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.
Think about that for a minute. Why is that student who can't do basic math or write a complete sentence even in 10th grade? The time to fix that problem was 3rd grade, not 10th. How many members of our current professional educators failed this kid? And what's worse, how many other kids were hurt because this kid was in the class dragging the whole class down while the 7th, 8th, 9th, and now 10th grade teachers spent their time trying to fix this 3rd grade problem? Extremely gifted kids may be few, but there are a ton more bright who could get further ahead if they weren't held to the pace of the slowest kid in the class. Beyond that, it was embarrassing and physically painful to watch the teachers emotionally torture these kids on a day in and day out basis trying to drag a single paragraph of reading out of them.
No one is served by passing these kids to the next grade each year when they need to be in special classes to work on their individual problems.
I have proposed here on CD the idea of tying teacher pay to what that profession would pay in industry. It would pull the pay scale up and make teaching a viable alternative for many top graduates. However, the teachers here on CD constantly oppose market based pay the same way the oppose merit based pay.
One other aspect not discussed is top performers like to work with other top performers. Teaching, beginning right in college at the schools of education, has gained a reputation of mediocre performers. Doesn't matter if it's true or not, that's the reputation education has. This is reinforced by the number of advanced degrees given out like popcorn. In fact, the more degrees an educator claims, a couple of doctorates, 2-3 masters, etc, the less quality those degrees seem to have. Most of us are well aware of the time commitment it takes to earn a masters or PhD and recognize that any doctorate earned in a couple of summers of spare time lacks the academic rigor of a solid PhD program.
Consider also the barriers put up by the education "profession" to keep outsiders out. After I got out of the service, I had planned to become a teacher but found the barriers to entry too large. BS & MS in physics, systems engineering, and management. Even took the Praxis exam since it was required by the state for entry into the training program (what a joke of an exam; I scored 99th percentile and not because I'm super smart but that thing was stupidly easy). Even after jumping through every hoop tossed up by the state certification process, not a single school district would touch me because, as I learned, I didn't have a degree in education, but if I went back to school and got one, then they'd talk to me afterward. Nope, had a family to support.
Some larger school districts did have alternative certification processes. By and large, they are not effective at getting and retaining teachers in schools. They are also very expensive for school districts to operate because. In my home district, the alternative program required something like 600 hours of training provided through the school district on a very low or no-cost basis. A large proportion of teachers left quickly because they realized that they were being paid less to do more work than they were doing in their prior jobs. I had one friend who did this and it didn’t take her long to realize that her lifestyle was much better as a paralegal and I think she was able to make more than she’d ever make teaching.
I don’t disagree with your top performers assessment. People who get PhDs from top schools are likely to go onto teaching at the university level. I have one friend who did get a PhD in education from one of the top schools in education policy, but her goal was to work more on the administrative end of things. That’s what she does now at the state level. I had a coworker who wanted to do the same thing and got a master’s degree from a top education policy program and I think she is working for an education nonprofit now.
It’s also the same issue with higher performing students. Part of the reason I left teaching was that they were doing very basic tasks in middle school that should have been done in elementary, and a friend who taught/was department head in high school also felt that the curriculum was better suited for elementary students. Even though there were separate honors and regular classes, the curriculum was the same and included the same reading material. It made no sense.
I think people are reluctant to try merit-based pay because then you do end up with that problem of a child who didn’t meet the third grade standards being promoted up the ladder. It becomes increasingly difficult for teachers in higher grades to help those students catch up. Why would any teacher want to go into a teaching job where they could be penalized for poor performance when they know that out of their students, almost all of them are not going to be at grade level and the majority will be so far below grade level that the task is impossible?
One of the problems that I think we face in the U. S. is that we don't universally have great people teaching our kids. There are lots of great people who would make great teachers, but they have chosen other professions, mostly for the same old, same old reasons.
If you improve the quality of teachers, then that may result in an even wider gap between the smart students and dumb students attending school. The top students will excel even more.
Be careful what you wish for, you just might get it.
Only a little different......how come my then 10th grade daughter with not one second of teacher training was able to coach/teach/wrangle several underperforming elementary girls to better math placement than the pro model?
Per your point more directly, in reality I'd guess nearly all kids way behind by 10th aren't reachable in any important way.
_________
Every time this or similar topics come up the same people dig in their heels and claim nothing better can be done.
K-12 in America is likely the only slice of life that is roughly as productive as the 1940s. That's just not good enough.
One thing I will just point out is that your 10th grade daughter was able to "coach/teach/wrangle several underperforming elementary girls". Not 140?
One of the problems that I think we face in the U. S. is that we don't universally have great people teaching our kids. There are lots of great people who would make great teachers, but they have chosen other professions, mostly for the same old, same old reasons. One of those reasons is that once other professions opened up for women and minorities, the best and brightest moved on to higher prestige and salaries. As the level of people entering the teaching profession dropped, a self-fulfilling prophecy began to shape the reputation and reality of teacher quality.
I can't tell you how many of my college professors tried to talk me out of being a teacher. Only my honors professor understood how teaching exercised my own will to power, a subject of his honors and criminal justice courses where we discussed Nietzsche, Heidegger and Sartre, among others. There was only one other person in our honors college who intended to teach. He could have been a research scientist, but he wanted to teach science to kids. A major regret is that I never contacted my professor before his untimely death to let him know how I had held him as guide to becoming an authentic teacher.
I'm thinking that perhaps, EDS, your daughter is a teacher who is born, not made, and who can almost unnaturally present things in a way that can be easily understood. That is not necessarily tied to age or training, because I subjected my poor little sister to years of playing school. I guess I practiced on her!
Once in college the lure of high salaries led me to focus my math talents on computer science at NASA's Johnson Space Center. It was only later that I decided to teach for a while, thinking that I would surely be teaching math, which is where I did my student teaching. It turned out however, that there was a bigger shortage of French teachers than math teachers, so that is what I spent most of my career doing. The plan to go back to computer science was restarted unsuccessfully a couple of times, but life ever intervened. Now, I'm back in the computer science job market and hoping that the third time is the charm. In the meantime, I'll be volunteering at my old school--all of the joy of working with the students with very few of the onerous responsibilities.
My point is that there are lots of really quality people who would love to be working with kids, but who can't accept the salary path of a schoolteacher as I did. But the situation has deteriorated so much since the sixties that the problems are now deeply entrenched and intractable. I don't know how you fix that on the scale that is necessary to make a meaningful change in public education. I do know that in nearly four decades, the educational gaps between the haves, have-nots, and have-mores have gotten even wider and the growth rate of the gaps is increasing, not decreasing as the pandemic wrought destruction in the schooling of children.
If our public school system could attract the top people from every field to work with kids, I think that could be a place to start. I just don't see that happening.
I agree with you, although for a different reason.
Some people are locked into a particular school system because of where they live -- where their spouse works, for example. But for those who have more freedom, pay and benefits make all the difference in recruiting teachers. I spent 30 years of my career in the Washington DC area. You had the D.C. school system (not very desirable for a number of factors). The Prince Georges County, Maryland school system, (not very desirable for a number of factors, including pay and benefits). Montgomery County, Maryland (very desirable for a number of factors, including pay and benefits). Fairfax County, Virginia (very desirable for a number of factors, including pay and benefits). Arlington County, and, separately Alexandria City school systems, somewhat disirable for a number of factors, including pay and benefits. Most teachers looking for a job who were free to live where they wanted didn't go to PG County or D.C. They headed for Fairfax and Montgomery Counties. Pay and benefits were the primary magnets.
I agree with you, although for a different reason.
Some people are locked into a particular school system because of where they live -- where their spouse works, for example. But for those who have more freedom, pay and benefits make all the difference in recruiting teachers. I spent 30 years of my career in the Washington DC area. You had the D.C. school system (not very desirable for a number of factors). The Prince Georges County, Maryland school system, (not very desirable for a number of factors, including pay and benefits). Montgomery County, Maryland (very desirable for a number of factors, including pay and benefits). Fairfax County, Virginia (very desirable for a number of factors, including pay and benefits). Arlington County, and, separately Alexandria City school systems, somewhat disirable for a number of factors, including pay and benefits. Most teachers looking for a job who were free to live where they wanted didn't go to PG County or D.C. They headed for Fairfax and Montgomery Counties. Pay and benefits were the primary magnets.
Just not pay and benefits but those two systems also had, and still have, the reputation of having fewer..........distractions impeding the teachers from doing their jobs, although that's changing somewhat especially for Montgomery County.
I have proposed here on CD the idea of tying teacher pay to what that profession would pay in industry. It would pull the pay scale up and make teaching a viable alternative for many top graduates. However, the teachers here on CD constantly oppose market based pay the same way the oppose merit based pay.
But teachers work only 180 days per year, they get a pension allowing them to retire at age 55, and they get cheap health insurance for life (also allowing them to retire at 55), and they get tenure, so their pay should be less than what industry would pay, since they already get priceless benefits. Even their base salary, ignoring benefits, is more than I make working all year and with lousy benefits. Yes, I am well aware that teachers sometimes have to work outside of school hours and on their 185 (186 in a leap year) days off. So do all professionals, even though we don't get those 185 (186 in a leap year days off).
Quote:
One other aspect not discussed is top performers like to work with other top performers. Teaching, beginning right in college at the schools of education, has gained a reputation of mediocre performers. Doesn't matter if it's true or not, that's the reputation education has. This is reinforced by the number of advanced degrees given out like popcorn. In fact, the more degrees an educator claims, a couple of doctorates, 2-3 masters, etc, the less quality those degrees seem to have. Most of us are well aware of the time commitment it takes to earn a masters or PhD and recognize that any doctorate earned in a couple of summers of spare time lacks the academic rigor of a solid PhD program.
Even teachers don't respect an EdD, but it's enough to get "Doctor" before their name and to count as a doctorate as far as qualifications. It also seems that the less work somebody needed to do to get a "doctorate", the more they insist on using the title "Doctor".
Quote:
Consider also the barriers put up by the education "profession" to keep outsiders out. After I got out of the service, I had planned to become a teacher but found the barriers to entry too large. BS & MS in physics, systems engineering, and management. Even took the Praxis exam since it was required by the state for entry into the training program (what a joke of an exam; I scored 99th percentile and not because I'm super smart but that thing was stupidly easy).
When I was a freshman (civil engineering major), I was having a conversation with an upperclassman education major who was telling me about a really long exam she would have to take to get certified (don't remember if it was Praxis or not, nor how long the exam was), and that she was seriously considering changing her profession because she didn't want to spend that amount of time taking an exam! An upperclassman civil engineering major ended up joining in the conversation, and he pointed out that the exam the education major had to take was nothing, since he had to take the 8 hour EIT exam. Being a freshman, I was not yet aware of the EIT exam. The education major was shocked that an 8 hour exam could even exist! And then she came to realize that she had it quite easy with her exam. But I can't imagine why somebody would completely change their career plans just to avoid a several hour exam. But given how whiny and entitled teachers are, it's not surprising.
Quote:
Even after jumping through every hoop tossed up by the state certification process, not a single school district would touch me because, as I learned, I didn't have a degree in education, but if I went back to school and got one, then they'd talk to me afterward. Nope, had a family to support.
That's why it's so frustrating when so many posters suggest "become a teacher" whenever somebody is having career trouble. Why not suggest "win the lottery" instead? You literally have a better chance of winning the lottery than becoming a teacher if you don't have an education degree.
Think about that for a minute. Why is that student who can't do basic math or write a complete sentence even in 10th grade? The time to fix that problem was 3rd grade, not 10th. How many members of our current professional educators failed this kid? And what's worse, how many other kids were hurt because this kid was in the class dragging the whole class down while the 7th, 8th, 9th, and now 10th grade teachers spent their time trying to fix this 3rd grade problem? Extremely gifted kids may be few, but there are a ton more bright who could get further ahead if they weren't held to the pace of the slowest kid in the class. Beyond that, it was embarrassing and physically painful to watch the teachers emotionally torture these kids on a day in and day out basis trying to drag a single paragraph of reading out of them.
No one is served by passing these kids to the next grade each year when they need to be in special classes to work on their individual problems.
I have proposed here on CD the idea of tying teacher pay to what that profession would pay in industry. It would pull the pay scale up and make teaching a viable alternative for many top graduates. However, the teachers here on CD constantly oppose market based pay the same way the oppose merit based pay.
...
Consider also the barriers put up by the education "profession" to keep outsiders out. After I got out of the service, I had planned to become a teacher but found the barriers to entry too large. BS & MS in physics, systems engineering, and management. Even took the Praxis exam since it was required by the state for entry into the training program (what a joke of an exam; I scored 99th percentile and not because I'm super smart but that thing was stupidly easy). Even after jumping through every hoop tossed up by the state certification process, not a single school district would touch me because, as I learned, I didn't have a degree in education, but if I went back to school and got one, then they'd talk to me afterward. Nope, had a family to support.
1. I've really never seen a classroom situation where the kids are held to "the pace of the slowest kid". It's more like middle of the road, with the "slowest kid" falling further behind or at least not making much progress.
2. You're right. "No one is served by passing these kids to the next grade each year". Holding them back for a year may be okay, but not several years. Do you really want one 13 year old sitting in a class with 10 year olds? [I am using the royal "you" here, not specifically you personally]. I am an advocate for a reasonable degree of ability grouping. Not a crazy degree as when I was in junior high, where we had 5 ability groups plus sped. But perhaps high ability, average ability, lower ability, and gifted, and sped. And we do have to look at why an individual student is falling behind. Is it a sped issue, or is the kid lazy and just doesn't care? And I will criticize teachers here. The middle school where I was vice principal and then principal had among the highest state test scores and the largest gifted-talented program in the state. And teachers were falling all over themselves to teach gifted classes. Gifted kids got way too much attention. No one on the faculty ever said to me, "Oh heck, I'll take the regular classes". Nope, they all fought for the gifted classes. And I understand why -- 2 basic reasons -- the ability to get further into their love of content and, frankly, teaching the smarter kids is generally easier. Heck, we had one math teacher who threatened to call the President if he was made to teach regular kids (and he had been to the White House twice!).
3. I am in favor of merit pay. While I was an administrator we did it for several years. I thought it worked well, except for the fact that some teachers hated it. Guess who. Yup, the teachers who "met standards" or "didn't meet standards". That's life.
4. "Outsiders" is another issue, and one we won't agree on. My school was in the D.C. burbs, and over the years I hired a number of 'second-profession' candidates. It didn't work out more than it worked out. Over the years we had two ex-military guys who were phenomenal, but far more than that that just got by or had to drop out of teaching. If you've spent your career working with adults, it's a whole different ball game working with 12 year olds. We even had an assistant superintendent who had been ex-military, and she caused all sorts of problems because teachers and principals didn't take orders like she was used to. Again, there are those second-career people who can make the adjustment, but suddenly working with children is not the same as working with adults.
Some larger school districts did have alternative certification processes. By and large, they are not effective at getting and retaining teachers in schools. They are also very expensive for school districts to operate because. In my home district, the alternative program required something like 600 hours of training provided through the school district on a very low or no-cost basis. A large proportion of teachers left quickly because they realized that they were being paid less to do more work than they were doing in their prior jobs. I had one friend who did this and it didn’t take her long to realize that her lifestyle was much better as a paralegal and I think she was able to make more than she’d ever make teaching.
I don’t disagree with your top performers assessment. People who get PhDs from top schools are likely to go onto teaching at the university level. I have one friend who did get a PhD in education from one of the top schools in education policy, but her goal was to work more on the administrative end of things. That’s what she does now at the state level. I had a coworker who wanted to do the same thing and got a master’s degree from a top education policy program and I think she is working for an education nonprofit now.
It’s also the same issue with higher performing students. Part of the reason I left teaching was that they were doing very basic tasks in middle school that should have been done in elementary, and a friend who taught/was department head in high school also felt that the curriculum was better suited for elementary students. Even though there were separate honors and regular classes, the curriculum was the same and included the same reading material. It made no sense.
I think people are reluctant to try merit-based pay because then you do end up with that problem of a child who didn’t meet the third grade standards being promoted up the ladder. It becomes increasingly difficult for teachers in higher grades to help those students catch up. Why would any teacher want to go into a teaching job where they could be penalized for poor performance when they know that out of their students, almost all of them are not going to be at grade level and the majority will be so far below grade level that the task is impossible?
Overall I agree with your post. When we did merit pay, "does not meet standards" and "meets standards" still got the regular pay system. "Exemplary" teachers got a bonus. It did cause a lot of resentment, but my attitude (unspoken) was tough...do better.
Just not pay and benefits but those two systems also had, and still have, the reputation of having fewer..........distractions impeding the teachers from doing their jobs, although that's changing somewhat especially for Montgomery County.
Just curious. What is happening with Montgomery County?
Just curious. What is happening with Montgomery County?
It's starting to see the issues, behavioral and academic, Prince George's has been struggling with for decades. The poverty rate has gone up and a large proportion of the student population are immigrants and have to be ESL, along with other programs.
It hasn't hit critical mass yet but each year it inches closer.
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.
