Year Round School

[Rage Against the McKee]

http://www.cnn.com/2011/OPINION/05/10/granderson.yearround.school/index.html?hpt=C2

This isn't a bad article, considering the guy is a sports journalist. I would be all for year round education, as long as our government steps up and increases teachers' salaries to compensate for the additional days.

[Cire]

http://www.cnn.com/2011/OPINION/05/10/granderson.yearround.school/index.html?hpt=C2

 as long as our government steps up and increases teachers' salaries to compensate for the additional days.

lol

[Dirty Sanchez]

http://www.cnn.com/2011/OPINION/05/10/granderson.yearround.school/index.html?hpt=C2

This isn't a bad article, considering the guy is a sports journalist. I would be all for year round education, as long as our government steps up and increases teachers' salaries to compensate for the additional days.

In lies the problem.

[Bookcat]

if you're an undergrad...and you're majoring in elementary education.....just......just stop.


Unless you want to be 35 years old and barely making 38k a year.

[Rage Against the McKee]

if you're an undergrad...and you're majoring in elementary education.....just......just stop.


Unless you want to be 35 years old and barely making 38k a year.

Or if you want to go on and be a principal/superintendent. I don't know why anybody would put themselves through 4 years of college to teach, though.

[wetwillie]

if you're an undergrad...and you're majoring in elementary education.....just......just stop.


Unless you want to be 35 years old and barely making 38k a year.

Or if you want to go on and be a principal/superintendent. I don't know why anybody would put themselves through 4 years of college to teach, though.

I suppose it wouldn't be a bad gig if your spouse actually liked making money, summers off etc.

[CNS]

My wife's district tried very hard to go to year round school about 5 yrs ago.  They weren't planning on paying anything additional to any of the staff.  The year round plan had the same amt of days in the classroom, but had what is now summer break split up into multiple week to two week breaks. 

Their goal was increasing retention of knowledge so that they didn't have to spend the first 25% of every year catching kids back up to where they were at the end of the previous year.

The sup't had all kinds of research that he presented to the public about how much time off equates to how much retention loss.  Basically said that kids lose a lot if any break is greater than 2 weeks.  So in essence, everyone would be working the same amt, but the kids would lose less due to shorter breaks.

It's a great idea in theory, but a lot of people make a lot of their income in those three months off.  I don't see anyway that this will ever pass unless they account for that somehow.

[Rage Against the McKee]

It's a great idea in theory, but a lot of people make a lot of their income in those three months off.  I don't see anyway that this will ever pass unless they account for that somehow.

True, but education is an investment, and that would just be part of the investment. Ideally, the extra time spent in school, or at the very least, the lack of breaks longer than 2 weeks would make our youth better at math and science. Having a smarter population will help our economy more in the long run than just about anything else.

[CNS]

It's a great idea in theory, but a lot of people make a lot of their income in those three months off.  I don't see anyway that this will ever pass unless they account for that somehow.

True, but education is an investment, and that would just be part of the investment. Ideally, the extra time spent in school, or at the very least, the lack of breaks longer than 2 weeks would make our youth better at math and science. Having a smarter population will help our economy more in the long run than just about anything else.

I agree that ed is an investment, but this particular investment would be us(state or country) asking a single population(teachers) to pay into the investment by themselves(in lack of opportunity to earn supplemental income) and we all would reap the benefits.  Never gonna happen.

I am sure you could produce a better what-ever-it-is-that-you-produce if you would just work more to better optimize the product, and you could make my live easier if you would just do so for the same salary.  Also, I would appreciate it.

The prob with ed is that it is too multi-faceted.  They take authority from the teachers, increase school requirements, freeze/decrease budgets, and promote people that are trained to deal with kids as bosses of adult employees with million dollar budgets.  All this on top of the fact that it seems a growing percentage of America feels like the teachers should be fully responsible for their child's progress/success.

Year round needs to happen, but the salaries need to increase.  Hell, they need to increase as it is.  Ed is an investment and right now our future is being taught by a quality of teacher that could be vastly improved if salaries went up.

[Rage Against the McKee]

It's a great idea in theory, but a lot of people make a lot of their income in those three months off.  I don't see anyway that this will ever pass unless they account for that somehow.

True, but education is an investment, and that would just be part of the investment. Ideally, the extra time spent in school, or at the very least, the lack of breaks longer than 2 weeks would make our youth better at math and science. Having a smarter population will help our economy more in the long run than just about anything else.

I agree that ed is an investment, but this particular investment would be us(state or country) asking a single population(teachers) to pay into the investment by themselves(in lack of opportunity to earn supplemental income) and we all would reap the benefits.  Never gonna happen.

I am sure you could produce a better what-ever-it-is-that-you-produce if you would just work more to better optimize the product, and you could make my live easier if you would just do so for the same salary.  Also, I would appreciate it.

The prob with ed is that it is too multi-faceted.  They take authority from the teachers, increase school requirements, freeze/decrease budgets, and promote people that are trained to deal with kids as bosses of adult employees with million dollar budgets.  All this on top of the fact that it seems a growing percentage of America feels like the teachers should be fully responsible for their child's progress/success.

Year round needs to happen, but the salaries need to increase.  Hell, they need to increase as it is.  Ed is an investment and right now our future is being taught by a quality of teacher that could be vastly improved if salaries went up.

Yeah, well, they should increase the total number of days and the salaries should be adjusted to compensate. I thought you were referring to people who made money off of the kids who were out of school for the entire summer.

[john "teach me how to" dougie]

It's a great idea in theory, but a lot of people make a lot of their income in those three months off.  I don't see anyway that this will ever pass unless they account for that somehow.

True, but education is an investment, and that would just be part of the investment. Ideally, the extra time spent in school, or at the very least, the lack of breaks longer than 2 weeks would make our youth better at math and science. Having a smarter population will help our economy more in the long run than just about anything else.

I agree that ed is an investment, but this particular investment would be us(state or country) asking a single population(teachers) to pay into the investment by themselves(in lack of opportunity to earn supplemental income) and we all would reap the benefits.  Never gonna happen.

I am sure you could produce a better what-ever-it-is-that-you-produce if you would just work more to better optimize the product, and you could make my live easier if you would just do so for the same salary.  Also, I would appreciate it.

The prob with ed is that it is too multi-faceted.  They take authority from the teachers, increase school requirements, freeze/decrease budgets, and promote people that are trained to deal with kids as bosses of adult employees with million dollar budgets.  All this on top of the fact that it seems a growing percentage of America feels like the teachers should be fully responsible for their child's progress/success.

Year round needs to happen, but the salaries need to increase.  Hell, they need to increase as it is.  Ed is an investment and right now our future is being taught by a quality of teacher that could be vastly improved if salaries went up.

I know you guys don't want to hear this, but the quality of teacher would improve by either eliminating the teacher's union or easing the union rules regarding teacher firings.

[CNS]

It's a great idea in theory, but a lot of people make a lot of their income in those three months off.  I don't see anyway that this will ever pass unless they account for that somehow.

True, but education is an investment, and that would just be part of the investment. Ideally, the extra time spent in school, or at the very least, the lack of breaks longer than 2 weeks would make our youth better at math and science. Having a smarter population will help our economy more in the long run than just about anything else.

I agree that ed is an investment, but this particular investment would be us(state or country) asking a single population(teachers) to pay into the investment by themselves(in lack of opportunity to earn supplemental income) and we all would reap the benefits.  Never gonna happen.

I am sure you could produce a better what-ever-it-is-that-you-produce if you would just work more to better optimize the product, and you could make my live easier if you would just do so for the same salary.  Also, I would appreciate it.

The prob with ed is that it is too multi-faceted.  They take authority from the teachers, increase school requirements, freeze/decrease budgets, and promote people that are trained to deal with kids as bosses of adult employees with million dollar budgets.  All this on top of the fact that it seems a growing percentage of America feels like the teachers should be fully responsible for their child's progress/success.

Year round needs to happen, but the salaries need to increase.  Hell, they need to increase as it is.  Ed is an investment and right now our future is being taught by a quality of teacher that could be vastly improved if salaries went up.

I know you guys don't want to hear this, but the quality of teacher would improve by either eliminating the teacher's union or easing the union rules regarding teacher firings.

I fully agree that the hire/fire practices are to blame in retaining bad teachers.  You should also realize that not every state is union.   

However, if you raise the salaries, you can attract better candidates and I would think you could increase retainage of the existing talented employees as well.  Money is a motivator.  I recognize it isn't the motivator, especially in a field that employees often feel a calling for, however it is always a motivator.


that said, I think admin is currently earning too much, at least in KS.  My wife's principal is the second to lowest paid principal in the district yet still makes right at $90k.

[hemmy]

Teachers are not underpaid.

[Rage Against the McKee]

Teachers are not underpaid.

If we are going to improve the quality of our education system, we have to improve the quality of the teachers, first. That starts with improving the appeal of teaching as a profession.

[06wildcat]

Nothing I love more than threads criticizing public schools on boards like this.

Going to get the popcorn ready for when some tuck comes in to say he doesn't have kids in school anymore so he shouldn't have to pay taxes for schools.

[Dirty Sanchez]

Teachers are not underpaid.

If we are going to improve the quality of our education system, we have to improve the quality of the teachers, first. That starts with improving the appeal of teaching as a profession.

Pay level will not make someone love dealing with someone else's kids, administration, unnecsesarily angry parents, and regulations more.  There's a reason people go into the profession in the first place.

[Rage Against the McKee]

Teachers are not underpaid.

If we are going to improve the quality of our education system, we have to improve the quality of the teachers, first. That starts with improving the appeal of teaching as a profession.

Pay level will not make someone love dealing with someone else's kids, administration, unnecsesarily angry parents, and regulations more.  There's a reason people go into the profession in the first place.

It won't increase the quality of our current teachers, but it will make some of the brighter students who go to college consider education when they otherwise would not have.

[CNS]

Yeah, there are things about my profession that I absolutely hate doing(plenty that I enjoy too), but the paycheck helps tip the scale to keep me in my profession rather than finding one where I don't encounter such issues.

This can be applied across the board when it comes to why people stay at their job with very few exceptions. 

You are overrating the "calling" part of the teach job.  They are not priests or social workers. 

Higher pay = Higher interest from higher performing individuals.  There are plenty people out there who like to work with children or enjoy teaching concepts to people that don't do so for a living because they make way more money doing whatevs it is they do instead.

[john "teach me how to" dougie]

Yeah, there are things about my profession that I absolutely hate doing(plenty that I enjoy too), but the paycheck helps tip the scale to keep me in my profession rather than finding one where I don't encounter such issues.

This can be applied across the board when it comes to why people stay at their job with very few exceptions. 

You are overrating the "calling" part of the teach job.  They are not priests or social workers. 

Higher pay = Higher interest from higher performing individuals.  There are plenty people out there who like to work with children or enjoy teaching concepts to people that don't do so for a living because they make way more money doing whatevs it is they do instead.

Teachers need to do it because they love it. For someone to take up teaching for the great pay will not have your child's best interest at heart. If you want both high pay and a quality teacher, you need to pay for a private school without a union.

[06wildcat]

Yeah, there are things about my profession that I absolutely hate doing(plenty that I enjoy too), but the paycheck helps tip the scale to keep me in my profession rather than finding one where I don't encounter such issues.

This can be applied across the board when it comes to why people stay at their job with very few exceptions. 

You are overrating the "calling" part of the teach job.  They are not priests or social workers. 

Higher pay = Higher interest from higher performing individuals.  There are plenty people out there who like to work with children or enjoy teaching concepts to people that don't do so for a living because they make way more money doing whatevs it is they do instead.

Teachers need to do it because they love it. For someone to take up teaching for the great pay will not have your child's best interest at heart. If you want both high pay and a quality teacher, you need to pay for a private school without a union.

Doctors need to practice medicine because they love it. For someone to enter a medical practice for the great pay will not have your best health interest at heart.

[CNS]

Yeah, there are things about my profession that I absolutely hate doing(plenty that I enjoy too), but the paycheck helps tip the scale to keep me in my profession rather than finding one where I don't encounter such issues.

This can be applied across the board when it comes to why people stay at their job with very few exceptions. 

You are overrating the "calling" part of the teach job.  They are not priests or social workers. 

Higher pay = Higher interest from higher performing individuals.  There are plenty people out there who like to work with children or enjoy teaching concepts to people that don't do so for a living because they make way more money doing whatevs it is they do instead.

Teachers need to do it because they love it. For someone to take up teaching for the great pay will not have your child's best interest at heart. If you want both high pay and a quality teacher, you need to pay for a private school without a union.

Seems very Karl Marxist to assume that someone will do their job, not for the pay, but for the pure want/creative satisfaction of doing it.

Also, bull crap.

[john "teach me how to" dougie]

Yeah, there are things about my profession that I absolutely hate doing(plenty that I enjoy too), but the paycheck helps tip the scale to keep me in my profession rather than finding one where I don't encounter such issues.

This can be applied across the board when it comes to why people stay at their job with very few exceptions. 

You are overrating the "calling" part of the teach job.  They are not priests or social workers. 

Higher pay = Higher interest from higher performing individuals.  There are plenty people out there who like to work with children or enjoy teaching concepts to people that don't do so for a living because they make way more money doing whatevs it is they do instead.

Teachers need to do it because they love it. For someone to take up teaching for the great pay will not have your child's best interest at heart. If you want both high pay and a quality teacher, you need to pay for a private school without a union.

Doctors need to practice medicine because they love it. For someone to enter a medical practice for the great pay will not have your best health interest at heart.

This is true, but the threat of a malpractice lawsuit will force them to care.

[john "teach me how to" dougie]

Yeah, there are things about my profession that I absolutely hate doing(plenty that I enjoy too), but the paycheck helps tip the scale to keep me in my profession rather than finding one where I don't encounter such issues.

This can be applied across the board when it comes to why people stay at their job with very few exceptions. 

You are overrating the "calling" part of the teach job.  They are not priests or social workers. 

Higher pay = Higher interest from higher performing individuals.  There are plenty people out there who like to work with children or enjoy teaching concepts to people that don't do so for a living because they make way more money doing whatevs it is they do instead.

Teachers need to do it because they love it. For someone to take up teaching for the great pay will not have your child's best interest at heart. If you want both high pay and a quality teacher, you need to pay for a private school without a union.

Seems very Karl Marxist to assume that someone will do their job, not for the pay, but for the pure want/creative satisfaction of doing it.

Also, bull crap.

A Marxist would insist on a union.

[06wildcat]

Yeah, there are things about my profession that I absolutely hate doing(plenty that I enjoy too), but the paycheck helps tip the scale to keep me in my profession rather than finding one where I don't encounter such issues.

This can be applied across the board when it comes to why people stay at their job with very few exceptions. 

You are overrating the "calling" part of the teach job.  They are not priests or social workers. 

Higher pay = Higher interest from higher performing individuals.  There are plenty people out there who like to work with children or enjoy teaching concepts to people that don't do so for a living because they make way more money doing whatevs it is they do instead.

Teachers need to do it because they love it. For someone to take up teaching for the great pay will not have your child's best interest at heart. If you want both high pay and a quality teacher, you need to pay for a private school without a union.

Doctors need to practice medicine because they love it. For someone to enter a medical practice for the great pay will not have your best health interest at heart.

This is true, but the threat of a malpractice lawsuit will force them to care.

Actually the threat of a malpractice lawsuit will force them to over care, which is also against the patient's best interest.

[john "teach me how to" dougie]

Yeah, there are things about my profession that I absolutely hate doing(plenty that I enjoy too), but the paycheck helps tip the scale to keep me in my profession rather than finding one where I don't encounter such issues.

This can be applied across the board when it comes to why people stay at their job with very few exceptions. 

You are overrating the "calling" part of the teach job.  They are not priests or social workers. 

Higher pay = Higher interest from higher performing individuals.  There are plenty people out there who like to work with children or enjoy teaching concepts to people that don't do so for a living because they make way more money doing whatevs it is they do instead.

Teachers need to do it because they love it. For someone to take up teaching for the great pay will not have your child's best interest at heart. If you want both high pay and a quality teacher, you need to pay for a private school without a union.

Doctors need to practice medicine because they love it. For someone to enter a medical practice for the great pay will not have your best health interest at heart.

This is true, but the threat of a malpractice lawsuit will force them to care.

Actually the threat of a malpractice lawsuit will force them to over care, which is also against the patient's best interest.

This is why any serious health care reform must include reasonable limits on malpractice damages.