Gifted Issues Discussion homepage Forums GT Research Ignore ACT Reading and Science scores?

Kerri-
Most states do not require a masters for teaching elementary school. You simply need a Bachelor's degree and a subject matter competency (either by your BA/BS or by exam). So many teachers do not even go to graduate school.

I�ve been off camping for a bit�nice to get away for a bit�..


First, yes, my contributions to this discussion are my experiences and opinions. As this is a forum where many of us come to share our experiences or to react to information, I don't apologize for that. I have been trying to continue to participate in what I think is an important discussion, but we keep falling into a pattern that feels like win/lose rather than what I would hope it would be furthering understanding on both sides.

I recognize that there is a limit to how far my experiences go, but I do think that they have value. I don't believe that I, my schools, colleagues or community are particularly unusual, and I have spent a lot of time thinking about these issues based on my experiences and observations.

I'd like to clarify a couple of comments from my previous post.

First, I wasn't suggesting that private schools have high expulsion rates. Rather, I think that private schools less frequently have to deal with expulsion-worthy behavior. I suspect that parents hold their children more accountable for their behavior when they have taken the steps to enroll their children in a private school, that students in private schools have family support (or would be unlikely to end up in private school) and that the poverty and special education rates in private schools are significantly lower (poverty and certain special education eligibility areas are disproportionately represented in expulsion data in my district.)

When I talked about being able to get students to toe-the-line, I was referring primarily to the advantage of being able to hold students and families accountable for their behavior. When someone knows they can actually be kicked out of the school (for less than it takes to expel a student from a public school) that is itself a deterrent to high levels of behavior.

Contrast that with the situation in my (public) school where we have certain parents who don't come in for "required" re-entrance conferences after a suspension. They know that they can't be compelled to do so and that we can't refuse to allow the child to re-enter. That ties the hands of public schools in a way that I can't imagine occurring in a private school setting. I don't expect that private schools are kicking kids out willy-nilly, but I do expect that they are using the tools available to them to prevent the kind of disruptions that public schools have to endure. The context of my comments in this area was that it impacts the teaching environment and the appeal of each environment to particular teachers.


Re: teacher accountability. I agree that I can hold the college professor accountable if they don't know their subject, but only if that is the case. In a public school the teacher is blamed regardless of what the student does or does not bring to the table. I agree--as I believe I stated in an earlier post--that teachers need to be competent to teach the subjects they teach. My intention here was to speak to the differences in attitude that students and families are likely to bring to each environment. I am working under an assumption that in general, a student who is in a private school has a family invested enough in their education to actively choose (and probably transport to) a specific school. Whereas public schools, while they will have engaged and active families and students, will also have students without that family support. This has a big impact on the teaching conditions, and therefore the job experience. My intent was to respond to your specific question about why someone would teach in a private school, and to point out that someone might choose to work for less compensation in order to work with groups in which most students and families take some responsibility for the students' achievement level.

As far as testing comparisons: I was thinking elementary/middle when I posted. I am admittedly much less knowledgeable about the high school comparisons. In my state, private voucher schools took the NCLB state test for the first time this year. The private voucher schools didn't do quite as well as the public schools, which I think surprised everyone. To my thinking, the scores should be significantly higher since they represent only the scores of students whose families are involved enough to enroll them in a private school. The response that are pro-voucher legislature and governor have had to the test scores has been to remove the testing requirement from private voucher schools again. Thus, public schools will be held up to public scrutiny (as they should be) but private schools will only be held up if they want to be. Again, high school is not my area, so I�m out of my depth on this issue. In our area however, private school participation drops off in high school and the band of students attending these schools narrows considerably (there are multiple private elementary and middle schools; two private high schools�one of which is a very expensive IB program). That said, to my mind, the most notable part of the data in the SAT links you gave has to do with tuition and per pupil spending. It appeared that most per child tuition costs significantly exceeded most per pupil spending in public schools. Unfortunately, the two charts don�t contain the same information, so it is impossible to compare teacher salary or class size. However, I would be shocked if the public school student: teacher ratios looked anything like the private school ones. Even the highest ratios in the private school chart are 8-10 students better than the regular education class sizes in our local high schools�and most of the ratios are significantly below even our elementary school class sizes.

Re: bashing. I was actually trying to separate the discussion here from what is happening in the media, and again my intent was to consider what it would take to attract the kind of candidates you mention to a career in public education. I do consider it bashing, and not honest criticism, when I read diatribe after diatribe about how teachers are greedy-lazy-stupid-selfish etc... Those words are not critiques: they are personal, insulting statements and too often accompanied by statements that reveal a real lack of understanding about what teachers do. It does not make teaching an attractive profession and will not help to attract bright adults who have other options.

I realize that people trash talk other professions as well, but it has become constant when it comes to teaching, and it is not a well compensated enough profession to expect people to just keep taking it on the chin. Ironically, I think that it hurts the best teachers the most. For the record, I dislike personal attacks directed at any profession. I do not only feel this way when it comes to education.

Finally, I think anecdotal contributions are important. Studies are funded to ask specific questions, and too often, by people with specific agendas. They do not ask every question, thus do not provide a complete picture. Test scores tell only part of any story and need to be fleshed out with the real experiences that people have had. I don�t see the difference between individuals stating on this forum that merit pay would not enhance their professional experience or motivation, and the assertion that �many� talented people don�t go into teaching because of lack of merit pay. Personally, I don�t see merit pay making a difference in test scores or overall outcomes.

The major point I've been making here is that test scores, including failure rates on the incredibly easy Praxis I, are strong evidence that many teachers don't know much about what they're teaching.


I googled the term "greedy teachers" and one of the top hits was a piece called Teachers: A Greedy and Selfish Lot, says the Wall Street Journal. The "greedy" spin was added by the blog writer and it distorted what the paper wrote. A lot of the first 30 hits had exactly that same type of spin. Actual accusations of greed were thrown at the unions, but I didn't find any aimed at teachers.

I'm coming to the conclusion that accusing people or the media of "teacher bashing" is primarily a tactic used to deflect attention from honest criticism. That Wall Street Journal piece is a case in point.


Anecdotes are nice for telling stories, but they only give a tiny slice of reality. As for your next comment, are you saying that we should just abandon studies because researchers have "agendas?"

I presented evidence showing that knowledgeable/talented people leave the public schools or just don't go there.

Again, I fail to understand the opposition to merit pay. The seniority-only system protects mediocrities and creates disincentives for going the extra mile. Public schools also drive away capable people (both students and teachers) by failing to recognize talent.

That's a distinction without a difference IMO. Teachers unions represent teachers, and if teachers did not like how they were represented they would elect new leaders. Attacks on teachers unions are effectively attacks on teachers, and I think those attacks are merited, for a reason you have documented in this thread. Teachers are on average intellectually mediocre compared to other college graduates -- they are not of the same caliber as say electrical engineers. Considering their average intellectual level, I think their compensation should be cut -- there are lots of people with teaching credentials who would be willing do their jobs for less, and I think there are lots of people without teaching credentials but with B.A.'s could also do their jobs (as Teach for America has demonstrated).

Yes, if we paid teachers more we could have better ones -- but we would need to terminate many of the current teachers. Paying both current and prospective teachers more would be very expensive and inefficient.

I disagree. There's a difference between criticizing a union policy ("We oppose merit pay") and criticizing teachers themselves. From what I've seen, a lot of "teacher bashing" is really "criticizing the unions."

The Wall Street Journal piece is a case in point. The blogger lied/twisted the piece and accused the WSJ of calling teachers "greedy and selfish."

In fact, the piece made no accusations like that whatsoever. It just criticized two union policies. One policy created financial difficulties for a charter school that it didn't create for the regular public schools. The other one banned the use of non-union teacher's aides using money raised by parents.

Whether or not anyone reading this message agrees with the WSJ piece, it was clearly NOT calling teachers "selfish and greedy." It was criticizing union policies.

I'm definitely not suggesting that we abandon studies--I'm only saying that they are a part of the picture and that I wouldn't be so quick to discount the experiences that people have in the field. I believe that understanding the experiences of individuals is necessary to having a complete picture, and that collectively those experiences represent more than a tiny slice of reality. Generally, I would argue that in the hard sciences studies are more reliable because there is more control over the variables. What can be proven to be true in one setting can often be replicated in another setting. I would argue that this is less the case in social sciences because it is very hard to produce identical conditions�which is probably one of the reasons that such attention has been given test scores. Unfortunately, test scores fail to provide an accurate overall picture of instructional practice. On a side note, we will be working with MAP testing for the first time this year and I am anxious to see firsthand how students respond to it. I cautiously think that adaptive testing holds some real promise in accurately assessing response to instruction.

re: the question of bashing.... I may not have been clear about this, but when I am referring to media, I am including the public responses posted to newspaper articles as well as the comments made on televised news shows. Those comments are read nearly as widely as the articles themselves, so they have a significant impact on public perception and teacher morale. Again, my point goes to the climate in which educators are trying to work and the likelihood of education attracting candidates that have the background you are recommending.

I do believe that attacking teachers� unions is akin to attacking teachers. While I have definitely parted company with my union on some issues, on most issues I am grateful for their efforts, especially in the current climate. I see the union the way I see my government�even when the party of my choice is in power, we don�t agree on everything, but I generally feel that they represent my position better than alternative parties would.


Don�t worry, we are not paid the same as electrical engineers either.

college degrees with the best salaries

Cutting salaries is not going to improve education. As far as merit pay: I might be able to support it if the base wage for teaching was better than it is. Of course, that is assuming that anyone can come up with a fair and reasonable way to assign merit pay. Currently the way to move beyond a low base wage is years of experience and increased educational acquisition. I can't imagine many teachers staying in the field if they are stuck with that base wage for years on end. I think that experience counts for a lot in education and do not see a revolving door of young, inexperienced teachers bringing us anywhere positive.

Re: Teach for America. I am generally supportive of the program when TFA teachers are meeting a need that exists. I also think it may play an important role in the future of education for people from diverse fields to have firsthand experiences in high poverty schools and a better understanding of what it takes to instruct unprepared students. However, I would disagree with your conclusion about what it has shown.

Washington Post--A New Look At Teach For America

I recommend following the link contained within the column, but the column does summarize some of the key points.
An excerpt from the conclusions portion of the study:

��.TFA teachers appear less effective in both reading and mathematics than fully prepared entrants teaching similar students, at least until the TFA teachers become prepared and certified themselves. While the small number who stay this long are sometimes found to be more effective in mathematics than other teachers, their attrition rate of more than
80 percent means that few students receive the benefit of this greater effectiveness, while districts pay the costs of high attrition.�

On the one hand this supports Val�s contention that math instruction done by teachers who are near the top of their college classes is a desirable outcome, on the other hand, it suggests that becoming a quality teacher is not as simple as just being a top college student. Either way, it is unlikely that lowering pay is going to attract the 80% who do their two years and then move on to something else.

I mentioned compensation, which includes pensions that few in the private sector have. Money saved by cutting hourly compensation can be used reduce budget deficits and to reduce class sizes, as described in a recent article on the Kaukauna school district of Wisconsin:

http://jewishworldreview.com/0711/york.php3
Jewish World Review
July 12, 2011
Controversial budget law begins to pay off
By Byron York

...

In the past, Kaukauna's agreement with the teachers union required the school district to purchase health-insurance coverage from something called WEA Trust -- a company created by the Wisconsin teachers union. "It was in the collective-bargaining agreement that we could negotiate only with them," says Arnoldussen. "Well, you know what happens when you can negotiate with only one vendor." This year, WEA Trust told Kaukauna that it would face a significant increase in premiums.

Now the collective-bargaining agreement is gone, and the school district is free to shop around for coverage. And all of a sudden, WEA Trust has changed its position. "With these changes, the schools could go out for bids, and, lo and behold, WEA Trust said, 'We can match the lowest bid,'" says Republican state Rep. Jim Steineke, who represents the area and supports the Walker changes. At least for the moment, Kaukauna is staying with WEA Trust but saving substantial amounts of money.

Then there are work rules. "In the collective-bargaining agreement, high-school teachers had to teach only five periods a day out of seven," says Arnoldussen. "Now they're going to teach six." In addition, the collective-bargaining agreement specified that teachers had to be in the school 37-1/2 hours a week. Now it will be 40 hours.

The changes mean Kaukauna can reduce the size of its classes -- from 31 students to 26 students in high school and from 26 students to 23 students in elementary school. In addition, there will be more teacher time for one-on-one sessions with troubled students. Those changes would not have been possible without the much-maligned changes in collective bargaining.

Teachers' salaries will stay "relatively the same," Arnoldussen says, except for higher pension and health care payments. (The top salary is about $80,000 per year, with about $35,000 in additional benefits, for 184 days of work per year -- summers off.) Finally, the money saved will be used to hire a few more teachers and institute merit pay.

It is impossible to overstate how bitter and ugly the Wisconsin fight has been, and that bitterness and ugliness continues to this day with efforts to recall senators and an unseemly battle inside the state Supreme Court. But the new law is now a reality, and Gov. Walker recently told the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel that the measure would gain acceptance "with every day, week and month that goes by that the world doesn't fall apart."

In the Kaukauna schools, the world is definitely not falling apart -- it's getting better.

I'm having a difficult time replying to this without getting into a long political/economic tangent. My brief thoughts in response would be that in my experience, people in well paid jobs typically also have decent vacation and sick leave allowances. Unfortunately, I was not able to find a comprehensive look at paid vacation levels relative to salary. Based on the lifestyles of professionals around here, well paid white collar work seems to come with many weeks of paid vacation and many paid holidays. I mention that only because it factors into length of work year, although I would acknowledge that teachers work a shorter year.

That said, under current common pay structures, I think talking about "average salaries" is misleading. An employee who has made an average of $50-60,000 per year from the very beginning has been compensated overall at a much higher cumulative level than the employee who started at $30000 and earned $1000-$1500 more each year until they reached that average salary. After 15 years, there is around $150,000 difference in cumulative pay, (and that assumes no forward movement by the employee who started at $50,000). Kaukana, by the way, has (or had) one of the highest salary averages in the state in 2009-10, which is the most recent year with reliable data, so that $80,000 in the article, which is significantly above average, is also being paid in a district that is outside of the norm in Wisconsin.

I would also recommend looking at:

State and Local Workers Earn Less than Private Sector Workers, Even Factoring in Benefits

As far as the changes in Kaukauna...reduction in class size is always nice, but but doing it by increasing the number of periods that teachers teach, while raising the overall numbers of students they see, is not good for students. Being well prepared to teach 6 periods per day, and keeping up in any kind of meaningful way on the work of 130 students is not doable with an hour of prep time per day. Anyone who has ever given a presentation knows the work that goes into being well prepared--imagine doing that daily for 6 periods a day (even if some hours are same material to different sections of students), never mind trying to do that while differentiating and grading the assignments. Rigorous instruction is not delivered through seat of your pants teaching. Strong subject knowledge and strong instructional skills still require adequate preparation and follow up time.

I'm going to leave aside commenting on the insurance issues since my views on that are bound up in a much broader political analysis.

I would agree with the article's contention that the fight in Wisconsin has been bitter and ugly. I would add disturbing and frightening, but that's another story....

The vast majority of jobs in industry give you two weeks out of twelve to start with, maybe moving up to four if you work at the company for a long time. Many companies combine sick leave with vacation, and you get some random number of days that's usually below 20. If you get really sick or need surgery, chances are you won't get any vacation that year. Do a search; this is the industry standard.

Contractors (and there are a lot of them) often get no time off, no sick pay, no insurance...nothing but their hourly wage.

Sorry, but sometimes I get the impression that many teachers aren't aware of how things are in other workplaces.

At a minimum, teachers get the following vacations in addition to sick pay:

• Two weeks at Christmas (10 days)
• A week in the winter (5 days)
• A week in April (5 days)

These three vacations alone make four weeks of time off out of a ten-month work year. So when complaining that a teachers "only" gets a salary of $60,000, remember that this number is for part-time work (~75%).

Here's a site showing average teacher salaries in California. The overall average teacher salary (excluding benefits) in the state is ~$68K for ten months of work. This sounds pretty good to me, at least in California.

Interestingly, the site says that average salaries have gone up recently because many junior, lower-paid teachers got laid off. So: it doesn't matter if they were better teachers than the more senior ones. They got sacked because they were junior. There have to be poor teachers in the senior group --- and the system has preserved them, at a higher cost, while jettisoning better (but junior) teachers.

I don't know what you mean about average salaries. Average is average. Roughly half are below an average and half are above. What's your point?


The school day goes from 8:30-2:30 and there is an hour allotted for prep time and correcting. Fine. But what about the time after 2:30? Most people work until 5 or 6 (many professionals work even later). You're saying that teachers stop working at 2:30? If so, this brings your time commitment from ~75% down to ~50%.

Wow, I'm working in the wrong school district. I get one week off at Christmas and we have a very limited spring break. Granted, I only work 10 months a year (roughly), but I only get paid for 10 months a year as well. I didn't start at $68K either. Is it really typical for schools to give a week off in winter and in April? Or are you referring to something I'm missing? <summer brain> My school day starts at 7:00 and runs until 3:30 with 30 minutes for lunch.