web
counter
 

Damned If You Do, F**ked If You Don't -- The Mockery of the American Education System

By Dustin Rowles | Posted Under Film Reviews | Comments (56)



Lottery11.jpg

When it comes to public education, your politics are likely to get completely screwed around with. At least if you’re a commie liberal hippie pansy, like myself, it’s hard to know what to think. According to my party allegiances, I’m supposed to be in favor of unions, and I think I’m supposed to be against charter schools or the idea of “school choice,” where students can decided to go to a superior school, which in turn drives down the value of the lesser schools even more. While I can theoretically understand why someone would be opposed to charter schools, in practice, I’d choose to have them rather than not for many of the reasons outlined by the documentary, The Lottery.

In the devastating and heartbreaking Madeleine Sackler documentary, the issue is all the more confused because it’s set in Harlem, in what must be a Democratic stronghold, and yet the main villain in the film — and in real-life opposition to charter schools — is the teacher’s union, which basically controls the Democratic party. Of course, for those of you who are or know a teacher, you probably know how powerful the teacher’s union is. It has to be second to only the baseball players union in its strength, and with that much power comes corruption. If you’re a teacher, the union is great: You have unparalleled job security, a nice pension plan, and lots of vacation (unfortunately, the union isn’t quite strong enough to afford teachers a better salary). But with that job security, in many cases, you get teachers who don’t give a shit, who have no expectations to meet, no competition, and little incentive to do more than the bare minimum. Why should they? It’s not like they’ll get fired: In 2008, of the 55,000 unionized teachers, only 10 were fired, and at a cost of an average of $250,000 in legal fees per teacher termination. It’s cheaper to put them in the rubber room.

Of course, if I were a teacher, I’d want to be in the union myself. But for students saddled with unmotivated teachers, you get what’s happened in Harlem, where 19 of 23 schools have failing literacy rates, and where the average graduating student can read no better than the 8th grade level. The reasons are many, and I’m sure have a lot to do with environmental factors outside of the school system, like single-parent homes, unemployed or drug-addicted parents, and parents who simply don’t care anymore than the teachers do.

But, at least according to The Lottery, charter schools in Harlem have been very effective. And while some of that is likely due to the fact that the more concerned and caring parents — who are already more likely to raise a successful child — are more likely to go through the effort of putting their child into a charter school, a lot of that success has to be attributed to the schools themselves, which are held to a higher standard and threatened with closure if they don’t meet those expectations.

The Lottery focuses on several families — mostly single-parent homes — and their efforts to enroll a child into the charter schools, where the odds of the child making it to college are dramatically increased. Where the choice is between a zoned school with a 10 percent literacy rate, and a charter school where future college admittance is far more likely, the choice is easy for parents. Of course, that’s why there are thousands of applicants for only a limited number of spots, which are given out in a lottery. If your number is chosen: Congratulations! Your child has a shot in life. If your number isn’t chosen, especially if you’re a black male living in Harlem, you have better odds of ending up in prison than you do a college. In Harlem, and in a lot of urban districts around the nation, the American Dream is handed out in a lottery.

It sucks, but the alternative is that everyone ends up going to the schools with a ten percent literacy rate. Of course, the other alternative is to fix the public school system in those areas, but it’s unlikely to change unless the teacher’s union is fixed. But the teacher’s union is powerful and controls, in many cases, the political establishment. The very people who have control over school reform have a self-serving interest in the status quo.

Who suffers? The kids. The education system. Taxpayers. Our economy, The future of this country, which has fallen further and further behind in math and literacy rates among civilized nations. But mostly the kids. And watching, in this documentary, those parents helplessly vying for a tiny chance at giving their children a proper education is immensely heartbreaking. You’re happy for those who get into the charter schools, but it hardly makes up for witnessing the bitterness and pain for the vast majority who do not.

In our two-party system, it’s a politically untenable solution, it seems: Vote for a Democrat, and you get the teacher’s union and opposition to charter schools. Vote for a Republican, and you get more charter schools, which drain resources and brighter students away from the public schools, which then fall further and further behind. And you also get opposition to the teacher’s unions, and in a field where job security is the only real incentive anymore, a vote against the union likely means that you’re going to lose even more good, smart, devoted teachers to the private sector. It’s a completely screwed up system, and in a nation with so much innovation, you’d think we could fix it.

The Lottery doesn’t afford the opposition much of a voice; it’s more concerned with demonizing those opposed to charter schools in Harlem through the use of selective editing, which highlights the screechy, irrational critics while humanizing the those in favor. It’s charter school agitprop, to be sure, but it’s wildly effective. If I lived in Harlem, I’d do everything in my power to send my child to a charter school. But if he didn’t get into a charter school, I’m sure I’d fight against them, if only because they’re taking the better teachers, and public resources that could’ve been allocated to my son’s zoned school. I’m curious to see, however, whether the similarly themed but more publicized documentary, Waiting for Superman (out later this month) will take a more even-handed approach. It’s a fascinating and disturbing issue, and at the very least, it deserves to be discussed and debated. Somebody has to do something, and maybe The Lottery and Waiting for Superman can help to lead the charge.

The Lottery Trailer

Waiting for Superman Trailer









Pajiba Love 08/09/10 | Mesrine: Killer Instinct Review (Part I) | Bonfellas













Comments

I am a bleeding heart liberal in NYC and these films are 100% true. I no longer work in the public school system because of these issues, and I will not send my future children to public school. I am no elitist, I've just seen the level of power and corruption that the teacher's union has in New York City. I will send my children to a Catholic, Bank Street, Jewish, Islamic or Montessori if need be, only to help them escape being pulled under by the public school system.

Posted by: scorzi at September 8, 2010 1:21 PM

Unions across industry served a purpose at one time. Now it's simply to protect the status quo, underperformers, and their own existence.

I can't imagine dealing with an education system this broken. As much as I hate living in this town and plan my eventual escape daily, it is a pretty damn good place for the kids to go to school. Something I am very aware of would be much harder to obtain in a large city.

Posted by: TylerDFC at September 8, 2010 1:24 PM

Also, while I doubt this was the intention, the header line is a lyric from Splender in the song "Yeah, Whatever" so now I have that going through my head. Thanks, Dustin!

Posted by: TylerDFC at September 8, 2010 1:27 PM

I know I made a similar comment the last time these movies came up, but I'm pretty sure one of these teachers was featured in Po Bronson's "What Should I Do With My Life," and they work like absolute dogs for not a whole lot of money. It isn't a job or even a career - it's their entire life.

You're not going to convince the number of teachers needed to take on such a Herculean task nationwide to give up any semblance of free time or a personal life to do this.

I agree that something's got to be done - the entire system's screwed up IMO, starting with the fact that students can't generally see the applications of what they're learning in real life, but I don't think just because things work here in this sample size, it's necessarily something that can be expanded to help everyone.

Posted by: twig at September 8, 2010 1:27 PM

I'm not against school choice per se, and i think the charter school system is a good -idea-, BUT a lot of the charter schools out there meet only very minimal standards, if any. Because they're experimental, they're pretty much given free reign with state funds, and a LOT of them in L.A. close in the first few years because they're run like scams.

@TylerDFC: That's crap. I went to school in L.A. in the Magnet system. I got one of the best educations available and have frequently edged out private and home-schooled kids. You can get excellent and safe educations in large cities, you just have to do a little homework.

@twig: Yup. You're absolutely right. I saw another documentary where the teachers crowed about giving their home phone numbers out to their kids and being available 24/7. Teachers are still people with home lives. Teachers in unions are already supposed to work two hours beyond the end of the school day for free for paperwork, etc. 6-10-15 hours for free and at the expense of helping my kid with HER homework? Sorry, fuck a whole bunch of that. It's hard enough teaching day school AND night school/continuing education.

On the other hand, a GOOD, experienced teacher, can be very thorough and predict/field most student questions before they're actually asked. Then it's on the kid to have paid attention.

Posted by: Kat at September 8, 2010 1:35 PM

Kat,

The middle school charters in NYC just doubled their math and science scores compared to the same grades in public school. Not sure about other states, but the NYC ones don't fuck around. Full uniforms for students, corporate dress for teachers, some schools have longer school days than the public schools, and it's a lot harder to get a teaching job in one of them.

Posted by: scorzi at September 8, 2010 1:46 PM

Full corporate dress for teachers - eek. All the best teachers I ever had were of the jeans-and-hawaiian-shirts variety. I prefer schools that let me get down and dirty with the students. I've walked away from schools that require uniforms for teachers as well.

Most public schools in L.A. require uniforms under the high school level, as a measure against gangs or whatever b.s. reasoning the overseers used to push that through. Usually this is a polo shirt in the school's colors, khakis, and shoes of a certain color (because its So Cal, kids would riot if they had to be in wool vests all day).

Yeah, in L.A., some of the charter schools do well, but most of them die ignominious deaths. I've heard similar stories from other states.

One charter school offered me a place as a Spanish teacher, despite the fact I wasn't credentialed at the time, nor did I list Spanish as one of my strong points.

Posted by: scorzi at September 8, 2010 1:54 PM

If you want to get angry enough to punch walls, see this article:

http://www.miaminewtimes.com/2010-08-12/news/rise-academy-miami-dade-s-most-improved-school-closed/1/

tl:dr - School district closed down this charter school, even though they were the best in the county, and perhaps the state.

Posted by: strtwise at September 8, 2010 1:57 PM

Count me among the New Yorkers who think the charter schools are educational snake oil. It's a self-selecting group of students who, for the most part, do marginally better than their traditional public school counterparts on testing (because, you know, that's the only way to assess an education). Scorzi, as I understand it charter schools are dead even with traditional public schools in English and, statewide, actually lag behind traditional public schools in testing. They also have pretty high attrition rates at the middle school level. There was also a fair amount of press recently that charter schools' advantage is pretty ambiguous. I'm not saying the parents dying to get their kids into a nice, safe, quiet atmosphere versus the local zoo are crazy, I'm saying that the educational outcomes, all things considered, don't seem to warrant the accolades charter schools receive. Blaming this stuff on unions is a cheap, easy way to surgically remove one (potential) element of the huge, huge problems of poverty, racism, and the rest.

In the interest of full disclosure: my husband and I plan to flee the city for the lily-white, affluent suburbs because of the public schools (excellent, and with a unionized work force). At least I'm honest about it.

Posted by: samantha t at September 8, 2010 2:08 PM

that's why i homeschool. not for some lame religious or prejudice reason...but because as a former teacher myself, i just know i can do a better job at home with my daughter, then anything at the schools. i know that is not an option for the majority of people. i'm greatly appreciative to be able to do it.

Posted by: maxpurr9 at September 8, 2010 2:08 PM

The American Dream is to not work as hard yet make more money. This mentality can't last forever. Also, we innovate entertainment. Those children may not be able to read, but I'm willing to wager they can operate Youtube.

Posted by: ThunderSacTriumph at September 8, 2010 2:20 PM

While there may be a lot screwed up with public education in New York, I can't speak much on the subject, because I didn't go through that system. But, I did attend public school in PA. Most of the teachers at my school were dedicated and expected the very best from us - which is why I arrived at my tiny-Ivy league liberals arts college leaps and bounds ahead of my peers (a lot of whom had private schooling). These teachers worked harder at their jobs than anyone else I knew.

But when the school board decided that everyone working at the school was getting paid too much and enjoying too many benefits, only the teachers union was able to stand up for themselves. The secretaries and janitorial staff were told, by the administration, that if they didn't accept lower pay and a cut from decent enough to nearly nonexistent medical benefits, they would be fired and that other people would be hired in their place. I shit you not, this actually happened.

When the board/administration tried this on the teachers, they were able, through their union, to fight back. They were able to fight for the newly hired and yet to be hired teachers (who were going to be royally screwed in their new contract) and say that this was unacceptable. Bring a new contract to the table, or else a strike might be in the forseeable future. Well, this turned into the longest contract dispute in PA's history, and even though the teachers were willing to negotiate and compromise (less benefits, lower pay grades), the board was still unsatisfied. So, there was strike, and of course, the teachers were being unreasonable (or so the town was lead to believe). I won't get into the crap the board and admins pulled in terms of libel and slander.

After everything was "resolved" the board/admins set about forcing teachers into retirement and into transferring. If you were close to retirement or they just didn't like you, you were given quite the butt raping. Things like, your AP class has been removed from the curriculum and now you're teaching an overflow class in a room that isn't yours, OR, we've eliminated your teaching position, so you no longer have a classroom, but we want you to keep all your belongings on this cart and wheel them from room to room because you're now teaching 6 different classes around the school.

After a few years of this, all teachers close to retirement did retire, and those who could transfer, did. So the board/admins removed even more teaching positions and overloaded the remaining and new teachers. All of the new teachers were being paid way less than all of the older teachers, so they got to save money that way. I won't even go into how much money they spent on our (can't win even a single game) football team. Astroturf isn't cheap. But guess what! Textbook budgets have been halved! It's ridiculous.

The state of education at my old school is now atrocious, not because the teachers are unmotivated or shitty at their jobs, but because the board and administrators decided that it was more important to have cheap teachers than quality education. Imagine how much worse things could have been if the teachers weren't unionized.

Posted by: B.F.D. at September 8, 2010 2:36 PM

I tend to agree with B.F.D. Teachers are the current bete noir in the budgetary battles going on in about every state. Do some lazy bad apples sneak in and therefore receive protection from the union system? Absolutely. But so many teachers are incredibly dedicated good people doing a job that many of us will freely admit we simply couldn't handle. What is really sad is how many of them start out full of dedication and end up completely destroyed and disillusioned with the job.
Both of my in-laws are public school teachers. They have had knives pulled on them in class, gangs mark their territories in the playground. They have seen their colleagues sexually assaulted by students, and suffered heinous assaults from parents when the students in question are disciplined. In most cases the union was the only voice protecting them and looking out for their interests.

Posted by: PaddyDog at September 8, 2010 3:06 PM

I've worked in both the NYC public schools and in charter schools (South L.A.), worked in non-profit and for-profit (read: rapists) school aid organizations, and what I've learned is: the system's broken. I could have taken any basic Ed course to learn that, but since I was taking my basic Ed courses while doing my first year of teaching with a 300+ student-load in public NYC, I may have missed it.

Charter schools may make it slightly easier for those motivated kids to get somewhere, and may pull out a kid or two that would have failed right away in a public school, but they're really just plugging the hole in the damn with a lot of well-meaning thumbs.

twig, samantha t, and B.F.D all mention what I think should be the real focus of education "reform"--improving training of and support for teachers. And I don't mean getting them to churn out meaningless "high" test scores. Teaching is the hardest thing I've ever had to do in my life, and it's not been all that easy. And maybe the union system is broken down as is, but that's not to say it's not needed. The situation B.F.D described is more common than you might think--I'm no longer a teacher thanks to something similar, and frankly, if I'm going to kill myself working like this (Right on, Kat--my husband had to ban me from doing any work on Saturday so that we could spend time together) then the schools should make an effort to help the teachers doing this, not hinder them.

Go ahead, fire the teachers doing absolutely nothing. But you'll find it's a myth that ALL or even a majority of our public school teachers fit this mold. It's a difficult, often thankless job that you're thrown into with little or no training, and everything wrong in the system is your fault before you start. Once our kids have good teachers, the kids will do better and the schools will improve.

Posted by: leuce7 at September 8, 2010 3:22 PM

I have taught public school for the past twelve years, both middle school and high school. Teacher unions must only have power "up north," because they are pretty near powerless and useless in Texas. On the occasions that I've needed help, I was told that the school administration had every right to do what they were doing, and that I was on my own.

I'm unemployed now because the superintendent of my last district decided to shut down the small alternative high school that focused on the needs of severely at-risk students (the teen parents, the gang-bangers, the rehabbing druggies, and so on) and reopen it as a virtual academy. Everybody had to reapply for their jobs, and I was not hired back. Because I had a one-year probationary contract that ended on the last day of school (common for teachers new to a district), the district was not legally obligated to find me a position somewhere else. They didn't. All of the teachers on my campus who were on such contracts were not allowed to fill out transfer request paperwork or contact other principals in the district about other positions. The superintendent met with us twice, and told us that we would have priority over new hires, and that everyone with a contract would have a job. The truth was that we were blacklisted, and no one in the district would hire us.

None of the other principals in the district knew anything about this, as I discovered when I contacted them anyway, and they asked about my transfer paperwork. I eventually got an e-mail from HR that stated that those of us from my campus on the probationary contracts were NOT getting any preferential consideration, despite already being in the district. After all that, the superintendent was able to crow about saving 8.6 million dollars for the district. I'm now drawing unemployment because no other district would hire me either.

Flawed though they may be, I wish I had had access to the sorts of teacher unions described in the documentaries. I can't imagine that sort of thing happening down here, as there really is no voice to protect the interest of qualified, competent, devoted, hard-working teachers who want little else out of life than to make a difference in the world and leave it a better place than they found it.

Sorry, rant over.

Posted by: Jana Jerusalem at September 8, 2010 3:31 PM

I lean pretty left, but FUCK unions.

Posted by: Seany D at September 8, 2010 3:32 PM

"It's cheaper to put them in the rubber room."
---
Astonishingly, as this amazing article points out, it really is, though it costs the New York City school system tens of millions of dollars a year to do so:

www.newyorker.com/reporting/2009/08/31/090831fa_fact_brill

Like everybody else, I had good teachers and bad, and I mostly turned out OK. I know teachers are up against it, but I do wish they'd turn down the incessant whining a little about how HARD it is to have a job that grants you two-plus months off in the summer and for which (in my state) if school gets snowed out 20 days of the 180-day year you end up making up only three or so.

This goes double for professors (I live in a university town). At least the kids they deal with theoretically WANT to be there, so they don't have to deal with the hardcore truants and troublemakers public school teachers do.

Posted by: , at September 8, 2010 3:45 PM

This makes me so sad. I live in South Carolina and our public schools here have gone to hell in a gasoline soaked hand basket. Back in the day, I received a very decent education in South Carolina Public Schools and was able to go on to college and graduate. But things have really changed since I was a kid. I took a lot of shit from my ex but I ended up enrolling my daughter at a $13K/year independent (a.k.a private) school because I could not stand the thought of my only child getting a crappy education while a bunch of pencil pushing bureaucrats and vote-grubbing politicians piss away her opportunity at a better life.
When they want your vote, politicians are quick to trot out the "children are our nation's greatest natural resource" line, but if that's so, why do we fritter away money on tax breaks for oil and gas companies and fail to give teachers a much needed pay raise? Rat bastards.

Posted by: Carolina Girl at September 8, 2010 4:26 PM

There are a bazillion things wrong with our public school system. My sister is a teacher (2nd year, god bless her. She lasted) and my mom is currently getting her PhD in education. It's an ongoing conversation in my family.

At the risk of going on a protracted rant, I will simply paraphrase Obama.

There is no reason that a successful, experienced teacher should be making less than six figures a year. If you want to know if a teacher is a good teacher or not, ask their peers. Teachers know which other teachers are pulling their weight.

Posted by: Lennon at September 8, 2010 4:38 PM

"There is no reason that a successful, experienced teacher should be making less than six figures a year."

They do in some places, but I hear you. I must say that I'm not really on the "teachers are grossly underpaid" bandwagon, given that public defenders, DAs, social workers, etc. often make far less than teachers and with far more working days.

Posted by: samantha t at September 8, 2010 4:46 PM

My mother has taught special education for almost twenty years and thank fucking god for the teachers' union. She's been sent to urgent care on several occasions from being attacked by students, bullied and almost professionally destroyed by corrupt school administrators, and in many cases such as these the union has been the only thing on her side.

I'm sure the system is broken, but the union serves its purpose when it protects hard-working, dedicated teachers who love working with kids and just want to be treated decently so they can do their jobs.

Posted by: Dingles at September 8, 2010 4:57 PM

So...the documentary vilifies the teachers union, just like the new governor of New Jersey? Now I have to see it to it. For clearly, someone, somewhere, must have an intelligent and reasoned explanation for why a certain sect of society believes the people educating our children deserve absolutely no job security in what is pretty universally considered a necessary system. There's a reason why so many teachers appear not to care anymore, and it's not that they never cared. They were beaten up by a system that dissuades creative thought and encourages parents to blame all of their problems on the person instructing their children. Did Jimmy fail math because he skipped class and never did his homework? Or, the parents' usual version that the entire administration will support no matter what, did Jimmy fail math because Mrs. X is a bad, bad teacher who hated him, assigned too much homework, and never offered to help him?

Oh, the administration? The principal, the department head, the superintendent? As soon as the words "I'll press charges" or "I'll sue" get thrown out by crazy parents (because little Susie couldn't fail gym unless the teacher was sexist/racist/[x]ist against their child), the teachers are 100% responsible. It doesn't matter who previously defended them: they are now shit. They are gum under the chair. They are horrible human beings, the scum of the earth, and they deserve to lose all the guaranteed rights in the constitution because Mr. Y is rich and could actually hire an attorney to pursue a frivolous lawsuit.

And by lawsuit, I mean threatening to go to the person above the administrator they are talking to. Many principals role over and beg as soon as a parent, no matter how wrong they are (but I wasn't told he was failing before the report card or I didn't know he was skipping classes are never good excuses, but they sure as heck work when a crazy person is screaming them over and over) states they will go to the superintendent, they are suddenly 100% right, the kid is absolved of any wrong doing, and the teacher gets reprimanded for harassing and targeting the student. If it wasn't for the union in New Jersey, very few teachers would make it through a fourth year. Once the parents learn your name and talk about you, you're screwed. Because some underachieving student will convince all their friends that Teacher Z is bad, and those friends will tell their parents, and their parents will talk to other parents, until someone with money has the incentive (teacher gave me an 80 on a quiz, and it's because she hates me) to go lie to the principal (by way of child's lies) to get the teacher in trouble.

Sorry. I've seen too many good teachers go to shit because the union's only power is to keep them employed and underpaid (until the last few years of the tenure, when they finally start earning a fair amount for educating the youth of America). Hearing that a documentary I really had an interest in takes the easy "blame the teachers/union" route pisses me off more than anything. It can't have anything to do with underpaid teachers being screamed at by everyone to do everything in a different way depending on the migration patterns of a housefly in a dump. Surely the parents with the "not my problem" attitude have nothing to do with it. Or the constantly cut funding towards education. Or the loss of arts programs and extracurricular activities that give students something to do that might interest them more than chemistry.

No. It's obviously the big bad union conspiring against America to keep our children ignorant and our teachers in their multi-million dollar mansions and diamond collections.

Posted by: Robert at September 8, 2010 5:02 PM

I live in Texas, where we are forbidden by state law to have organized labor in education. We have "professional organizations" which do lobby the state legislature for the welfare of students and teachers. And you get contact lens discounts. But I can't relate to having a real teacher union with collective bargaining power, etc.

That being said, charter schools in Texas have been mostly low-performing. There are just a few exceptions, but most are places you would NOT want to teach. In fact, we (I mean public school districts) tend to get the better diamonds in the rough teachers FROM charter schools (maybe they were a new teacher and didn't know any better and took a job at one) and charter schools snatch up the super bad teachers who can't even stay in public schools.

The notion that it's difficult to fire a teacher is ridiculous. It is not. At least not here. As long as you document the issues, it's absurdly easy to do in the teacher's first three years. In fact, if a school only keeps you three years or fewer and has documented your performance issues, you can be sure you were not seen as an effective educator (or the more euphemistic term: you were not a "good fit"). Three years is the magic cut-off though I've seen teachers let go mid-year because the problems were so severe or numerous.

Or both.

Anyway, charter schools around here are typically run by for-profit companies that are rife with nepotism and typically very few of the people in charge even have a background in education (there's problems #1 and 2 for you). Then they hire whoever they can get and give their "board of directors" (read mom, dad, aunt, uncle) big salaries with that taxpayer money and then don't have enough left to buy the textbooks they need.

It's ridiculous. Meanwhile, they're taking money from public schools.

As for teachers, I want to echo what someone said above about support and training and MORE support. It's the hardest freaking job you can even IMAGINE doing if you are doing it right. And having someone guiding you, helping you, just aiming you in the right direction can mean the difference between staying in the profession and growing and going elsewhere.

I've been on every side of this issue, by the way. Student, student teacher, new teacher with zero help or guidance, new teacher who left teaching after two years and swore to never go back, teacher with experience who did go back four years later, mid-career teacher, department chair, then district administrator (I support English Language Arts teachers with regard to curriculum and instruction). Because of this, I feel like I've seen everything: good teachers who could have been really great but we lost them to other professions, horrific teachers who should have never gone near the profession (who are both allowed to stay too long and who are gotten rid of quickly), average teachers, truly great teachers (this is rare, as you can imagine) and teachers who just do the minimum they can do to keep their job (not good or bad, just...meh).

What we need, of course, are those good ones who could be great and the great ones. We need to have no middlin' or bad when it comes to our kids' educations. If I could wave a wand and make it happen, I would. But it takes someone exceptionally dedicated to teaching to be great and stay, given all the stress and pressure they deal with day after day.


Posted by: Snuggiepants at September 8, 2010 6:55 PM

Amen Robert.

Posted by: B.F.D. at September 8, 2010 7:02 PM

And Snuggiepants.

Posted by: B.F.D. at September 8, 2010 7:04 PM

At the risk of pissing off a lot of people, simple economics tell you that if there is a job where there is an oversupply of applicants (i.e. more supply then demand) then in fact that position is overpaid. My general understanding is that there are plenty of wannabe teachers who can't find jobs (at least up here in Canada, I'm assuming it's the same in the States), so it seems obvious to me that teachers in fact get paid too much. Now if you want to argue that good teachers deserve to get paid more, I'll listen. But this necessarily requires a break from the union system where pay is based on service, not merit.

Teachers are important, but so are garbage men, construction workers and, like it or not, oil and gas executives. Pay should be based on supply (how many people are qualified and willing to do the job at a certain level of pay) and demand (does each hire add more in value then they cost to retain). This is why Albert Pujols makes more money than a elementary school teacher. It's also why a doctor makes more money than a janitor. Don't forget that the job of being a teacher in and off itself is considered a postitive for almost all those who choose to enter the field. This should cause pay to decrease (think of it as if you are valuing this instrinsic value attached to teaching to their salary).

Sure, there are other factors that come into the equation, but in general any instrument that moves an economy away from this solution (supply equals demand) would be considered a bad thing. Unions are one of those instruments.

Posted by: Tyler at September 8, 2010 7:11 PM

As a former teacher, I don't think it is necessarily an either-or debate: either you have unions or you have charter schools. BUT I do think a lot needs to be changed.

I do believe good chunk of that change has to do with getting rid of teachers who don't care. And we've seen tough unions change before (cf. auto workers when Saturn first came out).

But I wouldn't want to see it without a union. Here's why: as a young, enthusiatic HS teacher I was faslely accused by a student of physical abuse. Luckily, I had witnesses and a good pricipal who could smell bs. But I also had a union. Without the union hovering in the background, I might not have gotten a fair shake. the experience shook me to the core - and is probably I only teach at the college level now.

Teachers are on the front-line of bad-behavior. They are expected to do more with and for less. We have to hold the parents and students to higher expectations as well if we want any improvement.

Oh, charter schools and private schools succeed because they can refuse to serve students that might negatively impact them. Public schools can't refuse anyone. To understand what this means: imagine being an owner of a business and hiring anyone who applied for a job. ANYONE. You'd loose your shirt.

Done ranting now. :-)

Posted by: bonbiz at September 8, 2010 7:30 PM

I have a very good friend who retired recently from teaching. The problem isn't just in the schools.

The problem also lies with parents who just don't give a damn, who don't bother to show up for parent teacher conferences and generally just use the school as a dumping ground to get rid of their kids during the day.

Then you have the problems of lawyers getting involved in every fucking aspect. The teachers can't do a thing without some student threatening to sue them and the school system just caves.

Then you have the plethora of "support" for the district which is just staggering!

Also, the charter schools aren't exactly a panacea either.

The answers aren't easy, however we have to get back on the right track. Get back to the old ways of teaching the kids to think, read and do sums. Get away from the environmental crap and the rest of the useless shit that is foisted on them at school.

And find a way to hold the teachers who DO underperform accountable while rewarding the good ones.

Posted by: Uncle JR at September 8, 2010 7:52 PM

As another Texas resident, I also have not been exposed as much to the effect of unions. However, my mother is a recently retired special education teacher and the lack of a union never seemed to affect her negatively. Instead the school she used to teach out periodically asks her to come back because she was the best (despite, I might add, one of those threats that “I’m going to sue” from an angry parent who believed a special education teacher should be a magical nymph who can cure autism.)

Posted by: Mary at September 8, 2010 8:30 PM

I've mentioned it before on this site that I'm a teacher, and there are a few misconceptions other posters brought up about teachers that I want to address on here:

1. "You get your summers off". Bullshit. I spent this summer completing an intensive AP course, going to several meetings to re-design the English curriculum at my school, and generally planning for the upcoming year. I also had some fun days at the pool, but it was not a pure vacation like most people think.

2. "Most teachers are lazy/don't care/just coasting by." Sure there are some incompetent teachers, and they should be fired, but the majority of teachers I know truly care about education and their students. We are working within a deeply flawed system and doing the best we can. This year I'm spending about 10+ hours a day (mostly at school) working, and yet my county is putting more and more onto its teachers this year.

3. "Teachers complain too much." Yeah we do complain, but for valid reasons! I have several hours worth of paperwork to do each week in order to prove that I'm doing my job correctly. However, documenting all of this "evidence" is taking away time I could be using to plan and evaluate my students. I'm expected to have lesson plans posted and printed in a folder every single day (just in case the county stops by for a surprise visit and wants "evidence" that I have actually planned a thoughtful lesson), I'm expected to have "standards-based" commentary on every assignment (for my 100+ students), I'm expected to keep a log (which they also want to see as "evidence") of which students have mastered which standards (about 160 standards), evidence that I have retaught those students who didn't get the standards and provided enrichment for those who did, and I'm supposed to be in constant contact with parents.

I have an hour and a half each day for planning and grading. How am I supposed to accomplish all of this given the number of students I have?

If schools were really serious about student achievement, then they would give teachers fewer classes. I can do all that they want me to do, but not in an hour and a half every day. For each class that I teach, I need the same amount of time for planning, grading, and documenting.


I'm sorry that this post is so long, but I get tired of teachers getting blamed for our educational ills when the system itself is screwed up. Teachers are only a small part of that system.

Posted by: Sarahcat at September 8, 2010 8:30 PM

As a 12-year veteran teacher in a public high school, I have seen some outstanding teachers, some really shitty ones, and many that land somewhere in the middle (like the guy who's a great fucking teacher but can't keep his awful, awful political views out of the classroom).

And here's the thing: the teacher doesn't really matter all that much. If a kid is motivated to do well and wants to succeed, she will. She'll shine like a fucking star when she gets to work with a good teacher, and she'll slog her way through and learn what she can from a bad one.

And here's the other thing: a good teacher for her may be a shitty teacher to the kid sitting next to her. Some kids need highly structured, regimented lessons, and some do better in a looser, more touchy-feely environment where they're left to find their own path.

Finally, it comes down to this: the kid is the difference. You want your kid to do well, be involved in her life and find her the best possible public or private school available for her special gifts and needs.

If you live in a place where the schools are as crummy as the ones in this movie, don't have kids. If you do have them, then borrow, beg, steal, lie, and cheat your way to a better place if you have to.

Posted by: idgiepug at September 8, 2010 8:58 PM

Thank you Sarahcat, anyone who says things like "full summers off" and "paid enough" and "only works 8-5pm", either doesn't know a teacher, or knows a shitty teacher. My mom has been a public school teacher for 25 years (5th grade), and during the school year she works the school day, then comes home and works some more. And she'll cram in science clubs and art clubs, because she cares that much. During the summer, the good teachers are going to seminars/helping plan for the year. Or maybe they have to work during the summer to make the shitty pay workable.

The thing is... most teachers you ask, wouldn't list pay as their number 1 change. They'd want more funding for their kids/schools/supplies. They'd want less focus on testing that doesn't reveal much, and leaves little time for real learning.

There's always bad apples/lazies, but most teachers are working miracles with what they have. Just try to think about managing 30 kids 7 hours a day, and not just keeping them in line, but helping them learn, and not just teaching them all the same, but doing what you can to play to their strengths.

Posted by: e at September 8, 2010 9:51 PM

I wanted to retort about the upsetting "fuck unions" talk, but it got long. Briefer: there are more unions out here than the media reports on the UAW and AFT might have you believe. They are not uniform in organization, power, payscale or purpose across the country or even within trades. Ironworkers, pilots, steamfitters, electricians, service employees, musicians, actors, stagehands, engineers, etc. Go to your local Labor Day parade and see how many industries are organized, you might be surprised. We're not all fatcats; we're not all lazy; we don't all have the ear of a semi-sentient city councilman, much less a senator or a lobbyist.

There are a lot of godawful things about being in a union, but I'll boil down the many benefits of unionization in my industry to two: one for the employer, and one for me.

For the employer: they can get specialized labor with very little notice for any period of time needed, short or long. Today it was 8 guys for 4 hours: tomorrow it might be 80 guys for 10. (A harder order to fill in a hurry, but with a week's advance? Sure.)

For me: I, a woman, am paid exactly the same as a man doing my job. No question, no bargaining.

Problems? Some. Jimmy Hoffa? Hell no.

Posted by: Salieri2 at September 8, 2010 10:05 PM

I am a charter school teacher in Florida. I can only speak from my limited sample size - I cannot speak for all charters everywhere.

We have to jump through huge flaming hoops every five years to keep our charter with both the district and state. ( Our next renewal is this year, and the amount of paperwork required for just the application is staggering.). So our not-for-profit school must face a regular and thorough investigation to prove we are a legit and valid school.

I second the administrative timesucks mentioned by teachers above, and raise you the multiple phone calls a day I must make and log to inform parents of everything of tardiness to poor attitude to slipping grades. With a successfully completed phone call taking up to five minutes (not all thenumbers I have are valid)...well, my average week is about 70 hours long.

What else...granted, we are an alternate to the public school a kid is zoned for, but once they're with us (and we accept everyone, first come, first served), it almost takes bloodletting on the student's part to place them elsewhere. We cannot throw them out on a whim if they are acting up, or arrested for a felonly. So we cannot pick and choose our student.

That being said, we grade out at the top of the pack in any way you can choose - standardized testing, college attendance, graduation (both "regular" and at-risk students), you name it. All at the hands of teachers who are paid less than our district counterparts.

As for the uniform thing - I think it's the reason we have so little violence at our school. Uniforms cut through the differences in economic background, and out the kids in the mindset to get some work done. Our uniforms remind the kids that we are professionals. Yes, my attitude says this too, but consider uniforms used in other jobs - white coats and gold badges give you certain expectations from the professionals who wear them.

Anyway, just wanted to defend charter schools a bit. We are treated like poor relations by our public school system, despite being a public school ourselves with 900 kids (over 3000 kids in our family of schools), so am already sensitive about the whole thing. Again, it's not the same everywhere, but I really believe that we are doing a good thing down here.

Posted by: Kati at September 8, 2010 10:35 PM

If you want to know if a teacher is a good teacher or not, ask their peers. Teachers know which other teachers are pulling their weight.

Posted by: Lennon at September 8, 2010 4:38 PM
---
Well, I think there's some bullshit to this. The good ones may very well know who the bad ones are, but that doesn't mean they aren't turning a blind eye.

We had one in a high school here who was stupid drunk on the job, and it wasn't until a student posted video of her dancing with another student in class on MySpace that anything got done about it. The police showed up at the school and the teacher failed a field sobriety test. Eventually the teacher got to resign, and the resignation was accepted.

You going to tell me not one single other teacher in the school knew this woman was getting blasted in class? (The police found two empty Diet Pepsi bottles in her clssroom that smelled of alcohol).

Not one?

Or did some of them know and they just ignored it? Is there an honor code among teachers, like among police officers?

Posted by: , at September 8, 2010 10:48 PM

Tyler Gonna have to disagree. Pay should be commensurate with the level and scope of responsibility involved in the job, the sheer amount of work involved, stress, pressure, etc.

In that case, teachers are far underpaid. You can unload some of the bullshit teachers have to do (excessive paperwork and data crunching would be a start) to make it a BIT better (but it still wouldn't be even) or you can pay them more, but I don't think JUST supply and demand should dictate salary levels! Why would that be the only factor dictating salary?

Posted by: Snuggiepants at September 9, 2010 9:34 AM

Snuggiepants,

Yes, ideally, I think supply and demand should be the only factor dictating salary. I believe that because I believe in the basic principles that form capitalist theory.

That isn't to say that it's exactly that cut and dry. There are other factors that come into play. For example, there is certainly some benefit received by society as a whole when a student receives a good education. Economists would call this a positive externality. I believe that the main purpose that governments (and to an extent unions) should play in an economy is to adjust for these positive externalities. So, rather than let a completely free market decide how many teachers there are and what they are paid, governments should step in and require a certain level of schooling and reasonable classroom sizes(therefore inflating demand).

You purpose that pay should be commensurate with responsibility and difficulty of the job. All of those factors contribute to supply and demand. I very stressful or pressure packed job would lead to less people seeking out that job. That lowers supply and leads to higher salaries. A very important job (which is what I think you're getting at when you mention responsibility) would necessarily be in high demand.

If being a teacher was as truly terrible as many in these comments are making it out to be, there wouldn't be an oversupply of potential teachers. I say that somewhat facetiously as I know most if are in fact commenting on the difficulty rather than the level of terribleness. But you know what else is difficult? Running a marathon, or developing a six-pack, or watching the entire run of Arrested Development in one weekend. That doesn't mean that those that accomplish those things should be rewarded with money.

Posted by: Tyler at September 9, 2010 10:48 AM

Tyler You're right that there are a lot of people who WANT to be teachers, who have been trained to be teachers, who are getting certified to teach. Five shit tons.

But (and I must tell you, this was the area of research for my master's thesis) it's retention that's the sticking point, NOT attraction.

We can attract teachers like bees to honey. Yes, that means we can sift through and pick the strongest candidates, but that isn't as awesome in practice as it sounds in theory, because probably 80% of the candidates are not going to be good teachers. Period. In fact, three out of five aren't even going to MAKE it past their third year either because they left of their own accord or because they were "invited to leave."

I talk with the guy responsible for being the first line of hiring for our district of 27 elementary schools, 7 middle schools, three high schools and two alternative campuses. Out of all the applications the district receives each summer, a good 50% or so are rejected at the start because of a lack of qualifications/correct certifications/some other reason. Half.

Of the remaining half, when they come in to do an initial district-level interview, many are eliminated at that point. Why? Believe it or not, very obvious mental health issues (I mean, VERY obvious, as in he's had to wonder about calling security sometimes). Or they completely misrepresented themselves on their application. Stuff like that.

So the ones that make it are referred on to principals. This doesn't mean they're any good, necessarily. It just means they have their degree and certification and have passed the criminal background check.

Out of those, just a small percentage would make DECENT teachers. So you hire them and hope. You support them as much as you can, give them the training they need to get up to speed on everything in your district. You try to "grow" them (I hate that term, but whatever).

I've worked with what we call "jumpers." They're the teachers standing on a metaphorical ledge about to say fuck this and jump. You have to talk them down off the ledge sometimes, see if they can just make it to the end of the day. Or Friday. Or Thanksgiving. Just so you don't have to find a long-term sub.

I'll never forget walking into a high school classroom during a new teacher's conference period and finding him on the phone to HR attempting to quit and sobbing like his best friend was just shot. I had to talk to him for a very long time to get him just to agree to come back the next day. He had the potential to be a great teacher, but he needed a LOT of support and he became my personal mission. Today he's an assistant principal.

Anyway, within three years, we've lost most of the teachers we hired. And not just the ones we needed to lose. The good ones often leave. They either decided they'd rather work retail than do this or they've found something more lucrative for less stress and better hours (the idea that teachers have these awesome work hours is a crock and a myth and new teachers find this out quickly).

In fact, I was just cleaning out my files and found my new teacher list from 2004-2005. Not a single name remains in our district. I'm not sure if any of them are still in education, but they aren't here anymore. From 2005-2006, I found exactly one who is still in the classroom. These were LONG lists.

So you see supply and demand is just one measure and a superficial one, at that. It costs a lot to hire and train a new teacher and when we lose them within three years, it costs even more. Making their pay more commensurate with the level of work and responsibility involved, at least helping it to come CLOSE, would go a long way toward fixing the retention issue, which is a huge one.

Posted by: Snuggiepants at September 9, 2010 12:46 PM

Oh and Tyler, about your last paragraph?

Then go do it. Come back and tell us about it here. "Rewarded with money?" It's not lifting weights for vanity, it's a JOB.

Posted by: Snuggiepants at September 9, 2010 12:51 PM

Tyler, your assessment doesn't take into account that most teachers love teaching, bullshit and bureaucracy be damned. Teachers put up with A LOT of crap, because shaping young minds makes them feel like their job has a wonderful purpose. Because seeing a student "get it" makes all of the extra time spent worth it. Because when a student comes back to you and says "I'm going to college/graduate school in the area you taught me, and it was all because of you and your teaching", it is better than anything you can imagine.

Because teachers to make a difference in the world, one student at a time. And their aren't many jobs out there where you can see the positive and lasting effects of your job right in front of your eyes.

Posted by: B.F.D. at September 9, 2010 12:55 PM

Shit, that was all eloquent until I got to the second paragraph.

It should be "Because teachers DO make a difference".

Posted by: B.F.D. at September 9, 2010 12:56 PM

Tyler: step away from the Ayn Rand. A job can be in demand because of a tight job market, i.e. the present day. There are probably ten applicants for each service position at Starbucks. Does this mean the guy serving your coffee is getting paid a king's ransom? Hell, no. In fact, he's probably getting paid less b/c he's "lucky" to have a wage. Your logic is flawed.

Posted by: samantha t at September 9, 2010 2:41 PM

It's not the fucking teachers, and it's a fucking hunk of fly-infested shit that those who wish to privatize education have sold the country this lie.

Every provision of NCLB that was actually enacted and enforced was related to improving teacher quality. Guess what? Schools aren't doing any better and a lot of good teachers, especially new teachers who are not afforded union protection, have lost their jobs. Because of stupid Rush Limbaugh styled rhetoric. A bad teacher can absolutely be fired, union or no, if an administrator can provide the necessary proof of incompetence. I can go on, but others did it first and better.

Dustin, I am disappointed in you. Do your goddamned homework.

/former teacher
//die hard teacher advocate
///no, I didn't swear like this in the classroom

Posted by: chamalla at September 9, 2010 2:55 PM

I just have to say: I love you, Pajiba.

*hugs*

And keep supporting teachers and busting myths.

Posted by: leuce7 at September 9, 2010 4:30 PM

Snuggiepants,

Fair enough on the retention issue. I wouldn't disagree with paying GOOD teachers more (in order to retain them), that paying ALL teachers more (or really as much as they make now given the glut of supply) is not a good idea. Frankly, I think if you want to keep your good teachers around you'd want to move away from unions; that's the point I was trying to make in my first comment when I mentioned that you need to move away from a union to a system where you are payed based on merit rather than service.

As for your comment that I should go and do it...no thanks. In fact, there were many points in my life where I contemplated becoming a teacher, and I have little doubt that I would find it a rewarding and fulfilling experience. I can guarantee you that I would enjoy it more than I do my current job. I took a JOB and willingly sacrificed my "on the job enjoyment/satisfaction" for more money because I think that is the right decision for me. I appreciate that there are a lot of people who would not make this sacrifice, but please don't bludgeon me with complaints of how the job you chose partly because you wanted "on the job enjoyment/satisfaction" doesn't pay enough.

That ties into B.F.D's comments. Actually, the fact that teachers receive rewards besides money for doing their job (i.e. the reward of seeing a student succeed and knowing you made a positive difference in their life) would decrease how much teacher's should be paid. If you think about choosing between two jobs that pay the same, one which you know you'll enjoy and one which you know you'll loathe, you'd obviously pick the one you'll like. So, you can lower how much the one you like is paying some amount before you'd switch to the one you'd loathe. Basically, supply and demand should set the pay scale for teachers relative to all the other jobs out there so that the ideal number of people choose to teach over something else that would pay more but that they'd enjoy less.

Finally Samantha, I've never read Ayn Rand. I've spent four years and significant money to learn specifically about economics. Using that, and my personal experiences and world-views I've come to a certain opinion on many things, including teachers (which happens to be an unpopular one). And yes, if there is a glut of people applying for Starbucks that means that Starbucks employees are getting paid too much. This is the reason that (unreasonably high) minimum wages lead to unemployment.

Posted by: Tyler at September 9, 2010 4:56 PM

I'm just a bit saddened that the debate about whether or not Christina Hendricks is fat has 137 comments, while this discussion on the state of K-12 education in the U.S. only has 45 comments.

Posted by: B.F.D. at September 9, 2010 6:27 PM

@B.F.D.:

You can put me in the 'I don't give a mongoose shit' category where that dialogue is concerned. I'm also not terribly interested in having the viability of my very person negated because I'm not riding the 'stripping for feminism' bus, so I'm not going to inflame and get inflamed on that thread. What she actually looks like or her talent level are irrelevant to that opinion, and she's certainly not the first person who has irritated me with that habit (Scarlett, Salma), it's just I get it already, alright? I'm just not a sex-head in the manner that is customary round these parts.

Well, I've read all of this here, however, I'm not American or an educator, so I don't really have anything of value to contribute, I fear.

Posted by: Jo 'Mama' Besser at September 9, 2010 8:05 PM

Tyler: Still don't agree with you with respect to the Starbucks scenario, but I hear you on the other front in that there's (purportedly at times, actually at times) non-monetary compensation one receives at certain jobs that is intended to make up for lower wages. For example, I'm an attorney at a large firm and often hear how "overpaid" I am because I make about as much as a newly-minted federal judge. I also put up with about ten times the bullshit a federal judge puts up with and have about 1/20th the autonomy over my life a federal judge has (it's not an easy job, of course, but you're generally the bosser-around, not the bossed-around).

I do think, however, that there are extremes, both high and low, where what a worker gets paid has little resemblance to their labor. For example, daycare workers make a pittance (truly a pittance) and, yet, are in charge of my and others' children. On the other end of the spectrum, the tippity-top robber barons at Goldman Sachs do all right for themselves and I'd argue that their value is high to a profoundly limited number of people. I don't buy the argument (not that it's yours) in that context that if you don't pay enough to the alleged "best and brightest", they won't take those jobs. I'd argue they actually can't do much else and have been lucky enough to carve out a rarefied spot for themselves.

BFD: Me, too.

Posted by: samantha t at September 10, 2010 6:52 AM

I found your blog through a friends blog and I am really glad he had the link to your blog..I am going to bookmark this site and tweet out to my friends as well.

Posted by: Krystyna Weast at September 15, 2010 3:47 PM

With that in mind, let's look at where these devices will cross paths and which one has an advantage.

Posted by: Maude Dresses Store at October 7, 2010 5:22 AM

Technically, blogs take up very little room - all you require for blogs is the script such as Wordpress, Cutenews, FanUpdate, etc. which are little sized files. Unless you upload loads of huge images which will eventually hog up a great deal of your space. Social Networkings obviously consider up a lot of room assuming that people will be able to upload their images, videos, etc.

Posted by: Computer Telephone Support at December 19, 2010 11:23 PM

I thought it was going to be some boring old post, but it really compensated for my time. I will post a link to this page on my blog. I am sure my visitors will find that very useful.I think you have done an excellent job with your blog. I will return in the near future.I had bookmark it :)

Posted by: wholesale fashion dresses at January 5, 2011 9:45 PM

You have some honest ideas here. I done a research on the issue and discovered most peoples will agree with your blog. After that early period, the Beatles evolved considerably over the years.

Posted by: Buy Allegra at January 18, 2011 3:13 PM

Hey! Just wanted to say how much enjoyed reading this.

Posted by: swine flu symptoms at March 3, 2011 7:47 PM

I’d must verify with you here. Which is not one thing I usually do! I enjoy studying a submit that can make people think. Additionally, thanks for permitting me to remark!

Posted by: Car Care at March 5, 2011 4:59 PM

Pay $ 1069 for a seat in the pocket until the day of beans, said the Replica Designer Handbags Wholesale are too expensive lovesac. Different covers have some great prices on their own. We, the cost of $ 470.00, while the others cost between $ 220 and $ 420.00.

Posted by: Replica Designer Handbags Wholesale at March 15, 2011 3:19 AM


















Viral Hits

>> Pajiba Movie Posters

>> Pop Culture's 20 Greatest Dancing GIFs

>> Mindhole Blowers

>> The 100 Greatest Insults of All Time

>> The "Other" 100 Greatest Movie Quotes

>> The 100 Greatest Movie Threats of All Time

>> The Sean Bean Death Reel

>> Chicks Dig Beards: It's Science

>> The Coolest TV Show Title Sequences

>> The Most Rewatchable Movies

>> The Most Expensive Movies of All Time