My Friend Is a Teacher, And The Boss Sucks! Advice?

[moon]

Skimmed over the thread and saw the usual BS from the teachers union on CP.

Sliver my advice is to ignore most of what was said and realize that the teachers union is as strong as any side that exists on CP. You would have a better chance of convincing people that the Oilers are a good team than have people admit the realities about teaching.

I am not saying that I agree with everything you said but the garbage that has been said in rebutal to your fair points are just that garbage.

It is awesome that people remember the two times that their dads/friends worked until 10 pm, but the truth is that is nowhere near the reality.

I can't wait for the BS responses about the time the time that someone you knew worked until 9:30.

As I have said before, wife is a teacher, sister in law is a teacher, two of my best friends are teachers and I went to U of L where many of the top teachers go so I have a lot of go and have many friends in the profession.

I respect Sample as much, if not more than, any poster here, but I think many of his and others posts are jaded by the extra work that their friends/wives put in that is not close to the norm of other teachers.

[arloiginla]

Oh jeez. I'm studying to become a teacher...now I'm having second thoughts. I am not a fan of work following me home.

I might just finish my education degree, start up a music school and teach part-time band a couple of days a week.

[Clarkey]

A problem with a lot of people who go into education is that it is often a decision by default, "I got a psychology degree now what? I know, I'll go into education!" How can a person complain about their job when they should have known what they were getting themselves into?

[bcb]

Originally Posted by Clarkey

A problem with a lot of people who go into education is that it is often a decision by default, "I got a psychology degree now what? I know, I'll go into education!" How can a person complain about their job when they should have known what they were getting themselves into?

Disagree.
A psych. degree MIGHT be accepted for elementary teaching, but even that is iffy if you haven't taken math or Canadian history courses.

To be accepted in teachers college in Alberta, and teach grades 7-12, you pretty much have to have a degree mirroring a curricular subject, and have a minor teachable subject as well.

That being said, school boards are less picky, as in Alberta, once you are certificated as a teacher, you can legally teach anything from K-12. (I teach high school, but have subbed in kindergarten.)

[Clarkey]

Originally Posted by bcb

Disagree.
A psych. degree MIGHT be accepted for elementary teaching, but even that is iffy if you haven't taken math or Canadian history courses.

To be accepted in teachers college in Alberta, and teach grades 7-12, you pretty much have to have a degree mirroring a curricular subject, and have a minor teachable subject as well.

That being said, school boards are less picky, as in Alberta, once you are certificated as a teacher, you can legally teach anything from K-12. (I teach high school, but have subbed in kindergarten.)

My comment was not specific to psychology degrees. My point is that people who go into the field often seem to choose to take education on a whim after deciding they don't have any better options. Many of these people complain about working hours, classroom sizes, pay etc. when they should have known what they are getting into. If you chose the profession knowing what the pay and hours are I think you forfeit the right to complain.

[Shazam]

Originally Posted by moon

...

Truly, the rancid, soul sucking drivel you write is something to behold.

[jolinar of malkshor]

Originally Posted by Peanut

I don't think teacher's are over-compensated. But I also am not sure I would support the opinion that they are undercompensated. Most professionals (teacher's are professionals IMO) are required to put in overtime and are not compensated for it (vacation time or otherwise).

I dont agree with this. In other professions where no OT is paid, the worker will still benifit from other things like bonuses or the oppertunity for advancement. There are no bonuses for teachers and there is really no oppertunity for advancement unless you want to be the Principal which is really not much of a promotion IMO.

[Shazam]

Originally Posted by jolinar of malkshor

I dont agree with this. In other professions where no OT is paid, the worker will still benifit from other things like bonuses or the oppertunity for advancement. There are no bonuses for teachers and there is really no oppertunity for advancement unless you want to be the Principal which is really not much of a promotion IMO.

I have no idea where you come up with this stuff.

[jeremywilhelm]

Originally Posted by Shazam

Truly, the rancid, soul sucking drivel you write is something to behold.

I don't understand how so much negativity can exist in one person. It is really quite incredible.

[moon]

Originally Posted by jeremywilhelm

I don't understand how so much negativity can exist in one person. It is really quite incredible.

Negativity? LOL.

I guess is stems my all my Anti-Flames feelings.

[bcb]

Originally Posted by Clarkey

My comment was not specific to psychology degrees. My point is that people who go into the field often seem to choose to take education on a whim after deciding they don't have any better options. Many of these people complain about working hours, classroom sizes, pay etc. when they should have known what they are getting into. If you chose the profession knowing what the pay and hours are I think you forfeit the right to complain.

I'm not complaining about anything. I never have. I believe teachers are paid fairly.

I do; however, reserve the right to complain if, next year, class sizes are 45 students, or if I am out of a job because the Province decides to go "Edward Scissorhands" to the education budget.

Finally, I can speak for most teachers in my graduating class, in that most of them spent years working with children (summer camps, children with disabilities, etc) to gain enough experience to be accepted to teacher college or land a job.

[ma-skis.com]

Originally Posted by Sample00

the other night my wife told me that Alberta Education is seriously considering revamping the school year to accommodate year round schooling. To be continued....

I like this idea, it's not like kids have to grow crops or work the fields nowadays.

[yads]

Originally Posted by Sliver

That is a great idea. It's a shame such expensive infrastructure goes basically unused for 12 weeks a year. I would think if as a society we were designing the education system from scratch tomorrow the system we'd end up with would be different from what we have today and would include much more efficient use of buildings.

Year round schools don't operate anymore than regular schools. They just have more breaks spread out through the year.

[Sliver]

Originally Posted by yads

Year round schools don't operate anymore than regular schools. They just have more breaks spread out through the year.

I know. What I would like to see explored is a revamping of the system to allow kids to have the breaks they need, but teachers and schools are used on a full-time basis. Teachers would get a similar holiday schedule as every other public-sector employeee in Canada, and schools would be used 12 months/year.

There would be ways to do it, I'm sure. It's not like we're working with the model of perfection as it is. Lots of room for improvement and more efficient use of resources.

[Yeah_Baby]

Originally Posted by Sliver

I know. What I would like to see explored is a revamping of the system to allow kids to have the breaks they need, but teachers and schools are used on a full-time basis. Teachers would get a similar holiday schedule as every other public-sector employeee in Canada, and schools would be used 12 months/year.

There would be ways to do it, I'm sure. It's not like we're working with the model of perfection as it is. Lots of room for improvement and more efficient use of resources.

Hmm, that is an interesting distinction you make. I mean school boards are tax funded so its not the private sector by any means. But I don't think teachers are civil servants either.

[bcb]

Originally Posted by Yeah_Baby

Hmm, that is an interesting distinction you make. I mean school boards are tax funded so its not the private sector by any means. But I don't think teachers are civil servants either.

We're public servants.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by jolinar of malkshor

I dont agree with this. In other professions where no OT is paid, the worker will still benifit from other things like bonuses or the oppertunity for advancement. There are no bonuses for teachers and there is really no oppertunity for advancement unless you want to be the Principal which is really not much of a promotion IMO.

I think the lack of oppurtunity for advancement in teaching is a problem. Many good teachers put in a lot of hours to enhance their teaching and the student experience and there are other average teachers that do an okay job and poor teachers who are just waiting to get their pension.

In the private sector the top people are rewarded the middle group keeps their jobs and recieves smaller raises an bonuses and the bottom group gets the crappy projects, smaller raises and are the first to be cut.

This does not occur in most union enviroments including teaching. As far as I understand very little of the pay is performanced based now I am not sure how you measure performance as testing is a poor way but there needs to be some sort of incentivization for good work.

I would say the government should widen out the pay scale and make it at least 50 % performanced based and far less tenure based. Also make it easier to fire poor teachers and replace them with the young eager teachers stuck on subs list. The union would never go for it but it would improve the profession and reward teachers who are good and allow teaching to function much more like private enterprise.

[ma-skis.com]

Originally Posted by GGG

I would say the government should widen out the pay scale and make it at least 50 % performanced based and far less tenure based. Also make it easier to fire poor teachers and replace them with the young eager teachers stuck on subs list. The union would never go for it but it would improve the profession and reward teachers who are good and allow teaching to function much more like private enterprise.

It's very difficult to gauge how success can be appropriately and accurately gauged in a classroom. That is probably the main reason why it hasn't happened. The no child left behind rule in the states is making for interesting situations particularly for areas where education is not the priority of the area.

Although the idea of a competitive market place for teachers seems logical, wouldn't we be entering the realm of private schooling the way it's run in the states. High tuition, education for those who can afford it. Which students gets to have the "good" teachers too?

I remember it wasn't until university until I got to pick which profs I would like working with me.

[bcb]

Originally Posted by GGG

I think the lack of oppurtunity for advancement in teaching is a problem. Many good teachers put in a lot of hours to enhance their teaching and the student experience and there are other average teachers that do an okay job and poor teachers who are just waiting to get their pension.

In the private sector the top people are rewarded the middle group keeps their jobs and recieves smaller raises an bonuses and the bottom group gets the crappy projects, smaller raises and are the first to be cut.

This does not occur in most union enviroments including teaching. As far as I understand very little of the pay is performanced based now I am not sure how you measure performance as testing is a poor way but there needs to be some sort of incentivization for good work.

I would say the government should widen out the pay scale and make it at least 50 % performanced based and far less tenure based. Also make it easier to fire poor teachers and replace them with the young eager teachers stuck on subs list. The union would never go for it but it would improve the profession and reward teachers who are good and allow teaching to function much more like private enterprise.

You just hit two key issues. 1.) How do measure teacher performance in an objective way if using standardized testing as a benchmark is considered reliable?
2.) Public education IS NOT a private enterprise. It is an investment in our future as a society.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by bcb

You just hit two key issues. 1.) How do measure teacher performance in an objective way if using standardized testing as a benchmark is considered reliable?
2.) Public education IS NOT a private enterprise. It is an investment in our future as a society.

1) I personally don't like stadardized testing as you get the teach to the test problem but both you and I know that we had good teachers and bad teachers and they were easy to tell apart. So I think subjective evaluation by supervisors, peer reviews, and reviews by students would play a role the same as any other job evaluates their employees. For example I am reviewed by my project manager, the client, and the people I supervise.

2) So what???? Does this mean we shouldn't apply any private sector management concepts to the delivery of education. In fact if we fail at education the consequences are worth. A buisness with a poor employee becomes less efficient and less profitable. A poor teacher reduces the final educational potential of an individual.

Currently the union framework does reward good teachers and makes it very difficult to remove poor teachers even though there is not of shortage of teachers trying to break into the industry.