<p>^ Orbit…What you are essentially stating is that the value lies with what you consider to be difficult subjects. Personally I think teaching kids who have special needs requires far more than just knowlege of a subject area. It requires knowledge of how to recognize these problems and how to effectively teach using a variety of techniques that no one could possibly know unless they went to school and studied psychology and special education. </p>
<p>One of the problems with mainstream teachers is that they can’t recognize children who have mild learning disabilities, especially if the child is hard working, and spending many hours at home preparing and studying. Mainstream teachers may take 3 or 6 credits in special ed but considering most special ed kids today are being mainstreamed the regular ed teachers are left with a real challenge in addressing these kids. It is not only grossly unfair to the children, but it is unfair to the teachers who could have several kids in their class with a variety of learning disabilties that they are not equiped to teach.</p>
<p>Many special needs children are not being recognized early because of a lack of training in mainstream “specialized” teachers who have little knowledge in regard to learning disabilties.</p>
<p>Ok. I respect the views of others. In general teachers do very good work for little pay. More money to teachers and janitors and less to the administration and superintendent!</p>
<p>My husband can’t draw or paint and he has to have me proof read his notes to check his grammar. He can do non-euclidian geometry, though. I can write, paint and draw but am weak in math. We both have approximately the same IQ.</p>
<p>The point of an art or music program is not to teach the few “gifted” kids that I think you are referring to. The purpose of these programs is to develop higher order thinking skills that inform ALL learning through the lens of that particular discipline. Art, when taught well is very “hard”. Music, when taught well is also very “hard”. Both exercise areas of the brain that develop critical thinking skills, encourage self expression and help students make connections.</p>
<p>The teachers of these subjects need to be well trained and well educated in their area in order to do the job well. They also need to be tenacious, passionate and committed in a way that other teachers may not, necessarily, need to be. The reason being that teachers of art and music face the kinds of attitudes that some have expressed here. They also face the constant threat of budget cuts and personnel cuts that threaten them in a way that is, often unique to them. This pressure is wearing and discouraging. It is this pressure that has made me a strong and vocal advocate for the arts. For some, though, it is enough to drive them out of the field.</p>
<p>If we paid PE teachers better, maybe our PE programs would be good programs. They could be the most important thing actually teaching life skills. Look and see how long our Diet and Exercise thread is again…</p>
<p>Recent experience: post one chemistry position, got somewhere around a dozen applications, some of which were from teachers with little chemistry-specific education. Posted one PE teacher position last year, got way over 100 applications. What’s the market saying? (We got numbers similar to PE last time we posted a Social Studies position, though that’s been a couple of years.) And the last music position filled required us to be out beating the bushes to find qualified teachers interested in teaching across disciplines, and even trying to find applicants who were brand new graduates. Tough, tough, tough to fill – and when we did, we had to pay to do so. It isn’t that I value music as more or less valuable a subject than social studies – but the market forces are such that music teachers who are able and willing to teach vocal, band and orchestra classes are in short supply, and there is an abundance of SS teachers.</p>
<p>I’m guessing that the abundance of PE candidates and Social Studies candidates are the result of a lack of positions for teachers in these fields. When budget cuts occur, art, music and PE are often the first positions reduced or cut. Social Studies is becoming a victim of this, as well. Those cuts result in unemployed teachers who are then applying for the opening. Another factor, in my opinion, is that many musicians and artists support themselves by getting teaching degrees in their field. That doesn’t mean that all of them are great teachers. How wonderful that you have such a deep pool from which to choose.</p>
<p>The music teacher issue is due to the fact that the school system is not willing to fund a music program with the depth and breadth that it deserves. Most music teachers don’t have expertise in all areas of their discipline. That would be like asking for a science teacher who is capable of teaching chemistry, biology and physics with equal vigor. </p>
<p>Much of it, unfortunately, goes to the lack of education and understanding on the part of many administrators about the very programs and employees in their schools. I have a friend who teaches music in another system. Her administrators restructured the music department in a way that had vocal teachers teaching instrument and vice versa. The teachers had to inform the administrators that they were not qualified to teach that area.</p>
<p>Again, it is this lack of acknowledgement and dismissive attitude that, in my opinion, wears down teachers who are, otherwise, committed and passionate about their field.</p>
<p>Orbit…Here in the state of New Jersey we have so many small towns and each town has a superintendant, assistant superindendent, as well as principals and assistant principals. It is outrageous that towns are not merging services and having one superintendent for two or three districts. There are some towns including mine that have fewer than 5 schools yet each of these towns have their own superintendant and assistant S. My friends town has a middle school and a highschool in the same building yet there are two principals and many assistant principals. What a terrible waste of funds yet the teachers are getting a kick in the rear for expecting a fair salary. What is fair about not cutting at the top? In many places like New York city there are superintendants that are in charge of thirty schools who are getting paid what superintendants are getting here for a handfull of schools. That is a joke!</p>
<p>I heard on the news a couple months back that many 4th graders in America couldn’t tell you who Abe Lincoln was. And many high schoolers didn’t know much about World War Two. Why do you think this is? (hint: it’s pretty simple!)</p>
<p>Can anybody tell us how teaching salaries are handled at elite private schools?. Do they have same subjects found in public schools? Do they teach music, phys ed, art?</p>
<p>Different take on this topic: My niece is not college material. She took several home ec (family/consumer science as it’s now called) classes and benefited tremendously. She learned how to sew, cook, how to make wise consumer choices–how to rent an apt and buy a house. She also taught in their preschool and now has a job in day care, thanks to that department. --all invaluable to this child…Many schools don’t value these programs and others are doing away with them. I obviously see great value in it and hope that we will always educate the ‘whole’ child…That teacher deserves as much money as the best physics teacher in the coountry…</p>
<p>EPTR, what I mean is not every person who goes through high school is destined to be the next Bill Gates. Contrary to what many people think. Therefore high school may not be the time to be shoving academics down one’s throat. Life skills are also very important and have been cut drastically in education. And I can’t lay claim to the quote… I’m told it’s a somewhat famous quote, but I’ve heard it directly from a school administrator-- real smart guy.</p>
<p>I see. I understand your point and I know that both you and that superintendent mean well when you say it but… the thing about that that I find frustrating is the emphasis on the individual child who might be the outlier who benefits from the specialty class. What I mean is, people are always saying things like:</p>
<p>*“I know a kid who was terrible at academics but great at art…it was the only thing he had!”
The problem with this kind of statement is that it dismisses the value of that course of study for the other 99 percent of children. </p>
<p>*“Art and music are great because kids need that break during the school day!”
Art and music are areas of intense learning and are not a break in the sense that recess is a break. When children are in my classroom they are working! Yes, it may be a work environment that differs from other classrooms but it is, in fact, work. Again, calling it a break is dismissing the academic value of the class content.</p>
<p>*“Not everyone is cut out for college, art and music are good for those kids”.
Art and music are good for EVERY kid and are required by more and more colleges.</p>
<p>*“Art isn’t my kid’s “thing”. He should get a good grade just for trying.”
Again, this dismisses the value of the content and the learnability of the skills. All kids can succeed but, like in other areas, some kids need modifications and need to work harder than others. Math wasn’t my thing when I was in school but that didn’t excuse me from the work involved in the courses. The value of any class is the value for every child.</p>
<p>As an art teacher, i am thrilled when my instruction reaches a child who might otherwise be unreachable. I thrill when I teach a child who is naturally gifted in my area. There is value there, most certainly. But the real reason that these subjects deserve a presence in our children’s education is because it is the right thing for every child.</p>
<p>I think there are more students who would benefit from a consumer education course that taught about loans, savings, checking accounts, simple economics, budgeting, etc than advanced physics. </p>
<p>I say this as a student who took most of those advanced classes. But I also took consumer ed, I took web design classes, I took weight lifting. All of that and still had time for college english, a semester of calculus, physics, advanced biology, etc.</p>
<p>Interesting… job and career prospects for those with chemistry and biology degrees are not that good, so it seems odd that not many of them would try for a chemistry teaching job (biology graduates typically have to take substantial chemistry courses).</p>
<p>I find the OP’s question interesting. This is actually being proposed in my state, with math and science teachers getting the highest pay. I am a high school science teacher, so I should be happy that I will benefit, but I think it will create a lot of ill will between teachers. We all have the equivalent education - a minimum of a bachelor’s degree. We are all paid more for higher degrees. Each subject area has its own unique set of duties. What music teachers and special education teachers must do was already mentioned. English teachers grade large amounts of essays. Science teachers spend out of class time setting up and taking down labs. Whose to say which teacher is working harder or is more valuable?</p>
<p>^^^
Yes. It is true that most teachers (not all, because I see some that have figured out a a way to do the absolute minimum and still have a job) have unique aspects to their job that other teachers don’t. I know that my job teaching elementary art is surprisingly physical beyond the actual teaching minutes. The cutting, pouring, mixing, matting, cleaning, storing, labeling, etc is often overwhelming, especially in my very large school. Other teachers have other duties that are intrinsic to their area. </p>
<p>But the OPs question, if I am understanding it correctly was about paying the teachers of “HARD SUBJECTS” more, not teachers who work harder. Honestly, I would have no problem with that! LOL.</p>
<p>It is the idea that there is more value in one discipline over another and that an individual schooled in chemistry is to be valued more than one schooled in music that I find offensive and narrow in its premise.</p>
<p>^^^^
That’s the million dollar question. Art is easier for me than others and chemistry is hard for me. I think what bothers me is that I am guessing that the OPs discussion was really about paying more for the teachers of IMPORTANT subjects than unimportant (as perceived by society). Because, let’s face it, most people can’t teach a kid to draw, right? It is hard to draw! But is it important to society that we teach children visual creative skills?</p>
<p>However, the real world that schools have to compete in to hire teachers may value different skills differently. For example, mathematicians are more likely to be hired to well paying jobs by other employers than biologists, so it may be harder for schools to hire math teachers than biology teachers.</p>
<p>Also, high schools implicitly tell people which subjects are more valued by teaching and emphasizing them, but not others. For example, for students intending to go to college or university, English (a combination of reading, writing, and literature) and math are commonly elevated in importance over all other subjects. Next are subjects like history, biology, chemistry, physics, some foreign languages (typically Spanish and French), art, music, and PE. Other subjects like foreign languages (other than Spanish and French), statistics, economics, psychology, etc. are less reliably found in high schools.</p>
<p>Other subjects not normally thought of as academic subjects, like auto repair, wood shop, cooking, interscholastic competitive sports, etc. may or may not be taught or emphasized.</p>
<p>Schools do have to make some choices in this respect, since it would be hard for them to teach everything.</p>