Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Thank you. But, nope...where I have worked, everyone was lumped on the same pay scale. I don't think that teachers should be paid more based on what they teach...but rather...how effective of teachers they are...and we all know who does a good job in the school, and who is not...
The only problem with that, is the technically (math/science/physics/chemistry etc) really-good individuals will all go into private industry, as they can make 2-3 times as much, in terms of salary, and can still do teaching in industry if they choose to do so. So guess what (not to generalize too much) you end up with in the public school systems? It is called 'culling the herd'. We in private industry skim off the best technical talent. Doesn't necessarily apply to those professors in research. It doesn't have to be just technical. My finest software engineer had a degree in journalism.
I don't want it to be implied that expertise is not desired. The BEST teacher of course would have both expertise in their field as well as the acumen to teach. I had professors in college that were brilliant. And they would have put any high school or middle school class to sleep instantly. You have to be able to teach to your clientele. Often "experts" in the field do not have the ability to teach young people. They speak in language that is over the heads of the kids, they have expectations that these kids behave like adults and have the responsibility of adults.
In my opinion an "expert" with little acumen for teaching is worse than a well-versed teacher with the gift of teaching.
Who wants college professors teaching kids? I think people from business and industry doing the teaching is a good idea. I think it helps to have people with real life experience in the subject matter be able to translate how, for example, Algebra or Chemistry or Music has meaning in the real world of jobs. Even being able to write an opinion paper in History or English class translates to work in the real world where you often have to write reports to sway decision makers. I don't think having higher expectations for kids is a bad thing, either.
Who wants college professors teaching kids? I think people from business and industry doing the teaching is a good idea. I think it helps to have people with real life experience in the subject matter be able to translate how, for example, Algebra or Chemistry or Music has meaning in the real world of jobs. Even being able to write an opinion paper in History or English class translates to work in the real world where you often have to write reports to sway decision makers. I don't think having higher expectations for kids is a bad thing, either.
I agree that real world experience should halp to make a better teacher. This reminds me, however, of a teacher my local HS hired from private industry to teach chemistry. Many people in the district expected him to be a great teacher because of his experience. He turned out to be just the opposite and is considered to be a below average teacher. Students complain that he is dull and boring.
It makes me wonder if anyone had seen this person teach a class before he was hired.
I agree that real world experience should halp to make a better teacher. This reminds me, however, of a teacher my local HS hired from private industry to teach chemistry. Many people in the district expected him to be a great teacher because of his experience. He turned out to be just the opposite and is considered to be a below average teacher. Students complain that he is dull and boring.
It makes me wonder if anyone had seen this person teach a class before he was hired.
I find that expectations can be hard to live up to. My kids think that because I used to be an engineer, they're going to get to blow things up in chemistry. They're dissappointed to find that I'm the only one who blows things up and then it's just pumpkins. Most of my demos use houshold items and my favorite chemicals to use in the lab are water, salt and sugar (sometimes I really step out and use vinegar and sodium bicarbonate!!). One of my students said the other day, as she was making a sugar solution, "Who knew chemistry was nothing but water, sugar, salt and a stirring rod", lol. My principal says I can use all the water I want in the lab, lol. We did three labs this year that involved either melting or freezing water (heating curves, heat of fusion for ice and freezing point depresssion). Those labs are not nearly as exciting as the ones my students enter my class imagining they will do.
If I were to try to teach as exciting as my students want, I'd spend a bundle on chemicals and things like blast shields and need an assistant to help handle set up and clean up. I was planning on pulling some of the chem for all labs that I use with the lower level class into the upper level class just because my students keep asking "Why can't we do that?" but, alas, my new lead teacher hates chem for all and finds it beneath him. So no golden pennies or borax ornaments for the regular chem kids next year. I do, however, find it interesting that the little labs I do with the lower level class are what my upper level kids like.
I remember one day when my lower level kids were coming in and I had a lab set up for the upper level class. One of the kids asked, "Are we doing a lab today" and I answered "No, that's for the other class" he expressed his disappointment and one of the regular chem kids who was still finishing up piped up and said, disappointedly "It's just heating water and doing a lot of math" Chemistry, is a lot of math and kids find that boring. Everyone wants Bill Nye the science guy BUT they don't realize that even Bill Nye doean't have 185, 1 hour lectures/labs up his sleeve that are exciting. There are days when my students find my class boring. That would be most days. There are only so many exciting things you can do in chemistry without help.
They most likely did see him teach before they hired him but we all look like Bill Nye during the interview but, as I said, even he can't pull off making a year of chemistry entertaining every day. Chemistry is one of those classes where you just have to pay attention and learn before you're allowed to touch anything and then the lab just might be melting ice to see how much energy it took.
Last edited by Ivorytickler; 05-24-2012 at 08:27 PM..
Who wants college professors teaching kids? I think people from business and industry doing the teaching is a good idea. I think it helps to have people with real life experience in the subject matter be able to translate how, for example, Algebra or Chemistry or Music has meaning in the real world of jobs. Even being able to write an opinion paper in History or English class translates to work in the real world where you often have to write reports to sway decision makers. I don't think having higher expectations for kids is a bad thing, either.
I'm saying that the college professors are usually people that are "experts" in their field. And my point is that oftentimes the "experts" lack that ability to teach to young people. Not all of them of course. I had college professors that could easily transition down to high school and would connect with the students very well.
I just think that prior to college the ability to teach is much more important than being an expert in your content. The best thing that teachers prior to college can teach their students is how to learn, and to be lifelong learners. You don't need to know jack about math or chemistry to do that.
What subject area would be premium pay? Who decides?
It would actually depend on the requirements to teach subjects.
At one point in time, Michigan decided that they wanted single subject certs to teach chemistry, biology and physics. Then they realized that with chem for all, they were headed towards a chemistry teacher shortage and blessed the DI cert (originally intended to teach middle school so it's not rigorous (jack of all trades cert)) to teach chemistry, phsics and biology and created a glut of science teachers. So, we're a dime a dozen and those of us with the higher certs are actually the undesirables because, unlike our counterparts with DI's, we can't teach everything. Only the stuff we're considered subject matter experts.
Demand would determine price. Right now, we're running subject matter experts out of education in favor of people holding general certs so you're not going to see anyone paying more for particular certs except for foriegn language. Try finding a German teacher.
If special ed is in high demand, and it is, it will pay more, and it does. In spite of my value in the open market, chemistry/physics/math doesn't pay more because they don't need to pay more to fill the positions.
If you want subject matter experts in the classroom, you'll have to compete with industry but they don't so they don't. The general consensus is that a teacher who is interesting beats one who actually knows their material. Which explains why the first thing I learned in college was not to repeat anything I was taught in high school because half of it was wrong.
When I was hired, I barely had to interview. The recruiter saw that I was a male in elementary education and that's about all it took. It was the same way a few years ago. I interviewed with another district when my wife was entering elementary education and they didn't even need to see my portfolio. It was, "You're a male in elementary education. We want you." Males are short in supply, but high in demand in my district. Would it be ok to pay them more to entice them into the field?
When I was hired, I barely had to interview. The recruiter saw that I was a male in elementary education and that's about all it took. It was the same way a few years ago. I interviewed with another district when my wife was entering elementary education and they didn't even need to see my portfolio. It was, "You're a male in elementary education. We want you." Males are short in supply, but high in demand in my district. Would it be ok to pay them more to entice them into the field?
Only if they all elementary teachers are paid more. Male teachers do the same job female teachers do. Gender, while it may be preferred, doesn't deliver a different product.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
They're dissappointed to find that I'm the only one who blows things up and then it's just pumpkins. Most of my demos use houshold items and my favorite chemicals to use in the lab are water, salt and sugar (sometimes I really step out and use vinegar and sodium bicarbonate!!). One of my students said the other day, as she was making a sugar solution, "Who knew chemistry was nothing but water, sugar, salt and a stirring rod", lol. My principal says I can use all the water I want in the lab, lol. We did three labs this year that involved either melting or freezing water (heating curves, heat of fusion for ice and freezing point depresssion). Those labs are not nearly as exciting as the ones my students enter my class imagining they will do. 
