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.
You consciously, intentionally, do a less good job for these kids than you will (or would) for students in a wealthier school.
You keep trying to make it all the administration's fault when you AND they share responsibility for giving these students a lower quality of education.
I do not absolve the administration.
I just ask you to see that you contribute to the problem for the students.
If you simply said "Yes, these students would be less well off if I left in the middle of the term," I'd stop pushing, because you would be being honest.
Nope. I consciously don't settle in and grow roots because I know I can't stay. It has nothing to do with whether or not the district is wealthy. The poorest districts in this area pay more than the charters do.
You are twisiting my need for a livable wage into greed when it's not. Reasonsable wages were an assumption when I made this job change. The job change does not work without them.
No, I'm not going to grow roots where I know I can't stay. It would be silly to do so. I'll grow roots when I'm somewhere I can stay.
Did you answer the question about your wages? Have you committed to low wages for the rest of your life? Do you live without a pension plan and a medical package that makes most major medical plans look good?
Usually when teachers talk like you do, they're already financially secure where they are. I'm not financially secure where I am. And yes, that is reason to leave if I get the opportunity to become financially secure.
Is it ethical for a bank teller to leave their customers?
For a pharmacist to leave their customers?
For a police officer to leave their citizens?
For an insurance agent? A chef? A government worker?
No- and it shouldn't be for a teacher, either.
Everyone's first loyalty to should be to their family. If a better opportunity comes up, it is incumbent on that person to take it- in my opinion.
Did any of these other employees sign a contract with a specific period of time designated for leaving? If not and a PUBLIC school teacher with a contract stipulating a time period for resigning breaks their contract and leaves without being released is it a fair comparison? Does a teacher under contract wan't the protections offered by the contract without exercising the responsibilities listed in the contract? If so that might give lurkers insight into the belief practices of teachers in America. I wonder if the same applies to debt?
Is it ethical for a bank teller to leave their customers?
For a pharmacist to leave their customers?
For a police officer to leave their citizens?
For an insurance agent? A chef? A government worker?
No- and it shouldn't be for a teacher, either.
Everyone's first loyalty to should be to their family. If a better opportunity comes up, it is incumbent on that person to take it- in my opinion.
Oh, of course all of those folks work with:
a) CHILDREN
b) The SAME children every day.
The above is a search from a data base on teachers rights, rules and responsibilities etc. Anyone considering leaving would be very wise and prudent to first find the rules and possible sanctions for breaking them for their specific situation. Just following the advice you get in a forum is oh well you know what it is!
Oh, of course all of those folks work with:
a) CHILDREN
b) The SAME children every day.
Top notch analogy. Uh huh.
The major question for the analogy is what does their contract say. Teachers especially in private schools can often leave with only two week notification. If that is the condition of their employment that is ok with me. That is right they often have as a trade off for lower pay. It affords them the opportunity to take a better paying or more career centered job when it comes up. Often private school teachers are teaching while looking for employment in a specific field. It is a trade off. Public teachers who have a resignation calendar framed deadline are accepting that as a trade off for certain job security features of their contract. Read the fine print and understand not just what your contract gives you but what it expects of you.
It's the skills that are valuable and teachers who have developed more skills moving into better paying positions actually increases teacher's value in that it shows that greater skills = greater earning power and earning power is related to how society values what you do.
Well, if you believe that, it explains a lot.]
You must think we live and work in a meritocracy. We don't - it's one of the reasons there are seldom merit-based pay increases for teachers.
I would love to argue that you are stuck in your terribly paying job because you are a bad teacher, but I know better - it is not a reflection on your teaching ability, nor will it be a reflection on it the day you get a better paying job, should that happen.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ivorytickler
I realize my actions have direct impact on kids. I just don't believe a teacher leaving to take a better position mid year has devestating effects as long as there is someone qualified to take their place and even if there isn't, the bottom line is we owe ourselves and our families more than we owe a school that refuses to value us.
That said, I think teachers can (not a requirement for the job but this can happen) form special bonds with kids and they can, as a result of those bonds, positively impact their lives but so can other people who work with kids like pastors, doctors, nurses, Sunday school teachers and neighbors. But no one would call any of them undedicated because they chose to take a better job and leave. Why are teachers singled out here?
Which part of reality are you ignoring here? I mean, at least you have finally granted, in a backwards way, that there might be an impact by the teacher's leaving - but it would be nice if you could actually say "Yes, my leaving hurts the children, but raising my family up higher on their backs is the price they pay for living in America," or whatever.
So, again...
1) Teachers see their students for 180 days per year. Of your comparisons, only neighbors match it for time - but the neighbor is not explicitly there to work with the children. If they do, it is a coincidence of location, not their job.
2) There is a specific pattern to (most) children's lives in the U.S., because society has set it up that way - the school years starts around Labor Day (or earlier in some places) and runs until June - roughly 10 months from start to finish. The children have no say in it. The neighbor, pastor, doctors, and nurses are not a part of that pattern. The Sunday School teacher can be - and their leaving can be disruptive - but because of the lack of daily contact, it's often a smaller issue.
3) Maternity leaves are overwhelmingly planned in advance, as I already noted. It is far less disruptive because the replacement teacher is usually brought in in advance, often has a chance to meet with a class prior to the change over. But yes, it is still disruptive.
4) "I'm leaving you for money" is a very different message than "I am too sick to teach" or "I got fired" or "I'm having a baby." Those others do not impact the ego of the kids; they are not saying "You are not as important to me as money is."
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ivorytickler
Why do we tell teachers they can't take advantage of half of the opportunities out there.
Hyperbole, much?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ivorytickler
I'm probably going to regret not taking the job I was offered shortly after I took this one for a long time. I told myself something better would come along but here I am going back for another year at lower pay and benefits (in real dollars not just adjusted ones) than last year. There are few opportunties out there. If one bites me on the nose again, I'm gone.
And yet, you're trying to convince me that it isn't greed that prompts you?
You were offered your precious higher paying job, and turned it down because you wanted still more money.
Well, by your theory, it must mean you are not a very good teacher.
By my theory, it's not about your teaching. It may be about your level of commitment, but I honestly don't know. Your earlier theory that it is because you have the "wrong" certification makes too much sense, unfortunately - though I would imagine a large enough school would have enough courses for you, as the current one does.
*shrug*
It sounds as if you are doing as much for your students as possible to minimize the pain they will feel when you leave.
The above is a search from a data base on teachers rights, rules and responsibilities etc. Anyone considering leaving would be very wise and prudent to first find the rules and possible sanctions for breaking them for their specific situation. Just following the advice you get in a forum is oh well you know what it is!
The legal concerns are there.
In Ivory's case, it is pretty clear that her understanding is that she could walk out tomorrow with no ramifications (other than to the students, but they'll just have to like it or lump it).
She asked about the ethics of it in her first post - my position is that the legal contract, while a part of the 'contract,' is not the only contract - that she has an obligation to her students that goes beyond what the contract language says.
Obviously, she is aware that I am hardly the only one who feels as I do, or the question would not be asked. At least, now, she has sort-of admitted that a teacher's leaving mid-term is disruptive to the students, though she has avoided any such language.
There is a world of difference between a doctor or an engineer leaving their job and a teacher leaving in the middle of the academic year. Much of that has to do with schedule. Engineers and doctors also do not work with the same kids every day. If engineers or doctors came into their job in September, worked daily with a set group of kids and had set goals to accomplish at the end of the year, then yes, I would say it's unethical for them to leave in the middle of the contract, too.
Why take a teaching position if you know from the start that it's going to be financially unfeasible? I know that in many cases any job is better than no job, but I think in general it's probably most ethical (and professional) to not take a classroom position, then.
It's not devaluing teachers in the least to expect that in normal circumstances they are going to be there for the kids for the duration of the school year. If anything it shows that we DO value them - it shows that we don't think that they are reduced to just a "skills set," interchangable with the next person to come along. Even if the next teacher is the best teacher ever to walk the face of the planet it would STILL be disruptive to the kids. No matter how you try to put it, having a teacher leave and a new one come in takes some adjustment. (and I agree that maternity leave is completely different)
1) Did you answer the question about your wages? Have you committed to low wages for the rest of your life? Do you live without a pension plan and a medical package that makes most major medical plans look good?
2) Usually when teachers talk like you do, they're already financially secure where they are. I'm not financially secure where I am. 3) And yes, that is reason to leave if I get the opportunity to become financially secure.
1) Yes, I did. My spouse and I make enough money that we pay our bills. My position does not have benefits - either pension or medical. OTOH, it has unlimited sick days, if I get ill. My position will go away at the end of this year, and I am looking for a new position. I've already indicated to a potential employer that I am contracted through the end of the year, though there is no early departure penalty in my employment agreement.
2) Your assumptions here are gross and probably wrong. But keep telling yourself that, because it justifies everything else you are saying.
3) And yet, you turned down a new job once already, even though you would have been more financially secure.
*******
A question back to you:
If you could afford to, would you do what you are doing for nothing? Would you stay at this school and set down roots if money were not an issue?
I asked if having your teacher leave the high school to teach at another school for higher pay was something that interferes with their learning.
The options, with results (after 24 votes so far):
No, not really. (1 votes)
Initially, but not over the entire year. (1 votes)
If I like the teacher, yes. Otherwise, it wouldn't be. (2 votes)
It depends on how long the sub is teaching. (0 votes)
Yes, it is disruptive to me. (20 votes)
Other (0 votes)
General thoughts include that if the teacher leaves in the first two weeks or last two weeks (assuming the tests match the course), that is not that bad. Otherwise, it can be quite disruptive. Also, knowing it is going to happen in advance helps a fair amount, said several - the example of a maternity leave, with the class having gotten to meet the replacement in advance - whereas abrupt is a lot harder.
"Sometimes the new teacher is better... But it was still really disruptive. Especially since we were in the middle of a very long-term project that (the teacher who left) had set up, and most of the effective language-learning would've come in the later stages, but we dropped the whole thing when (the new teacher) replaced him."
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.
