Is our teachers learning? Not so much.

[ialsohaveadream]

WASHINGTON - Not a single state will have a highly qualified teacher in every core class this school year as promised by
President Bush's education law. Nine states along with the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico face penalties.

The Education Department on Friday ordered every state to explain how it will have 100 percent of its core teachers qualified — belatedly — in the 2006-07 school year.

In the meantime, some states face the loss of federal aid because they didn't make enough effort to comply on time, officials said.

They are Alaska, Delaware, Idaho, Iowa, Minnesota, Montana, Nebraska, North Carolina and Washington, plus the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico.

"At some point there was, I suspect, a little bit of notion that 'This too shall pass,'" said Henry Johnson, the assistant secretary over elementary and secondary education. "Well, the day of reckoning is here, and it's not going to pass."

Department officials would not say how much aid could be withheld from states to force compliance. But Johnson said, "In some cases, we're talking about large amounts of money."

States often fell short because they did not report accurate or complete data about the quality of the teacher corps, said Rene Islas, who oversees the department's review.

The 4-year-old No Child Left Behind law says teachers must have a bachelor's degree, a state license and proven competency in every subject they teach by this year. The first federal order of its kind, it applies to teachers of math, history and any other core class.

More at the link (which one would think would come standard with every news story posted) (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060512/ap_on_re_us/teacher_quality)

[VNMZ]

We want our teachers to be really qualified and accept low wages.

[Merlin]

We want our teachers to be really qualified and accept low wages.
In the private sector every company wants really qualified people to accept low wages. Why should teaching be any different?

[gear02]

In the private sector every company wants really qualified people to accept low wages. Why should teaching be any different?

Because in this case, the wages are held artificially low by the state. If you doubt it, compare public education teacher salaries to those in private education. Plus there are insane labor rules by the teacher's union which prevents a free market economy for the top teachers.

[clutchy]

We want our teachers to be really qualified and accept low wages.


I don't know of any other job which you can make up to 80,000 to 90,000 a year only working 9 months and get overly lavish retirement benefits.

there are alot of upsides to teaching, the low wage is only based on 9/12 year.

[VNMZ]

I don't know of any other job which you can make up to 80,000 to 90,000 a year only working 9 months and get overly lavish retirement benefits.

there are alot of upsides to teaching, the low wage is only based on 9/12 year.

I am sure the strikes we had a while ago weren't with teachers being paid that much. They were asking for a few percent for cost of living adjustments.

[ialsohaveadream]

Because in this case, the wages are held artificially low by the state. If you doubt it, compare public education teacher salaries to those in private education. Plus there are insane labor rules by the teacher's union which prevents a free market economy for the top teachers.
I can only speak for the local market here, but private school salaries for teachers tend to be lower than public. I have two friends working at private schools and one at a public school. The public school teacher is in his first year, and he's still making more than the other two (more experienced) teachers.


I don't know of any other job which you can make up to 80,000 to 90,000 a year only working 9 months and get overly lavish retirement benefits.
Teacher salaries generally increase by a certain amount for each year of experience, and only in the bigger markets will you find teachers making anywhere near $90k.

And what's overly lavish about their retirement benefits? Do they get to use the corporate jet after they retire? Does the school board pay for them to have a maid? Oh wait, no...that's CEOs.

[clutchy]

And what's overly lavish about their retirement benefits? Do they get to use the corporate jet after they retire? Does the school board pay for them to have a maid? Oh wait, no...that's CEOs.

yeah their salaries increase for like 18 years if they continue to get more education.

why are you bringing CEO's into this they're the top of the rung and therefore a bad comparison to a teacher? they get a guaranteed 7/8 or full salary when they retire till they die. That's a big fricking deal and you'd be hard pressed to find something similar in the private sector w/o being at the highest levels.

i'm giving you real situations and you come back w/ some BS conjecture about ceo's.... blah :splat:

[ialsohaveadream]

i'm giving you real situations and you come back w/ some BS conjecture about ceo's.... blah :splat:
Nope...just waiting for your examples of "lavish benefits" that teachers receive. I pointed out some that I'd describe as lavish (I guess I should've made that point more clear).

But hey, speaking of conjecture, I loved your figure on the $90,000 teacher salary. You can just call me kettle, and I'll call you pot, ok?

they get a guaranteed 7/8 or full salary when they retire till they die. That's a big fricking deal and you'd be hard pressed to find something similar in the private sector w/o being at the highest levels.
I'm assuming you're referring to pension plans that some teachers receive? Not all school districts use defined benefit plans. Defined contribution plans are the standard now, and areas that don't have them yet will have them soon, despite union attempts to stop them.

[Merlin]

Because in this case, the wages are held artificially low by the state. If you doubt it, compare public education teacher salaries to those in private education. Plus there are insane labor rules by the teacher's union which prevents a free market economy for the top teachers.
I can't agree with you. For the most part teachers in private schools make a lot less. They sacrafice a lot of pay to teach in the more civilized enviornment.

[g1984]

I just watched John Stossel's Myths, Lies, and the Stupidity last night. One of the top 10 myths was that teachers were underpaid. The teachers were pissed off at him when he was telling them that teachers made more money than chemists, firefighters, psychologists, etc... It was funny watching their reactions.

[Jeffbx]

I like that the penalty for non-compliance is a withholding of federal funds.

As if the schools aren't strapped for cash enough, let's withhold funding to force them to improve! Isn't that like taking books away from someone as a punishment for failing to learn fast enough? Hey geniuses in DC - ever consider they may need MORE money in order to improve?

So let's follow this plan to the end - fail to comply with teacher qualifications, lose funding. Undertrained teachers aren't properly preparing students for standardized testing, so test scores drop. You guessed it! Lose more federal funding. Now there's even less cash to train teachers...

All I can picture is that stupid little saying that people like to hang on their cubicle wall - "The beatings will continue until morale improves."

[Yossarian]

underpaid teachers and underfunded education programs...is it any wonder that we have complete morons leading companies and our government?

[Markel]

I just watched John Stossel's Myths, Lies, and the Stupidity last night. One of the top 10 myths was that teachers were underpaid.
I wonder if one of the other myths was that increased spending will solve the school problems?

If you asked me, the biggest problem that the schools are facing is the breakdown of the family.

[ialsohaveadream]

I wonder if one of the other myths was that increased spending will solve the school problems?
Brace yourself for this one. Are you sitting down? Are you wearing a helmet just in case?

I agree. There are a lot of things you can to do improve schools that require little, if any, money.

[Markel]

Brace yourself for this one. Are you sitting down? Are you wearing a helmet just in case?

I agree.
:woohoo: :woohoo: :thumb:

[Merlin]

You two fools....don't you know problems can be solved by simply throwing money at them? :bandit:

[Jeffbx]

I wonder if one of the other myths was that increased spending will solve the school problems?

If you asked me, the biggest problem that the schools are facing is the breakdown of the family.


They cut the foreign language program in my kid's school last year due to lack of funding. Music, art & phys ed are all at risk as well. Half of the school's clerical work is done by unpaid parent volunteers - all of this in one of the more well funded districts in MI.

I certainly don't know what a total solution is, but I do know that more money will help & budget cuts will hurt.

[Markel]

They cut the foreign language program in my kid's school last year due to lack of funding. Music, art & phys ed are all at risk as well. Half of the school's clerical work is done by unpaid parent volunteers - all of this in one of the more well funded districts in MI.

I certainly don't know what a total solution is, but I do know that more money will help & budget cuts will hurt.
I'm no stranger to school budget problems. A couple of years ago the K-8 school district pushed through a referendum that cost the average homeowner about $450 more per year on taxes. They rushed it, knowing that the high school district would be proposing one six months later. Well the high school initially wanted about the same amount (referendum failed), then about $350/year (referendum failed). They then trimmed the school day from 7 classes to six (plus mandatory study hall), started charging a bunch more fees (such as a $130 fee for every sport), etc. Then this year they came up with a plan that would reinstate the 7 subject day for only an extra $50/year on taxes (referendum passed). They still need to work out some expenses for capital improvements, etc., but it's amazing how they found a way to get by on a much smaller increase when they had to.

What gets to me is that I see the elementary and middle schools wasting money now (because they have too much and don't want it to appear so) on all kinds of unnecessary spending. :angry: I wish there was a way to recall their referendum and share it with the high school.

I am all for schools getting the money they NEED, but I strongly oppose the idea that if a school is underachieving, throwing more money at it is the only solution. The way I see it, the government is saying, "If our money isn't being spent well, we'll spend it elsewhere." Sounds like something I would do, too.

[attgig]

what kills me is how much disparity there is of teachers salaries between the suburbs and the city. We need better teachers in the city, but the burb's have the money. a state should make education budgets controlled by the state level. force the rich suburbanites to help their inner city counterparts educate their young. i know people will hate that, but who's going to want to teach in baltimore city, when they can drive 1/2 hour away and get the same job (or even easier cuz you're not dealing with the problems of the inner city), while getting paid 2-3 times more....

[clutchy]

my mother in law isn't a teacher, but she works in the school system as a speech therapist and completely identifies herself as a teacher.

i overhear her talking sometimes and it's makes me really mad... if a school doesn't use up all it's alotted money for the year then they give them less next year, so instead of having less they just go blow it on dumb stuff... it's really ridiculous and probably the reason throwing "more money" at school systems never works it just gets sucked up... schools could easily provide the same services to the same amount of people for twice what they get... i doubt you'd see a difference in quality just more people at the "teet".