Anonymous wrote:I for one am sick of these stupid ice breakers. The last one we did during our staff meeting where we taped a piece of paper to our back and spent time having other teachers write nice things about us on our back (and we wrote on theirs) and when the time was up we got to read what people wrote. And I had done that same one just a few years prior at a different staff meeting. Do adults at other jobs do stuff like this? I'm genuinely curious.

Last quarter I cried at one of these. Not loud bawling, but I had tears in my eyes and people saw it. I was so tired and had so much work to do, and there we were, at a meeting that was an utter waste of time, yet we were required to smile and be enthusiastic for another one of these stupid time wasters. At this meeting, we were given white coffee mugs and assigned a partner. We had to use markers to design a mug for the other person. I did not need another coffee mug. I did no need to "bond" or participate in more "team building" by chatting with my partner as I designed her mug. I just needed to go home and rest for a little while so that I could start reading and marking essays for my high school English class, not stay after school doing a craft meant to "strengthen bonds within the team." You know what? I was so upset after an hour of this nonsense, and so stressed, that I didn't do any grading that night. This is NOT the only pointless meeting we had after (or before) school in that same week, and I lost three planning periods to subbing that week as well.

The person who thought up this stupid time waster is paid a lot more than I am. And she has a "doctorate" in Education, and insists we all use the title "Dr." (We could also get into the pointless, expensive cash cow that is the "graduate degree in Education." As a Harvard grad with a BA in my subject, I can happily confirm that the M Ed. that was subsidized for me by the district was largely pointless, a Mickey Mouse degree of no substance, and I learned nothing of use from any of it).

I for one am sick of these stupid ice breakers. The last one we did during our staff meeting where we taped a piece of paper to our back and spent time having other teachers write nice things about us on our back (and we wrote on theirs) and when the time was up we got to read what people wrote. And I had done that same one just a few years prior at a different staff meeting. Do adults at other jobs do stuff like this? I'm genuinely curious.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I know I love graphs that don't cite their source and have unreadable labels!

Don’t take me long to find info:

https://oakmn.org/the-growth-in-school-administration-is-a-major-reason-why-we-need-school-choice/#:~:text=Instead%2C%20the%20growth%20in%20the,staff%20growing%20a%20whopping%2088%25!

Of course, it's the school choice MFers...

Er, your vulgar language aside, I assume you are referring to proponents of vouchers when you wrote “school choice” ?

Not sure that issue is at all relevant here.

The Minnesota based website that had the questionable graph posts articles on school choice only. They use the “school choice” language not “proponents of vouchers”. You should know that the terms are interchangeable.

That issue is very relevant. Their whole purpose is to put their children in religious schools and have the government foot the bill. They are not a credible source. And look who’s retweeting it.

DP. Are you questioning the accuracy of the information, or are you simply upset about its source?

This isn’t political to me. This is about a job that is so demanding that teachers are climbing over each other for a way out. Some quit. Some jump to admin, and then create work to justify their existence. It’s all in an effort to avoid the classroom.

So you don’t have to like the data. Many teachers are still going to tell you their experiences are aligned with that chart. Each year brings more admin, more tasks and projects to support the new admin, and more burned out teachers. Repeat. Repeat.

I automatically dismiss “facts” in articles with extreme bias either conservative or liberal. Their agenda is for the government to pay for their religious schools. They wouldn’t publish information that disputes it. They aren’t a news source.

None of us can speak for a whole nation of schools. I know our schools are doing fine. On the other hand my sister lives in a middle class suburb and we were discussing books my daughter is reading in 7th grade. My niece, who is graduating from college in May, told us that they watched the movies in 8th grade but didn’t read the books.

No, you don’t know if your schools are doing fine. Somebody can look at the schools I’ve worked in for years and thought they were “fine”, but they were being held together by teachers who go far beyond their contract requirements.

Your school isn’t sharing the behind-the-scenes chaos with you, so you don’t know which teacher lost their planning period for the 5th day in a row to subbing. You also don’t know which administrator made every teacher lose a valuable hour so the administrative pet project could get some attention.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I know I love graphs that don't cite their source and have unreadable labels!

Don’t take me long to find info:

https://oakmn.org/the-growth-in-school-administration-is-a-major-reason-why-we-need-school-choice/#:~:text=Instead%2C%20the%20growth%20in%20the,staff%20growing%20a%20whopping%2088%25!

Of course, it's the school choice MFers...

Er, your vulgar language aside, I assume you are referring to proponents of vouchers when you wrote “school choice” ?

Not sure that issue is at all relevant here.

The Minnesota based website that had the questionable graph posts articles on school choice only. They use the “school choice” language not “proponents of vouchers”. You should know that the terms are interchangeable.

That issue is very relevant. Their whole purpose is to put their children in religious schools and have the government foot the bill. They are not a credible source. And look who’s retweeting it.

DP. Are you questioning the accuracy of the information, or are you simply upset about its source?

This isn’t political to me. This is about a job that is so demanding that teachers are climbing over each other for a way out. Some quit. Some jump to admin, and then create work to justify their existence. It’s all in an effort to avoid the classroom.

So you don’t have to like the data. Many teachers are still going to tell you their experiences are aligned with that chart. Each year brings more admin, more tasks and projects to support the new admin, and more burned out teachers. Repeat. Repeat.

I automatically dismiss “facts” in articles with extreme bias either conservative or liberal. Their agenda is for the government to pay for their religious schools. They wouldn’t publish information that disputes it. They aren’t a news source.

None of us can speak for a whole nation of schools. I know our schools are doing fine. On the other hand my sister lives in a middle class suburb and we were discussing books my daughter is reading in 7th grade. My niece, who is graduating from college in May, told us that they watched the movies in 8th grade but didn’t read the books.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I know I love graphs that don't cite their source and have unreadable labels!

Don’t take me long to find info:

https://oakmn.org/the-growth-in-school-administration-is-a-major-reason-why-we-need-school-choice/#:~:text=Instead%2C%20the%20growth%20in%20the,staff%20growing%20a%20whopping%2088%25!

Of course, it's the school choice MFers...

Er, your vulgar language aside, I assume you are referring to proponents of vouchers when you wrote “school choice” ?

Not sure that issue is at all relevant here.

The Minnesota based website that had the questionable graph posts articles on school choice only. They use the “school choice” language not “proponents of vouchers”. You should know that the terms are interchangeable.

That issue is very relevant. Their whole purpose is to put their children in religious schools and have the government foot the bill. They are not a credible source. And look who’s retweeting it.

DP. Are you questioning the accuracy of the information, or are you simply upset about its source?

This isn’t political to me. This is about a job that is so demanding that teachers are climbing over each other for a way out. Some quit. Some jump to admin, and then create work to justify their existence. It’s all in an effort to avoid the classroom.

So you don’t have to like the data. Many teachers are still going to tell you their experiences are aligned with that chart. Each year brings more admin, more tasks and projects to support the new admin, and more burned out teachers. Repeat. Repeat.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I know I love graphs that don't cite their source and have unreadable labels!

Don’t take me long to find info:

https://oakmn.org/the-growth-in-school-administration-is-a-major-reason-why-we-need-school-choice/#:~:text=Instead%2C%20the%20growth%20in%20the,staff%20growing%20a%20whopping%2088%25!

Of course, it's the school choice MFers...

Er, your vulgar language aside, I assume you are referring to proponents of vouchers when you wrote “school choice” ?

Not sure that issue is at all relevant here.

The Minnesota based website that had the questionable graph posts articles on school choice only. They use the “school choice” language not “proponents of vouchers”. You should know that the terms are interchangeable.

That issue is very relevant. Their whole purpose is to put their children in religious schools and have the government foot the bill. They are not a credible source. And look who’s retweeting it.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I know I love graphs that don't cite their source and have unreadable labels!

Don’t take me long to find info:

https://oakmn.org/the-growth-in-school-administration-is-a-major-reason-why-we-need-school-choice/#:~:text=Instead%2C%20the%20growth%20in%20the,staff%20growing%20a%20whopping%2088%25!

It’s a right wing site advocating school choice (religious schools) and the graph was from a questionable site.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I have been a central office administrator in various roles in the early 90’s - early 2000’s. In my district of 20,000 kids, we had a pretty thin central office when I started. Forward to now, in the same school district, now has lower enrollment; yet, the central office administration has grown by 450%. There are “specialists” in everything imaginable. And student performance in this district over the last 30 years has steadily declined. The answer is not more central office staff. What is needed are more teachers and building level instructional coaches. Central Office administrators should supervise multiple programs, be seen in the schools, not burden teachers with meetings, and find out what “help looks like” to the teachers they serve.

Imagine how much better off we would be if all the specialists and central office staff went back into classrooms. Class size could go down, teachers could get additional planning periods, and we’d have fewer pointless goals to meet. The job might actually become sustainable again.

I’d love to replace instructional coaches with a better mentorship model. Those who don’t teach (or don’t teach a full load) really can’t relate to those doing the job.

+1. I'm a special ed teacher. Put Central Office to work doing the case management and paperwork part of the job so those of us who still want to work with kids can actually do that part of our job with fidelity.

Anonymous wrote:I have been a central office administrator in various roles in the early 90’s - early 2000’s. In my district of 20,000 kids, we had a pretty thin central office when I started. Forward to now, in the same school district, now has lower enrollment; yet, the central office administration has grown by 450%. There are “specialists” in everything imaginable. And student performance in this district over the last 30 years has steadily declined. The answer is not more central office staff. What is needed are more teachers and building level instructional coaches. Central Office administrators should supervise multiple programs, be seen in the schools, not burden teachers with meetings, and find out what “help looks like” to the teachers they serve.

Imagine how much better off we would be if all the specialists and central office staff went back into classrooms. Class size could go down, teachers could get additional planning periods, and we’d have fewer pointless goals to meet. The job might actually become sustainable again.

I’d love to replace instructional coaches with a better mentorship model. Those who don’t teach (or don’t teach a full load) really can’t relate to those doing the job.

I have been a central office administrator in various roles in the early 90’s - early 2000’s. In my district of 20,000 kids, we had a pretty thin central office when I started. Forward to now, in the same school district, now has lower enrollment; yet, the central office administration has grown by 450%. There are “specialists” in everything imaginable. And student performance in this district over the last 30 years has steadily declined. The answer is not more central office staff. What is needed are more teachers and building level instructional coaches. Central Office administrators should supervise multiple programs, be seen in the schools, not burden teachers with meetings, and find out what “help looks like” to the teachers they serve.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is an eye-opener !

I had some idea our local FCPS Administration was way over-staffed and has become a dumping ground for failed principals. But I had little idea how massive the the wasted $$ problem really is:

Wow!

I'm a teacher and am very nervous about possible cutbacks in the government and education, but this post is spot on.
School districts are absolutely bloated with admin positions which do nothing but create more useless work for teachers. This would be a great area to put on the chopping block.

If 50% of FCPS Gatehouse staff were laid off, teachers would have less “overhead” to get in the way of actual teaching. As a bonus, there would be more budget available for raises for actual instructional staff. That said, it will not happen with the current Fairfax County school board.

And, until one of the political parties changes how it creates candidates for school board, it will continue. Both parties put forward silly candidates, so there is no clear “sensible” candidate to vote for — assuming enough of Fairfax stopped voting the party line…

But process that keeps programs running, the district in compliance, and reviews for improvement would suddenly stop being done. Do principals and teachers want to take on that work.

How much work would really need to be done? Just because work exists doesn’t mean it’s work that actually matters.

There are many positions that can be eliminated and teachers/students would feel absolutely no impact. (Well, I suppose the impact would be that teachers can stop wasting time on the initiatives pushed by these pointless positions.)

Exactly. And I can say that in some districts (like LCPS), these bloated positions would be better spent if they were creating high quality lesson plans and materials and distributing them. Every time there is a new initiative, teachers have to all start from scratch while the higher ups criticize that it's not being done fast enough/effectively enough. When it all happens on the teachers' personal time.

Anonymous wrote:There are many positions that can be eliminated and teachers/students would feel absolutely no impact. (Well, I suppose the impact would be that teachers can stop wasting time on the initiatives pushed by these pointless positions.)

This, especially the positive impact on student learning caused by teachers having more time to teach and grade and prepare.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is an eye-opener !

I had some idea our local FCPS Administration was way over-staffed and has become a dumping ground for failed principals. But I had little idea how massive the the wasted $$ problem really is:

Wow!

I'm a teacher and am very nervous about possible cutbacks in the government and education, but this post is spot on.
School districts are absolutely bloated with admin positions which do nothing but create more useless work for teachers. This would be a great area to put on the chopping block.

If 50% of FCPS Gatehouse staff were laid off, teachers would have less “overhead” to get in the way of actual teaching. As a bonus, there would be more budget available for raises for actual instructional staff. That said, it will not happen with the current Fairfax County school board.

And, until one of the political parties changes how it creates candidates for school board, it will continue. Both parties put forward silly candidates, so there is no clear “sensible” candidate to vote for — assuming enough of Fairfax stopped voting the party line…

But process that keeps programs running, the district in compliance, and reviews for improvement would suddenly stop being done. Do principals and teachers want to take on that work.

How much work would really need to be done? Just because work exists doesn’t mean it’s work that actually matters.

There are many positions that can be eliminated and teachers/students would feel absolutely no impact. (Well, I suppose the impact would be that teachers can stop wasting time on the initiatives pushed by these pointless positions.)

Anonymous wrote:I added the percentages and what isn't accounted for is that there are now so many teachers who do NOT teach any students. They are "instructional coaches" or "teachers on special assignment" who come in and tell teachers how to teacher and mandate busy work.

These instructional coaches should be intervention teachers taking out the lowest performing students and working with them instead of telling teachers how to help them but provide no actual extra time for the teacher to do so. Or they should be put in an English and Math teachers so that English and math classes have fewer students per teacher.

Look at a school with 1000 students and 30 students per class. A school would need about 7 English teachers, so each English teacher has to teacher about 150 students if they have 5 sections/periods If you make the assigned literacy English coach go back and teach English now you have 8 teachers. Class sizes would be 26 to 27 students instead of 30. This might not seem like much but it really does make a difference. And across 5 classes to have to grade 15-20 fewer essays is huge.

Or you could have that extra teacher be an essay grader where they actually have the time to make comments on essays.

Or you could target 9th grade and reduce English class size to 18-20 for 9th grade so students get a strong start for high school.

This is such an epic idea. Especially at the high school level.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is an eye-opener !

I had some idea our local FCPS Administration was way over-staffed and has become a dumping ground for failed principals. But I had little idea how massive the the wasted $$ problem really is:

Wow!

I'm a teacher and am very nervous about possible cutbacks in the government and education, but this post is spot on.
School districts are absolutely bloated with admin positions which do nothing but create more useless work for teachers. This would be a great area to put on the chopping block.

If 50% of FCPS Gatehouse staff were laid off, teachers would have less “overhead” to get in the way of actual teaching. As a bonus, there would be more budget available for raises for actual instructional staff. That said, it will not happen with the current Fairfax County school board.

And, until one of the political parties changes how it creates candidates for school board, it will continue. Both parties put forward silly candidates, so there is no clear “sensible” candidate to vote for — assuming enough of Fairfax stopped voting the party line…

But process that keeps programs running, the district in compliance, and reviews for improvement would suddenly stop being done. Do principals and teachers want to take on that work.

All of that could be done with Gatehouse at about half the current staffing there.