is any grade school teacher worth $125 grand, plus bennies?

Parent Cafe
21

<p>It’s a good theory, and it might actually make sense for teachers with great longevity. But, again, average longevity is a little under five years. So from that point of view it is far from nonsensical, if half the teachers are getting out after five years (and thinking about it before that), and a substantial portion of those who remain were thinking of getting out. In fact, under these empirical circumstances, it would be nonsensical to think otherwise.</p>

<p>Teacher turnover seems to be increasing, as the use of “scripted curricula” (as in Chicago and Tucson) and “master teachers supervising uncredentialed assistants” (as in Georgia) takes hold, and morale decreases accordingly. I see this as only getting worse as the corporate socialists continue to eviscerate public education, and look toward it as simply another profit center.</p>

22

<p>I think in general the best teachers start off as very good teachers. My sons had good teachers with all levels of experience. I’d guess their best teachers have been ones with about ten years of experience. Also two of their best teachers came to teaching late in life - one had been a nurse and another a lawyer.</p>

23

<p>Mini:</p>

<p>Well, if I understand your point correctly (and I may not), it is that this study is meaningful insofar as it supports the following conclusion: Teachers who leave (or would like to leave) the profession in five or fewer years tend to “peak” in about their third year of teaching. </p>

<p>If that is all this study means, is that something we needed a study to tell us?</p>

24

<p>A California study of why so many teachers leave in the first five years found two key factors: money and lack of support. In terms of money, it was not just a matter of living costs, but a measure of their worth to society.</p>

<p>As the mother of a first-year elementary school teacher, I believe this is an experiment worth running. We get so many condescending comments (oh, she must like children), or comments about how noble she is to go into teaching, as if we need to be reassured that it was ok that she chose a field that’s not high-powered. If our S makes the same choice (not likely), I can just imagine the avalanche of “sympathy.”</p>

<p>My concern is about how the principal is choosing teachers. He’s starting with GRE scores. While I realize he is also auditioning them, and seeking people with experience, does anyone really believe GRE scores have something to do with being a great teacher? Intelligence is required, obviously, but creativity, energy, empathy, organizational skill, maturity, and that special talent or gift for communicating with kids of a certain age and their parents. I don’t believe the GRE measures any of that.</p>

25

<p>"Well, if I understand your point correctly (and I may not), it is that this study is meaningful insofar as it supports the following conclusion: Teachers who leave (or would like to leave) the profession in five or fewer years tend to “peak” in about their third year of teaching. </p>

<p>If that is all this study means, is that something we needed a study to tell us?"</p>

<p>No, the study tells us that, on average for ALL teachers, teaching quality peaks in the third year. Now some of the reason that is the case is because so many leave the profession. But from the kids’ point of view, that doesn’t make any difference, because this is what they are experiencing in the years they are there, regardless of what is happening to teaching longevity. </p>

<p>“Intelligence is required, obviously, but creativity, energy, empathy, organizational skill, maturity, and that special talent or gift for communicating with kids of a certain age and their parents. I don’t believe the GRE measures any of that.”</p>

<p>Funny. My mentor Jyoti Desai (whom I consider to be the world’s greatest living educator after the death of Paolo Freire, and who wrote the intro to my most recent book) helped found a teacher training college in a jungly area of Gujarat India about 60 years ago. He holds a “Festival of Admission” for applicants, in which applicants are called upon to teach anything they want - be it a dance, a song, a way to plant rice, etc. They are then evaluated by those already in the school. He also prefers to accept students from the bottom half of their college classes, he says, because they are more likely to feel empathy for the poverty-stricken students they are going to teach. When the teachers-to-be arrive, the first assignment (which takes 8-10 weeks) is to figure out how to grow enough rice to feed all of them from a marshy field. To figure it out requires some book learning, but mostly going out and learning how to do it from the local people. “Without strong connections to community resources and to the people being served,” he says, “all schools fail, even when the test scores are high.”</p>

26

<p>* was not just a matter of living costs, but a measure of their worth to society.</p>

<p>As the mother of a first-year elementary school teacher, I believe this is an experiment worth running. We get so many condescending comments (oh, she must like children), or comments about how noble she is to go into teaching, as if we need to be reassured that it was ok that she chose a field that’s not high-powered.*</p>

<p>Im sorry because I know you are looking our for your D- but really who cares what these people think?</p>

<p>Look at the regard that we hold attorneys? Does that stop many people from going to law school?
:wink:
( and no most do not make the salary of a L.A. corporate attorney)</p>

<p>My H is a machinist- he is as bright as any engineer- ( certainly he is more intelligent than my brother who * is * an engineer and makes double what H makes at the same company although H has been there for twenty years & brother for one.)</p>

<p>I suspect that all the paid training districts do in an attempt to improve teaching actually is having a detrimental effect.</p>

<p>Im reminded of too many cooks- spoil the broth.
Always a new plan, a new focus, a new mission.
What wrong with putting kids first and educatiing them?</p>

27

<p>Hmmmm . . . I wonder what the NYC equivalent of Desai’s rice project is? Do you make the new teachers go out and start a hedge fund? Build a cocaine distribution network? Trade on inside information? The problem is, once they succeeded they might never start teaching. "If I can make it there, I’d make it a-ny-where . . . "</p>

28

<p>^^very funny!!</p>

<p>Another angle to explore: Correct me if I’m wrong, but I thought that the entire teacher union pension fund bailed out NYC from bankruptcy under Mayor Lindsay (late '60’s, early 70’s). </p>

<p>The teacher union boss, Al Shankerman, freed it up to save the city. As a result,
many “perks” (things like a duty-free 30 minute lunch…) came to teachers in subsequent contract negotiations. NYC teachers union is the envy of many teachers unions in other states, but there’s a history there that might explain a few things.</p>

<p>In that context, where teachers get paid effectively in unionized public schools, Mr. V needs to establish a high level of pay to attract top quality teaching away from unionized public schools and into his public charter school. The very best teachers don’t fear for their evaluations; they assume they’ll triumph in that regard. </p>

<p>High pay will attract great teachers. Where Mr. V’s proposed urban charter middle school may be naive is on this: without unions, how will he ensure occupational safety for teachers, with related impacts for students, all under the same roof?</p>

29

<p>

</p>

<p>Corporate socialists? Is there a standard definition that describes this group? </p>

<p>Eviscerate public education? Don’t the liberal organizations that keep a chockehold on public education do a superlative job at doing … just that? </p>

<p>

</p>

<p>What comes to mind is “Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?” Of course, the answer to this has been provided many times by stories of “protected” pedophiles in the famous NY rubber rooms? In the meantime, schools that have be spared the follies of the unions continue to deliver a superior education at a fraction of the price. Little wonder the unions oppose any attempt at reforming schools with such vitriol and abandon.</p>

<p>Al *Shanker *said it the best, “I’ll worry about the well-being of students the day they’ll start paying dues.”</p>

30

<p>"Corporate socialists? Is there a standard definition that describes this group? "</p>

<p>Those who unite on the basis of their class interests (well defined by Engels, et al.) to control governmental institutions and entities. It’s really not very complicated, but magnificently managed, from the private Federal Reserve on down.</p>

<p>"Eviscerate public education? Don’t the liberal organizations that keep a chockehold on public education do a superlative job at doing … just that?:</p>

<p>I think you’d do well to read the foundation documents for the teachers’ colleges about UChicago, Columbia, Carnegie-Mellon, etc., and then update that with a good reading of the reports of the Business Roundtable in the late '80s if you want to know what is going on in public education these days.</p>

<p>I think you have a problem with which is the tail and which the dog.</p>

31

<p>Holy cow … some of you have grade school teachers making more money than my H, who has an engineering degree, MSA, and 30 years experience. Obviously, living in high rent areas pays better … I don’t want to hear any more complaining about FAFSA not being adjusted for COL … it sounds like the paychecks are already adjusted accordingly.</p>

32

<p>

</p>

<p>While I probably could discover the meaning of your reply by embarking on your proposed crusade, would it not be simpler for me to ask for a summarized version? </p>

<p>So, Mini, what is going on in public education today that supports your thesis of evisceration of public education by corporate socialists? Is there more danger in the world described by Chris Whittle than in the “business as usual” current situation.</p>

33

<p>Paychecks on the whole are not adjusted accordingly (they are adjusted, but not high enough for the COL). People think that a person earning 100k is rich. In our area they are far, far from rich. Teachers earn that after a couple of decades of teaching in our area. That is a normal teacher’s salary. Frankly, I know of many male teachers who have left the profession because their salary was not high enough to support their families (young kids, with wife working part time). They got their master’s in administration to become school principals for a higher salary. When they were teachers they had to work a second job to make ends meet on their NE inflated paychecks because the COL is that high!</p>

34

<p>Just looked back at my post. I am sure coming across as crotchety these days! I don’t mean to sound so sarcastic. Thinking aloud via posting is probably not wise for me these days … must be that my lack of a decent paying job is really getting to me (that’s NOT a sarcastic comment).</p>

35

<p>

</p>

<p>Even though I responded to your post, I wasn’t thinking the above at all. I was just reexplaining how I see it from my little corner of the country. Paychecks are really that high, and teachers are still moonlighting on these salaries to make it.</p>

36

<p>Sac: I’ve been teaching for a long time and have been on several interview committees for teachers. I have never heard of GREs being a factor in offering a teacher a job. Perhaps that varies by state?</p>

37

<p>The principal of the proposed school is also the founder of Manhattan GMAT. His company is know for paying his tutors $100 per hour but places a very high bar on their selection: a minimum of 750. </p>

<p>He is repeating his experience and is thus creating minimum sets of qualifications in exchange of a pay level that is much higher than the norm. This not much different from the practives of the most selective banks or law firms hiring the top students and paying them a lot more than less selective firms. Better credentials + accepting to work harder and longer = higher salary. </p>

<p>Fwiw, it seems that that the proposed school will attract teachers who have BOTH the extremely high scores AND all superior credentials. The only difference with other public schools is that there won’t be any place for mediocre applicants to get in and enjoy a lifetime of unionized protection and tenure.</p>

38

<p>Personally, I think that GRE credentials have little (if anything) to do with being an effective teacher. Working hard certainly does.</p>

39

<p>“So, Mini, what is going on in public education today that supports your thesis of evisceration of public education by corporate socialists? Is there more danger in the world described by Chris Whittle than in the “business as usual” current situation.”</p>

<p>Business as usual is ensuring a workforce that is malleable and flexible, won’t rebel, and will find their sources of life satisfaction in the production and consumption of material goods. Or to quote John Dewey from 1899, when he was on Carnegie’s payroll: “Children who know how to think for themselves spoil the harmony of the collective society which is coming where everyone is interdependent.” </p>

<p>What society needs now, however, more than anything else, is low-grade service workers - Wal-Mart clerks, hamburger flippers, (and schoolteachers). These are the jobs of tomorrow, and everyone knows it. Folks who will accept their lot, in a society that believes that if you fail 10th grade math, you shouldn’t be entitled to health insurance. What NCLB is all about is ensuring a continuing pool of failures - you’ve actually heard that in virtually every state ’ “If everyone is passing the test, it can’t be a good test.” “Failure” is the key to success, corporate socialist style.</p>

40

<p>Nothing like a good cheery post from Mini on a Friday night!</p>