It's always struck me as odd, that in America, teachers, those whom we trust to shape our children's minds, aren't regarded more highly than they are. Yes, there is a round of applause if one shows up on a TV game show, but try introducing yourself as a teacher in a room full of business owners or manufacturer's representatives, there is a stunning lack of appreciation for the craft.
It seems to be historical too. In the 1800's schoolmarms were, to say the least, rated just above scullery maids as persons of society and allowed to present the ideas of humanity to the unfilled minds of America's youth only after the completion of the harvest and only after the schoolmarm had fully stocked the school room with wood and water by her own efforts.
School bond issues have long been a thorn in the side of any of the populace who, for whatever reason, had no children or whose children were grown. There doesn't seem to be a communal sense that the better educated our children become the more society as a whole benefits. Maybe that's true, they seem to say, but why should I have to part with any of my money just to make society better? Um.
Teachers remain the most underpaid of the public professions, the most maligned, the most put-upon and the most dis-respected. How can that be? The minds of the children of the nation are in their hands. Between the ages of six and eighteen American children will spend six and a half hours a day with teachers, three and half hours watching television, one and a half hours talking with friends and between 15 and 20 minutes with one of their parents. Shouldn't quality of education loom larger than it does for Americans?
I say all this after reading several long stories about what concerns the American voter: the economy, the war, the environment, terrorism, healthcare, ...... education is off the radar, it get about 2% as a concern.
Whew! and I thought the American system of education was failing so badly that even George Bush had to find a way to impose FEDERAL standards on State education, maybe he fixed it.???
Meanwhile, several teachers were in the store recently buying supplies for their classrooms out of their own money. Stuff to do art with because that budget has been cut, stuff to do science with because that budget has been eliminated, stuff that might make things more interesting to a math class, but that have to appear magically without any support from the school's funds.
Anyway, here's my plan for education reform: no teacher is allowed to become a teacher without rigorous testing on a par with the State Bar Exam. The respect level for the profession of teacher shall be raised to the heights at which we regard power attorneys and CEOs, in order to facilitate such respect raising, no teacher shall be paid less than One Hundred Thousand Dollars a year after their third year of teaching, prior to that time the sum of Sixty Five Thousand dollars shall suffice, the same as paid to associate lawyers at major firms. The sisterhood and brotherhood of teachers shall be self-culling, no person shall remain a teacher without the support and admiration of both his/her peers and the enthusiastic backing of students and parents.
What I want is for the day to come when a kid says to his parents, "I think I want to become a teacher." and they think to themselves, "Holy Crap, finally this family will have someone in a honored profession."
I voted yes, and wrote a response, but I'm still mulling the response over.
0 Replies
angie
1
Reply
Sat 11 Sep, 2004 07:29 pm
Could it be that, as teaching was traditionally seen as a predominantly female profession, the salaries were not expected to be in the same range as professions dominated by males?
And could it be that, while we Americans love our children with all our hearts, that love is not always reflected in our laws? I mean, if children were truly viewed as out most valuable "commodity", it would follow that we would pay their teachers on the highest scale.
But we do not. We pay our athletes and our pop stars on that scale, and that says something about us. Those athletes and pop stars are money makers for the corporations that "own" them. Yes, in the end, it is about money.
And about attention span. Because if we could recognize the value of investing in our children as out future, we would not hesitate to spend money on their eductaion. That education takes twenty years, however, and a pop star can hold twenty concerts in one year, generating all kinds of money.
As an ex-high school math teacher, it used to make my blood boil when I heard someone say: "but you get off early every day and have three onths off in the summer".
My school day started at 5:30 AM, I was at my desk by 7:00 AM and in school until 4:00 every day (after school help). At night, there were always assignments to check, exams to grade, lessons to plan. Weekends were workdays as well, with perhaps a few hours off on a Saturday night. I always taught well into June, and August 1st, the folders came out as I began new plans for the coming year. Additionally, I served as a class advisor.
People do not go into teaching for the money. But you can read that sentence two ways. (1) For some people money is not an issue (perhaps a second income). (2) For some people, teaching is not an option because of the money.
It is as you sugest Joe, a matter of priorities.
0 Replies
Noddy24
1
Reply
Sat 11 Sep, 2004 07:53 pm
More, later.
Meanwhile:
Americans do not love authority figures. Traditionally we eat tyrants for breakfast and eschew high tea for a good meal of retrospective expertise.
Americans accept literacy as a right and clear thinking as an obvious outgrowth of literacy. Unfortunately, in practice, this means if you can read the headlines and sit through the 8 minutes of "news" at five or eleven o'clock you are an authority.
Americans are all equal. Your opinion is as good as mine--perhaps if you have a louder voice, your opinion is better than mine.
Every American has experienced teachers. Therefore every American has an imformed opinion.
0 Replies
Joe Nation
1
Reply
Sat 11 Sep, 2004 08:09 pm
I think it's high time for people to start thinking about becoming a teacher because of the money, not because how they love children, or become thrilled when some blue-eyed, brown-eyed, black-eyed Susan looks up from her book and says "Oh, I see." or of the rush one gets from just being around learning. Nope. I think they should have the same attitude as stock brokers or pop singers, I'll put out all my talents, you cover them with cash-cash-cash.
And not be shy about it either. It's tough to be a teacher. Long hours, dense days of planning that can be torpedoed in an instant by some assistant principal's 'great idea' to have an all afternoon talent extravaganza (where the closest thing to talent is the lead singer's ability to keep his pants from falling completely off while he spits into the microphone about LUFF Enuff) and the grinding hours of waiting for parents to show up for meetings about their sulky, inattentive, TV-taught offspring (way off).
There's not another profession that has to put up with the public's crap like teachers have to, it oughta stop.
Really.
Joe
0 Replies
sozobe
1
Reply
Sat 11 Sep, 2004 08:10 pm
Love your proposal, Joe. I've made it myself, with a few less specifics and far less panache.
Said it many times, but the best and the brightest in my grad school education classes didn't go into teaching -- well, one did, and it's viewed very much like someone who joins the Peace Corps or becomes a nun or something. Noble, but a bit odd.
The best and the brighest went on to better and brighter things. A shame.
0 Replies
msolga
1
Reply
Sat 11 Sep, 2004 08:14 pm
Joe
The same sort of negative attitude to teachers here in Australia, too. Is this a universal thing?
0 Replies
Letty
1
Reply
Sun 12 Sep, 2004 08:57 am
Joe, I have no regrets about having been a teacher. It was interesting to read that the FCATS in Florida have been put on hold as a result of the recent hurricane activity. I'll wager that the kids will do far better now.
The pity of the career choice, is that so many non caring people choose teaching, and those who do care are often viewed with disdain because they "rock the boat". Nothing has changed in that respect.
0 Replies
Eva
1
Reply
Sun 12 Sep, 2004 03:52 pm
America does not respect teachers because America does not respect children.
Why? Because children are non-productive members of society. They do not hold jobs, they do not pay taxes, and they do not vote. Until they are able to do these things, they are a drain on the system. Our esteem for teachers is only slightly above that of babysitters...roughly equivalent to that of social workers whose function is to "redeem" non-productive members of society.
And this, as I see it, is one of the major flaws of capitalism. Anyone who cannot significantly contribute to the country's economy...the sick, the old, the children, the disabled...is disenfranchised. And so are the people who work with them.
<shaking my head>
When I was in Italy, every shopkeeper who saw my 6-year-old made a huge fuss over him. They gave him free gifts, made him special dishes not on the menu, catered to his every whim. I made a comment to one merchant...a bookseller on the Rialto Bridge in Venice who had given him a small blank hand-bound book that she made...that I really appreciated the Italians' generosity toward children. She looked puzzled. "But, but, they are the future," she exclaimed, "so they must have the best!"
Somehow, some way, our priorities as a nation MUST change.
0 Replies
ossobuco
1
Reply
Sun 12 Sep, 2004 04:18 pm
Re: Why does America treat it's teachers as if they were dir
Joe Nation wrote:
It seems to be historical too. In the 1800's schoolmarms were, to say the least, rated just above scullery maids as persons of society and allowed to present the ideas of humanity to the unfilled minds of America's youth only after the completion of the harvest and only after the schoolmarm had fully stocked the school room with wood and water by her own efforts.
JOE
School marmism may be part of the problem. Women's work = diminished importance. I don't mean that people think that in a present generalized view, but I think it is part of how we got here.
I had an odd conversation with a radiologist a few years ago... not quite sure how we got on to it. As some here know, when I had a window of time to be interested in med school, women weren't being accepted. That was changed not long after, but a little late for moi. But, my point is, now a goodly percentage of mds are women. And md's, according to some I know, are feeling markedly less listened to, rather like, hmmm, nurses. That male md was saying that in a way, the women docs have supplanted the missing nurses, they being missing because women have gone for mba's, etc. And that along with the heavy presence of hmo's, this shift has brought down (he didn't say this word) status.
Hmmph, I say, but his appreciation of status may be coherent.
Another point is that the work of teaching is cumulative. No immediate bang for the buck, except in those cases where you can see a child turn around and start to blossom, which must be a joy. No immediate bang for the buck with the child's growth in education, and no immediately observable financial benefits from educating the children.
I'll leave it for those with more recent experience to argue about extent of school time given to items not directly teaching children to use their minds. That might be a tangent; I was not taught to use much of my mind either, given that a fair portion of my education was absorption and delivery of rote - I developed what judgment and creative thinking I may possess by other than my early classes.
What I wrote above is what I had typed out and not posted yesterday.. as I was still thinking. Now I read Eva's post, and agree with that. Our children are are treasures and we don't appear to care, here in the US, that this vast treasury is being, if not completely ignored, almost completely undeveloped.
0 Replies
Acquiunk
1
Reply
Sun 12 Sep, 2004 04:19 pm
Eva, excellent post.
0 Replies
Joe Nation
1
Reply
Sun 12 Sep, 2004 05:17 pm
Eva: you read my mind.
We really don't like kids. We coo at babies and roll our eyes at those foolish to have them. We don't want kids in the restaurants we frequent nor at the beachs we lie on, nor, please god, in the movie theatre. We would rather that children show up for proper employment at age 20 and not a minute before, but we never let on. We grimly smile at them in grocery store lines. We try to turn a glassy eye past the gaggle of them sprawled on the benchs in the park.
More later..,..
0 Replies
msolga
1
Reply
Sun 12 Sep, 2004 05:56 pm
Eva said:
... And this, as I see it, is one of the major flaws of capitalism. Anyone who cannot significantly contribute to the country's economy...the sick, the old, the children, the disabled...is disenfranchised. And so are the people who work with them.
<shaking my head>
I think you've hit the mail on the head, Eva! The only thing I'd add is: ... Particularly if their wages are paid from the public purse & the work is performed largely by women.
0 Replies
dlowan
1
Reply
Sun 12 Sep, 2004 06:16 pm
Ditto - our mental health budget is 5% of the health budget.
Child and adolescent mental health gets 5% of THAT....
What else do I need to say?
0 Replies
sozobe
1
Reply
Sun 12 Sep, 2004 07:45 pm
Re: Why does America treat it's teachers as if they were dir
Great point, Eva.
ossobuco wrote:
I'll leave it for those with more recent experience to argue about extent of school time given to items not directly teaching children to use their minds. That might be a tangent; I was not taught to use much of my mind either, given that a fair portion of my education was absorption and delivery of rote - I developed what judgment and creative thinking I may possess by other than my early classes.
This was precisely what frustrated me to no end -- that everything (in my experience) was towards teaching to the test, keeping to the textbook, sticking to the pre-scripted curriculum. "Teachable moments" were frowned upon. Going with natural curiousity -- no. Only so many minutes in the day and we have to keep up with the standards...
This is not my natural teaching style, at all. But there seemed to be no getting around it, so I went for the administrative route, instead. Made my own curriculum for my own agency. (Taught young adults.)
0 Replies
Lash
1
Reply
Sun 12 Sep, 2004 08:48 pm
I think teachers are maligned because of the growing percentage of them who treat kids like pests, and waste time goofing off rather than teaching. There, of course, are wonderful teachers--but this is becoming the exception, rather than the rule. It shows in children's poor performance on SATs.
I think most parents here, who live in the inner city or rurally, and have been actively involved in their children's educations, will have knowledge of this.
My daughter's school didn't teach on Fridays, and teased children who asked questions in front of the class. One caused a timid child to cry (high school), was railed at by the class--but still continued her harrassment unabated. When abuses like this occur, teachers close ranks and protect one another--as does a Principal.
And, there is a large contigent of teachers, who push medication on active children.
0 Replies
msolga
1
Reply
Sun 12 Sep, 2004 08:59 pm
Lash wrote:
And, there is a large contigent of teachers, who push medication on active children.
Really, sofia? Can you supply details, please. I'm a teacher, myself, admittedly not in the US, but that would not be allowed here. At all!
0 Replies
Lash
1
Reply
Sun 12 Sep, 2004 09:02 pm
Ask Montana.
You are called in to a teacher's conference, wherein you are informed your child must see a psychiatrist and needs Ritalin. It is done here very frequently, and parents many times buckle to the pressure by the school system and drug their children.
Its an epidemic here.
Think you could ask dlowan, as well, as she sees the other side of the Ritalin-pushing.
Very few of these children actually need medication.
0 Replies
sozobe
1
Reply
Sun 12 Sep, 2004 09:24 pm
A case could be made that the chicken and the egg of it are a bit different, Lash (Lash? not sure what to call you... Lash.) Because a school's very existence depends so heavily on standardized test scores, the kind of people who go into and stay in the field these days are more likely those who are willing to go ahead with teaching to test, rote memorization, microscopically scripted curricula...
But, since teaching to the test (shorthand for "sit there and do that and don't ask any questions or bother me") doesn't WORK, scores go down.
This a singularly complex issue, all of these different things that need to be figured out. But emphasis on standardized testing, and especially the ways in which bureaucracy tries to make the standardized tests look good, is a huge piece of the puzzle.
0 Replies
msolga
1
Reply
Sun 12 Sep, 2004 09:26 pm
I think Montana's experience was quite some time ago, sofia? Mind you, that doesn't suggest that it was appropriate! If teachers in Oz attempted to make some sort of MEDICAL judgement like that, they'd be hell to pay. Not allowed! I doubt very much whether Montana's experience is a common one ... now, at least. But anyway, I doubt that this sort of thing is a major influence on the status of teachers in the US, or anywhere, for that matter.