Why do I hate Teaching?!?!

It is not a matter of how I think, it is a matter of how things are. The Lutheran step system, anyway, is constructed precisely this way. After 20-25 years, the pay scale includes cost of living only. Their resoning is that the kids are moving out, so the workers don't need a raise. Why is it that most step systems are based on a 20-year scale? Think about it.

It is also true that more experienced workers are worth more. A teacher with 15 years of experience can easily teach 50% more content than a rookie, and probably with half of the effort.

It was in the early 1980's that privitization began. It was during the Reagan years. It was also during that era that all of the academic departments at the state level in NY were phased out.

We really are in a new era of privitization in education. It was the testing companies that pushed through adoption of common core. Now there is a large market of 45 states, instead of a splintered market.

My Mom attended Public School #8 in Lewiston. Begore long we will have in our neighborhood Federal School #32,768. Also on the horizon: monthly state (or federal) testing for math and English. How expensive do you think this is going to be? The money is going to come from our local tax base. We don't have it, but it will become available when 10% (or more) of all teachers are fired each year.

old college math professor wrote:

It is also true that more experienced workers are worth more. A teacher with 15 years of experience can easily teach 50% more content than a rookie, and probably with half of the effort.

And one of the big problems is that sometimes that 15-year teacher only puts forth half the effort.

This is a must watch for any teacher.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RxsOVK4syxU

Problems with education

Out come based, test, test, test. No learning, just memorizing. If your good at memorizing, your good at school.

A one size fits all for high school students, which is college bound which as we know millions of graduates from college are working jobs that only require a high school diploma. We also have the highest drop out rate for college in the world. We do a song and dance in K-12 then you go to collge and some dolt lectures for 3 hours and is incompetent. A Prof. who is never in the class but they put in a grad asst. to teach it who has no training. Meanwhile you are paying 1000 dollars a credit hour for this trash.

We have more of a parent problem than a teacher problem. Parents who are checked out and don't care and those that are helicoptor parents who worship their kid and think they can do no wrong.

Too many Administrators who taught for less that 4 years and have no clue how to lead and who went into Adm. to make more money. They also do not really care about kids or their teachers just their resume.

Teachers who have an entitlement attitude (Union States) and those who teach, have the personality of a dead person.

High income areas, the test scores are very high with high graduation rates and low income the opposite.

This has been going on for decades as the uniformed public blames teachers for kids not coming to school, not paying attention,kids mouthing off, kids not eating right, sleeping enough, doing their homework, and special ed kids mixed with honor students and countless other b.s. that goes on.

I have taught for 25 years, teaching Drivers Ed./PE/ Health and I am one of those PE teachers who actually leads by example. I cannot say this about my peers who teach PE, who sit on their butt doing nothing as the kids workout or play a game.

I coach CC and Track,( comes out to 5 dollars and hour for coaching) have over 200 out for track and 65 out for CC, have taken both programs to higher numbers and to championship level in our state. Teach full time and teach the behind the wheel portion of Drivers Ed. I make just less than 60,000 with a Masters Degree doing all three for a family of 5. No complaints just fact.I love what I do and teach and coach some amazing kids. I teach in a non-union state.

Monty

...and the even bigger problem in education in the U.S. is that many 15 year olds only put forth 1/3 the effort of their foreign peers.

Asian college student: So sorry, but I don't understand how to....

American college student: I didn't understand a thing you said!

I think that history will look back savagely on Reagen, the Bushes, and Clinton as well. Between deregulation and the school hijack that really accelerated with No Child Left Behind, corporate interests have overthrown democracy. Obama is all too complicit, he is using charter schools to union bust and further put homogenized tests into the laps of those not wealthy enough to go to good private schools. Idiocracy here we come.

Regarding commenters who are harping on "high" teacher pay and a decent vacation, those in power have successfully turned you against what should be your own interests. "How dare my neighbor have a slightly better deal than me?" Meanwhile their plan is working.

monty wrote:

We have more of a parent problem than a teacher problem. Parents who are checked out and don't care and those that are helicoptor parents who worship their kid and think they can do no wrong.

Monty, I agree that we have a huge parent problem. This is part of the reason I am skeptical when there's calls for additional funding to fix the education system. If a primary problem is parenting, how will additional funds fix that? Asking for more money always seems like a lazy answer to a difficult problem. Especially when education spending is 3.8 times higher per pupil since the 1960s, even when accounting for inflation.*

For those saying that schools shouldn't be ran like businesses, where the primary focus is maximizing profits, I agree. First, schools don't exactly derive income in a majority of cases (private schools, universities, etc, being exceptions). Second, the goal of schools isn't profits, but to provide education to students. The goal should be for schools to take their fixed budget, and use that to maximize the utility/education for their students.

A big part of maximizing the utility for students would be efficient distribution of funds. A majority of a schools budget is in salaries/benefits to teachers**, so efficiently paying teachers to maximize utility is key. In my mind, efficient use of funds towards salaries would include merit pay (to keep the good teachers and force out the bad) and paying different subjects based on availability of quality applicants (pay STEM subjects more, generally).

*

** Quick example I found stating that ~60% of school funds in Pennsylvania go towards salaries/benefits -

Increased pay based upon increased years is morally indefensible.

If you are doing the same job that I am and doing it better than me then you should be getting paid more than me.

Pay should always be linked to value provided, not to some assumption about what a particular individual 'needs to make' vs what another individual 'needs to make'.

Merit pay tied to tests will destroy what little works in education. It serves to dumb down material, kids and teachers.

Private schools often use a 70% funding formula: 70% of available funds should go toward instruction.

grgr, I agree that more funds will not fix the problem. I have seen so much waste in education. More and more, I believe that getting the right people into education is the answer. And, of course, some redistribution is a necessity.

As far as spending more now than in the 1960's, there is a very tangible reason why schools cost more now than in the 1960's, and before. Before the 1960's almost half of the top 10% of each graduating class went into teaching, and they were female. What other choices were there? If it wasn't education, it was nursing or secretarial.

Until the 1960's the funding model was pay the headmaster a living wage, because he was male, and supporting a family. Pay the school teacher a second income because she was either single, or married but not the breadwinner.

Our schools in the 1960's and before were the envy of the world. The school teachers from that era were very sharp, and they really had their act together. The schools were also organized by educators, and state education departments were staffed with educaation professionals.

There IS Another Possibility wrote:

Increased pay based upon increased years is morally indefensible.

If you are doing the same job that I am and doing it better than me then you should be getting paid more than me.

Pay should always be linked to value provided, not to some assumption about what a particular individual 'needs to make' vs what another individual 'needs to make'.

We do this for health insurance, don't we? A single person has less spent on them for health insurance than a person with a family.

With all the levels of bureaucracy in education it is hard to make changes. You have a local school board, state dept. of education/state school board ( or both), and the federal dept. of education. It seems that any form of change gets hung up in one of these levels.

As a teacher, I agree with Daver that merit pay tied to testing is not a good idea. We already have so much "teaching to the test" now that real education gets lost in the shuffle.

So much of education is based on the past. " Why do we do it this way?" answer: "because we always have."

For example research shows that we should have secondary students come in later in the day (say 9am) and elementary kids earlier. Why don't we do that? Because secondary kids have to get out of school by 2:30 or 3:00pm to work part-time jobs and play sports. One could argue that elementary kids can't wait in the dark for the bus but this could be remedied by parents waiting with kids at the bus stop.

Someone mentioned earlier that principals didn't stay in the classroom very long. I think this is a big factor in education. Many of your principals and superintendents were not very good teachers or didn't like the classroom and yet they are the boss of the good teachers? Often those administrators go on to positions with the state department of education. All of the state level positions need to be justified so let's test kids all the time!

old college math professor wrote:

There IS Another Possibility wrote:

Increased pay based upon increased years is morally indefensible.

If you are doing the same job that I am and doing it better than me then you should be getting paid more than me.

Pay should always be linked to value provided, not to some assumption about what a particular individual 'needs to make' vs what another individual 'needs to make'.

We do this for health insurance, don't we? A single person has less spent on them for health insurance than a person with a family.

That simply makes no sense what so ever. It's SOOO off point that I'm beginning to think you're trolling.

That is a PRODUCT that we purchase. So if were not teaching do you think pay would be dispersed this way? Like a sales person. If you're 25 yrs old and sell a car you get a 10% commission, if you are 50 yrs old you get a 50% commission because you have kids and stuff. `

You are paid for your experience and supposed expertise at your job, not because you are older and just need more money.

grizz wrote:

"you only teach if you fail at everything else or aren't capable of making it"

I realize you were critizing statements like this, but let me interject something:

This is quite possibly the most ignorant statement ever uttered by a human.

It suggests that teaching - an art unto itself, requiring incredible patience, tolerance, creativity, interpersonal skills, etc., etc. - is something all people can do.

Sorry, but Hemingway, Poe, and Kafka would make horrible English teachers. Hemingway would hit on the girls, Poe would be drunk, and Kafka would be amped up on opium. Gates would have an impossible time managing the 30+ kids in his intro to technology course, and the band of MIT experts brought in to teach 8th grade math would bore the 13 year olds to tears.

Michael Jordan would have no tolerance for the fat kid in gym, despite that kid dropping 2 minutes off his 13 minute mile time. And don't get me started on Picasso's intro to drawing or Glenn Beck's political radicalism and propaganda course.

In the end, it's as easy as this: experts in the field make horrible teachers. Teaching is very specialized skill set. And frankly, the vast majority of the population don't have what it takes. Not even close..

old college math professor wrote:

It is not a matter of how I think, it is a matter of how things are. The Lutheran step system, anyway, is constructed precisely this way. After 20-25 years, the pay scale includes cost of living only. Their resoning is that the kids are moving out, so the workers don't need a raise. Why is it that most step systems are based on a 20-year scale? Think about it.

It is also true that more experienced workers are worth more. A teacher with 15 years of experience can easily teach 50% more content than a rookie, and probably with half of the effort.

Not true. Raises are front loaded to attract quality candidates. Who would take a demanding as hell, 30K/year job without a "guarantee" to outpace inflation?

The early step raises, combined with job security and good bene's attract quality candidates willing to start as such a preposterously low starting salary.

Step raises end about year 15-20 because candidates are locked in at this point and there is no need to create incentives to keep them employed. Teachers don't have the mobility other professions do - and there's no career ladder to climb. Thus, if you make it to middle age, you're most likely to stay put for the rest of your career.

This is why the steps are structured the way they are.

"Glenn Beck's political radicalism and propaganda course." I almost fell off my chair with that one.

stupidest thing ever said wrote:

Teaching is very specialized skill set. And frankly, the vast majority of the population don't have what it takes. Not even close..

I agree, and would argue that this applies to people who ARE teachers as well. Just because someone went into teaching doesn't make them a good fit. All the more reason why merit pay is important, why finding/keeping the best candidates is important, and why having the ability to get rid of those that don't have the ability is important.

For those that came into the thread late - merit pay does not necessarily mean "base pay on test scores". I think testing should be a very little part of the equation, if part of it at all. Merit pay should instead be based on peer review, department head review, and administrator review. This is how it works for a vast majority of jobs and, while not perfect, it does a pretty darn good job.

There IS Another Possibility wrote:

Increased pay based upon increased years is morally indefensible.

If you are doing the same job that I am and doing it better than me then you should be getting paid more than me.

Our military does this, bro. All 8th year Lietenants make the same pay, regardless of performance.

Morally indefensible? How about directing your vitriol at the military instead of teachers? What's moralistic about singling out one profession?

And yes, yes, I know about ranks and "moving up." Teachers have this too. It's called Class change, and it's based on education. Rank and experience, baby. Teachers and soldiers.

Same... frickin... thing.

You might not want tests linked to pay but those calling for it want exactly that. Again, merit pay while might make for a slightly better teacher in some respects, but it promotes a non-cooperative work environment and would result in cheating on said tests, look at Michelle Rhee and Washington DC. This should be 13th on the list of things to get done. Make schools a dynamic place for students and teachers and the big problems will be addressed. More portfolios, internships and civics classes that teach critical thinking and problem solving. Throw in some peer regulated mediation and we have schools that motivated teachers will flock to.