In focus-group interviews that I conducted, candidates enrolled at the most-selective education schools reported having been told, "You are too smart to become a teacher" and feeling as if "I would probably end up living in my parents' basement with my wife and children." On another occasion, even a foundation executive who worked in urban-school reform told of having to bite his tongue when his son, who attended a top college, announced with pride that he was going to become a teacher. The executive was about to say, "Is that all you are going to do after all the money we spent on your education?"I remember a print ad from quite a while ago, which must have been placed by the NEA. It showed an empty classroom and the line: "The sale is over." The "sale" was the cheap price society paid to hire teachers, back in the days when when other lines of work were closed or hostile to women and when women expected to receive lower pay. We've never really adjusted to the end of the sale on teachers, have we?
But beyond economics, I think it used to be much more ingrained in women that we should be unselfish and unmaterialistic. It was common to the point of mind-numbing triteness for girls, asked about careers, to answer, "I want to help people" or "I want to work with children" and, of course, "I don't care about money." Girls that didn't feel that way would disguise that fact, for fear of being thought not a good person. That's the way I remember it.
पोस्ट्स
१७ टिप्पण्या:
1) 28-32 kids in a classroom? I wish!I teach 37 kids each period.
2) Taking your figure of $10K per student, I see less than 15% of that 370K. Most of it is sucked up by educational bureacracy.
3) That being said, I am a teacher who is in favor of vouchers.
Taking your figure of $10K per student, I see less than 15% of that 370K. Most of it is sucked up by educational bureacracy.
Given that this is clearly the case, I've always wondered why teachers don't get angry with their empire building administrators. They are stealing the funds you so richly deserve! Not your already overburdened taxpayers. Not your obviously interested in education President.
But beyond economics, I think it used to be much more ingrained in women that we should be unselfish and unmaterialistic.
I think to an extent that mentality still exists but its spread to boys too. Equal opportunity guilt!
I remember lots of classmates who wanted to be environmental lawyers and doctors who help people, etc. I'm sure there were those who straight up said they just wanted to be rich but I don't recall them.
I don't know that the "sale" ever ended. If you have a child, a job that is synchronized to their schedule has considerable economic value in and of itself. Though that doesn't factor into many, or even most teachers' lives, the fact that there is a supply of teachers for whom going to work in that profession is effectively pure profit for their family will always exert some downward pressure on salaries. In general, people don't get paid what they're worth - they get paid about what it would cost to replace them, adjusted for non-financial hassle factor.
As to the issue of attracting "top college graduates" to the profession, what difference does that make? Is there any evidence at all that graduates of Columbia or Harvard are better teachers than graduates of New Mexico State? Sorry, but I have to agree with the parents on this one - I'm not sure I want my child locked in a classroom with somebody crazy enough to pay Columbia tuition when they could have gotten (and be just as good at) the same job with a degree from the SUNY of their choice.
My son was a junior in high school when he told me that he wanted to be a teacher. He had entered high school wanting to go into I.T. like his dad.
I told him that I thought it was a great idea and that he would be a great teacher. He's a sophmore in college majoring in Elementary Ed and has already been spending time in classrooms teacher aiding - and loving every second of it. He knows that pay will be a little low to start but in our neck of the woods teachers get paid fairly well once they have put a few years in.
Most of the problems facing education, IMO, are in the bureacracy that runs the districts and the unions that teachers have to belong to. Fix those and education will improve.
J: The "sale" was the way schools could hire the best college graduates cheaply, because women with the highest credentials regularly took such jobs. You can no longer routinely attract these women into teaching. That "sale" is in fact over. These women are pursuing other options. You're just saying the schools could argue that the pay is better than it looks, because of other benefits, but that doesn't change the reality of women not taking these jobs the way they used to.
Adding to this problem is that Schools of Education at colleges and universities are widely perceived (I think rightly) to be intellectually lacking. A lot of my friends that started as Education majors ended up changing out of sheer boredom and lack of challenge in the education curriculum.
That's why I teach college--I wanted to get a degree in literature (something with a "there" there) not education. That's one of the things I admire about private schools--they'll hire someone with a master's degree in a subject over someone with a generalized degree in education any day.
Re "the best college graduates": My point is that an Ivy League degree opens a lot of professional doors - but not in education, and is thus not worth it in that profession if you want to be in the classroom. In business such a degree is a powerful branding tool, but it's NO guarantee that the person holding it isn't stupid and incompetent (that is not meant as a political statement - sorry Art). Indeed, there's a statistical case that CEOs with Harvard or Columbia MBAs are actually harmful to shareholder return (http://www.forbes.com/2002/04/25/0425ceoschools.html).
Re: "You're just saying the schools could argue that the pay is better than it looks", I think you've got me confused with Dave or Slocum. Nothing I wrote implies any position on the appropriate level of teacher pay. I'm saying that teacher pay will always be suppressed to some extent by the existence of a group that is willing to accept lower pay because of benefits that are irrelevant to most teachers but have significant financial value to that group.
I don't see why women, "top graduate" or otherwise, pursuing other options is a bad thing.
J: "I don't see why women, "top graduate" or otherwise, pursuing other options is a bad thing."
It's bad for education not to have good teachers, obviously. Women should pursue their own goals and shouldn't be discriminated against, but schools need to bring in quality teachers, and they are failing to do it.
But beyond economics, I think it used to be much more ingrained in women that we should be unselfish and unmaterialistic. It was common to the point of mind-numbing triteness for girls, asked about careers, to answer, "I want to help people" or "I want to work with children" and, of course, "I don't care about money."
I think you've captured that well, and I think that was pretty common well into the '70s, even. I remember my mom railing about the attitude back in the day and once really slapping down someone for saying that teaching was really a calling more than a career. She felt that people just used that as an excuse to marginalize and underpay primarily "female" occupations, and that it implied that women should somehow be satisfied with "more lofty" rewards than money. It seems to me that there's a good deal of truth to that.
That said, I also think with regard to current pay for teachers (bearing in mind that this isn't true in school districts or even states) that this pretty much captures it:
Based on my own experience, I think most teachers are paid handsomely given their education and ability. The few truly outstanding teachers are surely underpaid, but I've met many who are clearly overpaid.
Actually, now that I re-read Catorenasci's whole comment (from which I excerpted the above), it seems pretty on target overall.
Wow! It was very interesting to read everybody's responses about teachers and teacher training in the U.S.
I am a Canadian teacher. I chose the teaching profession, having initially pursued a career in advertising, marketing, and public service. In 2001 I decided to quit my high-paying job and go back to university to become a teacher. As a result I now have two undergraduate degrees and one Masters of Teaching degree. I worked very hard and had to get top grades to enter teacher's college. Once there I had to maintain a high GPA to graduate. Teaching is a highly competitive profession here in Canada. Our universities offer limited spots for those entering teacher training programs, and the competition for those spots is fierce. Top grades, experience, references and excellent interviews are mandatory pre-requisites. This must be because our teacher unions are strong, teachers are paid well, and we receive good benefits. Our salaries are commeasurate with our individual level of education and years of teaching experience. Teachers are encouraged to pursue post-graduate degrees because this will lead to a higher level of pay.
That being said, teachers are consistently undervalued and overworked no matter where in the world they teach. However I would never discourage anyone from becoming a teacher. It is a rewarding profession. There are deep relationships formed within the classroom, with staff, and with parents, and many of these relationships last a lifetime. It is an amazing thing to see how what you say, think, and do affects your students inside and outside the classroom. I love that I am a teacher, and I am glad I changed professions to become and educator. Let us not forget that teaching is the profession that forms all others :)
If one normalizes government school teacher pay and benefits for days worked I suspect one will find that teaching pays very well.
It depends. Are you going to just use the hours I spend in a classroom with students present? Then you might have a point.
But if you are going to include all the time after work and on the weekends that I spend grading papers, writing lesson plans, and talking to parents; all of the "days off" I spend attending professional development, writing curriculum, and organizing the school year; and all of the hours of classes I have to take to maintain my credential then things aren't so clear.
We are clearly the lowest paid of all the professions.
I am finding that those of my baby boom generation who went into teaching already retired in their early to mid 50's. Most of the rest of us are a decade or so away. I also see this with the military and the police, but have always felt that justified that based on the inherant danger of their professions. I have a hard time justifying that for teachers.
But a couple of previous posters have nailed it I think. So much of the public school funding now goes into administration, that the price/performance of public education has gotten to be abysmal. Add to that, that the union mandated job security and lock-step pay result in marginal teachers staying in the profession, and those more talented going elsewhere. The result is a failure in public education (and, yes, I strongly support private education, vouchers, and home schooling).
Finally, I agree that a lot of attorneys and doctors are not pushing their kids to follow them into their professions. Many in my generation did follow their parents, but I don't see this as much now. I will admit though that as a patent attorney, I would suggest that as a career to a kid of mine. It is one of the most intellectually stimulating careers I can envision, and, so far, doesn't have the same type of stress as does a regular law practice.
Ann, the history of teaching shows that the most capable women, and those most interesting in working, chose teaching as a career in the first half to two-third of the 20th century. Why? Because what else were they going to do? Besides the odd doctor and lawyer, teaching and nursing were two skilled professions that were quite open to women.
That's changed, of course. But what hasn't are the intellectual demands of teaching. It's not easy to plan and execute a lesson for learning, and then build on it the next day. Teaching is not "whatever you want."
I teach future teachers, and I've had more than one break down in tears when I tell my class that teaching is good, difficulty, demanding, and noble. The weepers always tell us about the nasty comments they've gotten from parents/relatives for their choice.
miked0268:
There are really a lot of variables involved. How organized are you? What subject are you teaching? Are you involved in a leadership (Dept Chair, grade level leader, etc) position? How many preps do you have ? (are you teaching only one class such as Algebra? or are you teaching Geometry and Algebra II also?)
This year I know of a veteran teacher at my campus who leaves work everyday at 3:00 P.M. (kids leave at 2:00 P.M.) and has to take no work home with him or work on the week ends. The teacher next door stays until 5:00 P.M. each night and comes in on Saturdays when she can.
I fit somewhere between the two.
I used to work 60 hours a week, 240 - 280 days a year, for near minimum wage. I don't work nearly that hard now.
Ah yes, the easy life of a teacher. One of the enduring myths. If it had been easy, I would still be teaching.
One of the things not mentioned in the comments is the degree to which the first few years of teaching (when there is no job security) are so demanding. Six years of 12 hour days took their toll, and I moved on.
I'll admit that I was not the most organized teacher. Marking papers dragged me down. Too bad I couldn't have outsourced that part of my job. Or maybe I should have taught gym. Or math.
But even if I were more organized, I still would have had a couple hours of grading each day, and at least an hour of preparation outside of the 50 minute prep period I got.
In my second year, a helpful principal wanted to try to figure out how I could improve my efficiency. I was teaching 3 sections of 7th grade English -- 17 kids per section -- in addition to a couple of other classes. Great student-teacher ratio, as one finds in an expensive private school, and it came with some very high expectations. Students were turning in a couple pages of writing each week.
So I asked the principal how much time he thought I should give to each one-page essay -- not just to slap a grade on it, but to write comments and make suggestions for improvement. He thought that 15 minutes seemed about right. I asked him to do the math. I remember the look on his face when it dawned on him that worked out to be 12.5 hours for a single, one page writing assignment.
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा