Some of you guys are spending a lot of time pointing fingers at parents. There are other equally authoritative influences in an underachieved student's lives No doubt. Professors here tend to be involved in scientific research that I presume is mandatory for the employed doctors. But I don't know if that's covered by their wage.
@Supermonkey Reading through the whole link they recognize that while that number may not account for all the hours that they work the same applies for other jobs as well. Additionally many teachers receive a paid lunch/break throughout the day. I know in my high school teachers had 1 period off a day to work on grading, classwork, etc for which they were paid. While I can't argue with what your mother calculated I can say that without seeing the data firsthand it's impossible to say how her data fits in with the rest of the statistics on the subject. She is likely one of the small percentage who spends a substantially more amount of time than most other teachers, however in every industry there are people who spend substantially more time on their jobs than their co-workers. I do find it hard to believe she was making less than minimum wage. For example let's assume a teacher was making an average salary of $45,000/year, is required to work 200 days/year, standard workday is 8 hours/day, minimum wage is below $9/hr. If a teacher spends this amount of time working for that wage they earn $28/hr, and work 1600 hours. Now in order to earn only $9/hr that teacher would have to work 5,000 hours during the year, a rather remarkable feat. Another example is a teacher spends an extra 2 hours a day beyond the 8 on grading, lesson plans, training. Now that brings the total hours worked during the year up to 2000, for an hourly salary of $22.5. Which is still well above minimum wage. I'm not sure why but teacher's salaries seem to be an especially sensitive subject. Personally it seems that our educational model as a whole is outdated, so fixing it wouldn't make sense as it currently is. I think focusing on the failures rather than successes always makes things seem worse than they are but the US educational system worked out well for me and has provided an opportunity to do what I like and make a great living at it.
I saw a film earlier this year called Lean On Me starring the superb Morgan Freeman. It's based on a true story. Obviously it's made for entertainment, but it does highlight the need for strong leadership at the top if you want real change. Without the will to change there can be no change. Actions speak louder than words, but seem to be few and far between these days. Unfortunately we live in a very analytical society which is good at generating stats but not change. In any case the film is Well worth watching. Morgan is on fine form. Enjoy.
This was quite a few years ago, and she was making much less than $45,000/year (even after almost 20 years of teaching). Admittedly, I can't really speak to the exact figures, but that was the result she expressed. I'll grant that it's possible she was mistaken. Again, I think there may be some general misunderstanding of what, exactly, goes into a teacher's day. It's easy to say they get a 1-hour paid lunch break, but most often that hour is the teacher's "conference period." If a parent needs to chat, there goes lunch. Principal needs a word, there goes that hour. Student needs some tutoring, guess when. In most other fields, if you have a meeting during lunch, you get to shift your lunch hour. Not so with teaching. Same thing with bathroom breaks. Also, it's not fair to ask a teacher to have all the grading done in that hour, in addition to class preparation and any other task that needs to be done, especially in the higher grades where they have to read lengthy term papers. That's why most of them end up staying late or taking the work home over the weekend. As with most jobs, there are some people that work more, and there are some instances where working late is necessary. With teaching, it almost seems expected. There also are other costs that are not factored. School districts generally don't pay for any of those posters on the wall. The big chart with the multiplication tables? I can almost guarantee that came out of the teacher's pocket. The bulletin board? Same thing. Miscellaneous books for kids to read? The teacher bought those. Pens, markers, glue? Once again, the teacher. In my mother's district (not just the school, the entire district), they were under a paper ration. Each teacher got a set amount of paper for each semester. If they wanted to make additional copies they had to go out and buy their own reams. In my building, we use reams of paper as monitor stands. Additionally, there is growing sentiment that teachers should provide day care services. As parents head off to work, they expect someone to be at the school at 6:00 AM to watch their children. Teacher salaries are a hot topic, and there is a good reason. They don't get paid enough for what they have to put up with, nor do they get the respect they deserve. -monkey
Teacher salaries are indeed a hot topic. Personally I think they are fairly paid. Teaching like any other industry is a free market, so salaries are a result of markets and are thus acceptable to those teaching, else they would be doing something more lucrative. The supplies that teachers use beyond those provided by the school can and should be deducted from one's taxes as an non-reimbursed school expense. I don't think it's expected for teachers to take large amounts of work home, I know many teachers who didn't take anything home with them at all. Some teachers aren't paid enough but it seems like many are paid too much for the apathy and results they produce. While the issue of teaching salaries is not clear, it is clear that anytime research is conducted people find faults with the method and say it isn't representative. If there are better studies which show teachers work 100+ hours/week on average I would love to see them. The research I have done (based of the Bureau of Labor Statistics, see my earlier post) says that teachers on average work 36-38 hours/week. Until I'm shown proof beyond "I'm sure I work more than that" I'll continue to use that as a fact. I have backed up my opinions with facts, statistics, and numbers, and expect the same for convincing counter-arguments.
That's a fair enough request. The National Education Association has a few studies of their own. These statistics are from 2000-2001, but I believe they hold up today. The data is fairly consistent to similar studies conducted throughout the decades, as far back as 1961. I'll quote the highlights from the webpage: According to the report, the mean salary has increased since 1961. I think that's great. Then again, there's also inflation. I would like to know how the mean salary has trended when adjusted for inflation and overall cost of living. The thing I found interesting is that, even when faced with all the potentially negative things, the vast majority of teachers responded that they would continue teaching. They can't be too apathetic to keep coming back for more. -monkey
No, in fact, teachers are notoriously tenacious and dedicated, no matter how apathetic they may seem to the casual observer. The film "To Sir, With Love" illustrates the attitude very well. Personally, it's an outlook I can't relate to. I'd give up on the little pondlife sulky stubborn ****s within minutes.
Thanks for the information. I found teacher pay statistics for the state of Indiana (where I'm from) from 1974-Present including adjusted for inflation. From this data total teacher salary has increased slightly more than inflation, from $11,165 to 12,300. However it seems to have peaked in 1998-99 and has decreased since then, however I have no further information as to why.
Thankyou, you are SO right. Maybe not the asians taking over the world part (and i'm half chinese here) haha.
Added to that I would put A total ban on on all electronic devices in the classroom. No phones/mp3 players etc. You won't have the attention of a pupil if you allow them to be distracted with gadgets.
So here is my question. Assuming the students are getting inadequate or no parental support, guidance, attention, etc, then what. If parents can't be arsed to care for their kids, who's going to do it? Or are we just going to write these kids off as failures by the second grade?
It's not a matter of who is going to do it, but who can. Teachers can't, and I do not think it is appropriate to set them up to fail just because the parents who should take responsibility can't, or won't. That will just propagate the belief that it is somehow the teachers' responsibility and not the parents', and that it is all the teachers' fault for not managing it. It is like people suing the NHS for their children getting fat when they do not establish healthy eating habits in them. At some point people have to take personal responsibility.
A heretical view - why should modern education be "fun"? It seems the teacher is expected to be an entertainer, keep the class amused, as though education were some TV documentary where you don't want the audience to flick over to another channel. Try looking on getting an education as "work" that will give future benefits; I'm sure that's how some poor third-worlder sees it as he walks to school. And how the working classes in this country saw it in Victorian times as education was opened up to anyone who wanted it. Life isn't all fun, it's a struggle. Teach kids that instead of pandering to their every whim.
That's true, teachers shouldn't be solely charged with holding kids' attention. But kids have an insatiable appetite for fun, don't they? The more gruelling an experience schooling is, the more they'll dig their heels in, I'd have thought. My friend raised an interesting point yesterday: perhaps we simply tackle education at the wrong age. He and I both find physics, geography, history and literature very interesting now, and wish we'd paid more attention during high/secondary school. At the time, however, we couldn't give a monkey's: we were concerned with puberty and every flavour of distraction that comes with it. If the education system tried to spoon-feed us a general grounding in all areas now, we'd lap it up, because we've settled down as individuals. Less ego, less angst and less sexual overdrive. Granted, kids' minds are most able to learn in the teens, but it's also when they're least willing. Wouldn't it make sense to let them get their childhoods over with, then start teaching them about the world when there's room in their heads for it?
