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.
Not to go off-topic, but the daycares in my area don't allow families to take the summer off; our daycare provider explained that it was like rent. If you want to keep your spot you need to pay for every week, not just the time you use. It reserves the spot, and given that it can be tough to find a decent daycare with spots available, that spot was golden.
I do think a year-end bonus for teachers is a good idea, though.
Not to go off-topic, but the daycares in my area don't allow families to take the summer off; our daycare provider explained that it was like rent. If you want to keep your spot you need to pay for every week, not just the time you use. It reserves the spot, and given that it can be tough to find a decent daycare with spots available, that spot was golden.
I do think a year-end bonus for teachers is a good idea, though.
Some do, some don't here. The center we used charged 50% of tuition if you were off two weeks or more at a time to hold your spot. I always paid my home day care provider even when I was off. My point, however, was that children spend less time in day care during the summer to that makes it the most opportune time to make a change.
I like the idea of a year end bonus for teachers. That's how you handle it in industry if you don't want someone to leave during a project. There have also been time limits for vesting for things like matching on 401K funds. You can staggar that too. At my last employer, until you had something like 5 years in service, it took a year to vest what they matched in our 401K's. If you left, you lost the previous 12 months of deposits.
There are lots of ways to encourage people to stay for a certain period of time without guilting them into it or making them feel like indentured servants.
Fair enough. So leave the profession. But why do you so badly seem to want for people on here to tell you that it's definitely not going to be perceived as unprofessional or inethical to leave a teaching post midyear?
I want to discuss why it's seen that way because I don't believe it should be. Teaching is a job like any job. People do leave jobs, sometimes at inopportune times, because that's when opportunity knocks. Teachers shouldn't be seen as less than professional for doing this. Everyone has the right to the best work environment they can get for themselves. Limiting when teachers can leave means that it's difficult for cream to rise and easier for schools to do things like under pay teachers.
What I mean is, the best person for the best job out there may not get it because it's not time for them to leave their job. The best person may not interview because they are made to feel they can't. We should be interviewing and hiring the best person for the job. This is how you encourage excellence.
In engineering, companies know good engineers will leave so they pay the good ones better. It should be that way in teaching too. I think the reasons we think teachers shouldn't have the same opportunities should be discussed. Teachers have no control over when the job that is the best fit for them is offered. People understand when other professionals sign up for one job but then leave when a better one comes along. Everyone undestands that they don't own crystal balls and had no way of knowing the better opportunity would come along. No one would tell an engineer they should remain unemployed rather than take one job but leave it later. As a teacher, I'm expected to quit my job in may if I want to act on an opportunity that may or may not come the next September (we are asked to sign letters of intent to return in April/May which is when the first wave of interviews is going on for hiring for the next year. If you don't sign, you're out of work and considered a quit so you can't draw unemployment.)???? We're expected to plan our lives like we have a crystal ball and know when opportunities will come???? That makes no sense.
Last edited by Ivorytickler; 09-06-2009 at 06:03 AM..
I want to discuss why it's seen that way because I don't believe it should be. Teaching is a job like any job.
The crux of the problem.
Just because you don't think it should be that way doesn't make it so.
Teaching is special. It is different.
The problem comes that there are not enough teachers who appreciate the responsibility they have in terms of commitment to the students, and far too many teachers who think it is "a job like any job."
Go back to chemical engineering - and have a job just like any other job. People will stop having unfair expectations of you. you'll make more money, and feel more satisfied.
That you do not believe it is different is a reason for you to stop doing it. Unlike chemical engineering, going through the motions will not produce an appropriate "product."
Just because you don't think it should be that way doesn't make it so.
Teaching is special. It is different.
The problem comes that there are not enough teachers who appreciate the responsibility they have in terms of commitment to the students, and far too many teachers who think it is "a job like any job."
Go back to chemical engineering - and have a job just like any other job. People will stop having unfair expectations of you. you'll make more money, and feel more satisfied.
That you do not believe it is different is a reason for you to stop doing it. Unlike chemical engineering, going through the motions will not produce an appropriate "product."
Or I can discuss why people have the perceptions they do of teachers. Like it or not, teaching is a job. That's why they pay us to do it. Mobility between jobs is one way professions encourage fair wages.
No, teaching isn't different. It's a job. Akin to day care provider. That people move between jobs and don't own crystal balls to tell them when jobs will be offered is a reality that must be dealt with. It is, inherently unfair to try and guilt someone into staying in a worse position because they aren't psychic and didn't know a better position would come along. People shouldn't do that to other people.
Obviously, you don't know much about chemical engineering. You can't go through the motions in chemical engineering. Experience and expertise are required. You're ok as long as you have enough experience on a project (meaning you have experienced engineers to offset for inexperienced ones). Unlike teachers where they're pretty much interchangeable as long as they know enough about the subject, which is another reason that subject matter expertise isn't respected or desired. Schools prefer jack of all trades teachers because they can put them where they want. Can't say as I blame them. Now if teachers weren't interchangeable, it would be a different story. Engineers are not interchangeable. It takes a long time to groom one for a job. The more important the job, the more important it is to keep experienced engineers. Different jobs have different requirements, of course. I worked automotive where redundancy prevails. You could take any engineer out of the chain at any time and it would be business as usual.
Whether I go back into engineering or stay in teaching has to do with being offered a livable wage. I know I can't afford to stay where I am and find it strange that people think I should pass on any opportunity to correct that because the school year has started. I don't control when schools hire. I don't have a crystal ball to know when opportunity will knock. Rather interesting concept here. If we assume the more competent teachers place first and a better opportunity happens to come along after the school year starts, we're saying that the less competent teacher deserves the better job????? Better qualified individuals will place first but getting placed first doesn't mean you got the best deal. Why shouldn't the best deal go to the best teacher? Why shouldn't the school with the most to offer get the better teachers?
Last edited by Ivorytickler; 09-06-2009 at 01:17 PM..
Or I can discuss why people have the perceptions they do of teachers. Like it or not, teaching is a job. That's why they pay us to do it. Mobility between jobs is one way professions encourage fair wages.
No, teaching isn't different. It's a job. Akin to day care provider. That people move between jobs and don't own crystal balls to tell them when jobs will be offered is a reality that must be dealt with. It is, inherently unfair to try and guilt someone into staying in a worse position because they aren't psychic and didn't know a better position would come along. People shouldn't do that to other people.
Obviously, you don't know much about chemical engineering. You can't go through the motions in chemical engineering. Experience and expertise are required. You're ok as long as you have enough experience on a project (meaning you have experienced engineers to offset for inexperienced ones). Unlike teachers where they're pretty much interchangeable as long as they know enough about the subject.
Obviously, you don't know much about teaching. You can't go through the motions in teaching. Experience and expertise are required. You're ok as long as you have enough experience on a project (meaning having experienced teachers doesn't offset the inexperienced ones). Unlike engineers where they're pretty much interchangeable as long as they know enough about the subject.
Ivory, I understand that you don't understand.
I wish you didn't feel the need to insist that if you don't understand that means everybody else is wrong.
Like it or not, while teaching is a job (which I don't disagree with), it is not a job like any job, any more then psychotherapy is or acting is.
Just as not everybody grasps mathematics well enough to perform engineering at a professional level, not everybody grasps teaching well enough to perform it at a professional level.
The problems arise partially because teaching is not just a concrete set of skills, and therefore is not readily measurable. So, people who can't see the intangibles deny they exist.
In the engineering realm, if you do the same process to the same raw materials, you will get the same results.
In the teaching realm, if you deliver the same lesson plan to the same age of students in the same grade with the same number of students with the same range/average IQ... you may or may not get the same result - and you won't know until you have worked with the group which way it is likely to go.
There are well trained actors, brilliant natural actors, and well trained, brilliant natural actors. The last group is the best, by far. The middle group are more fun to watch than the first group, even if the first group are more consistent.
Obviously, you don't know much about teaching. You can't go through the motions in teaching. Experience and expertise are required. You're ok as long as you have enough experience on a project (meaning having experienced teachers doesn't offset the inexperienced ones). Unlike engineers where they're pretty much interchangeable as long as they know enough about the subject.
Ivory, I understand that you don't understand.
I wish you didn't feel the need to insist that if you don't understand that means everybody else is wrong.
Like it or not, while teaching is a job (which I don't disagree with), it is not a job like any job, any more then psychotherapy is or acting is.
Just as not everybody grasps mathematics well enough to perform engineering at a professional level, not everybody grasps teaching well enough to perform it at a professional level.
The problems arise partially because teaching is not just a concrete set of skills, and therefore is not readily measurable. So, people who can't see the intangibles deny they exist.
In the engineering realm, if you do the same process to the same raw materials, you will get the same results.
In the teaching realm, if you deliver the same lesson plan to the same age of students in the same grade with the same number of students with the same range/average IQ... you may or may not get the same result - and you won't know until you have worked with the group which way it is likely to go.
There are well trained actors, brilliant natural actors, and well trained, brilliant natural actors. The last group is the best, by far. The middle group are more fun to watch than the first group, even if the first group are more consistent.
So, too, teachers.
No, I do understand. It is you who doesn't. You keep insisting that teaching is different than every other profession yet produce no evidence of it being different. You point to that people percieve it as different as proof when all that means is people percieve it as different. They could be wrong.
Why shouldn't the best job go to the best teacher? Why shouldn't the school willing to invest the most in their teachers get the best teachers? Why should teachers be at the mercy of when a job is offered?
Teachers are interchangeable. I've seen many walk in behind one who left and do the job just fine. Of course, it's relative to their experience teaching. Engineers are different. Experience in one engineering job may not translate to another. Experience in the classroom is pretty much experience in the classroom. Which is why shcools prefer jack of all trades certs over subject specific certs. Can't say as I blame them. It's the fact that teachers are interchangeable that makes this possible. If they weren't, schools couldn't use general certs. They couldn't move teachers from subject to subject and class to class. They can and do because they are interchangeable so long as they're certified to teach the subject.
If we assume the more competent teachers place first and a better opportunity happens to come along after the school year starts, we're saying that the less competent teacher deserves the better job?????
None of your assumptions are merited here.
"More competent teachers" don't necessarily place first.
"Better opportunity" is a hazy concept which according to you means higher pay with better benefits - but they come up when they come up, whether one means better by your terms or better by mine.
And "deserves" has nothing to do with it, any more than if the worse jobs came up one would conclude that the less competent teachers deserved those.
Your argument is akin to saying "children of wealthier parents deserve better teachers."
Good lord. The profession IS PERCEIVED AS DIFFERENT THAN MOST. Bottom line. You don't agree that it should be. Okay. But it is. Life is a bitterly unfair proposition, I guess.
No, I do understand. It is you who doesn't. You keep insisting that teaching is different than every other profession yet produce no evidence of it being different. You point to that people percieve it as different as proof when all that means is people percieve it as different. They could be wrong.
Unlike you?
I have provided evidence that a teacher's leaving midyear disrupts the learning of students.
You have ignored it.
I have noted that there are non-concrete elements to teaching.
You have ignored it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ivorytickler
Why shouldn't the best job go to the best teacher? Why shouldn't the school willing to invest the most in their teachers get the best teachers?
You keep talking about "best job" as if it means "job with biggest salary and best benefits package."
In teaching, that is not what most teachers would define as the things that make for the "best job."
This is part of what I am trying to explain to you that you don't understand.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ivorytickler
Why should teachers be at the mercy of when a job is offered?
Everybody is at the mercy of when a job is offered. Your question is "Why should teachers be at the mercy of when the job ends?"
The reason is the one you reject - leaving the classroom in mid-semester is disruptive to students' learning.
You don't like that. I know. But it IS why the teacher should be at the mercy of when the job ends. If one does not like that dependency, then one should not be a classroom teacher. There are plenty of teaching opportunities that are not tied to the September-June (approximate) schedule of the schools.
So long as one wishes to be a classroom teacher in those schools, then one has that aspect - the expectation that you will finish what you started.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ivorytickler
Teachers are interchangeable. I've seen many walk in behind one who left and do the job just fine. Of course, it's relative to their experience teaching.
No, and no.
Teachers are not interchangeable. That you think they are doing the job just fine does not tell me a thing about the students' experiences.
Conversely, asking students from the U.S., Canada, England, Australia, and New Zealand the question tells me about their experiences.
"It's definitely disruptive, because no two teachers have the same teaching methods and styles, grading systems, or homework-assignment habits. Etc. That said, if the replacement teacher is better, then I suppose it could work out for the better."
"Going from his laid back style to another teacher's harder and more intense style was definitely jarring."
"We had a series of subs for about two months before someone permanent was hired. Quite a bit of disruption. And nobody liked the new teacher as much as the old one, so half the people (myself included) in band in seventh grade dropped the class in eighth grade."
"Mid-term? Hell yeah. It means we get stuck with someone who doesn't know WTF s/he's doing."
"Insanely disruptive."
"To have one leave mid-term to get a job that pays better would make me feel like they didn't care enough about making sure their students (who, I'd assume, they'd have made a connection with) had an easier time dealing with a new teacher coming in (kind of like the money is more important than the students).
It's probably irrational (like I said, they have families and other expenses and some teaching jobs don't pay well at all) but yeah... as a highschool student that would be a bit of a downer."
"if the teacher who left was a crap teacher and the new one is amazing, then yes the change might be a bit disruptive but I'd think the benefits of having a fab teacher would outweigh the annoyance of having to adjust to a new teacher.
...they all had pretty different teaching styles and while we got used to it after a short period of time, there was still an adjustment period and some grumbling on our part."
Poll result (42 votes)
No, not really. (1 votes)
Initially, but not over the year. (1 votes)
If I like the teacher. Otherwise, no. (5 votes)
Depends on how long we have a sub. (1 votes)
Yes, I find it disruptive. (34 votes)
Other (0 votes)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ivorytickler
Experience in the classroom is pretty much experience in the classroom. Which is why shcools prefer jack of all trades certs over subject specific certs. Can't say as I blame them. It's the fact that teachers are interchangeable that makes this possible. If they weren't, schools couldn't use general certs. They couldn't move teachers from subject to subject and class to class. They can and do because they are interchangeable so long as they're certified to teach the subject.
Schools are not interchangeable.
Classrooms are not interchangeable.
Teachers are not interchangeable.
A teacher may be able to teach multiple subjects, but that has to do with the teacher, not with the profession.
They're interchangeable because they can teach, not because of anything concerning their certifications.
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.
Like it or not, teaching is a job. That's why they pay us to do it. 
