I wouldn't force my kids into professions. My oldest (daughter - 10th grade) wants to be a special ed teacher. If that is her passion I fully support it. I want her to be happy so I wouldn't force her into a STEM profession even though our country needs them at the macro level. I wouldn't force her into a profession to make a higher standard of living.
That said, I do make sure she is in all honors/AP courses and will take the most advanced math and science possible. If she changes her mind about her profession she will have the background to enter any possible major in college. There is no reason she shouldn't do well in school. The path to happiness is doing something you are passionate about. Poor academic performance limits options and excludes potential passions.
Neither of my children picked the path I would have preferred. I largely didn't say much about their choices. They are very successful though in my opinion today. The only time I stood my ground was when one wanted to not finish their education degree major, rationalizing they could work for the CIA with out the teacher stamp.
That one thanks me now for advising that would not provide a back drop for employment as a teacher. They have a masters and specialization in challenged children now. They continue to seek further certifications and love the job. By the way, in a non-Union state. Because they couldn't get a job here in PA except substitute teaching.
Last edited by Ron` on Thu Feb 02, 2012 4:45 pm, edited 1 time in total.
My comment was sarcastic. I'm a teacher. Luckily, I have a wife who makes good money. However, several people I work with started teaching four years ago. They are now making the exact same salary they did when they started and have to pay for more of their supplies.
my wife's district is the same. she's 3 credits shy of her masters and is still basically making the same as when she started 4 years ago with zero graduate credits. though it's worth noting that her district has been in a contract dispute over the last couple years - which froze everyone's pay.
You have never sat on any academic admission committee, have you?
I have, for 10 or so years by now (for MBA admissions), and I can tell you that previous grades are a MAJOR component of any admission decision we do. In fact, looking back it's almost scary how past "slacking" can prevent admission even 10+ year later. Granted, there are always trade-offs (work experience, standardized tests, recommendation letters, the previously mentioned alumni pedigree in case of Ivy League schools), but on the margin, bad GPA sets people substantially behind.
Then there are some that really don't think that college is necessary with all the necessary stats required attained. Those that will toss a full academic ride out the window early on in life. Choose to work first and maybe join the military at the first lay off. They pick up the college stats later along to bolster their resume. There is no recipie for everyone.
The official position of our district is that this isn't a pay freeze, they are simple adjusting the pay scale down each year.
Would you prefer to be in a union?
I've been asked that many times. It's a tough question. If money were the only question, I definitely would. I make about 70% of what I was making in PA, and they even counted my PA years of service. However, I don't have to deal with things like, "well, I'd let you leave early, but the union rules don't allow that" from the principal. Things are simpler in a lot of ways. A lot of that has to do with the school I work in. Other than the pay, I can't say I've noticed any negatives. However, I haven't been in a situation where I felt I needed the union though. And I can still join a union, it's just a union with little power. More of an advocacy group to get info and inform.
Last edited by MWB on Thu Feb 02, 2012 5:00 pm, edited 1 time in total.
The official position of our district is that this isn't a pay freeze, they are simple adjusting the pay scale down each year.
Would you prefer to be in a union?
Unions have been losing strength for years in most jobs and in even teachers. I think if someone looks at the statistics for unionized labor closely that would reflect this overall. Only in pockets of weak management or district administration may this not be true. But that's my holistic view.
I had a quick question for anyone out there that's familiar with the law. I know higher pay (for certain areas) is a benefit that comes with having a union, but one thing that many non-teachers seem to think is that a union is there to throw a safety blanket over all the teachers to keep them from getting fired. My question is, without a union, aren't there legal actions that a teacher can take if they feel they've been fired for unjust reasons?
What exactly is going wrong? The study’s lead authors identified four main factors: an undermining of evolution, vague goals, not enough guidance for teachers on how to integrate the history of science and the concept of scientific inquiry into their lessons, and not enough math instruction.
I 100% agree with the final three. The undermining of evolution isn't that big of a deal in most cases, but the lack of understanding of what evolution truly is seems to be the true problem. I've seen with my own eyes that students have absolutely no concept of how scientific inquiry and how science has evolved over the years. I tried my hardest when I was teaching to instill good, independent scientific thinkers, but often times the students resisted as it wasn't what they were used to. The last one (bad math instruction) is very true as well. Science is hard to do without a solid math background and a lot of students don't have that.
I had a quick question for anyone out there that's familiar with the law. I know higher pay (for certain areas) is a benefit that comes with having a union, but one thing that many non-teachers seem to think is that a union is there to throw a safety blanket over all the teachers to keep them from getting fired. My question is, without a union, aren't there legal actions that a teacher can take if they feel they've been fired for unjust reasons?
Obviously not a lawyer, but yes, they can still take legal action, they just have to pay legal fees.It's hard for districts to prove that a teacher should be fired unless it's something blatant. So even states that don't have strong unions don't fire that many teachers. Instead they shuffle them to other positions or don't renew an expiring contract ( for newer teachers). If that's the case they also don't give them a recommendation, making it harder to be hired by other districts. I think the role the union plays in not allowing teachers to be fired is over-hyped. Districts don't want to spend the money to fire someone if they think there could be a battle. The biggest factor the union plays is the collective bargaining.
there are people who don't know history or politics everywhere, so any school you go to there will be students like that, today, 20 years ago, 40 years ago, doesn't matter. the video doesn't do much for me other than get me to laugh at people.
What exactly is going wrong? The study’s lead authors identified four main factors: an undermining of evolution, vague goals, not enough guidance for teachers on how to integrate the history of science and the concept of scientific inquiry into their lessons, and not enough math instruction.
I 100% agree with the final three. The undermining of evolution isn't that big of a deal in most cases, but the lack of understanding of what evolution truly is seems to be the true problem. I've seen with my own eyes that students have absolutely no concept of how scientific inquiry and how science has evolved over the years. I tried my hardest when I was teaching to instill good, independent scientific thinkers, but often times the students resisted as it wasn't what they were used to. The last one (bad math instruction) is very true as well. Science is hard to do without a solid math background and a lot of students don't have that.
Hmmm, sounds like unclear objectives. Step one in developing curriculum. Allowing legislative bodies to define objectives that translate into curriculum is why we are here arguing about other things in my opinion.
I had a quick question for anyone out there that's familiar with the law. I know higher pay (for certain areas) is a benefit that comes with having a union, but one thing that many non-teachers seem to think is that a union is there to throw a safety blanket over all the teachers to keep them from getting fired. My question is, without a union, aren't there legal actions that a teacher can take if they feel they've been fired for unjust reasons?
Obviously not a lawyer, but yes, they can still take legal action, they just have to pay legal fees.It's hard for districts to prove that a teacher should be fired unless it's something blatant. So even states that don't have strong unions don't fire that many teachers. Instead they shuffle them to other positions or don't renew an expiring contract ( for newer teachers). If that's the case they also don't give them a recommendation, making it harder to be hired by other districts. I think the role the union plays in not allowing teachers to be fired is over-hyped. Districts don't want to spend the money to fire someone if they think there could be a battle. The biggest factor the union plays is the collective bargaining.
Good luck with that fighting on your own for an unjust dismissal in a right to work state. You would be better off spending your money to find another job or better your qualifications/resume. That is what most corporate HR philosphies are based on, fire now and settle on a few later. The settlement is generally meaningless to the final cost to the individual. The corporate lawyers are already on contract and need to be kept occupied.
In reality, the same holds true for unions. Large unions have lawyers on the tab too. They will very rarely fight to the end as the cost is too great. There has to be a really large dollar figure to be gained. When it comes to lockouts/strikes/walkouts.... they rarely ever recover the lost wages in the settlement even if they win.
Only the lawyers garner cash along the way. This is in no way intended to reflect a negative comment to the lawyers here, that's your breadline and I fully understand it.
Right, and districts don't want to fight to the end either, because of cost, so few teachers get fired.
Weak managment is still the reason behind this union teacher belief for poor education. I don't attest that it is the cause for poor education, but.... See my comment on corporate stategy for HR, fire now and settle a few later. In the end you win the majority of times even with paying your lawyers on tab. Target the worst performers first, others will fall in place and perform while it plays out. Most settlements, even if the employee wins, require a code of silence agreement. So the wins by settlement don't really propogate either.
Of course you must budget for the lawyers too up front. That's reality today in my opinion and why the union issue is a myth with strong management. A major reason unions are on the decline today. Most corporations have broken through this wall. Problem is it hasn't happened in state, local or federal government related jobs.
Last edited by Ron` on Fri Feb 03, 2012 9:11 pm, edited 1 time in total.
For all you teachers that work hard at what you do, don't take my comments as that I don't appreciate your work. I am not anti-union either believe me as I have been on both sides of this equation in my life. I fully understand the average joe can't represent himself under duress alone or understand fully the consequences. This myth of unions being the complete reason for the decline in american education has to be killed. The unions aren't the primary reason I believe, but they are the most easiest target. A target to be used to cover up ineffective administration and management. It's up to all of you to kill it before it kills your unions though. Good teachers collectively are a much stronger force in the end.
The unions aren't the primary reason I believe, but they are the most easiest target. A target to be used to cover up ineffective administration and management. It's up to all of you to kill it before it kills your unions though. Good teachers collectively are a much stronger force in the end.
This is very true, but most people have their opinions formed and don't care to change them. There's a ton of misinformation out there about education, whether it be unions, charter schools, curriculum, salary, tenure, or a litany of other things.
Then when you take down public education, what do you do?
Vouchers (to private schools) and charter schools have proven no better than what's currently in place, and don't really service the kids with the greatest needs in most cases.
I know there are a large number of politicians out there that want to completely privatize education... go for it, see how many children are "left behind" then.
I know there are a large number of politicians out there that want to completely privatize education... go for it, see how many children are "left behind" then.
Tens of thousands? But I guess charities will take care of them, right? And if they did, we'd end up with some very good private schools and some very awful private schools, and a bunch in the middle... kinda like now, except for private instead of public.
