Moderators: Three Stars, dagny, pfim, netwolf
Pavel Bure wrote:Nepotism!!!!!
count2infinity wrote:Pavel Bure wrote:Nepotism!!!!!
are you watching boy meets world right now or is that just me?
the riddler wrote:I'm thinking about going back to school to get a certificate/master's in secondary education, any suggestions as to what the best subject to get certified in? I know that it's already tough enough to get a teaching job and I don't want to make a mistake and get certified in a field that I won't get a job in. And if any of you have gone this route, how long does it usually take to complete a master's program?
MWB wrote:Those are my two favorite subjects to teach. Obviously, teaching 5th grade math and science is a completely different animal than secondary though. The kids are still really into science because of all the experiments and we get to do a wide variety.
MWB wrote:From a couple years ago, but still a relevant read:
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/01/opini ... html?_r=1&
Salary aspect:In real terms, teachers’ salaries have declined for 30 years. The average starting salary is $39,000; the average ending salary — after 25 years in the profession — is $67,000. This prices teachers out of home ownership in 32 metropolitan areas, and makes raising a family on one salary near impossible. So how do teachers cope? Sixty-two percent work outside the classroom to make ends meet.
Possible solution:The consulting firm McKinsey recently examined how we might attract and retain a talented teaching force. The study compared the treatment of teachers here and in the three countries that perform best on standardized tests: Finland, Singapore and South Korea.
Turns out these countries have an entirely different approach to the profession. First, the governments in these countries recruit top graduates to the profession. (We don’t.) In Finland and Singapore they pay for training. (We don’t.) In terms of purchasing power, South Korea pays teachers on average 250 percent of what we do.
King Sid the Great 87 wrote:If this is true and the course was ever reversed to recruit for teaching in a different manner, there would be a lot of current teachers upset about the increased competition crowding them out of jobs.
count2infinity wrote:the riddler wrote:I'm thinking about going back to school to get a certificate/master's in secondary education, any suggestions as to what the best subject to get certified in? I know that it's already tough enough to get a teaching job and I don't want to make a mistake and get certified in a field that I won't get a job in. And if any of you have gone this route, how long does it usually take to complete a master's program?
Math and science are usually the two in demand. To put it in perspective, the year that I got hired as a chemistry teacher, I was one of 6 that applied for the job (and one of only 2 that was actually certified. They hired a social studies teacher that year as well, there were over 100 people that applied and the person that got hired was the nephew of 2 or 3 board members which is likely the reason he was hired.
shmenguin wrote:King Sid the Great 87 wrote:If this is true and the course was ever reversed to recruit for teaching in a different manner, there would be a lot of current teachers upset about the increased competition crowding them out of jobs.
that's already a very real thing, by the way
MWB wrote:the riddler wrote:I'm thinking about going back to school to get a certificate/master's in secondary education, any suggestions as to what the best subject to get certified in? I know that it's already tough enough to get a teaching job and I don't want to make a mistake and get certified in a field that I won't get a job in. And if any of you have gone this route, how long does it usually take to complete a master's program?
I agree with c2i that something in the maths or sciences would be the way to go. Schools aren't going to stop funding either of those. However, it wouldn't be a bad idea to check job postings in your area to get an idea of what they are currently looking for. I don't have my masters, so I'm not sure how long the process is. Also, really make sure you're going into it with your eyes wide open.
the riddler wrote: Math or Science are the best way to go.
the riddler wrote:MWB wrote:the riddler wrote:I'm thinking about going back to school to get a certificate/master's in secondary education, any suggestions as to what the best subject to get certified in? I know that it's already tough enough to get a teaching job and I don't want to make a mistake and get certified in a field that I won't get a job in. And if any of you have gone this route, how long does it usually take to complete a master's program?
I agree with c2i that something in the maths or sciences would be the way to go. Schools aren't going to stop funding either of those. However, it wouldn't be a bad idea to check job postings in your area to get an idea of what they are currently looking for. I don't have my masters, so I'm not sure how long the process is. Also, really make sure you're going into it with your eyes wide open.
I'm going to do an emergency sub program to see first if this is something I want to do. And also it will allow me to sub at any level which hopefully gives me an idea of the area I want to get into. But yea, I'm hearing from most people now that Math or Science are the best way to go.
King Sid the Great 87 wrote:The implication here is that in the United States the people that end up becoming teachers are not the same people that are identified has having the highest aptitude and potential to become a superior teacher.
If this is true and the course was ever reversed to recruit for teaching in a different manner, there would be a lot of current teachers upset about the increased competition crowding them out of jobs.
MWB wrote:King Sid the Great 87 wrote:The implication here is that in the United States the people that end up becoming teachers are not the same people that are identified has having the highest aptitude and potential to become a superior teacher.
If this is true and the course was ever reversed to recruit for teaching in a different manner, there would be a lot of current teachers upset about the increased competition crowding them out of jobs.
There is not process in place that identifies who would have the highest aptitude for teaching, so your first point doesn't really make sense.
King Sid the Great 87 wrote:MWB wrote:King Sid the Great 87 wrote:The implication here is that in the United States the people that end up becoming teachers are not the same people that are identified has having the highest aptitude and potential to become a superior teacher.
If this is true and the course was ever reversed to recruit for teaching in a different manner, there would be a lot of current teachers upset about the increased competition crowding them out of jobs.
There is not process in place that identifies who would have the highest aptitude for teaching, so your first point doesn't really make sense.
Ok, I tried to be soft about it. I'll rephrase. The comment was implying that in the the United States, teaching is not a profession that the smartest students (judged by grades, which while not always accurate is a great proxy) gravitate to. That's probably a true statement. I would guess that if a study was done on where the top 10% of graduating high school classes end up, very few would be in education.
I know that grades in school are not directly correlated to performance at work, but it is as good a metric as one can use to make such a prediction.
MWB wrote:King Sid the Great 87 wrote:MWB wrote:King Sid the Great 87 wrote:The implication here is that in the United States the people that end up becoming teachers are not the same people that are identified has having the highest aptitude and potential to become a superior teacher.
If this is true and the course was ever reversed to recruit for teaching in a different manner, there would be a lot of current teachers upset about the increased competition crowding them out of jobs.
There is not process in place that identifies who would have the highest aptitude for teaching, so your first point doesn't really make sense.
Ok, I tried to be soft about it. I'll rephrase. The comment was implying that in the the United States, teaching is not a profession that the smartest students (judged by grades, which while not always accurate is a great proxy) gravitate to. That's probably a true statement. I would guess that if a study was done on where the top 10% of graduating high school classes end up, very few would be in education.
I know that grades in school are not directly correlated to performance at work, but it is as good a metric as one can use to make such a prediction.
My guess is that it would be wide spread. You get teachers who range from the mediocre to the smartest in their classes. A certain type of person wants to get into teaching, and it isn't someone motivated by money. That is not a negative towards anyone who is motivated by money or who doesn't care to get into teaching. If teaching was a higher paying job, more of the smart ones who don't consider education would gravitate there.
pittsoccer33 wrote:I know we spend more money per child on education than any other country. And if we aren't actually #1 anymore it is very close. So where is that money going? Why are salaries so low?
pittsoccer33 wrote: If you are the highest rated teacher by students, parents, and administrator observations you should make the most money.
pittsoccer33 wrote:1) No control over the curriculum. If I was teaching American history I would want to cover what I think is important and construct the entire thing as a narrative story. I think it would be more engaging to students but no administrator would ever ok it.
pittsoccer33 wrote:2) Increasingly little support from parents. I wouldn't want any communication from parents unless they were asking me what more THEY could do. When I get my hair cut I trust the stylist. When my car needs new brakes I trust the mechanic. Why do these self absorbed jackwagons think teachers deserve any less?
pittsoccer33 wrote:3) I am morally opposed to public sector unions. When a factory worker strikes, they are attacking the business owner and trying to force his hand. When government unions strike they are attacking their neighbors. Your neighbor isn't getting a raise this year because the economy sucks. If he isn't making more money he isn't paying as much in taxes. How can you demand a raise just because it is in a salary schedule when the pie isn't growing to pay it? Not joining the union would be a surefire way to derail your career.
pittsoccer33 wrote:4) The salary. Unless things have really changed you are given raises based on years of experience and not solely on merit. If you are the highest rated teacher by students, parents, and administrator observations you should make the most money.
count2infinity wrote:pittsoccer33 wrote:I know we spend more money per child on education than any other country. And if we aren't actually #1 anymore it is very close. So where is that money going? Why are salaries so low?
The money doesn't go to teachers. I'd be willing to be we spend way more money per child than any other country in the world on standardized testing them.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests