew my posts would be unpopular but I feel they are valid points.

 

[ksinger]

Ksinger -- I was wondering something, and I don't mean to sound snarky or anything AT ALL. I'm truly just curious. From what you've written about your husband's position, he is very fed up. Has he considered looking for a new teaching position at another school maybe in another town/district, some place where his voice would be heard and he'd enjoy his job?

Sigh.....

 

[iugurl]

Haven, teachers should not have to defend their salaries and I do *not* think teachers are overpaid. My point was that there are lots of benefits to being a teacher. One of them is the amount of vacation days a teacher usually has. I was not saying anyone in particular was whining but for someone who is getting a Masters under the school of education I hear the whine OFTEN. That may not have been the point of your thread but it triggered something for me. I knew my posts would be unpopular but I feel they are valid points.

Tacori, I agree with many of your points and posts in this thread.

 

[diamondseeker2006]

Tacori, I agree that is great that teachers get 8-9 weeks off in the summer. In NC, we are paid for 10 months. It is a great schedule for people who have children. Yet when you factor in after school and evening meetings, grading papers, planning, etc. that is done after school hours, it really isn't like you are finished at 3:15. I am not teaching this year, but my daughter made $30,000 her first year and it went up to maybe $35,000 the second year because she finished her master's. So it takes many years to end up at $50,000. It was just my last couple of years that I could have made that much if I had worked fulltime. That means 20+ years experience to make $50,000. I know your county has larger supplements than most, yet it has some of the most difficult schools to teach in as well.

It is a choice whether to teach or not. I loved what I did and since it was a second income, I did not ever have to worry about the amount of salary. I enjoyed having the same schedule as my kids, and I would have never chosen to work a 50 week a year 8-5 job and leave them with babysitters. But there were many parts of the job that were not good...mainly all the tasks that had nothing to do with teaching! The paperwork was horrendous. Car duty, bus duty, hall duty, monitoring sports events, "volunteering" at the fall festival on a Friday night, etc., etc. And the disrespect my daughter experienced was unacceptable and I am glad she quit. She makes even less money now, but that is better than living with continual stress.

I don't think most here are complaining so much as explaining the fact that teachers have very difficult jobs, are almost never appreciated, are rarely treated as professionals, and deserve every last penny they make...if they happen to make it past the first year or two!!!

 

[zoebartlett]

Ksinger -- I was wondering something, and I don't mean to sound snarky or anything AT ALL. I'm truly just curious. From what you've written about your husband's position, he is very fed up. Has he considered looking for a new teaching position at another school maybe in another town/district, some place where his voice would be heard and he'd enjoy his job?

Sigh.....

Sorry to offend, K. I honestly didn't mean to. I know your husband must be doing great work because of the things you've posted. It was just an honest question.

I understand the issue as a whole but I also believe that if a teacher is at the right place with support from his principal, he does have a say in how things are run (at the school level anyway).

Tacori -- I get what you're saying.

 

[Pandora II]

Pandora--The atmosphere is quite different in the US--it's far more popular here to talk about how awful teachers are than it is to talk about how wonderful they are.

It's a shame about your school system. I have close family friends in the UK who sent all of their children to private schools because they said the publics were just plain awful. I don't know if that's a widespread situation in the UK, but our friends are lucky that they have more than enough means and were able to purchase the opportunity for a quality education for their children.

Sorry, late back to this one...

We do have some extremely good public schools here - one that is not that far from where we live but they have 100 places available each year and last year 2,500 students applied. The allocation is done on a range of criteria - children in state care are first priority then siblings of existing pupils and then distance to the school. Houses in the immediate neighbourhood are incredibly expensive purely because of their location in reference to the school. We'd have zero chance of getting a place.

It's the same situation all over the country. To stop people buying properties just to get their kids into a particular school they are thinking of doing an open lottery - but then you can end up with all your children at different schools which with London traffic would be a logistic nightmare for most parents. Plus these schools tend to do as well as they do because the parents that can afford to buy the houses to get the places tend to be well educated, intelligent and very interested in their child and their education.

I was until recently a school governor for a public girls school and I was horrified by the exam results. The headmistress was fantastic and did what she could but they only averaged 38% passing 5 GCSEs (school leaving exams at 16) - and that wasn't including English and Maths. I went to a Grammar school (public but selective) where 99% of students gained 9+ GCSEs. Over my dead body will my daughter be going anywhere near any of our local public schools.

There is a lot of critiscm of people like me who will opt to pay for their child's education. People argue that if our children were at the local schools then they would benefit from bright kids and interested parents. My response is that my child is not a social engineering experiment and if I can I will buy the best educational experience I can for her - even if that does give her a massive advantage and head-start over most children in the UK.

 

[zoebartlett]

Thank you for posting Pandora. That's really interesting.

 

[Haven]

Really interesting information, Pandora. Thank you for sharing.

I struggle with the issue you discuss in your last paragraph. I am a public educator, and I believe in what I do and where I teach. However, DH and I have been discussing whether we would send our future children to public school. We live in a really nice area with really fabulous public schools, but there are even better private schools around here, too. I know I'd be highly criticized by some if I chose to send my children to private school, and that's a choice I'll only be able to make once I actually *meet* these children I'm discussing, but I'm not closed off to the option.

If we lived in a district with public schools that did not satisfy my own standards, I would send my children to private school in a heartbeat. I'm very tempted to put my children into the University of Chicago Lab school, or even Parker or Latin, (I so very much wished that I could have attended Lab myself,) but again, I even struggle with the hypothetical situation. It's going to be interesting once we have children. The question is: Am I contributing to the problem if I take my kids out of the system? (But then--aren't I contributing to the solution by dedicating my career to public education? A conundrum, indeed.)

 

[Maria D]

The question is: Am I contributing to the problem if I take my kids out of the system? (But then--aren't I contributing to the solution by dedicating my career to public education? A conundrum, indeed.)

In my opinion, the answers are:
a.) Perhaps, but as Pandora said, your children are not social engineering experiments! and b.)Yes, definitely!

No conundrum for me. I do happen to work at the same public high school my daughter will graduate from this year, but there is no way I would have let her go there if it wasn't the best fit for her. In fact, her freshman year I was at a private school. She could have attended for free but absolutely did not want to go there. If I thought that she wasn't going to reach her full potential at the public school we are both at now, I wouldn't have let her make that decision.

I teach at a public school because I believe in public education (I feel it's the cornerstone of democracy) and am doing my small part for it. But for my child, I want the best education *for her* that we can afford.

Has anyone been watching the Daily Show? I just love Jon Stewart! Check out his "Crisis in Dairlyland" videos.

http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/t...-richer-and-poorer---teachers-and-wall-street

http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/thu-march-3-2011/crisis-in-dairyland---for-richer-and-poorer

 

[ksinger]

Really interesting information, Pandora. Thank you for sharing.

I struggle with the issue you discuss in your last paragraph. I am a public educator, and I believe in what I do and where I teach. However, DH and I have been discussing whether we would send our future children to public school. We live in a really nice area with really fabulous public schools, but there are even better private schools around here, too. I know I'd be highly criticized by some if I chose to send my children to private school, and that's a choice I'll only be able to make once I actually *meet* these children I'm discussing, but I'm not closed off to the option.

If we lived in a district with public schools that did not satisfy my own standards, I would send my children to private school in a heartbeat. I'm very tempted to put my children into the University of Chicago Lab school, or even Parker or Latin, (I so very much wished that I could have attended Lab myself,) but again, I even struggle with the hypothetical situation. It's going to be interesting once we have children. The question is: Am I contributing to the problem if I take my kids out of the system? (But then--aren't I contributing to the solution by dedicating my career to public education? A conundrum, indeed.)

Well, I would certainly never tell anyone that they are honor-bound to send their kids to a particular school. As a parent you have to do what you think best. However, it also must be aknowledged then, that when you do send your child to a private or selective charter, that you are segregating your child, and secondarily, segregating the kids at the school you flee from. Likely by race, but if not that, then certainly by income, or the homegeneity of the social status and educational level of the parents. There's the dirty little secret that most of the private/charter advocates don't want too much attention on. Under the guise of getting my child the right education, I also get my child away from THOSE people's kids. And in a situation where the majority of schools are filled with the children of poverty, and gang mentality is rampant, who can blame them? I wouldn't necessarily want my kids exposed to the seedier side in the name of "respecting diversity" either. A conundrum indeed and a viscious circle - as the people with means flee, it leaves the remaining familiies in situations of more and more concentrated poverty which runs off even more of the people who have the means to get away etc etc.

As far as I can see, whether people admit it out loud or not, everyone understands that parents and their influence are paramount in a child's life, if for no other reason than that they are the only ones who can truly control the contacts their children get. Aside from actual class time, those contacts and influences are very powerful, and the reason why parents are generally concerned and probably even try to influence, who their child is friends with.

 

[Pandora II]

Really interesting information, Pandora. Thank you for sharing.

I struggle with the issue you discuss in your last paragraph. I am a public educator, and I believe in what I do and where I teach. However, DH and I have been discussing whether we would send our future children to public school. We live in a really nice area with really fabulous public schools, but there are even better private schools around here, too. I know I'd be highly criticized by some if I chose to send my children to private school, and that's a choice I'll only be able to make once I actually *meet* these children I'm discussing, but I'm not closed off to the option.

If we lived in a district with public schools that did not satisfy my own standards, I would send my children to private school in a heartbeat. I'm very tempted to put my children into the University of Chicago Lab school, or even Parker or Latin, (I so very much wished that I could have attended Lab myself,) but again, I even struggle with the hypothetical situation. It's going to be interesting once we have children. The question is: Am I contributing to the problem if I take my kids out of the system? (But then--aren't I contributing to the solution by dedicating my career to public education? A conundrum, indeed.)

Well, I would certainly never tell anyone that they are honor-bound to send their kids to a particular school. As a parent you have to do what you think best. However, it also must be aknowledged then, that when you do send your child to a private or selective charter, that you are segregating your child, and secondarily, segregating the kids at the school you flee from. Likely by race, but if not that, then certainly by income, or the homegeneity of the social status and educational level of the parents. There's the dirty little secret that most of the private/charter advocates don't want too much attention on. Under the guise of getting my child the right education, I also get my child away from THOSE people's kids. And in a situation where the majority of schools are filled with the children of poverty, and gang mentality is rampant, who can blame them? I wouldn't necessarily want my kids exposed to the seedier side in the name of "respecting diversity" either. A conundrum indeed and a viscious circle - as the people with means flee, it leaves the remaining familiies in situations of more and more concentrated poverty which runs off even more of the people who have the means to get away etc etc.

As far as I can see, whether people admit it out loud or not, everyone understands that parents and their influence are paramount in a child's life, if for no other reason than that they are the only ones who can truly control the contacts their children get. Aside from actual class time, those contacts and influences are very powerful, and the reason why parents are generally concerned and probably even try to influence, who their child is friends with.

I definitely admit that by choosing a private education I will also be choosing a certain demographic amongst whom I would like my daughter to make her friends. I will be aiming for a selective school rather than one where you just have to pay as for me the social criteria that are important to me are intelligence and aspiration rather than money. Most of these schools also have bursary and scholarship schemes so that bright children from poorer families can benefit so the social mix is not entirely income based. Nor, in London is it ethnically poor (in terms of diversity) - there do tend to be more Asian than black children, probably because in general Asian families put a much higher emphasis on academic achievement (that is not saying that black families don't care but statistically this is what is borne out).

Many parents who opt for private education also don't have much money (they're spending it all on school fees! ) and many of those who go for the public schools have plenty but spend it on designer labels, holidays and cars etc. It's all about priorities. Both my husband and I do a lot politically and by being school governors to improve the schooling that is available in the public sector as there should be opportunities for all to fulfill their potential and a good education is at the crux of that.

Our local area has the highest levels of teen pregnancy and of knife and gun-crime in the UK, gangs are also a serious problem. Our former house was on a welfare project where around 30% of the properties were privately owned. It was one of the nicest of these estates in the area but we still had the crack den on the ground-floor, the next-door neighbours were always being raided by the police at 5am and a lot of the kids were running wild (we still own and rent out the property - it's 700 sq ft and worth around $500k just to give an idea of how outrageous house-prices are here) - we moved further out when I was pregnant because I really didn't want our child playing with the kids who lived there.

 

[iluvcarats]

I don't think that teachers are overpaid at all, but the unions do make it impossible to get rid oƒ teachers who shouldn't be teaching, and that is unfortunate. Dedicated teachers deserve their benefits and their pensions, but there is a percentage of teachers who do their job just because of the benefits, and that is not fair to our kids. For most teachers however, teaching is a labor of love. It has to be one of the hardest jobs there is. We should be trying to attract the best and brightest, so if anything we should increase teacher salaries. I do think that the pensions should be taxed by the state that they are from, though. Here in NY we pay huge taxes, much of which go to pay pensions, and a lot of that money goes out of state, and I don't think that is right.

 

[ksinger]

I don't think that teachers are overpaid at all, but the unions do make it impossible to get rid oƒ teachers who shouldn't be teaching, and that is unfortunate. Dedicated teachers deserve their benefits and their pensions, but there is a percentage of teachers who do their job just because of the benefits, and that is not fair to our kids. For most teachers however, teaching is a labor of love. It has to be one of the hardest jobs there is. We should be trying to attract the best and brightest, so if anything we should increase teacher salaries. I do think that the pensions should be taxed by the state that they are from, though. Here in NY we pay huge taxes, much of which go to pay pensions, and a lot of that money goes out of state, and I don't think that is right.

Unions do NOT make it impossible to get rid of bad teachers. Period. Administrators who are unwilling to do the difficult part of their jobs, do that. Read several of the posts in here (by Swimmer I think) describing how teachers can and ARE removed - it can be and is, done. As for the percentage of bad teachers, there are probably no more bad teachers teaching than there are bad anyones doing anything, and maybe less, since teachers tend to actually be, overall, an altruistic bunch. The highly money-motivated and immediate gratification types, do not as a rule, go into teaching. This whole focus on these hordes of supposedly "bad teachers" really gets so tiresome. Correctly applied propaganda and a reframing of the dialogue wins over reality yet again.

 

[iluvcarats]

I don't think that teachers are overpaid at all, but the unions do make it impossible to get rid oƒ teachers who shouldn't be teaching, and that is unfortunate. Dedicated teachers deserve their benefits and their pensions, but there is a percentage of teachers who do their job just because of the benefits, and that is not fair to our kids. For most teachers however, teaching is a labor of love. It has to be one of the hardest jobs there is. We should be trying to attract the best and brightest, so if anything we should increase teacher salaries. I do think that the pensions should be taxed by the state that they are from, though. Here in NY we pay huge taxes, much of which go to pay pensions, and a lot of that money goes out of state, and I don't think that is right.

Unions do NOT make it impossible to get rid of bad teachers. Period. Administrators who are unwilling to do the difficult part of their jobs, do that. Read several of the posts in here (by Swimmer I think) describing how teachers can and ARE removed - it can be and is, done. As for the percentage of bad teachers, there are probably no more bad teachers teaching than there are bad anyones doing anything, and maybe less, since teachers tend to actually be, overall, an altruistic bunch. The highly money-motivated and immediate gratification types, do not as a rule, go into teaching. This whole focus on these hordes of supposedly "bad teachers" really gets so tiresome. Correctly applied propaganda and a reframing of the dialogue wins over reality yet again.

True, I have not yet finished reading the entire thread, I am still working on it. I never said that other professions don't have their share of bad apples. They are certainly not all teachers. Just giving my opinion. Being attacked for it however, really gets tiresome

 

[ksinger]

I don't think that teachers are overpaid at all, but the unions do make it impossible to get rid oƒ teachers who shouldn't be teaching, and that is unfortunate. Dedicated teachers deserve their benefits and their pensions, but there is a percentage of teachers who do their job just because of the benefits, and that is not fair to our kids. For most teachers however, teaching is a labor of love. It has to be one of the hardest jobs there is. We should be trying to attract the best and brightest, so if anything we should increase teacher salaries. I do think that the pensions should be taxed by the state that they are from, though. Here in NY we pay huge taxes, much of which go to pay pensions, and a lot of that money goes out of state, and I don't think that is right.

Unions do NOT make it impossible to get rid of bad teachers. Period. Administrators who are unwilling to do the difficult part of their jobs, do that. Read several of the posts in here (by Swimmer I think) describing how teachers can and ARE removed - it can be and is, done. As for the percentage of bad teachers, there are probably no more bad teachers teaching than there are bad anyones doing anything, and maybe less, since teachers tend to actually be, overall, an altruistic bunch. The highly money-motivated and immediate gratification types, do not as a rule, go into teaching. This whole focus on these hordes of supposedly "bad teachers" really gets so tiresome. Correctly applied propaganda and a reframing of the dialogue wins over reality yet again.

True, I have yet not finished reading the entire thread, I am still working on it. I never said that other professions don't have their share of bad apples. They are certainly not all teachers. Just giving my opinion. Being attacked for it however, really gets tiresome

It wasn't at attack, it was exasperation. I'm sorry it came across as such. From where I stand, "Bad teacher" falls from the mouth of almost everyone these days. It really IS a coup of propaganda that millions have bought into because it is being drummed on day and night. Keep reading this thread. You'll see. "Bad teacher" ad nauseum. Everyone is happy to focus on "bad teacher" because "bad teacher" can be fired, and firing people is neat and tidy, and hey, we DID something! It distracts from the real problems of course, but hey, it feels good and offers immediate gratification. Think Rhode Island. Fire 'em. Heck, fire 'em every year, that's even better!

 

[iluvcarats]

I don't think that teachers are overpaid at all, but the unions do make it impossible to get rid oƒ teachers who shouldn't be teaching, and that is unfortunate. Dedicated teachers deserve their benefits and their pensions, but there is a percentage of teachers who do their job just because of the benefits, and that is not fair to our kids. For most teachers however, teaching is a labor of love. It has to be one of the hardest jobs there is. We should be trying to attract the best and brightest, so if anything we should increase teacher salaries. I do think that the pensions should be taxed by the state that they are from, though. Here in NY we pay huge taxes, much of which go to pay pensions, and a lot of that money goes out of state, and I don't think that is right.

Unions do NOT make it impossible to get rid of bad teachers. Period. Administrators who are unwilling to do the difficult part of their jobs, do that. Read several of the posts in here (by Swimmer I think) describing how teachers can and ARE removed - it can be and is, done. As for the percentage of bad teachers, there are probably no more bad teachers teaching than there are bad anyones doing anything, and maybe less, since teachers tend to actually be, overall, an altruistic bunch. The highly money-motivated and immediate gratification types, do not as a rule, go into teaching. This whole focus on these hordes of supposedly "bad teachers" really gets so tiresome. Correctly applied propaganda and a reframing of the dialogue wins over reality yet again.

True, I have yet not finished reading the entire thread, I am still working on it. I never said that other professions don't have their share of bad apples. They are certainly not all teachers. Just giving my opinion. Being attacked for it however, really gets tiresome

It wasn't at attack, it was exasperation. I'm sorry it came across as such. From where I stand, "Bad teacher" falls from the mouth of almost everyone these days. It really IS a coup of propaganda that millions have bought into because it is being drummed on day and night. Keep reading this thread. You'll see. "Bad teacher" ad nauseum. Everyone is happy to focus on "bad teacher" because "bad teacher" can be fired, and firing people is neat and tidy, and hey, we DID something! It distracts from the real problems of course, but hey, it feels good and offers immediate gratification. Think Rhode Island. Fire 'em. Heck, fire 'em every year, that's even better!

I get the exasperation. Did you read my post? I'm on your side. I want teachers to be compensated and appreciated. I think what RI did SUCKS! Find other ways to balance your budget! I think teachers are deserving of more money, and especially more respect. My point is that sometimes you'll get a teacher who is teaching just for the benefits. They started out fresh and energetic, but become stale after time, and are hard to get rid of. I think it is the exception, not the rule, but it is a problem. Sure the administration can get rid of them, but not without facing the wrath of the unions and their lawyers. I have been lucky so far that neither of my kids have had any "bad" teachers. On the contrary, they have both had wonderful teachers who give of themselves every day, and I appreciate that. Our school district relies heavily on the PTSA for a lot of art and cultural programs , and every time I am there I marvel at the patience of the teachers, and am thankful that they do what they do. My hat is off to teachers, and my wallet is open. They more than deserve their pay.

 

[Lula]

I don't think that teachers are overpaid at all, but the unions do make it impossible to get rid oƒ teachers who shouldn't be teaching, and that is unfortunate. Dedicated teachers deserve their benefits and their pensions, but there is a percentage of teachers who do their job just because of the benefits, and that is not fair to our kids. For most teachers however, teaching is a labor of love. It has to be one of the hardest jobs there is. We should be trying to attract the best and brightest, so if anything we should increase teacher salaries. I do think that the pensions should be taxed by the state that they are from, though. Here in NY we pay huge taxes, much of which go to pay pensions, and a lot of that money goes out of state, and I don't think that is right.

Unions do NOT make it impossible to get rid of bad teachers. Period. Administrators who are unwilling to do the difficult part of their jobs, do that. Read several of the posts in here (by Swimmer I think) describing how teachers can and ARE removed - it can be and is, done. As for the percentage of bad teachers, there are probably no more bad teachers teaching than there are bad anyones doing anything, and maybe less, since teachers tend to actually be, overall, an altruistic bunch. The highly money-motivated and immediate gratification types, do not as a rule, go into teaching. This whole focus on these hordes of supposedly "bad teachers" really gets so tiresome. Correctly applied propaganda and a reframing of the dialogue wins over reality yet again.

Ditto, ditto, ditto.
Thank you ksinger for pointing this out. I am from Wisconsin, where this line of "reasoning" is being used to justify some pretty draconian changes. Other states are using the same "logic." Administration does not get nearly the scrutiny it should for its part in the problem.

 

[swimmer]

And the new snarky email going around, similar to Haven's oldie but goodie!

Notice to All Banker Types from a Teacher

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2011/03/07/953476/-Notice-to-All-Banker-Types-from-a-Teacher

I have used a bank many times. I have a checking account and a savings account (although I do admit I haven't added anything to my savings account for the past fifteen years since my pay has been frozen.) Nevertheless, the fact that I have made deposits, written checks, and I understand in theory the concept of a savings account makes me uniquely qualified to reorganize your operations.

Our country is at a crossroads. What we do now will determine the future for our children. I'm sure you want to do what's best for our future, right? We are in a Race to the Top. From now on, we need for all banks to do their part in winning that future. I've seen how you do things from my place in line, and frankly it's not good enough. I have noticed that there are many bad bank tellers who simply aren't cutting it in my opinion. Many times when I've been standing in line, there are empty teller stations not even open. I see you bankers taking lunches, a luxury we teachers had to forgo many years ago. I see you even getting bathroom breaks. What is that about?

Based on my vast experience of standing in line at the bank, I'm hereby declaring myself an expert of all financial institutions and their operations. In a program I will call NDLB (No Depositor Left Behind) all banks will from this day on be ranked and given a grade based on their average customer bank balance.

Grades will be posted weekly in every newspaper in the country, along with individual names of bankers who are underperforming. We will be asking suggestions from other people we find in the line at the bank in order to help you to make AYP (Adequate Yearly Progress.) If you fail to meet AYP, your bank will be rated as failing and will undergo sanctions.

In order to win the future, it is my belief as a self-stated expert that ALL depositors must hit certain benchmarks by 2014. Your bank will be monitored for progress towards these goals.

Here are the benchmarks:

By 2011, 60% of your depositors must have at least $100,000 in their savings accounts.

By 2012, 75% of your depositors must have at least $500,000 in their savings accounts.

By 2013, 90% of your depositors must have at least $750,000 in their savings accounts.

By 2014, 100% of your depositors must have at least $1,000,000 in their savings accounts.

We believe these are reasonable benchmarks that will ensure all depositors our constitutional right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. We the people standing in line at the bank reserve the right to increase these benchmarks any time we feel we don't have enough money.

If you fail to meet these benchmarks your bank will undergo sanctions including, but not limited to:

Having your failing grade posted in the newspaper along with directions to the nearest successful bank.

Cutting the number of workers in your bank in half and doubling the workload for everyone else who is left.

Meeting every Thursday before the bank opens with experts randomly chosen from the drive through line to discuss any data about why your bank is underperforming.

Closing underperforming banks and reopening them with better performing workers from successful banks that have hit the benchmarks (or people we find in line at the unemployment line), whichever we find easier.

A percentage of the banks' deposits will be set aside for randomly chosen experts to meet to figure out how the heck to get your depositors to their benchmarks. Since we anticipate that will be a very difficult job, we experts may have to meet in places like Hawaii where it is a known fact that it's easier to think.

This is not meant in any way to be punitive. We realize that in some areas of the country it will be tough to get your depositors to the stated benchmarks due to unemployment, and poverty. But we must stress that there are no excuses. We believe in you as bankers and we believe in depositors' innate ability to grow their bank accounts. No matter how tough it gets, you must remember that our future is at stake. This is for the pride of our country. It is simply unacceptable to let America's depositors fall behind depositors in other countries. We know you will join everyone in happily doing your part to win that future.

In order to get this new plan up and running, we will have to freeze your pay (and bonuses) for the next fifteen years. You will also be giving eight to ten days of your wages each year to help meet the new benchmarks. We have tried these methods with teachers and it's worked pretty well for the past several years to help balance the state budgets. We are now ready to expand these methods to other professions. I'm sure you would agree that you want to do everything in your power to meet these benchmarks for the sake of our future and our children.

 

[zoebartlett]

Thanks for the post Swimmer! It's so true.

 

[Arkteia]

Hypothetical question. Do you think that if teachers were paid DECENTLY, the numbers of schoolchildren prescribed stimulants would decrease? Or, the time of the first prescription would move from elementary to middle or even high school?

Underpaying teachers and not investing enough money into public school system has unmeasurable consequences.

I am not against stimulants. Not at all. But there is a huge difference in getting your first prescription at 6, when the brain is just developing, or at 16, when it is much safer.

 

[movie zombie]

i believe the pharmaceutical industry is more problematic re drugs being prescribed for kids than are teachers themselves.....

MoZo

 

[zoebartlett]

Hypothetical question. Do you think that if teachers were paid DECENTLY, the numbers of schoolchildren prescribed stimulants would decrease? Or, the time of the first prescription would move from elementary to middle or even high school?

Underpaying teachers and not investing enough money into public school system has unmeasurable consequences.

I am not against stimulants. Not at all. But there is a huge difference in getting your first prescription at 6, when the brain is just developing, or at 16, when it is much safer.

I'm not following what one has to do with the other (your first question), Crasu. Sorry!

 

[DearBuddha]

Hypothetical question. Do you think that if teachers were paid DECENTLY, the numbers of schoolchildren prescribed stimulants would decrease? Or, the time of the first prescription would move from elementary to middle or even high school?

Underpaying teachers and not investing enough money into public school system has unmeasurable consequences.

I am not against stimulants. Not at all. But there is a huge difference in getting your first prescription at 6, when the brain is just developing, or at 16, when it is much safer.

I've been teaching for almost four years now and in all of my experiences (elementary with a recent transition to high school), I have never felt my instruction was a contributing factor in whether or not my students were medicated. I have however seen the impact of medication on my teaching methods and strategies (which is actually not a terrible thing, when I think about it; it's never a bad thing to have numerous accommodations/approaches available to students).

I do have reservations against putting children on stimulants, especially when they're young. But ultimately they aren't my children, it isn't up to me, and I have to do my absolute best to help that child succeed no matter what. So if a parent wants their child on meds, well, so be it. Changing my pay isn't going to change how I plan a lesson for that child or how hard I work to make sure he or she understands the material.