how much is a decent teacher worth to you?

[ulysses]

Poll question: how much is a decent teacher worth to you?

Let's give her or him five years classroom experience, and let's assume a 50-hour workweek minimum and around 150 students per six-period day.

[corporatewhore]

1. Priceless

[CalebHayes]

3. agreed

[JohnLocke]

20. ditto

[AlFrankenFan]

22. Definitely Agreed

:)

[JanMichael]

2. Same as what I make.

Same as what the President should make.

[ulysses]

4. because what you make is the right amount

or because teachers should average out across the population?

[JanMichael]

16. Just in a levelling mood tonight.

And what I make is around $40k.

[ulysses]

18. works for me.

:hi:

[teach1st]

5. I voted, but I'm biased... N/T

[ulysses]

10. heh - great nickname

Biased here too - didn't vote, but then I made the poll. :)

[Carl Spackler]

6. Say the quality of your teachers has a 5% impact on lifetime earnings

You'd be crazy not to invest in top performers in every field as teachers. I think it has a much larger impact.

[buddhamama]

7. to me?

invaluable.

they're worth as much as any CEO.

n/t

[Muddleoftheroad]

51. You must be kidding

[IrateCitizen]

53. Strange as it may be for you to understand, muddled one...

There are some among us who value people more than the creation of monetary wealth. In fact, some of us see those who help people maximize their human potential as much more valuable in society than those who simply look to maximize financial profit.

I know this is probably blowing your mind right now, but some of us really DO see things this way. I think your avatar saw them this way too. ;-)

[Muddleoftheroad]

59. I value lots of things

But to value anything, you have to have food and shelter. In our culture, those start with work. Work is reliant on having a job or some form of income. (Independently wealthy need not apply.)

Having worked for companies that don't exist any more, I also value having a CEO who has half a clue.

[IrateCitizen]

63. There is a HUGE difference between...

... "maximizing profit", which is, after all, the goal of the corporate CEO; and "providing an income for food and shelter", which is the overriding reason for wage labor.

Of course, those CEO's who have the most clue are quite often those who value their people as the engine that drives their company, rather than simply a cost getting in the way of "maximizing wealth".

IOW, stop putting things in my mouth that I didn't say.

[Muddleoftheroad]

64. CEOs

Good CEOs keep folks employed. Bad ones do just the opposite. A term for a firm that doesn't try to maximize profit is "out of business."

[ulysses]

79. so, given the rate of layoffs and outsourcing,

how many bad American CEOs these days are being payed a lot more than they're worth?

To return to something like buddhamama's original point, which I don't think was that teachers should be paid several million dollars a year, what is it, exactly, that CEOs do that makes them worth so much more than a good primary or secondary teacher?

[Muddleoftheroad]

85. CEOs again

CEOs control the destiny of an entire company and the employment of hundreds, thousands or hundreds of thousands of workers. Yes, many people make decisions underneath them, but them make the ultimate decisions that determine whether the company survives or fails. That is a pretty tough job.

The fact that companies struggle in a bad economic climate is not news. If you think a CEO is doing a bad job, you have to do thorough analysis about the condition of the company prior to his/her arrival, the rest of the market, etc.

[ulysses]

89. ok, then what about outsourcing?

That's not recession-related. If keeping people employed is the goal (and it's not - making money for investors is the goal), does it matter if you do that by moving jobs overseas to lower-wage economies?

And again, back to the point - over a career, a teacher affects the ability toward critical thought and the understanding of the world of many thousands of citizens. How is that worth less than $18,000 per year while a CEO with a certain reputation can earn several millions of dollars for a few years dirty work laying people off so that a company becomes profitable?

[Muddleoftheroad]

93. Keeping people employed

By keeping the company afloat, people stay employed. That is their job and the one flows from the other. You talk about outsourcing. I guess people in India are not people?

Our firms compete on a global playing field. To ask them to handicap themselves by not using lower wage labor elsewhere is to guarantee they will fail.

Less than $18,000? Not sure where you got that number, but that's not my opinion.

CEOs however, make decisions often worth BILLIONS of dollars. Teachers, while valuable, do not.

[ulysses]

98. ...

You talk about outsourcing. I guess people in India are not people?


Yes, they are. (Am I really having to say this again on DU?)

To ask them to handicap themselves by not using lower wage labor elsewhere is to guarantee they will fail.

And accepting outsourcing gives us the race to the bottom, globally. It won't stop in India.

Less than $18,000? Not sure where you got that number, but that's not my opinion.

I got it from my pay stub. It's what I make.

CEOs however, make decisions often worth BILLIONS of dollars.

To investors. And so what anyway? What skill is it that provides that CEO with the knowledge that using overseas labor will increase his bottom line?

Could it be the basic math that some kind soul, apparently out of the goodness of her heart, taught him when he was barely out of diapers and still picked his fucking nose in public?

Teachers, while valuable, do not.

No, I suppose not.

[buddhamama]

100. value in dollars

goes to the heart of the matter for me.

a person's worth cannot be measured by money and it is wholely independent of the money they earn or "deal with" on a daily basis.
there's intrinsic value yes, and the larger contributions that cannot often times be "seen" or "appreciated" in the moment.


sorry Uly, replied to your post by accident.

[Muddleoftheroad]

105. Of course it can

Is it a fair measure? Perhaps not, but it's one we all make.

Is Alex Rodriguez worth $25 million a year? Texas thought so when it signed him and now thinks not. Is a CEO Y or Z worth their money? Sometimes yes, sometimes no.

Intrinsic value is great, but we measure things to come up with how we pay or charge for things. Even art has a value.

[buddhamama]

123. even art has value

to whom? if no one bought the Art of the artist would it still be considered valuable?

you seem intent on defining people and their contribution to society
in terms of what they do for a living and how much recognition they receive.

there is a minuscule number of CEOs in this world in relation to societal numbers. a CEO leaves a position and there's another to take his/her place. they're not that hard to come by really. and, to the detriment of everyone a good number of them are morally corrupt. taken individually have they contributed more to the betterment of society than
a teacher? a mother or father? a janitor or maid? imo, NO.

[Muddleoftheroad]

104. Ongoing

I agree people are people. And yes, it is a race to the bottom. But individual CEOs won't be able to stop it. They need to worry about their own firms.

I'll be honest, there are almost no jobs on planet earth I would do for $18,000. And if I had to do so, I'd spend every waking minute seeking better paying employment.

The decisions the CEOs make impact all of us. They impact what we buy and sell and our ability to do so.

Apparently in your quest for knowledge, someone left out the realities of a market-based economy. Those who have skills in high demand earn more money.

[ulysses]

112. LMAO!

Apparently in your quest for knowledge, someone left out the realities of a market-based economy. Those who have skills in high demand earn more money.

Thanks for the insult, but no. I alternated my earlier foray into teaching with a stint as a web developer - I understand enough of market forces. I also understand that those who see the world through the lens of those forces like to bitch about the quality of education. Do you see the disconnect?

[Muddleoftheroad]

116. You seem pretty angry

You made the choice to take on the job, not me.

[ulysses]

126. yes, I'm aware of that.

I took the job after having been unemployed for nine months. I don't plan on staying with it any longer than I have to, although I do plan to keep teaching, and I've been angry about teacher pay a lot longer than I've been a teacher.

[Muddleoftheroad]

129. Again

I agree that paying teachers horrendously low wages is counterproductive and unfair.

[ulysses]

143. where I think we disagree

is in that you accept the market determination of worth, and I don't.

You wrote in another post that CEOs take the skill set much farther - I couldn't disagree more. Maybe they don't do *less* with it, but unless/until a CEO is held personally responsible for each employee, I can't see how they really go any farther with the tools.

[Muddleoftheroad]

144. Yeah, that's a big disagreement

If I make shoes and suddenly everyone in the world likes those shoes enough to compete to own them, then my worth as a shoemaker goes up immensely. (Bruno Magli for instance.) If I play baseball and do so well and everyone showers me with cash, again that is an indicator of worth. (Can you imagine what Babe Ruth or Jackie Robinson would earn today?)

However, few excel at anything. Sports and business and politics are all a pretty defined pyramid of effort. The higher you go, the more impact you have, the more fans and the more pay.

Education has this a bit at the college/university level. The Harvards, Yales and the rest of the Ivy League rank far and away higher than most schools and pay accordingly. Also such academics have a celebrity status.

Grade school and high school do not. Perhaps you might be happier with the process if they did. I can't say.

Ultimately, I guess we will have to disagree with our views of CEOs and leave it at that.

[ulysses]

149. in the end,

the question was about the value the *poll respondents* placed on educators, not their value as defined by The Market. Buddhamama's response was in that vein, and I agree with her.

[Muddleoftheroad]

159. Still, the value we place on educators

Is (going by the poll here) far less than the value society puts on doctors, lawyers, stockbrokers, athletes and CEOs. Not even vaguely in the same league.

[Mikimouse]

84. Good teachers foster critical thinking in their students...

Bad ones indoctrinate their students and leave them intellectually blind. A term for a nation that doesn't try to maximize critical thinking in its youth is 'noncompetitive'.

[Muddleoftheroad]

86. I am advocating for good teaching

Just being realistic and saying the CEO skill set is a bit harder to replicate.

[PVnRT]

88. You're advocating for good teaching

yet you argue for destroying their union, the one group in this country that actually gives a rat's ass about teachers. I'm having a little trouble understanding this "logic."

[Muddleoftheroad]

94. The NEA vs. teachers

I advocate for good teaching and I consider the NEA an impediment to it. The NEA is like any classic member of any bureaucracy, it is more concerned with its own power than the actual work done by its members.

[PVnRT]

96. I take it

that you don't know anyone in the NEA then. You might sing a different tune.

[ulysses]

90. is it?

Just being realistic and saying the CEO skill set is a bit harder to replicate.

I'm the first to admit that I'd be a perfectly crappy CEO (even if only because I find business about as interesting as watching hair grow), but I'd like to see the average American CEO take my class of 5 and 6 year olds for a year.

In fact, thank you. You've just given me the next reality TV show I want to see.

[Muddleoftheroad]

95. They are different skill sets

By sheer numbers, it is obvious that CEOs are few in number and highly sought after. Much like sports, such high performers command top dollar.

The sequel to your reality show I assume is watching some kindergarten teacher trying to arrange a multi-billion dollar international deal while handling a work stoppage, new markets, new competition, government regulation and various legal actions.

[ulysses]

99. so they are.

But could it be that CEOs are few in number because the positions are few in number?

The sequel to your reality show I assume is watching some kindergarten teacher trying to arrange a multi-billion dollar international deal while handling a work stoppage, new markets, new competition, government regulation and various legal actions.

So it would. Frankly, given the responsibilities of a kindergarten classroom, I'd put my money on the teacher doing a better job in the foreign environment than the CEO.

[Muddleoftheroad]

106. Athletes are also few in number

But many want those jobs. And they are highly competitive. So are CEO jobs.

Ah you would put your money on the kindergarten teacher. Alas, most investors are wise enough not to.

[Mikimouse]

101. Please explain what exactly you mean by skill set...

I would argue that teachers of all disciplines and levels must, by definition, be just as capable of multitasking as any CEO. It seems to me that you are equating the money associated with CEOs to be indicative of some type of 'specialized' double secret expertise. Explain to me exactly what a CEO does that most of us couldn't do, short of having the political connections that most CEOs have. Your argument is exactly why people who are not teachers have such a dim view of anything associated with teaching. Its the old 'money talks, bulls**t walks' argument, and it holds no water. I gave up a very lucrative career in health care because I was no longer proud to be associated with the American health care system. I pursued my lifelong dream of being the classroom and guess what? I found that I don't need to make I don't know how much money to be happy. I am far more fulfilled now than at any other time in my 50 years. So what if I don't subscribe to the consumerist idiocy that this society so proudly promotes? I am in the process of publishing a paper on the theoretical explanations for the failure of American students at the higher levels. Once it is in print, I will be happy to send you a copy.

[Muddleoftheroad]

107. Abilities

Abilities, knowledge, experience, contacts, finances, charisma, leadership, political expertise, language skills, etc.

Skill set.

You can argue it, you will be wrong. Knowing enough to keep up with a hundred-thousand person company or being smart enough to cope with elementary school kids are not the same things. While I have no wish to teach the elementary school children, it is nowhere near the same level of skills (see above).

Look at that skill set and tell me or just tell yourself how well you measure up. Can you call a banker tomorrow and get him to give you a $50 million loan just because he knows YOU? Can you call Frankfurt and settle a controversial partnership that make or break two international firms? Can you manage the legality of contracts, the intricacies of accounting, the bureaucracy of oversight and still hit the links with three of your top clients to keep them happy all in a single day?

Yeah, I didn't think so.

I am happy you pursued your dream. It is good to have people who care in teaching.

It is essential to have people who succeed as CEOs.

[PVnRT]

111. Apparently

caring about teaching is all that you think teachers should get. Why do you despise teachers so much?

[Muddleoftheroad]

114. You must be joking

I like teachers and support teachers. Just because I don't think they have the same skill sets as CEOs, I'm supposed to be evil?

I don't think they have the same skill sets as professional athletes or brain surgeons either. Time to criticize me again.

[ulysses]

113. please.

Can you call a banker tomorrow and get him to give you a $50 million loan just because he knows YOU? Can you call Frankfurt and settle a controversial partnership that make or break two international firms? Can you manage the legality of contracts, the intricacies of accounting, the bureaucracy of oversight and still hit the links with three of your top clients to keep them happy all in a single day?

Yeah, I didn't think so.

No, and I'm not particularly impressed with those who can. Can you help lead an autistic child to where she can function in a mainstream classroom? Can you simultaneously teach two or three math skills to a room full of kids with divergent skills, levels of preparedness and learning styles? Do you even know what the fuck a learning style is? Yeah, I didn't think so.

I'll gladly put my skill set, or that of any teacher, against the skill set of ANY CEO on the scale of social necessity.

[Muddleoftheroad]

115. Glad those skills don't impress you

Too bad they are ones that ALL businesses value.

Ah, the scale of social necessity. That's the one where you can't justify earning the millions of dollars that CEOs make, right?

[ulysses]

127. as I said in an earlier post,

I'm not saying that I think teachers should be paid millions of dollars. To be perfectly honest, I can't think of anyone whose job is worth that.

[Muddleoftheroad]

130. Whereas, I can think of many

Every athlete who earns a million dollars for instance. How do I know this? Because someone thought they were worth it and is paying them. Then there's the entertainment folks -- Tara, Madonna, Britney, etc. Then there's business, law and a host of other professions.

[Pithlet]

145. Knowing the right people isn't a skill.

It's called cronyism. The bank isn't giving the money to the CEO. They're giving it to the company because they know two things: If it wants to continue to earn fees, it better help the company out, and if the company goes under, bankruptcy laws make the bank first in line to recover its investment. There's no risk, and a great reward for the bank.

CEOs don't earn their pay because of their skills. They earn their pay because their salary is set by a committee that consists of other CEOs. It's an incestuous relationship. It's not the market setting it. You can bet that if teachers had the same racket, they'd be paid a hell of a lot more.

CEOs are not that much more valuable to their company than front line employees. Basically, all a CEO does is decide the very broad outlines of a company strategy. Everything else is up to the people under him, all the way down to the lowest employee. CEOs are massively overpaid for the influence they have on business.

[blondeatlast]

134. Tell me how the "skill set" differs between CEOs and teachers.

Both require excellent:

Management skills
Planning ability
Environmental adaptation
Political skills (I taught 8th graders, and dealing with parents is no picnic)
Economic skills

I'm sure there are others.

[Muddleoftheroad]

136. Please refer to this

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=1067819#1071706

[ogminlo]

8. Kind of depends where you live though...

That said, $45K sounds low to me.

[leyton]

9. Great teachers are priceless.

Some of them aren't so good, but some of them can really foster an enthusiasm for a subject. I mean, I'm not an english person (as in, I don't love literature) but some of my teachers have been so outstanding as to make me love it nonetheless.

[renegade000]

11. kind of low salary range given in the poll don't you think?

[ulysses]

14. hey, I'm a teacher, and I make

(in a private school) somewhere in the middle of the next-to-lowest option, gross. Didn't want to make it unrealistic.

[renegade000]

25. yeah

teachers are definitely not paid relative to their worth in society.
as this was a hypothetical question i thought the range would be broader and a bit less weighted to the low side.

of course i really have no perspective on the issue...i'm just a student heh. *goes back to homework*

[rumguy]

12. great question, great way to frame the debate about education spending

[Danocrat]

13. At least as much as a current sports figure

Priorities!

[Bertha Venation]

15. Your highest starting salary isn't enough.

I was thinking about this, and the fact of "summer vacation," on the way home from work.

The necessity for summer vacation is obsolete, if I'm not mistaken. I believe it was instituted when the country was largely agricultural; all hands were required back on the farm for the growing/harvest seasons. What if we switched to year-round school, with vacations just like workers get vacations?

Then pay teachers what they are worth. I firmly believe if teachers' salaries started at what lawyers' salaries start at, we'd have tons of new teachers and better teachers and then better schools, etc....

This is the beginning of a rant but I haven't the time to carry on with it right now. Anyone w/ more time, who's more articulate, care to run w/ this train of thought?

[ulysses]

17. just being realistic.

As I told renegade000, I teach in a private school and make just under $18k/year. In my fifth year teaching, too (although I have 42 kids per day, not 150).

[Yupster]

26. If you want more money,

apply to public schools. They generally pay quite a bit better.

Yet there are attractive reasons to teach at private school too. One is a generally more involved set of parents and another is a break on tuition for your own kids to go to the school.

[ulysses]

37. I'm planning to start work on my certificate soon

so that I can do exactly that. Of course, finding out what I need to do is proving frustrating in its own right...

[LWolf]

30. Well, if you

institute year-round school, you're going to have to do some other things.

The 20-12 hour days have got to go. Enough planning time to keep the hours reasonable. A reduced class size; more time for each child, fewer hours of paperwork....I could go on.

The day-to-day stress has to be relieved, or you'll experience massive burnout and lose a lot of teachers. That vacation time, as far as teachers go, is usually spent recovering from the insane schedule we keep while school is in session. It's Thursday night, and I've already worked 48 hours this week. I expect it to be at 60 hours by tomorrow night, not counting what I bring home for the weekend.

A rested, well-balanced teacher who has a life is going to be a lot more nurturing and effective in the classroom than an exhausted, over-worked, over-stressed automaton. Which is what we have now. Except that we get periodic down time to recover.

My winter break was spent avoiding people at all costs. I always have a ton of routine chores waiting, and mundane business I can't take care of without inflicting a sub on my kids when school is in session. Both Thanksgiving break and Christmas break I spent half my time wandering around in the hills with my horses and dog, and the other half curled up in my chair with a book. I avoided chores and all people, including well-loved family members, trying to reclaim a bit of myself before I had to throw myself back into the fray.

[Hekate]

32. Amen to exhaustion and the need for time off

My husband teaches computer information systems at community college (which in California is humourously known as part of the "K-14" system) and he spends nearly every spare hour prepping, and that includes parts of weekends and big chunks of vacation time in curriculum development. The pay is a lot better than teachers in K-12, but nothing like he used to get when he worked in the industry. And don't get me started on what my fellow Californians are choosing to do to the educational system here, from kindergarten through graduate school.

[LWolf]

41. I hear that.

I'm a Californian myself, and am currently enduring the nightmare we call education in CA.

I was in charge of hosting a parent info meeting in my classroom last night for a particular subgroup of parents; I was supposed to educate them on the law, how their children are required to be served, the process, etc.; it became a time for them to vent their frustration about how we aren't meeting their kids' needs. So I layed it all on the table and told them exactly why things are the way they are. And told them that their voices are more powerful than ours, and we needed them to speak up. They were taking notes and getting ready to contact their reps. Just a small group of people, but when you give parents the flat, blunt, unvarnished truth about what we are dealing with, they want to support. They want to help change it.

I'm a product of the CA K-14 system! I think our community colleges need to be valued more than they are. They do remediation; they do vocational ed; and they provide the first 2 years of general ed requirements to many who couldn't afford to pay for them at a 4-year school. My classes at my local community college were just as "rigorous," and many times my teachers were better, than what I experienced when I transferred to a 4-year university.

[Hekate]

122. I got my start at a CA community college in the mid-1960s

I'd been admitted to a university in another state but we moved, and in my family there was no money for fripperies like staying in dormitories far from home. My mom had some college, but she never quite finished. Anyhow there I was starting my freshman year at someplace cheap and close to our new home that neither I nor my folks knew what to think of. A "high school with ashtrays"? A vocational/technical school? What?

And it was great. I learned a phenomenal amount outside the classroom. I learned that girls who got pg at 17 and married straight out of high school could enroll at 27, graduate with straight A's and gain entrance to the posh private colleges not far away. I learned that boys who had partied and flunked out of state college at 19 could come back from a stint in the military and get a whole new start on a degree program. I learned, in other words, that what I had been taught about youthful mistakes that could ruin your life forever was not necessarily so.

I discovered that, my mother's worship of higher degrees notwithstanding, two years in certain community college programs could launch a person on a valuable career path. Girls in the nursing program came out with an RN, and could choose to go straight to work or transfer to a four year college to get a bachelor's degree -- or both. In my own family, three people went through the electronics certificate program: my father, to remain current in his 40-year career with Lockheed; one brother, who has found it useful off and on through many job changes; and my younger sister, who took her certificate and transferred into UC Berkeley's computer engineering program.

Some of my teachers were average and some were inspirational, but they knew who I was because the largest classroom held only 100 students, and seminar classes could be launched with as few as 10.

I wasn't as focused as some of my better classmates, but when I transferred to a university I did well and worked my way through by salesclerking. I decided to re-enter graduate school in my mid-40's, and finally got that higher degree my mother dreamed about.

SIGH. It was a great system while it lasted. Community colleges were and are called on to do just about everything: remedial, vocational, technical, and the freshman/sophomore years of the state college/university system.

We are witnessing the destruction of that system from all sides. In order for lower-income students to be able to attend and to work their way through, as I and my family and friends did, the state (and by extension the taxpayers) has to believe that the system is worth heavily subsidizing. This is no longer the case, because as the economy worsens, education gets squeezed hard.

Every fee hike forces more low-income students out, and the cost of textbooks has been outrageous for years. Some of my husband's students live in their cars--they're gone. Huge fee increases have been slapped on for people who already have bachelor's degrees -- his students who wanted to make career changes into the tech sector are now gone. State colleges and universities are being pressured to send more of their freshmen and sophomore students to community colleges first --those who don't opt to go out of state or to private colleges (assuming they can afford these options) are squeezing out the vocational students.

Oh! Those vocational students are going to be squeezed out anyway. My hair stood on end last fall when my husband came home from his in-service with this great news. If you're like me you get it that these skilled jobs are the backbone of our economy and the means for many people to attain a middle class life. But everything from auto shop to computer hardware and software is very very expensive to maintain: those classes require large amounts of space to operate in, and lots of equipment that must be upgraded every year, and (get this) they're not prestigious. Academic transfer classes essentially require a lecture hall, students, and professors, and the students pay for their own "equipment" (books, paper, computer).

Public education is being privatized, and in my mind it began with the promotion of school vouchers. We're returning to the days of "Them as has, gets; and them as hasn't, ain't." The great American dream of your children having it better than you is fading away, and the demise of public education is but one symptom.

Yours for better days,

Hekate

[IrateCitizen]

47. Hey LWolf -- I think you're looking at it the wrong way...

I'm a proponent of year-round schooling, but not in the sense that the time kids spend in school is increased in any real way.

When I was growing up, both of my parents were teachers in PA. We had off from the beginning of June until the beginning of September every year. Now, while summer vacation like that is a lot of fun, it's not good for the kids -- because they forget a lot of the stuff they learned the year before.

My wife teaches in NY, and she has off only 2 months for summer vacation. However, she also has a 1-week break in the middle of each term. Therefore, her time off is more spread-out. But I think it could go even further.

I would be very much in favor of instituting year-round schooling under the following conditions:
1. A 1-month summer vacation -- enough for families to take a good vacation, but not so long that the kids forget the lessons
2. A 1-week break in the middle of each term, along with a 1-2 week break between terms.

Under this kind of a program, teachers would be able to get the time off they need to keep their sanity -- along with the kids -- but the breaks wouldn't be so long that kids would forget too much over break.

Can ya dig it?

[Muddleoftheroad]

52. One month off

No offense, I've never gotten that much in the adult world, don't see why kids should get it in school. To remain competitive, we should maximize what we teach and how often. I might give them off two weeks in the summer and that's it.

[IrateCitizen]

56. Life for kids shouldn't be about "work"

Now I'm beginning to see the problem with your outlook on most things, muddled one.

To remain competitive, we should maximize what we teach and how often.

Why should education be about "remaining competitive"? Competitive with whom? Should it not be about helping future generations to realize their maximum potential as human beings? And since your main concern is "competetiveness", does that also mean that we should concentrate solely on science and mathematics and get rid or arts and theatre programs? After all, such programs do absolutely nothing to enhance our "competetiveness". And that's what it's all about, after all -- competition. :eyes:

Call me crazy, but I'd say that maximizing their potential as human beings involves taking part in activities OUTSIDE of a school environment. Just as realizing your total HUMAN potential as an adult -- and once again, human potential lies outside such narrowly defined realms as simply creating wealth, which I know is difficult for you to understand -- depends on being able to spend adequate time outside of your work environment.

I might give them off two weeks in the summer and that's it.

All I can say is, for the sake of our kids, I'm glad you're not running things! Just because you want to spend all of your life energy slaving away at a job in search of fulfillment through "more" doesn't mean that the rest of society should be subjected to your perspective. Especially not kids, who rely on play as much as schooltime to learn and develop.

[Muddleoftheroad]

60. Ah the real world vs. ivory tower one again

Education should be about "remaining competitive" because we all like to have food and shelter and they require money. Rather than see ALL of our jobs float away to third world nations, I would like to see new products, new concepts, new territories explored right here in the U.S.


We should CONCENTRATE on science, math and language. (The first two need the third.) Arts are great and, with an expanded school year, we might have time to encourage them.

Kids get plenty of chances to take part in activities OUTSIDE of a school environment. They probably get TOO MANY. Parents structure their young lives so much they don't get a chance to just relax.

When you are off all summer what you learn and develop is a belief that you will be off all summer. Then the second you leave college, you realize it isn't the way things work.

In the meantime, in my plan, you would at least graduate with a likely job.

[IrateCitizen]

62. Taking your game plan from the RW playbook, I see...

Ah the real world vs. ivory tower one again

Yup. It's all about those pointy-headed, ivory-tower liberal intellectuals again, dragging down the system.... Give it a break already!

Education should be about "remaining competitive" because we all like to have food and shelter and they require money. Rather than see ALL of our jobs float away to third world nations, I would like to see new products, new concepts, new territories explored right here in the U.S.

You seem to be of the belief that introducing some sort of Prussian drill into schools and concentrating on "competitiveness", these innovations will come about. That is misguided at best, and downright dangerous at worst.

Innovation is something that develops from a whole-life experience. And it's not just about competition, it's about learning the value of creativity in your life -- and being afforded the opportunity to use it.

During WWII, the industrial plants recruited their engineers from the Midwest -- particularly people who had grown up on farms. Why would they go after these kids rather than the ones with the most prestigious degrees? Simple. Because they learned innovation through LIFE. When they were on a farm, and something broke down, they had to figure out how to fix it with what they had. These were not lessons that could be learned in school. In fact, if they had been subjected to the kind of school environment that you propose, they never would have developed the skills that made them so valuable. They learned those skills through LIFE, not through SCHOOL.

Furthermore, a big part of getting back to encouraging innovation is to get away from the idea that wealth creation is the end-all, be-all. Great innovation most often comes from people who engage in its pursuit out of the sheer joy and wonder of it, rather than seeking to simply become rich. By making school even more like "work" for these kids, you remove the joy and wonder that comes naturally from learning in young children, and turns it even MORE into a task of drudgery.

We should CONCENTRATE on science, math and language.

I disagree. We should CONCENTRATE, first and foremost, on developing critical thinking skills. If you do that, then science, math and language will follow.

Arts are great and, with an expanded school year, we might have time to encourage them.

Actually, arts are already encouraged -- in districts that get the funding to provide them. Additionally, arts programs are often a big key to helping students in poorer districts succeed in life -- especially those students who aren't as inclined toward math or science, and might otherwise find ways to get into trouble.

Kids get plenty of chances to take part in activities OUTSIDE of a school environment. They probably get TOO MANY. Parents structure their young lives so much they don't get a chance to just relax.

Ummm... that's the point of giving kids adequate time off. You're proposing that if we give them only 2 weeks off from school a year, that somehow they will actually have MORE time to relax? IOW, 2-2=5?

In a muddle, indeed. :eyes:

When you are off all summer what you learn and develop is a belief that you will be off all summer. Then the second you leave college, you realize it isn't the way things work.

Ummm... I don't know about you, but from the time I was about 14 I WORKED over the summers. Ditto with when I was in college. In fact, I went to a co-op university, so I had a job in my industry for most of the summers. For most kids that aren't well-off, this is still the case. And even as I make my own transition into teaching as a career, I am certain that I will not have the summers "off". I will at the very least be taking a full classload -- if not painting houses or something like that, or at the very least managing an organic garden at my house.

In the meantime, in my plan, you would at least graduate with a likely job.

Sure. But also without any true "life skills" or the realization of their maximum potential. Your view on this -- like so many other things -- just reeks of a shortsighted one, without any view of complete and long-term effects.

[Muddleoftheroad]

65. Far from RW

It's not right wing to point out the unrealistic.

Ah, yeah, Prussian drill, sure. Actually, I'd prefer just to make sure the kids actually learn something like we all did instead of being caught up as pawns in the NEA power game. (Let's see what new lingo we can invent to make educators feel smarter!)

Sure innovation involves your whole life experience. But to do something with that, you need a thorough grounding in the basics.

I don't think wealth creation is the be-all or end-all. I do think remaining employed and having money to feed my family is pretty important however. I don't know if you have ever been poor. If you have, those things take on a new import.

I know very few kids who look at school with joy and wonder. At best they look at it exactly as we do work -- an opportunity. It's an opportunity to learn. It's also a requirement. We should make learning a requirement as well.

Funny, I thought critical thinking skills were part of science math and language. That's why they're critical.

Trying to pin the future of kids in poor areas on the arts is like pinning their hopes on hoop dreams. Both are unrealistic. Teach them the basics so they can actually hold a job. Don't assume they have no interest in math or science. That is ridiculous.

Giving kids more time off is not necessarily giving them more time to relax. I would rather have them learning something useful than wasting it in mandatory soccer leagues.

Yes, I've worked since I was a kid. Many don't.

You act like schools teach life skills now. They don't. Hell, if you want to advocate for that, I'd be all for it. Teach them a lifeskills curriculum starting in kindergarten. Go through everything from cooking to shop to investing to home maintenance and parenting.

In the meantime, just teach them the basics because God knows, they aren't getting them and America's children are falling behind.

[IrateCitizen]

67. Why don't you just come out and say it, muddle?

Actually, I'd prefer just to make sure the kids actually learn something like we all did instead of being caught up as pawns in the NEA power game. (Let's see what new lingo we can invent to make educators feel smarter!)

It is quite obvious from your posts on this thread and the one on vouchers yesterday that you view the teachers' unions as the #1 impediment to education in this country. My question to you, then, is twofold. First, what do you know of the situation of teachers prior to the advent of teachers' unions? Second, how much time have you actually spent in a classroom, intimately involved in the process?

I ask you these because I speak from a decent amount of experience. See, both of my parents are retired public school teachers. And they also both taught in the days BEFORE teachers' unions. They can both remember times when every single teacher was let go at the end of the school year, and then rehired at the start of the next year. If it turned out that the daughter of the superintendent needed a job -- well, you were shit-out-of-luck.

As you mentioned before, the chief concern among people is to ensure that they have a roof over their heads and food on their table. But I guess that teachers are expected to be somehow different in this regard, right? :eyes:

And like most people who rail against the "evil NEA" and their influence on the process, you make ZERO MENTION of administrators. I would like to point out to you that the NEA does NOT determine school curriculum. That is up to the school board and the administrators. But let's not sully their good names with your wrath -- the teachers' unions are a much easier target. I'll just ignore the stories my wife has told me about how she used to get ZERO SUPPORT from the administration when she was teaching in NYC public schools.

For the record, I have never been poor. Luckily, my grandparents (from whom I have learned many tales of depravation, as they grew up during the Depression) scrimped and saved to ensure that my mom got a college education. My father put himself through school on the GI bill. I also put myself through school on a scholarship. But given the recent experiences of poverty in my family, I grew up knowing the value of hard work. I also grew up learning that one of the best ways to avoid complete poverty is through cooperation rather than cutthroat competition. When your neighbor falls down, you chip in to help pick them back up again.

I know very few kids who look at school with joy and wonder. At best they look at it exactly as we do work -- an opportunity. It's an opportunity to learn.

Are you truly that far removed from childhood that you cannot comprehend that joy and wonder that a young child has with learning? I, myself, can remember experiencing that joy as a young child. Then, it was bludgeoned out of me by the school system -- something that took me the better part of my life to re-acquire. I also see my young cousins and nephews exhibiting such excitement toward learning. I only hope they are able to maintain it.

Funny, I thought critical thinking skills were part of science math and language. That's why they're critical.

Nope. Once again, demonstrative of someone who has not spent a great deal of time in a classroom. Many of these concepts are also taught through rote memorization or endless drill. While this may be applicable with some concepts -- like multiplication tables -- it can only inhibit children in the long run.

I went to school for an engineering degree, and much of our time even on the university level was spent in just learning the "how" rather than the "why". If you teach a child to ask and learn the "why", you've taught them a skill for life. You can teach them the "how" alone -- but they won't necessarily be taking anything greater away.

Trying to pin the future of kids in poor areas on the arts is like pinning their hopes on hoop dreams. Both are unrealistic. Teach them the basics so they can actually hold a job. Don't assume they have no interest in math or science. That is ridiculous.

I didn't say I was pinning their hopes on the arts. I said that, for many kids in poorer areas, things like music, the arts, and even sports are the things that save them from a life on the streets.

At no point did I state that math or science can be precluded with the arts. Rather, I was making the observation that there are some students that just naturally are not inclined toward mathematic or scientific ability. In many cases, the arts can be the one thing in their school experience that keeps them from drifting away and NOT learning these other basic skills.

Giving kids more time off is not necessarily giving them more time to relax. I would rather have them learning something useful than wasting it in mandatory soccer leagues.

I'd rather give them the opportunity to live life than anything else. These mandatory soccer leagues have the same effect as pushing kids as much as you advocate. Have you ever seen parents that push and push and push their kids in a sport? In many instances, the kid ends up being soured on the whole experience. Like it was so long ago, it is often better to allow kids the opportunity to find their own interests and areas in which they excel. This by no means eliminating all kinds of structure. But it doesn't necessarily mean putting them in school 50 weeks a year, either.

What you propose, between homework and any other activities the kids may have, would result in even MORE of their life being structured -- no matter how you try and spin it otherwise.

You act like schools teach life skills now.

I really fail to see where you extrapolated this from what I've said so far. In any event, I really don't believe that schools teach kids "life skills" right now, nor have I ever believed that.

In the meantime, just teach them the basics because God knows, they aren't getting them and America's children are falling behind.

Yup. Just teach them the basics rather than trying to get them to excel in life, because God knows that the short-term fix without any concern for long-term effects is better than looking at the entire picture in any kind of detail.

[Muddleoftheroad]

69. Brevity

Clearly, that is not the No. 1 thing they are teaching in schools.

I do indeed view the NEA as ONE of the major problems harming our young people. I would also add a bad economy, a moron president, a divided nation, horrible administration, politics, lack of ANY national leadership, etc.

As for unions, prior to unions things were mighty bad one direction and teachers suffered. Now the teachers union is an impediment to change and the pendulum has shifted. As for schools, I have spent more in them as a student than you can ever imagine. I have a love of education, just not of the educational bureaucracy.

Personally, I think individual teachers are some of the nicest and smartest folks I know. And I don't think they control their union one iota.

Actually, I have mentioned administrators on numerous posts. I would not in any way give the administrators a walk on this issue. The NEA DOES have a tremendous influence on education and curriculum. Too much so.

Your grandparents sound like great folks. You were lucky to have them. While mine were great as well, I still grew up poor.

I agree massively with knowing the value of hard work. I also agree that learning is essential. Nowhere do I advocate "cutthroat competition." I do advocate change and that scares people even at DU.

Personally, I never had joy and wonder in school. Never. I found it in books, on my own. When I talk to kids today, maybe high schoolers are too jaded. But none of them seems at all joyful about school.

Ah, curriculum vs. sanity again. Yes, it's been a while since I took elementary classes. We learned critical thinking as part and parcel to the major topics. Maybe you should be complaining about rote as well. The only course I ever encounterred that was all rote was geometry. As a result, I sucked at it.

No, you can't rely on teaching kids to ask "why" and not explain the basics to them. The skill to ask is great, but not without rudimentary understanding of the subject.

Far fewer kids than many realize really escape he streets in pursuit of music, the arts and sports. Instead, most are encouraged to give up learning the basics because they will be big stars. Then, what that doesn't happen, they have nothing. Just the list of failed athletes is mighty.

Sure, some people are not real eager to learn math or science. But our society doesn't give them that option. They need to learn. They MUST learn. They must be required to learn.

I think we agree about leagues. I think they are a pox. I prefered pick-up games much more. They had the freedom to play anything at any time.

Yes, I would structure their lives more because they would be in school year round. I would also prepare them better for life. It's a tradeoff.

Ultimately, I think you mean well. You wish the children to excel but fail to understand that most never will. I want to help those who are not able to excel but must find jobs any how. I want them to learn the basics so they can do that and have a hope for a future that gets them out of working for Wal-mart.

[IrateCitizen]

74. A bit of convergence...

I do indeed view the NEA as ONE of the major problems harming our young people. I would also add a bad economy, a moron president, a divided nation, horrible administration, politics, lack of ANY national leadership, etc.

To be quite honest, I would put the widening gap between the haves and have-nots at the top of my list of causes. While the NEA is excessive in some instances, I would disagree in citing them as a major factor.

Living in Westchester County, NY and doing teaching observations (yes, I am studying to change my career to teaching) in NYC public schools, the differences are staggering between affluent communities and the city public schools. Chappaqua and Scarsdale have some of the best schools in the country -- better than most private schools. NYC schools are among the worst. While the disparity in teaching salaries is certainly a factor, I would cite the economic situation of the families as a bigger factor.

In a book I read recently, The Way We Never Were by Stephanie Coontz, the author cited how economic empowerment in inner-city communities -- especially communities of color -- had gone down in a trend directly corresponding to the cuts in social welfare programs starting in the 1970's. I would argue that this could be directly correlated to school performance. After all, students are far more likely to succeed if they are able to have actively engaged parents and communities, than if their parents are too busy working 2 jobs to pay the rent and education is not as highly valued in their household.

I agree massively with knowing the value of hard work. I also agree that learning is essential. Nowhere do I advocate "cutthroat competition."

No, you don't directly advocate it. But the problem arises when you endorse an economy and society that is more preoccupied with competition than cooperation. It's also a problem in a society with issues of tremendous inequalities of wealth. In a society like ours, one that values competition so much, the natural predisposition of people becomes getting "theirs" no matter who might get in their way. Now, I am not saying that competition is bad in all forms -- it's just that slavish adherence to it is. Especially when it begins to preclude cooperation and compassion.

But that's another subject for a whole other thread.

Personally, I never had joy and wonder in school. Never. I found it in books, on my own. When I talk to kids today, maybe high schoolers are too jaded. But none of them seems at all joyful about school.

My childhood was similar, in that two of my favorite things growing up were my Childcraft encyclopedias and my microscope set. But don't you see that this should highlight some kind of disconnect? Why is it that kids can enjoy learning so much on their own, but then lose that joy after several years in school? How can we help them maintain that natural curiosity?

Ah, curriculum vs. sanity again. Yes, it's been a while since I took elementary classes. We learned critical thinking as part and parcel to the major topics. Maybe you should be complaining about rote as well. The only course I ever encounterred that was all rote was geometry. As a result, I sucked at it.

I think that critical thinking has been taught less and less. I know that when I was in college, the main concern was just learning the "how" so that you could get out there and make money. Once again, this reflects directly back on the previous two items....

No, you can't rely on teaching kids to ask "why" and not explain the basics to them. The skill to ask is great, but not without rudimentary understanding of the subject.

No, you can't avoid the basics -- but the key lies in finding a method that not only teaches them the basics, but maintains their interest as well.

Far fewer kids than many realize really escape he streets in pursuit of music, the arts and sports.

I disagree. For many at-risk kids, arts, music and sports have been proven to be the very things that kept them OUT of trouble. It doesn't have to be about encouraging them to pursue a career. It is more about providing these programs for them as a creative outlet, and also to help them to develop any talent they might have. In the process, it can help them stay out of trouble and stay in school, learning the basic skills they need to survive in life.

But I think our disagreement is more over semantics than a deep difference.

Sure, some people are not real eager to learn math or science. But our society doesn't give them that option. They need to learn. They MUST learn. They must be required to learn.

To a certain level, yes. I was just pointing out that you can't expect every student to take Calculus or Advanced Physics. Just like you can't expect every kid to excel in music or sports. But that doesn't mean they shouldn't be exposed to all of them throughout their school experience.

I think we agree about leagues. I think they are a pox. I prefered pick-up games much more. They had the freedom to play anything at any time.

Yes. In fact, it's a rare area of complete agreement between us. I also don't like the extreme competitiveness that organized sports can encourage, as opposed to pick-up sports. Hell, I remember some times when there were parents who were worse than any of the kids as far as competitiveness in sports leagues was concerned.

Yes, I would structure their lives more because they would be in school year round. I would also prepare them better for life. It's a tradeoff.

Sorry, but I think this is an area of irreconcilable difference between us.

Ultimately, I think you mean well. You wish the children to excel but fail to understand that most never will. I want to help those who are not able to excel but must find jobs any how. I want them to learn the basics so they can do that and have a hope for a future that gets them out of working for Wal-mart.

It's well within your right to disagree, but to be quite honest, the thing I fear about your approach is that it will result in something too homogenized and structured that it will actually stifle kids from maximizing their potential. I just refuse to accept the idea that there are some kids who can never "excel." While some may be overwhelmed by issues in their lives beyond their control, I really believe that each and every child is born with an exceptional ability in something. For example, a child afflicted with down syndrome can have the capacity for expressing love and affection toward others that is downright contagious. While it may not be a "market-oriented" skill, it cannot be said that it is not something that makes the world a slightly better place.

[formernaderite]

81. Wow...did you forget everything over summer vacation?

Childhood should be a time for time off. I couldn't give a hoot if this benefits the grown ups...but kids need time to exhale. Too many parents already over schedule their lives.

[LWolf]

121. Actually, I've taught it.

I've worked in 4 different year-round calendars, as well as a traditional calendar. I've worked a 3 track calendar; not enough instructional days for kids, and the breaks in the middle of the school year are too long. I've worked two different "orchard" (the name of the school that originated it) calendars, where the kids rotate on and off track but the teachers stay; that includes traditional breaks during the school year, and a 3-week summer for teachers, who are teaching the whole year; it's only the kids going on and off. And I've worked a custom calendar that allowed families to choose which days they would be "off;" school was open, class was going, and kids attended for 190 of the 227 days we ran. The state hated this one though, because it worked out like "positive attendance," and they had to pay 100% ada. Which is why we're no longer allowed to do it.

I'd prefer a single-track year-round calendar, with shorter, more frequent breaks. Kids retain more learning that way. And perhaps a 190 day school year. I do not support the idea of teachers having to pack and move in and out of classrooms everytime they go on and off track, since that is usually done for free with their vacation days, and it is a pain in the ass.

I can think of some other ways to reduce stress and overwork while school is in session. I'd like a planning period during the school day. I'd like to be given less to do, so I could do it better. I'd like non-student days for parent conferencing, staff development, the interminable meetings, and team planning.

Easy to say after this week; I was at school a total of 60 hours. I attended 5 different meetings before and after school; 7 hours of meetings this week outside the regular school day. No wonder I brought home 36 science lab reports, 30 essays, and 32 math papers to correct this weekend. On top of getting my stuff together for my tax man.

[Yupster]

148. As a former teacher, I agree

teaching can be exhausting, but...

so are other jobs, and they don't get months off at a time. I have never been as exhausted as I am these days, and I quit teaching 13 years ago.

[formernaderite]

80. How would more money equate with better?

I'm just curious...are you saying you could get rid of the bad teachers out there by paying new teachers more? Are you saying that the lower pay scale guarantees poor teacher quality? I find this argument befuddling...I would almost argue that a high payscale would attract people who go into the teaching profession for the money rather than love of teaching.

[ulysses]

83. come on.

Should a love of teaching be enough to offset low pay? I would argue in return that a high (or significantly higher, anyway) payscale would both allow people who love teaching to remain economically solvent and attract people who *would* love it and *would* be good at it from other fields where they currently make enough to make the prospect of teaching ridiculous, economically.

[PVnRT]

87. Of course...

You see, only CEOs and businessman should be paid big bucks. All others must work for low pay and no benefits for the love of their job.

[Muddleoftheroad]

91. I'm not saying that

But what they do does not equate to what CEOs do. So neither should the pay.

[ulysses]

92. ok, so answer the question.

What, exactly, does a CEO do that makes the difference between his millions (plus stock options) and my slightly-under-$18k?

[Muddleoftheroad]

97. We don't have a web site big enough to list it all

A CEO needs to be well versed in everything a company does and every aspect of business -- marketing, legal, sales, accounting, etc. Ultimately, the CEO is responsible for everything.

Oddly, for a web site where so many are critical of our nation's "CEO" for the schlub that he is, few seem to recognize the import of a corporate CEO.

[LWolf]

137. A teacher

needs to be well-versed in the family and medical history of each and every student. He needs to have a wealth of tools, materials, and methods at his fingertips, because every child may need something a little different from the next. And he needs to know how to choose and apply them.

A teacher is responsible for physical set up, curriculum, lesson planning, knowing the ed code, PR for the school/district, classroom budget, parent communications, and a myriad of forms, procedures, rules, regs, schedules, etc.

A teacher must spend whatever it takes to teach children manners and civil behavior as well as the rest of the curriculum.

A teacher must find a way to get all of this done, while nurturing 30 + students and ensuring that 100% of them will be above average. While keeping them motivated and excited about learning in the process.

A teacher must find a way to get all of this done in spite of administrative interference, road blocks, and incompetence. In spite of home/family dynamics that work against her. In spite of public perception that teachers are "bad." In spite of a lack of resources; in spite of a schedule that doesn't allow time to meet all of the mandates.

Ultimately, the teacher is the CEO for the classroom. Oddly, for a nation where so many claim to support children, few seem to recognize the importance of the classroom CEO.

[Muddleoftheroad]

138. That's great

But it's sure as heck not equal to someone who has to be CEO for an entire company. It's not even close.

[LWolf]

141. True.

I'd never be a successful CEO. Put one of those CEOs in my classroom for a year; that would be a great new reality tv show. If he/she lasted the year.

I guess it's all in where your values are. Which is worth more? Making more money (at whatever cost), or nurturing our children and our future?

Which affects us now and in the future more? A company whose profit margins keep rising, or a generation of healthy, productive people?

[Muddleoftheroad]

142. As I have said before

In my world, I worry first about putting food on the table and having a roof over my head. That means I need to have employment. In that world, employment relies entirely on the places of work to stay open.

I disagree that CEOs would fail as teachers. One person here described teachers as CEOs for the classroom. CEOs take those skills much much farther.

[Yupster]

151. Wow - I thought I was a very good teacher, but

other than being told of specific medical problems, I sure never got myself well-versed with the medical history of each and every student. Would that even be legal? Same with family situations. I met parents and guardians and would find out things about the families, but I wouldn't say I was well versed in the family and medical history of each and every student.

[Yupster]

150. Benefits

Teachers get really, really, really good benefits, esprcially the ones who aren't forced to contribute to social security. Since I left teaching I have never had a job with half the benefits I had in the classroom.

[Pithlet]

146. How many people who would make great teachers

don't go into the field because it doesn't pay as much as other jobs that require a similar skill set but pay so much more?

For a career that requires the level of education and skill that it does, teachers get paid very little. Most other professions that require the same level pay much more.

[Yupster]

152. I quit teaching in part because of the money

I do recognize there are many benefits to teaching too though. The time off is tremendous compared to other jobs. The benefits are amazing. You pretty much have a job for life if you want it. So there's good and bad, as there is in most careers.

[Pithlet]

158. Oh, I know there are.

Most people I know who teach really like their job, despite the low pay that most of them receive.

[Muddleoftheroad]

160. Liberal arts

In general, ALL professions that rely on a liberal arts education require both advanced learning and deliver limited salary.

Journalism, archaeology, paleontology, sociology, (lots of ologies) and teaching. The problem is that are a lot of people who are smart and drawn to such fields and there are almost always more than a typical employer needs. As such, they pay less because there is no huge demand.

[LeahMira]

132. You are right!

Then pay teachers what they are worth. I firmly believe if teachers' salaries started at what lawyers' salaries start at, we'd have tons of new teachers and better teachers and then better schools, etc....

Using the market model, if teaching paid as well as any other profession, more people would be interested in teaching, there would be more competition for the jobs, and only the better candidates would be hired.

A student graduating from college with a bachelors degree in business and decent grades, etc. is holding out for an entry level position that pays $40,000. A student graduation from college with a bachelors degree in education is looking around for a beginning teaching job that pays between $25,000. and $30,000.

Teachers who leave the classroom to find jobs in business find that their pay doubles or triples when they get that job, which they generally have no big problem finding.

As long as a teacher can choose to earn better pay, and enjoy some respect for the work they are doing, you are going to find two types of people staying in the classrooms: those who can't find a job anywhere else that will pay as much and who can do a passable job in the classroom, and those who love teaching for intrinsic reasons and are willing and able financially to forego the pay to do something they really love doing. That's pretty much what you have now.

[ulysses]

19. would those voting "< $15k" care to testify?

[greatauntoftriplets]

24. I was wondering who to hell would say that.

Perhaps some pissed-off student. Jeez.

On editL I voted for >$45,000.

[jab105]

21. LOL, where I live, the starting salary is $24,000...

thats right folks, this is my first year teaching...and let me tell you, I'm working my tail off...and yet, I could make more money selling stuff on ebay...

But in the long run, this is much more rewarding than ebay:)

[Yupster]

23. Starting salary is 30 k where I live

and we're in Texas which has lower than average teacher salaries.

[Catshrink]

43. jab: It's my first year also!

We could share horror stories and "good" stories. I love it, even though it wears me out and I'm working 15 hours a day. Wouldn't go back to corporate, no way, no how!

[Yupster]

153. Best advice I got during my first year teaching

My department head told me "Don't even try to learn from this year. Just survive it." It was good advice. The second year was a whole different world. Stuff that messed me up the first year I handled the second year with a nod or hand signal.

Good luck to you and just survive it. IT'll be completely different next year.

[tritsofme]

27. Starting salary for HS teachers is around $45k here.

The teachers that have been around for a good 20 years make more than $100,000.

[jab105]

77. Holy crap!!

Where do you live??
Alternate universe??

Our hgihest salary for 30+ years is only around $55K!!

[IrateCitizen]

78. You must be in either NY, CT, MA or NJ...

Because my wife teaches in NY, and these are the only 4 states I can imagine teachers' salaries getting to that level.

[LWolf]

28. Other.

Let's see; if you take that 10 hour minimum day...a good round number, and quite accurate. I did 13 hours today. 12 hours yesterday. 10 hours Tuesday, and another 13.5 hours Monday.

So let's go with 10 hours a day. A conservative estimate. Multiply that times my 185 working days for the year, and you get 1840 hours per year. $45,000 / 1850 hours rounds out to $24.32 an hour.

But wait....we'll keep the student loans in reserve; I entered the profession with $14,000 in loans; a low figure for today's higher ed bill. I had to quit a paying job to do the student teaching. And cash in my retirement to pay the bills and buy medical insurance while I did the student teaching. With no guarantee of a job when I was done. But we'll leave the loans and the lost retirement (no social security here; 11 years of public employee service retirement went to pay for that student teaching period. About 5 months worth, but there was only one month left until the end of school; they weren't hiring then. I had to wait until Sept. 2 for a paying teaching job. So skipping all of that,

subtract the approximately $3,000 a year I spend on classroom supplies, books, professional journals, professional development, continuing ed, making my own copies,etc.

That leaves the top pay with $42,000 a year. Which is $22.70 an hour.

Not enough, IMPO, for the time, energy, care, and skill that goes into the job. That decent teacher should make enough to buy a decent house in whatever area he/she teaches in. Even if he/she is single. Or the sole wage earner for a family.

Let's bump it up by a ten thousand or two.

[SheilaT]

29. They simply don't pay them enough.

The vast majority of teachers are good, decent people, who love teaching.

[Hekate]

31. Hard to live on 45K/yr on either of the coasts, though

Public schoolteachers used to be mostly women and mostly married, and since it was a female job-ghetto their incomes were considered supplemental at best. Times have changed a lot, and a good thing too, and a lot of talented women have chosen more financially rewarding careers over teaching.

If this country really respected teachers and valued education, beginning teachers would get a salary commensurate with other jobs that require 5 years of college, and no teacher anywhere would have to pay for classroom supplies out of his/her own salary. Can you imagine requiring admin. assts. to bring paper and toner to work that they bought? Tell the new lawyer that if he wants a chair in his office he'll have to buy it and bring it in?

Hekate

[populistmom]

33. For the work involved and education needed

$50,000K to start minimum

Our country's priorities are f*cked. (So what else is new, right?)

[OneBlueSky]

34. given how schools are funded . . .

it's getting increasingly difficult to pay teachers the kinds of salaries they deserve . . . instead of continually having to raise local property taxes to fund increased salaries, why don't we just exempt public school teachers from federal and state income taxes? . . . this will effectively increase their income far more than they could ever expect, be a national statement that teachers are special people highly valued by our society, and bring a lot of good, qualified people into the profession . . .

[Yupster]

154. Any other occupations

that yu think should be excempted from taxes, or only teachers?

[Wapsie B]

35. Priceless.

Too bad I never had a teacher who I thought cared about me as a person.

[Selwynn]

36. Worth what a fucking football player makes

When professional athletes make hundreds of millions of dollars a year in endorsements and salary and a teacher makes not enough to support a family - you know something is really wrong.

But that's capitalism - everyone is paid fairly, according to their market-value. A pro-athlete can bring in enough money that his value is set so that it is "right" that he/she makes millions of dollars. But of course, the market-value of a teacher isn't worth shit.

In Meritocracy, the more you are paid, the more "valuable" or "worthy" the work is. So, its incredibly noble work to be a currency speculator on wall street sitting in a box all day long bullshitting about profit, but its not noble work to raise a family, or teach children, or work in your community - that doesn't deserve to be rewarded.

[sweetheart]

38. What is a teacher worth to the federal reserve open markets committee?

These are the guys who allocate credit in our society (print money). This then follows through all the devices of american capitalism to create jobs and investment in a sector... in this case teaching and schools.

Since this committee is not democratic AT ALL, and only has 1 token woman... it has grossly failed the needs of the citizens.

Just goes to show you that opaque central economic planning does not serve democratic interests.

[ElsewheresDaughter]

39. much more...a qualified teacher should make at the very least $65K

[baldguy]

40. The best teachers would work for free.

People who don't like public education think that means they're worthless.

People who have had a real teacher, people who know that public education is indispensable to a free society, people who are INVOLVED in the process of educating their children - know that teachers are priceless.

[Selwynn]

48. ....and get paid much more than they do now.

This thread is not about teacher motivations. It is about what we should rightfully pay them in this society.

[GreenPartyVoter]

42. $45 grand or not, we're going to lose a lot of teachers and principals

The "No Public School Teacher Left Standing Act", "Segregation Vouchers", and rude and uncaring kids and parents being the main reasons why.

(And yes, I am biased on this. I come from a family of teachers.)

[jsw_81]

44. It should depend on student performance

If your students do well, you get a substantial bonus. If not, you don't. But base salary should be at least $40k imo.

[IrateCitizen]

45. Only if the teachers get to pick the students they get

I have to laugh my ass off when I see people espouse garbage like this -- like the teacher is the sole arbiter of how a student does in school.

Here's a news flash, bub -- teachers don't get to pick what students they teach. They have to work with WHAT THEY GET.

On a personal level, my wife is a middle school science teacher. She was assigned an extra class this year because a teacher went on maternity leave. In the class of 18 students, something like 15 of them are in the nowhere land between special ed and mainstream. When she took over, over half of the class was failing.

My wife is a dedicated teacher -- she's the kind of teacher who is willing to offer students whatever help they need in order to pass. But she's also tough and strict, and isn't going to give grades away. While she has seen slight improvement from a few of the kids -- overall, the class is STILL failing. I see her come home and literally pull her hair out over dealing with them, why they won't do the work she gives them, and so on. So now you, someone who obviously has never set foot inside a classroom or can relate to those who do, is going to come along and say that my wife should be judged by her students' performance -- when she is just one factor in their lives among many?

Give me a f***ing break! I would love to see people like you, who subscribe these kinds of "performance indicators" to teachers, set foot in a classroom and teach for a year. See how you do. Because I'll bet you'll find it's not quite so cut-and-dried as you think it is.

:grr:

[GreenPartyVoter]

46. Amen

[Selwynn]

49. Absolutely! Hear Hear! (nt)

[ElsewheresDaughter]

58. AMEN!!!

[throwthebumsout]

61. Bravo!!! Well said

I also LMAO when I read that kind of crap. Same thing goes with comparisons of private school test scores and public school test scores. How the hell can anybody think that's a valid or fair comparison to make, when you're talking about VASTLY different populations, levels of motivation, etc. Until teachers can control the quality of the raw materials they're given to work with, there is no way that you can fault them if the end product differs in quality.

[Muddleoftheroad]

66. Good point

Performance indicators are a desperate attempt to regain control over the failing education system. But they are a silly and dangerous concept.

[IrateCitizen]

68. Read the statement I was referring to, muddled one

The initial poster said that teachers should be given a substantial bonus if their children do well.

Never mind the fact that one teacher could be teaching an AP class and the other a borderline special-ed class. After all, it can all be broken down into simple numbers and performance indicators, right?

And I fail to see where you could infer from my post that I was against any kind of yardstick by which to measure student performance -- unless distorting my viewpoint in order to make yours seem more viable was indeed your purpose???

[Muddleoftheroad]

I was agreeing oh muddled one

I think teaching to the tests and requiring teachers to be graded accordingly is silly. Too much of that gauge would be reliant on the knowledge level of the students prior to the teacher's class.

Still, there needs to be some way to measure teacher performance that does connect in some way to the students actually learning something.

[Muddleoftheroad]

70. I was agreeing oh muddled one

I think teaching to the tests and requiring teachers to be graded accordingly is silly. Too much of that gauge would be reliant on the knowledge level of the students prior to the teacher's class.

Still, there needs to be some way to measure teacher performance that does connect in some way to the students actually learning something.

[IrateCitizen]

71. My bad. I apologize.

I was transferring our rather excited disagreement earlier in the thread into interpreting your response as a sarcastic one. I apologize for misinterpreting it as such.

[Muddleoftheroad]

72. Fair enough

This is an important topic and we ALL (that does heartily include moi) get too into it sometimes. Don't worry about it.

Frankly, the one thing I can say is that I am happy any time anyone cares this much about education.

[IrateCitizen]

75. Well, I wouldn't be seeking to take a $25K or more pay cut...

... by becoming a teacher myself, if I didn't care about it. ;-)

And right back at ya, with regards to caring about education.

[jsw_81]

125. Ever heard of Jaime Escalante?

He taught advanced calculus to kids at a HORRIBLE school in Los Angeles, and several dozen of his students got perfect scores or near-perfect scores on the AP calculus test. Several of his students went on to attend colleges like Harvard, Yale, Princeton, Stanford, and MIT. This was absolutely unprecedented for his school; wouldn't you agree that he should get a substantial bonus? Or would you pay him the same as every other teacher?

[The Zanti Regent]

156. The same Escalante who is a Republican who supported vouchers?

Escalante is a two-face fake.

[LWolf]

139. Applause

and a hug for your wife.

:hug:

I'm there this year. I'm *just* an elementary school teacher, but I go home tearing my hair out every night.

This year I have 23 5th graders and 7 sixth graders. We underwent a calendar change and a major redistricting and restructuring this year. We jumped from a student population of 500 to 900 in one year. Almost half of my class came from other schools or out of district. The other half was in a 4th grade class at our site last year, which our adminstrator left at only 16 because they were a combination of severe social/behavior problems and kids who were struggling academically. They got dumped into a room with 30 this year; and the ones new to our school are in worse shape than the 16. And it's a combination class. And, in addition to this group, I get an extra 3 4th graders a day from another class for math, and an extra 7 6th graders for an hour 2 days a week for science. We are packed to the gills in there, the schedule is unforgiving, and the kids...

One special ed candidate.

One gang member. 5 Wanna-be gang members.

One severely emotionally disturbed young lady. Who is on a series of drugs that keep her tired, headachy, confused, and distressed.

One slightly emotionally disturbed young man.

One limited English speaker.

5 unmedicated ADHD. Another 2 unmedicated ADD.

One a 6 month preemie with developmental difficulties.

9 serious behavior problems. I can't do small-group work or one-on-one work with students because I literally have to be standing in their sight, policing them, at all times.

One GATE candidate; 1 more "high achiever." Another 7 or so "average" students. And other than those 9, the rest are at least a year behind. With many of them having already been held back.

8 with learning disabilities. I'm still waiting for a resource teacher to schedule time with them; the year is half over.

5 or 6 students total can actually think. Make connections, see patterns, recognize possibilities. The rest cannot perform without multiple choice or fill in the blank worksheets.

The worst part is that so many came to me already indoctrinated; they hate school. They hate learning. They hate reading. They'll tell you so.

When we added 400 students to our school in Sept., there was a furniture problem. We didn't get to go out and buy new desks and chairs for them. We scrounged around the district. My kids sit in chairs intended for 2nd graders. Which makes it really hard to get them to ever sit still. It's uncomfortable.

I've applied my not-inconsiderable skills to try to make a difference with this group of kids. The parents see my efforts, and show a lot of appreciation. But I'm failing. I know it. I have not been able to perform 39 miracles this year.

Does that make me one of those "bad" teachers in our classrooms?

[Ishoutandscream]

50. 5 votes for 15K a year?

Some Republicans must be posting on this board. Either that, or these five must still hate the teachers they had when they were going to school (thus, it influenced their vote).

[Nevernose]

54. These are the national averages

by state. I'll try and get the chart to post, but otherwise here's the link: http://www.aft.org/research/survey01/tables/tableI-1.html

Also, it should be pointed out that starting teacher salaries are considerably lower in most of these states. Nevada, for instance, is about 28k, and Arkansas I believe is the lowest in the nation, with about 20k. That's the same thing as $14/hour and $10/hour. $10 an hour is less than what a shift supervisor at WalMart makes.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

82. Thanks

Interesting that under Davis teachers made more and still voted for arnold..:shrug:

I think teachers should easily make 50K starting salary given the hours they work and increase accordingly. Their jobs are nearly as stressful according the the American Stress Institute as those of police, firefighters and inner city bus drivers.

[myrna minx]

55. Priceless. n/t

[ProfessorGAC]

57. The Good Teacher I Know Was Worth Marrying

I would think it reasonable that a teacher be paid as much as an electrician. More education is requiered for teaching, continuing ed is often mandatory, and the responsibilities, while totally different, are at least as high.

Depending on the area that would be between $24 and $40 per hour. Using your math parameters, that would be at least $60k and as much as $105k, deducting the 13 weeks where they don't have to work. So, take 75% of those numbers and we get $45k - $78k. In our town, i think my wife (with 20+ years experience) should be making around $55k. She makes $28k.
The Professor

[recidivist]

73. Wow. Where do you live?

In DC, the scale starts at $38,434 and maxes out at $78,366. You hit $50,000 in ten years. That's with just a bachelor's degree. A masters in 10 years is $58+.

The scale is on the web if you want to check. So when ya gonna move?

[ProfessorGAC]

76. Not Moving

I make a quite a bit of money, so we're ok. For my wife to get a $30k raise and me to try to find something in these economic times is a nonstarter. The odds of me finding something that pays what i get, vs. the cost of living in our area, just so she could get a little more money doesn't make financial sense. Besides our house is <4 years from being paid off. (BTW: We live in Northern Illinois, about 50 miles from Chicago.)

The district my wife is in just doesn't have any tax base except for small businesses and homes. No industry. So, no money for teachers. On top of that, she's special ed, so even less money than regular ed teachers. (Different funding model in this state. Why? No good explanation has ever been offerred.)

Besides, she's not doing it for the money. She likes her work, and that's good enough for me.
The Professor

[rhino47]

102. Way more then 45k

What really pisses me off is my mother a tenured professor at Penn State makes not even 1/20th of what Joe Paterno does.In fact her
tenure was held up because she failed one of the Great JOE`s star
players.I remember I was 13 at the time in her office when he stormed in threatened her.It just so happened she was up for tenure that year.Magically it never happened.It took another 12 years for her to obtain tenure.I totally understand the importance of sports
to schools.But not when they overshadow the educational aspect of any
educational establishment.High school college etc.How can we pay
a punter in the NFL more then teachers?These people are responsible
for helping to shape minds of the future generation.
I just love when people bitch about their taxes going up and up just because of those "selfish" teachers .They think teachers have days from 8 to 330 only from sept to June.With the amount of education
a teacher has if they had taken the same amount of years in college
to do say engineering they would make 3 x the money .These people
are dedicated and way under paid !!
I`m not saying there aren't some bad teachers but I truly feel they are in the minuscule minority.Its mostly the school administrations I have problems with.Too numerous to get into .Also imagine how many hours teachers have to waste testing (no child left behind MY (_)_)
.

[Terwilliger]

103. $75,000 a year...minimum

minimum! :hi:

[Muddleoftheroad]

108. How do you propose to pay for that?

[rhino47]

118. Try paying the administration a hell of a lot less

My school district has average income of 22,000.Rural area.
Superintendent makes 187,000 a year.Makes me sick.Kindergarten has
26 kids one teacher.No money for a teachers aid.wonder why?Perhaps
if admin got paid a bit less they could afford to pay a decent wage
to the teachers.

[Muddleoftheroad]

120. I have no problem with that

That actually sounds high even compared to what they pay in the D.C. area. Shockingly so. In fact, that's more than congressmen. How big a district?

Unfortunately, cutting one salary will only provide for a little money, but I don't disagree.

[Terwilliger]

119. who cares?

teachers are more important than bankers, speculator's , and CEO's...how bout levying real taxes

[Muddleoftheroad]

131. Obviously we disagree on that point

And so far society agrees with me.

[arewethereyet]

109. depends on the area, cost of living etc

45K in NY NY is not a lot, in Moab Utah its princely.

[Star]

110. No Dentist Left Behind Act

I just got this in an email today, from my sister who's a teacher. I'm a high school biology teacher, and I always find it amusing listening to non-teachers telling me how to do my job and trying to evaluate my job performance.

Subject: No Dentist Left Behind Act

If you know someone who doesn't understand why educators
resent the NO CHILD LEFT BEHIND ACT, this may help. If you do understand, you'll enjoy this analogy. It's currently being sent around the email circuits; it was written by John S. Taylor, Superintendent of Schools for the Lancaster County, PA School District. (Be a friend to a teacher and pass this on.)

The Best Dentist---"Absolutely" the Best Dentist

My dentist is great! He sends me reminders so I don't forget checkups. He uses the latest techniques based on research. He never hurts me, and I've got all my teeth, so when I ran into him the other day, I was eager to see if he'd heard about the new state program. I knew he'd think it was great.

"Did you hear about the new state program to measure effectiveness of dentists with their young patients?" I said.
"No," he said. He didn't seem too thrilled. "How will they do that?"
"It's quite simple," I said. "They will just count the number of cavities each patient has at age 10, 14, and 18 and average that to determine a dentist's rating. Dentists will be rated as Excellent, Good, Average, Below average, and Unsatisfactory. That way parents will know which are the best dentists. It will also encourage the less effective dentists to get better. Poor dentists who don't improve could lose their licenses to practice."
"That's terrible," he said.
"What? That's not a good attitude," I said. "Don't you think we should try to improve children's dental health in this state?"
"Sure I do," he said, "but that's not a fair way to determine who is practicing good dentistry."
"Why not?" I said. "It makes perfect sense to me."
"Well, it's so obvious," he said. "Don't you see that dentists don't all work with the same clientele; so much depends on things we can't control. For example, I work in a rural area with a high percentage of patients from deprived homes, while some of my colleagues work in upper middle class neighborhoods. Many of the parents I work with don't bring their children to see me until there is some kind of problem; I don't get to do much preventive work at all. Also," he said, "many of the parents I serve let their kids eat way too much candy from an early age, unlike more educated parents who understand the relationship between sugar and decay. To top it
all off," he added, "so many of my clients have well water which is untreated and has no fluoride in it. Do you have any idea how much difference early use of fluoride can make?"
"It sounds like you're making excuses," I said. I couldn't believe my dentist would be so defensive. He does a great job.
"I am not!" he said. "My best patients are as good as anyone's, my work is as good as anyone's, but my average cavity count is going to be higher than a lot of other dentists because I chose to work where I am needed most."
"Don't get touchy," I said.
"Touchy?" he said. His face had turned red and from the way he was clenching and unclenching his jaws, I was afraid he was going to damage his teeth. "Try furious. In a system like this, I will end up being rated average, below average, or worse. My more educated patients who see these ratings may believe this so-called rating actually is a measure of my ability and proficiency as a dentist. They may leave me, and I'll be left with only the most needy patients. And my cavity average score will get even worse. On top of that, how will I attract good dental hygienists and other excellent dentists to my practice if it is labeled below average?"
"I think you are overreacting," I said. "'Complaining, excuse making and stonewalling won't improve dental health'...I am quoting from a leading member of the DOC," I noted.
"What's the DOC?" he asked.
"It's the Dental Oversight Committee," I said, "a group made up of mostly lay persons to make sure dentistry in this state gets improved."
"Spare me," he said, "I can't believe this. Reasonable people won't buy it," he said hopefully. The program sounded reasonable to me, so I asked, "How else would you measure good dentistry?"
"Come watch me work," he said. "Observe my processes."
"That's too complicated and time consuming," I said. "Cavities are the bottom line, and you can't argue with the bottom line. It's an absolute measure."
"That's what I'm afraid my parents and prospective patients will think. This can't be happening," he said despairingly.
"Now, now," I said, "don't despair. The state will help you some."
"How?" he said. "If you're rated poorly, they'll send a dentist who is rated excellent to help straighten you out," I said brightly.
"You mean," he said, "they'll send a dentist with a wealthy clientele to show me how to work on severe juvenile dental problems with which I have probably had much more experience? Big help."
"There you go again," I said. "You aren't acting professionally at all."
"You don't get it," he said. "Doing this would be like grading schools and teachers on an average score on a test of children's progress without regard to influences outside the school, the home, the community served and stuff like that. Why would they do something so unfair to dentists? No one would ever think of doing that to schools."

I just shook my head sadly, but he had brightened. "I'm going to write my representatives and senator," he said. "I'll use the school analogy- surely they will see the point." He walked off with that look of hope mixed with fear and suppressed anger that I see in the mirror so often lately.

[ulysses]

128. thank you!

Going to start emailing this myself, right after I get back from my tutoring appointments this morning. :thumbsup:

[oostevo]

117. I end up paying about $12,700 a year

For a decent secondary school education. But I agree wholeheartedly -- teachers are the most influential and important people in society, and they deserve to be paid a salary that reflects this.

[Jose Diablo]

124. If you consider value exchanged for value

someone that teaches our youth should receive at least $45K a year.

Our youth are the future. To short change our childrens training is unthinkable. A good teachers value to society is very high.

[blondeatlast]

133. Remeber that they arae now required to obtain Master's Degrees

to maintain their certification.

[Yupster]

135. Not impressed with Master's Degree

My wife and I each have our Master's in Education degrees. In our cases, they were joke degrees. In no way should a Master's in Curriculum or Administration be compared to a master's in chemistry or even history.

We were in those classes with a class full of other teachers all looking to get their stipends on the salary scale too. The professor knew that too, so there wasn't a lick of work, and not a wole lot of teaching or learning going on. We got our $ 800 per year, the professor got to take off early and everyone was happy, maybe except for the taxpayers.

[LWolf]

140. I would disagree with that.

I didn't finish either one of my masters', probably because I couldn't make up my mind which one I wanted. If I have to finish one to keep my certification, it will be in curriculum and instruction, because I only need 3 more classes. My classes had plenty of learning going on, and plenty of work.

As a matter of fact, the classes towards the other Masters I didn't finish, the Masters in Library science with an added Library Media Teacher credential, were the toughest I've ever experienced. Not counting actual time in class, I logged a couple of hours dailyand 237 pages of various assignments for just one 3 unit class.

I didn't finish either because I became suddenly single. Still not having paid for the BA and extra 30 for the Clear teaching credential, I couldn't afford more debt or the tuition on a single teacher's income. At this point, I don't know how important that is to me; if the current pendulum swing doesn't turn back soon, I don't want to teach at all.

[Yupster]

147. Mine is in Curriculum and Instruction

It was a joke degree.

Of course I'm not speaking for everyone or everywhere.

I got mine in New Mexico. My wife got her's in Texas.

[The Zanti Regent]

155. Teachers know how to hurt people real good.

Every time I struggled in school, teacher after teacher slapped me down. Time and time again I heard them call me dummy, stupid, idiot and other wonderful warm things.

They told me I was not college material, when I scored 1320 on the SAT and over 700 on two achievement tests, they accused me of cheating.

I went to college, paid my own way and came out with an MA in labor economics. The contempt I have for public school teachers knows no bounds, and the one who hurt me most, got phony honor after honor.

[Yupster]

157. Most teachers are good, honest, hard working

but your experience points out that there are many bad teachers too. The problem is that bad teachers can stay in the classroom for 20 years hurting thousands of kids when everyone from administration to faculty to students know they're bad.

In my school we had a horrible english teacher who was a very nice lady and a friend of mine. Her kids did terribly on the standadized tests, so the solution was to move her to history where there wasn't a standardized test to take. Of course now her problem was compounded because not only was she a bad teacher, but now she didn't know her subject matter either. She just retired this year after 15 years of being a bad history teacher and many years before that of being a bad english teacher.