It’s a kind of glamorous position from the viewpoint of those of us who just see it all on TV – fancy balls and photo shoots (I don’t think he can shake hands with anyone without an obligatory pause for the camera), interviews and news briefs, meeting all the most important people in the entire world and getting a private jet to go anywhere in the world.

The unfortunate thing about being President is that the people of the Nation in which you lead have this little thing called hope and trust and we like to place it in the person in charge. Students hope and trust in their teacher to make learning fun and interesting and keep them safe and relatively sane during the process. Kids hope that parents will make them happy and trust that they will keep them safe.

We place our hope and trust in police officers and emergency personnel to keep us safe and respond quickly in the event of a crisis.

And we place our hope and trust in our President – we want him to make life better, to keep us safe, to provide support and make things happen that need to happen. We also want him to create an environment in which we can all have jobs. (Yes, I too want world peace…)

The president has hundreds of people working for him – people to write his speeches (you didn’t think he thought any of that up himself, did you?), people to pick out his clothes (makes you wonder if he has help getting dressed…), people to tell him where to go and when to be there, people to tell him how every area of his realm is functioning. Like the job market.

So when I hear that the President told a lady whose husband doesn’t have a job that “It is interesting to me … I’d be interested in finding out exactly what’s happening right there because the word that we’re getting is that somebody in that type of high-tech field, that kind of engineer, should be able to find something right away.” it kind of makes me wonder if our hope and trust is a bit misplaced… By the way he also wants the woman to send him her husband’s resume. Come on, where in the job description of presidency is the phrase “collect resume’s from unemployed persons and find them jobs”?

But of course, what he’s being told is that there’s no reason for people in an engineering field to be out of work – so all you unemployed engineers, you’re in luck! Oh, and if you were considering your college major, I’d consider the source – will you go for engineering because the President said you should be able to find a job fast? Or will you go with something else because the President said you should be able to find an engineering job fast?

Something to think about…oh and if you don’t have a job? Send your resume to the President! (who knows, if he spends all his time finding people jobs, maybe the economy would improve…)

Related posts:

1. President Obama Wins 2009 Nobel Peace Prize
2. The Obama Effect
3. President Obama’s Take on Education

So, they go on to explain that teachers’ SAT and GRE scores are lower than the data supports for their pay scale, that more teachers than positions are graduating every year looking for jobs (supporting the fact that so many people want to get into the profession, obviously because of the pay) and that the turnover rate is not any worse than “similar professions”. They talked about how the “emotional reaction” to the issue is no way to scientifically look at whether a person is worth their pay scale and that they based their findings on the teacher reported number of hours worked, not just the contract.

And, they state that “current compensation” is “50 percent above market rate”, something that hasn’t improved the standards of education! Shocking!

Their recommendations? Start with pension reform! Teachers have a pension plan that is obviously too good for them. Second, let’s have “deep structural reform of the teacher-compensation system.”

Yes. Lets.

Let’s start thinking about what a teacher does in comparison to other workforces who get paid similar or less than they do.

Bankers – bankers get paid less, at least those below the VP/president level or those who have been there for the past 30 years. Bankers care for our money, provide loans allowing us to live beyond our means, buy houses and cars we can’t afford and extend lines of credit so we can have all the material goods we could possibly want.

Fast food workers/restaurant workers. Some might be paid more, top chefs in fancy pancy restaurants might be paid equal to teachers, maybe more. Ironic that teachers can’t afford to eat at those top restaurants (oh wait, administration can – superintendant’s all over the place could eat wherever they wanted whenever they wanted, if only they lived in a smaller Mc Mansion…) But that’s besides the point – Obviously the impact that food service workers have on the world is worth that of the impact teachers have on the world…

Store managers make approximately what teachers make. Yes! There you go – the ability to manage the store floor, work a customer over and close a sale. Because a new anything is worth the same in the long run as a 3^rd grader learning how to read fluently and comprehend what he is reading.

Here’s the thing – are you really willing to admit that the education of every child in America is worth only the basic comparable “skill set” that these other professions provide? I have never spoken to a single teacher who entered the work force because of the money. Honestly, if the job was more respected and work environment improved, I bet the argument that teachers are underpaid would go away! Teachers teach because they love kids. Ok, so cooks do what they do because they love food. But teachers want to make a difference in the world that food at a nice restaurant cannot touch.

What are teachers worth to you? I’m not saying teachers need to be paid more, but I am saying the pay scale is messed up – and upside down. The uppity people in the school board need to trade salaries with those doing the dirty work. It’s also time that people stop looking at teachers as babysitters who simply play with and color with children all day. So IQ may not be super high and SAT scores might be among the lowest professional jobs available. Is that where the value of a teacher comes in? I thought the value was in the molding and education of a future president. The education of future nobel prize winners. The shapers of the very future of our existence. THAT is why more teachers enter the field than there are positions – because teaching is one of the only fields where they actually work on sacred ground.

THAT can’t be quantified by data.

Related posts:

1. 2011 Proposed Budget for Teachers
2. Teachers are Dumb and Overpaid…says one study
3. Three Things All Teachers Should Know

Reading this should cause a variety of conflicting emotions – first, a bit of outrage at how young they’re starting, a bit more outrage at the fact that they are hoping the abstinance education be eliminated, and a final bit of outrage at the parents who are not teaching their children and instead are leaving it up to the teachers.

Second, a bit of relief, knowing that children will actually be taught about their bodies, something that is ironically lacking in today’s society. Girls in particular are growing up either unfamiliar with their bodies and too scared or embarrassed to find out, or are finding out too much too soon, even before leaving elementary school in some cases.

First it is important to note that the standards for our youngest children (k-2) are simple and basic – the ability to use proper terms for body parts, understand that all living things reproduce, be able to identify differences between boys and girls and be able to identify the different make up of various family structures. (Well, I guess that’s important in our “anything goes” society) They also will learn what bullying is and understand they have the right to tell anyone to not touch them in any way that makes them uncomfortable. (yeah… this goes back to abstinence but come on, shouldn’t we also be teaching to not touch others?? Seems the onus always has to be on the victim there, huh?)

Now the Education Week article I read that discussed this had a link to a study on abstinence education that was fascinating to me – in fact, there seems to be no impact on children’s behavior when taking one of these classes, so the point there is why spend money on them if they are not working? Take a quick second to just scroll through it to look at the graphs – the control groups are almost identical.

Want more info on the standards? You might if you care what your child knows about sexual orientation by the end of 5th grade. I suppose the easy way to sum up the new standards is this: by the time all students enter high school, after going through each standard, they will know everything about everything… I guess the question left is will the kids be allowed to eat the banana after the lesson is over?

Bad thing? maybe not but if you care about what your kids are taught in reference to, well,  who, where, when, why, or how… you best be on top of it at home because teachers are going to cover all that too, not just the what anymore.

Related posts:

1. Common Core Standards
2. Should We Raise School Standards?
3. More Education Cuts – 12th Grade?

According to the Baltimore Sun, half of 3 year olds and a quarter of four year olds are not in preschools, thus indicating the need for greater availability of preschool programs. The article also specifies that children who start Kindergarten with no preschool experience are 18 months behind their peers who went to preschool.

According to the Washington Post, the new grant money will be spent on strengthening pre-k programs, particularly for English language learners, poor children and children with disabilities.

Personally, I wonder how long it will be before preschool becomes mandated in a similar fashion as Kindergarten. And I wonder how long it will take us as a Nation to wake up and realize that we (as parents) need to take responsibility for our children’s early learning instead of leaving it up to the government because I personally have trouble trusting that a government system that can’t figure out how to successfully educate 5 – 18 year olds will be able to change all that by educating 3-4 year olds.

Related posts:

1. How to Teach the Alphabet
2. Where does the Money Go?
3. What is the value in teaching?

More about this change was discussed in the Gazette, but I am skeptical. Honestly, if the bill passes, it’s not going to change anything right now, and teachers and parents (and students) have much bigger issues at stake than how long the school year should last – like how they are going to make their budget meet next year as they face yet another staggering deficit.

Teachers already started leaving the county to find better paying jobs this year, how much longer can the county continue to hold onto their descent teachers if they don’t provide any pay increases? Or is that the idea? Keep pay low long enough to get rid of those teachers higher up on the food chain so that the overall payout in teacher salaries is low enough for the administrative staff to have the amount of money they want each year?

And the irony – lack of funds is one of the top reasons the year-round school calendar is not feasible at this time… huh, imagine!

No related posts.

We would readily agree that children are not stupid or as the thought once was, that they are blank slates for teachers to simply write upon as they wished.

Yet we also find it a necessity to teach children how to think. Anne Sullivan, Helen Keller’s teacher, once said, “I am beginning to suspect all elaborate and special systems of education. They seem to me to be built upon the supposition that every child is a kind of idiot who must be taught to think. Whereas if the child is left to himself, he will think more and better, if less “showily”. Let him come and go freely, let him touch real things and combine his impressions for himself.”

And yet we have taught kids in a certain way so that once they reach fourth grade, we must teach them “strategies” for solving math problems because otherwise they will sit there unsure of what to do. If you do not believe this issue is one we create ourselves, you need to observe a baby eating cheerios. He will focus on the cheerio, reach an unsteady hand out and fist the cheerio. Then, stuff his whole fist into his mouth in an attempt to eat the small bite. Through trial and error he will learn to get that cheerio into his mouth without gagging himself on his fingers. Likewise, a toddler learns how to organize his arms and legs so that he will crawl forward towards that precious toy just out of reach, when before he would rock on his hands and knees and lurch himself forward, but more often backwards.

Kids from day one are learning to control their muscles and movements and problem solve to get what they want. Whether it be a toy out of reach, a tasty treat or the eager outstretched arms of a waiting parent. I knew of a student entering Kindergarten once who did not know how to walk. The parents literally carried the child EVERYWHERE. Through extensive therapy, the child learned to walk and the parents learned to let go and allow their child to learn many other skills as well. But if we don’t let go and allow our child to problem solve aspects of movement, walking won’t happen.

So why is it so scary to let go and allow a child, from the time they enter a school building the first day, to problem solve and learn things without our interfering? As a professor of mine once said “we need to be the guide on the side, not the sage on the stage.” I think that we might be surprised to discover that without or ill conceived (yet well intentioned) intervention, children would surprise us in their aptitude for learning all sorts of amazing things.

No related posts.

Related posts:

1. Hello world!
2. How to Teach a Child with ADHD
3. Homework Folder: Pockets

Additionally, teachers do not apparently work more hours than other jobs require despite work they take home (because, according to the men presenting the study at an educational forum in Washington, many other jobs require their employees to take home work as well). In fact, the actual words were “it is not supported by data, the idea that teachers work so many more hours than the average person” (italics mine, quote from an article on Education Weekly). Come on teachers, it’s time to start documenting things better! We know better than anyone that no one believes anything teachers say without data to back it up! (oh wait, I guess that’s because we’re not smart enough to do anything except teach the next generation of children…given our lowered level of “unobservable ability”) wait, I’m confused – they can make assumptions about ability levels that are not observed, but not about the amount of work done outside the school building that are not backed by data (thus unobserved?). Can you spell double standard?

Oh, and the education major is not as rigorous as other majors. (I am hearing echos of the common comment “how hard is it to sit around and color with kids all day” and the ever annoying “those who can’t do, teach”.)

Oh, and for all you teachers (278,000) recently let go,  this should warm your hearts – the study found that “job security” is one of the reasons that the physical take home pay is too high – because of the value of job security.

And another thing – for those of you who work in private schools (or wish you could), the significantly lower pay that accompanies a private school teaching position is apparently”proof” that public schools could pay their teachers less money because the working conditions are the same.

All this to argue that schools could easily balance their budgets by cutting teacher pay. What do you think? Sounds logical to me…

*photo thanks to sagesnow

No related posts.

‘nuf said…

No related posts.

Check it out! You never know what you’ll find!

No related posts.