caterping

> > Teaching any controversial subject that a parent decides to complain about? Gone.

> It's not clear to me why this would follow from a lack of teachers' unions.

The union sets up fairly strict protocols that the administration must follow if they want to fire a tenured teacher (the administration can, of course, let go a non-tenured teacher at any time).

The school administration is led by the superintendent of schools -- an elected position. The superintendent gets paid a lot of money and wants to get reelected. If parents complain to the super -- and they do -- then the super wants to placate them to ensure reelection.

Kids are kids, and they exaggerate (and often lie) to their parents about school. Parents want to believe that their child is telling the truth about mean Mr. Teacher picking on them, being too tough on them, grading them too harshly, or assigning too much homework. So parents quite often complain to the principal (who works directly for the super and is not part of the teacher's union), or even directly to the super.

Teachers don't have a "yearly salary" per se ... instead, they have a number written on the contract that indicates what they'll be paid for the school year.

When someone says, "teacher $X makes $Y per year", it means that $Y is that number written on the contract for the school year.

Note, given that

* most teachers spend a couple of weeks after the school year ends tying up loose ends from the year and organizing themselves for next year,

* and then simply need time to decompress from dealing with a large number of kids every day for so long,

* and also that they spend the weeks before school begins prepping for the new year and doing professional development,

there's not really much time in between to get another full-time temporary job to supplement their income.

> Why not start the split earlier for those who actively refuse to be educated?

Because:

(A) in high school they're still kids, and

(B) one main goal here is to have an educated citizenry, and this means educating all kids as well as we can, whether the kids themselves think it's a good idea or not. :)

> Is there any good evidence that the main problem with our schools is bad teaching?

Not to my knowledge.

Ask any teacher (and they are the ones who know) what the main problem is, and they'll tell you that the problem isn't necessarily the schools, or teachers, or administration -- it's the parents. If parents do their job and make their kids' learning a priority, that would make the biggest improvement to the situation by far.

> We try to keep students around who have no interest in learning because it "keeps them off the streets."

The reason this is done is because they are children -- not adults. They are immature and may be making bad decisions. They might have a rotten home life with bad role models. The point is, you try to help them anyway in case they do indeed see a reason to turn their life around.

Why do you think schools have so much sports education? One reason is because it keeps some kids around who otherwise would simply drop out. And every good teacher knows that you can often get a problem kid in your class to focus and learn something by having one or more of their coaches get on their case.

It's not bizarre. The kids who's parents wouldn't give a shit about choosing a school for them are the kids who need the most help.

> or if it wasn't so hard to fire teachers.

It takes a few years to get tenure. Also, note that teachers sign an employment contract for each year they teach. This means that the administration has 3 chances to simply not renew a new teacher's contract if they don't like them.

So, it's only difficult to fire teachers after you've had them working for you for a few years.

And even then, the district can make your life miserable without firing you. They can have someone from the central office sit in and observe you every day. They can give you a lousy schedule, give you too many preps, move you between crummy rooms, or a number of other things to get you to leave.

> Soldier quality is more difficult to assess

School administrations try (and fail) to determine "teacher quality" by looking at standardized test scores.

Quality of teaching is easy to assess however: you just have a few experienced teachers pop in and observe a class or two, and it's obvious to them if the teacher is good or not.

> Also, 14% isn't bad given that many teachers have 2 months off.

It's not 2 months off, it's 2 months unemployed.

When they hire you as a teacher, they ask you ahead of time if you want them to reduce your paycheck amount so that you can receive checks during those 2 months.

Thanks. That could possibly help me personally, but I'm not sure it addresses the larger problems brought up in the original NYT article.

Also, I don't see how it helps the kids who's parents can't or won't pay for it.

> > Also, grading is a bitch. [...] Students will nickel and dime you for every point while comparing with their peers.

> This is what comes from an over-reliance on GPA,

Certainly true.

Also, it's necessary for when a teacher has to defend themselves for failing a student. If you need to fail a student, there is high pressure against doing so. Fail a student and parents and administration both complain loudly. You've got to have all parent contacts (throughout the year) documented (time, who you talked to, what was discussed), as well as all test and exams available for combing through by interested parties.

> > For example, when a teacher has to send a student out of the room for bad behavior,

> I had a lot of teachers with serious personality problems when I was in public school.

During my time teaching I didn't meet any. Not saying there weren't any, just that I didn't run across any.

You must understand, high school kids are kids. They do the same stupid things we did when we were kids. They try to push bad behavior as far as they can until there are repercussions. Teachers are adults and professional educators. We've seen the behavior patterns over and over and over again. We try our damned best to let and get the student to win, but some are determined to get themselves thrown out.

Teachers and students are not on the same level, and it totally undermines the teacher's authority for administration to even hint that they are (eg, by having them sit together and "referee" a discussion).

> > Also, grading is a bitch.

> Suck it up.

Hey, you want educated professionals to take teaching jobs? I'm telling you that it's a metric ton of grading work -- and it's not fun like programming or problem-solving; it's grinding slow repetitive work that makes you miserable. I've worked plenty of other jobs. I've worked outside in the summer heat. I'm telling you that grading -- and dealing with the fallout from grading -- is miserable, and if you want good professionals to stay in the career for more than their first year, you're going to have to find ways to make it less miserable.

> I agree that schools start stupidly early in the US, but when your workday ends between 2:30 and 4:00, I don't think you can really complain about having to go to bed early.

That's the thing: it doesn't really end between 2:30 and 4. There's meetings after school on many days. There's paperwork. There's parent contact that must be carefully maintained (which provides necessary documentation if the student fails). And then there's grading. And that's if you're not doing any coaching or other after-school clubs.

> (and the end of seniority, teachers' unions, ridiculous benefits, rubber rooms, etc.)

If it weren't for teacher's unions, then any time that administration wanted a teacher gone, they would be gone. Teach a government class and point out something bad about the current local gov't? Gone. Superintendent gets a complaint about you? ("He assigns my kid too much homework!"). Gone. Superintendent simply doesn't like you? (Regardless of how good a teacher you are.) Gone. Teaching any controversial subject that a parent decides to complain about? Gone.

Yes, the health benefits are good. Perhaps this makes up to some degree for the lower pay.

I've got no idea what you mean by "rubber rooms".

The low pay wouldn't be so much of a problem if teachers got more support from parents and administration. For example, when a teacher has to send a student out of the room for bad behavior, the student should have hell to pay from parents and the vice principal. Instead, what often happens is parents complain about the teacher's discipline and the vice principal calls you in to "have a discussion" with the student and to "hear their side of the story". It's a fucking circus.

Also, grading is a bitch. I left the profession mostly because of the insane hours you need to spend grading (well, high school anyway). Students will nickel and dime you for every point while comparing with their peers. "Sally missed the minus sign in step C of problem 4 but got the same number of points as me? WTF?" WTF indeed.

Silly waste-of-time after-school meetings about meeting standardized testing goals is also a complete waste of time as well.

Add to that, you have to be up and out of the house every morning by 6 am or so to be on time. If you have kids, forget about seeing them for breakfast before their school day starts. And that means giving up your evenings too because you need to be in bed early.

As an aside, I knew a teacher who "retired early" basically due to a mental breakdown from the stress. I suspect most teachers know someone who's done the same.

Edit: And if you're male, all it takes is an unsubstantiated claim of impropriety from a female student to end your career immediately.

Easily the worst and most stressful job I've ever had. And it really sucks because I was an excellent teacher. Got great reviews from observers and students. My students learned a ton. I really liked teaching too.