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.
Lately I've been reading a lot about some of the education reform ideas that are being floated (vouchers, charter schools, etc.). One popular argument seems to be that it's about the kids and what the teachers want (in terms of compensation or school environment) is irrelevant. The argument goes that teachers should be in the profession for their love of working with kids and they should go along with any plan to improve education even if it adversely affects their livelihood and professional standing.
I have a few questions regarding this line of thinking:
Why are teachers seemingly the only profession where folks should forget about money and the only motivation should be a love of the job? Health care expenses in this country are through the roof, yet I've never heard anyone suggest that doctor's should be making less.
If, as most agree, teachers are (on average) compensated modestly as it is right now, and yet the candidate pool is described as being of low quality, does anyone really believe that lowering compensation (on average) will increase the quality of the candidate pool of folks that decide to become teachers?
I think a lot of teachers are concerned that if reforms like vouchers and charter schools are instituted that their salaries will decrease significantly and the concept of teaching as a profession will become marginalized. Perhaps if those that support such reforms could guarantee that teachers, on the whole, would remain well-respected and fairly compensated, more teachers might jump on board with such experimental ideas. The cynic inside of me worries that there are many that might state that "it's about the kids," but that the real ulterior motive here is actually to pay teachers less and to delegitimize the profession.
Lately I've been reading a lot about some of the education reform ideas that are being floated (vouchers, charter schools, etc.). One popular argument seems to be that it's about the kids and what the teachers want (in terms of compensation or school environment) is irrelevant. The argument goes that teachers should be in the profession for their love of working with kids and they should go along with any plan to improve education even if it adversely affects their livelihood and professional standing.
I have a few questions regarding this line of thinking:
Why are teachers seemingly the only profession where folks should forget about money and the only motivation should be a love of the job? Health care expenses in this country are through the roof, yet I've never heard anyone suggest that doctor's should be making less.
If, as most agree, teachers are (on average) compensated modestly as it is right now, and yet the candidate pool is described as being of low quality, does anyone really believe that lowering compensation (on average) will increase the quality of the candidate pool of folks that decide to become teachers?
I think a lot of teachers are concerned that if reforms like vouchers and charter schools are instituted that their salaries will decrease significantly and the concept of teaching as a profession will become marginalized. Perhaps if those that support such reforms could guarantee that teachers, on the whole, would remain well-respected and fairly compensated, more teachers might jump on board with such experimental ideas. The cynic inside of me worries that there are many that might state that "it's about the kids," but that the real ulterior motive here is actually to pay teachers less and to delegitimize the profession.
Because everyone thinks teaching is just like babysitting. That kids will learn when told to and all we do is sit around and give out worksheets.
That and the fact so many people had bad experiences in school these feelings are transferred to their children and the cycle of suspicion and hate is carried on.
We will someday view this era as one in which the nation turned its back on its public schools, its children, and its educators. We will wonder why so many journalists and policymakers rejected the nation’s obligation to support public education as a social responsibility and accepted the unrealistic, unsustainable promises of entrepreneurs and billionaires. And we will, with sorrow and regret, think of this as an era when an obsession with testing and data obliterated any concept or definition of good education. Some perhaps may recall this as a time when the nation forgot that education has a greater purpose than preparing our children to compete in the global economy.
Because everyone thinks teaching is just like babysitting. That kids will learn when told to and all we do is sit around and give out worksheets.
That and the fact so many people had bad experiences in school these feelings are transferred to their children and the cycle of suspicion and hate is carried on.
Children are so eager for worksheets that by the time I get them, they don't recognize anything else as "work".
That's what we need in schools--more worksheets. How could we not see it...?
If you follow her blog Bridging Differences on EdWeek.com with Deborah Meyer, then you know that there is an excess of vitriol leveled at her because of her defection from the True Cause. That's what happens when you quit drinking the Kool-Aid and you see that indeed, the emperor is naked.
Just the administrators rip it off before it gets to the teachers.
Do teachers not understand this, or do they just accept it?
Real question, there.
Have you ever seen a teacher do the classroom math of their own classroom?
I actually tend to agree with this. In some places up to $400,000 is spent on a classroom with 10% or less of it going to the teacher. So what can be done in the current or any future, "better" system to ensure that this does not remain the case?
Children are so eager for worksheets that by the time I get them, they don't recognize anything else as "work".
That's what we need in schools--more worksheets. How could we not see it...?
Sadly, they are conditioned for worksheets. I had to pull labs on my lower level class for a while because of behavior issues. Their response was to ask "Can we just do worksheets?".
I worked in a school district that hemmoraged money. On things like a 40 million dollar high school. When other schools had to ration toilet paper. In the same district! None of the schools used the same books....there was no consistency in anything. If all the ninth grade Algebra books were ordered system wide....in one of the largest districts in the country....all materials could be cheaply and easily adapted for children with disabilities. Missing books...easily replaced. It would make so much sense..
I threw my hands up in disgust....I was squeezed and guilt tripped about everything. Using too much paper...whatever...do more with less...and then I saw our administrators go to a fancy catered lunch. Why didn't they bring a sack lunch from home to save money?
Last edited by jasper12; 05-25-2012 at 10:53 PM..
Reason: edit
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.
