You need to convince your school board to buy Apple computers, then you won't have problems and you won't need those vulture IT's to run the things. You will save money by firing them and use contractors on call, but I'd be willing to bet you won't need them very much.
I'm not understanding why there is a need for a masters degree to teach young kids. A lesson plan to be developed and then executed surely does not need a masters degree. The stress part I will agree, teachers have one of the hardest jobs, but school budgets take up a very large share of the local taxes and close oversight needs to be in place. The tax payers need to know their money is being used to the utmost.
Unfortunately, the simple implementation of that oversight is what leads to "low bid wins" and that cuts Apple out of the classroom.
Around here, a masters' is not required but so much education-oriented training is required that most math/science teachers either work overtime in college to finish in 4 or don't get out until they've done 5 or go on and do another 1.5 years afterwards and then simply have to write a thesis to get a masters'. My daughter looked at that; she considered teaching HS (she liked the physics teacher). But, majoring in physics, minoring in math, completing the distribution requirements and getting certified couldn't be done in 4 years. She didn't want to stay in college more than 4 years, so she decided she'd just get her degree, work, and then see what happened.
She could go back to get a cert, now, but she'd be looking at a 50% pay cut (yep, a teacher salary is *half* of what her first "real" job as a BA in physics pays her in the software industry). Do we only want to bring in people who were failures in industry?
Moreover, there's a certain amount of baloney involved in the education certification process. One of my friends at work started out as a teacher and migrated into IT (he wanted to eat better, I guess) and he said nothing in his education curriculum (he taught music) was of any value whatever in the classroom. My daughter's experience was that the education faculty at her school had poor critical thinking skills, compared to the physics, math and English departments.
And, at the high school level, studies have shown that teacher success depends more on love of the subject matter than on formal training. My own experience as a student suggests that's true. HS World History, with a teacher that loved history and used to practically dance around the front of the classroom, was a gas, and I worked hard to get good marks. HS US History, with a teacher who was hired principally as a basketball coach, was a complete waste of my time. Luckily, he used tests straight out of the text and, armed with a good memory and high-speed reading skills, I aced it. But I hated it and it was ten years and took a foundation laid down in Junior High to overcome an aversion to History caused by that class and then I started to rediscover and learn to admire the Founders of this country.
So, Cathy's partly right, low pay is a barrier to entry for people that could be paid far better outside of teaching. However, the education curriculum of certification is also a turn-off and a barrier to entry.
But what do people focus on? Someone a few posts back (was it you?) suggested cutting teacher benefits. Will that draw talented people in? I'm not advising we necessarily double the pay but, especially in science and math, we've got to take a hard look at why good people don't go into teaching and make the adjustments necessary to get them to think of it as an attractive career. And let's not sell history, English, languages, music, etc, short. We want top people doing all those things. A good history curriculum can help bind this country together. Good communication and critical reading skills come from English. Instead of complaining about their music, let's expose them to music that's good. I have to wonder if rap music would die out tomorrow if every school system had a good music program.
You know, anybody here where I work who has to supervise 30 or so people and keep careful track of their progress and do the kinds of tasks teachers do makes over $100K. And that manager is able to get more out of his people easily by using money as bait. Teachers don't have that luxury.
What we *need* is a full-time district computer person, plus ideally another for each building, who would also teach the computer labs. Right now there is one teacher who's in charge of the district's PCs (in the 3 bldgs.) - has to deal with when the servers' down, that sort of thing, & in the elem. bldg. another teacher who does quick-fix stuff for probs in our own bldg. This second guy has told me he's not doing it again next year - too much hassle for the stipend he gets for it; he winds up losing a lot of his planning periods, often has to stay after, etc. Cuts too much into - & adds too much onto - his own teaching work load, IOW.
We've been the Apple Vs. PC conversation route before. The district's currently getting all Dells (used to be a mish-mosh). One lab in our bldg. has all new PCs this year, but the other lab (the one I use) is still using ancient, too well-worn (by a zillion different kids) PCs. Supposedly that lab will get a new batch next year - I hope so!
. You will save money by firing them and use contractors on call,
Seems like one can't win. I hear people complain that teachers aren't bright enough, don't seem to know enough, etc., & then here's you - wondering why teaching elem. school requires a Masters.
The stress part I will agree, teachers have
Go to the BOE mtgs., get a copy of the budget... but of course school taxes take up a large share of local taxes. And you know what? Many taxpayers will gladly pay extra taxes for sports, but not go for the academics & the arts. Go figure.
Cathy
P.S. BTW, re: budgeting - for requisitions, each teacher in my bldg. is alotted $200 per year for classroom supplies. This figure hasn't changed since... the late 80's, maybe it was? (Divide it out... comes to 5½ cents per day per child, given 180 days in session and a class of 20.)
For a while, NYS was requiring newly (provisionally) certified teachers to finish their Masters in 3 years or less after finishing undergraduate school. Considering at that age one is often paying off college loans, just starting a new job & spending a lot of time doing that job, that time requirement was a bit unrealistic, & a turn-off. AFAIK, the State finally realized this particular error of their ways, & they've now gone back to the previous requirement of completing a Masters within 5 years after getting provisional certification.
I personally know of no teachers who do not have graduate school - eother 30 credits or a Masters - under their belt, so I can't answer that question. When I got my permanent teaching certificate (early 70's) one had the option (in NYS) of either 30 grad. credits or else a Masters, but it's since changed to require a Masters. Some districts offered an extra stipend for an MS or MA, & some didn't.
To teach elem. school, I personally think a well-rounded education is necessary. May be through courses one takes - whether as a requirement or continuing ed., may well be through life experiences & reading, may be a combo - whatever it takes. When teaching a lesson - no mater what the subject, I try to go off on a tangent at least at one point, to capture the attention & interests of the kids who are interested in this, that, or the other thing - or to create an interest in a facet of the lesson which wasn't previously there. These tangential things are sometimes what creates the real spark for a kid. And you can't go off on this, that, or the other branch without some knowledge beyond what is necessary for teaching the required curriculum. I also try to illustrate as much as possible - whether through drawing (board, overhead), via photos, whatever. Besides the obvious adage of "a picture is worth a thousand words," this'll sometimes create a spark, too.
They're all college grads here and there is only a low correlation between terminal degree and ability to teach. Yes, the masters's bumps you up the pay scale. I can hardly fault them for taking advantage of that.
In most cases, it will give the teacher additional foundation for thought, more tools to work with and will probably make a teacher "better."
In some cases, it may well be a complete waste of time (I can think of a probable case).
Is that something you learned in college or did you have to figure out a lot of this on your own?
Also, requiring a masters' in 5 years is a bit of a hit, too, sucking up time and resources when some would like to start a family.
dbu,
Improving - or even maintainnig - the educational system is a tough problem with a lot of dimensions. There's usually no "career" path as such, for someone who want to teach. You start with 30 kids and 30 years later, you have 30 kids. You're not a "manager," "director" or "vice president." How do we compensate them?
A few become principals, superintendent, administrators, etc (a good thing for a teacher who hated teaching) but most just teach. Would you bring them in at whatever the teacher minimum salary is and keep them there for 20-30 years? Similarly, ending tenure would tend to discourage people entering the field. Would you have them get 15 satisfactory years in and then get terminated because they were inconvenient?
My guess - seeing that I can't remember most of the content of my required education courses at this point in time! - is that I figured these out as time went by. I have also figured out - via others' feedback - that I do some things well that I do automatically, not through conscious effort, since I'm not even really aware of them till someone says something to me. Ex: Last year a Title I assistant told me that she likes the way I teach math - systematically & logically. I thanked her, & replied something along the lines of, "Well, it's *Math*; how else does one teach it?" She kinda rolled her eyes, & said, "Well... ummm... you might be surprised." (She has the luxury of going into various classrooms & seeing lots of methods & personalities - which play a part in shaping methods; whereas the classroom teachers don't see each other in action, except for _tiny_ snippets when occasionally walking into a room during class time to talk to another teacher, or while walking down the hall, if the door's open.)
Yes, if one wanted to have kids early on. But virtually all of my age group/friends (IRL) delayed having children until age 30-ish, or older. I finished my graduate work in 3½ years by not taking any courses until the summer after my first year of teaching, and then taking 2 courses each summer, & 1 course each semester while I was working. That was quite do-able, but starting to take courses during the first year of teaching would've been tough, IMO. Already enough on one's plate. Nevermind the $ part of the deal - that was always tough back then.
re: below. Quite right - no ladder to climb, in teaching! Started out as an elem. teacher 35 years ago, am still an elem. teacher. ;-) But then one knows this, going into the whole deal. In HS (& perhaps some Middle Schools?), one might - depending on the size of the district I suppose, be able to be head of dep't. That would constitute a step-ladder, I guess.
It might - or might not - be a good thing for a person who hated teaching, to go into administration. Depends on why they hated teaching, I'd think.
MotorsForum website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.