Unions under Attack...

[chancellor]

(1) most work roughly 9 months a year and

Just wanted to point out that I don't know anyone that works roughly 9 months anymore. I go back for in service in August, this coming year the proposal is August 22nd for a week of inservice. Our last in service day for this current year will be Monday June 20th. By my math that means we are off for 8 weeks not 12 weeks. I don't know anyone here in western PA that is working on a schedule that is not pretty much the same as this and every time someone complains about teachers they use this 9 month year. The problem is they forget that we have 14 inservice days a year with a 4 of them to open the year and 3 to close the year.

It varies from state to state. Wisconsin typically ends about June 8, and goes back to school either shortly before Labor Day or immediately after. In addition, there's a minimum of a full week off between Christmas and New Years, and another full week off for Spring Break. All in all, teachers have 180 days of face time and about another 7-8 inservice days.

[chancellor]

Great, now we've got someone here who quotes as fact things taken from a blog that is quoting an anonymous poster named epistemicfail on reddit.

Well, it's not like the Koch Family Foundation makes a huge secret of whom they support. They've been against the Patriot Act since it's inception, and have consistently supported libertarian causes. None of that stuff posted is any surprise, including the cancer research.

[frae]

It varies from state to state. Wisconsin typically ends about June 8, and goes back to school either shortly before Labor Day or immediately after. In addition, there's a minimum of a full week off between Christmas and New Years, and another full week off for Spring Break. All in all, teachers have 180 days of face time and about another 7-8 inservice days.

183 days of face to face, 14 in service, 1 extra flex day to be worked on our time.

If you want to add up the hours after the work day (7 - 3 ) that people work my guess is you will easily find about 4 weeks ( 160 hours, giving at least 1 hour a day of extra work). If I actually worked to my contract and left at 3 every day and never did anything else at home I would get nothing graded and be totally unprepared. I have 50 minutes a day right now to prepare to teach to 4 different types of classes, 6 classes total. I don't want to turn this into a how much work do teacher do or don't do thread, and outside of my wife's private sector experience I can't comment with any authority on how often people are required to work beyond their scheduled hours without compensation or to bring things home to work on. I only know you can't do this job without working well beyond what the contract mandates. The "9 month" year thing really bothers me. Heck actually working by the contract is something teachers do when negotiations on an expired contract get ugly.

[Judge Jude]

Frae,
Part of the problem though is that I think most people work far beyond the number of hours per year that a teacher does - even granting that teachers work a lot more hours than their detractors like to claim they do.

I'd be frustrated if I were you by the frequency of inaccurate observations about teacher time, though.

I also had a question about the 52 pct WI teachers having Masters degrees, I think it was.
Does it take a Masters to teach 6th-grade geography? I'm not trying to be glib.
And even if we assume that there is SOME benefit, is it worth the cost to public in terms of paying for the schooling (if they do), and higher annual salaries of that many people having Masters?

I mean, it's easy to say that no amount of education or compensation is ever enough, but... hey, just asking. I can see changing my mind on this one. I already would imagine it would be very helpful for teaching special education, as one example.

[frae]

Frae,
Part of the problem though is that I think most people work far beyond the number of hours per year that a teacher does - even granting that teachers work a lot more hours than their detractors like to claim they do.

I'd be frustrated if I were you by the frequency of inaccurate observations about teacher time, though.

I also had a question about the 52 pct WI teachers having Masters degrees, I think it was.
Does it take a Masters to teach 6th-grade geography? I'm not trying to be glib.
And even if we assume that there is SOME benefit, is it worth the cost to public in terms of paying for the schooling (if they do), and higher annual salaries of that many people having Masters?

I mean, it's easy to say that no amount of education or compensation is ever enough, but... hey, just asking. I can see changing my mind on this one. I already would imagine it would be very helpful for teaching special education, as one example.

On the masters thing, that is state law here in PA. Withing 6 years of getting your level 1 cert you need to complete 24 post grad credits. The amount of money your school district pays for that varies. Our school district has a set amount of money each year to pay for everyone doing masters or doctorate work. If not a lot of people are taking classes that year you will get a lot of it paid, if you are in classes and a lot of people are you won't get as much. Like I said though the amount the public pays for here depends on what each school district is wiling to put in.

[Judge Jude]

Thanks for that info.

Do you think that the post-grad work, while attractive to a teacher both for what is learned and for what it's worth in salary, is worth the cost to the public? Sorry to seem so blunt, but....

[chancellor]

Thanks for that info.

Do you think that the post-grad work, while attractive to a teacher both for what is learned and for what it's worth in salary, is worth the cost to the public? Sorry to seem so blunt, but....

It's a legit question, but terribly difficult to measure. I'd clearly be happier knowing my kids are being taught languages, hard sciences, and advanced courses by a teacher with a masters. And, as you've noted, it's almost a necessity in the variety of special ed. OTOH, I could care less if my kids phy ed teacher has a masters or not.

[frae]

Thanks for that info.

Do you think that the post-grad work, while attractive to a teacher both for what is learned and for what it's worth in salary, is worth the cost to the public? Sorry to seem so blunt, but....

To be blunt, having teachers do it within 6 years seems dumb to me. I do understand why it is, but most people either go back for a masters in their major area or a general masters in education, and not much has changed in the field in 3 years (if you are going part time you need to start in the 3rd year if you want to get done). Edit: Forgot to finish this...If you are going back for you chore (math, science, history, english, etc) it is important to continue your leaning. If you are teaching elementary or electives the options seem to be a general masters in ed and that is usually just a lot of what you did in undergrad. So overall I am not sure if it is worth it and I don't know what the % the public is paying.

My school is putting in 120 K a year into our pot (just looked it up for you)

Now on the money, the money that I get paid for having 30 post grad credits is not much compared to having none (which would be impossible since i am 8 years in and would have been let go if I didn't have any. Anyway all I am giving you is info on my school district but on my step, 8th, here is what I get for post grad work...

Having a Bachelors + 10 grad credits =$920 more per yr, bachelors + 20 = $1,145 masters = $1,600 So I am at B+20 and am not motivated right now to pay for the 2 more classes I need. Now admittedly at the top of the pay scale, year 16 the difference between B+20 and Masters is $3,293. So maybe once my kids are older and I feel I have the time I will finish it, but an extra $455 a year isn't motivating me right now.

[Lucky]

Does it take a Masters to teach 6th-grade geography?

This really surprises me. I'm sure this wasn't intended this way, but it sounds very condescending to me.

Do colleges and universities need a PhD teaching freshman level courses? I don't know, but the best schools in the country have them, and go out of their way to do so. In fact, that is one of the ways that colleges and universities are ranked, and one of the ways that they market themselves.

Do I want my sixth grade son taught geography by a) GED holder, b) high school grad, c) college grad, d) Masters holder, or e) PhD? The better trained and better educated the better in my opinion. Hey, I'll bet that sixth grade geography teacher has some other responsibilities in the school as well.

I think this is the first time I have ever heard anyone seriously assert that our teachers are too well educated. I know the point was about money, but the implications of this position cannot be denied.

I don't want this to sound like I'm jamming Jude here, since he is truly one of the most intelligent and thoughtful posters on the entire site, but I just have a problem with this notion. Maybe it is in part because I regularly deal with teachers and the issues they face.

[frae]

This really surprises me. I'm sure this wasn't intended this way, but it sounds very condescending to me.

Do colleges and universities need a PhD teaching freshman level courses? I don't know, but the best schools in the country have them, and go out of their way to do so. In fact, that is one of the ways that colleges and universities are ranked, and one of the ways that they market themselves.

Do I want my sixth grade son taught geography by a) GED holder, b) high school grad, c) college grad, d) Masters holder, or e) PhD? The better trained and better educated the better in my opinion. Hey, I'll bet that sixth grade geography teacher has some other responsibilities in the school as well.

I think this is the first time I have ever heard anyone seriously assert that our teachers are too well educated. I know the point was about money, but the implications of this position cannot be denied.

I don't want this to sound like I'm jamming Jude here, since he is truly one of the most intelligent and thoughtful posters on the entire site, but I just have a problem with this notion. Maybe it is in part because I understand what out teachers face.

I understood the question to mainly be about is it worth public money. I think my district is of the higher end economically and maybe others will think 120K is too much money per year, but I think to know that almost the entire staff will have had to go through at least 24 credits of a masters program would make it worth it. That said I am sure there are districts in rural areas that can't put a pot of money like that together each year and in that case the burden is on the teachers to pay. Again I only know what is going on in PA on these issues so this can be different everywhere.

[OaklandA's]

Well, it's not like the Koch Family Foundation makes a huge secret of whom they support. They've been against the Patriot Act since it's inception, and have consistently supported libertarian causes. None of that stuff posted is any surprise, including the cancer research.

Right, and the Koch family has also donated tons of money to support fossil fuels, support deregulation, support tea-party organizations, oppose health-care reform, oppose the economic stimulus, oppose global warming research, oppose environmental issues, etc. They have given over $100 Million to various right-wing organizations.

[Judge Jude]

Well, I was being provocative in even raising the question, so I would take no offense at being criticized for it. Sometimes it's helpful to discuss the "undiscussable."

I would surmise that people getting masters in science, technology, and engineering, to name a few, would have much superior and practical skills gained.

But take journalism, which like teaching is a field that attracts intelligent people and at its best is a cornerstone of our society. I've never seen the slightest correlation between having a Masters and success in the field, which is why they aren't necessarily paid more - you do have a better shot at getting hired due to networking opportunities of course, and so on. But none of the dozens of journalists I know who got a Masters have ever told me that what they learned there made a significant difference in their actual performance on the job.

Journalism, to me, is like construction work, which is a field that employs several of my close relatives. You need a certain amount of 'book learnin', but beyond that nothing replaces hands-on activity.

Teaching is not a perfect parallel because I think most of them do it on the side with a job, while many would-be journalists just delay their attempted entry into the field. I guess whether I'd see the Masters as "cost-effective" to the public would be to find out the amount of "fieldwork" went into it instead of "Theory of X" classes.

If someone paid me to get a Masters and promised me higher pay if I did (or said I couldn't keep my job if I didn't), I'd get one. But you know, I don't exactly feel like my career's been held back because I don't have one.

[Lucky]

Well, I was being provocative in even raising the question, so I would take no offense at being criticized for it. Sometimes it's helpful to discuss the "undiscussable."

I would surmise that people getting masters in science, technology, and engineering, to name a few, would have much superior and practical skills gained.

But take journalism, which like teaching is a field that attracts intelligent people and at its best is a cornerstone of our society. I've never seen the slightest correlation between having a Masters and success in the field, which is why they aren't necessarily paid more - you do have a better shot at getting hired due to networking opportunities of course, and so on. But none of the dozens of journalists I know who got a Masters have ever told me that what they learned there made a significant difference in their actual performance on the job.

Journalism, to me, is like construction work, which is a field that employs several of my close relatives. You need a certain amount of 'book learnin', but beyond that nothing replaces hands-on activity.

Teaching is not a perfect parallel because I think most of them do it on the side with a job, while many would-be journalists just delay their attempted entry into the field. I guess whether I'd see the Masters as "cost-effective" to the public would be to find out the amount of "fieldwork" went into it instead of "Theory of X" classes.

If someone paid me to get a Masters and promised me higher pay if I did (or said I couldn't keep my job if I didn't), I'd get one. But you know, I don't exactly feel like my career's been held back because I don't have one.

I'm glad you took no offense, because none was intended. I didn't even really mean it as a criticism, just a disagreement.

Regarding getting a Masters, there are a couple of things that haven't been mentioned. Some teachers will get a masters in teaching, some in the field they teach. As for journalism, I'm sure the journalists you know are fine reporters and writers, but that doesn't mean they know beans about running a newspaper or a magazine, which a Masters program teaches you. Likewise, being a good journalist doesn't mean you would be a good teacher.

Regarding construction...my father was a construction worker with barely a high school education. One of his grandsons, however, is going into construction as a career, and in addition to working daily in the industry, he is also getting a four-year degree in that field. These days, anyone other than a manual laborer needs to be educated in a variety of areas, as he must deal with architects, engineers, soil engineers, contracts, etc.

Even tradesmen will typically go through a lengthy training program and apprenticeship before he can hold himself out as a plumber, electrician, or whatever. Even in a small town like Magnolia, you can't get work as a tradesman unless you have a certification or licensing from the proper authority.

People go to graduate school for different reasons, too. It's not always for a job or more money. I went to graduate school in Philosophy before law school. It didn't help me get a job as a lawyer, and in fact delayed starting law school, but I would do it the same way if I had it to do over. It made me a better thinker and a more rounded person. It opened avenues of thought and perspectives on the world that I would not have experienced otherwise.

(I did not pursue a further legal degree after law school (LL.M.), primarily because the programs that were available to me were either in tax or international law, neither of which was of interest to me.)

I can't think of many occupations in which more education is not intrinsically beneficial. Even with the officers who testify in my court, I can tell the ones who have gone beyond the basic LEO certification. They make better cases and do a better job on the stand. The old guard who learned their jobs on the mean streets are great, too, but that education can take 30 years to acquire.

Anyway, I'm glad you didn't get pissed at me for the other thing.

[Kevin Seitzer]

It's a legit question, but terribly difficult to measure. I'd clearly be happier knowing my kids are being taught languages, hard sciences, and advanced courses by a teacher with a masters. And, as you've noted, it's almost a necessity in the variety of special ed. OTOH, I could care less if my kids phy ed teacher has a masters or not.

I haven't thought enough about this to know exactly where I stand on the optimum amount of education for teachers versus the money invested to get there. But I did want to share this one thought. My first-graders' phys ed teacher is teaching them about all the muscle groups of the body. My daughter was just telling me last night at dinner about triceps, biceps, quadriceps, pectorals, abdominals, etc. I asked her where she learned about that, and she said, "In P.E." So I'm not sure there is a subject where the teacher being more educated is not of value to the students. That doesn't answer the question of cost-benefit analysis, but I think in almost every subject area there is more to learn than one can imagine.

[Lucky]

I haven't thought enough about this to know exactly where I stand on the optimum amount of education for teachers versus the money invested to get there. But I did want to share this one thought. My first-graders' phys ed teacher is teaching them about all the muscle groups of the body. My daughter was just telling me last night at dinner about triceps, biceps, quadriceps, pectorals, abdominals, etc. I asked her where she learned about that, and she said, "In P.E." So I'm not sure there is a subject where the teacher being more educated is not of value to the students. That doesn't answer the question of cost-benefit analysis, but I think in almost every subject area there is more to learn than one can imagine.

Outstanding. I wish I had said this.

I went to a high school where the teachers barely had college degrees. The coach/teachers knew only slightly more than we did. Our education was lacking, as some of us would find out in later years.

The college I attended was a bit different. The faculty/student ratio was 11-1, and 100 percent of full-time faculty had doctorate degrees or the appropriate terminal degrees in their field. Only a small number of "outside" instructors were utilized, and only when their experience or expertise was exceptional. Education there was a different thing altogether. As a freshman, I had the Academic Dean (one of the five smartest people I have ever known) as my teacher in a class each term. Could someone else have taught it? Maybe. But I still remember the things he taught me to this day. How many remember what you learned from the graduate assistants who taught your freshman classes in college? (An admission here...I was one of those graduate assistants who taught freshman philosophy at the University of Memphis back in the 70's. I didn't really like it much. Philosophy is hard. It's not like you can look up the answer to all the questions in the back of the book. What is the meaning of life, anyway?)

The country has become so anti-intellectual over the last 30 years. I am glad to see some people here appreciate the value of education for education's sake.