Anonymous wrote:I very much respect teachers and think they provide an extremely valuable service to our society, but education programs in college consistently have the lowest SAT scores and give out the highest grades. I started as an elementary ed major and I'm sorry, but those were hands down, some of the easiest classes I've ever taken.

I took education classes too, and I agree that they were dopey -- but I don't think it's relevant. I had very high SATs, and I know for a fact that I would be not be a good teacher. Good teachers do something that I cannot do. Teachers' teaching is what's relevant, not their SAT scores.

I know one person (in a ruralish area) who openly brags about getting certifications to get the top of her pay scale. Just doopy little classes at the local college that are paid for by the district. She is all about the top of each scale so that when she retires at 48 or whatever (she has the exact date down) she gets her max pension, which will be like 80% of her pay. She is not typical, but this attitude gives teachers a bad name.

When I think about some old old teachers I saw at a reunion, I am happy they get their pensions.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Because teachers unions are against pay and job security based on performance (results). In the real world, we get fired if we don't deliver.

I have job security, asshole, yes.

However, I am now taking a break after making a small dent in a stack of papers that 124 of my students turned in last week.

I'm sure you work as hard as I do over your weekend.

And I still have weekly planning to do.

I wrote that, and I'm working now also. I don't have a union behind me, and I don't get a 2-month vacation every year, along with a week off for Christmas.

My ability to keep my job depends on my performance, and I'm not against that, because I can deliver.

poor thing - complaining about our summers "off"

We're not PAID during those 8 weeks, genius. Many take classes to keep up with certification. Others train in special programs b/c their schools offer signatures. And others are working toward an advanced degree.

I am a career-changer - been on both sides. So you can't "get me," as I know that even though I may have brought work home from my office job, the work was nothing compared to what I must accomplish nightly. My deadlines are tight, sweetie pie. I'm at work by 6 am and I leave at 4 pm. When I arrive home, I plan and grade. I teach the very high and the very low.

Don't even try to make it appear as though your job is difficult. Teaching, if done well, is the most difficult job in the world.

But I'm home with my children ALL SUMMER LONG and on every holiday, which makes many women jealous, as there's no need to rely on daycare or camps. That's my one perk - being with my children. Even when I'm working, I'm visible; I'm around.

You can't say that, can you?

Absolutely. For the amount of nonsense they put up with?

I was a teacher for 6 years before leaving the profession to pursue medicine. It's strange because there are parallels to the fields, but I found a massive amount of disrespect for the importance of good pedagogy and achieving real learning outcomes (instead of generic test based outcomes). I also felt a huge lack of respect personally. I found it frustrating because we don't want seasoned teachers. We want cheap ones who will shut up and teach from the outline. And will be at-will employees (even though the hiring timeline for teachers runs once a year).

I got into teaching because I love childhood development, learning, and science. I found fostering these connections to be my true calling. After spending so much time, money and energy on my students, I realized that my passion doesn't matter because my classrooms aren't funded enough, my leaders (i.e. principal) do not have an interest in anything beyond beating last year's numbers, and my kids, who were from FARMS households, didn't have a framework to support their success beyond the bare walls of my classroom. I don't even think the school was invested beyond not getting shut down. The main goal was just to get above the minimum required passing rate. So, rote memorization took the day. And my county really didn't care about this population, so I gave up. Because I'm rational and realized that pushing a boulder up a hill over and over isn't a life.

No one blames me if a patient of mine who I've spent years counseling (along with their caregivers) develops a condition like type 2 diabetes. There is a sense of personal accountability in medicine (since no one wants to die), which doesn't apply to teaching (since lots of people hate learning difficult things).

Teaching is just so different. Outcomes, many of which are beyond your control, are your responsibility. It doesn't matter how good you are. If you don't have that support, it's a house of cards.

At conferences, I hear doctors complain about the state of medicine and the decline of respect for our field. It takes a lot for me not to laugh. Yes, insurers are terrible. Negotiated rates hurt. And coming up with ways to make a decent living while not working insane amounts is hard. Yeah. It's bad, but man, I've had it worse.

I don't pay for medical supplies. I am compensated fairly and my clinical judgment is given some form of deference (even though parents still second guess me). I do a decent amount of medicine in the Medicaid space. I feel a similar burn to churn through but people tend to give me a bit more room (including insurers) when I give a medical justification. There was no parallel when I was teaching. No reason, no matter how evidence based, mattered if it went against the fiat of numbers above all else.

I think people give me this space because they don't think they could be a doctor. I think no one bothered when I was a teacher because they felt any idiot could teach.

I actually work less as a MD. And I make a multiple of my previous salary.

Anonymous wrote:http://www.usnews.com/news/national/articles/2009/12/21/dc-schools-chief-michelle-rhee-fights-union-over-teacher-pay

From the article:
" Chancellor Michelle Rhee is pushing innovative but con­tentious ideas, one of which has garnered her national at­tention: whether teacher pay can be tied directly to stu­dent performance."

In what other industry would it be considered conentious and gain national attention if pay was tied for performance?

In what other industry is performance based on variables completely out of one's control? Do your billable hours not have enough to eat? Do they have a bed? Undiagnosed learning disabilities? Disinterested parents? A lack of background knowledge and experiences that the curriculum assumes they have? Oh, billable hours and people can't be compared? Ok, then.

Should doctors' pay be tied to the number of patients whose Type 2 diabetes they reverse? Therapists on the number of mental illnesses they cure? Dentists on the number of cavities a patient doesn't get due to their preventative education? Police officers on the number of crimes they prevent? Firefighters on the number of people who don't set their house on fire? By your logic, shouldn't their pay be tied to performance too?

As soon as other professionals who work with humans see their pay equitably tied to human performance then I'm all for it for teachers. Until then, not so much.

http://www.usnews.com/news/national/articles/2009/12/21/dc-schools-chief-michelle-rhee-fights-union-over-teacher-pay

From the article:
" Chancellor Michelle Rhee is pushing innovative but con­tentious ideas, one of which has garnered her national at­tention: whether teacher pay can be tied directly to stu­dent performance."

In what other industry would it be considered conentious and gain national attention if pay was tied for performance?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Because teachers unions are against pay and job security based on performance (results). In the real world, we get fired if we don't deliver.

I have job security, asshole, yes.

However, I am now taking a break after making a small dent in a stack of papers that 124 of my students turned in last week.

I'm sure you work as hard as I do over your weekend.

And I still have weekly planning to do.

I wrote that, and I'm working now also. I don't have a union behind me, and I don't get a 2-month vacation every year, along with a week off for Christmas.

My ability to keep my job depends on my performance, and I'm not against that, because I can deliver.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My husband was a sociology major so he could spend his time partying. His SAT scores were lower than mine. He didn't go to grad school. Now he's a successful executive at a Fortune 500 company. College had pretty much nothing to do with his success. Same with teachers.

I wonder how many Fortune 500 executives fit that description (sociology BA, no graduate or professional school) I guess you're not concerned about his anonymity.

Holy stalker.

Not really. But judging by the posts one sees here, being a Fortune 500 executive is probably "middle class" on this board.

I'm Warren Buffet's secretary, BTW.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My husband was a sociology major so he could spend his time partying. His SAT scores were lower than mine. He didn't go to grad school. Now he's a successful executive at a Fortune 500 company. College had pretty much nothing to do with his success. Same with teachers.

I wonder how many Fortune 500 executives fit that description (sociology BA, no graduate or professional school) I guess you're not concerned about his anonymity.

I bet a lot.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My husband was a sociology major so he could spend his time partying. His SAT scores were lower than mine. He didn't go to grad school. Now he's a successful executive at a Fortune 500 company. College had pretty much nothing to do with his success. Same with teachers.

I wonder how many Fortune 500 executives fit that description (sociology BA, no graduate or professional school) I guess you're not concerned about his anonymity.

Holy stalker.

Because it takes very little smarts to become a teacher. I know so many career educators who were horrible students and barely made it through college. I have a dc with lds. The special ed teachers who work with him have included one who got his degree from an on-line university and didn't know the first thing about disabilities, another who was a cashier at a grocery store just before she was hired because she couldn't get a job, and more. At my child's current school, the special ed staff are like 12 year olds.

Anonymous wrote:Because teachers unions are against pay and job security based on performance (results). In the real world, we get fired if we don't deliver.

So do teachers. In the system I work for your evaluation is based on two 60 minute observations per year. One is announced and one is unannounced. You'd better be on your A game at all times because that tiny snapshot will determine your future.

Are your performance evaluations based solely on a snapshot in time complete with variable factors? Or do you get to prove your value and effectiveness over a longer period of time so that any minor failures are balanced with bigger successes? If it's the former rather than the latter then we can talk. If not, then you know not of which you speak.

Anonymous wrote:My husband was a sociology major so he could spend his time partying. His SAT scores were lower than mine. He didn't go to grad school. Now he's a successful executive at a Fortune 500 company. College had pretty much nothing to do with his success. Same with teachers.

I wonder how many Fortune 500 executives fit that description (sociology BA, no graduate or professional school) I guess you're not concerned about his anonymity.

Anonymous wrote:Could you elaborate?

Sure. I'm a big advocate of the "Finnish model." Since it performs well, the education "reformers" (reform isn't a bad thing, but a certain type of "reform" dominates the debate) sing praises to Finland, including Arne Duncan. For example the film Waiting for Superman praises the success of Finland but then trashes teachers unions and teacher education as useless, and says the TFA approach is better. In Finland, teachers are unionized, have master's degrees in education and there's no charter schools and no emphasis on "teaching to the test."

Anonymous wrote:I very much respect teachers and think they provide an extremely valuable service to our society, but education programs in college consistently have the lowest SAT scores and give out the highest grades. I started as an elementary ed major and I'm sorry, but those were hands down, some of the easiest classes I've ever taken.

Nothing in education classes prepares you for being a teacher. On paper, yes, but not in reality. It's totally a sink or swim experience. And I'm a career-changer who was not an education major in undergrad, so I'm speaking from my experience in grad school. The classes are requirements, and some of it is useful, but by far the most useful experience is student teaching and then your first year with a mentor teacher.

Can you really say that everything you learned to help you be successful in your job came from a college classroom? Most likely not. If we're basing the value of teachers on the rigor of their college courses, then why aren't we basing the value of other professionals on their college courses? My husband was a sociology major so he could spend his time partying. His SAT scores were lower than mine. He didn't go to grad school. Now he's a successful executive at a Fortune 500 company. College had pretty much nothing to do with his success. Same with teachers.

-teacher