Author Topic: Teaching Pension/Subsidy/Something (Read 1581 times)

007bistromath · « **on:** May 30, 2011, 01:35:57 PM »

So, I've just had an idea that seems like it would go a long way toward fixing our educational system. It reaches much farther than I usually like, as I generally prefer the government do less, particularly with money. However, it is a very elegant solution that seems justified so long as we're going to have something we can call an educational system anyway, and would certainly be more likely to do the job efficiently than other forms of "throw money at it."

The main problem with education is that not enough people teach, because teachers are paid bullshit. If we're going to be honest, it's also not really seen as an important job, no matter how sentimental we are about it. What sounds more productive, to most people if not to you: assisting in the herding of a few thousand children, any one of which might grow up to build a house someday, or actually building houses? Of course, most of the other kids are going to grow up to do other productive things, but you get what I'm saying here. If you want to do something with your life, you do that instead of teaching other people to do it. Those who can't, etc.

Because of all this, the people who do become teachers are the wrong ones. People who couldn't hack it at something that pays better, people who just want to boss others around, and even some of the people who have an honest passion for teaching, who often should actually be working at a day care. (Or am I the only one who often gets the feeling that people who seriously wanted to be a teacher their whole lives tend to know nothing about the subject they teach aside from what's in The Book? That could actually be just me, I don't know. I know it's at least completely true for math.)

Now, if you just start paying teachers more, that won't really do much to solve the problem of the wrong people becoming teachers. It might even make it worse; make it pay better than something else, and people will follow the money, even if they don't give two shits about kids and are setting themselves up to burn out in half a year. It seems like at the very least, it would be good to encourage teachers to be people who know and love something other than teaching well enough to do it. But if they do, they're going to do that once they get their degree. How do you fix this?

Early retirement! Simply do this: if somebody has a Master's Degree (or perhaps a Bachelor's for younger children?) and they've been working for ten years, then they can receive a pension equal to some meaty percentage (to some maximum, obviously, it wouldn't do to have a bunch of CEOs try this) of their old job for as long as they teach. If they teach for fifteen years, the pension becomes permanent. They can keep teaching, or go back to their life's work making more at it, or buy a boat and sit in it forever, doesn't matter.

Does anyone have any thoughts?

Malk · « **Reply #1 on:** May 31, 2011, 03:02:11 PM »

Actually, Bis, I'm going to have to say you've got a pretty good idea there. However, it would probably only work on paper. Yes, a successful CEO teaching economics or writer teaching English or Journalism would be awesome, but there would have to be some sort of vetting system put in place. I mean, really, would you want Bernie Madoff teaching your child business ethics or a partisan politician/lobbyist/pundit teaching American History/Gov't?

The other flaw is funding. Teachers aren't paid bullshit because of the public's view of the profession. Teachers are paid bullshit because the counties and states that employ them can't afford it.

I can't talk for every state, but here in Florida schools got royally screwed about 20 years ago when we started the lottery. See, the lottery was pitched as a subsidy for educational funds. The way it was supposed to work is that the schools would still get their cut of property taxes AND the whole of the lottery funds. Then over the years as new governors and state representatives would work on the budget, when it came time to hand money to the school systems, someone would pipe up and say, "Hey, fuck those guys, they get the lottery money." and everyone would go, "Harumph, harumph!" and they'd cut the budget. After about 10 years of that, the schools were down to JUST the lottery money. The last governor brokered a deal with the Seminole Indians to allow full gambling in their casinos with a good portion of profit paid to the state to fund schools. Now the new governor, when looking at the lottery money going to the schools, is saying, "Hey, fuck those guys, they're getting Indian money..."

The other problem I see is that it doesn't address the main problem with the educational system... and that is the overall attitude in this country regarding education. Let's just face it, at best the majority of parents see school as a place where they dump their kids for 8 hours a day while they work. At worst, they view it as optional ("Can I withdraw my kid from school for a month and then re-enroll him when we get back from our tour of Europe? No? What the fuck!?!?! I pay your salary!!!! Summer vacation?!? Are you fucking stupid, I can't afford Europe during the summer!!!" - Actual conversation with a parent when I was working for the school system). At a young age, kids are sent the message through cartoons that school is a place where adults do everything they can to stop kids from having fun. As kids get older, they're bombarded with testimonials from and images of anti-intellectual role-models failing upwards (the Jersey Shore morons, Kanye "I Think Reading is Stupid" West, Teen Moms, etc, etc...). You can't teach a kid who really believes she'll get her own show on MTV and a bunch of cash for letting the quarterback knock her up. You can't teach a kid who honestly believes that Dr. Dre is going to see his freestyle raps on YouTube and give him a recording contract (and yeah, I know... it sounds like I'm a proponent of school as a place where dreams come to be crushed).

I really think, at some point, the media lost it's damned mind. If you watch old sitcoms from the 50s, 60s, and 70s, sure they lampoon certain aspects of going to school (boring teachers, homework, etc.), but they always maintained that it was necessary for success. Fonzie was an underachiever, but they didn't depict him as driving a Lexus in the end... you knew that he was destined for living over a garage fixing bikes. The 80s and 90s brought us characters like Zach Morris who, despite skipping classes, cheating, being a general discipline problem and barely passing still, somehow, made it into the same college as the A-average nerd Screech, and, in the end, ended up working at a successful law firm while the nerd ended up as assistant principal of their high-school. The 2000s just basically went crazy from there. Even Sesame Street, designed to help kids read and count before entering primary school, is more about shilling Elmo dolls these days.

Something has to change in the collective minds of Americans before we can even begin to seriously discuss fixing the educational system.

007bistromath · « **Reply #2 on:** June 01, 2011, 04:10:09 AM »

Quote from: Malk on May 31, 2011, 03:02:11 PM

I mean, really, would you want Bernie Madoff teaching your child business ethics or a partisan politician/lobbyist/pundit teaching American History/Gov't?

I feel pretty safe in arguing that's still a whole shitload better than them continuing to ply their actual trade. And it ultimately wouldn't actually make much of a difference in history and civics classes, because kids are often already taught wrong bullshit for precisely those reasons.

Quote

The other flaw is funding. Teachers aren't paid bullshit because of the public's view of the profession. Teachers are paid bullshit because the counties and states that employ them can't afford it.

I was originally suggesting this should be some kind of federal program, which is where the "I like the government to do less" stuff mostly applies. This sort of thing would be much better as a state program in principle, but in practice it's a big enough deal that despite the endemic corruption, the federal government is the best hope, because state and city governments are generally incompetent enough to get their own sitcom.

Where to get funding? Shit, just fire some of the useless corporate dumbfucks that comprise most of the Air Force. Don't need 'em anyway. If they don't fly or work on a plane, what are they doing there?

As for the cultural issue, I feel like you've sort of got disease and symptom backwards. People find school useless well before something brightly colored tells them to, because it is. Schools behave as though they are a place to dump children who'd rather be somewhere else for several hours, and so that's what people think of them. Remember the thread from a while back about the laptop camera scandal? Not every school does that, but they all do something like this. The main lesson I learned in high school is that it was designed to get people used to having their rights stripped by people who don't deserve authority, and that was before 9/11. I shudder to think what it's like now.

Tamsin · « **Reply #3 on:** June 01, 2011, 06:30:50 AM »

While it's a great idea to get experience people out of industry so younger people can have more upward mobility and into classrooms so that children can have better education, you still have to deal with the fact that our society doesn't see teachers as truly valuable. They aren't respected. Jokes are made that "those who can't do, teach". It is seen as a second-best, a runner-up, sort of profession. A chore for a professor, a backup plan for the graduate who can't get a job in his field.

When you get it into people's heads that teachers are valuable, teaching is an honor, and that the most prestigious way to cap a long career of high achievements is to teach (and no, writing a book with a Malcolm-Gladwell-esque cover does not count), then such an idea might work.

I have been told that in many martial arts, the only way to reach the highest ranks is to take on students and show you can teach as well as do. I'd like to take that mentality and apply it outside of academia.

EnsoMu · « **Reply #4 on:** June 01, 2011, 06:54:21 AM »

Quote from: Tamsin on June 01, 2011, 06:30:50 AM

I have been told that in many martial arts, the only way to reach the highest ranks is to take on students and show you can teach as well as do. I'd like to take that mentality and apply it outside of academia.

Either that or just have teachers break a pile of bricks and wood with their fist before every class, irregardless of subject.

007bistromath · « **Reply #5 on:** June 01, 2011, 08:17:37 AM »

Quote from: EnsoMu on June 01, 2011, 06:54:21 AM

irregardless

Thanks for reminding us that there is a problem to be solved. :V

Rawr! I'm A Panda · « **Reply #6 on:** June 01, 2011, 08:24:01 AM »

Quote from: 007bistromath on June 01, 2011, 08:17:37 AM

Thanks for reminding us that there is a problem to be solved. :V

I cringed at that too.

Lorelei · « **Reply #7 on:** June 01, 2011, 08:24:39 AM »

I laughed.

Count PuPPula · « **Reply #8 on:** June 01, 2011, 09:21:19 AM »

Colloquialisms != education fail.

Peter · « **Reply #9 on:** June 01, 2011, 06:40:41 PM »

Oh yeah? Well, I give it an F! Don't mess with me; I'm a trained English teacher. My Grammar Fu is strong.

Count PuPPula · « **Reply #10 on:** June 01, 2011, 08:48:27 PM »

As a trained English teacher you should know that language is fluid and ever changes as cultures mix and the events of the world and universe ebb and flow. =P

EnsoMu · « **Reply #11 on:** June 01, 2011, 08:57:29 PM »

Quote from: The P.u.P.P on June 01, 2011, 08:48:27 PM

As a trained English teacher you should know that language is fluid and ever changes as cultures mix and the events of the world and universe ebb and flow. =P

That and if a teacher can break bricks w/ their bare hands, I think we should let she or he use whichever form of grammar, they darn well please.

Hi-Keeba!

etphonehome · « **Reply #12 on:** June 06, 2011, 12:55:54 PM »

Sorry for bringing this stale thread back. I'm returning from a (great!) vacation where I spent very little time on the internet, but I think this topic is important.

I would love to spend a few years teaching. I enjoy my career as a software engineer, but I do think that teaching computer science (and/or math) for a few years at the high school level in the middle or end of my career would be a great way to give back to the community.

Unfortunately, it will probably never happen. There are two main reasons for this. First is the pay. Based on my current education level, I would take about a 50% pay cut by becoming a teacher in my local school district. Perhaps when I have worked for a while longer and have amassed a more comfortable level of retirement savings, this would be acceptable. At this point, however, that's an awful lot of money to trade for the satisfaction of being able to help the next generation be better than the last.

Money, I think, is the main reason why the quality of our science and math education in particular is declining. Someone with a BA in English or history might find $40k/year to be a fairly competitive salary offer right out of college. For someone who studied science or engineering and is competent enough to get some job offers from industry, teacher salaries can be pretty laughable. With the salary disparity being what it is, it is no surprise to me whatsoever that the saying "Those who can't, teach" is true in many fields. I think part of the problem here is that many school districts have negotiated union contracts that require them to pay all teachers with the same amount of education and teaching experience the same amount, whether they're teaching second grade or high school geometry. I think this is the wrong approach. If it costs $80k to bring in a chemistry teacher who doesn't suck, and the school has the budget for it, they should be able to do it even if it means paying that teacher more than her colleagues in other departments.

The second big reason I will probably never be a teacher is because the licensing requirements are too onerous for someone who only wants to teach for a few years. First of all, the state in which I live does not have an "endorsement" available for computer science educators. I could go on and on about how schools need to expose students to computing concepts much earlier, but that's a discussion for another time. As it is, I would probably have to pursue a math endorsement on my teaching license. Getting the math endorsement would require going back to school and taking many of the undergraduate math courses that were not required for my degree. That would take about a year. After doing that, I would then be eligible to enter the teacher training program, which takes a full year. All told it would probably take two years to become academically and legally qualified to move into a job that would pay half as much as the one I have right now. Forgive me if I decide that teaching doesn't appeal to me that much after all.

I already hold a master's degree in computer science. That's all the academic qualification you need to teach introductory courses to 18-year-olds at many community colleges and universities. To teach the same subject matter to 16-year-olds, I would need to go back to school for a couple of years. That's not to say that specialized teacher training is useless; I definitely think many of the professors I had in college (most of whom never had to take any training on how to teach) would be much better instructors if they took a few courses on effective pedagogy. But making everyone who wants to teach spend a full year of their life on teaching coursework (in addition to earning an undergraduate degree) seems a bit excessive, as does requiring everyone who wants to teach computer programming and high school math to take abstract algebra and two semesters of advanced statistics.

Narcissa · « **Reply #13 on:** June 06, 2011, 01:30:31 PM »

I'm a little afraid to post in the debate forum, due to my penchant for tangents, but that was a well-written post, et =)

FYI, if you were willing to move to another state, your education would be totally sufficient to be a teacher. Washington has both some of the toughest qualifications and some of the most failing schools... go figure.

On the other hand, if something like the original idea of this thread were in place, it could help those of us who do want to become teachers but need a little more pay for living.

Personally, if I became a teacher (which I could do in, I believe, Idaho with my AA) my pay would go up like 600% and I would have a whole 2 months off. So that would be nice. But I'd be in fuckin' Idaho.

Narcissa · « **Reply #14 on:** June 06, 2011, 01:30:55 PM »

That... was a tangent, wasn't it?

Anumati · « **Reply #15 on:** June 06, 2011, 10:40:40 PM »

Quote from: Narcissa on June 06, 2011, 01:30:55 PM

That... was a tangent, wasn't it?

No. It was not a tangent.

Active Threads

Personal Menu

Calendar

Stats

Members

Stats

Users Online

Author Topic: Teaching Pension/Subsidy/Something (Read 1581 times)

007bistromath

Teaching Pension/Subsidy/Something

Malk

Re: Teaching Pension/Subsidy/Something

007bistromath

Re: Teaching Pension/Subsidy/Something

Tamsin

Re: Teaching Pension/Subsidy/Something

EnsoMu

Re: Teaching Pension/Subsidy/Something

007bistromath

Re: Teaching Pension/Subsidy/Something

Rawr! I'm A Panda

Re: Teaching Pension/Subsidy/Something

Lorelei

Re: Teaching Pension/Subsidy/Something

Count PuPPula

Re: Teaching Pension/Subsidy/Something

Peter

Re: Teaching Pension/Subsidy/Something

Count PuPPula

Re: Teaching Pension/Subsidy/Something

EnsoMu

Re: Teaching Pension/Subsidy/Something

etphonehome

Re: Teaching Pension/Subsidy/Something

Narcissa

Re: Teaching Pension/Subsidy/Something

Narcissa

Re: Teaching Pension/Subsidy/Something

Anumati

Re: Teaching Pension/Subsidy/Something