Are teachers overpaid?!

[Edi]

We could pay teachers more money if we had fewer teachers. One problem these days is there's a fallacious theory being spread about that smaller class sizes improve the quality of instruction. It's unproven and it's being pushed by the teachers' unions solely so they can get more bloated membership rolls to improve their lobbying power on Capitol Hill and in the various state capitols.

Sorry, but smaller class size actually does improve the quality of instruction, provided that the teacher is competent to begin with. The reason for this is that the kids all need personal instruction at some point or another (the amount also depends on the subject), and if you have a class of 40, all of the teacher's time will be taken up by solving those problems and no teaching gets done. Larger class size also contributes to more mayhem by the students, kids being kids after all. A class size of 20 to 24 is manageable by one teacher, provides s/he has the required authority to enforce discipline, but if the number of students goes up from that, efficiency starts to deterioriate. My mother's been a teacher for well over 25 years, her sister even longer than that, and they're good teachers too, and they'd shoot your argument down in half a heartbeat. It's not the unions where the request for smaller class size originates, it's at the field level.

Personally I've been in classes ranging in size from 8 to 40+, and the quality of instruction and learning was uniformly better in the smaller classes. It takes a seriously good teacher to manage a class of 40 (have had those), whereas having an incompetent teacher is just as good as having no teacher at all (I had to resit one physics course in high school twice because of that).

Your whole model assumes as a premise that the students will just sit quietly and raptly absorb what the teacher is trying to impart to them, instead of behaving like kids typically do. It's so utterly divorced from reality that it isn't even funny.

One way to reduce the number of teachers (but not significantly) is to increase class size to and slap two or three teachers into it. In Finland expanding class sizes in some schools have become a problem, and there is currently one class of 65 students in one elementary/middle school. They have three or four teachers doing the teaching, with the class divided in two and one or two teachers going around helping the kids who have trouble with the stuff while the other two can concentrate on actual teaching. It's been a successful experiment that they were forced to do out of necessity.

Another thing to point out is that teachers are over-certified. It's inconceivable that someone with the prereqs for a four year degree, followed by the course concentration, having passed with - say - a B average - couldn't teach that at up to the high school level. Why do you need any special teacher certification, other than, say, an extra quarter to tack onto your degree should you decide you might want a job like that? Teaching degrees would seem to be specialty items for producing individuals skilled in instructing elementary-aged children or younger, and not necessary for Middle School or High School.

I don't know how the American system works, but here teachers are required to do an intern period of a few months under supervision from senior teachers before they are qualified, to ensure that they have some idea of how to teach. Being competent at something is no guarantee whatsoever that you can competently teach it. That incompetent HS physics teacher I had had a doctorate in physics, and could solve almost any possible math or physics problem you cared to put to him (as the vice principal, a very competent math and physics teacher, did when she had trouble with some arcane issue), but he could never explain it in a comprehensible manner (the vice principal said that half the time she was completely clueless about the finer points of his explanations). Being a good teacher is a skill almost entirely separate from the thing you're teaching (though you obviously have to know that too). I've got nearly flawless English skills (written English anyway, spoken is not perfect), but I suspect I'd suck at trying to teach it. That's because I simply cannot understand what the difficulty is. I can, some of it, but it always leaves me baffled when someone doesn't get things, even after repeated explanations and demonstrated examples.

This would, of course, instantly eliminate the squeeze on available teachers, and greatly reduce the costs associated with being a teacher - no lengthy specialist teaching degree, you could staff a school entirely with part-time teachers who teach single courses, even (in theory anyway) - and without the need to pay off college tuition for a teaching degree you'd be able to live comfortably on a smaller salary.

Part time teachers with questionable skill level (or practically no skills at all) at teaching makes for disastrous results. Particularly since they would have a high turnover rate, which would utterly disrupt a class by forcing tghem to learn a new routine every few months or even weeks. We've plenty of experience of that here with substitutes who are underqualified or not really qualified at all to teach something doing the teaching. It doesn't work.

Combined with the potential increase if we had realistic class sizes, that would be more than enough. One thing that would greatly improve instruction within classes would be more utilization of the students to teach each other. This needs to start early on. Also, we might consider going back to the old system of teaching multiple grades in a single classroom (if concentrating on the same subject). That would allow the older and more advanced students to aide the younger.

Unworkable with the amounts of knowledge the students need to learn these days. It used to work even fifty years ago when there were less subjects taught and less complex things taught in many of them. But no longer. Besides, the students who take the time to instruct others also have to learn new stuff themselves, so performance usually suffers drastically if they do, unless they are already past the point of what is being taught.

In 9th grade I was practically an assistant teacher in English class for my group. That was because there was practically nothing for me to learn there anymore, the result of having started reading books in English two years earlier, so I'd just have been wasting my time otherwise. I helped the slower learners (a couple of them couldn't string even the most basic sentences together, didn't know elementary grammar, despite six years of study, because they didn't care or weren't interested), sometimes using the whole lesson explaining things in more detail to them. Otherwise at least half of the teacher's time would have been taken up by trying to teach them 4th or 5th grade stuff and nobody would have learned anything. If I'd not already mastered what was being taught, I'd not have done that, I'd have just tried to learn on my own while the rest of the class lagged behind.
Another example is one guy in my best friend's class in high school who had an extreme interest in mathematics, he just sat in the class and would occasionally ask questions related more less distantly to things being taught, sometimes so difficult things the teacher was hard put to find an answer if he knew it at all. He'd discuss stuff with the teacher that went a couple of lightyears over the heads of the others. He'd have been able to help the others. But your average student? No, they just can't, because they have enough on their plate as it is.

It's true that bureaucratic clusterfucks are what most tax the efficiency of the system, we have those here, and a large part of it is that the people making the decisions are ivory tower theoreticians with zero field experience. That's what fucked up the education system here along with spending cuts, though our school system still does relatively well. Another problem is that the teachers are not given authority to use necessary measures, though that is being slowly changed, fortunately.

I remember my class in school in 3rd to 6th grade, in some classes where the teacher wasn't a forceful figure and sometimes couldn't get the class quiet, I and a couple of others could by yelling at them to shut up (because we wanted to learn). It more or less worked, because I was known to have a short fuse and no compunctions about using my fists on people who got on my nerves after being told not to. The teachers could at best give them detention, though it wasn't common, but crossing some other kid might have relatively immediate, tangible, painful consequences.

Need for education system overhaul seems to be a universal necessity, but the opinions on how to go about it vary widely.

Edi

[The Yosemite Bear]

It's bad that in Stockton CA, the Janitors and admin. Secretaries get paid more then the teachers and have better benefits too.

[Next of Kin]

We could pay teachers more money if we had fewer teachers. One problem these days is there's a fallacious theory being spread about that smaller class sizes improve the quality of instruction. It's unproven and it's being pushed by the teachers' unions solely so they can get more bloated membership rolls to improve their lobbying power on Capitol Hill and in the various state capitols.

Try teaching a class of 40 plus high school students. You'll spend less time on instruction and more time giving out busy work. I remember my OAC economics class with 43 kids. The amount of marking that teacher had from that one class alone was increadible. He had taught the first quarter of the class and spent the rest of the time marking our assignments, tests, etc. The end result is that we had less direct instruction and more busy work like reading chapters and answering questions. Granted, this particulat teacher was fortunate to have an academic class so there were few (if any) discipline problems. Swap those 40 18 years olds with 13 or 14 years and watch the room explode!

[Next of Kin]

One thing that would greatly improve instruction within classes would be more utilization of the students to teach each other. This needs to start early on. Also, we might consider going back to the old system of teaching multiple grades in a single classroom (if concentrating on the same subject). That would allow the older and more advanced students to aide the younger.

You do realize that not all students learn in the same fashion. Granted, some might benefit from the use of a peer but this is hardly ground breaking news.

[XPViking]

If parents had more say in the way schools ran and teacher pay was linked to parental satisfaction in some way, I dare say you'd start seeing some much more highly paid teachers (along with some others getting tossed out on their asses).

Although I have no problem with teachers being transparent in their actions and ability, linking it to some kind of "parental satisfaction" score would have to be implemented carefully. As well, the parents will need to demonstrate greater understanding and caring for their children. As well, I thought parents did have a voice through the local PTA board.

XPViking

[Darth Wong]

Although I have no problem with teachers being transparent in their actions and ability, linking it to some kind of "parental satisfaction" score would have to be implemented carefully. As well, the parents will need to demonstrate greater understanding and caring for their children.

If they don't care, they won't take the time to make their feelings on the matter known.

As well, I thought parents did have a voice through the local PTA board.

A voice and an influence are two different things. Try to get an incompetent teacher fired and you'll find out just how much "voice" a PTA board has.

[Kelly Antilles]

We could pay teachers more money if we had fewer teachers. One problem these days is there's a fallacious theory being spread about that smaller class sizes improve the quality of instruction. It's unproven and it's being pushed by the teachers' unions solely so they can get more bloated membership rolls to improve their lobbying power on Capitol Hill and in the various state capitols.

You know why it's unproven? Because they still have yet to reduce the class sizes. Smaller classes means a teacher can take time with EACH CHILD. However, it doesn't matter anymore because all the teachers are allowed to teach is the damn test. I mean this litterally. They are teaching DIRECTLY from the test.

Another thing to point out is that teachers are over-certified. It's inconceivable that someone with the prereqs for a four year degree, followed by the course concentration, having passed with - say - a B average - couldn't teach that at up to the high school level. Why do you need any special teacher certification, other than, say, an extra quarter to tack onto your degree should you decide you might want a job like that? Teaching degrees would seem to be specialty items for producing individuals skilled in instructing elementary-aged children or younger, and not necessary for Middle School or High School.

Education *IS* (supposedly) a four year degree. At least according to the colleges. The teacher certification is so that you can teach in certain states because you qualify for their curriculim. In addition, teachers must be RE-CERTIFIED every few years, at least here in NC they are. THAT is a complete waste of a teacher's time. They must be away from school and their classes to attend these classes, which means they must get a substitue. Did you know that a sub's salary COMES OUT OF THAT TEACHER'S SALARY? Yup. Insentive to go to school every day, huh? Also, you are certified for certain levels of education. Of course a lot of that are classes to teach you how to handle the children of that age level.

This would, of course, instantly eliminate the squeeze on available teachers, and greatly reduce the costs associated with being a teacher - no lengthy specialist teaching degree, you could staff a school entirely with part-time teachers who teach single courses, even (in theory anyway) - and without the need to pay off college tuition for a teaching degree you'd be able to live comfortably on a smaller salary.

Part-time teachers? You really want your child to deal with four or five teachers in a year in elementary school? No, to live "comfortably" on a smaller salary, the cost of living needs to come down. As it is, because this world is so material, we have to have so many "things". Why not just cut educators a break on taxes? We could do that.

Combined with the potential increase if we had realistic class sizes, that would be more than enough. One thing that would greatly improve instruction within classes would be more utilization of the students to teach each other. This needs to start early on. Also, we might consider going back to the old system of teaching multiple grades in a single classroom (if concentrating on the same subject). That would allow the older and more advanced students to aide the younger.

You've contradicted yourself here. "realistic class sizes" are smaller than 35-40 students. When I was in school (which, granted, is a VERY long time ago now), my teachers did that. I was reading and spelling at a 7th grade level in the 3rd grade. We seperated into groups and helped each other out. They don't do that anymore. I guess they can't because of class size and the fact that teachers aren't really allowed to teach anymore. Things certainly have changed in 17-29 years. Oh gods, I certainly feel old now.

[Kelly Antilles]

Although I have no problem with teachers being transparent in their actions and ability, linking it to some kind of "parental satisfaction" score would have to be implemented carefully. As well, the parents will need to demonstrate greater understanding and caring for their children.

If they don't care, they won't take the time to make their feelings on the matter known.

You see, that's the whole point. Most parents *DON'T* care anymore. They think of school as a babysitter, a requrement as well, for their children while they go to work. (please note, I did not say ALL parents. I don't want to get flamed for that.)

[Kelly Antilles]

A voice and an influence are two different things.

Ta-daa! Here we go. A sentence that can answer for every fucking problem in the US.

[Master of Ossus]

Although I have no problem with teachers being transparent in their actions and ability, linking it to some kind of "parental satisfaction" score would have to be implemented carefully. As well, the parents will need to demonstrate greater understanding and caring for their children.

If they don't care, they won't take the time to make their feelings on the matter known.

You see, that's the whole point. Most parents *DON'T* care anymore. They think of school as a babysitter, a requrement as well, for their children while they go to work. (please note, I did not say ALL parents. I don't want to get flamed for that.)

I don't think it would be particularly accurate, anyway. In business, most workers know who the best workers are, most bosses know who the best workers are, but very few managers and CEO's know who the best workers are. In schools, most students know who the best teachers are, but they're not necessarily going to report their teachers accurately. Remember that there are some very good teachers that almost no one likes ("He gives out too much homework.") There are also crappy teachers that students really like ("Her class is easy). There's really no way to do it, other than to have administrators watch classes, which they usually don't have time for.

[Queeb Salaron]

I don't think it would be particularly accurate, anyway. In business, most workers know who the best workers are, most bosses know who the best workers are, but very few managers and CEO's know who the best workers are. In schools, most students know who the best teachers are, but they're not necessarily going to report their teachers accurately. Remember that there are some very good teachers that almost no one likes ("He gives out too much homework.") There are also crappy teachers that students really like ("Her class is easy). There's really no way to do it, other than to have administrators watch classes, which they usually don't have time for.

I'm not so sure that's totally true. I mean, I know that when I was in high school, we defined teachers by how much THEY taught us, and not how much the let the BOOK teach us. (And I went to a Catholic school, so they didn't teach for the test.) Mr. V, my history teacher, for example, taught straight from the book. Never wavered. Almost verbatim. Never extrapolated, never hypothesized, never made us do anything in class but take notes and tests. He didn't give a whole lot of homework, nor was his class particularly easy (the material was a bit dense, after all).

On the other hand, my English teacher Mr. Vilandre (another Mr. V) was absolutely fantastic. He had us talk in class, discuss literature, got us talking about more than simple themes... even grammar and writing theory were interesting. But his classes were incredibly difficult. Everyone in the school agreed, though, that he was a phenomenal teacher, among the best they'd ever had.

My point is this: In my experiences, teachers are defined by their teaching ability, not necessarily the little things that they do to make courses easier or harder. Maybe my case is special, but that's how I see it.

[Master of Ossus]

I'm not so sure that's totally true. I mean, I know that when I was in high school, we defined teachers by how much THEY taught us, and not how much the let the BOOK teach us. (And I went to a Catholic school, so they didn't teach for the test.) Mr. V, my history teacher, for example, taught straight from the book. Never wavered. Almost verbatim. Never extrapolated, never hypothesized, never made us do anything in class but take notes and tests. He didn't give a whole lot of homework, nor was his class particularly easy (the material was a bit dense, after all).

On the other hand, my English teacher Mr. Vilandre (another Mr. V) was absolutely fantastic. He had us talk in class, discuss literature, got us talking about more than simple themes... even grammar and writing theory were interesting. But his classes were incredibly difficult. Everyone in the school agreed, though, that he was a phenomenal teacher, among the best they'd ever had.

My point is this: In my experiences, teachers are defined by their teaching ability, not necessarily the little things that they do to make courses easier or harder. Maybe my case is special, but that's how I see it.

The little quiz would work in SOME CASES. The problem is that it would be highly inaccurate for a very large percentage of teachers, and would return inconsistent results for others. Thus, it would not be an effective evaluatory tool.

[Darth Wong]

Random inspections are always a good thing. Most employees in non-union shops live with the constant fear that he will look up and one of the bosses will be watching him. Teachers do not; even those boards that have inspections of a sort will give them plenty of warning. A single team roving around a mid-sized board could do a lot to whip the laziest teachers into shape. Just knowing that they exist and have the power to FIRE teachers would work wonders, but the union would never allow it.

[phongn]

Popping in, I've been in clases with as few as twenty and as many as eighty in high school - it really does depend on the teacher more than on the class size. (That class with 80-odd people actually worked very well due to the way it was structured).

[Next of Kin]

Popping in, I've been in clases with as few as twenty and as many as eighty in high school - it really does depend on the teacher more than on the class size. (That class with 80-odd people actually worked very well due to the way it was structured).

Which subject did you have 80-odd people in?

[Master of Ossus]

Random inspections are always a good thing. Most employees in non-union shops live with the constant fear that he will look up and one of the bosses will be watching him. Teachers do not; even those boards that have inspections of a sort will give them plenty of warning. A single team roving around a mid-sized board could do a lot to whip the laziest teachers into shape. Just knowing that they exist and have the power to FIRE teachers would work wonders, but the union would never allow it.

Most schools do have snap inspections with an administrator or two, and sometimes the superintendent or someone even higher up, but those don't inspire any "fear" amongst teachers because of tenure programs. They can't be fired, so if the principal comes in and finds that the class is asleep and the teacher is surfing playing Quake III there's not a lot they can do about it.

[Darth Wong]

Most schools do have snap inspections with an administrator or two, and sometimes the superintendent or someone even higher up, but those don't inspire any "fear" amongst teachers because of tenure programs. They can't be fired, so if the principal comes in and finds that the class is asleep and the teacher is surfing playing Quake III there's not a lot they can do about it.

Ah yes, we've seen from current events how effective toothless inspectors are

[RedImperator]

Most schools do have snap inspections with an administrator or two, and sometimes the superintendent or someone even higher up, but those don't inspire any "fear" amongst teachers because of tenure programs. They can't be fired, so if the principal comes in and finds that the class is asleep and the teacher is surfing playing Quake III there's not a lot they can do about it.

Ah yes, we've seen from current events how effective toothless inspectors are

Obviously, we must launch a preemptive strike on the public school system (frankly, Marines in APCs could do nothing but good in quite a few school systems I know of. Fuck, artillery strikes would improve some districts I know of.)

[Edi]

Although I have no problem with teachers being transparent in their actions and ability, linking it to some kind of "parental satisfaction" score would have to be implemented carefully. As well, the parents will need to demonstrate greater understanding and caring for their children.

If they don't care, they won't take the time to make their feelings on the matter known.

Sorry, Mike, but you're wrong here. Lots of parents (not all, of course, but enough of them to be a serious problem if they want to, or perhaps that's just a very vocal minority) don't give a shit as long as there is no trouble, but if their kid actually fucks up and causes problems and get chastised and punished for it, or slacks off in school and gets shitty grades for it, then it's like you'd poked a fucking dragon in the eye with a sharp, pointy thing. My mother has gotten those all the time, thankfully it's usually the same problem families, where apparently the kids can do no wrong, no matter what sort of little fuckers they actually are. The mother of the boy who actually attacked me without provocation and broke my nose cartilage when I was in 7th grade refused to even consider her asshole son might be at fault and blamed me, the school and practically anything but her son. That's what sort of assholes the teachers have to deal with all the time, and it's those fuckers who will cause a lot of legal trouble too. Basically their attitude is that things must come out as they desire or it's see you in court (if there's no check rules like loser pays).

Edi

[Darth Wong]

Sorry, Mike, but you're wrong here. Lots of parents (not all, of course, but enough of them to be a serious problem if they want to, or perhaps that's just a very vocal minority) don't give a shit as long as there is no trouble, but if their kid actually fucks up and causes problems and get chastised and punished for it, or slacks off in school and gets shitty grades for it, then it's like you'd poked a fucking dragon in the eye with a sharp, pointy thing.

Very true. However, that is where the rest of the parents will either tell the offending whiner to shut the fuck up or they all band together to turn the school's academic standards to shit, which will in turn ruin its reputation with the universities and make it difficult for their kids to get into a decent school.

My mother has gotten those all the time, thankfully it's usually the same problem families, where apparently the kids can do no wrong, no matter what sort of little fuckers they actually are. The mother of the boy who actually attacked me without provocation and broke my nose cartilage when I was in 7th grade refused to even consider her asshole son might be at fault and blamed me, the school and practically anything but her son. That's what sort of assholes the teachers have to deal with all the time, and it's those fuckers who will cause a lot of legal trouble too. Basically their attitude is that things must come out as they desire or it's see you in court (if there's no check rules like loser pays).

Lawsuit rules are a serious problem in the US, but not MY problem

In any case, a parent group with authority would slap down morons like this unless they're ALL morons like this, and if that's the case, they would deserve the shit school they get.

[Edi]

Very true. However, that is where the rest of the parents will either tell the offending whiner to shut the fuck up or they all band together to turn the school's academic standards to shit, which will in turn ruin its reputation with the universities and make it difficult for their kids to get into a decent school.

Hmm, here's where the systems here and in North America start to differ. I'll concede the point as far as things over there are concerned, but to give more light on how they work here:
Elementary school: 1st through 6th grade
Middle (or high, depending on what you definition you want to use) school: 7th through 9th
Both of those are compulsory. My mom teaches English and Swedish in elementary school (3rd through 6th, first two years don't include foreign languages). After 9th grade the options are to either go to vocational school (cooks, hairdressers, electricians, metal workers and what other stuff you can think of that is practical in nature and takes about 2 to 3 years to train for) or high school (college, depending on definitions used). High school is a requisite for taking the academic education path the normal way, and lasts for three years.

The catch is, you must apply to the school of your choice, and it's the grade average that determines which school you actually qualify for. After high school you can try for university, technical university or one of several different mid-to-high level institutes of learning to get a degree of one sort or another. I ended up in a mid-level one where the degree is an engineering one, whereas if I'd gone to a technical university it'd be a diploma engineer degree (literal translation here), which is even more demanding and takes an average of 6 years instead of 4.

There is also the fact that inorder to get into a university or any other school after high school, not only do they look at your grades, but you must also pass an additional entrance exam, and for a lot of stuff that is fucking hard. Nobody gets accepted purely on previous grades. There's a system of constant checks to determine that the people who do get in to get a free education (yes, even university is free here) are the ones who really can hack it.

Lawsuit rules are a serious problem in the US, but not MY problem

Indeed, I'm well aware of that.
But seeing as this thread has a majority of US participants, we can't very well let them feel like they're being left out of consideration, can we?

In any case, a parent group with authority would slap down morons like this unless they're ALL morons like this, and if that's the case, they would deserve the shit school they get.

That's also true. The problems here are mitigated by the system I explained above, but if something like that is not in place... The horror! *shudder*

Edi

[XPViking]

If they don't care, they won't take the time to make their feelings on the matter known.

Okay. It wasn't directed at you, but parents in general based on observations I've gathered. Perhaps I'm wrong in this but how many parents are really active in the school - taking into consideration job constraints, etc...? Unfortunately, I find myself agreeing with Edi's assessment.

A voice and an influence are two different things. Try to get an incompetent teacher fired and you'll find out just how much "voice" a PTA board has.

Fair enough. I've never tried hence the question. Surely though there must be a formalized procedure in place to get rid of incompetant teachers. But this is why I said earlier that some kind of teacher evaluation form must be implemented carefully. But I'm out of the loop as to what is currently going on in Canada.

XPViking

[Zaia]

Popping in, I've been in clases with as few as twenty and as many as eighty in high school - it really does depend on the teacher more than on the class size. (That class with 80-odd people actually worked very well due to the way it was structured).

Which subject did you have 80-odd people in?

Instrumental music, among others. I had a class of 108 last year.

[Queeb Salaron]

Instrumental music, among others. I had a class of 108 last year.

Psychology class: 250 people.
Intro to Science: 150 people.

[Darth Wong]

Instrumental music, among others. I had a class of 108 last year.

Unreal. In the local high schools around here, no class is ever bigger than about 40 AFAIK.