Stupid in America

[Diggles]

Jesus christ, how many kids do you have that you cant live off 83k a year? 83k is pretty astronomical for what they do in my opinion. Ontop of this, they can get thousands (like 2 - 7 more) extra for coaching, district credit training (like basic how to use windows computers shit), and any number of easy stuff.

[Thudz]

Jesus christ, how many kids do you have that you cant live off 83k a year? 83k is pretty astronomical for what they do in my opinion. Ontop of this, they can get thousands (like 2 - 7 more) extra for coaching, district credit training (like basic how to use windows computers shit), and any number of easy stuff.

Well to be honest my family could obviously survive on this income but it would require a massive lifestyle change and downsizing of the house. My point is that $80K/year is not that much for Professionals, especially ones with Masters.

Mori,

Do you see the income potential a turnoff or a deteriment to the profession in anyway? Are the best and brightest even looking at teaching? I can't see how the profession can compete in the job market.

[Moristans]

Mori,

Do you see the income potential a turnoff or a deteriment to the profession in anyway? Are the best and brightest even looking at teaching? I can't see how the profession can compete in the job market.

I can't say for sure Thudz. Personally, of course, I'm not dissapointed by the amount of money I make. I make a living and I'm happy with the benefits and retirement arrangements. I make way more than my parents ever did and I like the lifestyle that teaching allows me to have. Would I like to make more? Sure, but I was brought up learning that an honest day's pay for an honest day's work is what work is all about.

Am I comparably underpaid for my degree and training? Sure, and I know that there is, traditionally, a shortage of math and science teachers because of that. I don't know that the best and brightest mathematicians and scientists, for example, make the best teachers though. Teaching itself is neither math nor a science and if you don't have a passion for it, no amount of money is going to make you a more effective teacher if that's all your in it for.

I would love to give the merit pay system a shot. Sure, pay me more for doing what I love to do better. But, I'm not going to cherry pick and shortchange kids who need the help the most just to cater to the kids that will give them a fatter wallet.

As far as being a profession that competes in the marketplace, as corny as it may sound, I don't know that there is a job out there that can provide the job satisfaction that goes along with helping kids succeed. If you really like kids, and feeling 20 years younger because you are around them all the time, and long vacations, and crazy Friday Happy Hours surrounded by hot young bleeding heart liberals, then teaching, especially in the ghetto, is for you! Ok, maybe not you Thudz.

[Breand]

83k is the highest possible salary in that MO district, using the extreme highest to make a point isn't making a point at all. The median looks like somewhere around 50k. Not much money imo, but I dunno what the cost of living is in MO. In any event I wish to god that salary table was being used in my district, itd probably cut my taxes in half (I pay 6k in school taxes BTW). 83k is probably the median in mine. We laid off the "second librarian" from one of our schools when we went on austerity, and she was making 78k.

I just checked...my district average is 77k. I was close....but that was for 2006-7 school year so it's probably a bit higher.

My county is 81k.

<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.myshortpencil.com/2007newyorkteachersalaries.htm">http://www.myshortpencil.com/2007newyor ... laries.htm</a><!-- m -->

there's a statement on that site that 35% of NYS teachers retire making over 100k. Im sure that's probably like 80% in my county.

[Airyth]

The easiest standardized way to rate teachers would be by implementing yearly standardized testing across all subjects. You could then base the teachers' merit on the improvement their students showed from the previous year to their new test scores after a year of being taught by that teacher.
The problem though is that it would encourage teachers to "Teach for the test". That would mean valuable learning experiences would be ignored. Teacher's couldn't take hours out of their regular cirriculum to discuss a world event and how it related to what the students were learning because that would take time away from teaching what the students needed to know to score well on their standardized tests at the end of the year.
Here in Virginia we have standardized testing every few years for the students to ensure they've learned everything they need to know to advance to the next grade. There's been debate about these tests as its led to teachers spending more time training students to be able to pass the Standards of Learning Exams and its leaving students lacking in other areas. I don't have any kids yet so I can't personally attest to how things have been working out, but my friends who have kids haven't been happy with the education their kids have been recieving since the changes.

[Moristans]

The easiest standardized way to rate teachers would be by implementing yearly standardized testing across all subjects. You could then base the teachers' merit on the improvement their students showed from the previous year to their new test scores after a year of being taught by that teacher.

That may be the easiest, but it's not the most effective or the most fair. Standardized testing for NCLB does not hold kids, themeselves, accountable for results. Kids have no stake in it at all. There was a big scandal a few years back where kids who thye thought would not score well on the standardized test were actually encouraged to stay home on the day of the test. Now, any kid who misses the exam, for any reason, is automatically given a zero.

There are other problems. I teach Biology, for example. They take it one time in high school, so there is no baseline to gauge learning or improvement.

The problem though is that it would encourage teachers to "Teach for the test". That would mean valuable learning experiences would be ignored.

Hell, that's the state of things already. Schools are pretty much NCLB testing factories. The fact that most of our kids do not score Proficient on the standardized test is the main reason why we are labelled a failing school and being forced to reconsitute.

Here in Virginia we have standardized testing every few years for the students to ensure they've learned everything they need to know to advance to the next grade.

The impression I get is that Virginia has been NCLB compliant from the outset. That means that testing is required yearly to determing Adequate Yearly Progess. I don't know that performance on standardized testing has any consequence for the kid taking the test in any state.

[Vllad]

Ultimately the responsiblity for you child not being stupid is the parents responsibility. If your kid can't read and you can't fix the situation at school then as a parent you better get your ass off of the couch and start teaching them youself in conjunction with the school.

Ultimately if your child is a dumb ass it isn't the schools fault. It is the parents fault.


Vllad

[Chain]

What the voucher idea doesn't do is take into account how stupid most parents are. It makes schools petrified of failing students who need to be failed because they might go somewhere else. And the only people involved in education with their ass further up their head than parents are principals, so grading systems for teachers based on either one's approval are going to be questionable at best.

There is no one - no one - better suited to judge a teacher than their students. Problem with student-based grading being that people in this country just don't like to listen to kids under eighteen. At the end of every year in college, I've been handed a survey that asks me to grade my teachers. Why didn't they do that in high school and middle school?

[Jakensama]

We did student reviews in high school in some of our AP classes, although I seriously doubt that most 12-18 year olds are going to give productive feedback on the teaching system. At least in College you are somewhat of an adult and spending some of your own money on your education (well okay, the last part isn't true for most spoiled helicopter kids these days.. and the former either now that I think about it... but ostensibly you are an adult.). As such, you have some feedback because you aren't there forcibly unlike high school/middle school.

People don't listen to kids under 18 because most kids under 18 act, shockingly, like kids.