Youngkin reduces teacher qualifications

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Yes that is the problem and brand new teachers who have all the education and credentials don’t know how to do that either. They don’t do a good job of teaching it during college so they have to learn in the job from experienced teachers (and it’s freaking hard so a lot of them never do it well).

And don’t tell me a new teacher has never cried because they were overwhelmed. That is a normal thing to do.

But the new teachers who have been through a licensure program have the theoretical understanding and the child development knowledge as a starting point. They have also had months of student teaching to learn the very basics. Someone with none of that is going to be a trainwreck and the experienced teachers are not going to do a single thing to support unlicensed and untrained people in teaching positions.

Sadly a lot of the child development they learn is outdated and wrong. I do think that something like student teaching is very important. I think it would be very bad if experienced teachers didn't support those who became licensed through non-traditional paths. I don't know why they wouldn't do that? Spite?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I still think a far better solution is hiring teachers from other countries, helping them with housing and any professional development to help with cultural adjustment issues.

So basically you want indentured servitude. Thanks for at least being honest, even if you are a monster.

What an ignorant reply. How is that indentured servitude?? People would come here on their own accord/choice, with a contract to earn a paycheck.

I’m not the previous poster, but what it sounds like to me is that you would rather find people in other countries that would be willing to accept what we are currently paying teachers now, instead of raising teacher pay.

Replace teachers with IT, and it's how we got housing prices so high here, that teachers can't afford to live here.

I work 12 months out of the year and make less than the teachers I know in this area. I think a teacher making 6 figures is doing pretty darn good and we need to stop with the "...teachers can't afford to live here..."

Is VA still ranked #49 and DC still ranked #51 when it comes to teacher salaries?

Only “six states pay teachers below the state’s average salary.” - this includes VA and DC.

https://www.business.org/hr/workforce-management/best-us-states-for-teachers/

This is hard to believe when the elementary teachers I know are all making 6 figures.

Your anecdote doesn’t mean much. The data speaks for itself.

No one goes into teaching for the money. Quite the opposite. They go into teaching despite the low salary.

Is it really a low salary? When has making 100,000 in Arlington been considered to be "low". If that's the case, there's a lot more than just teachers that are not getting paid enough.

[Anonymous]

Not sure anyone takes on a teaching job for money no matter what the salary is.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The problem is that it’s not just about content knowledge (although most of these “teaching is so easy!” people aren’t as knowledgeable as they think they are, they’re just arrogant), but about being able to impart that content onto an audience of mixed ability to comprehend said material, nevermind the mixed willingness to be there in the first place. They think just because the Associate Southeast Regional Supervisor for Inside Sales praised them for a presentation they did 6 years ago that they can handle a classroom, when in reality they’d be in tears the first time they missed their lunch break because a fire drill ran long, they had to hold their pee for 7 hours, or the kids started roasting their shoes.

Yes that is the problem and brand new teachers who have all the education and credentials don’t know how to do that either. They don’t do a good job of teaching it during college so they have to learn in the job from experienced teachers (and it’s freaking hard so a lot of them never do it well).

And don’t tell me a new teacher has never cried because they were overwhelmed. That is a normal thing to do.

They aren’t the ones claiming they can do everything better than trained educators because they cubicle-jockeyed for Capital One for 3 years.

The strongest result in education research is that phonics is better than whole word for teaching reading. The second strongest result is that obtaining a M.Ed. has no impact on teacher effectiveness. A few studies show slightly positive results, a few slightly negative, but the mean sits close to zero.

Experience matters a lot. The average former cubicle jockey at Capital One will suck for the first year, but so will the average brand new teacher who came via a traditional certification path. Ten years in, they will both be pretty good. And indistinguishable.

What should school systems do to ensure teachers, ANY teacher, could possibly make it to year ten and beyond?

NP. I'm far from an expert here, but from what I understand, it would be:

1. More time to actually teach and prepare lessons and fewer meetings.
2. More special education help.
3. More respect from admin and parents.
4. I have nothing to back this up but I imagine actually having school supplies supplied to them rather than having to buy them out of their own paycheck would be helpful.
5. not have a pandemic
6. More practical help with training, like help from experienced teachers.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I still think a far better solution is hiring teachers from other countries, helping them with housing and any professional development to help with cultural adjustment issues.

So basically you want indentured servitude. Thanks for at least being honest, even if you are a monster.

What an ignorant reply. How is that indentured servitude?? People would come here on their own accord/choice, with a contract to earn a paycheck.

I’m not the previous poster, but what it sounds like to me is that you would rather find people in other countries that would be willing to accept what we are currently paying teachers now, instead of raising teacher pay.

Replace teachers with IT, and it's how we got housing prices so high here, that teachers can't afford to live here.

I work 12 months out of the year and make less than the teachers I know in this area. I think a teacher making 6 figures is doing pretty darn good and we need to stop with the "...teachers can't afford to live here..."

Is VA still ranked #49 and DC still ranked #51 when it comes to teacher salaries?

Only “six states pay teachers below the state’s average salary.” - this includes VA and DC.

https://www.business.org/hr/workforce-management/best-us-states-for-teachers/

This is hard to believe when the elementary teachers I know are all making 6 figures.

Your anecdote doesn’t mean much. The data speaks for itself.

No one goes into teaching for the money. Quite the opposite. They go into teaching despite the low salary.

Is it really a low salary? When has making 100,000 in Arlington been considered to be "low". If that's the case, there's a lot more than just teachers that are not getting paid enough.

Teachers aren’t making $100k out of school.

[Anonymous]

Is anyone though?!??!!?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Is anyone though?!??!!?

Sure. CS grads.

[Anonymous]

Of course teachers are not making 100k out of school. There are not a ton of professions that do even in this area but here we are still arguing how teachers are not paid enough. IS anyone?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I think it would be very bad if experienced teachers didn't support those who became licensed through non-traditional paths. I don't know why they wouldn't do that? Spite?

I am not a teacher, but it's hard to imagine that if someone showed up at my place of employment and made it clear that they thought they could do my job despite not having my training, I would not be rearranging my day to take on extra work to teach them what they need to know. That's not spite, that's simply budgeting my time to make sure I'm fulfilling my responsibilities.

Did you ever see "Broadcast News?" There's a scene in which unqualified pretty boy William Hurt (hey, it's fiction) asks Holly Hunter to teach him how to do his job, and she explains that it isn't her job to teach him how to do his.

I can't think of a teacher who would refuse to help a younger (or older) colleague who was in earnest about being a professional teacher. Everyone needs some mentorship. But that's not what's happening with any of these Randos in the Classroom programs.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Of course teachers are not making 100k out of school. There are not a ton of professions that do even in this area but here we are still arguing how teachers are not paid enough. IS anyone?

If teachers were paid better it would attract more people to education. And retain more teachers. Right now many kids look at CS salaries and just do that.

Any teacher making $100k has years of experience. Maybe even decades. Compare that to other college-educated grads with similar work experience. It’s not a lot for this area.

[Anonymous]

Sadly a lot of the child development they learn is outdated and wrong. I do think that something like student teaching is very important. I think it would be very bad if experienced teachers didn't support those who became licensed through non-traditional paths. I don't know why they wouldn't do that? Spite?

I mean, Vygotsky is still Vygotsky. I'm curious what your think teachers are learning about development and learning that's incorrect.


As to the latter point, I am not university faculty and am not going to teach every aspect of the job to someone with zero training, not least because I don't get compensated for that. I teach children, not adults.

When it comes to mentoring new staff, it's usually someone on your team who already knows how and why to do the job and just needs some coaching on the finer points and procedures at the school. And that kind of mentorship is paid.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Yes that is the problem and brand new teachers who have all the education and credentials don’t know how to do that either. They don’t do a good job of teaching it during college so they have to learn in the job from experienced teachers (and it’s freaking hard so a lot of them never do it well).

And don’t tell me a new teacher has never cried because they were overwhelmed. That is a normal thing to do.

But the new teachers who have been through a licensure program have the theoretical understanding and the child development knowledge as a starting point. They have also had months of student teaching to learn the very basics. Someone with none of that is going to be a trainwreck and the experienced teachers are not going to do a single thing to support unlicensed and untrained people in teaching positions.

Sadly a lot of the child development they learn is outdated and wrong. I do think that something like student teaching is very important. I think it would be very bad if experienced teachers didn't support those who became licensed through non-traditional paths. I don't know why they wouldn't do that? Spite?

What do you mean by “support”? I “support” people who are equipped at a baseline with content mastery and an understanding of children and their needs and the legal requirements of our job to become teachers even as career switchers. But even they have education hours and courses they have to take and that’s for a good reason. I would not support any random person walking into a classroom out of the military with zero other education training or specific content knowledge and just being allowed to “teach” because they wouldn’t be. They don’t know how. Teaching is not just handing out papers and babysitting. And more often than not, “supporting” those kinds of career switchers would look like actual teachers having to coach, mentor, and provide materials and resources for the career switchers while not being paid anything additional for it. You don’t think admin is doing that do you?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Of course teachers are not making 100k out of school. There are not a ton of professions that do even in this area but here we are still arguing how teachers are not paid enough. IS anyone?

If teachers were paid better it would attract more people to education. And retain more teachers. Right now many kids look at CS salaries and just do that.

Any teacher making $100k has years of experience. Maybe even decades. Compare that to other college-educated grads with similar work experience. It’s not a lot for this area.

Your basic business development role at Lockheed starts at over 100k. The LCPS teacher scale maxes out at a little over 100k and that’s for 25 years of experience, possibly with a doctorate.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Yes that is the problem and brand new teachers who have all the education and credentials don’t know how to do that either. They don’t do a good job of teaching it during college so they have to learn in the job from experienced teachers (and it’s freaking hard so a lot of them never do it well).

And don’t tell me a new teacher has never cried because they were overwhelmed. That is a normal thing to do.

But the new teachers who have been through a licensure program have the theoretical understanding and the child development knowledge as a starting point. They have also had months of student teaching to learn the very basics. Someone with none of that is going to be a trainwreck and the experienced teachers are not going to do a single thing to support unlicensed and untrained people in teaching positions.

Sadly a lot of the child development they learn is outdated and wrong. I do think that something like student teaching is very important. I think it would be very bad if experienced teachers didn't support those who became licensed through non-traditional paths. I don't know why they wouldn't do that? Spite?

What do you mean by “support”? I “support” people who are equipped at a baseline with content mastery and an understanding of children and their needs and the legal requirements of our job to become teachers even as career switchers. But even they have education hours and courses they have to take and that’s for a good reason. I would not support any random person walking into a classroom out of the military with zero other education training or specific content knowledge and just being allowed to “teach” because they wouldn’t be. They don’t know how. Teaching is not just handing out papers and babysitting. And more often than not, “supporting” those kinds of career switchers would look like actual teachers having to coach, mentor, and provide materials and resources for the career switchers while not being paid anything additional for it. You don’t think admin is doing that do you?

Well how do you support those who have taken courses? I was thinking of a teacher asking "hey I have this specific issue with a student that has me stumped, what would you do?" and then offering advice. I think how much you offer support is 100% dependent on your own boundaries, I just don't know why a teacher would withhold the same support they would give somebody who has taken coursework from somebody who hasn't. It just seems to me like some teachers sort of want to freeze out these newer teachers not just out of their own time and energy constraints, but out of spite.

Youngkin's executive order mandates that the secretary of education will put forth legislative proposals to reduce license requirements. I don't know what that commission will come up with, but I don't think they would allow anybody to teach who has no content mastery, no understanding of children and their needs, and a belief that teaching is just handing out papers and babysitting. It also says the secretary of education will establish an apprenticeship program, so that would give would-be teachers some experience.

I know you can't really trust the same politician who set up a CRT hotline and is pro-charter schools to do what is in the best interest of the profession, but this just doesn't seem that bad to me.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Sadly a lot of the child development they learn is outdated and wrong. I do think that something like student teaching is very important. I think it would be very bad if experienced teachers didn't support those who became licensed through non-traditional paths. I don't know why they wouldn't do that? Spite?

I mean, Vygotsky is still Vygotsky. I'm curious what your think teachers are learning about development and learning that's incorrect.


As to the latter point, I am not university faculty and am not going to teach every aspect of the job to someone with zero training, not least because I don't get compensated for that. I teach children, not adults.

When it comes to mentoring new staff, it's usually someone on your team who already knows how and why to do the job and just needs some coaching on the finer points and procedures at the school. And that kind of mentorship is paid.

Perhaps it's not so much that it's incorrect, it's that a psychological theory about human development isn't always the best guide to how students should be taught. Piaget's stage theory and other theories don't necessarily translate well to the classroom. And of course there is the issue of whatever theory of human development led to balanced literacy. It's not like this is a huge deal because teachers do learn the actual best way to teach different subjects in schools, but hopefully a licensure test would require knowledge of those things too. But on the job training and experience is going to help a lot too.