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.
No threats. Placing you on notice. I am polite on the Internet but do not allow someone to insult me.
You presume I do not understand what you wrote when you are unable to face that you decided to leave teaching if you do not have tenure for something you do not know will occur. You are declaring defeat and failure prior to it happening if it ever where to happen. You have a conception of your job post tenure, your skills, your perceived liabilities, which do not yet have any basis.
Really you need to face that you are your own adversary in this not the school administrator, budget boards, upset parents, etc.
Your ability to earn money at another position is not the issue and entirely unrelated. The issue is tenure for teachers when there is no redeeming value in having tenure.
You sound like a union tradesman protecting their priviledges.
You really need to leave teaching and do something else if you only see yourself as a liability. In the business world you would be considered a disgruntled employee which is the worst type to have in the workforce.
Yeah I'd say that tenure is about dead...attacking education and screwing over unionized states(ironically the best performing states) is high on the Republican agenda at the moment. The privatization of public schooling is going to happen if Republicans can stay in control of a given "blue" state long enough. PA is headed in the exact same dirrection. Our governor is an extremist and for whatever strange reason is unhappy with the fact that PA is the only state in the country that continually improves scores...the previous democratic governor achieved results by padding education funding through the roof, so now the current Republican regime feels the need to rework everything towards their agenda to prove a point. It's sickening.
Basically, phase one was stripping some $1billion+ in funding from public schools...causing thousands upon thousands of teachers to be layed off, medical programs to close, extracurriculars to be terminated, classroom sizes to increase, student assistants to dissapear,etc...phase two was to attack unions and teacher evaluations, basically using the above environment to wreck scores and literally create a situation where a successful state will begin to fail...phase three was to pass a bill allowing economic furloughs and layoffs based on evaluations as opposed to tenure(probably what you're looking at)...and finally, after everything is crumbling and teachers are the new-found scapegoat of a created situation, the governor wants to put into place a merrit pay system while allowing tax payer funded vouchers for private schools. This is all taking place while AYP scores are expected to hit 90% and 100% ranges for success...yeah, setting up a merrit pay system along with evaluations based 50% on test scores during a year where 90%-100% of students are required to pass is obviously targeting one thing and one thing alone: "teacher pay and state contributions".
Really...just stop and think about all of that for a second. Basically, this all stems towards using a blue state as the guinea pig for Republican agendas and creating situations where privatizing public schools can become a reality so that 1) revenue is generated, and 2) costs are cut drastically. It's basically an attempt to go "right to work" and then some. Luckily, all of this takes time and the people are already fed-up. Hopefully the 2012 election will lead to Democratic control of the house and senate so that this idiot's ideas can be blocked. It stems beyond education though, this guy is 100% Scott Walker and then some.
Yeah I'd say that tenure is about dead...attacking education and screwing over unionized states(ironically the best performing states) is high on the Republican agenda at the moment. The privatization of public schooling is going to happen if Republicans can stay in control of a given "blue" state long enough. PA is headed in the exact same dirrection. Our governor is an extremist and for whatever strange reason is unhappy with the fact that PA is the only state in the country that continually improves scores...the previous democratic governor achieved results by padding education funding through the roof, so now the current Republican regime feels the need to rework everything towards their agenda to prove a point. It's sickening.
Basically, phase one was stripping some $1billion+ in funding from public schools...causing thousands upon thousands of teachers to be layed off, medical programs to close, extracurriculars to be terminated, classroom sizes to increase, student assistants to dissapear,etc...phase two was to attack unions and teacher evaluations, basically using the above environment to wreck scores and literally create a situation where a successful state will begin to fail...phase three was to pass a bill allowing economic furloughs and layoffs based on evaluations as opposed to tenure(probably what you're looking at)...and finally, after everything is crumbling and teachers are the new-found scapegoat of a created situation, the governor wants to put into place a merrit pay system while allowing tax payer funded vouchers for private schools. This is all taking place while AYP scores are expected to hit 90% and 100% ranges for success...yeah, setting up a merrit pay system along with evaluations based 50% on test scores during a year where 90%-100% of students are required to pass is obviously targeting one thing and one thing alone: "teacher pay and state contributions".
Really...just stop and think about all of that for a second. Basically, this all stems towards using a blue state as the guinea pig for Republican agendas and creating situations where privatizing public schools can become a reality so that 1) revenue is generated, and 2) costs are cut drastically. It's basically an attempt to go "right to work" and then some. Luckily, all of this takes time and the people are already fed-up. Hopefully the 2012 election will lead to Democratic control of the house and senate so that this idiot's ideas can be blocked. It stems beyond education though, this guy is 100% Scott Walker and then some.
I think you're right. I see public schools going the way of charter schools where revenue is increased by cramming as many students into a classroom as possible at the beginning of the year. Once count day passes, they start getting rid of students. Sending them back to their respective districts without 75% of the $$ attached to their heads. I can't say whether my charter did this deliberately or not but that's the way it happened. I started the year with 35+ students in each class. By the end of the year I, usually, had less than 30 in my classes (still too high as the safe maximum for a chemistry class has been found to be 24 students).
Unfortunately, the only way to increase revenue is to find, creative, ways to increase class sizes so merit pay will not work. It's not like a good, experienced teacher is actually worth more to the district. She's not. She just costs the district more unless she has more students in her class. I know one school that is trying online learning. All students have to take one online class. The student to teacher ratio in that online class is 53:1. The teacher doesn't teach. She patrols the room and polices student activities. She tries to keep them on task. It doesn't work well.
I see more and more online education and less and less classroom instruction. The funny thing is the insistance that every student be catered to by the teacher (IMO, close to the heart of what is wrong with education) WILL NOT happen with online learning. Even student directed programs will require the active participation of the student. The program won't do it for them. So, to gain this cost save, they will have to accept that some students just won't make it which is something we're not allowed to do now.
As to me, I have to minimize my risk. Given that teaching is low paid compared to other jobs I can do with the same degrees, I have to protect my family. The low pay was tolerable with tenure but it's intolerable without it. You have to give me something....But, alas, it won't matter if your teachers are educated or not once our kids are stationed in front of computers all day to learn.
yeah - i would hate to have kids in a classroom with such an insecure leader
Thanks. This is why teachers should have some security. Having an axe hanging over your head doesn't help anyone's production. It is when people feel secure that they are, truely, able to invest themselves.
Personally, I'd wonder about those who will accept this situation not those who recognize it for what it is and get out. THOSE are the teacher's I'd want. What will be left will be people who, for whatever reason, don't need to worry about whether they have a job tomorrow, are arrogant enough to think no one will ever fire them, or those who can't find a job in industry. Most of us need some kind of security for our families whether it be in the form of a severance package should the worst happen, higher pay that allows us to save or job security. I'm willing to take low pay if I have job security but not if I don't. I'd be a fool if I did.
Last edited by Ivorytickler; 07-22-2011 at 04:52 AM..
No threats. Placing you on notice. I am polite on the Internet but do not allow someone to insult me.
You presume I do not understand what you wrote when you are unable to face that you decided to leave teaching if you do not have tenure for something you do not know will occur. You are declaring defeat and failure prior to it happening if it ever where to happen. You have a conception of your job post tenure, your skills, your perceived liabilities, which do not yet have any basis.
Really you need to face that you are your own adversary in this not the school administrator, budget boards, upset parents, etc.
Your ability to earn money at another position is not the issue and entirely unrelated. The issue is tenure for teachers when there is no redeeming value in having tenure.
You sound like a union tradesman protecting their priviledges.
You really need to leave teaching and do something else if you only see yourself as a liability. In the business world you would be considered a disgruntled employee which is the worst type to have in the workforce.
I have stated EXACTLY why I will do what I will do very clearly. I'm not sure why you're trying to tell me what my issue is when I'VE told YOU what it is.
Here it is again in simple English:
A low paying job is acceptable if it comes with job security. It is not acceptable if it doesn't. Teaching is a low paying job compared to other jobs you can get with the same education. My family has sacrificed enough so I can teach. I will not ask them to take the risk that 3, 5, 9, 15 years down the road an administrator's nephew wants my job and gets it or a BOE student doesn't get an A or the district decides to let me go because I'm high paid and they can hire two new hires for the price of my salary, so I'm out. Tenure was designed to protect teachers from situations like these. It does not protect bad teachers. Districts can still get rid of them if they do their homework. Tenure protects good teachers.
LOL, FINANICALLY I am a liability!!!!! There is NOTHING I can do to increase my district's bottom line. Do you really think that isn't going to be considered when they decide who to keep and who to let go? When you can hire two new hires for the price of one veteran teacher and you already have 35 students in the classroom, what do you think they're going to do???? You are really naive about this if you think they will keep the experienced, educated, veteran teacher who costs twice as much as the new hires...who can be used to make class sizes smaller (something parents really like). Tenure is the only thing stopping them from doing this now. When the bottom line is pinched, schools will do what they have to to balance the budget. Unlike the government, they can't just vote to go into debt. On top of that, you have to worry about favoritism and nepetism. What happens when the principal's nephew can't find a job and he's qualified to take yours and he'd cheaper than you too???
While schools will want to keep some years of experience, there is no reason to have half of your staff at top pay. You keep a few key players who can guide younger teachers and improve your bottom line by getting rid of many of the higher paid teachers (relative to the district. I'm not saying teaching is high paid because it's not.). In engineering, we had minimum average years of experience for programs. I see them doing the same in teaching. You, really, only need one seasoned teacher leading a group of teachers with less experience and the lower you can keep the average years of experience for teachers in a school, the less they cost you. They will determine some minimum average years of experience needed to, successfully, run a school and that will become the target. How they will decide which seasoned teachers to keep and which to let go will likely look like a popularity contest. You just don't need 6 teachers with 20 years experience in a department. If you make it a point to replace 2 every 10 years, you have two around 20 years, 2 around 10 and 2 new hires. Assuming 20 year teachers make twice as much as new hires, you just saved one teacher's salary which means you can now afford to hire one more teacher or use the money to offset losses to the budget because of cuts. You're living in la-la land. Schools will do what they have to do to deal with shrinking budgets and, like it or not, the fastest way they can improve their bottom line is to get rid of teachers at top pay. Initially, they'll call it housecleaning. They'll say they're just getting rid of the dead wood but the practice will continue because the budget will be based on it.
As an engineer, I controlled my worth to the company. More education/training meant more efficiency which translated into more $$ for the company. I could improve myself, improve the product we made or reduce costs to make myself more valuable to the company and sheild myself. There is NOTHING I can do as a teacher. More eduction and more experience just mean more pay....which means less for other things. There is no additional revenue for an experienced and educated teacher, just more cost. There is also NOTHING I can do to reduce cost that makes me more valuable to the district. From a business perspective, teachers are a necessary cost. What do good businesses do with costs? Ans: They manage them and try to minimze them.... Like it or not, teachers are not revenue generating. We are a cost.
The only way it could work would be if the state actually paid more money to the school for retaining good, educated and trained teachers. If they paid more per student in my classroom because I have two masters degrees and came from industry (two things the state SAYS they want but they have yet to put their money where their mouth is) there would be incentive to attract teachers with higher educations and industrial experience. If they paid more based on the average number of years of experience of a teacher in a school, there would be incentives to keep teachers who are experienced. In the absence of some kind of financial incentive for schools to attain and retain good teachers, teachers are a financial liability and what you want is the cheapest teacher who can get the job done in the classroom. IMO, THIS does not bode well for the future of teaching.
Last edited by Ivorytickler; 07-22-2011 at 05:39 AM..
I have stated EXACTLY why I will do what I will do very clearly. I'm not sure why you're trying to tell me what my issue is when I'VE told YOU what it is.
Here it is again in simple English:
A low paying job is acceptable if it comes with job security. It is not acceptable if it doesn't. Teaching is a low paying job compared to other jobs you can get with the same education. My family has sacrificed enough so I can teach. I will not ask them to take the risk that 3, 5, 9, 15 years down the road an administrator's nephew wants my job and gets it or a BOE student doesn't get an A or the district decides to let me go because I'm high paid and they can hire two new hires for the price of my salary, so I'm out. Tenure was designed to protect teachers from situations like these. It does not protect bad teachers. Districts can still get rid of them if they do their homework. Tenure protects good teachers.
LOL, FINANICALLY I am a liability!!!!! There is NOTHING I can do to increase my districts bottom line. Do you really think that isn't going to be considered when they decide who to keep and who to let go? When you can hire two new hires for the price of one veteran teacher and you already have 35 students in the classroom, what do you think they're going to do???? You are really naive about this if you think they will keep the experienced, educated, veteran teacher who costs twice as much as the new hires...who can be used to make class sizes smaller (something parents like). Tenure is the only thing stopping them from doing this now.
When the bottom line is pinched, schools will do what they have to to balance the budget. Unlike the government, they can't just vote to go into debt. On top of that, you have to worry about favoritism and nepetism. What happens when the principal's nephew can't find a job and he's qualified to take yours and he'd cheaper than you too???
As an engineer, I controlled my worth to the company. More education/training meant more efficiency which translated into more $$ for the company. I could improve myself, improve the product we made or reduce costs to make myself more valuable to the company and sheild myself. There is NOTHING I can do as a teacher. More eduction and more experience just mean more pay....which means less for other things. There is no additional revenue for an experienced and educated teacher, just more cost. There is also NOTHING I can do to reduce cost that makes me more valuable to the district. From a business perspective, teachers are a necessary cost. What do good businesses do with costs? Ans: They manage them and try to minimze them....
You keep calling teaching a low paying job. I think the pay is commensurate with skills needed and experience. I don't know anyone making big bucks upon graduation; everyone has to work their way up. MOST people in private industry are NOT guarantee step increases in their salaries. NOT everyone can count of some big severance payout upon termination. NO ONE'S job is secure.
Every day in private industry new college hires are being chosen over their more experienced 'elders' because they can pay them so much less.
What is NOT happening in private industry is the inability to fire employees whose performance is poor or even downright horrible. Yes, a tenured teacher CAN be fired, but there are so many hoops to jump through and so many costs involved that it is rarely done. It is TENURE that makes it so.
As far as nepotism, do you really believe this doesn't happen in private industry? In fact, at my husband's previous place of employment, when the boss hired his nephew it became apparent as the months went on that the boss's nephew was slowly taking over more and more of my husband's responsibilities.
I don't blame you for wanting to fight against the dissolution of tenure; it must be AWESOME to wake up every day as a tenured teacher knowing the chances of being fired are next to nil. I suspect that many have gone into teaching with tenure being the motivating factor.
But tenure is not grounded in reality. There are no guarantees in life.
I have stated EXACTLY why I will do what I will do very clearly. I'm not sure why you're trying to tell me what my issue is when I'VE told YOU what it is.
Here it is again in simple English:
A low paying job is acceptable if it comes with job security. It is not acceptable if it doesn't. Teaching is a low paying job compared to other jobs you can get with the same education. My family has sacrificed enough so I can teach. I will not ask them to take the risk that 3, 5, 9, 15 years down the road an administrator's nephew wants my job and gets it or a BOE student doesn't get an A or the district decides to let me go because I'm high paid and they can hire two new hires for the price of my salary, so I'm out. Tenure was designed to protect teachers from situations like these. It does not protect bad teachers. Districts can still get rid of them if they do their homework. Tenure protects good teachers.
LOL, FINANICALLY I am a liability!!!!! There is NOTHING I can do to increase my district's bottom line. Do you really think that isn't going to be considered when they decide who to keep and who to let go? When you can hire two new hires for the price of one veteran teacher and you already have 35 students in the classroom, what do you think they're going to do???? You are really naive about this if you think they will keep the experienced, educated, veteran teacher who costs twice as much as the new hires...who can be used to make class sizes smaller (something parents really like). Tenure is the only thing stopping them from doing this now. When the bottom line is pinched, schools will do what they have to to balance the budget. Unlike the government, they can't just vote to go into debt. On top of that, you have to worry about favoritism and nepetism. What happens when the principal's nephew can't find a job and he's qualified to take yours and he'd cheaper than you too???
While schools will want to keep some years of experience, there is no reason to have half of your staff at top pay. You keep a few key players who can guide younger teachers and improve your bottom line by getting rid of many of the higher paid teachers (relative to the district. I'm not saying teaching is high paid because it's not.). In engineering, we had minimum average years of experience for programs. I see them doing the same in teaching. You, really, only need one seasoned teacher leading a group of teachers with less experience and the lower you can keep the average years of experience for teachers in a school, the less they cost you. They will determine some minimum average years of experience needed to, successfully, run a school and that will become the target. How they will decide which seasoned teachers to keep and which to let go will likely look like a popularity contest. You just don't need 6 teachers with 20 years experience in a department. If you make it a point to replace 2 every 10 years, you have two around 20 years, 2 around 10 and 2 new hires. Assuming 20 year teachers make twice as much as new hires, you just saved one teacher's salary which means you can now afford to hire one more teacher or use the money to offset losses to the budget because of cuts. You're living in la-la land. Schools will do what they have to do to deal with shrinking budgets and, like it or not, the fastest way they can improve their bottom line is to get rid of teachers at top pay. Initially, they'll call it housecleaning. They'll say they're just getting rid of the dead wood but the practice will continue because the budget will be based on it.
As an engineer, I controlled my worth to the company. More education/training meant more efficiency which translated into more $$ for the company. I could improve myself, improve the product we made or reduce costs to make myself more valuable to the company and sheild myself. There is NOTHING I can do as a teacher. More eduction and more experience just mean more pay....which means less for other things. There is no additional revenue for an experienced and educated teacher, just more cost. There is also NOTHING I can do to reduce cost that makes me more valuable to the district. From a business perspective, teachers are a necessary cost. What do good businesses do with costs? Ans: They manage them and try to minimze them.... Like it or not, teachers are not revenue generating. We are a cost.
The only way it could work would be if the state actually paid more money to the school for retaining good, educated and trained teachers. If they paid more per student in my classroom because I have two masters degrees and came from industry (two things the state SAYS they want but they have yet to put their money where their mouth is) there would be incentive to attract teachers with higher educations and industrial experience. If they paid more based on the average number of years of experience of a teacher in a school, there would be incentives to keep teachers who are experienced. In the absence of some kind of financial incentive for schools to attain and retain good teachers, teachers are a financial liability and what you want is the cheapest teacher who can get the job done in the classroom. IMO, THIS does not bode well for the future of teaching.
^^You have closed your mind and have created a set of fears which have no basis in reality. So much of what you indicated is clearly incorrect even in current public sector employment. Also, you are too self-absorbed to see/read what you are actually saying. The rest is just drivel. I do not need to read your paragraphs to note the lack of tenure will make you quit and you have no basis for your fears regarding the end of this priviledge. Constantly the fear of nepotism and being a financial liability. Also your "I will teach the way I want to" if you were to behave in that manner as in engineer on assignment, you would also be terminated. A senior in the TOO has their reasons and you are their subordinate.
You created the post obviously seeking some commiseration and instead received reality. I have read your posts before in the "If teaching is so easy thread" and you were so cocksure regarding your performance, repeatedly commenting on your engineering background, so many tasks every day in your current position, so much posturing, etc.etc. and now you behave as a child afraid of the dark.
I see teachers have delusional expectations regarding their pay in the strong union states. That needed to end a long time ago.
Edit: I just read the below. Just forget it and move on with your life.
Last edited by Felix C; 07-22-2011 at 07:19 AM..
Reason: fellow is hopeless
You keep calling teaching a low paying job. I think the pay is commensurate with skills needed and experience. I don't know anyone making big bucks upon graduation; everyone has to work their way up. MOST people in private industry are NOT guarantee step increases in their salaries. NOT everyone can count of some big severance payout upon termination. NO ONE'S job is secure.
Every day in private industry new college hires are being chosen over their more experienced 'elders' because they can pay them so much less.
What is NOT happening in private industry is the inability to fire employees whose performance is poor or even downright horrible. Yes, a tenured teacher CAN be fired, but there are so many hoops to jump through and so many costs involved that it is rarely done. It is TENURE that makes it so.
As far as nepotism, do you really believe this doesn't happen in private industry? In fact, at my husband's previous place of employment, when the boss hired his nephew it became apparent as the months went on that the boss's nephew was slowly taking over more and more of my husband's responsibilities.
I don't blame you for wanting to fight against the dissolution of tenure; it must be AWESOME to wake up every day as a tenured teacher knowing the chances of being fired are next to nil. I suspect that many have gone into teaching with tenure being the motivating factor.
But tenure is not grounded in reality. There are no guarantees in life.
I'm saying it's low paying compared to other jobs you can do with the same education and it is. I'm worth twice what I'm paid as a teacher to industry. Schools compete with industry for employees. In industry, the higher pay offsets the risk of being an at will employee PLUS there are things you can do to make youreself more valuable to the company which translates into even higher pay and job security. You just can't do that in teaching. NOTHING I can do makes me more valuable (from a $$ point of view) to the district. The number of $$ I bring in is proportional to the number of students in my class and no matter how educated, trained and experienced I am, there is an effective limit to class sizes that does not change based on my education, training or experience. Plus, any evaluations of my work are subjective in nature and dependent on how well the evaluator likes me. In industry I had lousy bosses who didn't like me but I had an objective track record to stand on and the freedom to move to another department when I didn't like my boss. I always had two or three managers trying to get me. I would have during the downsizing I was let go during except the company put a freeze on moves.
As an engineer, the number of line items I completed on my DVP&R or the number of items on the pink list I closed was objective. Whether my programs were on time was objective. etc, etc, etc.... There is no equivalent in teaching. We SAY we value good teachers but what is a good teacher??? Is your definition of a good teacher the same as the next person's? Is it the same as mine? What are the measurables and how do they improve the bottom line? Are good teachers really worth higher salaries? What are you really getting for that extra pay? And probably more important, where does the money come from for that extra pay? What did you rob to pay one teacher more? I think teacher pay will become a very attractive attack point without tenure.
I've already posted that my administration wants me teaching to the bottom of the class. As a teacher, I'm opposed to that. How free am I to say "No, teaching to higher levels results in student's growing" if my job has no security without pleasing my administrators? In the past, a tenured teacher could say no. They could say, this is how I think students learn best. I can't. I have to teach to the bottom of the class next year or risk not having a job. (I"m not sure I want it if I have to teach to the bottom of the class to be honest).
As an engineer, I could do things that brought in more revenue or reduced cost to make myself worth a higher salary. I can do neither as a teacher. I could be the best teacher in the world and the school gets the same $$ for the students I teach as they do for the students in the worst teacher in the world's classroom. The quality of my teaching does not impact the bottom line. My salary does. So, the only way I can make myself worth more to the district by doing the job for less $$ or with more students in my classroom than the next teacher over.
Tenure, which I am trying to protect, was designed to prevent situations where an adminstrator gives a job away to a relative or to protect a teacher who doesn't see eye to eye with their administrators, as I don't on the teach to the bottom of the class issue. It never was intended to protect bad teachers. Bad administrators who don't do their homework protect bad teachers.
As to me, without tenure, I can't risk staying in a low paying job like teaching. I'm going back into engineering or maybe into R&D. I'll have to start over there so the pay raise will be more like 50% than 100% but it won't take me long to get to double what I'm making as a teacher and that goes a long way towards protecting myself in event of job loss. Plus I'll be back in a venue where improving myself actually improves my worth to the company. I think getting rid of tenure will result in "Those who can do and those who can't teach" becomming a reality. Seriously, why should I accept lower pay, no job security and no control over job security when I can, at least, have higher pay and some control over my job security? Where am I valued in this equation? Ans: Industry NOT education.
This isn't about it being nice to know your job is secure. It's about trading job security for pay. I've given up 50% of my potential salary to teach. I'm not about to continue to do that without some kind of assurance that the job will continue. I'm not stupid. Since there is no way for schools to generate more revenue per teacher other than increase class sizes, I know full well they will, eventually, turn to reducing teacher costs to adress shrinking budgets. Fortunately, I don't have to sit around and wait for that to happen. I'm valued by industry and worth my salary and then some to their bottom line. Without tenure in teaching, teachers will be worth the least they can get away with paying them since nothing a teacher can do can actually increase revenue. Tenure forces districts to keep high paid teachers. I'm betting they won't once they are no longer forced to. They'll keep some, for appearances and to say they have experienced teachers, but they will keep a minority. They'll keep the number they have to, get rid of the rest and replace them with cheaper new hires. You'd be surprised at how much you can save this way and you won't do without employees because there is no shortage of unemployed people who will take any job they can get.
Last edited by Ivorytickler; 07-22-2011 at 07:15 AM..
^^You have closed your mind and have created a set of fears which have no basis in reality. So much of what you indicated is clearly incorrect even in current public sector employment. Also, you are too self-absorbed to see/read what you are actually saying. The rest is just drivel. I do not need to read your paragraphs to note the lack of tenure will make you quit and you have no basis for your fears regarding the end of this priviledge. Constantly the fear of nepotism and being a financial liability. I note you stopped the "I will teach the way I want too" part which is at least a mature manner to think. Hopefully the rest will sink in.
You created the post obviously seeking some commiseration and instead received reality. I have read your posts before in the "If teaching is so easy thread" and you were so cocksure regarding your performance, repeatedly commenting on your engineering background, so many tasks every day in your current position, so much posturing, etc.etc. and now you behave as a child afraid of the dark.
Man, perform well at your job and do not become a resistor and the odds are you will last until you can retire. I have read your posts and know you have ability.
No, you're the one who has closed your mind and ears and eyes. Mine is open. WHY should I take a low paying job with no job security when I can take a high paying job where I control job security, to a certain extent, because improving myself makes me more valuable, financially, to the company?
THERE is NOTHING a teacher can do to make themselves more valuable to a district. NOTHING. The revenue coming in has nothing to do with teacher quality or experience. You just get so many $$ per pupil and that is ALL you have to work with. It's not like they pay the school more because I'm better at my job (and what is better? The definition of a good teacher is highly subjective.) This means the ONLY way districts can control budgets is to either make class sizes larger, which they have been doing here, or reduce cost which they can by getting rid of higher paid teachers. The truth is, the best bargain for the district is to have the cheapest teacher who can get the job done in front of the classroom. And you think this WON'T get abused????? I have bridge I'd like to sell you....
I am lucky enough that I'm not in position where I have no choice but to accept this. I can move back to industry where I will, at least, have higher pay to offset job insecurity. I'm only willing to give up so much to teach and without job security, the low pay just isn't worth it. And yes it is low paid when I can make double what I'm making now in industry. THAT is what I'm really worth. What the market will bear. I have accepted less than that to do something I love but without some security I can't continue to do so. Fortunately, I have a nice plan B. I'll leave my teaching position to someone who doesn't have a plan B or doesn't have to worry about security. Unfortunately, I do.
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.
Tenure is the only thing stopping them from doing this now. When the bottom line is pinched, schools will do what they have to to balance the budget. Unlike the government, they can't just vote to go into debt. On top of that, you have to worry about favoritism and nepetism. What happens when the principal's nephew can't find a job and he's qualified to take yours and he'd cheaper than you too???
