LGP Education thread

[Pavel Bure]

Typically, good teachers are good at other things as well. Other things that pay better. Other things that don't induce nearly as much stress. Other things that aren't looked down upon by a large portion of the population. It's no wonder they leave.

I literally put my resume out there and had interviews the next day for jobs that don't have the stresses of teaching with better pay, raises, and vacation time. (minus Summers of course) I'll be honest and say that my time at a charter school really jaded me to teaching, I chalked that up to a bad environment and pushed on as best as I could. The straw that broke the camel's back though was teaching friends telling me flat out that if I wanted to work in that district I shouldn't sub there because they weren't hiring their subs. Education as a whole seems to be a very backwards institution in terms of hiring. Perhaps if I was in my early 20's I wouldn't have minded waiting it out and grinding to get a teaching job but I'm in my 30's with a family. I recognized a crappy situation and I decided after much discussion with my wife, friends, and other teachers that my heart wasn't in it any longer due to the ever changing administrative requirements of the job along with the ass backwards hiring practices. I got out very easily and don't regret it. I'm not the first nor will I be the last. With my new job though I have the opportunity to pursue further education for free and am going to get an MBA as opposed to furthering my education for education.

[dodint]

Edit: I think the point of discussion here is that there isn't enough focus on finding and keeping good teachers. Imagine how terrible a company would be if they don't recruit and hire the best and keep the best, but rather simply focus on trying to make bad employees better.

I can understand that. My Aunt is an award winning science teacher in PA (Middle School Science Teacher of the Year, PAEMST Science Teacher of the Year finalist) and is fed up. Her biggest complaint, at least casually at family gatherings when the subject comes up, is that the parents have unrealistic demands and the internet age has shortened the leash between parent and teacher. When a kid earns a bad grade she spends a lot of time having to justify it to parents and the administrators they complain to rather than focusing on creating a dynamic classroom environment. I feel bad that she's so accomplished and worked so hard just to end up hating the end of her career.

[dodint]

40% of teachers are apathetic and coasting to retirement? Wow... I don't even know what to say.

At that time for my school, I believe so. Maybe I got a bad schedule, I didn't have all of the teachers obviously. This was also 13-19 years ago. It was an observation I had at the time and always stuck with me. I'll check my book later to see if I'm only remembering the poor times. The good thing was at least once per year in senior high I had at least one really good teacher and that's not bad.

[44windmill]

What's "a lot"? 5%? 50%? 75%?

Edit: I think the point of discussion here is that there isn't enough focus on finding and keeping good teachers. Imagine how terrible a company would be if they don't recruit and hire the best and keep the best, but rather simply focus on trying to make bad employees better.

I really think the issue is deeper than that. I saw a documentary a whlie ago (forget the name of it) about education around the world. In other first world countries, a teaching degree is only sought out by the upper echelon of students. It's as highly regarded or perhaps more regarded as a PhD, MBA, etc. And those that do obtain a teaching degree get paid appropriately.

Don't you think such a focus here in the US would solve a lot of the problems? You weed out most of the "40%" being discussed here but you also pay teachers what they should be paid. I have no problems paying teachers more than most professions with a bachelor's, but make them earn it.

There would also have to be some sort of continuing education requirement to keep teachers interested, but I don't think that would be all that hard either.

[King Sid the Great 87]

Not sure if this fits in the Education thread or the stock market thread, but does anybody put money into a 529 plan? I only know the basics of the 529 like it has to be used on education unless you want to pay a hefty fine, you can roll it over to other siblings, etc. But what about different types of plans? It seems as if each state has it's own 529, but you don't have to use your home state's 529 nor does your child have to use it in the state you invest in. I guess my question is, how do I decide where to invest this money - is each state managed by a different fund manager, etc?

I haven't looked into it for the reasons you stated; it's limited to education. If you aren't getting the full match from your company on 401k contributions or maxing out a Roth 401k (from which you can withdraw your contributions at any point) those are two better places to start, in my opinion.

If those options are available to you, the only thing I can think of that is "better" about a 529 is that it definitively allocates the money to education. But if you have self-control, you can handle that yourself and invest in other ways.

This is definitely for education for our kid(s) -> we only have 1 now, but will probably have at least 1 more. I believe 529's are more conservative and therefore less risky than most mutual funds. Plus the added benefit of no taxes on the capital gained and I believe a tax break if given as a "gift". I was just curious as to know how to choose the right 529.

Roth IRAs grow tax free as well. You can currently give $14K annually to your child tax free, regardless of where the money comes from. Your wife can do the same.

2015 Roth contribution limits are $5,500 per individual. If you and your wife are doing less than $11K/year in education investment, I think the Roth is a better investment in terms of future control. Who knows, maybe your kid(s) end up on full rides somewhere?

[MWB]

It seems like with c2i's background in teaching that he understands this better than most ever will. Teachers have a lot of stigmas to hurdle in the US that aren't likely going to happen anytime soon. You hear phrases such as, "Those who can't, teach," or "They have summers off." I was a bad student and I recognize myself as such. It would not surprise me in the least if I had quite a few stressed teachers trying to make me reach potential instead of whatever I was at the moment.

On the flip side there are a lot of apathetic teachers. Anecdotal for sure, but when I matriculated through 7-12th grade at Latrobe I managed to catch a wave of retirements. One of my teachers taught my Dad. This meant a large portion of teachers were either 30+ year folks just biding time until they punched out or I had their replacements who were, what, 6 years older than me? My senior year Astronomy teacher married one of my classmates when she was a freshman in college.

I did have two or three really great teachers that I responded to and remember fondly. One of which was drummed out shortly after I graduated because he was gay.

Teachers are like any other group, some winners and losers with the majority in between. I wonder if the new-to-the-profession teachers I had almost 15 years ago are hitting their mid-career stride now.

I get the point of your first paragraph, I think, but a teacher who has taught for 30 years isn't necessarily just biding time. And new teachers aren't necessarily bad.

[dodint]

I really think the issue is deeper than that. I saw a documentary a whlie ago (forget the name of it) about education around the world. In other first world countries, a teaching degree is only sought out by the upper echelon of students. It's as highly regarded or perhaps more regarded as a PhD, MBA, etc. And those that do obtain a teaching degree get paid appropriately.

Freakonomics did this within the last few months.

[King Sid the Great 87]

What's "a lot"? 5%? 50%? 75%?

Edit: I think the point of discussion here is that there isn't enough focus on finding and keeping good teachers. Imagine how terrible a company would be if they don't recruit and hire the best and keep the best, but rather simply focus on trying to make bad employees better.

The problem with this argument is that most teachers get favorable ratings; a tacit admission that there are not many bad teachers. This defies population distribution.


http://www.13abc.com/story/20217300/mos ... le-ratings" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/08/29/nyreg ... .html?_r=0" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Companies focus on making bad employers better for only a short time. Then they cut bait.

[MWB]

Edit: I think the point of discussion here is that there isn't enough focus on finding and keeping good teachers. Imagine how terrible a company would be if they don't recruit and hire the best and keep the best, but rather simply focus on trying to make bad employees better.

I can understand that. My Aunt is an award winning science teacher in PA (Middle School Science Teacher of the Year, PAEMST Science Teacher of the Year finalist) and is fed up. Her biggest complaint, at least casually at family gatherings when the subject comes up, is that the parents have unrealistic demands and the internet age has shortened the leash between parent and teacher. When a kid earns a bad grade she spends a lot of time having to justify it to parents and the administrators they complain to rather than focusing on creating a dynamic classroom environment. I feel bad that she's so accomplished and worked so hard just to end up hating the end of her career.

Which is such a huge problem. Many don't view teaching as a profession, so find it easy to question everything they do. Add to it that parents (to varying degrees and quite understandably) want what is best for their kids and you can get a bad dynamic.

[44windmill]

Not sure if this fits in the Education thread or the stock market thread, but does anybody put money into a 529 plan? I only know the basics of the 529 like it has to be used on education unless you want to pay a hefty fine, you can roll it over to other siblings, etc. But what about different types of plans? It seems as if each state has it's own 529, but you don't have to use your home state's 529 nor does your child have to use it in the state you invest in. I guess my question is, how do I decide where to invest this money - is each state managed by a different fund manager, etc?

I haven't looked into it for the reasons you stated; it's limited to education. If you aren't getting the full match from your company on 401k contributions or maxing out a Roth 401k (from which you can withdraw your contributions at any point) those are two better places to start, in my opinion.

If those options are available to you, the only thing I can think of that is "better" about a 529 is that it definitively allocates the money to education. But if you have self-control, you can handle that yourself and invest in other ways.

This is definitely for education for our kid(s) -> we only have 1 now, but will probably have at least 1 more. I believe 529's are more conservative and therefore less risky than most mutual funds. Plus the added benefit of no taxes on the capital gained and I believe a tax break if given as a "gift". I was just curious as to know how to choose the right 529.

Roth IRAs grow tax free as well. You can currently give $14K annually to your child tax free, regardless of where the money comes from. Your wife can do the same.

2015 Roth contribution limits are $5,500 per individual. If you and your wife are doing less than $11K/year in education investment, I think the Roth is a better investment in terms of future control. Who knows, maybe your kid(s) end up on full rides somewhere?

Hmm, I'll have to look into the Roth IRA's then. Definitely not at that point yet in my investing since I'm not even maxing out my 401k yet. Is Roth similar to 401k where you are taxed if you take it out before retirement age? From what I've googled, it seems so.

Another perk I read on the 529 is that there are special provisions for pulling it out tax free without using it on education. One of those stipulations is the beneficiary receives a full ride or partial ride.

[MWB]

What's "a lot"? 5%? 50%? 75%?

Edit: I think the point of discussion here is that there isn't enough focus on finding and keeping good teachers. Imagine how terrible a company would be if they don't recruit and hire the best and keep the best, but rather simply focus on trying to make bad employees better.

I really think the issue is deeper than that. I saw a documentary a whlie ago (forget the name of it) about education around the world. In other first world countries, a teaching degree is only sought out by the upper echelon of students. It's as highly regarded or perhaps more regarded as a PhD, MBA, etc. And those that do obtain a teaching degree get paid appropriately.

Don't you think such a focus here in the US would solve a lot of the problems? You weed out most of the "40%" being discussed here but you also pay teachers what they should be paid. I have no problems paying teachers more than most professions with a bachelor's, but make them earn it.

There would also have to be some sort of continuing education requirement to keep teachers interested, but I don't think that would be all that hard either.

Make them earn it? Are you talking strictly about getting a higher degree before the job? Qualifications should be higher, but it should be through in the job training.
Also, there already are continuing education requirements for teachers.

[newarenanow]

I have a 529 Plan for both of my children. We exceed the Roth IRA household limit to contribute, so that is not an option for us.

Like stated above, the Roth IRA allows you more flexibility, however you have restrictions on how much you can contribute, if you plan on contributing a lot.

As for the 529 Plan, there are two main types, the prepaid tuition which usually locks in current tuition rates, but limits you to that university, or the college savings plan that allows you more flexibility where you want to send your kid. However, if your child gets a full ride or does not go to school, you can't withdrawal the money w/o a penalty, however, you can pass it on to someone else that is qualified.

I'd talk to your bank for more information. But it is definitely a good idea to start saving for your childs education.

[MWB]

I really think the issue is deeper than that. I saw a documentary a whlie ago (forget the name of it) about education around the world. In other first world countries, a teaching degree is only sought out by the upper echelon of students. It's as highly regarded or perhaps more regarded as a PhD, MBA, etc. And those that do obtain a teaching degree get paid appropriately.

Freakonomics did this within the last few months.

I listened to this. I really wish they would have gone into greater depth on the subject. The whole premise of "good teacher" is meaningless when what makes a teacher good isn't well defined.

[newarenanow]

Hmm, I'll have to look into the Roth IRA's then. Definitely not at that point yet in my investing since I'm not even maxing out my 401k yet. Is Roth similar to 401k where you are taxed if you take it out before retirement age? From what I've googled, it seems so.

Another perk I read on the 529 is that there are special provisions for pulling it out tax free without using it on education. One of those stipulations is the beneficiary receives a full ride or partial ride.

There are certain exceptions that allows you to pull out your contributions with no penalty. I can't remember them off the top of my head but up to $10K on your first house purchase, education, unreimbursed medical expenses over 7.5% of your AGI, continuing expenses for medical reasons, etc. You'd have to look it up. I also believe you can only withdrawal the contribution amounts, not your earnings. Someone correct me if I'm wrong.

[44windmill]

What's "a lot"? 5%? 50%? 75%?

Edit: I think the point of discussion here is that there isn't enough focus on finding and keeping good teachers. Imagine how terrible a company would be if they don't recruit and hire the best and keep the best, but rather simply focus on trying to make bad employees better.

I really think the issue is deeper than that. I saw a documentary a whlie ago (forget the name of it) about education around the world. In other first world countries, a teaching degree is only sought out by the upper echelon of students. It's as highly regarded or perhaps more regarded as a PhD, MBA, etc. And those that do obtain a teaching degree get paid appropriately.

Don't you think such a focus here in the US would solve a lot of the problems? You weed out most of the "40%" being discussed here but you also pay teachers what they should be paid. I have no problems paying teachers more than most professions with a bachelor's, but make them earn it.

There would also have to be some sort of continuing education requirement to keep teachers interested, but I don't think that would be all that hard either.

Make them earn it? Are you talking strictly about getting a higher degree before the job? Qualifications should be higher, but it should be through in the job training.
Also, there already are continuing education requirements for teachers.

I'm talking about making it more difficult to get a degree in teaching. In other words, make it something only the best and brightest would want to pursue. Just basically summarizing the documentary I saw.

[MWB]

This is what Finland does. The process is rigorous and there is a lot of mentoring after you get the job. Here, people push a 5-week training and then throw the person into a high need school.

[count2infinity]

What's "a lot"? 5%? 50%? 75%?

Edit: I think the point of discussion here is that there isn't enough focus on finding and keeping good teachers. Imagine how terrible a company would be if they don't recruit and hire the best and keep the best, but rather simply focus on trying to make bad employees better.

I really think the issue is deeper than that. I saw a documentary a whlie ago (forget the name of it) about education around the world. In other first world countries, a teaching degree is only sought out by the upper echelon of students. It's as highly regarded or perhaps more regarded as a PhD, MBA, etc. And those that do obtain a teaching degree get paid appropriately.

Don't you think such a focus here in the US would solve a lot of the problems? You weed out most of the "40%" being discussed here but you also pay teachers what they should be paid. I have no problems paying teachers more than most professions with a bachelor's, but make them earn it.

There would also have to be some sort of continuing education requirement to keep teachers interested, but I don't think that would be all that hard either.

Make them earn it? Are you talking strictly about getting a higher degree before the job? Qualifications should be higher, but it should be through in the job training.
Also, there already are continuing education requirements for teachers.

I'm talking about making it more difficult to get a degree in teaching. In other words, make it something only the best and brightest would want to pursue. Just basically summarizing the documentary I saw.

Everything about the education field would need to change for this to happen. Right now what incentives are there for the best and brightest to be an educator (spoiler alert: it's pretty much nothing). Until the culture of education and being a teacher changes, you're not going to attract the best and brightest.

[shmenguin]

I wonder if the new-to-the-profession teachers I had almost 15 years ago are hitting their mid-career stride now.

i'd wager that year 3 is the best you'll get out of a typical teacher.

-some experience (at least at the elementary level, it doesn't take long to excel at your job)
-not tenured yet (need to still work hard for your job security)
-not cynical yet
-still young and energetic
-probably doesn't have kids of their own yet (your kid matters a lot more than the 20 kids you teach. it wins the tie breakers at home)

[44windmill]

What's "a lot"? 5%? 50%? 75%?

Edit: I think the point of discussion here is that there isn't enough focus on finding and keeping good teachers. Imagine how terrible a company would be if they don't recruit and hire the best and keep the best, but rather simply focus on trying to make bad employees better.

I really think the issue is deeper than that. I saw a documentary a whlie ago (forget the name of it) about education around the world. In other first world countries, a teaching degree is only sought out by the upper echelon of students. It's as highly regarded or perhaps more regarded as a PhD, MBA, etc. And those that do obtain a teaching degree get paid appropriately.

Don't you think such a focus here in the US would solve a lot of the problems? You weed out most of the "40%" being discussed here but you also pay teachers what they should be paid. I have no problems paying teachers more than most professions with a bachelor's, but make them earn it.

There would also have to be some sort of continuing education requirement to keep teachers interested, but I don't think that would be all that hard either.

Make them earn it? Are you talking strictly about getting a higher degree before the job? Qualifications should be higher, but it should be through in the job training.
Also, there already are continuing education requirements for teachers.

I'm talking about making it more difficult to get a degree in teaching. In other words, make it something only the best and brightest would want to pursue. Just basically summarizing the documentary I saw.

Everything about the education field would need to change for this to happen. Right now what incentives are there for the best and brightest to be an educator (spoiler alert: it's pretty much nothing). Until the culture of education and being a teacher changes, you're not going to attract the best and brightest.

I agree. And this is where the topic flows in the political discussion thread.

[MWB]

I wonder if the new-to-the-profession teachers I had almost 15 years ago are hitting their mid-career stride now.

i'd wager that year 3 is the best you'll get out of a typical teacher.

-some experience (at least at the elementary level, it doesn't take long to excel at your job)
-not tenured yet (need to still work hard for your job security)
-not cynical yet
-still young and energetic
-probably doesn't have kids of their own yet (your kid matters a lot more than the 20 kids you teach. it wins the tie breakers at home)

This is probably one of the most cynical (and misinformed) views I've ever read about teaching.

[MWB]

im going to take these point by point:

-some experience (at least at the elementary level, it doesn't take long to excel at your job)
Yes, you have some experience, but I'd say it takes about three years to really know what you're doing, regardless of the age you teach. Different ages take different skill sets.

-not tenured yet (need to still work hard for your job security)
Tenure in a lot of places isn't that hard to get. In a lot of other places it doesn't exist. If you're basing how you teach on ability to attain tenure, you're already a bad teacher.

-not cynical yet
Probably the most valid point, but for many, either you're cynical or not.

-still young and energetic
A lot of teachers are energetic. Age has nothing to do with it.

-probably doesn't have kids of their own yet (your kid matters a lot more than the 20 kids you teach. it wins the tie breakers at home)
I wonder how anyone else possibly manages a career and family.

[shmenguin]

it's a broad brush stroke from a layman, i admit. and really, i can only speak from observing all of my teacher friends (who are almost all elementary-level). so i'll be a little more measured in the future.

but i do know that tenure, despite being relatively easy to achieve, sometimes only looks that way in the rear view. i know plenty of people who go the extra mile in their pre-tenure observations and then get more complacent in the following years. and in elementary, i've seen first-hand evidence of the newest teachers being the most beloved by the parents, students and faculty - despite limited experience. and almost all the teachers i know are female. and once they have kids, things do change - particularly with the amount they can do at home. they are 100% fulfilling their professional obligations, but it's just different. less compulsive.

but again, i only have anecdotal evidence from the perimeter. so take it with a grain of salt. but in each point, there's truth, i think.

[MWB]

There's undoubtedly some truth in all the statements. I just don't think they can be made as generalizations for the profession.

What does it mean to be the "most-beloved"? Does it mean they are good at their job, or just good at being a people person? It is impossible to tell if someone is good at teaching unless you can observe them in the class consistently (which is why teacher evaluation is so tricky). I think one of the biggest things a teacher learns from experience is time management. But it does ebb and flow. And I'm sure you're right that when you have kids, less gets done at home. That doesn't mean the teacher is less effective.
I'm not trying to be snarky about this, or pretend that I know the answers. I just don't think what makes a good teacher is an easy determination. Or that there's a limited timeframe to how long it can be done.

[shmenguin]

There's undoubtedly some truth in all the statements. I just don't think they can be made as generalizations for the profession.

What does it mean to be the "most-beloved"? Does it mean they are good at their job, or just good at being a people person? It is impossible to tell if someone is good at teaching unless you can observe them in the class consistently (which is why teacher evaluation is so tricky). I think one of the biggest things a teacher learns from experience is time management. But it does ebb and flow. And I'm sure you're right that when you have kids, less gets done at home. That doesn't mean the teacher is less effective.
I'm not trying to be snarky about this, or pretend that I know the answers. I just don't think what makes a good teacher is an easy determination. Or that there's a limited timeframe to how long it can be done.

you're correct - generalizations aren't fair, especially in something as nuanced as teaching. and "beloved" wasn't the best descriptor. however you would describe the appropriate high levels of appreciation from administrators, parents and students is what i meant.

[MWB]

Those teachers who are so appreciated... Do you think they are limited to about three years of success?

Edit - I misread your first post. I guess the question is, do you think they can sustain their success?