Public vs. Private Schools for people living in Montgomery County

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:


Exactly - the talent is out there, but the most frightening thing for the teacher's union is opening the door to second career professionals who are "over qualified" and motivated by a passion to teach more than a desire to make money.

I agree. There's nothing worse than a person who works for pay.

No, wait...

Agreed. In every single other career, it's expected that people work to make money. Some like their jobs, but the general consensus is that getting paid is their primary motivation to be there.

Why is teaching any different?

Apparently teaching is a volunteer position in some peoples' minds. We should be there solely because we have a passion to teach. Getting a chance to form young minds is payment enough.

New poster. All of you are barking at a straw man argument. The first PP did not say teaching is a volunteer position, and neither did anyone else. This is part of what I hate about discussions involving reform to anything in the teaching professions -- the side opposing reform always awfulizes and distorts the proposals to suggest they will destroy the whole system. I see this all the time in the comments from teachers that Valarie Strauss posts at WaPo. I think the anti-reform side would do better if it could argue against the actual proposal offered, and not some exaggerated boogeyman.

The PP said that teachers unions are "frightened" by people who teach because its their passion, not because they want to make money. As if there is something wrong with a teacher who does it to make money.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Exactly - the talent is out there, but the most frightening thing for the teacher's union is opening the door to second career professionals who are "over qualified" and motivated by a passion to teach more than a desire to make money.

(Cutting interim comments to save space)]

The PP said that teachers unions are "frightened" by people who teach because its their passion, not because they want to make money. As if there is something wrong with a teacher who does it to make money.

There you go again with the distortion. No one is saying it is wrong to want to earn money. Rather, it seems to me, PP was saying the teachers are "frightened" because their jobs may be filled by people who care less about making money, so the teachers may be less able to demand more money and some of them may be replaced. Simple supply and demand economics.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Exactly - the talent is out there, but the most frightening thing for the teacher's union is opening the door to second career professionals who are "over qualified" and motivated by a passion to teach more than a desire to make money.

(Cutting interim comments to save space)]

The PP said that teachers unions are "frightened" by people who teach because its their passion, not because they want to make money. As if there is something wrong with a teacher who does it to make money.

There you go again with the distortion. No one is saying it is wrong to want to earn money. Rather, it seems to me, PP was saying the teachers are "frightened" because their jobs may be filled by people who care less about making money, so the teachers may be less able to demand more money and some of them may be replaced. Simple supply and demand economics.

Exactly - the talent is out there, but the most frightening thing for the AMA is opening the door to second career professionals who are "over qualified" and motivated by a passion to care for patients more than a desire to make money.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Exactly - the talent is out there, but the most frightening thing for the teacher's union is opening the door to second career professionals who are "over qualified" and motivated by a passion to teach more than a desire to make money.

(Cutting interim comments to save space)]

The PP said that teachers unions are "frightened" by people who teach because its their passion, not because they want to make money. As if there is something wrong with a teacher who does it to make money.

There you go again with the distortion. No one is saying it is wrong to want to earn money. Rather, it seems to me, PP was saying the teachers are "frightened" because their jobs may be filled by people who care less about making money, so the teachers may be less able to demand more money and some of them may be replaced. Simple supply and demand economics.

+1

As someone who has taught (albeit at the graduate level) for years on a volunteer basis, I know for certain that education is an area that draws volunteers when permitted. I don't think anyone is suggesting that All teachers could or should be replaced by second career professionals, but rather that it would be beneficial to tap into a resource that would provide our children with more qualified teachers in specific areas, especially STEM areas where there are an increasing number of retried professionals willing to help out.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

+1

As someone who has taught (albeit at the graduate level) for years on a volunteer basis, I know for certain that education is an area that draws volunteers when permitted. I don't think anyone is suggesting that All teachers could or should be replaced by second career professionals, but rather that it would be beneficial to tap into a resource that would provide our children with more qualified teachers in specific areas, especially STEM areas where there are an increasing number of retried professionals willing to help out.

being willing to help out =/= knowing how to teach

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

+1

As someone who has taught (albeit at the graduate level) for years on a volunteer basis, I know for certain that education is an area that draws volunteers when permitted. I don't think anyone is suggesting that All teachers could or should be replaced by second career professionals, but rather that it would be beneficial to tap into a resource that would provide our children with more qualified teachers in specific areas, especially STEM areas where there are an increasing number of retried professionals willing to help out.

being willing to help out =/= knowing how to teach

I don't think anyone who does not "know how to teach" (i.e., is not an effective educator) should be teaching our children - that goes for first career teachers and second career teachers. I do know plenty of potential second career professionals who have demonstrated an ability to be effective educators. I think supplemental training in elementary education would be beneficial to many.

[Anonymous]

The anti-reform people posting here seem to be "the party of NO." No reform can possibly work in their view. Makes me think their deeper agenda is shielding jobs, not improving the system.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The anti-reform people posting here seem to be "the party of NO." No reform can possibly work in their view. Makes me think their deeper agenda is shielding jobs, not improving the system.

You cannot improve education by hurting teachers. That is a fact. Unfortunately it is a fact that a lot of these "reform" ideas don't seem to recognize. If you want a good public education system, you must have well-trained, professional, well-paid, career teachers with decent working conditions.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

+1

As someone who has taught (albeit at the graduate level) for years on a volunteer basis, I know for certain that education is an area that draws volunteers when permitted. I don't think anyone is suggesting that All teachers could or should be replaced by second career professionals, but rather that it would be beneficial to tap into a resource that would provide our children with more qualified teachers in specific areas, especially STEM areas where there are an increasing number of retried professionals willing to help out.

being willing to help out =/= knowing how to teach

I don't think anyone who does not "know how to teach" (i.e., is not an effective educator) should be teaching our children - that goes for first career teachers and second career teachers. I do know plenty of potential second career professionals who have demonstrated an ability to be effective educators. I think supplemental training in elementary education would be beneficial to many.

Which gets us back to "I have an advanced degree and a career in [whatever], but the stupid public school system won't let me teach!" The assumption with that is that teaching is something that anybody can do, as long as they know the subject matter. That assumption is wrong.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The anti-reform people posting here seem to be "the party of NO." No reform can possibly work in their view. Makes me think their deeper agenda is shielding jobs, not improving the system.

You cannot improve education by hurting teachers. That is a fact. Unfortunately it is a fact that a lot of these "reform" ideas don't seem to recognize. If you want a good public education system, you must have well-trained, professional, well-paid, career teachers with decent working conditions.

See, I just don't think that underlined statement is necessarily true. Here are just a few quick examples:

1. If we limit teachers' pension plans, that hurts some teachers because they have smaller pensions. But it puts more money into the school system for hiring more teachers, which improves education.

2. If we change the tenure rules to make it easier to fire bad teachers, that hurts some teachers who get fired. But their positions will be filled by other teachers who are better, so it improves education.

3. If we hire a small group of retirees who have demonstrated they can teach effectively, and are willing to work for smaller salaries, we can replace some # of teachers and have more money for the school system to spend on education. That hurts some teachers (those who were replaced), but it improves education.

Just because a proposal may mean some teachers lose their jobs, or otherwise might "hurt teachers," does not mean it's bad for education. That's simply how the free market works. Employers (here the school district) need to try to get the best workers they can for the best price. At present, it seems many school districts are not trying to get the best price with regard to teachers.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The anti-reform people posting here seem to be "the party of NO." No reform can possibly work in their view. Makes me think their deeper agenda is shielding jobs, not improving the system.

You cannot improve education by hurting teachers. That is a fact. Unfortunately it is a fact that a lot of these "reform" ideas don't seem to recognize. If you want a good public education system, you must have well-trained, professional, well-paid, career teachers with decent working conditions.

See, I just don't think that underlined statement is necessarily true. Here are just a few quick examples:

1. If we limit teachers' pension plans, that hurts some teachers because they have smaller pensions. But it puts more money into the school system for hiring more teachers, which improves education.

2. If we change the tenure rules to make it easier to fire bad teachers, that hurts some teachers who get fired. But their positions will be filled by other teachers who are better, so it improves education.

3. If we hire a small group of retirees who have demonstrated they can teach effectively, and are willing to work for smaller salaries, we can replace some # of teachers and have more money for the school system to spend on education. That hurts some teachers (those who were replaced), but it improves education.

Just because a proposal may mean some teachers lose their jobs, or otherwise might "hurt teachers," does not mean it's bad for education. That's simply how the free market works. Employers (here the school district) need to try to get the best workers they can for the best price. At present, it seems many school districts are not trying to get the best price with regard to teachers.

Alternatively,

1. if you limit teachers' pension plans, that hurts some teachers because they have smaller pensions, and it also dissuades people from going into teaching, because the pension plan is one of the major benefits of teaching; in addition, the teachers' unions will be more likely to push for pay increases now vs. higher pensions later.

2. if you change the tenure rules to make it easier to fire bad teachers, then bad teachers will get fired, but it will not make good teachers any more likely to fill the positions the bad teachers used to have, so it doesn't improve education.

3. if you hire a small group of retirees who have demonstrated that they can teach effectively, you can next write a plan for improving public education based on the hiring of sparkly unicorns, because there just are not enough people in this group to have more than a minor, marginal effect.

To repeat: if you want a good public education system, you must have well-trained, professional, well-paid, career teachers with decent working conditions. How will making it easier to fire teachers contribute to this?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

+1

As someone who has taught (albeit at the graduate level) for years on a volunteer basis, I know for certain that education is an area that draws volunteers when permitted. I don't think anyone is suggesting that All teachers could or should be replaced by second career professionals, but rather that it would be beneficial to tap into a resource that would provide our children with more qualified teachers in specific areas, especially STEM areas where there are an increasing number of retried professionals willing to help out.

being willing to help out =/= knowing how to teach

I don't think anyone who does not "know how to teach" (i.e., is not an effective educator) should be teaching our children - that goes for first career teachers and second career teachers. I do know plenty of potential second career professionals who have demonstrated an ability to be effective educators. I think supplemental training in elementary education would be beneficial to many.

Which gets us back to "I have an advanced degree and a career in [whatever], but the stupid public school system won't let me teach!" The assumption with that is that teaching is something that anybody can do, as long as they know the subject matter. That assumption is wrong.

This.

[Anonymous]

I give up; you win. Any change that the teachers' union disfavors must be a terrible change for the education system. Any change that has a negative impact on compensation for any teachers, even if it increases compensation for other teachers, will hurt all children. Are you happy now?

Warning: You are single-handedly turning me into an activist for school reform.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The anti-reform people posting here seem to be "the party of NO." No reform can possibly work in their view. Makes me think their deeper agenda is shielding jobs, not improving the system.

You cannot improve education by hurting teachers. That is a fact. Unfortunately it is a fact that a lot of these "reform" ideas don't seem to recognize. If you want a good public education system, you must have well-trained, professional, well-paid, career teachers with decent working conditions.

See, I just don't think that underlined statement is necessarily true. Here are just a few quick examples:

1. If we limit teachers' pension plans, that hurts some teachers because they have smaller pensions. But it puts more money into the school system for hiring more teachers, which improves education.

2. If we change the tenure rules to make it easier to fire bad teachers, that hurts some teachers who get fired. But their positions will be filled by other teachers who are better, so it improves education.

3. If we hire a small group of retirees who have demonstrated they can teach effectively, and are willing to work for smaller salaries, we can replace some # of teachers and have more money for the school system to spend on education. That hurts some teachers (those who were replaced), but it improves education.

Just because a proposal may mean some teachers lose their jobs, or otherwise might "hurt teachers," does not mean it's bad for education. That's simply how the free market works. Employers (here the school district) need to try to get the best workers they can for the best price. At present, it seems many school districts are not trying to get the best price with regard to teachers.

While your retiree as teacher plan is sweet, please show me a large group who would enthusiastically go into the low SES, high behavior problem schools. Especially for those people without any background in education and as a result have underdeveloped classroom management skills. It takes years of relationship building to get through to a lot of those kids for them to get to a place to be ready to learn when you're fighting the effects of poverty. Retirees will surely be highly motivated to do that for very little money.

Or was your plan to have the retirees just go into high SES schools with few behavior problems? Because we all know that reform is needed very badly in those schools.

[Anonymous]

NP-- I think the "teachers union" stuff is mostly a red herring. Is there really any reason to believe that any perceived decline in MCPS is due to the teachers union?

I think some people get on here and complain about the teachers union bcs they are anti union or anti public education, and then some people feel compelled to defend the teachers and their union.