Why do I hate Teaching?!?!

16 flat guy wrote:

grgr, you've proven yourself to be wrong and misguided at every turn.

When will the post come that just says hey wait a second everyone has already thought of my oversimplistic criticisms, tried them out in the real world to varying effect, and maybe I need to get back to whatever it is I do and quit acting the expert about problems that I have spent relatively little time thinking about.

I've yet to hear a reason besides "it's be too hard to quantify" as for why different subjects shouldn't be paid differently based on supply and demand (ie common sense). Of course, much of my problem is trying to inject common sense where unions and bureaucracy is involved.

Either way, no skin off my nose - I'm just having fun. Keep listing reasons why reform isn't possible, but don't complain when people don't take your profession seriously.

That's a bingo.

I wholeheartedly agree that there should be higher pay. The difference is how you use the incentive. It should NOT be, "we'll pay you a low salary and if you do well then we will give you more money."

The money should be guaranteed up front. That will attract higher qualified teachers, instead of trying to get bad teachers to do a little bit better by offering a reward.

Once they are teaching, the top incentive to do well is the pride in helping your students do well. In science and math especially, why would a teacher teach if they didn't already want to help students whenever they could most likely get a better paying job. It's extremely disrespectful to teachers to act like merit pay creates a reason to help kids.

People do best when they are interested and want to do good. That goes for students and teachers. Teachers don't go into teaching for the money, so when you start getting good teachers leaving, you know the pay must be pretty bad if they can't do what they want to do, which is teaching. Of course, money is only half the issue, with all hoops teachers have to go through nowadays, they have little time to actually put into teaching.

Here is an interesting article about #1 trouble maker, Mr. Bill Gates:

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2011/05/23/bill-gates-selling-bad-advice-to-the-public-schools.html

...and here's the NY Times article about Bill Gates. It is amazing how effective Gates has been at reaching all the way down to the streets and getting plebes on message boards to echo his sentiments.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/22/education/22gates.html?hp=&adxnnl=1&adxnnlx=1306081530-DjdKZhPBMBvmMzBOz/Ff+Q

I read all of the education threads on letsrun. This is the first one that has been remotely palatable for me. Thank you for keeping the discussion relatively civil and reasonable.

I don't think merit based pay is the answer, even though I would definitely benefit from such a plan, as my students regularly outscore my peers' students on the standardized test each year. Merit based pay implies that teachers are not yet trying their hardest, and need some sort of incentive to start trying. I think most teachers try quite hard to do their best already, it's just that some of them don't really have the talent/skill to teach well. For whatever reason, I have been repeatedly told that I am a good teacher by my students ... that I explain things well, and the data backs up these claims. I wouldn't even say that I try that hard ... I've been doing it for 15 years, I know my subject matter well (math), and I'm just good at it ... sort of like a major league baseball player that has the unique skillset of being able to hit a curve ball. Giving me more money won't make me any better, and it won't have any effect on an average or poor teacher either. If they could be more effective at what they do, they would already be doing it.

A way to improve education to me has already been stated in some of the threads above. The U.S. is seen as being weak in math/science versus other countries (we won't mention that the statistics are skewed, as that's a whole other topic). To improve in STEM (science, technology, engineering, math) you have to get more people like me involved. I CHOSE to be a teacher because I wanted to have an impact on others. I was an engineer for four years, and could have continued with that career, but it seemed so meaningless to me. Good educators make a difference, which is what I have been doing. If you want more people like me, you have to pay them what they could get as an engineer, or financial analyst, etc. That is the only way I see education in the hard subjects improving. If this means different pay scales for different teachers, than so be it. The quarterback and the offensive lineman don't get paid the same, but they seem to be able to work together pretty well.

Lastly, I apologize if this post seems conceited. I am a good teacher and I like my job. I am very happy with the decision I made 15 years ago. I'm just trying to state that we have to raise math/science salaries if we want more talent to enter the profession.

good math teacher,

Here are several reasons why we desperately need more math and science teachers like yourself. The public has no idea how valuable you are.

Math and science teachers that know their way around a subject have credibility among students. So, when such a teacher tells a student they have some ability, the teacher will be believed. You would be surprised at how powerful this is in creating future success among students.

Math and science teachers who know their way around a subject give students a proper perspective, which helps them navigate through the early and difficult stages of their education. The best guidance counselor is a great math/science teacher.

Math and science teachers who know their way around a subject believe in what they are saying, and so students will take notice and pay attention.

Math and science teachers who know their way around a subject can teach with confidence, and in doing so will instill confidence in students in a subject which can be very unforgiving, and filled with a great deal of anxiety.

Math and science teachers who don't know their way around a subject will never produce long lasting success among math and science students.

Well said. However, I should add that if you count what you get paid to coach into your salary, you would be making less per hour on the job, and have the same lack of time to do what is bodily necessary.

StinkyNeoHippie wrote:

old math professor wrote:

Anyone who thinks this is an easy job has never spent hours trying to explain a difficult subject to a complete dullard, let alone a difficult subject to a range of children that range from dullard to gifted. They have also not spent hours trying to prepare a slow child for an exam that is very difficult conceptually, and is also very unpredictable, and sometimes even very shabbily constructed by Pearson, often leaving 40% of the content off of the exam.

Is there any profession where they, as a whole, are more likely to throw themselves up on the cross? The whole martyrdom thing gets old.

Probably would not have to sound like martyrs if they were not always attacked. It is just a knee-jerk reaction to the same old worn-out criticisms.

I think they should keep the one-size-fits-all pay scale, and add in bonuses for teachers that are based on how many of their students place well on college placement tests. If a kid places high in Math areas, but not in English, then his Math teachers get a bonus, while English teachers do not. However, where does this leave the PE teachers? Out in the cold, without any bonus. Does that sound fair to you?

grgr wrote:

16 flat guy wrote:

I currently teach at a university, so my experience is not relevant. But the slightest amount of research will show that teacher review varies all over the place, from school to school, and lots of different approaches are being tried.

From all the teachers I've talked to, they amount to next to nothing. Pay is strictly based on number of years teaching in the district and the number of hours of graduate school education. That's ridiculous.

If someone has experience with a review system that directly alters their pay, I'd love to hear it.

The problem with merit pay is two-fold. First, you have the huge possibility of bias involved. It could be the Lake Wobegon Effect, where all is good here and everyone is above average, or it could be a bias where the administrators will reward friends and punish enemies.

Second, you have the problem of fairness to all involved. How do you make it fair for the entire faculty when it comes to tested subjects versus untested ones? How do you reward the teachers who forego the privilege of teaching the honors kids in order to humble themselves to teach the "dregs" of the society? Those are huge problems to face.

hmmmmmmmmmmm wrote:

grgr wrote:

If someone has experience with a review system that directly alters their pay, I'd love to hear it.

I believe 16 states are going to merit based pay system after taking funding for race to the top.

Sort of. They are implementing bonuses for certain things, but these bonuses do not allow for some teachers to earn any incentive at all.

old college math professor wrote:

Conservatives will always point to some study that shows that paying teachers a decent wage doesn't lead to quality. They are full of baloney.

There could be some truth behind those studies. If you pay a bad teacher more, who is to say he will be better? If you pay more to teachers, who is to say that better teachers will appear? Could it be that we just attract people who are there for a paycheck instead of being there to do a good job. Further, if the pay went up, teachers who are at retirement age and no longer love the job might stay in order to raise their pension a few dollars.

On the flip side, I wish they paid teachers more, as I want a higher paycheck just like the rest of the world.

Differential pay is something the teachers union should embrace, but it's usually rejected.

People with skill that could lead them into the private sector should be paid more. Sorry I know English lit is important, but honestly in the market place it's not valued any where near math and science.

Education is stuck in the 1960's. I think we all agree there need to be major reforms, but the NEA and such will tell you the only thing that need to change is teacher pay, and that's simply not true.

Steve Martin wrote:

The problem with merit pay is two-fold. First, you have the huge possibility of bias involved.

Second, you have the problem of fairness to all involved. .

My god.. this shows that you have ZERO experience in the real world. This is such a standard teacher response.

First if the jobs of teachers and principals are not protected and real market forces are allowed into play then you have a big check on the worry about "bias".

If you open a business and only hire your friends, if those friends dont have skills you will go bankrupt. If a principal only hires friends and those friends cant teach and the school fails he (as well as them) should lose their jobs.

IF on the other hand a guy is put in charge of a school, hires a lot of folks that he knows and they are great teachers and the school is wildly successful- THATS AWESOME. THAT'S HOW GREAT TEAMS AND BUSINESS WORK.

Your secon point isn't even a point. "Fairness" is a pipe dream. Do you think the person answering phones gets the same type of bonus as the top producer at an insurance company? NO. If you want to earn a bigger pay check then become a math teacher, not PE. See how that works?

I work in a semi-merit based system with academic ranks. Of course, there is the usual sucking-up required to move to the next academic rank. However, this does give us enough freedom to bring people in at a higher rank. In the 1980's we used to bring tech and computer science faculty in about 1/2 way up the ladder, and we gave them Fridays off. We recruited some really sharp people with this tactic. Yeah, some of the other faculty were jealous, but they got over it.

Back in the early 1980's there was a lot of competition for promotions. There was also a lot of unhealthy competitiveness. People would do the most trivial things, and blow their significance way out of proportion. There was also a lot of infighting, back-stabbing, etc. Now there is not the lack of promotions, and we all seem to get a lot more done. I know it sounds counter-intuitive, but not everyone responds positively to a few sheckels.

The NEA, of course, will try to use shortages in math and science to boost everyone elses pay. I think the only way around the NEA and the powerful state unions is a federal and/or state action. I don't expect the politicians to do anything meaningful, however.

Another idiot exposing his lack of knowledge, both of the teaching world AND the business world. I don't know what's cuter, the misconception of how schools work or the naive idealization of the business world.

Nothing you write here anything to do with the "real world" that you claim to admire.

16 flat guy wrote:

Another idiot exposing his lack of knowledge, both of the teaching world AND the business world. I don't know what's cuter, the misconception of how schools work or the naive idealization of the business world.

Nothing you write here anything to do with the "real world" that you claim to admire.

You come off poorly and do more to hurt your sides argument than help.

In the interest of making everything "fair", the unions have made everything very unfair. The PE teachers already have all of the perks. They are the happy ones who go home at night, not worrying about the state exam at the end of the year. No one weighs all of the students at the beginning of the year, and then at the end of the year, and threatens to punish the teacher if the average weight of the class increases by 10 lbs.