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.
There isn't enough money in the world to make me do that job. With that being said, I think too many people feel the same way so I think the quality of teachers could be better. I would like to see all of the teachers (public and private secondary) be required to have at least 10 years real world work experience in their subject matter before being allowed to teach that subject.
After the 10 years in the real world I'd give them a higher starting salary to teach.
There isn't enough money in the world to make me do that job. With that being said, I think too many people feel the same way so I think the quality of teachers could be better. I would like to see all of the teachers (public and private secondary) be required to have at least 10 years real world work experience in their subject matter before being allowed to teach that subject.
After the 10 years in the real world I'd give them a higher starting salary to teach.
I understand why people think that and I agree, to some extent (regarding increasing teacher quality).
As far as working in the real world in their field for ten years, that has been done where I live. People were recruited from industry to go back to school and get a masters in education and then teach. It has not worked out well. In some cases, it has been dismal. Someone who is a genius as an accountant, may not have what it takes to teach. Teaching is a specialty in and of itself. Having content knowledge is secondary. A good teacher, can teach any subject of which they have content knowledge.
So my district recruited people from the real world since we could not find people to fill positions in mathematics, science, and special education (there are currently over 1700 teaching positions open in my district). Here's how it played out:
1) Some, but a minority, are at least as good as those of us who chose teaching as a career first.
2) Some got in and washed out quickly - a higher percentage than the 50% in the first five years at which teachers normally wash out.
3) Some could not hack it in the private sector and thought that teaching was an easy out. They have either washed out or figured out how to make it work for them. The ones that stayed are primarily special ed teachers. We are so desperate for special ed teachers that it takes an act of God to get fired from those positions. Someone who is lazy can figure out a way to lay low, do little, and keep their job. (Please note that I did not say sped teachers get to be lazy).
4) The best part is how they swaggered in as if they were going to show us how it's really done. Most of the ones that stayed have an "I don't care - What are you going to do to me attitude". They are retired and/or don't really have a stake in education. They have no problem doing all the paperwork that we are required to do to keep our administrators off our backs and putting the kids 2nd as opposed to us who put the kids first and then try to grapple with the paperwork. Those teachers go home at 2:30 and wave goodbye to us as they leave.
There isn't enough money in the world to make me do that job. With that being said, I think too many people feel the same way so I think the quality of teachers could be better. I would like to see all of the teachers (public and private secondary) be required to have at least 10 years real world work experience in their subject matter before being allowed to teach that subject.
After the 10 years in the real world I'd give them a higher starting salary to teach.
A couple fatal flaws in this scenario: First, after ten years of a typically uphill battle to become established and respected in a field, why throw it away and start over at the bottom of a different career? Second, the so-called WEP (windfall elimination provision) passed years ago by Congress, takes away most of the Social Security disbursements you would receive as a retiree, if you also get a state teacher pension. Pensions are based upon years of service. (Note: This occurs in states, such as Ca. where you don't pay S.S. as a teacher.) It can leave you with an unsustainable retirement, since that first 10-year accumulation wouldn't count.
I became a teacher after many years of work in a variety of fields. None of the S.S. I paid in will count towards my retirement. I will also need to find another job once I retire, to qualify for Medicare.
I've known several retired military people who made this move. None of them stayed very long. If you think about it, they are leaving the most disciplined part of society to join the least disciplined part.
For Americans to be able to switch fields easily, we would need to adopt a retirement system more like that of Australia.
Last edited by Futuremauian; 03-09-2013 at 10:14 AM..
Reason: Added a thought.
I understand why people think that and I agree, to some extent (regarding increasing teacher quality).
As far as working in the real world in their field for ten years, that has been done where I live. People were recruited from industry to go back to school and get a masters in education and then teach. It has not worked out well. In some cases, it has been dismal. Someone who is a genius as an accountant, may not have what it takes to teach. Teaching is a specialty in and of itself. Having content knowledge is secondary. A good teacher, can teach any subject of which they have content knowledge.
So my district recruited people from the real world since we could not find people to fill positions in mathematics, science, and special education (there are currently over 1700 teaching positions open in my district). Here's how it played out:
1) Some, but a minority, are at least as good as those of us who chose teaching as a career first.
2) Some got in and washed out quickly - a higher percentage than the 50% in the first five years at which teachers normally wash out.
3) Some could not hack it in the private sector and thought that teaching was an easy out. They have either washed out or figured out how to make it work for them. The ones that stayed are primarily special ed teachers. We are so desperate for special ed teachers that it takes an act of God to get fired from those positions. Someone who is lazy can figure out a way to lay low, do little, and keep their job. (Please note that I did not say sped teachers get to be lazy).
4) The best part is how they swaggered in as if they were going to show us how it's really done. Most of the ones that stayed have an "I don't care - What are you going to do to me attitude". They are retired and/or don't really have a stake in education. They have no problem doing all the paperwork that we are required to do to keep our administrators off our backs and putting the kids 2nd as opposed to us who put the kids first and then try to grapple with the paperwork. Those teachers go home at 2:30 and wave goodbye to us as they leave.
As someone who came out of industry to and who knows several people who did the same, I can offer some insight here. The reason people who come out of industry have a higher attrition rate has to do with options. We have the option of returning to our, previous, most likely, higher paying and more prestigious career. If I didn't have an engineering degree, I'd stay in teaching. However, comparing my life with both careers, engineering has more to offer. I've decided to return to engineering and scratch the itch to teach by teaching at night in a community college (there are things I really do like about teaching and it wouldn't be a disaster if I stayed in teaching. I've just decided I prefer engineering. I prefer the pay, the respect and the challenge. Teaching offers it's own challenge but those come with too tight a budget and never having time for family and friends during the school year. I don't have to accept that so I'm not.)
When you have options, you tend to draw the line as to what you'll tolerate in a different place than when you don't have options. We have options so it sould come as no surprise that our attrition rate is higher.
From what I can see, people who come out of industry make pretty good teachers. The problem is they won't tolerate what other teachers will and don't assimilate into the system easily. Unfortunately, we bring years of experience that could benefit education that are rejected by the status quo. I find that younger teachers are open to what I have to offer but admins and older teachers are not. I'm told by the teachers who have worked most closely with me that I am very effective as a teacher. One of my mentors tells me that I present as if I have many more years of experience than I do. She says it's easy to forget I'm a, relatively, new teacher. My team teacher tells me that working with me was the first time she understood chemistry and that the kids get more of it with me teaching it. Another teacher I work closely with (younger teacher but with more years of experience than me) says I've greatly improved his teaching.
Why am I leaving teaching? I'm leaving teaching because I've been told to teach chemistry in a manner I believe will be ineffective and I'd rather go back into engineering than do that. I've been successful as a chemistry student and as a chemical engineer. I have some idea of what you have to do do succeed and this touchy, feeley, feel good education won't cut it in the real world. I went into education to raise the bar not do the limbo. Fortunately, getting my teaching degree did not negate my chemical engineering degree. I have something to fall back on. If I didn't, I could see myself making more of an effort to accept the new trend in education. I do, so I don't have to. I choose not to.
Don't mistake the higher attrittion rate to mean incompetence or that we're even a bad fit for teaching. It could just be the simple fact we have more options. People with more options make different choices than people with fewer options. I know several teachers who wish they'd gone into a different profession who feel trapped because they lack the education to do anything but teach. I'm fortunate that I don't.
I will be forever grateful for the advisor who told me to major in engineering not education the first time around. He told me then "You can easily put a teaching certificate on top of an engineering degree but it will be very difficult to put an engineeing degree on top of a teaching certificate.". He was very right. While I will be going back to school to make a reentry into engineering, all I need is a one year certificate to freshen my education.
Last edited by Ivorytickler; 03-09-2013 at 10:25 AM..
I'm leaving teaching because I've been told to teach chemistry in a manner I believe will be ineffective. I've been successful as a chemistry student and as a chemical engineer. I have some idea of what you have to do do succeed and this touchy, feeley, feel good education won't cut it in the real world. I went into education to raise the bar not do the limbo. Fortunately, getting my teaching degree did not negate my chemical engineering degree. I have something to fall back on. If I didn't, I could see myself making more of an effort to accept the new trend in education. I do, so I don't have to. I choose not to.
LOL: True Dat!!! I love the analogy! I woulda repped you, but I already did earlier. Not permitted.
LOL: True Dat!!! I love the analogy! I woulda repped you, but I already did earlier. Not permitted.
The teach to the bottom mentality just blows my mind. Instead of raising up our high fliers so they can compete in a global economy, we're dragging everyone down to the lowest level in the classroom (Why do they even bother with subject matter experts. What a waste of talent.). The push now is investigations. Letting kids discover science. Do the morons who came up with this stuff realize that it took hundreds of years for very educated people capable of actually thinking and competent enough to run experiments well enough to know their data was good, to discover this stuff and I only have 9 months to teach it? AND (really BIG AND HERE) the only way you can discover anything is to actually do the lab right and get good data. I can't get them to do that when they know what the outcome SHOULD BE!!!!! Now they want me to let them experiment and come to their own conclusions? (where's the beating my head against the wall icon???)
While I can see a few labs that could be taught in an investigative manner (at the expense of time needed to teach something else), I'm willing to bet that no one in the class will actually discover what is intended because they lack the foundation to make the discovery. You know, I think the people who make these decisions don't realize that I'm teaching 16 & 17 year olds NOT grad students. Grad students I'd toss into a lab and let discover but not teenagers. IMO, teenagers still need their hands held for subjects as abstract as chemistry.
Just a personal note. I'm at that time of the year when I can FINALLY start asking questions that require deeper thought and tying things together in new ways. Every year, I see a hand full of students blossom here. This is my favorite part (the part that will no longer be there after we cut content to extend investation time). When I get to see the lights come on and spark an interest. This is when some start to put it together. Why can't the powers that be see that this is the goal? Instead they want to tell me I pace too fast. Not if I want to see those lights come on. There's a lot of stuff you need to know before you can start putting it together.
One of my favorite demos is coming up in a few weeks. I'll pull a bottle of seltzer water out of an ice bath and show the class that it is liquid. Then I'll open the top and the contents of the bottle will, instantly freeze. Then I just sit and watch. They'll beg me to explain but I won't. It'll take about 15 minutes but someone will get it and the look on their face makes all the crap I put up with as a teacher worth it. I got one!!! Once they see one connection, they start to see more. You will never get here through over simplified investigations designed for the bottom of the class.
Last edited by Ivorytickler; 03-09-2013 at 10:48 AM..
As someone who came out of industry to and who knows several people who did the same, I can offer some insight here. The reason people who come out of industry have a higher attrition rate has to do with options. We have the option of returning to our, previous, most likely, higher paying and more prestigious career. If I didn't have an engineering degree, I'd stay in teaching. However, comparing my life with both careers, engineering has more to offer. I've decided to return to engineering and scratch the itch to teach by teaching at night in a community college (there are things I really do like about teaching and it wouldn't be a disaster if I stayed in teaching. I've just decided I prefer engineering. I prefer the pay, the respect and the challenge. Teaching offers it's own challenge but those come with too tight a budget and never having time for family and friends during the school year. I don't have to accept that so I'm not.)
When you have options, you tend to draw the line as to what you'll tolerate in a different place than when you don't have options. We have options so it sould come as no surprise that our attrition rate is higher.
From what I can see, people who come out of industry make pretty good teachers. The problem is they won't tolerate what other teachers will and don't assimilate into the system easily. Unfortunately, we bring years of experience that could benefit education that are rejected by the status quo. I find that younger teachers are open to what I have to offer but admins and older teachers are not. I'm told by the teachers who have worked most closely with me that I am very effective as a teacher. One of my mentors tells me that I present as if I have many more years of experience than I do. She says it's easy to forget I'm a, relatively, new teacher. My team teacher tells me that working with me was the first time she understood chemistry and that the kids get more of it with me teaching it. Another teacher I work closely with (younger teacher but with more years of experience than me) says I've greatly improved his teaching.
Why am I leaving teaching? I'm leaving teaching because I've been told to teach chemistry in a manner I believe will be ineffective and I'd rather go back into engineering than do that. I've been successful as a chemistry student and as a chemical engineer. I have some idea of what you have to do do succeed and this touchy, feeley, feel good education won't cut it in the real world. I went into education to raise the bar not do the limbo. Fortunately, getting my teaching degree did not negate my chemical engineering degree. I have something to fall back on. If I didn't, I could see myself making more of an effort to accept the new trend in education. I do, so I don't have to. I choose not to.
Don't mistake the higher attrittion rate to mean incompetence or that we're even a bad fit for teaching. It could just be the simple fact we have more options. People with more options make different choices than people with fewer options. I know several teachers who wish they'd gone into a different profession who feel trapped because they lack the education to do anything but teach. I'm fortunate that I don't.
I will be forever grateful for the advisor who told me to major in engineering not education the first time around. He told me then "You can easily put a teaching certificate on top of an engineering degree but it will be very difficult to put an engineeing degree on top of a teaching certificate.". He was very right. While I will be going back to school to make a reentry into engineering, all I need is a one year certificate to freshen my education.
I didn't mean to imply that people from industry cannot make good teachers, just that they underestimate the job. And it is a specialty in and of itself. I know that you came from industry by your previous posts and its obvious to me that you take it very seriously and devote the time required by any teacher who takes his or her job seriously. You are the exception, though, based on my observations within my district.
It's a tough, though job, far more demanding than anyone realizes until they do it. But I think you are right, when people have options they leave and that is certainly in accounted for in the higher attrition rate.
The teach to the bottom mentality just blows my mind. Instead of raising up our high fliers so they can compete in a global economy, we're dragging everyone down to the lowest level in the classroom (Why do they even bother with subject matter experts. What a waste of talent.). The push now is investigations. Letting kids discover science. Do the morons who came up with this stuff realize that it took hundreds of years for very educated people capable of actually thinking and competent enough to run experiments well enough to know their data was good, to discover this stuff and I only have 9 months to teach it? AND (really BIG AND HERE) the only way you can discover anything is to actually do the lab right and get good data. I can't get them to do that when they know what the outcome SHOULD BE!!!!! Now they want me to let them experiment and come to their own conclusions? (where's the beating my head against the wall icon???)
But if you object you will be labeled a bad teacher who unwilling to give up the archaic ways of teaching.
When I enroll in a class, my expectation is that the person teaching is an expert with knowledge that I want/need. My expectation is that that person will impart this knowledge to me. A little guided discovery is good in some situations, but not all. I have sat in a class with a holier than thou professor who thought discovery was the end all be all. I was so frustrated. Luckily, there were some students who had taken some other classes that taught the same concepts that I was supposed to be learning in this class and I was able to buddy up with them and actually learn something.
Quote:
While I can see a few labs that could be taught in an investigative manner (at the expense of time needed to teach something else), I'm willing to bet that no one in the class will actually discover what is intended because they lack the foundation to make the discovery. You know, I think the people who make these decisions don't realize that I'm teaching 16 & 17 year olds NOT grad students. Grad students I'd toss into a lab and let discover but not teenagers. IMO, teenagers still need their hands held for subjects as abstract as chemistry.
Just a personal note. I'm at that time of the year when I can FINALLY start asking questions that require deeper thought and tying things together in new ways. Every year, I see a hand full of students blossom here. This is my favorite part (the part that will no longer be there after we cut content to extend investation time). When I get to see the lights come on and spark an interest. This is when some start to put it together. Why can't the powers that be see that this is the goal? Instead they want to tell me I pace too fast. Not if I want to see those lights come on. There's a lot of stuff you need to know before you can start putting it together.
One of my favorite demos is coming up in a few weeks. I'll pull a bottle of seltzer water out of an ice bath and show the class that it is liquid. Then I'll open the top and the contents of the bottle will, instantly freeze. Then I just sit and watch. They'll beg me to explain but I won't. It'll take about 15 minutes but someone will get it and the look on their face makes all the crap I put up with as a teacher worth it. I got one!!! Once they see one connection, they start to see more. You will never get here through over simplified investigations designed for the bottom of the class.
We all love those moments. You are right, though, and they fewer and farther between.
I didn't mean to imply that people from industry cannot make good teachers, just that they underestimate the job. And it is a specialty in and of itself. I know that you came from industry by your previous posts and its obvious to me that you take it very seriously and devote the time required by any teacher who takes his or her job seriously. You are the exception, though, based on my observations within my district.
It's a tough, though job, far more demanding than anyone realizes until they do it. But I think you are right, when people have options they leave and that is certainly in accounted for in the higher attrition rate.
During the real estate boom, many left teaching to sell RE. Most have now returned, and are anxiously awaiting the "next big thing" to come along, so they can leave again. The outrageous student conduct we are forced to tolerate, while attempting to teach, grows worse year after year. At some point, America's leaders will have to stop pretending that they are "fixing the system", and actually do something. Meanwhile, they continually "kick the can down the road".
Most of the egregious behavior I've witnessed for the last 30 years has been caused by one group, who represents 20% of my school. I'm not sure what the answer is. Perhaps single-sex academies or mandatory boarding schools? For the foreseeable future, nothing is likely to change. We will continue to address "inclusiveness" by teaching to the bottom, tolerating insanity, and wringing our hands at the outcome.
Last edited by Futuremauian; 03-09-2013 at 11:28 AM..
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.
I woulda repped you, but I already did earlier. Not permitted.
AND (really BIG AND HERE) the only way you can discover anything is to actually do the lab right and get good data. I can't get them to do that when they know what the outcome SHOULD BE!!!!!
Now they want me to let them experiment and come to their own conclusions? (where's the beating my head against the wall icon???)
