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

1. I didn't say anything about starting salaries. I quoted average salaries. Don't twist words!

2. A school year typically lasts 180 days. So if you don't get two one-week breaks in February and April, you probably get more than two months off in the summer. Example, Miami schools start in mid-August but are out before Memorial Day because they only take a week in March. Cambridge (MA) schools start right after Labor Day and end in Mid-June because of a vacation in February and a vacation in April. The numbers are still the same.

(Year-round schools still keep the 180 day rule, as far as I know. They have lots of short breaks throughout the year.)

The school district may not pay you in the summer, but you're free to find other work during that time. Everyone choosing to teach knows this going in.

3. Sounds like a long day; the schools I looked at and most or all the public schools where I live run between 8 and 3 (most start later and end earlier).

But how much of that time are you actually teaching?

Argh, no! I don't want to fight. I just feel obliged to make my points in a clear way. A contentious subject like this one is prone to all kinds of misunderstandings, so what may appear as truculence is really an attempt at clarity. It's also an unfortunate fact that words and meanings get manipulated in the debate throughout the country at large.

I'm not politically motivated in any way here; I simply try to find facts about the system and analyze/report them. It's unfortunate that there are some discomfiting facts in the world of education.



Val

I started drafting a response and then stopped. I come to this forum because I am interested in what people have to say on a variety of topics related to giftedness. It's something I enjoy. While I feel that there is more to be said, I'm realizing that this doesn't feel like a discussion to me and I am just not interested in having a long, draining argument. Bottom line, you are not going to convince me that teachers are overpaid, underworked and incompetent and I am clearly not going to convince you of the opposite. I had hoped that there would be some room for us to build shared understanding and some level of consensus, in part because I see that as the only viable path to improving anything, and I do believe that we need to continue to improve our education system. However, I'm realizing that this is feeling too much to me like the partisan back and forth that I find so discouraging in our political system, and in my area the political situation is already taking up my energy for that type of discourse. I do appreciate the time you've taken to try and clearly express your views. I'm sorry that we couldn't find a bridge to stand on here.
Peace,
Tam

I suppose the thing that frustrates me the most about conversations like this is the high level of misrepresentation or misunderstanding...I never said that teachers are overpaid; at most I said that average California salaries seemed "pretty good." Etc. etc. etc. I get very tired of having to refute incorrect points that having an undermining effect. This gets in the way of trying to define problems and find solutions.

Problem: Many teachers lack subject knowledge, especially in mathematics.

Problem: The US public school system has huge disincentives to maximizing knowledgeable talented people among the teaching ranks.

Solutions: Suggestions noted in the thread.

I understand that you're feeling frustrated, as I'm sure others are. But I am too. I'm very frustrated with the national education debate being driven by misinformation, an unwillingness to examine uncomfortable truths objectively, and an unwillingness to implement real, meaningful changes.

I'm not saying that you, personally are unwilling to, say, implement meaningful changes. I'm just saying that this is a national problem. But it is very frustrating when I write "A" and the reply is an criticism implying that I said "B," like the quote above.

K. �I'll butt in. �Only been reading this thread for two days. �I didn't wanna interrupt because it's two of the good thinkers here talking. �I'll throw in my out of the blue, um, creative thinking. �I see the problem as the strain the job appears to be creating for the teachers is because the public who employs them doesn't really understand their job. �The stress, the pressure that wilts even engaging efficient teachers over time is because they are a public employee and the public doesn't know what it wants from teachers. �
When I was a kid I liked almost all the teachers, I like everybody, but I really loved the occasional teacher that knew their subject. �The passion shows differently than a passion for teaching. �IIRC. �Anyway, is school only a weeding out process? �Do the better kids just get further in their education? �Then, is the goal to get the folks who graduate from the far end of education to improve the quality of the world? �Is the goal to improve the kids so that more of them get to the far side of education? �That's two different guesses. �There must be some value to mass education since it's mandatory and publicly funded. �If the consuming public could concretely outline the value being sold by the school system would it help teachers deal with the strain your job appears to create for you? �I would think it was stressful to work for a boss you can't please even when you do exactly what you think they said.

I have been only vaguely following this, I as an ex-teacher I have seen the view from both sides, but I think the problem is that both views are right. There are amazing committed teachers who work hard and stay in. There are amazing teachers who quit in frustration. Burnout rates can be very high. There are teachers who, quite frankly, I wouldn't inflict on any child.

And that's why I opted out, both as a teacher and a parent.

Hmm; I'm not sure what you want, then. There are serious problems in our education system, and they won't be solved if everyone makes sure that no teachers don't feel offended or unwelcome. And of course, we're going down that same path of distracting attention away from problems and potential solutions by accusing a critic of current policies as being "unwelcoming."

So I'll repeat:

Problem: Many teachers lack subject knowledge, especially in mathematics. I like Bostonian's idea of hiring specialists in math and science in the lower grades. I remember having art and music teachers as early as kindergarten. They came to our classroom until 3rd grade, when we started going to the music room (7th for art).

Problem: The US public school system has huge disincentives to maximizing knowledgeable, talented people among the teaching ranks. As noted, bonuses, pay raises, and promotions (e.g. "Teacher I" to "Teacher II") could address these problems.

I'll also add that the current system shortchanges gifted kids and slower learners by not allowing them to learn at appropriate paces. Suggestion: ability grouping, acceleration and...umm... deceleration (?).

In that regard, I was thinking about swimming lessons. The first thing the teachers do around here is to test everyone and ability group them. My six-year-old has a ten-year-old in her class, for example. My eleven-year-old swam with kids aged 10-~14. It works, and it doesn't cost extra money.

Thoughts and suggestions welcome.

GeoMama,

Thank you for expressing this so clearly.

Pennsylvania is starting to do this soon, with a new 4th-8th grade certification (preK-3rd is the new elementary ed certification). They are requiring that teachers specialize in one area (math, science, social studies, reading). They will need 30 credits in their chosen area, plus 15 credits in each of the other areas. I think it's a good idea, BUT you have to realize that this is going to have to be somewhat at the expense of education classes and electives - this is 75 credits of subjects! As a comparison, you only need 39 credits of math at Pitt to get a B.S. in Math, so the 4th grade math specialist would only be 3 classes away.

Did you happen to watch the video I posted previously about whether money actually motivates people to perform better on the job? It's very interesting! In PA, a new teacher starts with an Instructional I certificate for his/her first 3 years. They are probational (not covered by tenure) at this time, and they need to have 6 evaluations (2 per year). It is the school district's job to weed out the bad apples while they are Instructional I. If all of the evaluations are good, they move to Instructional II, get tenure, etc. I understand that some teachers give up trying and become bad teachers after those first 3 years, but I think that most of the bad apples could probably have been picked out during that time. Administrations need to do a better job of weeding out.

The reason that so many people dislike the idea of merit pay is that clearly the objective is to make this merit pay based on standardized test scores rather than any subjective measures. Merit pay based on standardized test scores will create a few negative incentives. First, teachers will get as far away as they can from the lower students and schools plagued by poverty and low scores. Second, even fewer resources will be devoted to students who are already proficient or above average. Everyone will want to teach them, but that doesn't mean that they will get the best teachers. For example, if Mr. Principal's niece is a teacher, he may give her a big group of gifted kids and no special ed or learning disabilities - she will get a big bonus for twiddling her thumbs. If Mrs. Great-Teacher ruffles some feathers by challenging the district on something, she may get all of the learning support kids next year - she will not be getting a bonus.

NCLB has been horrible for the upper half of our kids, putting all of the focus on the kids who aren't achieving. IMO, this is exactly the opposite of what our system should be doing. I wish we could have more of a European system, where kids are tracked into different types of school/career paths based on aptitude and achievement when they hit middle or high school. The kids who are either very smart or who are willing to work to have great achievement are the ones who really need to be prepared to go on to college and grad school - they are the ones who could be curing cancer or solving the debt crisis, etc!

I don't think that there are any easy solutions to solving our educational problems. I think that, as is typical in the US, no one wants to take responsibility. It definitely comes from both sides, but it is naive to think that a teacher can completely turn around a student's education without parent support. At the same time, a truly devoted family can ABSOLUTELY guarantee that their children get a good education in our country. When most of us grew up, it was our job to be good students, get our work done, and behave in school. I had a few good teachers, but most of them were just mediocre. Today, I have seen firsthand the way the parents can completely undermine the authority of the teachers and school, letting their kids get away with everything under the sun.

Wow, yes. That video was completely cool and got lost in the discussion.

It got me thinking about a lot of things. I remember doing a management course at work around 12 years ago; the guy teaching it was very good. One of the things he mentioned was that some of the happiest employees were train drivers, in large part because they had a lot of autonomy while they were driving the trains. I like the whole purpose-driven work environment idea a lot. In fact, I think that great leaders get this idea completely: they really involve people in the idea that we're all in it together and we're really going to do something great!


I also think that merit pay should be based many things and should be at the discretion of the principal rather than codified into a contract (there's that autonomy thing). It could be awarded for helping to find a new math curriculum or starting/running a successful after-school club.

But tests are important too (though I'd redesign them first). I'd structure things around the fact that kids learn at different rates and they shouldn't all be expected to take the same test at the same age. Ahh, there's an idea for a program that should earn some serious merit pay if successfully implemented.

I'm definitely no fan of industrial multiple choice testing. I do see some benefits of it, but think we rely on this type of test too heavily. (Danger: philosophy alert!) One of our great strengths as a nation is that we try to do big things in a big way (e.g. moon shots; iPhones). The downside of this philosophy is that it gets over-applied in the wrong places (e.g. testing mania). Europeans and other nations use tests that have to be graded individually by humans. This approach gives room for depth over superficiality. But it's slower and old-fashioned, so maybe Americans don't like it so much.

Double amen to everthing you wrote there.


Agreed. I'd also add that the student needs to eventually dig deep and put in huge effort. In this area, I really have a lot of sympathy for what teachers have to deal with. I'm sure it's hard in an immediate way in the classroom and extremely demoralizing over the longer term.