If teaching is so 'horrible', why do you keep teaching? (writing, high school)

[TabulaRasa]

Originally Posted by westsideteacher

I totally agree. I think we need to emphasize two tracks. One for college prep, one for straight-to-work kids.

You can make a great living without going to college, but you still need training. HVAC, plumbers, autobody/mechanics... there's a whole world of respectable, good-paying work we could be preparing the kids for, but nooo according my district, "everyone is going to college".

I agree that tracks are the way to go. Students should be able to move between tracks at intervals, just to make sure we're not dooming any kid who doesn't show aptitude in kindergarten.

My high school had that 15 years ago, and still does. A college prep track and a vocational track. The vocational track was never hurting for students, as it's a heavily agricultural/ag-industrial area.

[Ivorytickler]

Originally Posted by TabulaRasa

Honestly, I'd be much more likely to remove my kid from a charter school due to it being a undisciplined free-for-all where there are no consequences, rules are not allowed to be followed through on, and educators are stripped of authority. That's just opening the door for thuggery.

You might but another parent might welcome not having their child disciplined. Many parents wear rose colored glasses when it comes to their children. I have more parents try to talk me out of taking action against their child than I do saying "Do what you need to".

I've had the same parents all year telling me their child doesn't do the things I say they do. I've been told "He gets mad when wrongfully accused and he was furious when he got home so I know he didn't do it." when what he is is a great actor. Parents often take a "Not my child" attitude and if the local school won't bend to that, they'll move their kids. We have to document everything.

There are consequences they just don't kick in right away. If they did, I could nip most problems in the bud. There are warnings and phone calls home to be made first and the kids know it. Many parents think it should be that way. They get upset if their child gets detention and they weren't warned of the detention or their child gets a zero for an assignment they failed to turn in and a phone call wasn't made home to inform mom that the assignment was overdue. Many parents micromanage their children's lives to the point they interfere with their child's learning.

There are lots of reasons people choose to leave their local schools and they are not all good ones. Seriously, the elementary schools do a better job of discipline than the high school. I'm not sure why. You'd think they'd come down harder on students because they're older and should know better.

[TabulaRasa]

Originally Posted by Ivorytickler

You might but another parent might welcome not having their child disciplined. Many parents wear rose colored glasses when it comes to their children. I have more parents try to talk me out of taking action against their child than I do saying "Do what you need to".

But when students/parents of this caliber choose to remove themselves from the system, it clears up a space for ones who DO value a demanding, intensive education. You don't build a quality school (which is ostensibly what charters strive to be, no?) by watering down the expectations. You focus on attracting people who are interested in meeting and exceeding those expectations, much as private schools do. Such schools might attract more of such students and parents if they weren't busy kissing the asses of students and parents who are the exact opposite.

[Ivorytickler]

Originally Posted by TabulaRasa

But when students/parents of this caliber choose to remove themselves from the system, it clears up a space for ones who DO value a demanding, intensive education. You don't build a quality school (which is ostensibly what charters strive to be, no?) by watering down the expectations. You focus on attracting people who are interested in meeting and exceeding those expectations, much as private schools do. Such schools might attract more of such students and parents if they weren't busy kissing the asses of students and parents who are the exact opposite.

If we had a line out the door of students trying to get in, you are correct. We don't. Students who choose to leave, after the year starts will, likely, not be replaced.

We are a public school and have to take anyone who applies. We cannot set entrance requirements. We can refuse to take students who were expelled from other schools or asked not to come back but that's really it. If we get rid of too many students, we can't pay the bills.

People think charters pick and choose and can simply kick out students who create problems but that's not reality. We lose a lot of our students after the year starts. Some because they decide that they're not getting what they want from us and some because we ask them to leave but we can't just keep the students we want and pay the bills.

Charters do strive to be better but better is relative. Better depends on what your other options are. Parents of chidlren in good schools don't, usually, move their kids to charters. Parents of kids who are doing well where they are also don't, usually, move their kids to charters. It's parents of students who are in bad districts or are struggling or are simply not getting the attention they think they deserve who move their kids. Sometimes, they'll move them to have a smaller school where kids can be watched more closely or because their child can play sports in a smaller school but couldn't make the team in a larger school, however, they move them for a reason.

I think we are better than the alternative for most of our students. We are not, however, better than the best. We have a long way to go there. What charters offer is options. Hopefully, better ones for parents with children stuck in bad school districts.

While we do offer a better education than some of the surrounding districts, when we attract students from those districts, they are often at lower than expected academic levels. Reading levels and math ability are low and we have to start where they are to teach them anything.

[dazzleman]

Originally Posted by Ivorytickler

If we had a line out the door of students trying to get in, you are correct. We don't. Students who choose to leave, after the year starts will, likely, not be replaced.

We are a public school and have to take anyone who applies. We cannot set entrance requirements. We can refuse to take students who were expelled from other schools or asked not to come back but that's really it. If we get rid of too many students, we can't pay the bills.

People think charters pick and choose and can simply kick out students who create problems but that's not reality. We lose a lot of our students after the year starts. Some because they decide that they're not getting what they want from us and some because we ask them to leave but we can't just keep the students we want and pay the bills.

Charters do strive to be better but better is relative. Better depends on what your other options are. Parents of chidlren in good schools don't, usually, move their kids to charters. Parents of kids who are doing well where they are also don't, usually, move their kids to charters. It's parents of students who are in bad districts or are struggling or are simply not getting the attention they think they deserve who move their kids. Sometimes, they'll move them to have a smaller school where kids can be watched more closely or because their child can play sports in a smaller school but couldn't make the team in a larger school, however, they move them for a reason.

I think we are better than the alternative for most of our students. We are not, however, better than the best. We have a long way to go there. What charters offer is options. Hopefully, better ones for parents with children stuck in bad school districts.

While we do offer a better education than some of the surrounding districts, when we attract students from those districts, they are often at lower than expected academic levels. Reading levels and math ability are low and we have to start where they are to teach them anything.

I know what you mean.

The districts around me tend to be strongly segmented racially (either nearly all white or mostly black/latino), so the state has set up some charter schools that accept kids from multiple districts in order to foster some type of integration.

The heavily white districts tend to have excellent schools, so the charter schools often have trouble attracting kids from those districts, while the charter schools are flooded with applications from kids from the more poorly performing districts.

[Ivorytickler]

Originally Posted by dazzleman

I know what you mean.

The districts around me tend to be strongly segmented racially (either nearly all white or mostly black/latino), so the state has set up some charter schools that accept kids from multiple districts in order to foster some type of integration.

The heavily white districts tend to have excellent schools, so the charter schools often have trouble attracting kids from those districts, while the charter schools are flooded with applications from kids from the more poorly performing districts.

Yup. People think charters pick and choose their students but we don't. They also compare us to the schools in the same zip code and that's not fair because, based on my experience, the students tend to come from other zip codes. Parents seem to choose charters in cities they'd rather their kids go to school thinking the charter is just like the district when it's not.

My city has ok schools. Nothing to write home about but not as bad as some of the surrounding districts. There's really only one nearby that's better. We have several charter schools. The demographic of the charter schools is not the same as the demographic of our local schools. We're close enough to Detroit that many of the students that go to the charters in my city are from Detroit. If you compare those charters to our city schools, which is the way it's done, they look awful but if you compare them to Detroit schools, where their students are coming from, they're not doing bad. You also have to consider that we deal with a broader range of ability levels per grade because our students hearald from different districts. Very few students start kindergarten with and stay until graduation.

Parents don't move their kids without reason. The reason is, usually, their kids were not being educated well where they were and charters have to deal with the aftermath. And often, they move their kids for a reason that corrects itself over time. They may choose a charter until they can move or do what I did. Choose a charter because of one particular program (EDM) that is only tought through a certain grade. I really have no reason to go through the inconvenience of transporting my kids to school myself now that my kids are in middle/high school. I had pressing reason in elementary school. The move was always intended to be temporary though the end didn't turn out as planned. It was supposed to be temporary until we moved to a better district but I lost my job and the housing market crashed so here we are. I can't say my kids get a better education in our local schools but there's less hassle and they have more class options.

[dazzleman]

Originally Posted by Ivorytickler

Yup. People think charters pick and choose their students but we don't. They also compare us to the schools in the same zip code and that's not fair because, based on my experience, the students tend to come from other zip codes. Parents seem to choose charters in cities they'd rather their kids go to school thinking the charter is just like the district when it's not.

My city has ok schools. Nothing to write home about but not as bad as some of the surrounding districts. There's really only one nearby that's better. We have several charter schools. The demographic of the charter schools is not the same as the demographic of our local schools. We're close enough to Detroit that many of the students that go to the charters in my city are from Detroit. If you compare those charters to our city schools, which is the way it's done, they look awful but if you compare them to Detroit schools, where their students are coming from, they're not doing bad. You also have to consider that we deal with a broader range of ability levels per grade because our students hearald from different districts. Very few students start kindergarten with and stay until graduation.

Parents don't move their kids without reason. The reason is, usually, their kids were not being educated well where they were and charters have to deal with the aftermath. And often, they move their kids for a reason that corrects itself over time. They may choose a charter until they can move or do what I did. Choose a charter because of one particular program (EDM) that is only tought through a certain grade. I really have no reason to go through the inconvenience of transporting my kids to school myself now that my kids are in middle/high school. I had pressing reason in elementary school. The move was always intended to be temporary though the end didn't turn out as planned. It was supposed to be temporary until we moved to a better district but I lost my job and the housing market crashed so here we are. I can't say my kids get a better education in our local schools but there's less hassle and they have more class options.

Very true. Few parents will send their kids to a charter school if they're happy with the neighborhood school.

Still, it seems the charter schools serve a very good purpose, as an escape hatch from nightmarish public schools such as exist in Detroit (and other urban areas) for kids whose parents are actually interested in their education. I would bet that the kids who go to the charter schools are much better off than the ones who remain in Detroit public schools. For people in the nicer suburban areas, the benefits of charter schools are much less obvious, unless the charter school has a particular theme that is of high interest to a particular student, and either not available or not emphasized in local public schools.

[Ivorytickler]

Originally Posted by dazzleman

Very true. Few parents will send their kids to a charter school if they're happy with the neighborhood school.

Still, it seems the charter schools serve a very good purpose, as an escape hatch from nightmarish public schools such as exist in Detroit (and other urban areas) for kids whose parents are actually interested in their education. I would bet that the kids who go to the charter schools are much better off than the ones who remain in Detroit public schools. For people in the nicer suburban areas, the benefits of charter schools are much less obvious, unless the charter school has a particular theme that is of high interest to a particular student, and either not available or not emphasized in local public schools.

I agree. Charter schools are needed to give parents/students choices where the local choice is an issue, no matter what kind of issue that is. Many districts complain about charters but charters don't, usually, steal students from good districts. If children are getting a good education where they are, most parents leave them where they are. It's the kids stuck in lousy schools or who have needs their school simply cannot meet their needs who need charter schools.

For us, the fact my daughter could not learn under Everyday Mathematics was the reason we moved to the charter. It was either that or keep paying $40/hr at Sylvan (this is the child I butt heads with so me tutoring her is not an option). Now that she's old enough that EDM is no longer an issue, there was no compelling reason to stay in the charter so once she decided she wanted to go back to the local scoools, we moved her back.

I'm glad we did. It turns out the demographic of the high school charter is MUCH different than the elementary school. We're drawing out students from different districts. It seems that many parents use the charter as kind of a K-8 private school with the intention of sending their children to the local high school when the time comes. If I had the quality of student we have in the elementary schools in my classes, I'd be very happy with my students. The students who left are replaced with students from the city who are now old enough to ride the city busses to get to the school. Where parents won't put small children on city busses, they will allow older children to ride them to get to the outskirts of the city and attend charters there. So, there's a, totally, different demographic at the high school level.

[dazzleman]

Originally Posted by Ivorytickler

I agree. Charter schools are needed to give parents/students choices where the local choice is an issue, no matter what kind of issue that is. Many districts complain about charters but charters don't, usually, steal students from good districts. If children are getting a good education where they are, most parents leave them where they are. It's the kids stuck in lousy schools or who have needs their school simply cannot meet their needs who need charter schools.

For us, the fact my daughter could not learn under Everyday Mathematics was the reason we moved to the charter. It was either that or keep paying $40/hr at Sylvan (this is the child I butt heads with so me tutoring her is not an option). Now that she's old enough that EDM is no longer an issue, there was no compelling reason to stay in the charter so once she decided she wanted to go back to the local scoools, we moved her back.

I'm glad we did. It turns out the demographic of the high school charter is MUCH different than the elementary school. We're drawing out students from different districts. It seems that many parents use the charter as kind of a K-8 private school with the intention of sending their children to the local high school when the time comes. If I had the quality of student we have in the elementary schools in my classes, I'd be very happy with my students. The students who left are replaced with students from the city who are now old enough to ride the city busses to get to the school. Where parents won't put small children on city busses, they will allow older children to ride them to get to the outskirts of the city and attend charters there. So, there's a, totally, different demographic at the high school level.

I have a real problem with people saying that charter schools 'steal' good kids. The implication there is that kids who want to learn should be trapped in some awful school for the supposed benefit of a lot of kids who don't want to learn. The whole idea is absurd. Realistically, there is a tipping point whereby if a certain percentage of students in a school are disinterested in learning and the school doesn't have the support from parents that it needs, the whole school will go down like a sinking ship. It's morally wrong to trap kids who want to learn, and whose parents are willing to provide the support needed, in schools like that simply because they lack the money to pay twice for their kids' education by choosing private schools.

There's also a belief among the teachers' unions in particular that the kids should be captive, because that's their job security. That's really the teachers' unions' main interest, not education.

[mackinac81]

DISCLAIMER: This is not a knock on teaching/teachers as I'm pursuing this career, too. I'm just curious as to why there are so many people going to school to be teachers and so many applications for a job most people seem to complain about. Perhaps it's my inner pyschologist but I'm c-u-r-i-o-u-s!

I'm not a certified teacher but I've been subbing for about two years (mostly long-term jobs) and I've noticed most teachers seem to hate their jobs and complain about their students.

After subbing, I don't blame them but I often wonder, why don't you switch careers? What keeps you teaching? Is it a love-hate relationship? Do some of the students you can help, override most of the students who, for a lack of better words, annoy you? Or, does it have to do w/ all of the vacation and summers off? Just curious...

Personally, I'm pursuing teaching b/c I like kids, math and teaching math. And, I'm not going to lie--The vaca/summers off is the biggest thing luring me in. I'm an aspiring Olympian so I need as much vaca as I can get...and I need to be available during the summer for travel and tournaments. The teaching salary really isn't an issue with me...

So, what keeps YOU teaching, despite the 'cons' that come along w/ this career?

Well, I should first say that I just finished my first year, so I know I need to give it another year. Test score wise, I had a very successful year. I also got to help a lot of students who were trying to learn, and I'm very glad for that. But the headaches of teaching (test pressure, the more difficult kids) outweighed the benefits for me, and by the end of the year I realized that I didn't enjoy teaching at all. At the beginning I absolutely loved it and looked forward to it. That lasted about three weeks.

The only reason I'm sticking around next year is because they say the second year is better. I also feel I should just give it another chance, now that I know better what I'm doing. But even now It's tempting to update my resume and go into something else entirely. In the end, I'll probably teach again this fall, but will "better" be enough to keep me in the profession long term? I'm skeptical (very, VERY skeptical), but I'll make a final decision by the end of next year.