Obama seems to want to push this. Giving teachers bonus pay for higher performing students, and a whole checklist of things.
Sounds great on paper (NCLB ring a bell?). Great teachers should have nothing to fear, right?
Wrong.
Right now, if I develop a great lesson plan that fully engages my students and is a great success, I share it. I have found great joy in the past when another teacher has used something I came up with. What if that teacher is competing for incentive pay? Why should I share, allowing their students to gain knowledge from it?
What about teachers that have all honors classes versus those with all those scoring basic on exams?
From the private sector I learned that giving raises based on your manager's opinion of your performance is terrible. It breeds animosity and jealousy.
Why do the powers that be miss the one thing proven time after time to increase student achievement?
SMALLER CLASS SIZES
My wife's school is asking for teachers to volunteer as part of a pilot program. My wife is considering it, but doesn't like the increased number of observations she would have.
[ May 11, 2010, 12:30 PM: Message edited by: Stephan ]
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
How about just overhauling tenure?
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
There's been a lot of research done on the problem. Good teachers do a heck of a lot more to raise student achievement than smaller classes.
I think that most teacher performance bonus programs are misguided, because they aren't enough like the private sector. At most businesses, managers giving bonuses for good performance does not breed animosity and jealousy. Additionally, there's a lot of research showing that frequent bonuses (including if to most employees) for good performance has a huge (positive) impact on job performance.
There are a lot of bad teachers unfairly protected by seniority, even as it protects good teachers is. There are a lot of promising young teachers who are unable to stay in teaching because they're always the first fired. Making teachers easier to fire would help eliminate bad teachers. Good teachers would sometimes be fired by bad administrators, but would have little problem being hired at locations with better administration: the answer to bad administrators is not to force students to deal with bad teachers who have sufficient seniority.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Every program for teacher merit pay I have ever seen was misguided and badly designed. They reward hoop-jumping, NOT good teaching.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
rivka: yep. They're generally designed to prevent administrators from actually having any discretion in awarding teachers, and result in perverse incentives, as teachers just teach to the metrics. Not that some administrators don't require hoop jumping, but my feeling is that at most schools/school systems, administrators really are aware who effective teachers are (whatever the metrics say). Further, I think that if administrators were better able to use that knowledge to reward good teachers, they would pay even more attention to it (and administrators who don't would be removed over time, also).
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
quote:Originally posted by rivka: Every program for teacher merit pay I have ever seen was misguided and badly designed. They reward hoop-jumping, NOT good teaching.
QFT
Posted by Geraine (Member # 9913) on :
I had the same conversation with someone a few weeks ago during a 10 man raid in Wow. (We always dicuss things to pass the time between bosses)
Most reward programs based on student test scores won't work, because there are parts of every school district that have children with less opportunity than others. My wife and I volunteer for a non-profit that feeds kids at certain schools that have a large amount of at-risk or homeless kids. My brother is a boy scout and for his Eagle Project helped an elementary school in which 50% (FIFTY) of the children were homeless and lived either on the street or in cars.
These at risk schools receive less money than the schools in richer parts of town, which is a damn shame. The school district would rather pump money into the schools that will generate better test scores. The teachers that I have spoken that work at these at risk schools are there because they want to make a difference in these kid's lives. Money is less of an issue for them.
A teachers at one of the schools told me that one day a child was missing from class and when she found him he was in the bathroom hiding. He had ripped his pants and didn't want to go back to class because he did not have any underwear.
The education system (at least here in Vegas) would work so much better if teachers that taught at these at risk schools were paid more than the schools in richer parts of town.
I may be biased, my grandfather and grandmother each taught elementary school for 30 years at schools in poor neighborhoods.
Posted by DarkKnight (Member # 7536) on :
Right now a teacher's pay is based on how many credit hours you have and years spent teaching. Neither one of those two have anything to do with what happens in the classroom. If I start teaching the same day as another teacher and I spend my time working on getting my masters, M+15, M+30, and so on and just getting by in the classroom while the other teacher works hard teaching the kids I will be making a considerable amount more money. The system we have now rewards bad teachers and punishes the good ones.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
So we should make that worse?
Posted by DarkKnight (Member # 7536) on :
quote: Why do the powers that be miss the one thing proven time after time to increase student achievement?
SMALLER CLASS SIZES
Because there is still debate on this. Some studies prove this is inconclusive at best and others attribute too much to class size rather than different teaching methods
Posted by DarkKnight (Member # 7536) on :
Rivka, no. we need to find a way to make it better. Honestly, teachers are not and really never have been the problem. They do have a very powerful union that many times protects people it shouldn't but the problems are caused by Administrators. We need to start fixing the pay issue (and many other issues) by starting at the top and working down.
Posted by Stephan (Member # 7549) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: How about just overhauling tenure?
I'm fine with it. Tenure and teacher unions keep a lot of extremely terrible teachers in my school.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by DarkKnight: They do have a very powerful union
That varies from municipality to municipality. And while unions sometimes keep bad teachers from getting fired, more often they keep all teachers from being mistreated by administrators.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by rivka: while unions sometimes keep bad teachers from getting fired
Replace 'sometimes' with 'usually'
Posted by Stephan (Member # 7549) on :
quote:Originally posted by DarkKnight:
quote: Why do the powers that be miss the one thing proven time after time to increase student achievement?
SMALLER CLASS SIZES
Because there is still debate on this. Some studies prove this is inconclusive at best and others attribute too much to class size rather than different teaching methods
Alright. I see your point. But class size definitely plays a part. We have a great teacher in our building. Unfortunately one of her classes has 38 students in it. Her classes of 25 are a lot more successful.
Give me 20 - 30 and I should give you similar results. Start showing 40 into my room and I can almost guarantee a decline.
[ May 11, 2010, 01:08 PM: Message edited by: Stephan ]
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary:
quote:Originally posted by rivka: while unions sometimes keep bad teachers from getting fired
Replace 'sometimes' with 'usually'
Even if I grant that (and I'm not sure I do), what do you suggest instead? Municipalities with weak teachers' unions have more problems, IMO.
Posted by DarkKnight (Member # 7536) on :
quote: Alright. I see your point. But class size definitely plays a part.
Yes it does play a part. I'm looking for the article I read about what the Gates Foundation discovered. Essentially it came down to the biggest factor in education is the teacher. This does not mean a 'highly qualified' teacher but someone who is good at teaching. You can be very highly qualified yet a poor teacher. EDIT: of course right after I post I find it Eschool news
quote: Raikes talked of a study of the Los Angeles Unified School District after an initiative to reduce class sizes led to a liberalization of rules on who could be hired to teach.
He said the district found that whether a teacher had a certificate had no effect on student achievement.
Raikes said the district found that putting a great teacher in a low-income school helped students advance a grade and a half in one year. An ineffective teacher in a high-income school held student achievement to about half a grade of progress in a year.
"We really have to focus classroom by classroom," said Jim Morris, chief of staff at the L.A. district. "Every teacher matters, just like every student matters."
Morris said the most important factor to successful schools is excellent teachers and supporting what they do in the classroom.
Posted by Stephan (Member # 7549) on :
I'll give you a union story.
We had a terrible teacher here. Terrible. He was transfered to my middle school, because the high school principal was tired of him. No classroom management whatsoever. Gives out worksheets, then goes and sits down.
Last month, while he was in the room, a boy and a girl entered a closet IN THE SAME ROOM, and the girl performed what Monica did with Clinton.
Was the teacher fired? No. He was transfered to teacher jail. We have a technology office in the county, teachers with tenure are sent there when parents don't actually press charges. He is sitting there pushing paper at a desk collecting a similar salary to me.
Posted by scholarette (Member # 11540) on :
The problem is what makes a good teacher and what is under teacher's control versus situation? I don't know what kind of teacher I am, but I tutor no more than 3 kids at a time. The setup is great and the tutoring company has amazing results. One of my students went from low Cs to strong As within less than 2 months. There is nothing different his teacher did to explain that than the teacher next door whose C student's parents didn't have fifty bucks an hour.
I also have a few students who I despair over. None of the teachers at my company can fix them. For example, I have a kid who told me I don't want to be here, my parents are forcing me and I am not going to do anything. I try to talk about his future goals, motivate him, step him through step by step, etc, but it is frustrating beyond belief. I don't know what a teacher with 30 students does with this kid. But none of the teachers at our place feel like we are getting anywhere with him and we have advantages the public school teachers only dream of.
Posted by scholarette (Member # 11540) on :
My husband's principal was awful, school was underperforming, she was ineffective. New principal was hired, old bad principal was given a promotion to district level, where she had no power, but got more money, better hours and easier job. So, it isn't just bad teacher's that are kept around.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
scholarette: this is why decisions about what makes a good teacher ultimately have to be at the discretion of people who can respond to the varied situations teachers encounter.
rivka: even in places with weak unions, there's usually a requirement that, for general reductions in force, the least senior teachers be let go first. Until counterproductive requirements like that are dealt with, I wouldn't expect locations with "weak" unions to perform any better.
Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
quote:are a lot of promising young teachers who are unable to stay in teaching because they're always the first fired.
While I am not young, I am new and I just got pink-slipped Friday. All first-year teachers were automatically released, effective the last day of school.
quote:Essentially it came down to the biggest factor in education is the teacher. This does not mean a 'highly qualified' teacher but someone who is good at teaching. You can be very highly qualified yet a poor teacher.
I'm a little uneasy at the downplaying of qualifications here...I don't think we can overlook that certification is designed to verify that teachers have the requisite content knowledge. Yes, there is more to good teaching than content knowledge, but we should at least START with content knowledge.
Case in point - we had a math teacher who was not certified...she was working on her certification...and she taught every one of her classes rules of exponents that were just plain wrong. No two ways around it - she was wrong. She eventually had to be let go because she had failed on her fifth attempt at the certification test and this is one case where the test worked. It identified a teacher who did not possess the content knowledge of her subject, and therefore she should not have been teaching.
The students loved her. They thought she was a great teacher, they cried when she left. The parents raised an uproar. She had all the qualities one would expect from a "great" teacher - she could motivate, she inspired them, she encouraged them....but she didn't know math.
Yes, I think much of the "highly qualified" stuff is hoop-jumping (especially as part of the initial certification process), but some of those hoops are actually designed to determine if the person wanting to be a teacher is actually knowledgeable enough about the subject to teach it.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
I'm all for subject matter tests to make sure teachers are qualified.
However, I recall some of the praxis questions one of my friends going into elementary school teaching had to answer being completely ridiculous (I'll have to get some examples from her).
edit: and I a lot of promising young at heart teachers are let go simply due to lack of seniority, too Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Belle, you make a good point. However, as fugu says, plenty of the tests have all kinds of nonsense on them as well.
Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
The secondary tests are much better than the elementary ones. I know the English praxis was pretty good - it covered literature, evaluation of writing, linguistics, grammar...and quite a few people I graduated with didn't pass it the first go round.
The math praxis that I am currently preparing for is pretty comprehensive as well. Though I am preparing without a graphing calculator and you get to use one on the exam, so it may be easier - I just haven't gone and purchased a graphing caluculator yet.
I've got the study guide for the ESL praxis and it's not bad - it has a section on theory, a section on evaluation of student writing, and a listening portion where you have to identify errors.
Elementary though....yeah, I gotta give you that one. Pretty ridiculous.
Posted by Geraine (Member # 9913) on :
quote:Originally posted by scholarette: The problem is what makes a good teacher and what is under teacher's control versus situation? I don't know what kind of teacher I am, but I tutor no more than 3 kids at a time. The setup is great and the tutoring company has amazing results. One of my students went from low Cs to strong As within less than 2 months. There is nothing different his teacher did to explain that than the teacher next door whose C student's parents didn't have fifty bucks an hour.
I also have a few students who I despair over. None of the teachers at my company can fix them. For example, I have a kid who told me I don't want to be here, my parents are forcing me and I am not going to do anything. I try to talk about his future goals, motivate him, step him through step by step, etc, but it is frustrating beyond belief. I don't know what a teacher with 30 students does with this kid. But none of the teachers at our place feel like we are getting anywhere with him and we have advantages the public school teachers only dream of.
At least the parents are making him go to school. The only thing I would suggest is find out what interests he has and play on those. You may have to give him a different assignment than everyone else, but if it will help this kid out, then it will be worth it. If he likes video games, try to come up with assignments centered around that. It may be more work for you, but if it can help this kid out, it will all be worth it.
My grandfather taught a kid in elementary school back in the 60's that was a holy terror. He always talked back to his other teachers and was placed in my grandfather's class because my grandfather demanded respect. He was very stern with his students but made sure that they knew he was strict because he wanted what was best for them. The kid was unruly one day in my grandfathers class, and my grandfather took him outside and talked to him. Turns out the child's father had passed away and he hadn't gotten over it yet. The kid just needed to cry and get it out there in the open, and once my grandfather knew this information, he took this kid under his wing and paid more attention to him. The kid shaped up immediately.
My grandfather did not see this kid again until he retired. During his retirement party this kid got up and told the story of his experience in my grandfather's class. The kid grew up and had become a mayor in Las Vegas and also served as a Senator.
You never know as a teacher who your students may be one day.
Posted by scholarette (Member # 11540) on :
My husband aced the math tests and teaching tests (whatever the perfect score on them was) and he left furious. He came home and wrote some of them down and explained in detail why every single answer was technically wrong. Tutoring for the student's standardized tests using their prior test examples, I get frustrated because sometimes you know what the right answer is and what answer they are looking for and those two aren't the same. I have to decide how to teach that skill and still have the kids do well on the test.
My husband has since changed professions and is nos a quality engineer, meaning he spends all day everyday making sure everyone is exactly and precisely right. He is in heaven.
ETA: I have actually tried tailoring assignments to the kids interests, but this kid claims no hobbies or interests. I only have 3 students, so I have a lot of flexibility.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:Neither one of those two have anything to do with what happens in the classroom.
They don't have anything to do with what happens in the classroom? C'mon. Surely they're good for something. I'm not saying they're the main ingredient or anything, but surely we ought to increase pay in accordance with experience and training. I'm not saying by how much, or by how much more or less than student performance (which ought to be the primary measure).
quote:We need to start fixing the pay issue (and many other issues) by starting at the top and working down.
You'd be in favor of increasing state and local taxes in support of this, yes?
Posted by Stephan (Member # 7549) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: You'd be in favor of increasing state and local taxes in support of this, yes? [/QB]
How about cutting waste in education spending. Like buying every English classroom a 35 inch television in my school. Or spending millions on a gradebook system that only works half the time. Or millions on an educational program called America's Choice which takes stuff we should be doing like warm-ups, displaying students work, establising rules and procedures. Renaming them focus activities, artifacts, and rituals and routines. Seriously my county spent millions on renaming what good teachers should already be doing.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Expenditures like the 35 inch television usually don't come from the same budget as teacher pay. The school system wouldn't get any more money for other things (except in the category it came from, which is probably a capital fund if it happened in conjunction with a renovation) by reducing spending on items like that.
Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
There is an incredible amount of waste and it's all in the wrong areas. For example, Title 1 funds that can be used on "instructional supplies" but won't cover "audio-visual supplies". Therefore, we have thousands of dollars in Title 1 funds we have to find ways to spend it but we can't order replacement bulbs for ones that burn out in our projectors. Teachers have to spend their own money if they want projectors that actually work, and they cost hundreds of dollars, while we spend thousands on coaching books for our writing assessment that, because of Title 1 money releasing schedule, arrive after the test is already taken.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by rivka:
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary:
quote:Originally posted by rivka: while unions sometimes keep bad teachers from getting fired
Replace 'sometimes' with 'usually'
Even if I grant that (and I'm not sure I do), what do you suggest instead? Municipalities with weak teachers' unions have more problems, IMO.
It is related to a number of spurious correlations. Sadly, the unions have become a maladaptive force in the quality of our education. The solution is ... um, well, I don't know.
Posted by zgator (Member # 3833) on :
quote:You'd be in favor of increasing state and local taxes in support of this, yes?
Blasphemy! You obviously don't live in the great state of Florida where we know that quality education is obtained by cutting taxes.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: Sadly, the unions have become a maladaptive force in the quality of our education.
Still pretty sure I disagree with this, especially as a blanket statement, covering, what, every school district in the US?
Posted by Stephan (Member # 7549) on :
quote:Originally posted by Belle: There is an incredible amount of waste and it's all in the wrong areas. For example, Title 1 funds that can be used on "instructional supplies" but won't cover "audio-visual supplies". Therefore, we have thousands of dollars in Title 1 funds we have to find ways to spend it but we can't order replacement bulbs for ones that burn out in our projectors. Teachers have to spend their own money if they want projectors that actually work, and they cost hundreds of dollars, while we spend thousands on coaching books for our writing assessment that, because of Title 1 money releasing schedule, arrive after the test is already taken.
Bought my bulb on Ebay for $150. Kept the burnt out one to replace the new one with if I ever leave the school.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
Personally, I'm against the federal government meddling in state education at all.
Posted by BandoCommando (Member # 7746) on :
I haven't read all of the posts up to now, but I'm curious if anyone has any idea how merit pay would work for, say... a band director. Any ideas? My class is not a subject that is often tested with standardized tests, so that's out.
If you base a teacher's pay on student achievement (a nebulous concept to begin with), then determine student achievement using standardized tests, this primarily applies to math and language arts teachers and occasionally to science. Social studies, foreign language, fine/performing arts, other electives, etc. are out on a limb. For math and science, you're going to find out that teachers have even MORE incentive to teach to the test, not teach the kid. This is NOT what we need.
And can you imagine the poor P.E. teachers? Let's base a P.E. teacher's pay on student achievement in athletics. The more obese kids you have in your class, the lower your pay.
I'm not going to disagree that the current system of a pay scale based on years in the district (not necessarily co-equal with actual teaching experience, by the way) and degree /level of credits earned is a flawed system. I can go take credits that won't make me a better teacher, but will increase my pay. I regard myself as a superior teacher compared with many who have several years more experience, but I'm earning less than they are.
Regarding the debate for/against teacher unions: I seem to recall a relatively recent OSC Reviews Everything or WorldWatch essay that discussed unions (though not teacher unions) and pretty well summed up the benefits and evils. I don't recall the detail, but if I have time later, I'll find the link and post it, since it probably has bearing on this debate. I side with Rivka, though, in that making blanket statements about unions is neither accurate nor helpful.
Posted by scholarette (Member # 11540) on :
BandoCommando- obviously, we get rid of pe, arts, etc. Those are useless wastes of time, right? Or at least that is our school boards current view.
Posted by Darth_Mauve (Member # 4709) on :
Going back to the first post, I considered this as a plot for a Murder Mystery or Political Thriller, but I never get around to actually writing my ideas...
Here it is.
Saxony Meritz School System discovers the ultimate formula for creating, retaining, and rewarding teachers, increasing test scores, and lowering drop out rates. Its a wonderful combination of rewards, positive reinforcement, guidelines and technology.
In the marketplace of education, they built the better mouse trap. They are winners and get lots of extra funding for their efforts.
Why should they tell other districts what their formula is?
Fame? Duty? The Kids in other schools? All of these may be important, but if other schools use the same system then Saxon would lose some of its funding for being so successful. Their own kids could be injured by sharing their success.
Fame can be garnered by faking it. In fact, by offering a faulty version of their formula--or even by selling such a version--they can gain fame and be seen to be doing their duty. When other schools try their faulty system, and get much more limited results, they simply claim, "your not doing it right."
Eventually one of the liberal minded teachers breaks and tries to go public with the real secret formula for that districts success. She ends up dead and our detective must find out why.
Posted by Stephan (Member # 7549) on :
In regards to non-math, science, and English teachers. The program in my county is going to also address professional growth of teachers, not just student achievement.
Posted by DarkKnight (Member # 7536) on :
quote: They don't have anything to do with what happens in the classroom? C'mon. Surely they're good for something. I'm not saying they're the main ingredient or anything, but surely we ought to increase pay in accordance with experience and training.
So I get paid more simply by showing up? I come in, scrape by and do as little as I can, and get the same raise as someone who is a much better teacher? More college credits does not equal more 'training'.
quote: You'd be in favor of increasing state and local taxes in support of this, yes?
There is no need to increase state and local taxes to support this.
Posted by DarkKnight (Member # 7536) on :
quote: For example, Title 1 funds that can be used on "instructional supplies" but won't cover "audio-visual supplies". Therefore, we have thousands of dollars in Title 1 funds we have to find ways to spend it but we can't order replacement bulbs for ones that burn out in our projectors.
This isn't exactly true. There are ways to buy bulbs using Title I funds. Most likely you can't because of Administrators who don't know what they are doing with Title I. Plus the Admins should know that bulbs will burn out and plan accordingly. There is no reason for you to have buy your own bulbs. I'm sure the money is there but the Admins short certain line items in their budget so they have teachers telling stories about how they have to spend hundreds of dollars out of their own pocket for supplies.
quote: while we spend thousands on coaching books for our writing assessment that, because of Title 1 money releasing schedule, arrive after the test is already taken.
Far too often, Admins wait until the very end of the Title I grant to spend money causing what you are describing. This leads to a rush in spending all of the money, wasting a lot of it, so they don't 'lose' it. Proper Prior Planning Prevents Piss Poor Performance.
Posted by Darth_Mauve (Member # 4709) on :
The question is "how do you define a better teacher."
Dark, you say that experience is not the answer. Two teachers show up every day for 10 years and get the same pay. One is bad and the other is good. That is not fair. (I find it is average pay structure in most corporate fields other than sales--that experience is the basis of pay rates. Even Senators gain perks and pay from experience, but they say that is not good enough for teaching.)
The idea behind experience is that those who are good at what they do will continue to do it. Those who are bad will quit eventually themselves. It doesn't work well.
So how do we define "A good teacher."
Is it by test results? Then those who teach the test--who jump through administrative hoops--are paid as "good teachers".
Is it by who the children say are their best teachers?
Is it by who the parents think is the best teacher?
Is it the one who works the most hours? Helps the most with the PTA?
The question isn't if we should give merit page, its how do we define merit.
Posted by DarkKnight (Member # 7536) on :
quote: Dark, you say that experience is not the answer. Two teachers show up every day for 10 years and get the same pay. One is bad and the other is good. That is not fair. (I find it is average pay structure in most corporate fields other than sales--that experience is the basis of pay rates. Even Senators gain perks and pay from experience, but they say that is not good enough for teaching.)
You are agreeing with me that it is not fair but you are somehow making some kind of case that it is fair because Senators do it? You are calling it 'experience' but it isn't really experience at all, it's length of employment. There is a difference. All of those questions, plus more, can be factors in determining a good teacher or deserving of merit pay. Unless you are saying there is no way to know if a teacher is good or not?
Posted by zgator (Member # 3833) on :
quote: I find it is average pay structure in most corporate fields other than sales--that experience is the basis of pay rates.
I think experience is part of the pay structure, but by no means all of it in other professional fields - at least not engineering. An employee is typically going to get a bump every year just because it's another year, but one person might get a bigger bump (maybe a much bigger bump) for other reasons. Who works more hours, who is willing to come in on the weekend to get a job done and most importantly, who gets jobs done on time and under budget? Those are the ones who make profit for the company and get rewarded for it.
I think teachers should get merit pay. I come from a family of teachers - good teachers - and it stinks seeing them get paid the same as the teacher down the hall who does the bare minimum necessary. Basing it on test scores isn't the way to do it though.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:There is no need to increase state and local taxes to support this.
Oh, of course not. Everything can come from waste and inefficiency.
Posted by zgator (Member # 3833) on :
No, you can steal some of the money from the state transportation fund.
Posted by BandoCommando (Member # 7746) on :
quote:Originally posted by zgator: I think teachers should get merit pay. I come from a family of teachers - good teachers - and it stinks seeing them get paid the same as the teacher down the hall who does the bare minimum necessary. Basing it on test scores isn't the way to do it though.
I'm not opposed to the idea of basing pay on merit. I know several young teachers who would benefit financially from this, and I know that some complacent teachers would be driven to work harder on behalf of their students given appropriate incentive (and money usually works). Their are several problems, however, and I haven't seen or heard satisfactory answers to these problems in the many discussions I have witnessed on the topic:
1) how do we define merit in a way that promotes student learning, but doesn't merely encourage teachers to 'teach to the test'.
2) how do we define merit in a fair/equitable way for teachers whose subject areas are not tested?
3) if merit is defined partly on student achievement, how can you encourage teachers to work with at-risk students, special education students, English Language Learners, and other groups that tend to struggle more academically? We need quality teachers working with these students at least as much as we need quality teachers working with the TAG kids.
4) How can we establish merit pay while still finding ways to promote and encourage the sharing of ideas and methodology between teachers? Like the OP said, merit pay might create competition as teachers fear for the loss of their merit pay as other teachers adopt successful practices.
There are other concerns, but I think these are the biggest ones, IMO.
Posted by zgator (Member # 3833) on :
In the private sector, merit pay is subjective. I can't speak for all companies, but I'm not aware of any that say you will receive x% increase in pay if you work y hours of overtime, or your profit margin is z. Maybe determining a teacher's merit pay could be similar with the majority relying on evaluations by principals, dept. heads, etc. That would take care of (4) because part of the evaluation could include sharing ideas with others.
Regarding (3), those areas could receive a standard increase in pay if you're willing to take them on.
Posted by DarkKnight (Member # 7536) on :
quote: Oh, of course not. Everything can come from waste and inefficiency.
You don't even know what the problem with Admins are yet you are 100% positive that we need to raise taxes to fix it. That type of mentality is a huge issue and the cause of a lot of problems from Admins.
Posted by scholarette (Member # 11540) on :
Teaching is a profession that should be a team effort, yet all rewards are individual. My husband get a nice bonus last year based on his team's performance- they all got the same amount for meeting the goal. I don't know if you could get away with something like that (ie if math scores improve, everyone in the math department gets the bonus) but that is one way to worry about the sharing. It would help encourage mentoring.
Of course, my mother in law (teacher) this year got her contract and discovered her pay had dropped and her insurance costs were up. This was true for everyone at her school, not just her. And that really sucks.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by rivka:
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: Sadly, the unions have become a maladaptive force in the quality of our education.
Still pretty sure I disagree with this, especially as a blanket statement, covering, what, every school district in the US?
Every? No. But a large majority of the school districts in the united states. Unions' primary influence on schools in the united states is to make it nearly impossible in most districts to get rid of incompetent teachers and replace them with good ones. Along with a host of other terrible effects. an example: If a school district needs desperately to cut back on educators, the tenure system often makes it impossible to keep the new, fresh, eager talent, no matter how qualified. You can only really fire the newest, untenured educators. It doesn't matter if you have geriatric incompetents holding all the slots left over.
Posted by DarkKnight (Member # 7536) on :
quote: If a school district needs desperately to cut back on educators, the tenure system often makes it impossible to keep the new, fresh, eager talent, no matter how qualified.
You definitely can remove 'bad' teachers if the Admins are documenting properly and doing their job properly. The union does what it can to protect its members but far too often the Admins are unwilling to do their job correctly. This problem would become minimal if Admins did their jobs better.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
I know that I'm quick to point out how district administrations are usually a huge problem, but that's just not true. Even well-administrated districts have their hands tied by the unions.
Just search for the term "Dance of the Lemons"
Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
Tenured teachers CAN be fired...if the administration is willing to do what is necessary. In reality, it usually takes being convicted of a felony. Maybe not even then.
The school where my daughter attends has a teacher who hit a kid - left marks - and she is still teaching. The parents filed assault charges and she is still coming to work every day.
Tenure shouldn't protect you from losing your job if you actually assualt a student (in front of witnesses) but it seems to be in this case.
Posted by Darth_Mauve (Member # 4709) on :
Dark what my point was is that while the term "Merit Pay" is a great sound bite, defining it is the problem.
Set up a set of 20 goals the distinguish a merit worthy extra pay and you will get teachers that will do everything on paper to hit those 20 goals, and not a thing more. Good teachers care about the children they are teaching and not the administrative goals for merit pay. Poor teachers are usually only interested in gaming the system to do the least to get the most. In such cases good teachers will suffer under almost any merit pay program while poor teachers will win it unless care is taken to set up the system against such abuse.
The problem is that politicians are all about the quick fix and merit pay is that quick fix politically even if it is not so for the students.
(My crack about business men and Senators is that they are demanding teachers making 1/3 their pay play by rules that they themselves don't have to. Should we have Merit Pay in the Senate so that only Good Senators get the extra cash? How do we define Good?)
Another comment, "experience" is usually defined as years on the job. You say that such experience does not teach the teacher how to teach, only how to game the system. Granted. I argue that when changes to the system are made it is these poor teaching--good gaming teachers who have the experience to endure, not the good teaching teachers.
Then again you say that education does not teach the teacher how to teach. What does? How do you turn a poor teacher into a good teacher? Saying you will get a raise if you are a good teacher is fine. Offering a path to being that good teacher is more productive.
One final pro-union comment. Note, my wife refuses to join the teachers union for many of the reasons listed here. She has to put up daily with teachers she wouldn't let around our son, and the Union is the one that protects them. It would do a better job protecting the good teachers and making a teacher's life easier by dumping the bad teachers. However, if you remove the teachers you get the death spiral that education was in during the 1970's. Here the politicians were in control. Politicians in control of the schools saw a lot of school resources going to paying for teachers and not enough paying for big showy new buildings, sports, or other areas where their graft and corruption, or simple pandering to the tax payer, could do them any good. As a result teacher salaries dived and there was nothing teachers could do about it while the politicians assumed that teachers so loved teaching that they would do it for free. The union only became as powerful as it is because of abuses being routinely committed against teachers. Don't throw the baby out with the bathwater.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
We're just replacing one death spiral with another, though I'm not convinced that education is facing what I would call a 'death spiral,' not conventionally. It appears to just be stuck in a default state of maladaptive failure.
Posted by BandoCommando (Member # 7746) on :
quote: Another comment, "experience" is usually defined as years on the job.
I quibble, perhaps, but this is often not the case. Experience is often defined as years teaching in that particular district, at least in regards to placement on a salary schedule/pay scale.
True, districts often recognize the experience a teacher has from another district and will offer them equivalent placement on the salary schedule from the old district. This is not always the case, and the most my district, for instance, is REQUIRED to recognize is 8 years previous experience. Placement higher on the scale is a matter for negotiation after the job has been offered, but given the scarcity of teaching jobs in Oregon these days, teachers aren't really in much of a position to negotiate from strength.
Edit to add:
Experience in regards to Reductions if Force (i.e. layoffs) is another matter entirely. Layoffs are based almost exclusively on one's seniority in the DISTRICT. We had a music teacher in the district with over 25 years of classroom teaching experience who was laid off because she had only been in the school district for that one school year. There was no question that she was the more qualified teacher when compared to some of the other teachers who received lay-offs.
It turns out that she was offered her position again, as were most of the music teachers in the district, but she had already secured employment elsewhere.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: Unions' primary influence on schools in the united states is to make it nearly impossible in most districts to get rid of incompetent teachers and replace them with good ones.
I strongly disagree. The primary influence that YOU care about, perhaps. But teacher pay and benefits are lousy enough with the unions; I shudder to think what they would be without them. And I know plenty of GOOD teachers whose jobs were saved by their unions, in situations that might otherwise have led to wrongful termination suits.
Posted by AvidReader (Member # 6007) on :
quote:Originally posted by Darth_Mauve: The question is "how do you define a better teacher."
I think this is the best question of the thread. However, I think we need to go back one step and ask "how do we define learning" in order to get to it.
Learning, to me, is being presented with new information and being able to integrate it with what you already understand in order to gain a fuller picture of the subject. So a good teacher, to me, would be someone who can help young children learn to ask the right questions or present older children with information that cuts to the core of their blind spots to challenge what they think they know.
But that's one opinion deeply influenced by my personality type and values. I'm sure there are many more answers that would be just as valid for the people they fit.
Posted by Paul Goldner (Member # 1910) on :
"Unions' primary influence on schools in the united states is to make it nearly impossible in most districts to get rid of incompetent teachers and replace them with good ones"
As Rivka said, false.
The primary influence of unions on schools in the United States is keeping benefits reasonable enough that education is an economically feasible career path for people who are talented enough that they could make significantly more money in other fields.
Take away the unions, and education is only a attractive career for people we don't want teaching anyways.
As has also been stated, if administrators would do their jobs, they could fire incompetent teachers. Even WITH strong unions.
And I know more young teachers who have been vigorously protected by unions, than old teachers.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
I have seen some very competent administrators try to fire mediocre teachers in favor of much better, but less seniority, teachers. They've failed miserably (sometimes couldn't even get the mediocre teachers transferred to responsibilities where they would do less harm). Administrators aren't even given the possibility of letting more experienced teachers go during things like RIFs (absent subject matter needs).
Saying "if only we had much better administrators, those stupid, harmful clauses in teacher contracts could be worked around" is a really bizarre form of apologetics. What's more, I fail to see a proposed route to making sure all administrators are much better than they are now. Teacher's unions have definitely done a lot of good. But they have also done a lot of harm. There needs to be serious reform in order to enable administrators of the sort schools actually have the tools to keep better teachers around more often and get rid of teachers who are not as good as them.
quote:Take away the unions, and education is only a attractive career for people we don't want teaching anyways.
You don't think some people go into teaching regardless of the money, and think people who would reject teaching because it doesn't make enough money for them are the ones we want teaching? I'm all in favor of teachers making reasonable wages (and point out that increased mobility has made school districts much more potentially competitive for the best teachers, as born out in increasing salary differentiation, than in the past when these practices were established), but is this really your argument? If not, what did you mean by that statement?
Posted by Stephan (Member # 7549) on :
quote:Originally posted by rivka: ]I strongly disagree. The primary influence that YOU care about, perhaps. But teacher pay and benefits are lousy enough with the unions; I shudder to think what they would be without them.
I don't know. Federal and state employees seem to have decent benefits without unions. In regards to pay, I honestly believe that has more to do with the supply and demand of teachers. If the pay is too low, people won't become teachers. If the pay is too high, the market would be over saturated with education majors.
The union is also powerless when the county just doesn't have money.
It is against state law for my union to even go on strike. Wihout being able to strike, the only power it has is to push politicians around with teacher votes.
I pay $700 a year for my union. It is outrageous.
Posted by theresa51282 (Member # 8037) on :
What makes you so sure that if teachers unions did not make firing difficutl that the result would be the firing of incompetent teachers? I would guess the opposite would be at least as likely. In an effort to cut costs and balance budgets that are hurting, the most likely to go would be the teachers higher up on the pay scale. Those with the most education and experience would be replaced with teachers who were cheaper. When those teachers started to make too much, simply replace them. The disincentive to continue education and make yourself more expensive would be huge. Teachers would be forced to work at the pay rates of the least qualified or be replaced. The last thing we need is to make teaching even less financially attractive.
Posted by scholarette (Member # 11540) on :
I hear (and I'll admit I have said this) a lot of people with a college degree say "well, if I can't get a job, I can always go into teaching." This could be partially because I hang out with a lot of math/science people who are generally fast tracked through certification. I know my mother in law was complaining that the reason they were able to drop all the teacher's pay this year was that there were so many unemployed (she is in AZ) who were applying for teaching jobs- all with no experience, no certification, but a college degree so they could theoretically get it through an alternative program. This teachers are way cheap and plentiful. Would this be bad for the school and students? Of course, but great for the budget, which is hurting. I have also heard that getting a job substituting is dang hard right now.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
quote:Federal and state employees seem to have decent benefits without unions.
As far as I'm aware, most federal and state employees have unions.
Perhaps a more telling point might be that, numerous private sector employees requiring similar skill levels have decent salaries and benefits without unions. What's more, even public jobs with low entry-level pay (librarians, for instance) manage to retain people of high quality, and pay pretty reasonably for good employees with experience.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
scholarette: considering pay cuts and increased duties are normal across the board in the private sector right now, and public budgets are far over-budget (Arizona is predicting a deficit of nearly two and a half billion dollars -- about 1% of GDP!), I don't think teachers having a pay cut now is unreasonable.
Posted by Stephan (Member # 7549) on :
quote:Originally posted by fugu13: scholarette: considering pay cuts and increased duties are normal across the board in the private sector right now, and public budgets are far over-budget (Arizona is predicting a deficit of nearly two and a half billion dollars -- about 1% of GDP!), I don't think teachers having a pay cut now is unreasonable.
Not even necessarily a pay cut. In large districts, just not giving us our annual raise (step) saves millions.
We have 5 furlough days coming at us next year. With a new child, I am actually sort of looking forward to the 5 additional days off.
Posted by BandoCommando (Member # 7746) on :
quote:Originally posted by fugu13: scholarette: considering pay cuts and increased duties are normal across the board in the private sector right now, and public budgets are far over-budget (Arizona is predicting a deficit of nearly two and a half billion dollars -- about 1% of GDP!), I don't think teachers having a pay cut now is unreasonable.
This is a common argument. What people often fail to consider is that in good times, the private sector benefits financially almost immediately through raises, bonuses, booming stock options, etc. Conversely, public sector employee pay raises lag behind to a significant degree. Our union, for instance, negotiates a new contract every 3 years, thus the delay in pay increase can take up to 3 years, or even longer if the negotiation process is protracted.
Three years ago, before the recession really hit, our union fought HARD to get our salaries increased to an amount that was competitive with other districts in our region and on barely succeeded, thanks to the outpouring of support from the community. Two years later, in the midst of recession-inspired cuts, the school district asked the union to consider 'givebacks' in the form of salary reduction. The union voted this down, since even w/o the reductions, our salaries were still less than the median teacher salary in the region.
Of course, the fact that just about every OTHER district reduced teacher pay, while OUR union was getting our negotiated 4% cost-of-living increase just about put us on top, but our union leadership regards it as justice for the decade or so when we were at the bottom of the heap... We'll see how it turns out now that we are again negotiating a contract.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
BandoCommando: public sector salary increases of late have outpaced private sector salaries. Using 2001 as a parity baseline (which isn't necessarily accurate), starting in about 2005, public sector salaries (note: the data includes school teachers) began increasing at a rate that was a good bit higher than private sector salaries. They were in very close parity prior to that.
I am amenable to the idea that there are specific districts where different situations hold sway; I was not proposing a blanket remedy, but giving some general case reasoning that holds in most districts.
Posted by Stephan (Member # 7549) on :
I assume small businesses are included in those studies. I've worked in several, and getting a raise when the owner is your direct manager in an office of 3 - 4 is like pulling teeth. The only way I got a raise in the private sector was job hopping every 2 years.
When I worked for a hotel group with a little over 100 employees, I got a raise pretty much whenever I decided it was time for me to get one.
Posted by BandoCommando (Member # 7746) on :
I'll admit that I didn't spend a great deal of time looking at that graph (on lunch break right now). A few concerns:
In my cursory glance, it appeared to me that this graph simply tracked growth, not starting salaries. If the public sector was, to choose a figure at random, starting at 80% of the private sector salaries for similar responsibilities, level of education, etc., then the comparative growth would be less relevant to the point made in the attached commentary.
I also saw no indication that care was made to consider job responsibilities, level of education and continued training required, etc. in that study. This is not to say it wasn't taken into account, but that I didn't see it in my brief look. I'd love to see more data, and I'll look for it when I have a little more time (ha!!).
Posted by scholarette (Member # 11540) on :
The people I know who are in AZ seem to be paid a fairly low salary (like starting salary half the rate of teachers in other states). One science teacher with 2 kids (which isn't a lot) qualifies for things like WIC, Chip, etc. Considering that they are currently paid so low, the pay cuts seems pretty harsh.
Posted by Stephan (Member # 7549) on :
quote:Originally posted by scholarette: The people I know who are in AZ seem to be paid a fairly low salary (like starting salary half the rate of teachers in other states). One science teacher with 2 kids (which isn't a lot) qualifies for things like WIC, Chip, etc. Considering that they are currently paid so low, the pay cuts seems pretty harsh.
What is the cost of living there? Starting salary in my county is $42,000. But finding even a small townhouse for under $300,000 is next to impossible.
Posted by Teshi (Member # 5024) on :
quote:The primary influence of unions on schools in the United States is keeping benefits reasonable enough that education is an economically feasible career path for people who are talented enough that they could make significantly more money in other fields.
Teaching in Canada (at least in Ontario) is a well paid, well-protected job. The Ontario Teacher's Pension is incredibly wealthy.
As a result, it's hugely oversubscribed (at least partly because the government thinks we're going to need zillions of teachers at some point, apparently). As far as I can tell, this is a good thing: it's competative to get in and competative to stand out. Teachers have to be very experienced before they can get accepted to attend teacher's college.
I think teaching should be well paid because we want to attract people who might otherwise work in the private sector. There are many people who want to work as a teacher regardless of how much they get paid but they may not necessarily be that great.
There are some people who are pretty good at teaching but the security and money are a big reason they got into it.
As for incentive bonus pay, I've said it before and I'll say it again: how do we decide? Who decides? Surely standardized testing and quick-visit revivews would be useless. It couldn't be a principal, because you'd need a panel for it to be fair, and then you'd have to employ the panel and have the time to decide on an objective criteria and observe each teacher over the course of the year. I think that way madness lies.
Posted by DarkKnight (Member # 7536) on :
quote: As for incentive bonus pay, I've said it before and I'll say it again: how do we decide? Who decides? Surely standardized testing and quick-visit revivews would be useless. It couldn't be a principal, because you'd need a panel for it to be fair, and then you'd have to employ the panel and have the time to decide on an objective criteria and observe each teacher over the course of the year. I think that way madness lies.
My issue with this line of thinking is that we are saying we cannot know who are good, or bad, teachers. I would be more inclined to freeze or cut salaries since no one knows if they are doing a good job or not. Why do we need Principals if they can't be fair or tell if teachers are performing well or poorly?
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
quote:Why do we need Principals if they can't be fair or tell if teachers are performing well or poorly?
I agree with this. Why do we need a panel? Why the distrust of principals? People in the private sector get performance reviews from their supervisors all the time. Why is it bad for that to happen to teachers? What makes them too special to be judged?
[ May 14, 2010, 12:44 PM: Message edited by: katharina ]
Posted by Jhai (Member # 5633) on :
The thing is, I don't think bright, motivated young people are turned off from teaching (in the US) because of the low salary. That's not the factor that's stopping me from becoming a teacher, for instance.
Currently, I'd take about a 50% pay cut to become a teacher. I'd do it in a heartbeat if it weren't for the way schools are run (which is the fault of both the admins and unions). My current job doesn't offer much in terms of creative thinking, and certainly very little in terms of feelings of "making a difference". But I know that my boss & coworkers are rational in their demands, that I have the flexibility to do my job my way without needing to get everything okay-ed by people higher up, and that I'll be rewarded & noticed if I turn out a stellar project. My understanding is that the work environment in most schools is not like this.
My favorite job ever was teaching math full time at a test prep company one summer. Most of the kids didn't want to be there (I wouldn't either), but I had the flexibility to do whatever I wanted with the various classes, as long as the kids knew the math they needed to know by the end of the summer. It was a complete blast, and I loved that I was able to help a lot of these kids learn to appreciate math (even straight-up SAT math for some classes) a bit more than they had before.
Posted by Teshi (Member # 5024) on :
quote:What makes them too special to be judged?
They are not. I just think that the evaluation of somebody whose impact is secondary or possibly even long-term is just more complex than "Sarah completed her work on time and sold x number of helicopters." You can't have one person determining something so... elusive unless you use a system that is easy to beat.
I think teachers should be paid well because it's a freaking hard job. Yes, it's rewarding, but it's not easy. My father always says, "oh teaching. You're basically doing children's level work and you're done at three-thirty!" Riiiight.
You alone (maybe with help if you're a kindergarten teacher) are in charge of thirty to three hundred people's education both intellectually and personally. They are there as much or more than they are in the presence of their parents and yet you have no decision-making skills in their lives. If you can see that their parents are doing something harmful but not worthy of child services getting involved, you are powerless. You must work within the time and limited reach and resources granted you. You might have a child with severe behaviourial issues whose parent refuses to get extra help for and so he becomes the neediest one of thirty-four kids-- many of whom have milder issues.
You must grade the children at the end of the year. You must ensure that every struggling child is completing some work while attempting to challenge those who complete it without difficulty. This could be over two grades so you could have students who are two years apart-- which is huge in elementary school. You must account for students' education on different cultures and backgrounds. You may have to teach many different subjects at a quite advanced level, some of which you haven't taken since high school-- and do it confidently and well. I could have to teach gym to grade 8s, for example. Last time I took gym? Grade 9, ten years ago.
On top of that, you use your salary to supplement the supplies you put into your classroom. If you need anything unusual for a lesson or your room, you pay for it yourself.
On top of that, there's no downtime except (possibly) lunch and (possibly) whatever prep time you have. In many office jobs, you get a cup of coffee mostly when you want. You go to the bathroom mostly when you want. You have a workstation that is yours. Ha!
Teaching in Ontario, I think, is paid just about right. Not astronomical, but decent enough to raise a solid family on. The Union is crazy strong and protects some bad teachers, yes, but it also protects and roots for all the good teachers who don't have the time to root for themselves. They ensure that teaching isn't regarded as the "children's work finished at three" job many people think it is.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:I agree with this. Why do we need a panel? Why the distrust of principals? People in the private sector get performance reviews from their supervisors all the time. Why is it bad for that to happen to teachers? What makes them too special to be judged?
If we're going to look to the private sector, then ought some of the conditions of schools really reflect the private sector better themselves?
I mean, it's sort of like Teshi says in my opinion. It doesn't seem very reasonable to me to say, "In the private sector, this works," and use that as a reason why it ought to be done in public schools. In the private sector, things are different. Both employers and employees have more power-they have control over the good or service they provide. If they see something is not working, they can change it as quickly as they are able. And success is rewarded, while great success is generally rewarded lavishly. In the private sector, if you sell a windshield wiper, it gets installed in a car and operated at the flick of a switch. Those are the only variables. You're only competing directly with other windshield wipers operating under the same conditions. The same can't be said of public schools.
Posted by Paul Goldner (Member # 1910) on :
"The thing is, I don't think bright, motivated young people are turned off from teaching (in the US) because of the low salary. That's not the factor that's stopping me from becoming a teacher, for instance. "
No, its the factor that keeps bright, motivated people from doing it for more than 2 years. Look up the burnout rate for teachers in your state, sometime. In Massachusetts, its something like 60% within 2 years.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Isn't it safe to say that low salary for long hours with minimal job security is a factor that could be considered a turn-off to bright, motivated people just as a given?
It may not be decisive, but those attributes together or separately are certainly disincentives.
Posted by Paul Goldner (Member # 1910) on :
Yes, low salary is a disincentive to pursuing the job in the first place, and a factor in burnout. I think it is less of a disincentive, in an otherwise rewarding career, for 22 year olds, then it is for 30 or 50 year olds.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by Kwea:
quote:Originally posted by rivka: Every program for teacher merit pay I have ever seen was misguided and badly designed. They reward hoop-jumping, NOT good teaching.
QFT
Sorry to jump in so late on that bandwagon, but QFT again.
As a teacher working primarily in the private sector (call if anywhere from consulting to teaching, depending on the company), I can say that the employers I have had who made me jump through the most hoops also made me less effective as a teacher. Case in point- the one company that required testing at the end of semesters for even their individual classes insisted that I pitch the idea of working out of a progressive textbook with students who categorically did not want to work out of such a book. In the end I gave the school the finger and taught to the needs of the students, but plenty of their teachers take the textbook and teach out of it, despite how godawful the progressive business English textbooks really are.
Private sector teaching is entirely a different thing though. I've had the luxury, most of the time, of teaching whatever the hell I felt like or thought students needed, with minimal oversight, since the classes are at the pleasure of the client. I feel personally that this makes me pretty effective at what I do, but on the other hand, there are plenty of people in the business who don't rise to the occasion given such a free hand. I've found it to be generally true that the majority of what language schools do is to allow them to continue to operate despite the fact that their teachers are often unskilled or incompetent. It took me over a year of working to get to the point where I'm trusted enough not to have to be observed or questioned on my lesson choices, materials, etc. Hoop jumping is just not something good teachers will ever benefit from- it can only protect you, maybe, from bad ones.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by Paul Goldner: Yes, low salary is a disincentive to pursuing the job in the first place, and a factor in burnout. I think it is less of a disincentive, in an otherwise rewarding career, for 22 year olds, then it is for 30 or 50 year olds.
The opposite of my personal experience, but I don't have a lot of perspective to judge that. The low pay in the job makes it nearly impossible to pursue the things that young people want to do- travel, hobbies, buying a house, parties, etc. I make above average for my particular market, but I've worked with plenty of people who were a lot older than me, didn't make as much, and were still happier with it than I was.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
I think it's more likely that they had accepted it and weren't complaining as loudly than that they didn't mind.
Children are much, much more expensive than parties.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
Can't disagree, I just think younger people have a larger need/want of loose cash.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Then you are disagreeing. I'm saying that an older person with children has far larger expenses and therefore need for money than a younger person with no children. If there was a difference in complaints, it was to factors other than the 22-year-old needing money more.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Originally posted by Orincoro: Can't disagree, I just think younger people have a larger need/want of loose cash.
Orin, you are really completely out of touch. First off, if people in the 30 - 50 range spend less money on things like travel, hobbies and parties, it isn't because they've become old and boring and are no longer want to do those things. It's either because they were never interested in those things or because they assumed responsibilities (including both family and career) that use up all their time and money.
Second, Kat is absolutely correct. Supporting a family is far more expensive than travel and parties. Furthermore, the expensive aren't really comparable. Being dissatisfied with your pay because you can't afford expensive hobbies and luxury vacations is not remotely like being dissatisfied with your pay because you can't afford braces for the kids or a house with enough room for a growing family.
Finally, every decision in life has trade offs. Some parts of teaching are highly rewarding, others (like marking papers and discipline) are simply not. Teachers typically have an extended summer break, but that's in exchange for a completely inflexible schedule during the other 10 months of the year and a job that demand far more than 40 hours/week to do properly. When you are young and have few responsibilities, its much easier to take a job out of idealism or exchange a high salary for free summers. As you get older and gain responsibility, those choices become very different.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:Originally posted by Paul Goldner: "The thing is, I don't think bright, motivated young people are turned off from teaching (in the US) because of the low salary. That's not the factor that's stopping me from becoming a teacher, for instance. "
No, its the factor that keeps bright, motivated people from doing it for more than 2 years. Look up the burnout rate for teachers in your state, sometime. In Massachusetts, its something like 60% within 2 years.
I don't see how low wages would cause a turnover like that. It's not like teacher's low wages are a surprise -- anybody who becomes a teacher has to already be expecting a low income.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Expecting and living with are very, very different things. Also, expecting and living with after a life change or two are even more different.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Idealism is often much more attractive in the abstract. Being perpetually poor when you don't have to be is not actually fun. I don't blame people for not choosing it as a life sentence.
Posted by DarkKnight (Member # 7536) on :
quote: It doesn't seem very reasonable to me to say, "In the private sector, this works," and use that as a reason why it ought to be done in public schools. In the private sector, things are different.
There are many things the private sector does that public schools should be doing in areas like HR, Accounting, maintenance, IT and so on.
quote: Both employers and employees have more power-they have control over the good or service they provide. If they see something is not working, they can change it as quickly as they are able.
Public schools can't change the methods they use to educate children? The private sector must adapt to their clients' needs and public schools should do the same. To suggest otherwise means that we are teaching exactly the same we did 50 years ago and there are no new ways to teach.
quote: In the private sector, if you sell a windshield wiper, it gets installed in a car and operated at the flick of a switch. Those are the only variables. You're only competing directly with other windshield wipers operating under the same conditions.
There are many many more variables than this but I think you already knew that. I've heard variations on this theme many times, especially the little old school teacher who challenges the business person with her nugget of 'wisdom' about how the business person can reject inferior parts and schools have to accept all students. Businesses serve the needs of their consumers or else they go out of business. Schools do not have to serve the needs of their consumers and can't go out of business no matter how poorly they perform.
quote: The same can't be said of public schools.
There is no competition in public schools. Public schools have a monopoly.
Posted by DarkKnight (Member # 7536) on :
quote: "The thing is, I don't think bright, motivated young people are turned off from teaching (in the US) because of the low salary. That's not the factor that's stopping me from becoming a teacher, for instance. "
No, its the factor that keeps bright, motivated people from doing it for more than 2 years. Look up the burnout rate for teachers in your state, sometime. In Massachusetts, its something like 60% within 2 years.
It's less than 50% within 3 years but there is no comparison to other jobs 'burnout' rates either. Plus it isn't a 'burnout' rate, it's the rate of people who don't stay in the teaching profession in MA for all reasons. Salary is very far down on the list. The list of factors is topped with the poor training they receive to become teachers and lack of support once they do become teachers. Poor training is from the colleges, and lack of support is from the Administrators.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:There are many things the private sector does that public schools should be doing in areas like HR, Accounting, maintenance, IT and so on.
I absolutely agree with regards to jobs that are actually more or less completely in control of the people doing them, such as the ones you listed.
quote:Public schools can't change the methods they use to educate children? The private sector must adapt to their clients' needs and public schools should do the same. To suggest otherwise means that we are teaching exactly the same we did 50 years ago and there are no new ways to teach.
That's not quite what I said. Public schools can change methods used to educate children, but frequently not as quickly as businesses in the private sector can change their product. In the private sector, if you learn your windshield wiper is performing badly against competition because of poor plastic, the boss can say, "OK, time to change our plastic supplier so we can remain competitive," and it will be done basically as fast as that boss can arrange. In public schools, if a class does poorly on a standardized test (just as an easy example), there are a dizzying array of hoops to jump through, and even after they're navigated, education may or may not improve. That's to say nothing of angry parents, either.
Public schools are caught between a rock and a hard place in American society. We expect private sector style results, but do not grant private sector style authority, much less resources.
quote:There are many many more variables than this but I think you already knew that. I've heard variations on this theme many times, especially the little old school teacher who challenges the business person with her nugget of 'wisdom' about how the business person can reject inferior parts and schools have to accept all students. Businesses serve the needs of their consumers or else they go out of business. Schools do not have to serve the needs of their consumers and can't go out of business no matter how poorly they perform.
The point is that the variables, or at least the response to the variables, are mostly under the businessman's control. If he wants to attempt to remain competitive by increasing advertising, he can do so. If he wants to go for it by upgrading his materials, he can do so. If he wants to attempt it by cutting wages, he can do so. The school teacher can't say, "To hell with this ridiculous standardized test, I'm going to actually educate my students," or, "My students don't have enough real homework to learn the material, so I shall assign more and different sorts of work," or so on and so forth.
quote:There is no competition in public schools. Public schools have a monopoly.
No they don't.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by katharina: Then you are disagreeing. I'm saying that an older person with children has far larger expenses and therefore need for money than a younger person with no children. If there was a difference in complaints, it was to factors other than the 22-year-old needing money more.
Loose cash, I said. "Loose," like spending money. Please back off and take a breath before you jump down my throat. I understand that having children costs more, but I also understand that older people are expected to have saved and made investments toward that eventuality. I also understand that people who teach for years eventually reach higher pay levels than the entry level. I am not a slobbering moron, no matter what you think. So stop, please, I don't really care if you do agree or not with that, just be clear about what I said. I hope it's clear now.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit:
quote:Originally posted by Orincoro: Can't disagree, I just think younger people have a larger need/want of loose cash.
Orin, you are really completely out of touch.
A) Read my response to Kat.
B) Don't talk to me that way.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
quote:Loose cash, I said. "Loose," like spending money.
As opposed to other kinds of money?
It seems like you are saying that young people have more wants than needs, in part because they have fewer fixed expenses. But a paycheck doesn't come divided into income for fixed expenses and income for discretionary purposes - it is all the same kind of money. If older people with children need more money, they need higher paychecks.
But you are saying that younger want discretionary income more. First, based on vocal complaints? Perhaps you haven't been invited to the conversations where parents discuss tuition and mortgages and school fees and trumpet lessons for three kids.
So the difference is a matter of responsibilities, not need for money. Also, perhaps a tendency to complain.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
DK:
quote: There are many many more variables than this but I think you already knew that. I've heard variations on this theme many times, especially the little old school teacher who challenges the business person with her nugget of 'wisdom' about how the business person can reject inferior parts and schools have to accept all students. Businesses serve the needs of their consumers or else they go out of business. Schools do not have to serve the needs of their consumers and can't go out of business no matter how poorly they perform.
It's interesting how similar the problems of public and private work are. Since I teach in the private sector, I have to say I encounter pretty much the same problems as public school teachers, and private business. It's not really that different to me- some of my work is for public institutions, and it's all about the same. The idea that the student is a product is silly- the teacher is the product. You can't fire the client- not if you expect to make money, or have a service so unique and special that you can afford to be picky. I have experienced some of the benefits of being in demand as an employee- unlike a public school teacher, I actually *do* get to choose some of my students, but the school doesn't really choose them, and I still work for the school, and ultimately the client, so my actual level of control over things is not so great- just enough for me to be able to turn down work I find especially unpleasant or arduous. It would certainly be nice for public school teachers to be able to do that, but somebody has to do the work. In the case of private teaching, that's inexperienced and replaceable people who either get better at what they do and can name new terms, or who quit out of frustration. The teachers I've known who stayed in that position, low pay and low empowerment, have been miserable people I didn't want to know, for the most part.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by katharina:
quote:Loose cash, I said. "Loose," like spending money.
As opposed to other kinds of money?
It seems like you are saying that young people have more wants than needs, in part because they have fewer fixed expenses.
I'd say different needs. Different dreams- things that can't be bought by saving money or thinking about the future. Adventure, stuff like that. Yes, there are other kinds of money- you have a 401k don't you? Life insurance? A mortgage, tuition payments, other loans, parents to take care of, children to care for, a car? I'd call that a different kind of money. You can spend more and, in a way at least (not in a dollar amount), need less.
quote: So the difference is a matter of responsibilities, not need for money. Also, perhaps a tendency to complain.
Pretty much- I haven't been invited to those conversations, nor would they interest me.
As to need- I would say I need virtually every dollar I make. I don't have money to spend on much. If I were making three times what I make, and spending three times more, could i be said to "need" that much? It's pretty relative, since in fact on the meager salary I have, I still eat well and have a good time. It's a very thin margin and a somewhat meager idea (relatively) of the good life, but it's a lot better than a whole lot of people manage. The need part gets a bit fuzzy anywhere above subsistence living, unless you're talking about personal fulfillment. When it comes to that, for me personally, making three times as much in order to pay for a mortgage, a car, kids, etc, would not fulfill me at this stage in my life- I wouldn't really need that. I have what I need now.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
quote:you have a 401k don't you? Life insurance? A mortgage, tuition payments, other loans, parents to take care of, children to care for, a car? I'd call that a different kind of money.
Those are different kinds of expenses. They are not, however, paid for with a different kind of money.
So instead of ranking need for money, it looks like you are ranking the urgency of expenses, and putting travel and parties above tuition and covering the needs multiple people instead of one.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Originally posted by Orincoro:
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit:
quote:Originally posted by Orincoro: Can't disagree, I just think younger people have a larger need/want of loose cash.
Orin, you are really completely out of touch.
A) Read my response to Kat.
B) Don't talk to me that way.
I'm sorry if you choose to take offense, but you're posts do indicate that you have a really unrealistic idea of what its like to be in the 30 - 50 age group. Believe it or not, your desires for "loose cash" to indulge your hedonistic fancies don't magically disappear on your 30th birthday or at the birth of your first child. Peoples priorities change, but their wants don't really change, at least not in my experience.
If people want adventure when their 25, they will probably still want adventure when their 35, 45, 55 and 85. It may be lower down on their priority list when they're 35 and have two kids to take care of, but that isn't because they stopped wanting adventure. Changing your priorities isn't the same as changing what you want.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
I didn't choose to take offense. I took offense. You chose not to apologize. You then chose to insult me further, and to patronize me as if I was your petulant nephew. I choose not to respond to you further. You can choose later to speak civilly to me, and I will take offense if you do not.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
I can see what Ori is saying from a certain perspective.
On an absolute scale, older people generally need and want more money than younger people. However, if you are looking at discretionary spending (things like trips, tech goodies, eating out, etc.), I could see saying that younger people often want money for this discretionary purpose more.
That is, it's often a bigger deal to a younger person without kids that they have new, cool gadgets or can take off on a fun trip or whatever. I think that many younger, childless people see this sort of spending as closer to something they need than older people with children, who are more likely to see this spending as luxuries that are not essential.
As I said, in an absolute sense, the idea that young people want or need more money than older people is crazy. However, I think it can be said that often the perspective of how vital discretionary spending is can be be different between the younger and childless versus the older parents.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
You mean, between people who have not yet matured and those who have? You're right -- hopefully maturity and perspective do come with age.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
That raises the question of whether putting something lower on the priority list actually means you want it less.
I mean, there are lots of things that are lower on my priority list now, but that doesn't mean I don't want to do them and I wouldn't be thrilled with the extra cash to do them. When I do have the cash after fulfilling all my fixed expenses, I don't think I am less happy with the activity or the result than someone with fewer fixed expenses in the first place.
I think the mistake here is thinking that because someone doesn't indulge a desire, the desire wasn't that strong in the first place, and that they wouldn't indulge if their circumstances changed.
In other words, the possesion of wisdom doesn't obviate the strength of desire.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
MrSquicky, I think its valid to say that most young single Americans put a higher priority on entertainment and adventure than do older people with families. I don't think its valid to say that older people want those things less.
I think its valid to say less mature people have a harder time being content if they don't get everything they want, immediately. I don't think its valid to say that more mature people want less. Being content with less and wanting less are not the same.
Look at the things that 40 and 50 somethings do when their kids become independent and they finally have more discretionary spending. Exotic vacations, more nights on the town, and expensive new toys that people get for a "mid-life crisis" are a pretty good indication that they have always wanted those things. Look at the number of retirees that buy a mobile home and tour the world or take up expensive hobbies. I haven't seen any evidence that peoples desires for "discretionary spending" decrease with age. It certainly takes a lower priority in their life when they are trying to support a family, but that doesn't mean they want it any less.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by katharina: That raises the question of whether putting something lower on the priority list actually means you want it less.
I'm going with yes... but that's just one way of looking at it.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Did you read my first post on this page? How do you respond to it?
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Originally posted by Orincoro:
quote:Originally posted by katharina: That raises the question of whether putting something lower on the priority list actually means you want it less.
I'm going with yes... but that's just one way of looking at it.
I'll be interested in hearing your opinion on that in 20 years.
Speaking from my personal experience, its not true. The correlation between how high something is on my spending priority list and how much I want it is pretty low if you look at it over time. Certainly at any given instant, its fair to say that the things I want most are highest on my priority list. But for me at least, desire is not a conserved quantity.
There have been times in my life where the #1 thing on my spending priority list wasn't something I actually want very much and other times where item #20 on the list was something I wanted badly. The fact that a certain kind of spending was the top of my priority list 20 years ago and is now quite far down is no indication of how much I wanted it now or then.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by katharina: Did you read my first post on this page? How do you respond to it?
I restrained my urge to tell you that pretending to not understand what other people are talking about is not the same thing as arguing. That was going to be my response, since you asked.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
Rabbit, I'm not necessarily saying that the older parents desire is less. I think maybe the best way to put it is that they view the absence of these things as less bad than the younger, childless people.
I don't know that this is just about maturity, although that's definitely part of it. In the remake of The Thomas Crown Affair, Dennis Leary's cop character has a great line about how he doesn't really care about art theft when compared to real crimes like murder, etc. To him, this art stuff is something that silly rich people care about. But, for someone who lives in that world, where murders and such aren't really an issue, art theft is this huge thing.
I see this as a similar situation. When I was in my early 20s, I spent the majority of my non-work time and my money doing what comes down to discretionary activities. I didn't have to worry about things like making mortgage payments, paying for my kids' school and doctor's visits and all that other kid stuff.
It's like, I didn't see the "real" crimes, so I sort of had the luxury of being concerned about the art theft. Something that would have curtailed my discretionary activities would have been a bigger deal then than it is now that I have a lot of those other concerns and especially later, when I start a family, because the discretionary activities made up a much larger part of my life and I didn't have other, more important things to compare them to.
Now, I certainly want to do all those discretionary things I used to do. Honestly, for some of them, I think I want to do them more. But, I'm saving for a house that I can raise a family in and hopefully live in for the next 50 or so years, and that's much more important to me right now.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
I quoted. I am seriously not pretending - you say that young people want money more, and that all those grown up things are a different kind of money. And yet, for both groups, we are talking about a single paycheck, source of money.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
I for one don't appreciate the dismissive attitude shown here for people who choose not to own a home or have children. I don't intend to do these things, and the thing I desire money to spend on the most is time and space to create music. Maybe everyone should be a tad less dismissive of us awful cretins without children.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by katharina: I quoted. I am seriously not pretending - you say that young people want money more, and that all those grown up things are a different kind of money. And yet, for both groups, we are talking about a single paycheck, source of money.
Yeah, you don't have a lot of subtlety. Have someone explain it to you, because you wouldn't like my explanation. It would be condescending and mean.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Often times, older people with houses and children also have spouses on whom they can rely or at least share the burden. If one income is less, sometimes the other makes up for the shortfall.
Single folks are on their own.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
Ori, I think you might do a better job of making your case that this perspective isn't coming mostly from immaturity if your behavior were more mature here.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: Often times, older people with houses and children also have spouses on whom they can rely or at least share the burden. If one income is less, sometimes the other makes up for the shortfall.
Single folks are on their own.
I know in the Catholic school systems, where teacher pay is often pretty darn low, teaching is often considered almost something a couple does, where the other spouse is subsidizing the teacher. I know personally of teachers who have left to teach in the higher paying public school system or left teaching altogether because, as a single person, they weren't earning enough money to really support themselves in any sort of comfort.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
I'm not arguing my perspective doesn't come from immaturity. Nowhere do I attempt such an argument. I don't believe that. Why do you think I do? Did I say something to indicate I thought this? Seriously.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
errr...I don't think you understand what I wrote. You seem to be objecting to people thinking that you believe what you wrote in large part because you lack maturity. I'm saying that, even outside this opinion, your behavior is giving people a lot of reason to believe this.
I guess I'm saying is, if you don't want people to view you as like a "petulant nephew", you might want to try acting more like an adult.
---
edit: I'm not sure. I thought when I went to write this, your post was talking about me thinking that you were arguing your opinion rested on maturity. I may have misread or you may have edited in the interim. With the wording the way it is now, I'm not sure I understand your objections. If you acknowledge that you are being immature, why are you upset when other people point this out?
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
I seem to be objecting to that? Really? Show me where I seem to be objecting to that? Because I'm pretty sure I don't object to that.
I object to being patronized, yes. That has little to do with the money discussion. Don't conflate the sideplay with the rest, please.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky: ... I know in the Catholic school systems, where teacher pay is often pretty darn low, teaching is often considered almost something a couple does ...
Huh. Interesting.
Meanwhile:
quote:Unemployed, non-religious educators are turning to Catholicism in an attempt to secure a coveted teaching position, even it means lying in confession about whether they've had pre-marital sex, some have revealed.
...
The oversupply of qualified, unemployed teachers in Ontario has been a well-documented problem. According to the Ontario College of Teachers, there were about 12,200 new teachers in the province in 2009, but only about 5,000 positions.
“What you can see, fairly quickly, is you have twice as many teachers as you do job opportunities and that has been going on for a number of years now,” said Frank McIntyre, a researcher for the college, who added the gap has been accelerating since 2005.
To me, there is a major disconnect between espousing what you know is an immature perspective and being upset when you are patronized for this. I guess I don't understand what you are expecting from people. Do you want people to take this opinion that you acknowledge comes from your immaturity seriously?
Honestly, I don't really get what the point of arguing from a perspective that you openly admit is invalid is.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky:
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: Often times, older people with houses and children also have spouses on whom they can rely or at least share the burden. If one income is less, sometimes the other makes up for the shortfall.
Single folks are on their own.
I know in the Catholic school systems, where teacher pay is often pretty darn low, teaching is often considered almost something a couple does, where the other spouse is subsidizing the teacher. I know personally of teachers who have left to teach in the higher paying public school system or left teaching altogether because, as a single person, they weren't earning enough money to really support themselves in any sort of comfort.
I was a parochial school librarian for a while. I couldn't afford it for long. This was in 1992 and I was making $500/month. I had to supplement my income with a second job as that didn't cover rent in a studio.
This wasn't such a problem when most of the teachers were religious.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Originally posted by Orincoro: I seem to be objecting to that? Really? Show me where I seem to be objecting to that? Because I'm pretty sure I don't object to that.
Well I said.
quote:I'm sorry if you choose to take offense, but you're posts do indicate that you have a really unrealistic idea of what its like to be in the 30 - 50 age group.
Or in other words -- you are young and immature.
You responded with
quote:I didn't choose to take offense. I took offense. You chose not to apologize. You then chose to insult me further, and to patronize me as if I was your petulant nephew. I choose not to respond to you further. You can choose later to speak civilly to me, and I will take offense if you do not.
It sure seemed to me that you were taking offense at my saying you were immature.
One of the most obvious implications of being immature is that you will eventually become mature and that your behavior and attitudes will change. Its pretty irrational to claim you don't object to being called immature, you just object to being treated like maturation might change the way you think and act.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky: Honestly, I don't really get what the point of arguing from a perspective that you openly admit is invalid is.
To freely admit I lack my full maturity does not mean I concede that anything I have to say is invalid. Difference between immaturity as a pejorative term or not- I'm free to admit I lack experience, but I am equally free to claim that my perspective is a valid one in my eyes, and not one apart from any I could hold. I can only be myself, after all- I don't consider myself an incomplete person for being young. I don't like being treated as if that is automatically the case.
quote: It sure seemed to me that you were taking offense at my saying you were immature.
No, I took offense at being told I was out of touch. I took particular offense at that considering that I scrape every month to make enough money to pay my rent, and can't afford anything I'm talking about in this thread when it comes to leisure activities. That pissed me off. It would piss you off too if you were in my position.
quote: Its pretty irrational to claim you don't object to being called immature, you just object to being treated like maturation might change the way you think and act.
I object, have always objected to, the notion that your age confers upon you an unassailable wisdom in comparison with anyone but yourself, when you yourself were young. For my own part, I have never grown as wise as I believed I would be by the time I was xx years old- at least never in the ways I or anyone else expected. Certainly the patronizing commentary of older family members foretold a future that simply did not come to pass. I object, at the base, to the idea that maturation will make me think the way *you* do. That is the conceit of all condescending "been there, done thats." I have no problem at all arguing from the standpoint of superiority due to specific experience, mind you- that's the kind of thing a person can back up with action. This is not such a case. But how can you show someone that you know more about what they will want in the future? How can you guess how attitudes will change? Why treat a person as if their views, perhaps not set in stone, are therefore "invalid" as it was put? Really it's probably the only area of my life, when it came to judging my expectations against what I was *told* to expect, in which I turned out to be right more often than anyone who ever shared "advice" with me. It's a good thing, I guess- at least I can offer my own high school students the thought that nobody really knows what they want, so they're really a lot more free than they think to follow their own passions. Usually though, they do have somebody in their lives feeding them a crock of utter bullshit.
[ May 17, 2010, 05:54 PM: Message edited by: Orincoro ]
Posted by Jhai (Member # 5633) on :
I think most of the people on this thread define "want" for material things differently than I do. For me, it's true by definition that the things that you want the most are the things that are highest on your spending list. In fact, I'll admit to being somewhat unable to understand the counterfactual that some of you on this thread seem to be espousing. If you want item A more than you want item B, why would you purchase item B instead of item A? Is this a discount rate thing, a passing fancy thing, or something else?
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
Item B might be time-limited while Item A might be deferrable.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
Might *seem* deferrable- that would be debatable depending on what it was.
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
When creating a spending list, do you not have to prioritize via some combination of "want" and "need?"
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
I was answering the question in abstract.
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
quote:Originally posted by Jhai: I think most of the people on this thread define "want" for material things differently than I do. For me, it's true by definition that the things that you want the most are the things that are highest on your spending list. In fact, I'll admit to being somewhat unable to understand the counterfactual that some of you on this thread seem to be espousing. If you want item A more than you want item B, why would you purchase item B instead of item A? Is this a discount rate thing, a passing fancy thing, or something else?
The comparison isn't between how much you want item A and how much you want item B, it's between how much you want item A and how much someone who doesn't need/want item B wants item A. The fact that I now want to pay for my kids' health insurance more than I want a trip to London doesn't mean that I want the the trip to London less than someone who doesn't have kids does.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by Mucus: I was answering the question in abstract.
You might have *seemed* to be answering the question in the abstract. It all depends on how you define "question," and "was" and "I" and "abstract" and "in."
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
?
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
J/k dude. J/k.
Posted by Jhai (Member # 5633) on :
An item is always deferrable only relative to other items. If you get a limited time offer, then you can choose to move it to the top of your want list, or you can choose to ignore the offer in favor of the items you already have at the top, depending on how that limited time offer ranks in your eyes.
Let's say, for instance, our house's A/C needs repairing (true) and Apple has recently come out with a shiny new product, the iPad (also true). With a summer in DC coming on, I want the A/C to work now. And I want an iPad because they're perfect for browsing the net and reading books and they're shiny. Wanting the AC fixed is time-limited to some extent (since you only need it for about four months of the year and when next year rolls around our finances & thus budget constraint will be different).
One of those things might seem to be a luxury good, and the other a necessity, but, really, I need neither one. Fans and hanging out in the basement work just as well as an A/C. In the case of our household, my husband and I decided we'd rather get an iPad than fix the A/C.
There are very, very few things I need - and all of the things I need (food, decent housing, certain medicines, etc) are actually also at the top of my want list - but I rarely think about them as such, since I have no problem fulfilling those wants now, and see no reason (given my consumption-smoothing behaviors via savings) that I'll be unable to fill those desires in the future.
Interpersonal comparisons of wants are always difficult (thus economists prefer to just talk about Pareto Optimal situations, but I'd say that people's life decisions are somewhat informative. I want a life with kids in my life (biological or not), more than I want fancy vacations regularly, so I'm going to plan for the first which will mean (to some extent) giving up the second. If someone makes the decision to not have kids in their life in order to have regular fancy vacations, I think they have a good claim to wanting a trip to London more than I want a trip to London.
Of course, that's assuming that all of these decisions are always up to us, which, of course, they're not. But we can incorporate that somewhat into our considerations by thinking about life events probabilistically. Anyways, a model doesn't have to work 100% of the time for it to be useful.
Generally, I think people talk too much about needing something or other. You almost always don't need that whatever. You just want it. Don't lie to yourself about it.
(In the case of children's health insurance, mortgage, etc, it's almost always a case that you chose to constrain yourself in the past by choosing some want, and the costs are just coming due now. Again, you wanted kids, you wanted to own a house, etc.)
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by Jhai: An item is always deferrable only relative to other items. If you get a limited time offer, then you can choose to move it to the top of your want list, or you can choose to ignore the offer in favor of the items you already have at the top, depending on how that limited time offer ranks in your eyes. ...
Or you could choose to purchase it without changing the order of your want list.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
By definition, if you purchase it, you wanted it more than everything on the list you haven't yet purchased (modulo all relevant variables, including price).
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
I don't use that definition.
Which probably goes back to this:
quote:Originally posted by Jhai: I think most of the people on this thread define "want" for material things differently than I do.
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
quote:Originally posted by Jhai: (In the case of children's health insurance, mortgage, etc, it's almost always a case that you chose to constrain yourself in the past by choosing some want, and the costs are just coming due now. Again, you wanted kids, you wanted to own a house, etc.)
I'm not convinced it's "almost always." For those particular examples, sure. But the person with a congenital illness that requires regular medication only partially covered by insurance didn't choose to have that expense. And the person whose aging mother requires care doesn't necessarily value his or her parents more than the more-free-to-travel person whose parents are still able to live independently. Were the two people's circumstances reversed, their choices might be also.
Posted by Jhai (Member # 5633) on :
quote:Originally posted by dkw:
quote:Originally posted by Jhai: (In the case of children's health insurance, mortgage, etc, it's almost always a case that you chose to constrain yourself in the past by choosing some want, and the costs are just coming due now. Again, you wanted kids, you wanted to own a house, etc.)
I'm not convinced it's "almost always." For those particular examples, sure. But the person with a congenital illness that requires regular medication only partially covered by insurance didn't choose to have that expense. And the person whose aging mother requires care doesn't necessarily value his or her parents more than the more-free-to-travel person whose parents are still able to live independently. Were the two people's circumstances reversed, their choices might be also.
If we're going to drill down to that point of life constraints - things we can't possibly control, because of the life that we were dealt - then we're basically at the point where we're talking about the things that determine our desires and options, not our choices given those desires and options. I'm constrained by my inability to act, which means I can't make it big in Hollywood, which means a whole bunch of choice that I might like to have aren't available to me. My friend has a gene that makes cilantro taste like soap, which means she can't enjoy a wide array of tasty dishes, while I can. I have a genetic disorder which racks up the medical expenses, with or without insurance (but more without, of course), while others don't.
Don't get me wrong; I'm not saying that those sort of things don't matter for quality of life. What I am saying is those sort of things are the given that we act upon when making our choices. "I want medicine because my genetic condition makes me value it highly, and you don't want that medicine, because you don't have that genetic condition" isn't much different than "I want kids because my personality and upbringing make me value them and you don't want kids because your personality and upbringing make you value them less".
For the vast majority of us in developed nations, our choices are incredibly broad, our quality of life is incredibly high, and most of our so called "needs" are actually wants that we've structured our lives around.
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
True, but not relevant. You suggested previous posters were "espousing a counterfactual" by suggesting that they wanted A more than B but purchased B anyway. I pointed out that that was not what people were actually saying. You used that as a springboard into your discussion of needs vs, wants. Which is a fine topic, but a different one than whether desire for recreational spending decreases when one takes on other respnsibilites or is only deferred with no lessening of desire.
Posted by Jhai (Member # 5633) on :
dkw, I was responding to statements like this from The Rabbit:
quote:There have been times in my life where the #1 thing on my spending priority list wasn't something I actually want very much and other times where item #20 on the list was something I wanted badly. The fact that a certain kind of spending was the top of my priority list 20 years ago and is now quite far down is no indication of how much I wanted it now or then.
The idea that where something is on your priority list is not a direct function of how much you want it is false, to my understanding of the word "want". If it's it's at the top of your list, it's what you want most. Whether you're happy about the constraints that led to your wants or not is rather irrelevant to that point. I'd like to not want candy and junk food; nonetheless, I do want it.
Regarding interpersonal comparisons of desires, like I said, there's a reason most economists won't touch that one with a ten foot pole. You say you want a widget really badly, I say I want it more, you disagree, saying you want it more... the argument isn't going to go anywhere. However, like I said, I think that, for most people in developed nations, our choices are open enough that looking at how people prioritize their lives can give you good idea of how highly they rank things, and thus give you insight into how badly they want something. I have a coworker who tells me how badly she wants to get in shape, but doesn't do anything about it, ever, other than talk. I don't think it's wrong of me to assume this first coworker wants to get in shape less than the one who has reprioritized his life since January in order to go to the gym five days a week before work. Actions speak louder than words, as they say.
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
Fortunately there are still people around who enjoy the sorts of conversations that economists won't touch with a ten-foot pole.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Originally posted by dkw: [QUOTE]Originally posted by Jhai: [qb] The comparison isn't between how much you want item A and how much you want item B, it's between how much you want item A and how much someone who doesn't need/want item B wants item A.
Almost but not quite. The comparison is between how much a particular individual wants item A and item B now and how much that same individual would want item A under circumstances in which that same person would have a greater desire for B.
Let me use Jhai's air conditioning vs iPad example. Imagine that circumstances were different. Perhaps Jhai was working out of a home office, or had an elderly parent living with her. Those circumstances would likely make fixing the air conditioning a higher priority but those things wouldn't likely affect how much you wanted the iPad.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Rabbit: economists don't work with absolute want, only relative want. There are good reasons for this, notably that absolute want is a metaphysical expression (possibly approximated by psychological indicators across time, but our ability to measure the brain is horrible), while relative want is possible to measure (at least in pairwise signs, and often in more detail) in the real world.
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
quote:Originally posted by fugu13: Rabbit: economists don't work with absolute want, only relative want.
And again I express how glad I am that conversation at Hatrack is not limited to topics that economists will work with.
I am much more interested in the conversation Rabbit is offering about whether the desire for "hedonistic pleasures" decreases when one takes on other responsibilities or is merely deferred with no decrease in desire than I am in discussing whether someone who works out wants to lose weight more than someone who pigs out. If that relegates me to the metaphysical conversation ghetto, so be it.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
I'm with Dana on this one.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
That is definitely an interesting discussion. However, for the purposes of talking about the practical impact of teacher pay on decision making, I suspect the economic conceptualization of want is more useful.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Originally posted by fugu13: Rabbit: economists don't work with absolute want, only relative want. There are good reasons for this, notably that absolute want is a metaphysical expression (possibly approximated by psychological indicators across time, but our ability to measure the brain is horrible), while relative want is possible to measure (at least in pairwise signs, and often in more detail) in the real world.
Pffffff!!. We aren't talking about economic theory here, we are talking about people and life satisfaction. Want is a fundamentally subjective thing so its not at all surprising that you can't find an objective measure of it. That, however, doesn't make it unimportant or uninteresting, in fact quite the opposite.
Posted by Jhai (Member # 5633) on :
But it does make it difficult to discuss about in a manner that will convince other people of your opinions.
I simply don't agree that wants stay at the same levels when circumstances change. My mental states don't reflect that, and from all of the psychology I've studied, I believe mental states to be extremely malleable by both individuals themselves and society/outside influences.
Even if your mental state of wanting something stayed the same, I don't see why that should be relevant to any sort of social policy. So you (general you) happen to want an iPad exactly as much whether you have a "strong want" to fix the A/C or a "small want" to fix the A/C. So what? Maybe you're just a very wanting type of person (which most happiness research suggests is a bad thing). Interpersonal comparisons of utility just aren't that interesting for social policy - as I think Sen has demonstrated quite well in his semi-philosophy/semi-economics writings.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by Jhai: I don't see why that should be relevant to any sort of social policy.
I don't see that anyone has suggested that it should.
Posted by Jhai (Member # 5633) on :
I believe in the context of the greater discussion of teacher pay and whether bright young people are unwilling to get into lower-paying jobs because they want higher incomes or not, we're talking about social policy (i.e. should teachers be given higher pay, possibly through incentive bonuses).
If you guys just want to argue that you're right and Orinico is wrong, that's cool, but that seems like an immensely boring discussion, given that we all only have our own mental states and experiences to refer to. Like I said above, it defaults to a "I'm right, you're wrong. No, I'm right and you're wrong" discussion very quickly. Carry on if you want, however.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Rabbit: we can measure the fundamentally subjective question of relative want remarkably well. There's nothing surprising about being able to objectively measure fundamentally subjective things, so long as the domain has certain properties (notably, that the things to be measured manifest directly and falsifiably in behavior).
The notion of absolute want (and whether or not it "really exists", insofar as that statement makes any sense) certainly is an interesting question to tackle. It will never, however, be particularly relevant to whether or not teachers choose to enter teaching or not. Whatever someone's absolute want, entering teaching comes down to a relative choice between Teaching + teacher's salary (and the constraints associated with it) and the next best option (current job, likely) + the constraints associated with it. That's a question of relative want.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Rabbit: we can measure the fundamentally subjective question of relative want remarkably well.
Only because of the way you have defined want. Its very dangerous to define something so that you can measure.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Not when you also have a strong theoretical framework that addresses why that definition is useful for understanding collective human behavior.
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
I would say it's necessary to define terms so that you can measure them. It's dangerous to assume that your term so defined encompasses the entire meaning of the word.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by Jhai: I believe in the context of the greater discussion of teacher pay and whether bright young people are unwilling to get into lower-paying jobs because they want higher incomes or not, we're talking about social policy (i.e. should teachers be given higher pay, possibly through incentive bonuses).
True. But no one (that I can see) has suggested that said policy changes should be related to the way those teachers choose to spend their money. That was a side discussion.
Posted by Jhai (Member # 5633) on :
And I was connecting the main discussion to the side discussion, as well as disagreeing with the concept of "want" that I saw being used. Or am I not allowed to do that?
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
You're allowed, but it sounded immensely boring Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by Jhai: Or am I not allowed to do that?
Of course.
I don't see the point of trying to connect the two discussions back like that, but hey, go for it.
Posted by Jhai (Member # 5633) on :
Excellent. Shall we see how many distinct discussions we can get going on this thread? I believe the most I've ever seen at Hatrack was four.
Posted by Paul Goldner (Member # 1910) on :
Sure. Here's another side discussion:
My earlier mention of 60% of MA teachers burning out in two years, to be corrected by (Destineer? Too lazy to go back and check right now) is a good anecdotal example of the idea that the first claim you hear is the one you accept as true, even if its false. I heard the 60% number about 8 years ago, and have had it corrected 3-4 times since then, and STILL site that number unless I bother to go look up the true burnout rate.
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)