The public school teacher salary thread


Vort
 Share

Recommended Posts

I had a really, really awful job for the meanest dermatologist ever for about a year a long time ago. I was miserable there, because he was a miserable person and his miserable family ran the office. I rarely even stayed to have lunch with the staff because I so hated how they were and how they did things. 

 

That didn't put me on a crusade to end the practice of dermatology. I quit my job and found one more tolerable to me.

Edited by Eowyn
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[Failed engineering students usually go into education] has the feel of a pot shot. Is this really true, or just something that gets said. It's like the old canard, "Those who can't...teach." It's unproven and untrue.

I have both empirical data and statistics to show this is not a pot shot: it is true. It would take a few days to go through the notes on my shelf and computer to find it, but assuming I have any credibility, please recognize that I am not making this up.

Lehi

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Again this is a misleading stat. Those who find fulfillment in working with the young (vs. grappling with the very most complex issues at the cutting edge of a field) are less likely to be great lab researchers. They just might make great teachers though.

Now you are not understanding my meaning.

The scores I am talking about are the college and graduate admission tests.

Historically, teachers and school administrators score the lowest (except for social workers) on these tests.

I don't give a great deal of credence to standardized tests: they only measure what they measure, not necessarily what needs to be measured. However, we can make reasonably safe comparisons between one group, like teacher candidates, and another, like English majors, and see that, on average, teachers score more poorly than the others. The same it true of administrators. Of all graduate students, they score lowest on the GSATs.

I will gladly grant that not all grtf-welfare school teachers are bad. I will, however, insist that even the best are shackled by a system designed around government-controlled curricula and standards, around bureaucratic time tables and schedules.

Of the four classes of people harmed by grtf-welfare schools, I pity teachers the most, especially the good ones. They must abandon their dreams and knuckle under to the system.

Again, I suggest that you read John Taylor Gatto's work: An Underground History of American Education. Gatto was thrice the NYC teacher of the year, and won the same award twice from NY state. Someone wondered if my sources were incompetent. I assure you, Gatto is far from incompetent. Read him and see.

He wrote a letter to the editor of the Wall Street Journal the spring before he retired. In it, he said (my copy is out, so I'll have to paraphrase), "If you know of a job where I don't have to hurt children for a living, please let me know."

Lehi

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So if we declare, on average, teachers as a bunch of idiots no matter what, where can we improve in education with a lack of qualified experts? Set up what education system you like, but if we can't trust anyone to teach, why bother? You can't declare teachers as sub-par and say we just need a different system in the same breath as if the two will fix each other if you consider most teachers as useless.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I read a few posts.  Many years ago I thought it would be fun to be a teacher.  The university I attended at the time (BYU) allowed a teacher to not only have a teaching subject - mine was math and physics.  but we could also declare a specialty.  What surprised me was that most prospective teachers declared a specialty of what was called "special learners".  In short these are kids the teaching program has identified as problem learners.   Why would anyone want to teach problem students?  My thoughts as a teacher - I wanted to teach the best, smartest and brightest students. 

 

As far as I know - I was the only student at the time that wanted to teach our country's genius.  What I discovered is that our education system not only does not want to teach exceptional students - It does not even want to identify exceptional learners.  I am not sure if we are afraid of exceptional learners or what?  But almost all the villains in fantasy literature are super smart.  I believe that of all the stupid prejudice that exist in our society the on prejudice that one that no one wants to do anything about is a prejudice towards smart people.  I will openly admit that the one prejudice I have never been able to over come is a prejudice of really stupid people that somehow get into positions of relative importance - a very strange phenomenon called "The Peter Principle".  Which is in short - individuals will rise to an eventual level of incompetence.

 

Many times I have posted on the forum - "What is the single most common denominator of the genius in our society?  Here is a hint.  It is far and away a head of all other denominators and plays across all exceptional individuals - in sports, entertainment, science whatever individuals excel at doing  ---- what is the one most common element of someone that is exceptional?  Here is another hint -- it is one thing that is frowned on in our public educational system.   In fact there is a very derogatory term used to degrade any student pursuing such a course in their life. 

Edited by Traveler
Link to comment
Share on other sites

So if we declare, on average, teachers as a bunch of idiots no matter what, where can we improve in education with a lack of qualified experts? Set up what education system you like, but if we can't trust anyone to teach, why bother? You can't declare teachers as sub-par and say we just need a different system in the same breath as if the two will fix each other if you consider most teachers as useless.

Please re word. I'm not making sense of this.

The point is that there are too many restrictions on the good teachers (which I agree do exist), and the whole system is designed to achieve what Horace Mann wanted: to divorce children from their parents, and, particularly from their parents' religious values and mores.

We look all around, and see that this goal has been achieved, or, at least, it is well on the way.

Lehi

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please re word. I'm not making sense of this.

The point is that there are too many restrictions on the good teachers (which I agree do exist), and the whole system is designed to achieve what Horace Mann wanted: to divorce children from their parents, and, particularly from their parents' religious values and mores.

We look all around, and see that this goal has been achieved, or, at least, it is well on the way.

Lehi

I get the impression that you think good teachers exist but that they are few and far between.

So who do you expect to educate? The few good ones aren't going to take on the masses by themselves.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Does it matter? If the government is in control of what qualifies for the credit or voucher, it is in control, not you.

Lehi

 

Yes, it is immensely important.  Vouchers give government the ability to dictate terms to the schools that receive them.  Even Bob Jones University and Grove City College were pressured because they receive government subsidized student loan monies.  The latter school no longer accepts those loan monies, and instead has raised a student loan fund that mirrors the government rates, but is privately funded.

 

So, the tax credits, because they go to the parents, as refunds or reductions in payment, never get tied to the private schools (or home schooling expenditures).  Thus, government will not as easily be able to dictate terms to those schools.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have both empirical data and statistics to show this is not a pot shot: it is true. It would take a few days to go through the notes on my shelf and computer to find it, but assuming I have any credibility, please recognize that I am not making this up.

Lehi

 

Even if there are some that do, I'm not sure it would prove much.  Again, what level of engineering is needed to teach secondary education?  To me it only makes sense that one who enjoys a subject at certain levels, but who peaks in ability to early to make it to the top-flight jobs might choose to share their love at the more basic levels with young students who may, themselves, out-pace their teachers some day.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My three girls are in public schools--now all secondary.  Are they perfect places?  No.  Do I agree with all of the curriculum.  No.  However, what they have access to is light years ahead of what I got.  By middle school every student in our district has access to some kind of honors level study.  My girls get high school algebra in 7th grade, and geometry in 8th.  Those who choose the college-bound curricula (mainly I.B. or Cambridge) and pass the exams are often get 45 college credits by the schools that accept them.  Those who take Running Start have the potential to earn an A.A. degree along with their high school diplomas.

 

I've encountered some teachers who seem nicer than others, but none who were incompetent, or who were hurting children.  Still, I can see why those who can afford to choose private schools with long histories of successful college-prep courses.  Likewise, I know that some religious people find the public curriculum to be hostile to their faith.  This is why I support tax credits for those who choose private or homeschool education. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I get the impression that you think good teachers exist but that they are few and far between.

So who do you expect to educate? The few good ones aren't going to take on the masses by themselves.

There are so many options when it comes to education that the answer to this question would take twelve reams of paper to print out.

Good teachers are few and far between. Fer cryin' in a bucket: there are few exceptional anythings, that's why they are exceptional.

The problem is that the good teachers are dragged down by the rest, by the system, and by the idiotic laws and rules they must work under.

Government-run, tax-funded welfare schools are, for practical terms, monopsonies. Good teachers have no real options outside the system. If there were no grtf-welfare schools, the good teachers would open their own schools. They would make more money, and they would be able to control the working environment so their students could learn better, faster, and more in depth.

Everyone seems to worry about the poor students. The fact is that the poor students are getting the shaft under the current system: 50% illiteracy is incredible, but that's what the grtf-welfare system is churning out. It must be by design because no one would continue doing the same thing year after year, decade after decade, and accept these depressing results. Under a parent-controlled system, with no government involvement, the parents could, and would choose what they felt would best suit their children and they could afford. We already have private schools that cater to the poorer student, the handicapped student (many grtf-welfare schools contract these students out to the private schools). Where there is a market, there will be a supplier.

Let's assume that the poorer students would get a "3" level school, due to parental poverty. Let's further assume that the richest students would get an "8" level. Huge disparity. But compared to the current system, that "3" is 50% better than the "2" these students get now, and those in the "8" level schools would be getting a four-fold increase in education. The question is, would you deny the poorer student the better-than-current result because the richer student is getting a much, much greater benefit? If so, if you would limit both to that "2", then there is nothing more to be said.

We've mentioned scholarships for K~12 students. So, no parent would be limited to the worst schools because of lack of funds.

Finally, the paradigm of schools is fatally flawed any way. The first sentence in this post tells why: there are a myriad of alternatives to the current system. There reason is there are a myriad of ways children learn, and when a child is forced into a system that does not meet his learning style and interests, the best teachers in the world cannot help him learn.

That's why grtf-welfare schools fail to educate: they are cookie factories, where every child must go through the same process, and when he cannot meet the standard, he is pulled of the line and "remediated". It's not the child who is defective, it's the system. A private system would better meet the needs of individual children because there would be as many schools as there are method of learning.

When ever there is a problem in the grtf-welfare schools, there is an excuse for the failure: parents are unsupportive, there is no money, the children are hungry, the children don't get enough sleep, the teachers are underpaid, et cetera, etc., &c. No one accepts poor performance from a private company. When they fail, the customer goes elsewhere, or does it himself.

Lehi

Edited by LeSellers
Link to comment
Share on other sites

PC, I have encountered a disheartening number of incompetent and even vicious teachers. Not a majority by any means, but enough that I find it discouraging and frightening.

 

Having said that, I do agree that expecting teachers to be among the top 5% of their classes in the GRE or something is both unrealistic and unhelpful. When I was first learning physics, it occurred to me that I didn't need Albert Einstein or Richard Feynmenn to teach my introductory classes in mechanics. Rather, I needed someone who understood the basics and could convey them to me. This is what I expect of any teacher at any level. If s/he can manage to be inspiring and can perhaps know and convey to certain students way more than what the class covers, well, that's a wonderful bonus. But that basic competency* is all I really expect, and what I too often find lacking.

 

*Competence refers to overall understanding and ability in an area. Competency, a relatively recent word, refers specifically to the legally or formally required abilities necessary to fill a job or position. For example, I consider the following to be minimal competencies for various high school teachers:

  • For any science teacher, regardless of the specific subject -- a broad, basic knowledge of all areas of science: physics, astronomy, chemistry, biology, geology, etc.
  • For any math teacher -- a solid understanding of all aspects of mathematics through algebra, geometry, trigonometry, and probably at least an introductory understanding of limits and very basic calculus
  • For any English teacher, no matter whether the class is literature, composition, or anything else -- a solid understanding of all major aspects of English grammar, a reasonable background in English classical works such as Shakespeare, and a respectable vocabulary
  • For any foreign language teacher -- a reasonable fluency (say, at bare minimum a B-1 CEFR rating), solid understanding of the vocabulary and grammar being taught, and at least a bit of experience using the target language in a real-life setting

These things seem to me like very reasonable expectations. I am not saying a teacher ought necessarily to be fluent in all such ancillary areas, but if a student asks a question outside the specific class material, the teacher should be able either to give an intelligent (AND CORRECT) response, or at least point the student to where such information exists and how it is determined. It amazes me how often school teachers lack these basic competencies in the areas they are getting paid to teach our children about.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, it is immensely important.  Vouchers give government the ability to dictate terms to the schools that receive them.  Even Bob Jones University and Grove City College were pressured because they receive government subsidized student loan monies.  The latter school no longer accepts those loan monies, and instead has raised a student loan fund that mirrors the government rates, but is privately funded.

 

So, the tax credits, because they go to the parents, as refunds or reductions in payment, never get tied to the private schools (or home schooling expenditures).  Thus, government will not as easily be able to dictate terms to those schools.

I got tax credits for the solar panels I had installed. If your assumptions were correct, I could have gotten the same tax credit for a perpetual motion machine.

The thing is, the government sets the criteria for tax credits in exactly the same way as for vouchers. If the "education" you are providing your daughters does not meet the standards the bureaucracy and political system requires, you will not get the credit.

The fact that the money does not come back to you in one form, but does in another, makes no difference to the politicos.

Lehi

Edited by LeSellers
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I just skimmed through the LeSellers vs. A lot of People posts...

Trust me on this.

America's problem is not the teachers. America's problem is THE ENTIRE SYSTEM.

When you walk into any school - public or private - and you see children but don't hear children? I can tell you, you have a problem.

That's why homeschooled children tend to win lots of awards. They're allowed to be children. When you have an environment of children who are stuck to a desk and have to be quiet for 6 hours even during the lunch break? You already have a broken system.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

One of the other posters here, lagarthaaz, just wrote that he is going to take additional class work in order to get a higher paycheck. His experience is in Australia, but there is no reason to assume that USmerican teachers would not do the same thing.

It is not mandatory, or even strongly likely, that a teacher would go for a higher paycheck, irrespective of his dedication to the "calling".

Lehi

 

Erm, no,it wasn't me who said that. Our system doesn't even work that way. 

 

And I'm a she, not a he.

Edited by lagarthaaz
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

*Competence refers to overall understanding and ability in an area. Competency, a relatively recent word, refers specifically to the legally or formally required abilities necessary to fill a job or position. For example, I consider the following to be minimal competencies for various high school teachers:

  • For any science teacher, regardless of the specific subject -- a broad, basic knowledge of all areas of science: physics, astronomy, chemistry, biology, geology, etc.
  • For any math teacher -- a solid understanding of all aspects of mathematics through algebra, geometry, trigonometry, and probably at least an introductory understanding of limits and very basic calculus
  • For any English teacher, no matter whether the class is literature, composition, or anything else -- a solid understanding of all major aspects of English grammar, a reasonable background in English classical works such as Shakespeare, and a respectable vocabulary
  • For any foreign language teacher -- a reasonable fluency (say, at bare minimum a B-1 CEFR rating), solid understanding of the vocabulary and grammar being taught, and at least a bit of experience using the target language in a real-life setting

These things seem to me like very reasonable expectations. I am not saying a teacher ought necessarily to be fluent in all such ancillary areas, but if a student asks a question outside the specific class material, the teacher should be able either to give an intelligent (AND CORRECT) response, or at least point the student to where such information exists and how it is determined. It amazes me how often school teachers lack these basic competencies in the areas they are getting paid to teach our children about.

 

But aren't high school teachers expected to be specialists in their subject areas?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There are so many options when it comes to education that the answer to this question would take twelve reams of paper to print out.

Good teachers are few and far between. Fer cryin' in a bucket: there are few exceptional anythings, that's why they are exceptional.

The problem is that the good teachers are dragged down by the rest, by the system, and by the idiotic laws and rules they must work under.

Government-run, tax-funded welfare schools are, for practical terms, monopsonies. Good teachers have no real options outside the system. If there were no grtf-welfare schools, the good teachers would open their own schools. They would make more money, and they would be able to control the working environment so their students could learn better, faster, and more in depth.

So are most teachers lousy or does the system bite? Which is it? The negative view of instructors is a hard one to change . You speak of the good teachers opening their own schools. That's fine and dandy except now a tiny percentage of those considered good enough to teach have selected their ideal students, also a tiny percent of the population... and everyone else is left to suffer due to a lack of resources and you spreading the insistence most teachers are morons. Sure, many teachers might do much better with more freedom and direct decision-making with parents, but by your own claim many teachers will still be idiots. You say most teachers are of low intelligence, and then turn around and say these same teachers would be just fine under their own system. As if this system would retroactively fix their college test scores. It does not work that way.

If most people entering teaching are too stupid to teach, please list the resources available to the majority of the population. You're avoiding the question by saying there's a myriad of alternatives. Now, I'm a big fan of the Sudbury School model. Can you list other things?

Edited by Backroads
Link to comment
Share on other sites

So are most teachers lousy or does the system bite? Which is it? The negative view of instructors is a hard one to change . You speak of the good teachers opening their own schools. That's fine and dandy except now a tiny percentage of those considered good enough to teach have selected their ideal students, also a tiny percent of the population... and everyone else is left to suffer due to a lack of resources and you spreading the insistence most teachers are morons. Sure, many teachers might do much better with more freedom and direct decision-making with parents, but by your own claim many teachers will still be idiots. You say most teachers are of low intelligence, and then turn around and say these same teachers would be just fine under their own system. As if this system would retroactively fix their college test scores. It does not work that way.

If most people entering teaching are too stupid to teach, please list the resources available to the majority of the population. You're avoiding the question by saying there's a myriad of alternatives. Now, I'm a big fan of the Sudbury School model. Can you list other things?

 

My observation:

 

Most bad teachers (at least in the counties I've been in) are bad because the system makes them so.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So are most teachers lousy or does the system bite? Which is it? The negative view of instructors is a hard one to change . You speak of the good teachers opening their own schools. That's fine and dandy except now a tiny percentage of those considered good enough to teach have selected their ideal students, also a tiny percent of the population... and everyone else is left to suffer due to a lack of resources and you spreading the insistence most teachers are morons. Sure, many teachers might do much better with more freedom and direct decision-making with parents, but by your own claim many teachers will still be idiots. You say most teachers are of low intelligence, and then turn around and say these same teachers would be just fine under their own system. As if this system would retroactively fix their college test scores. It does not work that way.

If most people entering teaching are too stupid to teach, please list the resources available to the majority of the population. You're avoiding the question by saying there's a myriad of alternatives. Now, I'm a big fan of the Sudbury School model. Can you list other things?

 

 

This is exactly why I asked him what his plan was...  Because it is easy to have a sound bite that sounds good.  Like "Change you can believe in"  However once you get beyond the sound bite to brass tacks... things fall apart.  I am thinking there are many who now wish they had asked for more details about this "Change you can believe in" before endorsing it to happen.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But aren't high school teachers expected to be specialists in their subject areas?

 

Sure. A science teacher should specialize in science. But science is a big area, and a teacher, of all people, should understand that area. Same with an English teacher, a math teacher, or a shop teacher. I do not believe it's asking too much that a math teacher understand math, even math outside the specific classes s/he teaches.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is exactly why I asked him what his plan was... Because it is easy to have a sound bite that sounds good. Like "Change you can believe in" However once you get beyond the sound bite to brass tacks... things fall apart. I am thinking there are many who now wish they had asked for more details about this "Change you can believe in" before endorsing it to happen.

Agree.

I'm certainly not opposed to different options. I just want to know what those options are for the masses. If most kids can't get into teacher - run schools, then what?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The principle is that, in general, a teacher should understand the subject at least one or two levels above what s/he is teaching. How you define "levels" is fluid, but the teacher should not be trying to teach at the very limit of his or her understanding. That is a sure-fire recipe for having a poor teaching and learning experience.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Agree.

I'm certainly not opposed to different options. I just want to know what those options are for the masses. If most kids can't get into teacher - run schools, then what?

 

If you remove the government from the management of the education system except for providing a safety net (the exception instead of the rule), you will start to see the private capitalist market start to fill the gap.  And, just like you'll never lack for places to buy food - of all different types and of all different flavors and of all different price markets and all different quality - you'll never lack for places to send your children to school either.

Edited by anatess
Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you remove the government from the management of the education system except for providing a safety net (the exception instead of the rule), you will start to see the private capitalist market start to fill the gap.  And, just like you'll never lack for places to buy food - of all different types and of all different flavors and of all different price markets and all different quality - you'll never lack for places to send your children to school either.

 

Not if we continue to treat most teachers as idiots. Right now one could argue people put up with teachers they consider idiots because that's the easiest option. I just don't think a transfer to a private system would change people's perception that teachers are low-class idiots. Will this system change really bring enough people interested in teaching with the ability to do a great job, or will it continue to be the same old-same old with the customer base fighting for the "few good teachers" and then keeping their kids out of school because they couldn't get the "good school"?

 

Excuse me for being a bit defensive, but after getting excellent grades through high school, doing extremely well on my college admission tests... and then basically being called a moron because I happened to be interested in teaching as a career... I have to wonder if people will really think better of teachers just because the system is different.

Edited by Backroads
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not if we continue to treat most teachers as idiots. Right now one could argue people put up with teachers they consider idiots because that's the easiest option. I just don't think a transfer to a private system would change people's perception that teachers are low-class idiots.

 

Yes.  Because, what makes most of them seem like idiots is the EDUCATION SYSTEM that they are bound by.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share