Why do I hate Teaching?!?!

The "real world" is very far from being a true meritocracy. Low-skilled service workers, of course, are under the gun on a daily basis. But, teachers are not low-skilled service workers. I would agree that a lazy, old teacher that sits behind his desk in a very uninspiring fashion, probably would eventually be eliminated in the "real world", and definitely wouldn't consistently receive a boost in pay, unless, of course, he was sleeping with the boss, or was the boss's nephew.

I worked for 30 years with a Ph.D. chemist that left the "real world" because it was so unfair. He initially worked in the chemical industry in Niagara Falls, and was consistently left out of the promotion pipeline because he wasn't very good at playing the corporate game.

So, I am skeptical when the public wants to impose a perfect meritocracy on education, so we can be more like the "real world".

The only argument that can be made, however, is that the public should be well compensated for all of their hard-earned tax dollars that are spent on education. That, and that alone, is the reason why we need excellence in education.

I REALLY like that 5 yr contract idea. I like it so much I was thinking about it when I went running yesterday. It just seems to reek of common sense.

Really one of the main obstacles in ridding the teaching profession of leaches is that it is a government job. That means that when it comes to ahhh mmm "diversity quotas" they're much more hemmed in than the private sector.

I'm not saying that all the issues are racial, but firing a black female that's over the age of 40 is very difficult in the private sector; toss in a government job w/ tenure and that individual is virtually untouchable.

The only real reason people go into teaching is that they are secretly pedophiles. Maybe you are the odd teacher who isn't a pedophile so you don't see the appeal of the profession.

I will share my situation, despite the fact that I know it will be picked apart by the "real world" guys.

I worked my way through college, going to work almost an hour away from campus every weekend while others partied the whole time. I did this for 8 years, and was offered to take a management position with the same company upon graduation from college. I was trained in the same town as the college, but moved to a town 2 hours away after five months. Due to having 8 years experience in the business, my first new boss thought he was getting a seasoned vet, not a part-time guy who had no plans to stay with the company. His expectations were very high, and I did not have the background that he thought I had, so he did not teach me as much as I needed and thought they should not have promoted me. He then passed around to the other bosses in the area that I was not very good at the job. Well, the company moved us all around quite often to help us see the entire operation and various styles, but the new bosses did not feel it was worth it to teach me, due to the first guy's comments about me. Four years later, I got moved back to where my first boss was, and worked there for another nine months, moved twice and then back to him once again, at his request. He told me that he requested me, because he knew what I could do, but that the other managers did not want me and he told me that he had spoken to my boss from before I went into management, and learned that what he thought he was getting was not what I was, and that he had done me a great disservice.

However, the seeds had been planted, and he had to stick with the first evaluation, since it was his word he would be contradicting. At evaluation time, he did not rate me as high as he had been telling me that he would, so I asked for an explanation. His words were that if he were to give me a glowing evaluation, nobody would believe it, since it was far better than my last three. He admitted that he had told them bad things and their evaluations were due to him.

This is a problem that is in the "real world" and could rear its head in education if implemented there.

I should add that I left a year later to become a teacher after a very good evaluation from my next boss.

ArloTheHouseCat wrote:

I REALLY like that 5 yr contract idea. I like it so much I was thinking about it when I went running yesterday. It just seems to reek of common sense.

Really one of the main obstacles in ridding the teaching profession of leaches is that it is a government job. That means that when it comes to ahhh mmm "diversity quotas" they're much more hemmed in than the private sector.

I'm not saying that all the issues are racial, but firing a black female that's over the age of 40 is very difficult in the private sector; toss in a government job w/ tenure and that individual is virtually untouchable.

I DON'T like the 5 yr. contract idea. I understand the point, in that it allows you to get rid of bad teachers, but I would hate to go 5 years with a bad teacher. I've shared my classroom with other teachers before, and been in the room on my prep period while they were "teaching", cringing the entire time at their lack of classroom control and inablility to explain concepts. Just 5 minutes of this is too much, let alone 5 years. If an administrator is doing their job, they can learn enough about a new teacher during the evaluation period to make a correct decision on tenure. 5 years of bad teaching would be agonizing!

I'm not saying that the contract would be written in blood. If someone were in violation of the contract before the 5 yrs they could be let go. (You know they ACTIALLY have to teach.) Like the example of the guy that just showed different transparencies every day, or coaches that show movies ever day. But 5 yrs is better than 20 yrs, which is what we have now with Tenure.

Steve Martin wrote:

One thing about PE; when our school is short on subs and teachers are asked (for extra pay) to cover a PE class nobody ever volunteers. The secretary in charge of subs always covers the PE with paid subs first, and then recruits teachers for the other classes. It's kind of funny. Controlling a class of 35 kids blowing off steam where one wrong turn earns a lawsuit is something many don't have the stomach for. PE may call for the greatest gift for classroom management, short of some grammar school classes.

I often hear that English teachers should be paid less because, of course, what the hell else are they supposed to do with that damn, useless degree, right? Our last new hire in English beat out over 250 applicants; she must be fantastic, and thus to my mind deserves equal pay.

Two interesting (and odd) points made here. However:

1. I jump at the chance to sub for PE teachers during my conference hour. $25 to watch kids play sports? Of course I'll do it.

2. I've never heard anyone say that English teachers should be paid less. I've heard the exact opposite. English teachers had the biggest workload of any class. Do you want to grade 150 essays every few weeks? Plus, it's much harder to create lesson plans for an English class. Math, History, and Science all follow a text book. English class doesn't. You have to pull in grammar, vocab, reading skills, writing skills, etc.

In my opinion English teaching, if done correctly, is a very labor intensive job. Math and science, if done correctly are also labor intensive jobs. The reason is, a good math teacher will insist that students organize their thoughts, and follow a logical process to arrive at a solution. In high school algebra, a solution is a series of true statements, followed by the correct answer or conclusion at the bottom of the page. There really is a back-and-forth dialogue that is necessary to produce a very good algebra student. Some time should be spent by the teacher grading composition. And, so it is with science, especially with the most mature science of physics.

ok fine ill contribute... because it has nothing to do with running on a site called letsrun now shut up

The best thing about this forum is that any question about anything under the sun will elicit a variety of intelligent responses. I guess that is because runners are very intelligent. There, that was about running.

Getting the gov't out is precisely the problem with today's education system, as the reliance on private workbooks, the cutting of teacher's salaries and teachers in order to reduce taxes on the wealthy and corporations, and the outsourcing of testing to private corporations that drive the content of classes through their idiotic multiple choice exams are the major problems in schools. The private sector is interested in profits, not kids. You need a disinterested set of administrators concerned entirely with education and with political imperatives (e.g. anti-critical thinking, as in Texas) removed. You need to change the credentialing system, so that a major in a subject area or a master's or Ph.D. in that subject area is the qualifying standard, rather than education degrees, which attract less qualified teachers. And you have to raise expectations for what is taught every year. Kids should have two foreign languages, art, musical instruments, a far more advanced mathematics and science curriculum with teachers trained in the areas, and a substantial amount of physical education every day in school. Don't fill their days with filling up workbooks on material far below their capacities.

check this outhttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5xdxqlPSnx8

Good points!

The amazing thing is how little time is spent on curriculum at the state level, at least in NY. Yet, massive amounts of funding is channeled to private corporations for testing. Here is an interesting story.

In 2002 there was a public outcry in NY over high failure rates on a 9th grade math exam (it was called Math A). The exam was compulsory for graduation, and that spring there was a 70% failure rate. The curriculum in place was a horrible failure. So, NY put together a commission to fix the problem.

One of my colleagues was on the commission. She was asked to be on it because her husband was the editor of a major newspaper and he played golf with a member of the Board of Regents. She admitted to me that she knew nothing about what was going on in the public schools, so she would be asking me for help. I had also been asked, but declined, as my weekends were spend ferrying my kids around to various activities. I had been teaching algebra on a voluntary basis for the past 7 years in a Lutheran school, so I was up on such things. I also helped my daughter prepare for the SAT, and she had earned an 800 on the math section.

The commission started with kindergarten and worked their way up to high school. By the time they got to high school, only two people were still involved. At that time I told my colleague to make 9th grade Integrated Algebra, instead of just Integrated Math. This approach had been successful in the Lutheran school, as I was turning out math teachers, engineers, chemists, etc. So, that is what it is. She also presented me with a rough draft of the 9th-11th grade curriculum, and I told her that it was missing a lot of content from the new SAT format. So, I jotted down a list of what was missing (in between classes), and it was added.

That is right! Millions of kids in NY are spending time learning material that was decided in a series of 5-minute conversations while my colleague was headed out the door, on the way to Albany.

There used to be a 12-member math department in Albany that consisted of k-12 educators, professors, mathematicians, etc. That was phased out long ago. Now, it is all privatized. Staggering amounts of money is funneled to the private sector, and we seem to be going from one bad curriculum to another.

From 1965, when my older brother started high school, until 1977, when I graduated, as far as I remember, there was one mistake on one NYS high school math exam. The credentials and level of professionalization during that era was impressive. Now, mistakes are routine. Sometimes 30%-40% of the content is left off of an exam.

I keep reading that we "can't trust the educators". Well, only educators can fix this problem. The private sector won't.

grgr wrote:

Most of the discussion has been about how silly the system is that pays teachers according to seniority over quality,

Why is it silly? It works for the military.

dontflushwhileyousit wrote:

um, duh wrote:

Fact is, after working a few years, teachers make a years salary in 9months so in fact, you do get three months vacation even if it dkesn't read that way in your contract...and most teachers don't work 8 hour days.

Um, to call it a year's salary isn't necessarily accurate. I'm paid for my time, not for my time off. Yes, I might make more than the average salary in the nation, but that doesn't mean that I am paid for the whole year. If the school year were extended by three months, teachers would certainly get paid more. Well, actually, tons of teachers would be fired (and lots would quit) to adjust to the increased cost, but you know what I mean.

If they quit, they wouldn't have a job. What exactly are these real world professions that most teachers could have other than teacher. An an English or History teacher with 10 years experience teaching and no other job experience, what are the jobs they are going to get?

Even a physics or chemistry teacher, with 10 years experience, what jobs are they going to get if they quit teaching. Entry level for any real world job, unless they have been spending their summers, weekends and evenings working in the real world to maintain marketable skills.

The seniority system is based on paying people what they need to live. Fresh out of college a teacher needs an apartment, ipod, tickets for a Green Day concert and a few dollars left over to pay off student loans. By age 40, a teacher needs to support a few kids, pay for college, etc.

That is, at least partially, the basis for all step systems. They are inefficient to a point, in so far as not all people follow this path in life, but, all in all, it works fairly well. This is what is called a "family friendly" policy. But, family friendly is not something that we always embrace in the U.S. In fact, Jeb Bush & Friends seem to be making war on family friendly policies.

Another point with regards to teacher seniority/job security:

Like Old College Math Prof above (I'm calling you OCMP from now on, sir) I think it's entirely appropriate that some degree of seniority pay exists, as a 45 year old teacher likely has more financial responsibilities and obligations than a 22 year old fresh graduate.

This brings us to why some degree of job security is necessary. What incentive does a cash-strapped district have to keep an expensive, more experienced teacher around when the teacher could be fired without cause for the sake of hiring a cheap graduate?

In the short run, it sounds like a "market at work," where the prevailing wage of teachers would fall to match the lowest salary requirements of recent college grads, and experienced teachers would either leave the profession or make do with lower pay. Maybe local taxes could even be dropped a percentage point or two.

In the long run, I think that'd be a very stupid idea. A private company in the "free market" exists to maximize profits. A school exists to educate students, and yes, I think that a free and public education is a fantastic means of securing a well-informed, capable body of citizens. I think setting up an environment where experienced professionals have to choose between the wages acceptable to recent graduates and leaving the profession would result in people viewing teaching as a temporary gig. They'd do it for a few years, go back to school, and leave for something more lucrative.

Some things are worth paying for, and I think a free and public education is one of them.

Now, does that mean I'm against merit pay, high-need subject area recruitment bonuses, and more rigorous teaching credentials? Absolutely not. Nor do I want the lazy, unengaged teacher protected from having to perform once he gets tenure.

I like the 5 year contract or "renewable tenure." Also, I think if we want better-qualified teachers, we have to pay them more to attract better-qualified students to the profession. Saying "you only teach if you fail at everything else or aren't capable of making it" is counterproductive.

old college math professor wrote:

The seniority system is based on paying people what they need to live. Fresh out of college a teacher needs an apartment, ipod, tickets for a Green Day concert and a few dollars left over to pay off student loans. By age 40, a teacher needs to support a few kids, pay for college, etc.

That is, at least partially, the basis for all step systems. They are inefficient to a point, in so far as not all people follow this path in life, but, all in all, it works fairly well. This is what is called a "family friendly" policy. But, family friendly is not something that we always embrace in the U.S. In fact, Jeb Bush & Friends seem to be making war on family friendly policies.

You really think this way? "hey here's a guy in his 40's we HAVE to pay him at least $50,000 a year because you know he has kids and deserves a house..."

No.. you are paid more because you are supposed to be BETTER at your job and therefore more valuable than a newbie, not because society gives 2 craps about where you are in life.