Public vs. Private Schools for people living in Montgomery County

[Anonymous]

For far too long students in America benefited from teachers who were overqualified for the comparatively low paying teacher positions. Yes, I'm talking about women who today are CEOs, doctors, lawyers, engineers, but back in the day were largely restricted to teaching. Their loss to be sure, but the schools benefitted. The days of getting such highly qualified individuals to enter the teaching profession are long gone.

There has to be a rethinking of how to get talented people back into teaching. The answer is not to pay less qualified individuals more. Taking advantage of the pool of bright people who have already completed a career may be one part of the solution, but it is not the full story.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Sorry but differentiation is non-existent in 2.0. The math "enrichment" is a joke. Reading is the ONLY area where kids are allowed to work in abilities but high readers end up solely on their own with very little, if any teacher involvement.

MCPS is all about baseline now. K-3 is basically a waiting room for many kids while the rest of the county catches up. Its terrible.

I'm sorry that things are like that are your child's MCPS school. They are not like that at my child's MCPS school.

Oh of course: your child's school is perfect.

No, my child's school is not perfect. But it is a good school. There is math differentiation, there is support for high-level readers, and K-3 is not just a "waiting room".

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:More effort has to be devoted to establishing charter schools in Montgomery County. Charter schools can be the "private schools" for those who can't afford private school. The schools could benefit from retired professionals (doctors, lawyers, engineers) who have a passion for teaching (not career) and are willing to teach for little of no pay to give back to the community. These retired professionals have wisdom, knowledge and practical experience that no public school could match.

Wanted: people with no practical experience in teaching, who are willing to work for little or no pay.

Really?

I'm guessing you aren't big on that whole volunteer thing, huh?

Volunteering is dandy, but I wouldn't base a public school system on it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:We are in Bethesda and decided against our in bound school- Wood Acres. Just wasn't impressed after visiting. The school seemed crowded and the classes I watched were not well supervised. For example, in one class I visited, the only adult in the room was a parent attempting (poorly I might add) to teach a grammar lesson on pronouns. In another class, a teacher was working with one child at a table while the entire rest of the class were broken into groups and to work independently. The kids were not working, but were completely goofing around. The teacher did nothing to try and bring the class under control. I could go on, but don't want to beat a dead horse.

And yet, in the Maryland Public Schools forum, there are posters who constantly complain that their children's schools do not allow parents to volunteer in the classrooms.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:For far too long students in America benefited from teachers who were overqualified for the comparatively low paying teacher positions. Yes, I'm talking about women who today are CEOs, doctors, lawyers, engineers, but back in the day were largely restricted to teaching. Their loss to be sure, but the schools benefitted. The days of getting such highly qualified individuals to enter the teaching profession are long gone.

There has to be a rethinking of how to get talented people back into teaching. The answer is not to pay less qualified individuals more. Taking advantage of the pool of bright people who have already completed a career may be one part of the solution, but it is not the full story.

Actually I think it might be. If you pay teachers more, more well-qualified people will choose to go into teaching. That's basic economics.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:For far too long students in America benefited from teachers who were overqualified for the comparatively low paying teacher positions. Yes, I'm talking about women who today are CEOs, doctors, lawyers, engineers, but back in the day were largely restricted to teaching. Their loss to be sure, but the schools benefitted. The days of getting such highly qualified individuals to enter the teaching profession are long gone.

There has to be a rethinking of how to get talented people back into teaching. The answer is not to pay less qualified individuals more. Taking advantage of the pool of bright people who have already completed a career may be one part of the solution, but it is not the full story.

Actually I think it might be. If you pay teachers more, more well-qualified people will choose to go into teaching. That's basic economics.

Np. It seems though you'd have to offer more pay than whatever job you're trying to lure them from. Not sure what job that is. Also, it makes no sense to pay more to any current teachers who are doing a poor job. Seems like teaching should become more of a competitive field generally to improve the pool.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:For far too long students in America benefited from teachers who were overqualified for the comparatively low paying teacher positions. Yes, I'm talking about women who today are CEOs, doctors, lawyers, engineers, but back in the day were largely restricted to teaching. Their loss to be sure, but the schools benefitted. The days of getting such highly qualified individuals to enter the teaching profession are long gone.

There has to be a rethinking of how to get talented people back into teaching. The answer is not to pay less qualified individuals more. Taking advantage of the pool of bright people who have already completed a career may be one part of the solution, but it is not the full story.

Actually I think it might be. If you pay teachers more, more well-qualified people will choose to go into teaching. That's basic economics.

Np. It seems though you'd have to offer more pay than whatever job you're trying to lure them from. Not sure what job that is. Also, it makes no sense to pay more to any current teachers who are doing a poor job. Seems like teaching should become more of a competitive field generally to improve the pool.

Not necessarily. Pay is only one of the things people consider, when deciding about jobs. There's also benefits, health insurance, time off, workplace environment, job satisfaction, job security...

But I can't imagine that a plan that says "We're not going to pay you losers more; we're just going to pay more to these great new people we're planning to hire" would go over well.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We are in Bethesda and decided against our in bound school- Wood Acres. Just wasn't impressed after visiting. The school seemed crowded and the classes I watched were not well supervised. For example, in one class I visited, the only adult in the room was a parent attempting (poorly I might add) to teach a grammar lesson on pronouns. In another class, a teacher was working with one child at a table while the entire rest of the class were broken into groups and to work independently. The kids were not working, but were completely goofing around. The teacher did nothing to try and bring the class under control. I could go on, but don't want to beat a dead horse.

And yet, in the Maryland Public Schools forum, there are posters who constantly complain that their children's schools do not allow parents to volunteer in the classrooms.

And I was thinking about all the people who complain that K is too regimented-- the kids aren't free to be kids. I don't think anyone's mind gets changed on these things though.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:For far too long students in America benefited from teachers who were overqualified for the comparatively low paying teacher positions. Yes, I'm talking about women who today are CEOs, doctors, lawyers, engineers, but back in the day were largely restricted to teaching. Their loss to be sure, but the schools benefitted. The days of getting such highly qualified individuals to enter the teaching profession are long gone.

There has to be a rethinking of how to get talented people back into teaching. The answer is not to pay less qualified individuals more. Taking advantage of the pool of bright people who have already completed a career may be one part of the solution, but it is not the full story.

Actually I think it might be. If you pay teachers more, more well-qualified people will choose to go into teaching. That's basic economics.

Np. It seems though you'd have to offer more pay than whatever job you're trying to lure them from. Not sure what job that is. Also, it makes no sense to pay more to any current teachers who are doing a poor job. Seems like teaching should become more of a competitive field generally to improve the pool.

I agree - you can't fix the teacher problem by paying ALL the teachers more while hoping that you'll begin attracting more qualified entry level teachers. In many jurisdictions the newer more qualified teachers would be the first to be laid off and it would take as much as 30 years to get rid of all the under-qualified teachers. There needs to be a new paradigm for tapping into the potential of all the retried professionals who would be willing to contribute time and talent to improve education. Maybe more use of part-time teachers, team teaching etc. The focus has to be on education of children not the careers of teachers.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

I agree - you can't fix the teacher problem by paying ALL the teachers more while hoping that you'll begin attracting more qualified entry level teachers. In many jurisdictions the newer more qualified teachers would be the first to be laid off and it would take as much as 30 years to get rid of all the under-qualified teachers. There needs to be a new paradigm for tapping into the potential of all the retried professionals who would be willing to contribute time and talent to improve education. Maybe more use of part-time teachers, team teaching etc. The focus has to be on education of children not the careers of teachers.

There needs to be a new paradigm for tapping into the potential of all the retired professionals who would be willing to contribute time and talent to improve health care. Maybe more use of part-time doctors, team nursing etc. The focus has to be on care of patients not the careers of doctors and nurses.

There needs to be a new paradigm for tapping into the potential of all the retired professionals who would be willing to contribute time and talent to improve banking. Maybe more use of part-time bankers, team bankers etc. The focus has to be on making money not the careers of bankers.

There needs to be a new paradigm for tapping into the potential of all the retired professionals who would be willing to contribute time and talent to improve legal affairs. Maybe more use of part-time lawyers, team counsels etc. The focus has to be on legal affairs not the careers of lawyers.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

I agree - you can't fix the teacher problem by paying ALL the teachers more while hoping that you'll begin attracting more qualified entry level teachers. In many jurisdictions the newer more qualified teachers would be the first to be laid off and it would take as much as 30 years to get rid of all the under-qualified teachers. There needs to be a new paradigm for tapping into the potential of all the retried professionals who would be willing to contribute time and talent to improve education. Maybe more use of part-time teachers, team teaching etc. The focus has to be on education of children not the careers of teachers.

There needs to be a new paradigm for tapping into the potential of all the retired professionals who would be willing to contribute time and talent to improve health care. Maybe more use of part-time doctors, team nursing etc. The focus has to be on care of patients not the careers of doctors and nurses.

There needs to be a new paradigm for tapping into the potential of all the retired professionals who would be willing to contribute time and talent to improve banking. Maybe more use of part-time bankers, team bankers etc. The focus has to be on making money not the careers of bankers.

There needs to be a new paradigm for tapping into the potential of all the retired professionals who would be willing to contribute time and talent to improve legal affairs. Maybe more use of part-time lawyers, team counsels etc. The focus has to be on legal affairs not the careers of lawyers.

I suspect you're trying to make some point by drawing these parallels, something about how we don't expect the same from other professions. However, what you may be missing is that those other professions ARE trying things like this. For example, at law firms and corporate legal departments, managers have been trying for years to take advantage of the potential of older lawyers. They get brought in at reduced salaries with reduced billing requirements, and in addition to some billable work, they often spend lots of time with things like mentoring young lawyers, pro bono efforts, and client relationships. In doing so, the firms are focused on their own aims, not on propping up the careers of older lawyers. The firms are looking to squeeze value from those older lawyers.

The same paradigm would apply to teachers. Public schools should be looking to squeeze value from the teachers, not simply as a jobs program to help teachers stay employed. Too often, it seems the collective bargaining agreements are about career preservation, not an exchange of value.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
I suspect you're trying to make some point by drawing these parallels, something about how we don't expect the same from other professions. However, what you may be missing is that those other professions ARE trying things like this. For example, at law firms and corporate legal departments, managers have been trying for years to take advantage of the potential of older lawyers. They get brought in at reduced salaries with reduced billing requirements, and in addition to some billable work, they often spend lots of time with things like mentoring young lawyers, pro bono efforts, and client relationships. In doing so, the firms are focused on their own aims, not on propping up the careers of older lawyers. The firms are looking to squeeze value from those older lawyers.

The same paradigm would apply to teachers. Public schools should be looking to squeeze value from the teachers, not simply as a jobs program to help teachers stay employed. Too often, it seems the collective bargaining agreements are about career preservation, not an exchange of value.

Well, sure I'm trying to make a point. Here, I'll state it explicitly. My point is: what do you have against basing the public school system on professional teachers, who get paid for their work?

[Anonymous]

Nothing! I'm all for treating teachers as professionals, and increasing pay accordingly. But part of the deal with professionals is that you can be fired for failing to meet expectations.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:More effort has to be devoted to establishing charter schools in Montgomery County. Charter schools can be the "private schools" for those who can't afford private school. The schools could benefit from retired professionals (doctors, lawyers, engineers) who have a passion for teaching (not career) and are willing to teach for little of no pay to give back to the community. These retired professionals have wisdom, knowledge and practical experience that no public school could match.

Wanted: people with no practical experience in teaching, who are willing to work for little or no pay.

Really?

Have you seen the students who pursue "teaching degrees?" - not the top of the talent pool. I know many professionals with experience teaching who actually understand the subjects they teach. Yeah, I wouldn't mind have a retired doctor teaching my kid biology or an engineer teaching physics or a lawyer teaching civics. The talent is out there - just need to tap into it. Is EVERY retired professional a potential teacher? - absolutely not, but the talent is out there.

+ 1000

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:For far too long students in America benefited from teachers who were overqualified for the comparatively low paying teacher positions. Yes, I'm talking about women who today are CEOs, doctors, lawyers, engineers, but back in the day were largely restricted to teaching. Their loss to be sure, but the schools benefitted. The days of getting such highly qualified individuals to enter the teaching profession are long gone.

There has to be a rethinking of how to get talented people back into teaching. The answer is not to pay less qualified individuals more. Taking advantage of the pool of bright people who have already completed a career may be one part of the solution, but it is not the full story.

Totally agree. But guess what? Look at the resumes of many private school teachers and you'll see just that mix. I'll take a retired Yale educated lawyer over a graduate of State College with a BA in Education.