There are good teachers but I'm sure because of the unionized work environment, not more than half (already being very optimistic) will be truly dedicated and concerned with helping students develop the life skills / knowledge they will need as adults later on in life.
There was a substitute teacher for my daughter when she was in Grade 5/6 who said her assignment on angles was 100% incorrect. I helped my daughter and if our degrees were off, they would be 1-2 at most. Think about if this substitute teacher was able to secure a permanent job -- all is done for.
There should not be tenure and like most other non-government jobs, let performance speak for itself. So long as things are documented, even an entire class of students out to get a good teacher fired will not succeed. I know reviews can be biased downward especially when children would rather play outside or surf the web, but still the teacher's homework / lectures /handouts should be able to speak to the quality of his/her teaching.
Apr 30th, 2013 11:43 AM #31
- Join Date
- Apr 22nd, 2004
Last edited by alanbrenton; Apr 30th, 2013 at 11:49 AM.
Apr 30th, 2013 12:04 PM #32
- Join Date
- Jun 13th, 2009
From an objective standpoint, children develop differently; they appreciate discipline differently; they appreciate education differently. Truthfully speaking, you cannot expect children to go to school to become educated in the same way and at the same time - they have to want to be at school for that purpose, at their own (individual) will. Just reflect on yourself in any class throughout grade school to highschool.
This is where people argue the need for good teachers comes into play. However, if you pay a teacher 50k, 75k, or even 100k, the quality of the education received will (on the whole) remain constant. Why? Considering the long-standing debate stands at intelligence = 50% genetic and 50% environment, the environment teachers work in has a greater influence on children than the actual teacher.
Specifically, the size of classrooms dictates the amount of 1:1 attention a child can receive. No amount of money paid to a teacher can ensure an equal allotted amount of time will be speant on every child. Classroom sizes are the primary variable behind children developing a real interest in education vs. extracurricular activities. The bigger the audience = the bigger the distraction (A rise in ADD). Arguably, teachers do their best to control the audience. However, demanding more money to provide a better service is outrageous (thus, paying over $60k is outrageous,given the presistant debate of how much is too much).
So, you need to really assess whether society is addressing the core of the problem here:
- Pay teachers $50-$100k in wages TO teach better
- Fix pay and focus on ensuring the resources/tools teachers have to do their job is at a level that builds on the dominant side of the 50% TO accelerate a child's genuine (will) interest in learning.
You decide. My opinion? Kill the union, pay em all $65k and use the differential to fund new schools, current resources, etc. AND every 2 years teachers must be examined to determine whether they "can" teach in the environment new technology creates. Unfortunately, this rational dances with logic and will never fly in an illogical and inefficient system.
Last edited by citizen22; Apr 30th, 2013 at 02:09 PM._______________
Physicists are made of atoms. A physicist is an attempt by an atom to understand itself.