Slashdot Log In
Paying for Better Math and Science Teachers
Posted by
ScuttleMonkey
on Mon Mar 05, 2007 03:52 PM
from the get-what-you-pay-for dept.
from the get-what-you-pay-for dept.
Coryoth writes "While California is suffering from critical shortage of mathematics and science teachers, Kentucky is considering two bills that would give explicit financial incentives to math and science students and teachers. The first bill would provide cash incentives to schools to run AP math and science classes, and cash scholarships to students who did well on AP math and science exams. The second bill provides salary bumps for any teachers with degrees in math or science, or who score well in teacher-certification tests in math, chemistry and physics. Is such differentiated pay the right way to attract science graduates who can make much more in industry, or is it simply going to breed discontent among teachers?"
Related Stories
[+]
Higher Pay for Math and Science Teachers 471 comments
Coryoth writes "Following up a previous story, it seems that the Kentucky effort to provide increased pay to teachers with qualifications in mathematics, physics, and chemistry has been gutted. Teachers objected to differential pay, and that portion of the bill was removed. At the same time California has just put forward a similar measure, with differential pay for teachers qualified in mathematics and science. Shockingly 40% of mathematics teachers in California are not fully qualified in the subject — a higher percentage of unqualified teachers than any other subject. Is the Californian effort any more likely to succeed, or is it destined to be similarly gutted? Is there a solution to the woeful lack of qualified mathematics teachers that the Teachers' Union will find acceptable?"
[+]
New UK Initiative - Make Science Easier 423 comments
An anonymous reader writes "Examiners in the UK have been told to make science 'easier'. From next year 70% of the paper must consist of 'low demand' questions in the form of multiple choice or similar answers. Currently this type of question makes up some 55% of the test. When the recent A level results were announced, with even more students in the UK getting A grades than ever before, educators were congratulating themselves on improved teaching. 'Jim Sinclair, the Joint Council for Qualifications director, emphatically denied that the changes would lead to a rise in the number achieving grade C - the top grade in the foundation tier. Future results would depend on how the marks were allocated. Dr Sinclair added that the changes would help to stop children being turned off by science.' Even still, it's hard to see the benefit from future science students passing by guessing."
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Full
Abbreviated
Hidden
Loading... please wait.
We have a winner! (Score:4, Insightful)
Ding-ding-ding-ding-ding!
Re:We have a winner! (Score:5, Insightful)
or is it simply going to breed discontent among under-qualified teachers?
Fixed it.
Parent
Re:We have a winner! (Score:5, Insightful)
Professors have to be paid based on the opportunity cost decisions they must make and as such people like phyiscs professors, economics professors, law professors, etc make a lot more money than english, classics, history type professors. This may not seem fair since they both do the same sort of work, teaching classes possibly consisting of the exact same students but you have to think about their other options. A physics professor could make good money in industry instead of teaching and similarily the opportunity cost of a law professor teaching is being a lawyer and the cost to an econ professor of teaching is the possibility of making a ton of money in business/consulting. If you are going get qualified professors in these fields, you are going to have to pay them a wage closer to what they could earn outside of acadamia.
The only reason I see this not being a valid case for high school teachers is that there is a bigger qualification gap. I feel fairly confident that given a curriculum (and I guess the education credits needed to qualify me to do so) I could teach science or algebra to a bunch of 16 year olds or show them how to construct a thesis but I am in no way qualified to be a college professor which would require me to possess a PhD in my field (which usually assumes a masters) and extensive time investment before being granted a real professorship. As a matter of fact, I remember being taught courses in high school by instructers who clearly had not studied the subject they were teaching...
Thus I see why the pay-gap is a legitimate idea but it probobly doesnt apply well enough to high school teachers (who dont necessarily have the qualifications to make the opportunity cost argument valid)
Parent
EVERYTHING breeds discontent in teachers (Score:4, Interesting)
Parent
Re:We have a winner! (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re:We have a winner! (Score:5, Interesting)
Parent
Re:We have a winner! (Score:5, Interesting)
My father has been a teacher for almost 20 years, and describes the life cycle of a teacher like this:
2. They are very enthusiastic, and spin their wheels with enthusiasm.
3. About 5-10 years into it, they get cynical. But with that many years behind them, they are not going to switch careers.
2. It generates a lot of (fake) steam, then is loopholed and "special-ed"ed out of commission, at which point everybody forgets the name.
3. The program is about to expire, and everything will go back to traditional mode. This creates a lawsuit hazard, as tens of thousands of students suddenly must pass a test or miss their diploma.
4. A new program is hastily implemented to keep the scores inflated and keep to the students rolling through (read: no lawsuits).
2. Parents roar at the teacher, and send their kid to the school shrink. At this point the student pays attention and dons his worst intellect, in order to pass the evaluation.
3. He is assigned a monitor who is specially responsible to keep an eye on his school (read: make sure he passes).
4. The student has a lot less work to do (the basic package is 1/2 the homework, and it gets worse as you go along), and the teacher is given a dossier (they have some politically correct name for it) on the kid's "condition", and he is required to tailor his lessons for that child's benefit. (There is naturally no way a teacher can tailor the class for a dozen individual kids.)
5. The student passes with good grades, and gets his diploma. He got by with minimal work, the parents are happy, and nobody got sued.
5. Since you can't discriminate against the handicapped or retarded, the diploma has no mention of the fact that the student didn't actually do the work, or that he has any condition.
As for classroom discipline:
2. You cannot dock their grade without the parents getting zealous.
3. You may only send them to the office, where the overworked principle (who spends "half his time making sure we comply with regulations") tells the student to behave or face staying home from school (sounds silly, but it really irks the parents, who suddenly have a kid to babysit).
4. If the teacher saw the kid's drugs, the principle calls the students mom to come (no way will he tell the kid to drop his pants for a search without a parent present). The kid is then sent to the school police officer, and I don't know what he does with him.
5. There isn't much else to do.
Parent
Re:We have a winner! (Score:5, Informative)
Isn't that worth more than a pittance?
According to salary.com, the median income for a "high school teacher" in the United States is currently either $49839 or $69120 if you include benefits. The Census Bureau reports that in 2005, the median household income (which includes more or less the same set of benefits quoted by salary.com) was $46,326. Do we pay teachers enough? I don't know the answer to that question ... but the median teacher is clearly not earning a "pittance" for their time. Perhaps it is a pittance compared to what they might be earning in the private sector, but I don't have enough information to make a decision either way....
Parent
An easy way to answer that question... (Score:4, Insightful)
Just look at the supply of teachers - are there enough qualified applicants for an open position at the salary you are offering? If I were an administrator, I would want at least twenty serious applications for a position, of which I could interview five or six and then pick the one who fit best. Are schools getting this many serious applicants?
In most cases, yes. In some cases, they are getting far more applicants than is necessary, indicating that the salary offered is too high. A suburban school posting a job for an elementary position in any decent district will be flooded with applications, normally hundreds and sometimes exceeding a thousand. On the other hand, there are not enough qualified math, science, and special education teachers, as well as teachers willing to teach in troubled rural or urban schools. It is clear from this that any employer besides a public school would cut the pay of elementary teachers and boost the pay of math teachers until qualified people for both positions could be found.
The reason I am not a secondary science teacher today is the poor pay. I make twice as much working as a researcher at a major corporation, and have a job that shuts off at 5pm each day without all the headaches. On the other hand, few elementary or English teachers could make double their teachers' pay. Indeed, few of them could even match it in the private sector.
Colleges and universities do not pay all professors the same. They know how to do it, and prove it can be done. Public schools need to move beyond the silly "all teachers are equal" mindset they have been stuck in for decades. It is killing education.
Parent
Re:We have a winner! (Score:4, Interesting)
It exceeds by 36% the average hourly pay for everyone (including those without a degree).
Parent
Re:We have a winner! (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re:We have a winner! (Score:4, Interesting)
The majority have the right to petition and, said petition getting the appropriate quantity of signatures, put pretty much whatever topic they want to a referendum vote - a vote that can even do such things as modify (within the state guidelines) the curriculum OR direct the Board to refuse to renew the teacher's union contract and hire teachers independently (as many private schools do) and determine their salaries by an entirely different set of guidelines than the union's "pay us, or else"-type of negotiation.
I'd heard (no, I don't have a source yet but will look for it) that some years ago some small mid-American town DID that and offered to rehire all the teachers at their current level and go by merit afterward.
The union sued, the State said that it's not illegal not to renew a contract (and the Town was willing to hire the teachers independently). The voters made it plain that they would ONLY entertain one-year contracts (apparently it was THAT small a town that they had the luxury) and renegotiate every year "so, you're not gonna get anywhere 'cause we have plenty of teachers willing to work off-contract just to be ABLE to teach".
They weren't trying to bust the union by forcing unionees out of their jobs by hiring replacements, they just didn't want to renew the teachers' "service contract" (i.e. "we will perform [services] for [price]") about the same way you might not want to renew the service contract on your furnace and choose to hire your own qualified individual to maintain it (since fire marshalls and insurance companies are picky about competent labor on such devices).
Apparently a separate committee, unknown to the union, had interviewed and culled individuals with good teaching credentials (either unemployed or employed out-of-field) for potential part-time-leading-to-full-time employment and had non-disclosures to prevent the union from finding out. Can you say "ace-in-the-hole"?
Apparently the union desisted, same teachers, same jobs, many left & were replaced (all were invited to reapply before the independents were allowed to try), on merit pay, the student's scores went up appropriately, the pay went up appropriately, and everyone eventually won except the union-mongers.
I like a happy ending - whether it may be a true story or not.
Parent
Re:We have a winner! (Score:5, Interesting)
I graduated from Texas A&M. Because I was in the electrical engineering program before changing to computer science and there was one non-overlap math class, I actually have more math than needed to be an electrical engineer (and that, I believe, ties for the most math needed for any degree, after math majors of course). So, when I was looking at possibly teaching, I found out that I would have to go back and take some remedial math classes. Sure, a couple semesters of differential equations won't help me with algebra, but to go back for remedial math after having taken years of calculus and applied math just turned me off. I can pass any test they can give me about the subject matter. But unless I go back for the remedial math classes, I can't teach it. What is needed is an easy path for professionals to enter education after years of gathering experience in the real world. Until that path is easy, I'm not going to go back to school for 2 years just to be able to apply for the jobs. They should be seeking me out, not putting up hurdles.
Parent
Not so fast... (Score:5, Insightful)
Being knowledgeable and being a good teacher are 2 completely different things. How do I know?
Glad you asked,
I'm a PhD student in Mech. Engineering at a top 10 school working through the NSF GK-12 Fellowship program and putting in 30hrs/week at a local school. Believe me when I tell you that being smart and being a good teacher at that level are 2 completely different things and I've been decorated and distinguished as a TA from our undergrads and the department. Middle/High School is a different ball game ENTIRELY.
I've learned to keep my mouth shut when it comes to criticizing our educational system - my advise, donate your time to a local school and you'll quickly learn why you love your job so much. It's dang hard work with very little reward other than the smiles on their faces.
This was after a 3 week (50hr/week) summer intensive course on education - there are education theories out there that make a lot of sense and work. You wouldn't know this because the vast majority of my teachers haven't followed them. There is more to being a good educator then being smart in your field - it requires being knowledgeable in the theories of education also.
That said, I find that the teachers at my school to be extremely petty (maybe it's a catfighting thing) but the politics are horrible and the acknowledgements are nonexistent.
What have I learned? I love my field
Parent
Teacher shortage? (Score:5, Insightful)
Either that, or enslave post-grads for a few years and FORCE them to work at public school wages. That'll work... Yeah.I hate "IS/OR" questions like this. The answer to both is YES. Pay which is competative with industry will attract science grads to teach. It will also cause "discontent among teachers" who somehow feel that all teachers should earn the same -- regardless of education/demand for certain skillsets.
Queue the teachers union to strike/protest.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Teacher shortage? (Score:5, Interesting)
"He pointed out that an English teacher doesn't have to be a great writer to teach reading and writing, but that the same is not true of high-end math and science courses."
Of course, at the higher levels of English, having a teacher well versed in literature can make all the difference with regard to engaing students in studying Shakespeare and the classics. I don't think you should sell short the value of a well educated English teacher - it is just that that value tends be increase later in schooling rather than earlier.
Parent
You DO need to be literate to teach English (Score:4, Insightful)
Let's not go overboard, now. If you want to teach English well, you need to be more than literate, you need to be well-read. If you want to teach anything well, you need to be familiar with the subject. The problem is not that Math and Science teachers need to know more than English teachers, the problem is that the ability to teach reading and understanding is apparently more common than the ability to teach calculus, physics, et cetera.
This should be a simple supply-and-demand problem, just like at the University level. I'm sure my Law professors make a good deal more money than my Philosophy professors, though every indication is that my Philosophy professors had more education and did more actual work. This isn't about who has a harder job or who needs more education; it's about meeting demand by raising the price.
The mental block that teacher's unions apparently have is that public schools are built on the egalitarian notion that everyone deserves a basic education; that a basic education for the greater populace has a value that cannot be quantified. But I have never heard it competently argued that the same principles that extend rudimentary education to every child somehow justify equal pay for every teacher (with allowances made for years of service in a particular district).
I tend to get upset about gross disparities in pay--see any argument about certain CEOs--but there is a clear difference between paying for actual skills and paying because someone occupies a particular "position." I do not think principals, for example, need to make any more money than the teachers they supervise. But if there's a shortage of science and math teachers, we really only have three options: increase pay for the teachers we want, or increase teachers' pay across the board. The second option seems prohibitively expensive.
There actually is a third option: we can cut the requirement that people have teaching certificates to teach. That is a barrier to entry that might, if removed, increase the supply of teachers sufficiently. But that is a totally different argument, and one that might be even more controversial than raising pay for teachers of certain subjects.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Wow, spoken exactly like someone who's never set foot in a classroom. It would be hard for you to be any more wrong than you are here, buddy. The problem with the teaching profession today is p
Re:Teacher shortage? (Score:5, Interesting)
Parent
Re:Teacher shortage? (Score:5, Interesting)
I raised my hand and said 'If brain cells are made out of atoms that is clearly impossible.' She disagreed. We argued and I got detention for undermining her in front of the class.
I think the point she was trying to make was that there are more possible interconnections between brains cells in the brain than atoms in the universe, which is still wrong.
Sigh. I wonder how many kids thought I was being a wiseass vs how many realized how stupid the teacher's statement was.
Parent
Re:Teacher shortage? (Score:5, Insightful)
You need to keep in mind that teachers do not work 40+ hours/week and they get the summers off. Pay rate would be better expressed in dollars per hour. My wife is an English teacher (a damn good one too!) and I'm a sofware engineer. My yearly salary is more than twice hers, but if you count the hours (counting 50hrs/week for me) she gets better pay per hour.
Parent
Re:Teacher shortage? (Score:5, Informative)
You need to keep in mind that teachers do not work 40+ hours/week and they get the summers off. Pay rate would be better expressed in dollars per hour. My wife is an English teacher (a damn good one too!) and I'm a sofware engineer. My yearly salary is more than twice hers, but if you count the hours (counting 50hrs/week for me) she gets better pay per hour.
As for summers off, keep in mind that most (good) teachers use that time to further their own education, whether its working towards the Master's degree that you are required to obtain within 5 years, or taking addition subject courses to enhance the students' experiences and expand the number of courses the teacher can teach.
What people not in the education field also do not take into account is the sheer exhaustion that comes from teaching. Imagine having to give a 45 minutes presentation to 25 co-workers every day. Now imagine doing it 4-5 times per day. And keep in mind, it has to be a DIFFERENT presentation every day. And it damn well better be entertaining...and interactive...and inquiry-based.
In conclusion, this comment is not the ranting of a disgruntled teacher who feels the world owes him a big "thank you". I love teaching and, at least right now, can't think of anything else I'd rather do for a career. I just want to try to set the record straight on how much work goes into "getting summers off".
Parent
Re:Teacher shortage? (Score:5, Informative)
False. My wife (8th grade teacher) gets to work at 7:25 and leaves usually at 4:00. She usually spends an average of 1 hour every night doing extra work. Her lunch hour is about 40 minutes. That adds up to 50 hours a week when you include the extra weekend work.
True. Almost three months is a LOT of vacation. I'd say she gets 14 weeks off over the course of a year. That translates to 560 hours of a 40 hour week.
Now, consider that 50 hours a week times the 38 weeks of working = 1900 hours. That brings up a net difference of 100 hours of extra work I do over the course of a year (assuming standard 2000 hour year). The ratio of her total hours to my total hours (0.95) compared to the ratio of her salary to my salary (software developer) (0.65) is not encouraging.
Parent
if it breeds discontent, so be it. (Score:5, Insightful)
This proposed system to get better math and science educators and educations sounds like a meritocracy approach, which may be a foreign concept to some in the heavily union-controlled teacher community. It would seem that something as important as the education of our children the most important goal would be to fund and organize the most effective educational system possible.
While I don't know the intricacies of the teachers' unions, I've had enough discussions with my sister, a teacher, to suspect the best interests of the children are rarely in play in decsions around who should teach and how much those who teach should be paid. If this is really true, it is probably the wrong approach.
A central tenet of the school pay system appears to be their main stumbling block: FTA:
There's a certain insanity to the notion that different demand-disciplines (in the market workplace) should not help guide salary distribution in the teaching systems. High-demand, high-pay disciplines should drive high-pay teaching positions. If an English teacher's 50% cut to a Physics teacher's pay bothers the English teacher, he (she) need only get the necessary background to qualify to teach physics. It seems like a simple equation... it's kind of (not exactly) how it works in the job market.
I'm all for a meritocracy for teachers, and not just in the math and sciences. Unfortunately, from past observations, as long as government runs educational systems, and unions govern teacher selection, the "finest education" for the children is likely the last result we'll see.
Want to place odds on whether Kentucky pulls off getting these bills passed? And, if passed, want to double down on the teachers' unions' resistance? That said, good luck to Kentucky... I hope they pull it off.
Re:if it breeds discontent, so be it. (Score:4, Insightful)
Parent
Re:if it breeds discontent, so be it. (Score:4, Insightful)
Teachers get rated based on how their students do on standardized tests, so they teach students to be good at the test, regardless of how relevant that information is outside of the test. People complain about teaching to the test, but insist on metrics that require some manner of measurement. It's a catch 22.
This is even worse since the teachers get no choice in their students. How would you feel if your performance was based on your ability to get a bunch of goldfish to do math?
I'm all for rating people based on their performance, but in practice it always comes down to something documented clearly in such a brain dead manner that people aren't afraid of being sued. Once that happens, it becomes very difficult to see the difference between someone who is really good at their job and someone who is good at gaming the system.
Parent
Re:if it breeds discontent, so be it. (Score:5, Insightful)
That's a stumbling block of *all* unionized workplaces. Instead of paying people based on their performance they pay everyone based on their years in.
This type of reward system creates an environment that's filled with indifference. "Why should I work hard and come up with new and exciting lesson plans when I'm going to be paid exactly the same as Bob Smith who sits on his tenured ass and doesn't engage the students at all?"
It's a real problem where I used to work and it was compounded with supervisors that have limited budgets and individuals used to receiving their yearly raises and not looking for upward advancement. So you have people that do nothing more than the bare minimum, don't have any goals, and are just happy to be great at making themselves look busier than they really are while complaining that Joe is working hard and making them look bad.
Parent
Kentucky... (Score:3, Interesting)
(it's on the welcome signs as you enter the state)
May backfire (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
This may be seen as a union problem, but I see it more as a school budget problem. Schools don't have enough money, and they don't allocate enough of the money they do have to teacher salaries.
Good teachers are in high demand and short supply, which in a normal business would result in higher pay. However, with teaching there's some sort of nonsense myth that t
Here is a thought (Score:4, Interesting)
Even better, why dont we stop comparing our entire populations abilities to the abilities of only the best of other countries.
Heck even better, why dont we just accept the fact that a lot of people are just not cut out to being college grads and help them better themselves in a industrial field like other countries do.
Re:Here is a thought (Score:5, Insightful)
There is an unhealthy stigma that goes along with people not going to college, and I disagree with it. College, while wonderful for some, is not good for others. 2 year trade schools, or apprenticeships should be encouraged far more than they are. And this is relevant to the topic because the students are told by their teachers that if they don't go to college, they will be useless to society. (or at least thats how I was taught)
There is a problem with the teaching system in the United States, and it starts with the students being far too empowered. If little Johnny does something wrong, teacher (rightly!) punishes Johnny, he cries to Mommy, and Mommy sides with Johnny. Teacher's hands are tied and so they stop caring. I have plenty of friends that are teachers, and this is a common story. There are more problems, but I firmly believe that the problem originates at discipline.
Parent
Re:Here is a thought (Score:5, Funny)
ah, irony...
Parent
Simple logic (Score:5, Insightful)
Only in America (Score:4, Insightful)
We already spend a shit load of money on education and the results are poor at best. So what do we do? Spend more money of course! I think the US needs to look at other cultures to see how its done. We're obviously missing something and it definitely isn't money.
gasmonso http://religiousfreaks.com/ [religiousfreaks.com]Re:Only in America (Score:4, Interesting)
The highest educated populations in the western world are the Scandinavian countries. There, motherhood, childcare, and educational professions are looked upon as great callings that have a huge influence on the future prosperity of the country. Therefore, it's easy to justify paying them well.
In the US, it seems that most valuable female is the one who looks like a dirty catholic schoolgirl and the most valuable male is the one who can best jump on top of other males in the mud while wearing tights. Teachers and child care workers are looked down upon as lazy.
So it's not as easy as method. We need to change the culture.
Parent
Why I'm Not a Teacher (Score:5, Insightful)
I'd like to be a teacher. Some of the greatest influences on my life have been teachers. I like teaching kids science and computers, and I've got a talent for it.
But I'll never be a teacher under current systems.
I'm not patient with kids who don't get it and insist on me walking them through everything. None of my favorite teachers were either. I'm not respectful of authority either, unless it's earned that respect. None of my favorite teachers were either. And if parents insist that little Taylor or Brittany didn't earn the C they got on the test, I'll tell them where they can shove their complaints. And I'm not about to waste my time teaching kids for a test. Some of the best lessons in life can't be tested. I'd reward kids for creativity, an inquisitive nature, the questioning of current thinking, and for making me look dumb. All the kinds of things my favorite teachers rewarded me for.
I feel that, in this current climate, I wouldn't last a year as that kind of teacher. In fact, two of my favorite teachers got fired after I had them because of complaints and friction with the administration. And they were replaced with robots designed to make more robots. Indeed, most of the teachers I remember fondly only lasted as long as they did because they produced results despite friction with the administration and parents.
Re:Why I'm Not a Teacher (Score:5, Insightful)
Good thing you are not a teacher. What you are saying that you could do that job only when it's easy. Anyone can.
Being able to control, teach and inspire kids that are not at all interested in the subject is something that a great teacher can do. That's where the art of teaching comes in.
I taught computer programming adults who were quite motivated to learn. This was a piece of case. My wife teaches engilish to 7th graders in an urban school. After few months all her students love her and many learn to love literature. Teaching in that environment is a completely different skill.
Parent
This is exactly why I no longer teach. (Score:4, Interesting)
"Is such differentiated pay the right way to attract science graduates who can make much more in industry, or is it simply going to breed discontent among teachers?"
Science and Math are good starting points. But don't stop there!
The entire United States Educational System needs a complete overhaul.
Teachers should teach because they enjoy it. Being "attracted" into it isn't going to make them be good teachers. In fact, it may turn out like college where you get the really bright mathematicians and scientists teaching, but they can't relate worth a darn to the students.
Money is also a good start. Really talented people end up leaving the profession because they simply can't pay the bills. Making the pay more competitive will keep more of the good teachers. Fixing some of the other problems will also retain teachers, but getting the teachers in, paying them better and teaching (or allowing) them to be good teachers is what needs to happen, nation-wide, not just Kentucky or California.
The overhaul must start somewhere, and if they look at pay first, that's great. You can eventually weed out the poor teachers, keep the good teachers and our children will finally have an education they deserve!! (Without having to move overseas to truly educate them well.)
So, it's a start. But it can't stop there. Yes, there will be discontent among teachers but once the ball starts rolling and things improve for one and all, then everyone wins.
My thoughts as an ex-teacher,
Kris
AP students (Score:3, Insightful)
The first thing that needs to happen is that AP classes need to not be dumbed down to the lowest common denominator because of political reasons, and everyone shouldn't get a pony- we have to get back to having kids *lose* if they don't make the cut.
My wife is a Science Teacher in Kentucky (Score:3, Interesting)
Oh, and she probably won't get the bonus.
Why are we debating a 5-year-plan? (Score:4, Insightful)
That Kentucky (or any state in the U.S.) applies the same logic to education is no surprise, but why do Slashdotters acquiesce to determining teachers' salary by central planning and government mandate? The free market should determine teachers' salaries. The prerequisite, of course, would be to eliminate government-run schools and let private schools compete for tuition money from parents.
Yes, I am one of the tens of thousands of signatories to the Proclamation for the Separation of School and State [schoolandstate.org]
I work for Public Education (Score:5, Insightful)
I've seen good and bad teachers in the schools I work in, and quite frankly, there aren't enough good teachers. Period. Like the teacher who was teaching life lessons from the master "Rikki Lake" (No kidding). Or the Social Science Teacher teaching made up crap and opinions as "fact". Or the Math teacher who didn't know the formula for the area of a circle (No kidding), Or the teacher that has four computers on his desk and that is all he does all day, instead of teaching the special education kids in his charge, or
It is pretty scary stuff, if you ask me. The scariest part is that NONE of the teachers I mentioned could be fired, because the Union says so. It is clear that the Union doesn't really care about their profession, or it would be EMBARRASSED of many of its members.
I feel really sorry about those teachers that are actually good. However, they cannot overcome the crap coming from the worst of them. Sad, but true.
Sorry, I don't babysit (Score:5, Insightful)
At least in her classes, the students were apathetic and disrespectful. In her assessment, basically zero learning occurred.
Contrast that to what I get when I teach my kids at home. We snuggle up and read a homeschooling book about astronomy, and they actually learn. We pop in a "Magic Schoolbus" DVD rental, and even I learn stuff about human physiology, etc. My 6 year old knows multiplication table up through 7's, and reads at a 3rd-grade level.
Seeing the heartbreaking gap between what most kids can learn, and what most kids do learn in public school, keeps me from ever wanting to perpetuate that environment. I'm considering working with small groups of kids and possibly even doing some math teaching to home-schooled kids. But public schools - no way. It's mostly a waste.
I Heart Money (Score:5, Interesting)
No one gets into this for the money, and no one stays for the money -- not math teachers, anyway. I did something before this that paid twice as much, as many of us do, but then I got bored and decided to try this.
So the issue is, if people aren't in teaching for the money, why do we suspect that we'll be able to attract more people to teaching with more money?
Now, there's the reasonable argument that there's some segment of the population that would like to teach, but can't because the pay is so low, but there's two things wrong with this argument:
1. teachers are never going to make as much as, say, modelers or programmers, and
2. i have some reason to believe that the sort of people who are just waiting for teaching kids to be really, really profitable might not be the crowd that we want to attract, anyway.
People get into teaching because they like teaching. People leave teaching because it's annoying a lot of the time. Here's how you attract people, in my personal fake expert opinion:
1. make it interesting. don't assign people to courses just because they're what's open, and don't make them wait for someone to die to get to try teaching calculus.
2. give them support, and help them develop. put time into schedules for conferences and bring in real lecturers, provide journals and during the day time to discuss, and fund coursework into anything.
3. throw out the textbooks. they're all shit (with the exception of harold jacobs).
4. demand real expertise and professionalism. make math teacher a job that it's hard to get. if i quit tomorrow, i could work anywhere in Maine by next week. this isn't good, rather it tells me that i don't need to be very good -- and if that's true, how good am i, really?
It's a great job, and you can't fix the shortage with money because things are so bad in terms of available teachers that you're just going to drag the good ones to rich districts and force poor schools to take whoever's left -- and you would be pretty surprised if i were to tell you exactly how bad things are in terms of expertise. The right answer is to make it a job that is attractive in all its aspects, and one that's admirable and challenging. That's all we geeks want, anyway, isn't it? A challenge, and some acknowledgement that we've got giant freaking brains?
Re:Let's get this out of the way (Score:4, Insightful)
And who judges performance?
If it's the school administration, then you risk the principal's favorites getting paid just because they're the favorites.
If it's based on standardized tests, then you just get teachers teaching kids how to take standardized tests, which is ultimately results in a lousier education.
Parent
Re:Across the pond. (Score:5, Interesting)
You know... Teaching used to be a very well paying and highly respected profession. Then they nationalised it.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)