School not getting results? Fire everybody!

[LucyDuke]

This is where I was expecting TFA to show up.

Central Falls is, without question, the cruddiest town in the state.

I'd go so far as to say it's the cruddiest place in the state. I can't think of anywhere in Providence that I'd rather be than Central Falls.

These teachers are just showing their true colors - they dont give a flying F about the kids - it's nothing but my salary that's important.

Dude, nobody gives a flying anything about these kids.

 

[downtown]

This is where I was expecting TFA to show up.

I'll have to double check the article again, but I don't think TFA is going to this school. They are bringing a very small corps to Rhode Island...I think they are working in less than 5 schools next year.

 

[Camikaze]

Neither is $75K for a schoolteacher job, especially when the salary of the surrounding town averages to... what was it, $22K?

No, that is totally fair. It's ridiculous to judge what a salary should be based on what the average income of the area is. Let's say you were a teacher with a choice of working in an African village where the average annual income is $100, and a high-flying suburb in America where the average annual income is $150k. Should you get paid $100 a year for working in the first and $150k a year for working in the second? Which is likely to be the more cushy job?

Seriously, this thread just goes to show how undervalued teachers are.

So $70,000 salaries for 9 months of work (not counting their weeks vacations they get for spring break, winter break, and any of the other random break weeks),$3,000 plus for two weeks of summer training and additional 90 minutes a week, $30 bucks an hour for some other (what, it was no mentioned) after school activities is not reasonable?

Their salary is reasonable, although not a true reflection of their actual worth (so they are being underpaid), although the expectations that they work overtime hours at what is virtually half their normal rate, not the overtime rate that you would expect and receive in a lot of occupations.

I'm willing to be that 70K doesn't include benefits. Man, having to work an extra two hours a week and eating lunch with the children once a week while only pulling in a six figure salary is ROBBERY.

No, I think eating lunch with them is reasonable, and there's no evidence to suggest that they said no to that. All we know is that they said no to the six demands in their entirety, not whether or not they were willing to accept any of the individual demands.

Piss on these teachers. I know teachers that get paid nothing close to what these hacks are being paid that go the extra mile for their children because they care. These teachers are just showing their true colors - they dont give a flying F about the kids - it's nothing but my salary that's important.

I'm sure most of these teachers do care about the kids. Even with a salary of $78k, you'd have to care to work in a school like that. But just because they care doesn't mean society should expect them to do whatever we ask in the name of 'think of the children', for what amounts to low extra pay. That would be exploitation.

 

[luiz]

@downtown and Camikaze:

We're not talking about highly efficient workers who are highly paid because they get good results. No, we're talking about crappy teachers who fail to achieve the most basic standards, receive a huge salary for their bad work and yet refuse to comply with very basic demands. They should work more hours for free.

This case is a perfect example of justice being done. They deserve to be fired, and I bet a bunch of rookies with half that salary will do a better job. Teaching young kids is frequently more about motivation and simply caring than any sophisticated stuff. Those teachers obviouly do not care at all about the kids, they deserve the street.

 

[Camikaze]

It's the students who aren't achieving the most basic standards. You cannot infer from that that it is the teachers' fault. It is much, much more likely that it is a lack of teaching resources compounding the difficult situation that the teachers find themselves in. If teachers are having to work in environments in which they have inadequate resources to fulfil their job, then it's hardly their fault if students do not perform at a reasonable standard. And again, of course their are crappy teachers in the mix, but firing all the teachers is a drastic knee jerk attempt at a solution to a problem, that will only in itself make the problem worse, with lower quality staff likely to be hired, due to lower salaries being offered, and experience being thrown away.

And the teachers can't have been doing all that bad if they managed to get a 21% improvement in reading scores over the last few years in such a situation, could they?

 

[luiz]

It's the students who aren't achieving the most basic standards. You cannot infer from that that it is the teachers' fault. It is much, much more likely that it is a lack of teaching resources compounding the difficult situation that the teachers find themselves in. If teachers are having to work in environments in which they have inadequate resources to fulfil their job, then it's hardly their fault if students do not perform at a reasonable standard. And again, of course their are crappy teachers in the mix, but firing all the teachers is a drastic knee jerk attempt at a solution to a problem, that will only in itself make the problem worse, with lower quality staff likely to be hired, due to lower salaries being offered, and experience being thrown away.

And the teachers can't have been doing all that bad if they managed to get a 21% improvement in reading scores over the last few years in such a situation, could they?

21% in the last few years, given such a pathetic starting point, is a pretty low achievement.
Not to mention the 3% increase in math score. The simple fact that the union leader mentioned such thing is proof that he had nothing concrete to show. 3% = random fluctuation.

As for all that talk a bad environment and lack of resources: sure, that makes things more difficult. It would be much easier to teach a bunch of rich kids in a nice suburban school. But the bad environment is no excuse for their horrible results. I think americans tend to greatly exagerate the challenge posed by those "ghetto" students. US ghettos are like Disneyland compared to Brazilian ghettos, and while most of our schools in those areas are indeed worse than their american counterparts, fact is there are also some remarkable success stories (specially in the military-run schools). And to achieve that success we did not have to pay over 70k a year to teachers (more like 15-20k), nor did they have access to any fancy resource. It is a matter of teachers being commited to improvement and willing to impose discipline.

 

[downtown]

@downtown and Camikaze:
Teaching young kids is frequently more about motivation and simply caring than any sophisticated stuff.

I'm sorry, but that is completely bullcrap.

Teaching urban, high-needs kids isn't just about caring. You can't will yourself into cheesy made for tv movie results. Its a profession with a steep learning curve that even highly talented rookies struggle with.

This is my life. I teach in a school very similar to Central Falls, demographically and in terms of student achievement. Our state fired a lot of the more experienced teachers to bring in cheaper, "hot shot" newcomers. I come from a better university program than most of my peers, I have a *way* higher score on the national teacher certification test, etc...and I am getting eaten alive. Hundreds of my peers are.

After 3 years 50% of all teachers who work in poor, urban schools quit, even though they are usually paid more than their suburban peers. If you just track those with under 5 years experience, that rate is even higher. They quit because they are ineffective, and emotionally and professionally beat down. Everybody cares at the start.

If you want to talk about not caring, the administration (which deserves some of the blame for these results) showed how little they care by punting an entire school year. Students typically test their end of year standardized tests in March and April. Firing everybody this late in the year completely ruins their chance at achieving anything this year. If they wanted wholesale staff changes, it should have happened after testing, and incrementally (i.e they should have just fired the worst half or third at first).

Also, if they raised reading scores over 20%, then they aren't failing teachers at all! That is a very good value-added jump.

 

[luiz]

I'm sorry, but that is completely bullcrap.

Teaching urban, high-needs kids isn't just about caring. You can't will yourself into cheesy made for tv movie results. Its a profession with a steep learning curve that even highly talented rookies struggle with.

This is my life. I teach in a school very similar to Central Falls, demographically and in terms of student achievement. Our state fired a lot of the more experienced teachers to bring in cheaper, "hot shot" newcomers. I come from a better university program than most of my peers, I have a *way* higher score on the national teacher certification test, etc...and I am getting eaten alive. Hundreds of my peers are.

After 3 years 50% of all teachers who work in poor, urban schools quit, even though they are usually paid more than their suburban peers. If you just track those with under 5 years experience, that rate is even higher. They quit because they are ineffective, and emotionally and professionally beat down. Everybody cares at the start.

If you want to talk about not caring, the administration (which deserves some of the blame for these results) showed how little they care by punting an entire school year. Students typically test their end of year standardized tests in March and April. Firing everybody this late in the year completely ruins their chance at achieving anything this year. If they wanted wholesale staff changes, it should have happened after testing, and incrementally (i.e they should have just fired the worst half or third at first).

Also, if they raised reading scores over 20%, then they aren't failing teachers at all! That is a very good value-added jump.

To which I reply:

As for all that talk a bad environment and lack of resources: sure, that makes things more difficult. It would be much easier to teach a bunch of rich kids in a nice suburban school. But the bad environment is no excuse for their horrible results. I think americans tend to greatly exagerate the challenge posed by those "ghetto" students. US ghettos are like Disneyland compared to Brazilian ghettos, and while most of our schools in those areas are indeed worse than their american counterparts, fact is there are also some remarkable success stories (specially in the military-run schools). And to achieve that success we did not have to pay over 70k a year to teachers (more like 15-20k), nor did they have access to any fancy resource. It is a matter of teachers being commited to improvement and willing to impose discipline.

It's certainly not easy, DT, but it's not the end of the world. High-need american students are still quite priviliged and tamed, on the grand scheme of things, and much more challenging situations have been solved with far less resources. Don't over-dramatize.

I am not talking about "hot-shot" rookies, I am talking about people who care and who are ready to impose discipline.

 

[downtown]

I'm not dramatizing. Where do you propose we find these people at "half the cost"? Half-the-cost means bringing in teachers with less than 2 years experience, and data says that those teachers are highly likely to quit teaching all together in less than 3 years. Nobody who is good stays at a difficult school unless they are paid a lot of money, and that isn't even a guarantee. People burn out.

 

[luiz]

I'm not dramatizing. Where do you propose we find these people at "half the cost"? Half-the-cost means bringing in teachers with less than 2 years experience, and data says that those teachers are highly likely to quit teaching all together in less than 3 years. Nobody who is good stays at a difficult school unless they are paid a lot of money, and that isn't even a guarantee. People burn out.

Half the cost was a figure of speech (though 39k USD a year does not seem unreasonable at all...). My point was rather that those teachers are quite overpaid, and that overypaying teachers is no way of achieving good results (just look at the school in question!). I also argued that while teaching under-priviliged kids can be quite challenging, it is by no means something ground-breaking or unheard of. It has been done, succesfully, in far worse situations with just a fraction of the resources.

 

[Earthling]

This case is a perfect example of justice being done. They deserve to be fired, and I bet a bunch of rookies with half that salary will do a better job. Teaching young kids is frequently more about motivation and simply caring than any sophisticated stuff. Those teachers obviouly do not care at all about the kids, they deserve the street.

This is what you get when you aim for low reading comprehension, and/or avoid the OP and simply try to ridicule other posters.

What you'll find, is that your basic facts are dead wrong. These teachers are not teaching young children. They are teaching high schoolers. Which in the first place means they have to work with students who have had 8, 9, more years of failed education putting them behind before these teachers could do anything about it. And, with regards to pay/experience/etc... the high schools may tend to pay more/require more qualifications of the teachers - in short adding up to them not being grossly overpaid; not really being overpaid at all. I doubt this move will result in improved education anytime soon just by bringing in completely new teachers.

Also, just in general...six figures of salary/benefits is not unreasonable for good teachers, particularly in secondary education. I mean, a master's degree being required in many places with the trend further down those lines, throw in 10 years experience, and any other field makes much more than teaching... it takes dedication to teach, even if you're teaching someplace where the pay is still solid. Expecting quality teachers for 40k a year in the United States is a completely ignorant view - if you're going to reform schools and get good teachers with degrees and experience, you have to pay them something.

 

[luiz]

What you'll find, is that your basic facts are dead wrong. These teachers are not teaching young children. They are teaching high schoolers. Which in the first place means they have to work with students who have had 8, 9, more years of failed education putting them behind before these teachers could do anything about it. And, with regards to pay/experience/etc... the high schools may tend to pay more/require more qualifications of the teachers - in short adding up to them not being grossly overpaid; not really being overpaid at all. I doubt this move will result in improved education anytime soon just by bringing in completely new teachers.

First, take your phony indignation elsewhere.

Basically the only fact which you claim I got wrong was in labeling them young kids... OK, they're just not particularly young kids. Maybe you're a highschooler yourself, so you may think highschoolers are old and sophisticated, but they're kids, and teaching them is not rocket science.

And they are still ridiculously overpaid. Either you failed your reading comprehension or you're just ignoring facts that contradict your opinion, but if you read the thread you'll note that their salaries are much above the category average.

Also, just in general...six figures of salary/benefits is not unreasonable for good teachers, particularly in secondary education. I mean, a master's degree being required in many places with the trend further down those lines, throw in 10 years experience, and any other field makes much more than teaching... it takes dedication to teach, even if you're teaching someplace where the pay is still solid. Expecting quality teachers for 40k a year in the United States is a completely ignorant view - if you're going to reform schools and get good teachers with degrees and experience, you have to pay them something.

They're not good teachers, they're bad teachers who don't give a damn (as demonstrated by they refusing to work very few extra hours for a a very reasonable pay).

78k USD is a lot of money for schoolteachers, specially in such a poor area where living costs probably aren't that high. Period.

Go take your outrage elsewhere. We're talking of rich, greedy and lazy teachers who just don't care.

 

[Mise]

Luiz, you can't say that they are bad teachers who don't give a damn, because you have no idea what kind of teachers they are... Just cos you read an article doesn't mean you're an expert now...

 

[luiz]

Luiz, you can't say that they are bad teachers who don't give a damn, because you have no idea what kind of teachers they are... Just cos you read an article doesn't mean you're an expert now...

Of course not. And to be sure, I bet there are some good and hard-working teachers among them. Too bad collective bargaining screwed them all together.

The reason I say they don't give a damn is their refusal to do a little extra effort, in a place that obviously need much extra effort, for a very adequate compensation (30 bucks an hour). They're demanding 90, which is outrageous and basically says "screw the kids".

For further comparisson, the following table was brought to my attenction:
http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/edu_pri_tea_sal_sta-education-primary-teacher-salary-starting

There we can find the basic starting salary for schoolteachers in some OECD coutries. The US average is 25.7k USD (and they are among the best payers; the OECD weigted average is barely above 20k). Now I know that is just the starting salary, but it still puts things in perspective: 78 is much more than 25.

For what they make they should really work extra hours for free until things are turned around.

 

[Little Raven]

Does talent follow money or not?

Banks argue that it does...that you simply can't get good results without good people, and that you can't get good people without paying them hundreds of millions of dollars. But if we can find great teachers for $39k, then perhaps money is not so important after all.

 

[Mise]

Of course not. And to be sure, I bet there are some good and hard-working teachers among them. Too bad collective bargaining screwed them all together.

The reason I say they don't give a damn is their refusal to do a little extra effort, in a place that obviously need much extra effort, for a very adequate compensation (30 bucks an hour). They're demanding 90, which is outrageous and basically says "screw the kids".

For further comparisson, the following table was brought to my attenction:
http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/edu_pri_tea_sal_sta-education-primary-teacher-salary-starting

There we can find the basic starting salary for schoolteachers in some OECD coutries. The US average is 25.7k USD (and they are among the best payers; the OECD weigted average is barely above 20k). Now I know that is just the starting salary, but it still puts things in perspective: 78 is much more than 25.

For what they make they should really work extra hours for free until things are turned around.

I'm not objecting to that part of your argument, I'm objecting to "They're not good teachers, they're bad teachers who don't give a damn" and "We're talking of rich, greedy and lazy teachers who just don't care." You have no idea how hard they work, or whether they are good teachers or not.

The comparison with bankers' bonuses is looking increasingly more apt, especially when the same vitriolic language used against bankers earning $10m in bonuses is used against teachers on $70k.

 

[luiz]

I'm not objecting to that part of your argument, I'm objecting to "They're not good teachers, they're bad teachers who don't give a damn" and "We're talking of rich, greedy and lazy teachers who just don't care." You have no idea how hard they work, or whether they are good teachers or not.

The comparison with bankers' bonuses is looking increasingly more apt, especially when the same vitriolic language used against bankers earning $10m in bonuses is used against teachers on $70k.

The bank's CEO/President of the Council of Stockholders has every right to fire whatever banker they feel is not worth their pay.

This is a silly comparisson and I basically see zero connections. The main part of my argument is the below:

"The reason I say they don't give a damn is their refusal to do a little extra effort, in a place that obviously need much extra effort, for a very adequate compensation (30 bucks an hour). They're demanding 90, which is outrageous and basically says "screw the kids".

 

[downtown]

First, here are two more in-depth articles that shed some more light on the situation
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dy...2/24/AR2010022402092.html?wprss=rss_education

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/25/education/25central.html
(The NYT, for all its faults, does a very good job on the ed beat)

Important Notes: Even the Super openly acknowledges that some teachers in the building were "excellent". To me, it is highly problematic that he couldn't distinguish between the two when firing staff.

Sec.Duncan approves the measure, and is generally seen to be a super hardass when it comes to accountability/test scores. His philosophy is actually much more in line with the Bush whitehouse on education.

70% of the students in the school are hispanic, and it serves a very high ESL population. It has been terrible for two decades (the state took it over in 1991!)

Again, I think we need to get over ourselves with the screw the kids line. Nobody here has the interests of the students at heart.

 

[Cutlass]

Does talent follow money or not?

Banks argue that it does...that you simply can't get good results without good people, and that you can't get good people without paying them hundreds of millions of dollars. But if we can find great teachers for $39k, then perhaps money is not so important after all.

That, of course, is one of the better ironies in modern political debate: "Let the market decide" is for how much the bosses and manipulators earn. And "they're overpaid and should be forced to settle for less than what they can get in the market" is for anyone in the public sector or a union.

 

[LucyDuke]

I'll have to double check the article again, but I don't think TFA is going to this school. They are bringing a very small corps to Rhode Island...I think they are working in less than 5 schools next year.

Yeah, they aren't. But when I first heard, I think you mentioned it actually, that they were coming to RI, I thought "why? We don't have any... oh yeah, Central Falls."

Teach for America will send 20 first-year teachers to Providence schools and another 10 to a regional charter school, Democracy Prep Blackstone Valley.

http://www.projo.com/education/content/teach_for_america_1_02-01-10_41H8LBS_v109.38ac3c3.html

The comments on that article and this one are incredibly harsh.

It's certainly not easy, DT, but it's not the end of the world. High-need american students are still quite priviliged and tamed, on the grand scheme of things, and much more challenging situations have been solved with far less resources. Don't over-dramatize.

Why don't you tell everyone about your extensive experience with "high-need American students"?

Nobody here has the interests of the students at heart.

This is even truer than I think you mean. We're not just talking about teachers or administrators. I can't say for sure exactly how many, but in at least some of these cases, you're not going to find even parents that care. You might not find grandparents, or aunts or uncles, or anyone that has stepped up when parents couldn't or wouldn't parent. I'm sure it's not worse than any other American ghetto, but it can't be very much better.