Lets screw the teachers shall we?

[crashhelmet]

I used to be a teacher. It's what I went to college for the first time around. When I graduated college in Florida, the starting pay for a teacher was $22k a year for a standard 9 month school year. I ended up moving back to California to be closer to my family. There, at the time, starting pay for a teacher was $30k a year.

For the first year, I taught 3 morning classes at a High School and then had to travel across town to teach 2 afternoon classes at a middle school. I was the Band and Choir teacher, so throughout the year, I'd have to put in extra hours for practices, rehearsals, and competitions.

For the second year, they added an Intro to Computers course after the three morning classes. It was more like a typing class, but they learned how to use a Mac in the process. I didn't get a raise with the extra workload.

In some places, $30k a year may be a lot. In the San Francisco Bay Area, it's not. Half of my take home went to rent, another quarter of it went to utilities and other expenses like car insurance, etc. After feeding myself, I was left with little to save. I took part time jobs and gigs here and there to bring in the extra money that I needed. I was not paid for the summer months, so I had to make sure I had enough work lined up to pay my rent until the school year started up again.

$30k for 9 months worth of work might seem like a lot too, but considering I put an average of 50-60 hours in a week, it often balanced out to making less than a "normal" career.

After those 2 years of it, I had to give it up and goto work in the I.T. industry. Aside from a short side track in bartending, I've been doing it since.

I'd love to go back to being a teacher full time. I am someone that truly enjoys doing it. But unless I goto work for a private school, I wouldn't be able to afford it. Here in Nevada, where I live now, starting pay is around $35k a year which is still less than what I make working in a call center for an ISP. However, if I didn't have the bills I have now (student loans from going back to school as well as being a single dad), I could probably get by as a teacher here with the lower cost of living.

As others have pointed out, teachers are grossly underpaid and are often the first to get their budgets cut and/or stripped when the state is having issues.

Someone mentioned cutting athletics. If it wasn't for athletics, most schools wouldn't have any money. It's where they get the majority of what they need to get by for the year. Yes, some may be frivolously blown on new uniforms or stadiums and what not, but there's a large chunk that goes to making sure other programs have new books, bunson burners, and a school newspaper. It's why so much "special treatment" is thrown their way.

CH

[HYHYBT]

We need longer school days (which teacher's unions fight, btw) and more emphasis on education.

I don't think we *do* need longer school days. For the kids, it'd pretty much cut out "extracurricular" activities (the quotes because they're generally school-based) and I know I got more out of mine than out of any two other classes. And from the teacher side, remember their days neither start nor end by when the students are in the building: normally (in the schools I'm familiar with, anyway) they have to be there more than an hour earlier, and the ones who are worth keeping often stay several hours after the last student has left and/or continue working after they're home. Mom's a counselor rather than a teacher, but she had to retire for health reasons at the end of this past year and one of the reasons she was out sick so often was that whenever she got well enough to go back to work she'd have to work until the building was locked up at 6PM and made herself sick again. Now some of that was from being behind because she'd been out, but even when she was well she'd often have a ten-hour day. I know, a *lot* of people work hours like that, but it shouldn't be too much of a surprise that those who do don't like being told their workdays are too short!

[Nyoibo]

The other problem with longer school days is that kids just don't take it all in, after a certain point it's just basically banging your head against a wall to get them to listen.

[Boozy]

The other problem with longer school days is that kids just don't take it all in, after a certain point it's just basically banging your head against a wall to get them to listen.

American schools are already experts at destroying childhoods.

My cousin moved her family to New Jersey a few years ago (from Canada) and was appalled at the amount of homework getting assigned to her children. There is no reason for an eight year-old to be getting over two hours of homework an evening. Frankly, six hours of formal learning a day is plenty for children under 10. The majority of learning a child does is through exploring their world in an unstructured manner.

Schools can sometimes confuse quantity with quality. The solution to churning out dumb students isn't to do more of what one is already doing. It's changing what one is doing.

[RecoveringKinkoid]

Boozy's last post. The entire thing.

If school was any longer, or if there were no summer vacation, I don't know what I would have done. Probably killed myself.

I could have probably learned a lot more if I didn't have to contend with school every single horrible day.

We don't need more school. We need better school. And we need to start paying attention to what works and what doesn't.

[I8DaCookie]

The majority of learning a child does is through exploring their world in an unstructured manner.

This is the philosophy for my own classroom. I teach HS theatre and my understanding is that the previous teacher had the Theatre 1 class spend the first half of school reading out of a textbook and doing handouts. When I took over, we read from the book as a class and discuss what we read. After that, we do some sort of extention activity. For example, we did Ancient Greek and Asian theatre, both of which involved masks. So my class made masks and performed a scene.

Now I have my professional development day next week and we're required to bring test questions that we can enter into a program. Apparently they want to start formally testing the fine arts. How the hell can you test theatre? Most of what we do is in class through doing and discussion, not sitting down and reading a bunch of facts to memorize.

Don't like my methods? Go ahead, ask my kids what dues ex machina means and have them give you an example. They'll give you several. Or ask them how Greek theatre influenced society. What they'll tell you came from no book but active class discussions.

I'll probably quit my job if I'm forced to do formal testing. I refuse to teach my class to a test like other subjects. Ain't happening.

[Akasa]

I'll probably quit my job if I'm forced to do formal testing. I refuse to teach my class to a test like other subjects. Ain't happening.

Your tests could be as simple as asking questions about what was discussed can't they?

[AdminAssistant]

It is possible to objectively test a fine art - such as theatre. (I've wrote such tests!) It's as simple as focusing on fact, vocabulary, etc. Example: "What is a deus ex machina?" "Which Greek tragedian was known for using said device?" "What tragedy did Aristotle claim was the perfect tragedy in The Poetics?"

Does that get at the heart of what theatre is and what it tries to do? No. But it is a way to check material.

We're actually restructuring our Intro class to get away from "memorizing facts" and moving toward critical thinking and discussion. We're not using a traditional text - we're using a philosophy book by Paul Woodruff called The Necessity of Theatre. It's very interesting and easy to read. We're having them read all American plays, and the oldest one is The Glass Menagerie (1944). We're challenging them to think about how theatre fits in modern society, instead of making them read Medea and memorize a lot of terminology.

So far, it's really working. Anyway, Cookie, it sounds like you're doing a fantastic job with your kids! Best of luck, break a leg, go to the devil, and merde.

[I8DaCookie]

Your tests could be as simple as asking questions about what was discussed can't they?

Unfortunatly no, it's all about memorizing facts. Nothing about what's at the heart of things or making a connection to the outside world. And from what I understand, they want to make it standardized. So I have to teach specific things just so my students pass a bloody test.

I just don't want to teach to a test. It's so counter productive and one of the major problems with NCLB...god I hate that thing.

[Fashion Lad!]

Unfortunatly no, it's all about memorizing facts. Nothing about what's at the heart of things or making a connection to the outside world. And from what I understand, they want to make it standardized. So I have to teach specific things just so my students pass a bloody test.

I just don't want to teach to a test. It's so counter productive and one of the major problems with NCLB...god I hate that thing.

I have had tests on concepts. This was in my philosophy class.

I don't feel that the teachers should be the ones to always take the cuts, but I don't think they are. There are a lot of government workers also taking cuts. I know in my state, teachers are generally some of the last people to feel any economic hardship of the state or country.

[McDreidel09]

You may disagree but I think wielding a multiton object at cheetah speeds is a bit more dangerous than spouting facts at bored kids.

Wow. Is that what you really think of teachers? People who just stand there and talk?

They do so much more. They help prepare students for real life, in things as attendance and tardiness. They help prepare them to listen to authority figures, because the students will all have a boss someday that they have to listen to.

Teachers are not glorified babysitters nor are they people who just spout facts at kids. They do take a lot of crap. Sure, they don't have to drive a multiton vehicle, but let me tell you, they deal with hormonal teenagers and they can get dangerous.

For example: my high school Government and Sociology teacher came to my school my senior year. Before then, she was employed at a different school. She was really surprised that we (for the most part) always came in on time, sat down, got our books out, were prepared for class, and fights were a very, very rare occurrence. In her old place of employment, she had to break up fights several times a day, had a trash can thrown at her, bomb threats, gun threats, threats of bodily harm, gang fights, and even had students sneak weapons in. They had to put in metal detectors at the doors.

[Flyndaran]

Good and great teachers do more, certainly. But the base minimum for a teaching job is spouting facts. That was what the vast majority of my school teachers did. Of course teachers in shit-hole schools have more threat of physical danger. But I stand by the fact that simply driving to work every day is actually quite dangerous.

[McDreidel09]

Then by that standard, I should be able to be a teacher now, rather than going to school for 5 years to get my Bachelor's or 7 to get my Master's, if jobs demand Master's by then. I can just throw out random facts.

Sorry, just saying that teachers at minimum just drone on and on is not at all correct. There is certainly more to the job, even with being a crappy teacher. As mentioned before, teachers spend 60-70 hours a week doing their job because they have to take their stuff home. They have to have lesson plans. Lesson plans aren't very simple either. They have to explain what goal set down by the state each assignment and lesson achieves.

I got to see a behind the scenes look at being a teacher. It's not pretty. However, I would still like to do it because I like to teach. I am willing to go through all of that work and deal with teenagers being the way they are to help them.

[Flyndaran]

...
Sorry, just saying that teachers at minimum just drone on and on is not at all correct. There is certainly more to the job, even with being a crappy teacher. As mentioned before, teachers spend 60-70 hours a week doing their job because they have to take their stuff home. They have to have lesson plans. Lesson plans aren't very simple either. They have to explain what goal set down by the state each assignment and lesson achieves.
....

Your "have to" is not quite what I consider "have to" probably more akin to my "should". I just never say any evidence of coherent plans in most of my teacher's lessons. None for the vast majority! Ask a question about tomorrow's lesson, and they will look at you like a deer caught in the head lights. Most stay just one day ahead of the class. That's not what I call planning ahead.
You must live and work in a nicer area.

[Arcade Man D]

Then by that standard, I should be able to be a teacher now, rather than going to school for 5 years to get my Bachelor's or 7 to get my Master's, if jobs demand Master's by then. I can just throw out random facts.

What state are you in that you can teach with a Bachelors?

Most states require a Masters within 5 years of your probationary licensing, or getting the Masters beforehand.