|
Oxphocker posted:work +60 hours/6 days a week According to the following BLS survey, this is unusual. The average full-time teacher works about 40 hours a week, which is a pretty reasonable workweek, IMO. https://www.bls.gov/opub/mlr/2008/03/art4full.pdf I remember at about the time I graduated from high school, public school teachers in my hometown successfully negotiated for a shorter workday of seven hours. There may be many bad aspects about being employed as a public school teacher, but it is hard for me to believe that having to work an excessive number of hours is one of them.
|
#
¿
Feb 9, 2017 16:09
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 2, 2024 07:10 |
|
|
BarbarianElephant posted:They also mark work and prepare lessons outside their classroom hours. Those hours are included in the survey results.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 9, 2017 16:59
|
|
|
Quidthulhu posted:I would still wager that if we had some data with actual numbers attached rather than blanket "well they are working" you would find that teachers ARE working far more than the average working professional. Please present this data, if you think that the survey I linked is somehow suspect. IMO, you haven't really presented a good case for why the ~40 hours a week number in the survey is wrong. In any case, you have backed off from your original assertion that the average teacher is constantly pulling 60 hour work weeks.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 9, 2017 22:36
|
|
|
Oxphocker posted:However, I also know that +90% of how I did was because of my own actions...not that of the teacher. There are only a few examples I can think of that I could clearly pin on the instructor Oxphocker posted:It's pitting districts against each other for enrollment and not actually solving any of the issues that are mostly driven by poverty. When you post stuff like this, you are undermining a lot of the rest of what you post in this thread. America spends more money on education per student than almost all first world countries, but isn't doing that well in a lot of the education metrics. Does this mean that increasing education funding will not actually noticeably improve student outcomes? Should the US be spending more money on expanding other parts of its welfare state instead of spending more money on teachers and schools? silence_kit fucked around with this message at 18:24 on Feb 19, 2017 |
|
#
¿
Feb 19, 2017 18:09
|
|
|
Oxphocker posted:Not really...the approach that US education has taken since 2001 is that of accountability and competition amongst schools. It's applying the same ideas that the business world uses of forcing innovation in a sink or swim environment without realizing that there are some major flaws to that philosophy (schools don't get to choose their products and they aren't allowed to charge what it would really take to change things). You are talking out of both sides of your mouth here. On one hand, you are saying that teachers serve an important function to society, and so it is absolutely vital that we attract more and better talent to teaching, pay teachers more, and so on. But on the other hand, you are saying that 90% of student educational outcomes have nothing to do with the teacher, and instead are due to factors outside of teachers' control and that trying to evaluate teachers' performance is a waste of time and money because the teacher has little effect on educational outcomes anyway. Don't you see the contradiction here? You are arguing that teachers are simultaneously valuable and also not that valuable. Oxphocker posted:The schools themselves need to stop spending millions on useless testing Is this a major cost? How does it compare to all of the other costs of public education? silence_kit fucked around with this message at 19:17 on Feb 19, 2017 |
|
#
¿
Feb 19, 2017 19:14
|
|
|
Hawkgirl posted:It's weird that you think that "not 100%" means "0%" I don't think that. You don't see the contradiction in arguing that teachers are incredibly important to the education of children, are highly under-valued, and on that basis should be paid more, and in the same breathe arguing categorically that teachers shouldn't be evaluated on the basis of their students' performance, since how well the students do is largely out of their hands? One argument seemingly undermines the other. silence_kit fucked around with this message at 21:41 on Feb 19, 2017 |
|
#
¿
Feb 19, 2017 21:28
|
|
|
litany of gulps posted:There are enormous and complicated factors that go into student performance. Teacher quality is one of these factors. Good teachers can do a lot for struggling students, but they can't overcome all or even most of the problems introduced by poverty. Obviously, pay can influence the quality of worker that you get - this goes both ways. Obviously the wealth of the students' parents and teacher quality both matter. Since you are willing to grant that teacher quality is important, you would agree with me and disagree with Oxphocker that it doesn't make a lot of sense to categorically oppose evaluation of teachers' performance on the basis that teachers' performance has little effect on student outcomes. silence_kit fucked around with this message at 22:09 on Feb 19, 2017 |
|
#
¿
Feb 19, 2017 21:59
|
|
|
litany of gulps posted:If you grant that socioeconomic status has a huge impact on student performance, then evaluating teacher performance on the basis of student performance on standardized tests makes little sense. That is, however, the direction that teacher evaluations have been shifting toward. Does this make sense as the main measure of teacher quality to you? Ok, if now we are saying that students' parents wealth actually is the most important factor in students' educational outcomes, then it doesn't make sense, to me at least, to make the argument that teachers' contributions to students' success is highly under-valued, and we need entice the most brilliant minds into teaching pronto by raising salaries before our children's minds all rot. I really don't see how you can have it both ways. litany of gulps posted:The result of tying teacher pay or job security to standardized test performance of the students does not encourage the best teachers to go work in schools that are low performing as a result of socioeconomic factors, but rather to encourage all teachers to look for jobs in areas where socioeconomic factors guarantee that students will be successful on standardized tests. First of all, it needs to be said that teachers have incredible job security, much better than almost all other jobs. I would be shocked if job security for teachers were actually a problem. Secondly, how does tying teacher compensation partially to standardized test performance actually work in the proposed systems? If it is simply: Bonus = Multiplier x (Avg. student Test score), then maybe it isn't a good system, but if it instead rewards student improvement or controls for students' parents' wealth, then maybe it would be more fair. Obviously the system won't be perfect--arguments to the effect of 'well the system will never be 100% perfect, therefore we shouldn't attempt to implement it at all' aren't that convincing to me. Edit: Hawkgirl posted:Standardized tests don't really tell you anything about a kid's future/outcomes either, so why should we connect teacher performance to it? I'd be shocked if you could support this claim with evidence. It is extremely hyperbolic. silence_kit fucked around with this message at 23:16 on Feb 19, 2017 |
|
#
¿
Feb 19, 2017 22:37
|
|
|
litany of gulps posted:3. A major problem in the most troubled regions of the country is how to intervene and close the achievement gap between low socioeconomic students and high socioeconomic students. This burden is often placed on schools and therefore teachers. If this is going to be the accepted method of attempting to resolve the problems presented by poverty when it comes to educational performance, then obviously you truly do need the absolute best teachers to make an impact. If you really believe what Oxphocker is posting, then good teachers aren't really that valuable, and fighting poverty by spending more money on smarter and more effective teachers to educate poor students is pretty hopeless. The report he/she posted estimated teacher quality to be responsible for 10% of student achievement. Again, if you really believe what Oxphocker is posting, then it makes more sense, to me at least, to put the money into other welfare programs rather than by hoping to attract smarter teachers, since teacher quality has such a small effect on student outcomes. litany of gulps posted:4. Job security in teaching actually varies widely depending on the type of district you work in. A school that performs poorly on standardized testing, regardless of the reason why, may actually be a very unstable place to work. A school that performs well on standardized testing, regardless of the reason why, is going to be a very stable place to work. I definitely believe you that teaching in an inner city school is not that great of a job, but you are confusing job security with turnover. If it is so hard to find teachers to teach in poor, inner-city schools, why would they be firing them all the time? Your earlier claim about job security for teachers being terrible was just a scare tactic. Teachers have incredible job security. litany of gulps posted:5. Typically these systems for performance based on standardized testing are, as Oxphocker has tried to explain and you have struggled mightily to fail to understand, are based on performance versus other schools. These schools may have wildly varying populations. One may be 95% Hispanic with more ESL students than any other school in the country, and it may be judged as failing when compared to the last school with white students and community involvement in a district with incredibly variable populations. Is this how the proposed performance-based compensation plans for teachers actually work though? Oxphocker hasn't explained much of anything to me at all, and based on previous posts in this thread, has a tendency to post a lot of hyperbole. I googled a couple of articles on it, and it looks like it is a little more involved than: Bonus = Multiplier x Average Student Test Score. Can you support your claim with some kind of source? silence_kit fucked around with this message at 03:43 on Feb 20, 2017 |
|
#
¿
Feb 20, 2017 03:23
|
|
|
litany of gulps posted:Have you ever heard of the phrase "Improvement Required?" Are you familiar with the thought process behind "fixing" schools that perform poorly on standard testing? This is a rhetorical question, because the answer is obviously "no." Can you post a source showing that teachers have poor job security? I think you are exaggerating the job security issue. litany of gulps posted:You're the one composing this whole idea of "bonuses" out of your own mad brain. You think teachers are getting bonuses? You googled a couple of articles? Are you literally insane? Can you post a source showing proposals for teacher compensation partially based on standardized test scores? I think you are exaggerating how unfair they would be.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 20, 2017 03:47
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 2, 2024 07:10 |
|
|
litany of gulps posted:Google "reconstitution" you clown. Settle down Beavis. I'll look those things up. But I still think you are exaggerating and are using technicalism to avoid having to support your claims with evidence. silence_kit fucked around with this message at 03:58 on Feb 20, 2017 |
|
#
¿
Feb 20, 2017 03:55
|
|