Paying for Better Math and Science Teachers 660
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?"
Kentucky... (Score:3, Interesting)
(it's on the welcome signs as you enter the state)
May backfire (Score:5, Interesting)
Comment removed (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Teacher shortage? (Score:1, Interesting)
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
Re:May backfire (Score:3, Interesting)
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.
Re:Here is a thought (Score:1, Interesting)
Because when you use standardized testing, you get numbers. From numbers, you can create statistics. With statistics, you can bullshit people. 100% of 12th graders passed the test you gave them? The school must be doing well! Sure, you dumbed down your curriculum to a 5th grade level, but you're school scored 100!
It's not the teachers (Score:2, Interesting)
If you make schools immune to civil lawsuits, put teachers ahead of parents and stop appointing the retarded friends and family of politicians as school administrators, you will have a functioning school system again. Parents that don't like that situation can take their kids to private school or home school them.
Stupid kids need to get left behind. Advanced kids need to get advanced placement. If you cater to the lowest common denominator, you get ignorant, bored, unchallenged kids that are disciplinary problems.
Is this really that hard to understand?
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.
Comment removed (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Only in America (Score:2, Interesting)
Remember though, 100 million dollar CEOs are also a cultural problem.
Also, Oprah and Martha Stewart provide fairly strong counter examples to pretty much any other woman.
My wife is a Science Teacher in Kentucky (Score:3, Interesting)
Oh, and she probably won't get the bonus.
Re:We have a winner! (Score:3, Interesting)
So, wait...teachers of non-science subjects are inherently underqualified? I'm a scientist and I still find that conclusion a tad objectionable. Or were you limiting the conclusion to science teachers alone?
Re:May backfire (Score:3, Interesting)
It's both. Schools don't have enough money, and the unions force them to spend their money in inappropriate, unfair ways. Mr. Bob who has taught half-assedly for ten years makes vastly more than Mr. Jim who has taught with all his effort for five years, and is actually helping children. It's not a meritocracy, it's PURE FUCKING BULLSHIT.
Now, I really do understand the arguments for unions. I might have made them myself once upon a time. But the simple truth is that Unions can not function without oversight.
I will actually go so far to make a proposal, and this is that proposal: That the parents are offered the opportunity to act as that oversight committee. I think it has the potential to scare a lot of teachers into either doing their fucking job, or getting out of the business.
I have a lot of sympathy for the teachers who are TRYING to do their job, but are hindered. I have none whatsoever for those who have given up because they feel the job is too hard. It's like the Gates Foundation saying "No, we won't review our investment portfolio because it would be difficult." Yeah, saving the world is hard. So is building a future.
Re:Teacher shortage? (Score:3, Interesting)
You do make a good point about the time off. I've got a friend who's the IT guy at a private high school and he basically works 9-4 with an hour (free) lunch and gets 8 weeks of vacation through the year. His pay is a little sub-par for what he does and has to deal with, but it's an alright gig. With that much available time off, it's easy to work a second job or even go for more schooling/training.
It's really nice if you wanna teach temporarily until you get more school done and can get an even higher paying job (if that's your goal).
So how do you (and your wife) feel about the prospective salary gap between her and the math/science group? Are you guys for it or against it?
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.
Re:We have a winner! (Score:3, Interesting)
EVERYTHING breeds discontent in teachers (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Teacher shortage? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:We have a winner! (Score:4, Interesting)
It exceeds by 36% the average hourly pay for everyone (including those without a degree).
Re:Teacher shortage? (Score:3, Interesting)
Okay, so here you are in front of a bunch of students and walking them through the beginnings of algebra and you ask them to solve:
3x + 5 = 23
You go through the motions and the solution x = 6 comes out. Some student in back raises his/her hand and asks:
"Is it possible that x could be something else?"
Is that a good question? Is it a dumb question? Is it obvious? What is the answer? Is it in the answer book? Is that always the answer? Are you sure?
This is a question one could expect in an introductory algebra course and unless you've taken a course in abstract algebra, you probably don't really know the full answer to the question. It is actually a very good question; pursuing higher mathematics questions like that will occupy many hours of homework.
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.
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:We have a winner! (Score:3, Interesting)
In the end, I chose to pursue advanced degrees and deal with the bullshit academia has to offer rather than teach at a high school with bored students, apathetic parents, and hostile or incompetent administrators* from the principal all the way to the state's education officials. I'd be shocked if I'm in the minority.
* This is clearly a generalization - there are amazing students, parents, and administrators in the world - but I think the phenomenon is sufficiently dispersed to allow some criticism of the system.
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.
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.
Re:We have a winner! (Score:3, Interesting)
Number and severity of issues? Number is relative to the complexity of the program (and sometimes wether something is an issue is a matter of opinion). Severity is completely an opinion- some people treat crashes as minor if its random and loses no data, others as a show stopper.
User acceptance requires sufficiently sophisticated users, an extreme rareity. And they don't really say much other than in a brief time the user gets to test it, he didn't find any issues. Which should be pretty much assured if you have decent internal QA.
Issues raised during warranty? Too late, they could all pop up in 3 years time, you need to give feedback relatively frequently.
Percentage of requirements complete? So if I don't do a major feature, but get 900 GUI points right, I score a near perfect? Sign me up.
Now compare 2 programmers working on different programs, of different difficulties, with different background skills. Now you're entirely in the realm of opinion, even using the above.
Now some of those things can be considered in feedback. But don't pretend they're magic scientific tests for competency. And you have absolutely nothing in that list that measures maintainability and quality of code and documentation, despite most programs being in maintenance mode many times the length it takes to write them, and those two factors being the most important factors in ease of maintenance.
Re:Why I'm Not a Teacher (Score:3, Interesting)
I can relate to the GP. Why is it my problem that the student can't study? If I give an algorithm to solve some problem (be it math, science, English, foreign language, etc.), at the high school level, I should presume that the student has the ability to record and apply the algorithm. If they don't understand the why, I can help. If I show them once, and they can't do it themselves in a mere copy-cat manner, they are either too stupid to be in the class or have not learned the skills necessary to be in the class. Either way, if I show someone 2+2=4, I should never have to show them that again (again, referring to the high school level).
What I saw a lot of was Little Suzie and Little Johnny being sent to AP Calculus because their parents thought it was important. I would do the weeks worth of assignments in the first 30 minutes of the Monday class, then go to the back of the room and work on a jigsaw puzzle brought in from home. I was allowed that arrangement on the condition that no one ever outscored me on a test. No one did. 90% of the time in class was the teacher covering the same material repeatedly until the people there could get it. And most still did not.
I am a great tutor. I have tutored all sorts of people for all sorts of things. The great thing is, as a paid tutor, I'm not supposed to teach anyone anything. I'm supposed to facilitate their learning of something. Regardless of whether they are in the right class or not, I can get almost anyone to understand almost anything (presuming they want to, you can lead a horse to a book, but you can't make him read it). As a tutor, I would not be concerned with study habits, covering the material efficiently, or anything like that. I work on it until they get it. If they don't have the skills to learn it, then I teach the skills.
But the jobs of a professor (speak, regardless of understanding), a teacher (teach how to find an answer and examples of common problems), and a tutor (enforce understanding) are all different. Teachers in public school are expected to be all things to all people simultaneously in a class with excessive academic diversity. It is set up to fail.
Pay teachers more, have fewer teachers (Score:2, Interesting)
Here's how I think education will work 10 years from now:
This would required significant investment in software, but that investment could be shared nationwide. Physical infrastructure investments could be reduced. Teachers could be paid much more and elevated to a professional level (it takes special skills to manage so many kids and that investment in training should be rewarded).
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.
Re:We have a winner! (Score:3, Interesting)
1. You can be a high school teacher anywhere. I'm finding that almost all pharmaceutical research labs are in the Northeast US. When I graduate, I'll look for research jobs, but I wouldn't take 99% of them because I'd rather be dead than live there.
2. You get three months a year off. I've never really gotten over losing my summers to work. I could take a two month vacation to another hemisphere, not just blow a bunch of money in Vegas over a week.
3. It's a subject that can be made incredibly boring or interesting, depending on the teacher.
4. Bureaucracy aside, it's an easy job. Coming up with lesson plans might be rough for the first year, but they can be reused.
The biggest problem with going into teaching is that if I do decide I don't like it, it will probably be very hard to get back into research afterwards. It'll depend on how tired I am of grad school - I could do a postdoc, and being a professor allows you to return to pharmaceutical research.
That said, I'd rather that there were some research jobs in Florida. There are a few in California, but I'm not sure if I could take the government out there.
Re:We have a winner! (Score:2, Interesting)
As someone who chafes all the time about the stupid things my school district leadership puts me through, I don't want to argue much about the stupidity common in school administration. I'm wondering if, in this case, though, there might be a little bit of method in the madness. (I don't really know your situation, so I know I'm talking out my hat in a sense, but I just want to bring up one possibility)
I'm wondering if the remedial math you mentioned was math from an educator's viewpoint. The younger you go with kids the more you can see the ideas of (1) math and (2) how math is actually learned diverging. It sounds like you would be more involved with high school than primary school, as I am, so the differences would be slight at that level, but still, it might be a matter of credentialing for all grades in your particular location.
Again, I don't mean to question too much what I don't really know about your particular situation, it's just that such requirements for courses that seem like "basic math" are fairly common, and that's the reason - that kids don't always learn math the way that math itself is put together, and this is particularly so for the most basic levels of math, so it makes sense that when teachers are credentialed to teach all grade levels, they're aware of some of these differences.
Re:We have a winner! (Score:2, Interesting)
I don't know. There are a lot of us out there who are really capable of doing other stuff but still teach. It's a good profession in spite of all the crap.
But it's getting harder and harder to do the job with so much pressure from the outside. I teach at a school that has some of the highest SAT scores for my state, the most AP classes, a great graduation rate in spite of our diverse and transient population, but we are labeled as a school on probation under the wonderful No Child Left Behind Act.
It really does do my heart and morale good to see so many positive posts about education. Two things you can do to help keep the good teachers teaching. Go email your good teachers from school and tell them they made a difference and how and cc their principal. The other, write your politicians and tell them No Child Left Behind is bullshit, incessantly. Did you know that by 2014, schools are supposed to have all students at a level of proficiency in Math, Science and English, including kids who just moved to your school, who have parents that think education is a waste of time and don't make their child go to school, or who have only been in the country for three years? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_Child_Left_Behind [wikipedia.org]
Re:Competition is a bitch! (Score:3, Interesting)
Art is important, but there is generally very little money in it. The money argument is about payment, not value. There is a big distinction. You probably don't pay much for air, and would not pay someone 5 cents for a bucket of air, but if someone held your head underwater you'd soon see that it has a lot of value!
Unless you can find some practical outlet for your art degree (eg. painting, sculpture,...) then you're screwed from a financial bargaining perspective. How do you make a practical money-making career out of a degree in English literature or a doctorate in 16th centuary French poetry? Many/most teachers have qualifications which have very little sales value outside of teaching and cannot realisticly say "Well if they don't pay me more I'll go into industry."
I fully agree with you that degrees don't make good teachers.
Fifty years back, teachers were well respected (alongside doctors, priests etc) and teaching was well paid. Now they are seen to be losers who can't make it in the RealWord. Teaching is a most important profession and needs to be well paid to attract the best.
Re:We have a winner! (Score:1, Interesting)
Re:Teacher shortage? (Score:3, Interesting)
I know plenty of teachers who do just the status quo and no more. They get to school at 7:45, and leave at 3:15. They probably do about a half hour per day of work at home. They get an hour lunch break and therefore only work about 35 hours a week. Their first year or two are tough, but after that they have worked out their lesson plans and have little left to do outside of school. They get an insane amount of holidays off (such as President's Day, Memorial Day, etc.), and about 15-16 weeks of vacation counting summer/winter/spring breaks. And even if they are pursuing education during their time off, that is similar to an IT professional reading computer books throughout the year to improve their skillsets.
That comes to about 1300 hours per year of work. Many salary jobs require at least 45 hours of work per week, not 40. With 2 weeks of vacation time that comes to 2250 hours per year. A teacher with the same level of education of lets say a salaried IT worker could then be expected to make about 58% of the pay. Add that schools give just about the best benefits that exist, it could probably be lowered to close to 50%.
As I said above, that only describes poor teachers. A good teacher probably gets to school at 7am and leaves at 4pm. They also help with about 1 extra-curricular activity, plus other work at home brings in another 15 hours of work per week. That really is 55 hours of work per week. That comes to about 2000 hours per year. Still not quite as much as a 45 hour per week work load, but alot closer.
But because of teacher's unions, both teachers get paid the same. I for one resent the idea that some of my old 4th grade teachers making a high salary for only 1300 hours of work per week. But I also resent some of the good teachers throughout my life making such low salaries for their extreme devotion. I wish that a school could pay the mediocre teachers $25k/yr, and the good teachers $60k+/yr. And I dont mean making them wait 20 years (since most teachers with 20+ years experience actually do make good money), but actually start making good wages just 3-4 years into their career.
But that wont happen with those damn teacher's unions screwing up our education system.
--