Get Schooled

By Jeff

September 10, 2008 8:24 AM | Link to this

Back when I was teaching, the big thing - I’m assuming it still is - was ‘best practices’. Now, personally, I feel it is a bunch of BS, but the educational establishment accepts it and endorses it and therefore I use it as the basis of my argument here:

‘Best practices’ basically means look around at what others are doing and copy it if they are doing well.

Looking around back when I was looking for a teaching job, there were MANY states that had hiring bonuses for math and science teachers. Or, even if they weren’t officially endorsed at the state level, the local system still had the authority to use them if they so desired.

Now, an example that I personally experienced:

I was 22 and single. I had 3 interviews lined up one week: 1 in a county along the GA coast, 1 in a county in the middle of NOWHERE south of I-20, north of I-16, east of I-75 and west of the SC line, and the third interview was in Volusia County, FL (Daytona Beach).

Now, the two GA counties obviously had the same pay scale, and since both were small communities the local supplement was essentially the same - maybe off by a hundred bucks or so either direction.

Volusia County, however, was waving $5K one time signing bonus at me to come down there.

My priorities thus became: Daytona, GA Coast, East GA. Multiple factors, but the signing bonus PLUS the fact that we were talking DAYTONA BEACH most definetly tilted the scales - again, remembering that I was a 22yo single male. Mentioning that to make the point that at another point in life - say, now - Daytona would have been nice, but the signing bonus would have been an even BIGGER factor.

Old School may be able to tell us if the FL signing bonuses make it harder for her area in particular (along the FL border) to attract new teachers. Note, however, that I believe SC also allows them, and we share a MUCH longer border with them…

So my main point: I don’t think we have a choice. If we want to compete nationally for the best teachers and not rely just on our own in-state colleges of education, we MUST have these bonuses.

By Jeff

September 10, 2008 8:28 AM | Link to this

AILEEN:

Just a note: Don’t kid yourself. The teacher GIVES your kid NOTHING - good or bad. Your child EARNS what they get - good or bad.

By Tony

September 10, 2008 9:04 AM | Link to this

Yes. If we are to be competitive then we must pay on differentiated scales. Businesses do it, colleges do it, and so should schools.

The nay sayers (mostly union folk) will talk about how all teachers deserve a pay raise, and they do. But, to attract and retain better teachers in the sciences and mathematics, we must be more competitive with our pay. This is how supply and demand works.

By lyncoln

September 10, 2008 9:08 AM | Link to this

My gut reaction is the basic concept of supply and demand. If you desire a larger supply of qualified workers, you have to offer something more to attract more workers. Money is a fundamental part of compensation for a job, so offering more money should increase the pool of applicants. Other types of compensation could be offered if money isn’t available, but as the song goes “money makes the world go around”.

By Dee

September 10, 2008 9:10 AM | Link to this

You have to much time on your hands. You need to start working on teaching responsibility to your daughter at home. Please leave teachers’ salaries to the guys in charge. You need to brush up on taking responsibility for your daughters’ act- ions also.You are beginning to sound like you a nagging busybody. Enjoy your busy day!

By high school teacher

September 10, 2008 9:14 AM | Link to this

Tony, I am not union folk but am a nay-sayer. Advanced degrees in math and science do make a good teacher. Having supreme knowledge of a subject does not equate to having ability to teach said subject. I have said this before on this blog, but the worst teacher I have ever encountered was a Calc major from Ga Tech. He could not relate to the kids and had no classroom management. His class was a zoo, and we was invited not to return to education at the end of the year. I would hate to think that he would have received more pay than I simply because he had a degree in math.

By Who's on First

September 10, 2008 9:23 AM | Link to this

Jeff

So, teachers don’t matter - why not just bring in those people on the street corners with the sign, “Work for Food” to cover classes.

high school teachers

Don’t kid yourself. I’m sure you know that colleges and universities are filled with all those expert teachers… NOT!!!

By just a teacher

September 10, 2008 9:33 AM | Link to this

This again? Really? Sigh.

Short answer: it’s a superficial solution to a deeply-rooted, systemic problem. The teaching profession needs thoughtful re-examination from within, not a targeted cash infusion from misguided policymakers.

By jim d

September 10, 2008 9:40 AM | Link to this

Tony,

I guess I’m one of your naysayers that think all teachers deserve a bit more. I do not however believe they all deserve the same. I would have no problem with weighting math and science teachers salaries heavier than say a Language arts, foriegn languages or many elective teachers salary, provided they held advanced degrees. I would in conjunction with that hope we’d watch closely and rid ourselves quickly of those math and science teachers unable to actually teach.

By Jeff

September 10, 2008 9:44 AM | Link to this

WoF:

Quite frankly, English/Social Studies/Elementary teachers are UNDER a dime a dozen now, probably down to a nickel or even a penny a dozen. For the exact reason that those skills don’t as readily transfer outside of academia as math/science/foreign language/computer tech.

If you want to retain those teachers who would leave to persue a higher paying job, you MUST raise the salary in those areas somehow, and signing bonuses/ higher overall pay structure is the way to do that.

By Why

September 10, 2008 9:50 AM | Link to this

Why does everybody think teachers deserve a pay raise? Is it a difficult profession? More difficult than construction work? Does it require more drive, skills, aptitude, etc? Why is it?

By Janine

September 10, 2008 9:51 AM | Link to this

Three reactions: [1]I agree that supply and demand necessitates differentiated pay, BUT only for those with degrees in the subject area, NOT, for example, those with Middle School ed. degrees with emphasis in math and science!!! [2] Differentiated pay should also be extended to READING teachers ,because in my experience, a big part of the reason that students have difficulty with math AND science:THEY CANNOT READ!!! [2] Special Ed. is another field in which there is a shortage. Enough said

By high school teacher

September 10, 2008 9:59 AM | Link to this

Wow, Jeff, I guess we are under a dime a dozen, and we are lousy at that. The proper spelling is “pursue.”

By retired

September 10, 2008 10:11 AM | Link to this

Pay raises are essential for growth and success in any occupation. The teachers that are productive and experts far out weigh the not-so-great teachers. Apply the same thought to doctors, lawyers and other professions. Each of these professions make about the same, so why all the flapping about who should or should not get more. Historically, any raises the education profession gets does not cover the increase in insurances and cost of living.

By Teach4GA

September 10, 2008 10:14 AM | Link to this

Dear Why.

Let’s me answer your questions as honestly as I can. First, you don’t need a degree or certificate to become a construction worker. Does teaching require more drive, skills or aptitude? Hmmm….the amount of skill required to get 150 kids on varying levels to understand a subject requires complete knowledge of the subject, an ability to convey the information in a way in which all students can “get it”. Imagine, you have 30 kids, 3 are gifted, 4 are special education with different exceptionalities and 23 are in the middle (although many of them are advanced learners or below level). How would you go about teaching this diverse group in 60 minutes and ensure that everyone understands? Now you can and will take additional classes throughout the school year to “help” if you teach certain subjects. The rest of the teachers are on their own.

I have 14 years of teaching experience. I’ve worked in public and private schools teaching grades K-12 and on the college level. I can assure you that my years of teaching coupled with my degrees would be worth a lot more in corporate America. I ask, how much does a supervisor of 150 make in your place of business? I can assure you it’s well over the $50,000 dollar range. I’m sure he/she earns a six figure salary with regular bonuses and other perks. My perks come from within. When I see a students eyes light up because they got it and the pride that comes from accomplishment is my only perk. And I’m perfectly okay with that. And before you begin the argument of summers off, let me remind you that I get paid for 190 days a year. That’s it. I always work during the summer because I need to pay off of those student loans. I’ll bet your company has some sort of college reimbursement program. Teachers must pay to go back to school.

I hope I answered your question.

The teacher unions will prevent teachers from receiving fair pay. I don’t belong to one, but I am all for differentiated pay. I’m also for vouchers.

By Tom

September 10, 2008 10:21 AM | Link to this

How about teachers of foreign languages? Teaching a child a foreign language early improves job prospects, and gets us away from having a generation of kids who only speak English. Maybe we could take an example fro Europe at this point since we live in a shrinking world.

By jim d

September 10, 2008 10:21 AM | Link to this

Why?

well here’s a few clues.

The top five differences cited between private industry and public education.

But this is just the tip of the iceberg….

Check out these disparities:

Source

By mystery poster

September 10, 2008 10:27 AM | Link to this

I am a math teacher, so of course my first impulse is that we deserve more pay (who doesn’t want more pay?)

However, I must say that every English teacher I know spends a lot more time outside the classroom. Grading all those papers takes an incredible amount of time.

By jim d

September 10, 2008 10:31 AM | Link to this

Why,

After reading some of these stats I’ve concluded perhaps mo-money won’t help.

Perhaps eliminating NCLB and giving classroom control back to teachers would be of greater value in recruitting and retaining educators in these areas of academia.

By mad_russian

September 10, 2008 10:58 AM | Link to this

As a current science teacher, it’s plain and simple. First, simple respect for what we do. No offense, but about 90% of the population lacks the simple ability to teach. Teaching is like being a doctor, you can’t just have any person come in to fill the role. Second, provide us with the capital necessary to run hands-on science lessons. The lack of equipment (I personally have mirror-based microscopes built in West Germany that I have to use) for activities makes it so difficult to teach concepts to our students. Third, positive promotion of collaboration between teachers and the public, not the standard point-and-blame scenario. Let the teachers make the decisions about educational reform, not the politicians. Most of them are extremely uninformed about what needs to change in education. I get paid very well for what I do (maybe I’m not high maintenance) so paying more isn’t always the answer. I know people who work in jobs that pay less than $30000/year and they are very happy because they are respected. It’s always about money. How much more superficial can America become?

One more note, By Why obviously has little respect for the teaching profession. You think you can teach, yeah right. I’ll pay you $1000 out of my own pocket if you last even a month in the classroom. Why don’t you go into a couple of schools and see how much work must be done. Lesson planning, preparation of the lesson, and finally, the most difficult part that many teachers still haven’t mastered, classroom management. I used to work at the zoo with some of the most dangerous reptiles in the world and that was a cake-walk compared to teaching.

By Blues Brothers

September 10, 2008 11:00 AM | Link to this

Of course math and science teachers should be paid more. But, let’s not make this based on the “advanced degree” issue. Advanced degree means nothing about teachers’ teaching quality. As WoF suggested, I have had some of the worst teachers in colleges - all of them had PhD’s.

The teaching seems to be like the major league before the free agency. The only difference is that in MLB, it was the owners (employers) who had the players in their pockets. In teaching, because of the tenure system, it’s the employees who seem to hold the employers in their pockets. Let’s eliminate the tenure system, and if a history teachers want to be paid more, let him/her find another system that will pay you more.

By jim d

September 10, 2008 11:02 AM | Link to this

I believe that when teaching and learning conditions (working conditions) are bad teachers may see their compensation as inadequate and leave teaching. When these teaching and learning conditions (working conditions) are good, not only will they stay, they will actually view their current compensation as a reason for staying.

At least that is an observation from my chair as it applies to the business world.

That being said, I once again must ask WHO is responsible for assuring they have decent working conditions in any occupation? Do you set back and wait for it to happen or do you go after it?

By Jeff

September 10, 2008 11:24 AM | Link to this

mystery:

T is an English teacher. For the past two months, I have finally been in a position where our schedules are similar. (I now work an 8-5 less than 20 miles from our house after working an 8-5 just over 100 miles away for most of our marraige.)

In the nearly two years that I’ve known her - as well as the year that I’ve now lived with her - I have NEVER seen her bring ANY work home and I can count on one hand the number of times she has been later getting home than me.

Contrast that to myself when I was teaching: 12 and 13 hour days were the NORM if I didn’t want to bring work home with me. Because I did the video footage for the football team, that was also 10 Fridays where getting to work at 7a and not leaving for my house for 18 hrs was the norm. (T doesn’t do anything extracurricular unless you count afternoon bus duty, and that she only does when she HAS to.)

Just my own observations from having been a math teacher and living with an english teacher…

By greer

September 10, 2008 11:35 AM | Link to this

I completely support the differentiation of pay for teachers. Why should a PE teacher be making the same salary as someone teaching Geometry or Physics? The math and sciences are more difficult to understand and therefore, more difficult subjects to teach. Do PE teachers actually teach anything that kids can’t learn in other places? Don’t get me wrong, we need PE teachers to coach the extracurricular athletics but they get supplemental pay for coaching. Teachers who actually teach should have higher salaries. This could help trim the budget.

By high school teacher

September 10, 2008 11:41 AM | Link to this

Okay, I am home sick today, too doped on decongestants to sleep, and I am a bit cranky, so forgive me.

Jeff, how long has T been teaching? I am an English teacher as well. I need to get my husband to post a blog and discuss the number of times that I do come home with lots of paperwork. Over Labor Day weekend, I spent time grading papers and making lesson plans. When my boys are outside in the yard playing, I am sitting on the deck making lesson plans and grading papers. T is lucky not to have any extra-curriculuar duties.

Does she teach on a block schedule? Admittedly, when I taught on the block, I didn’t have as much work to bring home. Now that I am back on a 6 period day, I always seem to run behind.

Remember that there is a world that exists outside of yours. Just because T doesn’t seem to have work to bring home doesn’t mean that her situation is the norm.

By Larry

September 10, 2008 11:44 AM | Link to this

We reward athletes and executives based on the vlaue of the contribution that is made to the success of the team or business.

Given the need to attract more comptent science educators and the gap in science achievement we have been unable and unwilling to addrress, science teachers should be paid more with the emphasis on those critical areas of physics, chemistry, and materials science.

By TeacherMom

September 10, 2008 11:47 AM | Link to this

jim d, YES! YES! YES! Eliminating NCLB, allowing teachers to run their classrooms, and dealing head-on with discipline issues instead of bowing to politically correctness would go a LONG way toward teacher retention and teacher recruitment. Too many intelligent people are running away from education because of BS like NCLB and the lack of autonomy and respect in the profession.

mystery poster, Thanks for the recognition. My colleagues who are able to give scantron tests tell me there’s not enough money in the world to get them to teach English. I take home stacks of essays/other writing assignments every night. I have to count my grading progress in inches rather than by class or assignment, and I grade a minimum of two hours every night except Saturday. (I have to have a break sometime!)

Before anyone comments, it’s lunchtime and my planning period, so I have a moment to blog…wink

By Jeff

September 10, 2008 11:54 AM | Link to this

HST:

No, she is on regular day, 7 periods, 2nd period planning. This is her 5th year, but only her second at the HS level (3 yrs in various levels of ES)

By lyncoln

September 10, 2008 12:03 PM | Link to this

Related, but not really on topic. So many of the teachers who post here have stated that they do not teach for the money, the teach because they love teaching.

Increasing the salaries would (in theory) attract people who want to teach, but have chosen not to for financial reasons. Would these incoming newly attracted teachers love teaching as much as current teachers? Or would they be more likely to teach for the paycheck? And then, would that necessarily mean that the new ‘mercenary’ teachers would be better or worse than current teachers?

By Jeff

September 10, 2008 12:05 PM | Link to this

TeacherMom:

As a math teacher, my standards were higher than giving scantron tests - which even many English teachers do, I should point out. Instead, I gave problems that the students then had to work out and show work, and then I had to go in and track down exactly where they went wrong. Trust me, this is AT LEAST as tedious as poring over an essay, and typically moreso, as there are so many ways to go wrong and students can be fairly inventive. At even 25 problems per test, you’re talking potentially 1500 different solutions in a 60 student prep (such as my Advanced Geometry), and I have to work through them ALL.

Trust me, there were MANY days I wished I could have the ease of looking over ENGL essays!

By ObamaGirl

September 10, 2008 12:05 PM | Link to this

Wow Greer! I would love to see you teach 50 kids at one time. I don’t teach PE, but I can assure you that they provide needed skills. How often have you done a geometric proof in your adult life? Please! EVERY teacher brings educational value. I know that PE teachers teach cooperation and working collaboratively. They should students the value in exercise and how to do it correctly. They teach them how to work on teams and becoming a part of a group. They also teach them about their bodies by teaching health as well. While my dad has never taught, he changed his major from pre-med to physical education because so many of the classes were similar. He knows the body inside and out. Stop hating on PE teachers. Their jobs are very needed!

By Teacher, Too

September 10, 2008 12:17 PM | Link to this

Maybe let’s pay math and science teachers more— but not all students need advanced math and science. So, maybe pay the high school advanced math and science teachers more, but not those who teach general math and science? If students aren’t college-bound, do they need to take calculus, AP physics, and/or AP chemistry?

Why would an elementary or middle school science or math teacher make a higher salary that any other teacher, especially a language arts teacher?

As one blogger commented, language arts teachers have a HUGE time commitment- grading essay after essay, that translates into long hours of tedious reading. Forget math and science, why on earth would anyone want to become an language arts teacher?

Have you heard how people are butchering the spoken and written word? English needs to be taught to students- grammar, writing, spelling, and speaking skills— just look at any blog and read the numerous posts that are littered with spelling errors (not typos), structural erros, poor subject/verb agreement, etc. Most of these people claim to be college-educated. My college professors (high school teachers, even I) would give a failing mark to those posts.

Communication is a vital part of the business world. Do you really want to hire people who cannot speak and write well? Do you, as a consumer, want to do business with a company whose signs are commonly misspelled and have glaring grammatical errors?

Sure- just anyone can teach language arts. See what you get. But let’s definitely pay higher salaries to those math and science teachers.

By One Voice

September 10, 2008 12:27 PM | Link to this

As a language arts teacher, I wouldn’t mind if science and math teachers had slightly higher salaries if supply and demand dictated that. However, while we’re at it, language arts teachers should get an extra planning period since our assessment is so much more time consuming. I grade about 140 complete essays and reading comprehension test every week, in addition to 140 vocabulary tests, projects, etc. One of the reasons literacy is stunted is because LA teachers don’t have time to assess all the writing their students should be doing, so they assign less and less of it. More pay for science and math? Okay, but then let’s look at the whole picture.

By jim d

September 10, 2008 12:39 PM | Link to this

Teacher too,

As you are well aware, I am no spelling cop. However, if you intend to take the job please watch for your “erros” when commenting on others errors.

:-)

By Agree

September 10, 2008 12:44 PM | Link to this

A hard science education/occupation versus a liberal arts education/occupation — is, or should, there be a pay differential?

Unfortunately, in general, the technical science world salary is not on par with the non-technical administrative world…

By Chem Teacher

September 10, 2008 12:57 PM | Link to this

Come step in my shoes and see the amount of prep work I have to do for my classes compared to an English or Social Studies teacher and then ask me if we should have comprabable pay or comprabable work.

By teacher teacher

September 10, 2008 1:07 PM | Link to this

While I do respect the subject areas of math and science as having more complex topics, might I just remind everyone that you need good grammar and rhetorical skills to construct that resume that will get you to your first job at a lab, in a sales position, as an accoutant.

English teachers have FAR more to grade on a scale than math or science. Our subject areas might not be seen as more complex, but there’s a ton more work involved.

Then again, give me an extra planning period a day to help with my essay grading and I might pipe down about science and math teachers getting paid more than me.

By Chem Teacher

September 10, 2008 1:09 PM | Link to this

Sorry, that last part should read…comprable pay for comprable work.

By Tom

September 10, 2008 1:13 PM | Link to this

It really should be a question of supply and demand like it is at the college level.

What is the average number of qualified applicants that a school district gets for each language arts or social studies position? What is the average number of qualified applicants that a school district gets for each math or science position?

For most school districts, the answer to the first question is far greater than the answer to the second question. By stratifying the pay based on position, you could work to increase the pool of applicants. Of course, a big paycheck is going to draw in some people who are wholly incapable of teaching but it will also bring in more people who are capable.

Some people seem to think that occupational pay is based on amount of work. No, it’s based on how much people want (or need it) and how difficult it is to replace people.

By jim d

September 10, 2008 1:18 PM | Link to this

Larry,

You mention pay for performance. Interesting concept. So are you suggesting an evaluation process or just hiring and paying based on a diploma?

By Jason

September 10, 2008 1:18 PM | Link to this

“However, if you intend to take the job please watch for your ‘erros’ when commenting on others errors.”

It’s “others’ errors.” Sounds like the English teachers should be paid more.

By Chem Teacher

September 10, 2008 1:20 PM | Link to this

teacher teacher, I disagree, I have a lot of work to grade. We don’t grade “just answers”, we look at the process the students use as well. As well as lab reports. We also set up and break down labs, monitor students in the lab and their safety. We do not get an extra planning period either.

Look at a high school teacher parking lot. Science teachers are always the first to arrive and the last to leave.

By Tony

September 10, 2008 1:24 PM | Link to this

jim d said, “Perhaps eliminating NCLB and giving classroom control back to teachers would be of greater value in recruitting and retaining educators in these areas of academia.”

Well said. It sounds like you and I have more in common on this subject than we did on the previous days.

One very important aspect of differentiated pay upon which I did not elaborate earlier is acountability. Produce results to maintain the higher pay.

There have been studies regarding job satisfaction for teachers and pay is usually much lower on the list than you would expect. Control of classrooms, support from administration, and parents who support the academic work are usually rated more highly than pay.

Being able to teach is more important than a prestigious degreee. I have seen my share of people that can’t teach their way out of a paper bag. I don’t mind firing them when needed.

By jim d

September 10, 2008 1:26 PM | Link to this

Chem teacher,

Maybe I shouldn’t go here but the last to leave are often the science teachers who coach.

By jim d

September 10, 2008 1:40 PM | Link to this

Tony,

Indeed. I’ve been doing a lot of reading on this subject toady. Seems working conditions, as in the business world are much more of a factor in job satisfaction than is salary.

Bottom line here is that only employees can force better working conditions from their employer without assistance from the government. Since the Government rules education, that kinda leaves teachers on their own to force the issue, wouldn’t you say?

By Teacher, Too

September 10, 2008 1:42 PM | Link to this

jim d— caught my typo. Didn’t we blog some time ago about the difference between a typo and glaring misspelled words?

Thanks for the correction!! :)

By jim d

September 10, 2008 1:47 PM | Link to this

Tony,

“I don’t mind firing them when needed”

It is truly a shame your hands are generally tied for an entire year before you are able to “not renew their contracts.” In a years time an entire class may have payed a dearer price.

By teacher teacher

September 10, 2008 1:50 PM | Link to this

Oh! No Jim D didn’t!!!

Hey Chem Teacher, here’s the deal - we can spend all day comparing who’s still in the parking lot at the end of the day. At my school, it’s the English and Foreign Language teachers. And I’m one of them. But I do believe it comes down to experience, grading processes, and classroom procedures that also determine how long each teacher has to stay.

Can’t we all just band together, explain how much work we really all have to do for our individual subjects (which is discussed at length here) and all work for higher pay? I can’t see that one dept of teachers is going to be excited that another dept will make more money just because of subject matter. We ALL have a lot of work to do in our individual areas.

Having come from the corporate world, I can see the argument for wanting to pay science and math teachers more, but I agree with a previous poster - you have to be able to READ well, WRITE well, and COMMUNICATE well to be successful no matter what your field.

Let’s just pay ALL teachers more and get on with it!!!!

:)

By jim d

September 10, 2008 1:55 PM | Link to this

Tony,

Giving thought to your comment regarding production.

It might be nice if along with the better pay comes a higher level of accountability, which might include making it easier to remove an inadequate teacher from the classroom, and I’m not saying allowing them to transfer to another school. I’m talking about reeeeeeaaaaal accountability. I’m curious if offered a higher salary with a greater amount of accountability if we would attract many takers?

By lyncoln

September 10, 2008 2:16 PM | Link to this

JimD,

Look at the recently proposed teacher contract in the Washington D.C. public schools. The proposal offers much higher salaries for teachers (proposals start somewhere near $100k/year) but requires a long probationary period and no tenure.

The proposal allows current teachers to choose the new pay option (and undergo a probationary period) or retain their current tenure based pay scales. But, the proposal has all new teachers being hired under the new system. As far as I know, the teachers in D.C. are unhappy with the proposal and it is still under negotiation.

But what would ‘greater accountability’ mean? Require higher test scores? At least 10% improvement year over year no matter the students? It all depends on what ‘greater accountability’ means before you can discover if more people would apply.

By Reality question

September 10, 2008 2:26 PM | Link to this

Okay teachers, a question I’m sure many of the public have pondered — teachers complain their salaries are not in line with other professional salaries. However, in general, teachers’ salaries reported are not adjusted to account for only working 9 months. To better compare apples to apples — are these salary adjusted to an annual basis comparision data available?

By Teacher, Too

September 10, 2008 2:36 PM | Link to this

jim d- I totally agree with your post regarding job satifaction. I would be content with my salary if my working conditions were better.

As you know from my previous posts, I would be ecstatic if I could just teach- without the complications and hindrance of NCLB.

By jim d

September 10, 2008 2:39 PM | Link to this

lyncoln,

ahhhh yessss, The WTU unhappy. That’s no surprise.

But on the issue of accountability. this would be lengthy if I attempted to explain in detail so let me summarize.

Each student tests at the beginning of the year. The teacher then is accountable for showing “marked” improvements in each student at specified points through-out the year. Missing a couple of marks with a designated percentage of students throws up flags and if continued gets the teacher removed from the classroom.

By jim d

September 10, 2008 2:45 PM | Link to this

What I’ve learned today:-)

1) Every teacher, regardless of subject taught, works harder and longer than any teacher, teaching other subjects.

2) Teachers don’t really want mo-money, they want more control. (please talk to my wife she wants both)

3) Teachers make tpyo’s too.

4) NCLB is a load of donkey dung (but I already knew that)

5) Jeff must be out of a job again.

6) Anyone that would blog using the name “ObamaGirl” is shameless.

And last but not least

7) Ms. Dodd is still capable of stirring the pot quite well. (good job girl)

By Jeff

September 10, 2008 3:09 PM | Link to this

jim:

As noted on here yesterday, YOU spend more time on here than I do, my friend.

Which means you are either the kind of boss your employees HATE (does nothing, takes all the credit for their work), or you are, in fact, full of BS.

By abacus

September 10, 2008 3:10 PM | Link to this

This science teacher spent 9 hours over this past weekend grading 87 lab reports. I add comments and suggestion, not just slashes and checks. I’ve actually worked in the “real world” in the science field. Science and math lessons are more difficult and time consuming to prepare and teach. We should be paid accordingly. Why did I leave corporate? This country is desperately in need of folks who understand AND can teach these subjects.

By ObamaGirl

September 10, 2008 3:22 PM | Link to this

Reality Question That’s 10 months! And yes, 4 weeks does make a difference. BTW, most teachers are still working during their layoff period anyway because we are underpaid. My husband gets 2 months off each year and he doesn’t have as much education as I do, nor is he expected to spend his own money to do his job! Gimme a break! Enough with the summers off crap! It’s money we’ve already earned!!!

By high school teacher

September 10, 2008 3:24 PM | Link to this

Reality question, I report to work the first of August and get out at the end of May, so technically that’s 10 months, not 9. Secondly, while I don’t have to report to work in those eight weeks, I work. It’s kind of like salaried employees vs. hourly employees.

You can’t make an apples to apples comparison between teachers and coprporate workers because education is not business, and it shouldn’t be, no matter how much the government wants it to be.

jimd, on the basis of accountability, I agree, but I don’t know how to measure that. Test scores? There are so many other variables besides the teacher that affect a child’s test scores. It’s kind of like holding a weight-loss specialist accountable for the clients who don’t follow the plan and don’t lose weight.

Chem Teacher, believe it or not, every other teacher in your building is as important as you - even the PE teachers. Don’t rank teacher quality on the amount of time that their car is in the parking lot. I have two children, so I am usually gone by 4:00. Does that make me a bad teacher? Not necessarily; it just means that I work at home instead of in my classroom.

By Robbie

September 10, 2008 3:27 PM | Link to this

I think the emphasis that is placed on Math and Science are beginning to short change the other subjects such as social studies and the arts. Not all children are cut out to be great at math and they should have the chance to show their talents in other areas. Many Americans barely know the difference between the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence or any other basic skills in civics.

Some schools have gone to the extreme by having social studies teachers teach math twice a week in an effort to boost math scores. I think a scenario like that should be an outrage in public education. Don’t we want our students to be well rounded anymore?

And yes, P.E. is important, too! A sound mind in a sound body.

By Joy in Teaching

September 10, 2008 3:34 PM | Link to this

I was at school last night until 6:30 grading essays. 125 a week…every week…piles up if life comes at you fast and you get behind. Still haven’t caught up.

Today, I’m editing footage of today’s assembly for the morning announcements…and then grading projects. I might make it out of the building around 5…maybe. Probably won’t be finished then either.

I do think all teachers of all subjects have their crosses to bear. And, yes, there are some teachers who do put more time and effort into their lessons than others. (Just check the parking lot at the end of the day.)

But…when my principal manages to make it out of the building everyday by 4:00…far ahead of the teachers…something isn’t quite right there. Every other principal I ever had practically lives at the school and buys Maalox by the case.

Maybe he’s just better at delegating.

By high school teacher

September 10, 2008 3:40 PM | Link to this

abacus, have you ever planned an English lesson, planned a lesson on how to teach students not to write in passive voice, planned a lesson on identifying the tone of a newspaper article, etc.? Have you ever graded an essay for content, organization, style, and grammar? If you haven’t, then please don’t claim that your subject is harder prepping than mine. I certainly don’t claim that mine is more difficult and time consuming than yours, but unless you have actually planned for teaching another subject, you have no clue if yours is more difficult.

I’m tired of teachers bashing teachers of other subjects. It takes all pieces of the puzzle to make the picture.

By Bottom Line

September 10, 2008 3:41 PM | Link to this

Folks, we are talking about the supply and demand. We aren’t talking about which subjects are more worthwhile. The reality is that there are far fewer qualified math and science teachers (and special ed teachers, too). It is necessary therefore to pay them more.

Some jobs pay more than others and that’s just the way it is. If you want more pay, get a job that pays you more. If you want job you like, don’t complain about low pay. You can’t always get both, and you knew that before you started. Even if you didn’t, well, now you do. If you don’t like getting paid less because you are an English teacher, well, maybe you should try to get a job as a blogger for AJC.

By jim d

September 10, 2008 4:23 PM | Link to this

High school teacher,

“You can’t make an apples to apples comparison between teachers and coprporate workers because education is not business,”

UNRECHT,UNRECHT,UNRECHT!!!

Not only is education business—it is BIG BUSINESS. In Gwinnett county alone education is the largest employer in the county with an annual budget over $1.5 BILLION

By HS Teacher Too

September 10, 2008 4:39 PM | Link to this

jim d — you’re right and wrong. It’s business — indeed, big business — but the relationships between administrators and teachers, teachers and students, teachers and parents, etc. etc., are not analogous (in most cases) to relationships between employers/employees or employees/customers. I know, I know, there are some similarities, (and we can agree that there ought to be places where the similarities are greater), but to make a blanket apples-to-apples comparison is not appropriate, or fair, because of the very nature of the public system. For better or worse, like it or not, it is today what it is today and we have to discuss it at face value — not at what it could be or at what it should be.

Bottom Line? Thank you, and amen!

By Fulton

September 10, 2008 4:41 PM | Link to this

Math & Science?? Please! If you can’t read, need I say more? I believe all teachers should be paid more but payscale should not be based on subject.

By high school teacher

September 10, 2008 4:46 PM | Link to this

jimd, no argument there, but it should not be run like a business, IMHO. I do agree with you on accountability, as I stated before, but I don’t know what that looks like.

I’m changing the subject, but, BTW, I read that Alvin is under fire from the NAACP. Thoughts? Opinions? I understand if you don’t want to open a can of worms with that one.

By Old School

September 10, 2008 4:49 PM | Link to this

I have no problem with incentives to attract qualified instructors in any area. My problem lies with keeping those folks who should not be in a classroom or administrative office. (I also have a big problem with spending priority given to athletics and the inequality of THAT being slanted towards male sports).

Neither of my girls went into teaching like both of us but both have wonderful careers that depend heavily on their verbal and written communication skills. They had top-notch English/Language Arts teachers with only a couple of exceptions. We filled in those gaps. Their Spanish teacher, band director (God bless you, J David!), social studies, math & science teachers were tough and thorough and we made a pretty good team. (Mind you, they graduated from a very South Georgia public school!) It took patient oversight, understanding, and two-way communication… not hovering, finger-pointing, and gossip.

I really wish we could all stop harping on old saws like “teachers have the summer off” and assigning blame. I spent many, many summers going back to industry to keep my own skills sharp. I still stay in very close contact with engineering, construction, architectural, and other professionals through my Advisory Committee and personal contacts to continue to stay current. Not one staff development day in the past 10 years has given me the valuable information and practice necessary to get my students job-ready. Instead I get the blanket cure de jour and learn all the gimmicks that are merely crutches and items on an evaluator’s checklist.

jimdear, do you keep a “Word Wall” in your office so your employees can refer to it and use the correct terms or do you expect them to keep a “mental word wall” or adequate working vocabulary? I won’t but I expect my students to “talk technical” and use the language of industry. I teach to the standards, follow the pathways (CTAE), and do the very best I can to reach each of my students.

You know, all the passionate blogging in the world; all the pointing out of blog times; all the blame assigning; all the spell/grammar policing; all the griping, complaining and grousing…

… none of that will ever solve anything. I doubt if it even makes anyone feel anything but angry, miffed, or smug. Personally, I am getting more involved in improving my own program, my department, and my school. I am stepping up to the plate and trying my darnedest to make a difference.

By jim d

September 10, 2008 4:57 PM | Link to this

HS Teacher Too,

Indeed it isn’t run like a business. Why? Simply because it is government!

What education could or should be in this country is actually what we do need to be discussing. We have the knowledge, technology and the means to have the greatest educational system in the world, yet we don’t. I for one want to know why the hell not?:

By Dr. Craig Spinks

September 10, 2008 4:58 PM | Link to this

Incentivization should be a principle which guides educational policy and practice.

By AlreadySheared

September 10, 2008 5:02 PM | Link to this

No way quarterbacks should be paid more than offensive linemen! Quarterbacks may get sacked now and then, but they mostly just throw the ball away or hand it off! Linemen get hit on EVERY DOWN! HARD!

C’mon, y’all. It’s about supply and demand. It’s better to be taught math by someone with a deep understanding of math, especially at the high school level. Yes, they also need to be able to teach and manage a classroom.

There are plenty of folks who work a lot harder than I do, and get paid less. Count the number of english majors graduating from college every year and compare that to the number of math majors (even at Georgia Tech, for fall 2008 the total number of Applied or Discrete Mathematics undergraduate seniors is 35, vs. a total senior class of 3,691!).

{link for fact checkers: http://www.irp.gatech.edu/apps/Enrollment/Major.cfm?TERM=200702&time_status=Total}

By jim d

September 10, 2008 5:02 PM | Link to this

high school teacher,

Napoalvin is teflon coated. Our illustrious chamber of commerce will see that harm befalls him.

Anyone that can get away with falsifying records as he did can just about do as they damn well please.

By high school teacher

September 10, 2008 5:10 PM | Link to this

“We have the knowledge, technology and the means to have the greatest educational system in the world, yet we don’t. I for one want to know why the hell not?”

Because we allow, no, require, everyone to be educated, not just the top 10% of the population.

By Lee

September 10, 2008 5:11 PM | Link to this

I am outraged that math and science teachers can be paid more than coaches and PE instructors! Whatever is the world coming to when math and science are put ahead of football and basketball and baseball and field hocky and track and swimming and other leisure activities! Georgia will stop being a leader of the world due to this unequal balance away from dumb sports! Next thing you know, kids will actually know something, and realize what a mess we’ve made for them to clean up. And then where will be our authority over them?

By dbm

September 10, 2008 5:11 PM | Link to this

To: high school teacher at 9:14 AM.

Aren’t you confusing different issues? There can be lousy teachers like the one you describe in any subject. This one was eliminated and so should anyone else like that. This is a separate issue from whether more pay is needed for certain subjects because of supply and demand. I don’t think anyone is saying they’re better teachers because of their subject or their degrees, just more in demand. If there had been a pay differential all along, maybe that lousy teacher you describe wouldn’t have been hired because there would have been bigger pool of applicants.

By Lee

September 10, 2008 5:17 PM | Link to this

Math and science teachers should be paid more because they have to lie to the students in order to please the politicians and obnoxious parents. They have to tell students that “Creative Design” is just as valid as evolution. They have to tell students that global warming isn’t true. They have to tell students that the earth is flat because it says so in the Koran. PE instructors don’t have to tell students that being fat and lazy is healthy. Home economics teachers don’t have to tell students that filthy houses are a clean environment that is free from germs. So math and science teachers need to be paid extra, because they have to lie. With a straight face. To their students. In order to keep their jobs.

By jim d

September 10, 2008 5:17 PM | Link to this

Old school,

I expect my people to know what the hell they are talking about and what they are doing. I expect them to stay up to date on NFPA 70 (our word wall) and all of its changes. I expect them to use their training on OSHA compliance to maintain a safe work place. In other words I expect them to be professionals, and if they don’t I have the option to fire them, I don’t have to wait until they serve out a silly contract or kill someone before letting them go. Schools need the same redress to get poor teachers out of the classroom. That my friend, would make a difference in education.

By jim d

September 10, 2008 5:23 PM | Link to this

high school teacher,

Really? I thought perhaps it was because we required them all to be equally educated.

By catlady

September 10, 2008 5:31 PM | Link to this

I bow in the direction of math and science teachers. I bow more deeply if they are truly math or science MAJORS, rather than math ed or science ed. Paying a premium for them over, say, history teachers makes sense to me.

However, I challenge anyone to teach under the mandates of Reading First, etc. THOSE teachers should get pay and a half.

I also think elementary teachers should get extended day pay when their TRUE planning time is less than middle and high school teachers.

Finally, I think teachers who teach sp ed and those in whose classes the sp ed kids are placed for mainstreaming purposes should get extra pay.

By Denise

September 10, 2008 5:33 PM | Link to this

I think any time there is a shortage or a threat of losing what is currently available, incentives should be put in place to keep quality people in the positions they are needed in. That happened at Lockheed Martin a few years back when some engineering groups got a high percentage bump because they struggled to keep quality people. It ticked me off because I wasn’t in any of those departments (smile) but I understood the need for them to do whatever they had to to keep their department staffed.

I do think, specifically, math and science teachers need an incentive. Mathmeticians, scientists, engineers, doctors, etc. make more money than teachers so what other than the love for academics and children (I hope) would make someone choose teaching over another, higher-paying, lower-stress (maybe) job?

I love academics and have 3 degrees. I love school. I love to learn and teach. However, becoming a teacher was not my calling. I don’t have a lot of the skills, primarily patience, that teachers must have in spades to be successful in the classroom. So, I’m an engineer which, from the comments today and yesterday, seems a whole lot less stressful than teaching.

By JV

September 10, 2008 5:47 PM | Link to this

I’m fine with it… but don’t take it from other fields. Folks, this means a rise in your taxes.

By catlady

September 10, 2008 5:53 PM | Link to this

Comparable… comparable salary, chem teacher. (The spelling Nazi is here.)

Supply and demand. Okay, sounds good to me. We have had about a 30% turnover in staff each year lately at the elementary level (even though we live in the lovely N. GA mtns and have no shortage of applicants) because after they teach Reading First for a year they cannot wait to get away. I have heard teachers say they would work as prostitutes before they do that again! (In the past it was rare if we lost more than 2 or 3 teachers out of 45 each year.)

By frank

September 10, 2008 6:00 PM | Link to this

I think that every major in Education is certainly a lot of hard work. My daughter attended UGA where she earned a degree in Secondary Education with a specialization in Biology. She is certified to teach Science in grades 7-12. Her classes at UGA during her freshman, sophomore, and junior year included students who were pre-med, pre dentistry, pre pharmacy, biology majors, as well as the students seeking an education degree in a science field. We have all heard the horror stories about organic chemistry ,a part of the required studies for a science degree.Science teachers are right there with the pre meds taking this incredibly hard class, and it is hard to get through even for the brightest of students. So should science teachers earn a little more ? I would say that all teachers should earn a little more, not just science or math teachers , because for students to be good at science , they must also have good math and reading skills. And that means that all teachers are working hard to help students achieve success in all subjects.

By atlmom

September 10, 2008 6:15 PM | Link to this

The point isn’t how much work one has, the point is the demand for the work. If there is a shortage of something, you raise the price, to allow the market to work itself out. If there aren’t enough qualified math or science teachers, you raise the salary to entice some to teach. For math and science, you are competing with companies who are willing to pay much more than one can make as a teacher. And no, you don’t want people to go into teaching for the money only, but realistically, you’d have a bigger number of teachers to choose from if you raise salaries, so you pick the best ones.

That’s the point. You can argue who has a harder job all day, but the point is that when you raise salaries you have more of a pool of people to choose from, and you can choose the best of that. If one person applies, you don’t have a lot of choices do you? But if 20 people apply for something, you do. That’s what you want.

By Sarah

September 10, 2008 6:40 PM | Link to this

I don’t think there is quite the shortage that they say there is. But I agree with Janine. Most problems with Math and Science are because of the difficulties with reading. I think that we need to take a hard look at elementary school teachers. I work with many not worth the pay. Start with a firm foundation and all areas will improve. Also, we need to look at Math and Science now. In elementary school we don’t even teach the basics anymore. Well, we do, but don’t take the time to make sure the facts are automatically known when asked. Instead children are put in groups to solve higher level word problems. That is great but if you can’t add/subtract/multiply/divide without drawing a picture then those word problems aren’t going to be much good. We have to start at the bottom instead of paying big bucks to high school teachers. They can’t work miracles with students who don’t have a good foundation for math and science. They may be drawn in by the promise of money but after dealing with parents, apathetic kids, and no prior knowledge even the money will loose it’s appeal.

By Sarah

September 10, 2008 6:40 PM | Link to this

I don’t think there is quite the shortage that they say there is. But I agree with Janine. Most problems with Math and Science are because of the difficulties with reading. I think that we need to take a hard look at elementary school teachers. I work with many not worth the pay. Start with a firm foundation and all areas will improve. Also, we need to look at Math and Science now. In elementary school we don’t even teach the basics anymore. Well, we do, but don’t take the time to make sure the facts are automatically known when asked. Instead children are put in groups to solve higher level word problems. That is great but if you can’t add/subtract/multiply/divide without drawing a picture then those word problems aren’t going to be much good. We have to start at the bottom instead of paying big bucks to high school teachers. They can’t work miracles with students who don’t have a good foundation for math and science. They may be drawn in by the promise of money but after dealing with parents, apathetic kids, and no prior knowledge even the money will loose it’s appeal.

By SLD

September 10, 2008 6:45 PM | Link to this

More money won’t solve the problems that children have today. I agree with Janine who says that reading teachers should be paid more because many problems start with reading difficulties. What needs to be done is weed out the teachers who aren’t doing a good job. Elementary schools lay the foundation and the best teachers should be there. No matter how much money a math/science major is paid he/she won’t be able to work miracles with students who just don’t know what is going on. We have stopped doing drills in math. Now children are supposed to work in groups with word problems that create higher level thinking. That’s great but if you don’t know the basic facts you aren’t going to do very well with those problems. Money might lure the teachers in but once they get in and see what they have to work with…the apathetic kids, the overbearing parents, poor admininstration, they won’t stay.

By luvs2teach

September 10, 2008 6:46 PM | Link to this

As an 8th grade science teacher (with a science degree - Ed. was added on later), I am biased - of course I think I should be paid more, wink!

In all seriousness, I took a pay cut to become a teacher, and if I got tired of what I’m doing, I could go back tomorrow and get a big jump in pay (and a decrease in stress, lol). Supply and demand is a factor, and math and science folks can go elsewhere and make more - a fact of life that has nothing to do with how hard we may or may not work (and catlady - I take my hat off to anyone who has the patience to teach an elementary kid how to read or do math - not me!!!).

Overall, I look at how we are paid with dismay - not the amount, mind you, but the fact that there is no opportunity (outside of adding degrees or teaching more classes during planning, or adding on other responsibilities such as mentoring or being department head) to increase your pay. I, for one, would like some sort of merit pay - I have received “exceeds standards” on my last few evaluations, yet I see no monetary benefit from that. Until this horrible last year with the new standards, my students frequently showed above average growth on the CRCT. I have both a gifted and an ESOL endorsement, but I get nothing from that. I can teach as many as 56 more students than another teacher at my school (because of class sizes and periods), yet make the same amount of money if we are each on the same step. It’s frustrating to be so limited.

By abacus

September 10, 2008 6:49 PM | Link to this

High School Teacher - I’m also certified to teach English and have taught it. I find sciences to be more interesting. You may be interested to know that my county (the only metro one with every school meeting AYP), mandates that teachers in ALL subjects grade spelling and grammar.

By Steve

September 10, 2008 7:06 PM | Link to this

We have idiots running our government. Do you really think that Sonny and his cronies are willing to pay their teachers? These clowns have lied to teachers multiple times, cut pay raises, pulled money, etc. I am still waiting for my schools promised bonus money for what we accomplished. Instead we get a letter that says sorry, we have no money even though we promised it to your school. Good job. So, all of this is nonsense. As for the whiners - I teach science and with no money built my own microscopes (without mirrors), scales, even used nichrome wire and a battery charger to convert olive jars to beakers. Go to a military salvage sale and get a ton of science equipment. Look on eBay. Everyone needs to come up with something better to write about. Quit whining. As for the clown that thinks an advanced degree is the answer - hah! I had an electrical engineer once work for me and he had his advanced degree. I would not let him near a screw driver. There are a lot of very bright, self taught (and uncontaminated) people out there doing remarkable things in the math and sciences. I have also seen your highly educated - businees (or college) to the classroom simply walk off the job after a short period of time. Yeah, that advanced degree thing really works. Thank you to all that do teach and work very hard at doing your job. Your 2 month unpaid vacation while highly deserved - is usually spent working. You have to do the thankless task of being led by the uncaring doing the impossible for the unwilling and having to deal with the unknowing enablers. For the incompetent dentist that screwed up my root canal, for the construction worker that fixed my still leaking roof, for the road crew that paved the road that now has potholes, for the journalist that invents stories to sell articles, o the speculators that drove up the price of oil, to the drug companies that sell worthless or harmful drugs, etc. Lots of incompetents out there. Thank you teachers.

By ReggieJackson

September 10, 2008 7:49 PM | Link to this

I like what someone proposed earlier. Get rid of tenure system. Give the administrators the power not to renew any teacher at the end of the school year. They can replace an older teacher with younger one and save money - then use the saving to hire math and science teachers.

Reading may be important, but you can much more easily replace reading teachers. Why should we pay more when we can get them cheaply?

By high school teacher

September 10, 2008 7:56 PM | Link to this

abacus, you have the right to say anything you want about the difficulty of lesson planning by subject, then! My apologies.

I would love to be in a school in which all teachers are capable of grading spelling and grammar. :)

dbm, my point with the story is that a pay incentive for math and science teachers might draw more applicants, but that does not guarantee that you will have better math and science teachers. If a pay icentive would draw a person to teaching science instead of getting a job as an engineer, that still doesn’t promise a quaified teacher; just a qualified subject expert.

By sav teach

September 10, 2008 8:39 PM | Link to this

By giving math and science teachers more money than other teachers you are saying that their subjects are more important. Is it the fault of a highly qualified social studies teacher who may have advanced degrees in history that science teachers are in short supply? 75% of students who graduate from college and enter the workforce get a job in a social science field, not a math or science field, to me, the social sciences are more important than math or science.

As to working conditions. I teach four seventh grade classes. I have students that can read on a college level to one student who reads at a first grade level and can not spell his own name. How will merit pay work for me? We are a nation that does not care about our kids, our their futures. We are seriously, as a nation, in debt and would rather spend money on rebuilding other countries than on our own. If we continue this we will be doomed to fall like the Roman Empire did.

By TeacherMom

September 10, 2008 9:27 PM | Link to this

I have no problem with offering math and science majors a financial incentive during recruitment. I do, however, have a problem with paying them an increased salary for the long term. What if things change and we suddenly have a dire need for P.E. teachers and English teachers and a glut of math and science teachers? (Unlikely, I know….) Fairness and equity will always be a concern when you begin to compare subject areas, and comparison breeds discontent and resentment. Fact is, we ALL deserve higher pay that is NOT predicated on student test scores (don’t get me started….) or supply/demand economics.

I have the utmost respect for any teacher who gives more than is required, regardless of the subject area. To those teachers who put in the extra hours despite the leanness of the paycheck, I—and my worn-out red pen—salute you!

By toggle

September 10, 2008 9:29 PM | Link to this

Hell yeah science teachers deserve more! My wife is one!

Satire aside, I think that subject matter is irrelevant. Good teachers, regardless of areas of expertise, deserve to be paid more. Of course, finding some objective measure to rate them is a difficult task, but there are some really smart folks doing great work in evaluating qualitative data.

The present policy of compensating teachers using a matrix of years of experience and educational attainment is ridiculous.

And, having political animals setting education policy is outrageous and ridiculous.

By Chem Teacher

September 10, 2008 9:37 PM | Link to this

Teacher Teacher,

Yes, we are all overworked and underpaid and we aren’t even discussing all the “extra” stuff assigned to us beyond our teaching duties. Should all teachers be paid more? Absolutely! But that isn’t the topic today, it’s “should math and science teachers be paid more”.

In my opinion, yes they should. Is it because I teach science? Yes, it would be stupid of me to say otherwise. However, the amount of work done by science teachers should merit a higher salary. Science teachers teach a lot more than their topic. We teach students not only the subject and the history behind it but how to read technical and scientific texts and articles, we teach them proper lab safety techniques, how the concepts they learn in class apply to the labs they do and the world around them (including out in the job force), and we teach them to apply the math they learn in their math classes. In a lot of ways, science teachers tie together a lot of different class subjects. Of course, this is only my opinion and I am entitled to believe what I choose as are you.

By Mike D

September 10, 2008 10:27 PM | Link to this

I can get you a container load of Indians or Chinese to teach your kids world class math, science, or even English for the annual cost of one US teacher.

By TeacherMom

September 10, 2008 10:43 PM | Link to this

Mike D, Tried that. They left after one year citing poor working conditions and too little respect. (Not to mention the students had a hard time understanding anything they said thanks to their heavy accents.) If they hadn’t left of their own volition, they would’ve been asked to leave because they were so ineffective. They knew their subjects well, but they couldn’t teach our students.

As for reading, literacy must be a cross-curricular priority. Every subject hinges on reading comprehension.

reggiejackson There is no tenure system in Georgia (K-12). Get your facts straight.

catlady Reading First is the most ridiculous reading initiative I’ve ever seen. We’re producing kids who can call words with incredible fluency who don’t understand a d-mn thing they read!

By SS teach

September 10, 2008 11:06 PM | Link to this

As a Social Studies teacher, I find this post particularly disturbing the day before the seventh anniversary of the September 11th terrorist attacks.

In leaving “no child behind” we are creating a scary society. Math & science in isolation can & will lead to very scary outcomes.

Social Studies only seems to matter when failing CRCT scores are reported. For the record, the low scores were just as much caused by MANY teachers not teaching the standards as they were caused by a flawed test. The standards were fine if teachers actually taught instead of assigning busy work disconnected from reality. Why the problem scores then? Because almost “anybody” can be “highly qualified” in SS based on five courses inlcuding freshman level classes in sociology, history, psychology, etc. found on a college transcript. The trend continues to increase in to doling out the teaching of SS to other teachers whereby a teacher teaches a full load (3 or 4 classes) of Math, Science, or English plus one SS. Given this reality, how else could scores not be crap?

I do apologize for taking up precious blog space about Math & Science with a mention of Social Studies. However, I would kindly ask that if you feel that these subjects are supremely more important than Social Studies, please refrain from observing any moment of reflection, silence, or reverence for the victims of 9/11 tomorrow. “Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.” (quote by George Santayana)

By bearcasey

September 11, 2008 6:52 AM | Link to this

Any little amount of extra money that a school system might offer a blue-chip math or science teacher won’t make a significant difference. Now, if we are talking an extra $50,000, the story might be different. Will never happen.

By Curious George

September 11, 2008 6:53 AM | Link to this

Teacher Mom

So teachers in GA can be terminated at any time (at least their contract renewed at the end of an academic year) for any reason? If so, administrators should be thinking about releasing some/many/most of those teachers with 15+ years of experiences (i.e., expensive ones) and replacing them with fresh out of college teachers (i.e., cheaper ones). With all the reports of poor performances by our students, I really don’t see much need for keeping those experienced (I think we may be using this word rather liberally) ones. Only keep those who have proven they are effective teachers. I think 15 years is long enough time to prove their worth.

By catlady

September 11, 2008 7:40 AM | Link to this

Teachermom: we need to realign the CRCT with Reading First. Make it so that you pass if you call the word correctly, and fast(94 wpm for a beginning 3rd grader is considered successful), rather than if you can actually tell what was being communicated!(TIC) Oh, the millions of taxpayer dollars that have gone to Bush’s friends because of NCLB in general and Reading First in particular!!! If Americans only knew (and cared)!

By jim d

September 11, 2008 7:58 AM | Link to this

I find DeKalb, Superintendent Crawford Lewis rather disturbing. Obviously he has little concern for providing the brightest kids an appropriate education. He appears more concerned with leveling schools for AYP.

By jim d

September 11, 2008 8:07 AM | Link to this

Cat,

Rarely do I find someone else knowledgeable about the Bush- McCraw/Hill connection or Neal Bush’s “Ignite! Learning” syphoning money from our childrens education. You make me proud.

By catlady

September 11, 2008 8:14 AM | Link to this

Teachermom: we need to realign the CRCT with Reading First. Make it so that you pass if you call the word correctly, and fast(94 wpm for a beginning 3rd grader is considered successful), rather than if you can actually tell what was being communicated!(TIC) Oh, the millions of taxpayer dollars that have gone to Bush’s friends because of NCLB in general and Reading First in particular!!! If Americans only knew (and cared)!

By catlady

September 11, 2008 8:30 AM | Link to this

Thanks, Jim. Don’t you get tired of seeing the taxpayers used to feather the nests of FOB? Re: Mr. Lewis. He wants to stop the brain drain so that the bright kids will pull up the scores at the lump-lump schools. Now he has the “financial crisis” to blame it on. He is counting on that most of the bright kids’ parents who were going to pull out for private schools already have, and that these bright kids’ parents will either suck it up and provide transportation or will send them back to their old schools. Win-win.

If we had small, walkable, neighborhood schools instead of these schools with 1000+ students we would have fewer dropouts and save transportation money. No need for “graduation coaches”, etc. Think about it: the communities that still have their own schools have a great deal more investment in their schools and their students. We have one community school in our county and it runs RINGS around all the other schools in terms of student achievement, parent involvement, etc. And it does not serve the rich families, either. “Economies” of scale are not very economical if you are talking about real children, as opposed to widgets.

Typo re: RF—It is 93 wpm for a beginning fourth grader, I believe.Sorry.

By jim d

September 11, 2008 9:01 AM | Link to this

Yeah cat,

the apple doesn’t fall far from the tree.

And Lewis is a total idiot!

By teacher teacher

September 11, 2008 10:23 AM | Link to this

Chem Teacher: Wow. So surprised at your response.

To wit:

English teachers teach a lot more than their topic. We teach students not only the subject and the history behind it but how to read technical and academic (read non-fiction)texts and articles, we teach them proper grammatical concepts to apply in languages for other classes, how the concepts they learn in class apply to the writingthey do and the world around them (including out in the job force) in Language Arts, it’s called Theme and how it connects to the human condition, and we teach them to apply the writing they learn in their english classes to all the writing they do in all their other classes. In a lot of ways, engligh teachers tie together a lot of different class subjects. Of course, this is only my opinion and I am entitled to believe what I choose as are you.

By Elizabeth

September 11, 2008 7:47 PM | Link to this

Should math and science teachers be paid more because there is a shortage of them? I have news for you. Our middle school no longer teaches reading because we cannot find reading teachers. Furthermore, nothing you teach can be learned if the child cannot read well. Not math, not sicence, not social studies, not foreign language, not anything. I have a friend who is a Vice President at Wachovia Bank. I asked her about this issue. Her response was that the number one thing she looks for in an applicant is not math, science, or computer skills. The number one requirement she looks for is a person with good communications skills— reading, writing, speaking, analyzing. That’s English, folks. We all use it every day and we need to learn to do it better.

If paying more to math and science teachers ever happens, then this English teacher will rebel. No longer will I take essays home to grade every week. No longer will I sponsor the club and volunteer to be on the committee that meets once once a week. No longer will I join PTA or be on the leadership team. When I am asked, my response will be to let the math and science teachers do it— after all they are paid more than I am. I will confine my work to my time at school— what does not get done during school hours won’t get done at all. If that means giving fewer essays, making simpler lesson plans, taking fewer grades because things take too long to grade, then so be it. My job description is the same as that of a math or science teacher. Only the subject I teach is different. I will not continue to do extra work for no extra pay if other subject teachers are doing the same (or less) than I, yet receive more money.I cannot teach science or math; my talent lies in the area of reading and language. Why should I be penalized financially for that?

Schools are not business and cannot be run like businesses no matter how many of you out there think they can. If you ran a school like a business, then we would not have to teach the ones who are behind, wh do not behave, who cannot function normally in society. We could reject all the misfits. When schools can do that, then talk to me a different pay scales for different subject.

By jim d

September 12, 2008 5:28 AM | Link to this

Elizabeth,

Then we wonder why our children have a me-me mentality? Think maybe because it is being taught by dedicated teachers?

By JustQuit

September 12, 2008 9:13 AM | Link to this

Elizabeth

If you don’t like it, just quit. Or stop whining and do your job. You can be easily, and probably more cheaply, replaced. You CHOSE to be an English teacher. If you want to get paid more, then become a math or science teacher - I bet you don’t know enough of either to even get close.

Whether or not English/Reading/Language Arts is important is not the issue here. It’s the basic supply-demand issue.

By Tom in Decatur

September 12, 2008 9:35 PM | Link to this

All school systems should have the ability to pay more or less for any subject or teacher. Each teacher should have the numbers of what the average CRCT score of their class compared to the state average for the beginning of the year and the end of the year. Everyone would know the improvement caused by that teacher regardless of how dumb or smart the kids were. I would post the score right outside each teacher’s room for the whole world to see just like in a restaurant.

By luvs2teach

September 12, 2008 10:18 PM | Link to this

Tom in Decatur - while I appreciate that you recognize that improvement is better than a straight number, the flaw to your plan is that the CRCT is only given once a year, not at the beginning and end of the year.

That causes two problems for me - first, my school is highly transient, so I have kids that weren’t even in Georgia last year and didn’t take the CRCT.

Second, and here’s the really tough part for me - I teach 8th grade physical science. In 7th grade, the kids learn life science. They are two entirely different subjects. It’s like judging the chemistry teacher by how the kids did in biology the semester before.

By wwww

September 13, 2008 7:58 AM | Link to this

English teacher here - wow. I will say I am surprised at the vitriol spewed at Elizabeth’s post. While not completely right, I certainly understand her frustration. Let’s back off.

I’ve been reading this thread for a few days now and can’t believe teachers arguing who spends more time at work, who makes more complicated lessons, etc. ANY teacher who cares about what they do work many hours outside of contract pay. It doesn’t matter what subject.

Supply and demand are a fact when it comes to math and science - but many of you - both in education and not - are overlooking the most fundamental issue. It makes no difference is someone is “qualified” to teach the subject. I’ve worked with many certified teachers who were terrible at actually teaching. You can stick any old math/science person in a classroom. If they can’t teach, it won’t matter how brilliant they are at differential equations or organic chemistry.

The reason pay increases in these critical needs areas won’t work is because it will attract those who otherwise would never consider teaching - and that probably deserves a little more trepidation than some of you seem to think it warrants.

This job is SO MUCH MORE than teaching content. You have to love and appreciate kids, no matter how obnoxious they can be on Friday afternoon. You have to possess patience beyond reason to deal with some parents - notice I said some. You really have to learn to pick your battles when it comes to county policies and admin requests. It would be a very rude awakening for those who haven’t been in a school or wouldn’t if the pay wasn’t “right” for them.

By Old School

September 13, 2008 10:07 AM | Link to this

Two identical houses sit side by side on identical lots. From all appearances, the same care went into the building of each one. But one has a solid foundation capable of supporting the various components that make up the house; the other a foundation that merely sufficed the minimum code. A much colder than normal winter caused the ground to freeze deeper and both foundations were subjected to heaving and the potential of failure. The shoddy foundation cracked and shifted and caused much hidden damage while the solid foundation suffered minimal disturbance and the house it carried remained unharmed. Which house has the most potential for profit?

May I propose that the future success of anyone of us is dependent on how solid an educational foundation we have. At the very roots of any successful career is that foundation comprised of reading, communication, writing, math, science, and technical skills- regardless of the level of expertise in any of them. If we have a solid foundation comprised of a mixture of these that meets our present and future needs and if we continue to build upon that foundation towards our individual goals, cannot we say we are educated?

Georgia seems to be trying to fix things from the top down… that is, we are so worried over SAT scores that we are not addressing the basic skills that, when mastered in the early years, can be built upon. We focus on all the wrong things because “folks will go to a football game but who is going to pay to watch kids do math?” or “we need more AP classes so our students can get into the college of their choice” and “we need to pay these teachers more than those.”

Instead of taking the usual shotgun approach and fixing everything when some things don’t need fixing; instead of pointing fingers and laying blame; instead of snarky blogging and name-calling, each of us can do SOMETHING right now.

It’s like eating an elephant. You start with one bite at a time. Maybe we could focus on teaching our teen parents how to parent and be there to support them. It’s nice to give them a book for their baby but why not sit a few minutes and read it with them? Far too many of our teen parents are just repeating history. Maybe if we armed them with basic parenting skills and support them in the right way (I have ideas on this that do not involve checks/cash payments), we can start laying down the strong foundation we baby boomers grew up with.

I’m a strong believer in teaching by example and nowadays I’m believing more and more that those good examples that helped me become a successful wife, parent, teacher and citizen are missing in action. It is my responsibility to continue to model the kind of behaviors- INCLUDING MY LOVE OF LEARNING- to my students and other young people I come in contact with. I accept that responsibility and I accept it at my pay level.

Sadly, the most likely responses to this too long post will be spelling and grammar checking, and the inevitable rolling of eyes. Go ahead. I’m going to try my best to reach out to the student who has been my biggest challenge/heartache this year and offer my support.

By mmmm

September 13, 2008 10:11 AM | Link to this

wwww

I agree that there are ALOT of teachers who don’t know how to teach. Our schools are filled with them already - and they complain and whine, too, as you noted. You are completely wrong about pay increase not being a solution. The more people who consider teaching, the more selective we can become. Right now, we are already placing teachers who don’t know the subject matters in math and science into classrooms. I don’t see how they can “teach” if they don’t know the subjects. So, I don’t see how much worse it could be.

When we can raise teacher salaries in other fields, maybe, just maybe, we can finally start getting rid of useless teachers that fill our schools. Then, we can finally move away from the current situation where we have either very dedicated teachers who worry about their students’ learning that what they are paid OR those who can’t do anything else and getting welfare in the form of teacher pay - and benefits.

By em

September 13, 2008 11:56 AM | Link to this

I, too, have been following this blog for several days. I don’t think that pay is the answer because that is not what drew me from the business sector into teaching. As an aside, if you want more academically qualified teachers, then try raising entrance requirements to the various schools and colleges of education. Personally they are abysmal. What I want is genuine leadership and vision at both the district and state levels. Many of the principals and superintendents I have worked under are ex-coaches who are just not that bright and were promoted because they could not teach. Just look around at the schools across the state, these “leaders” tend to pour more money into athletics rather than academics. About 20 years ago, I was blessed to have a boss who was truly a leader; unfortunately, I haven’t seen any since and especially in education. In short, I will take a true leader and visionary over a pay raise any day of the week.

By Time for change

September 13, 2008 12:15 PM | Link to this

The idea that teachers can easily be non-renewed (except after the first three years) is inaccurate. It’s my understanding that after a teacher has been offered 4 annual contracts, a non-renewal is an option only after the teacher has been through a lengthy period in a professional development plan. (I believe that’s up to 3 years.) Because of the burden of the incredible paperwork this entails, what I’ve seen is that administrators tend to try to pass these folks along (move to other positions or schools) rather than go through that process. The process includes multiple observations and , of course, most of those have to be scheduled, so the teacher prepares for that day (despite what might happen most days in the classroom), so incompetency is often difficult to document.)

My concern with tiered pay is how an “excellent” teacher would be identified. I know (and know of) several NBCTs who are definitely NOT good teachers (one moved out of the regular classroom for incompetency), but apparently they got the certification because they could build a portfolio and bribe a class for the one lesson they video. Appallingly, the NBCT process includes NO information from the school regarding the teacher’s classroom expertise. So you can get the 10% salary bonus merely because you can write persuasively!

By wwww

September 13, 2008 4:52 PM | Link to this

mmmm In theory, you are correct about a pay raise bringing more people to the teaching profession. You are assuming the hiring situations are ideal - lots of candidates must be a good thing, right? Not really. It is hard to staff schools due to changes in enrollment, teachers not renewing contracts at the last minute, etc. It is so, so common that someone is hired at the last minute to fill a spot with little regard given to if they can actually do an appropriate job. Not because the hiring policies are wrong or because the admin is lazy - but because the situation warrants a quick hire. That’s just one example of why more isn’t always better. Also, the certification requirements are a joke. The new tests are actually easier than the old Praxis exams.

You next point “how much worse can it be than people who we have now who don’t know content” - oh, it can be a lot worse. Most, not all, but most people who decide on education do so because they like kids and want to spend time every day interacting with them.
The worst teachers aren’t those who aren’t experts in content - it’s those that lack good people skills and loads of empathy and understanding to best deal with students and parents. That’s the main component of an excellent teacher. The content knowledge can follow and be acquired. The only exception to this rule might be upper level math and science in high school. Even then, I am still not convinced that higher pay will solve the problem.
People who otherwise would never step foot in a school but will based on the appropriate salary will be sorely disappointed in what they encounter the first day. It’s just not about the money. And it shouldn’t be.

By wwww

September 13, 2008 4:56 PM | Link to this

Time for change Hey, at least they can write! :)

By mmmm

September 13, 2008 8:06 PM | Link to this

wwww

I’m sure you are correct that those “emergency” hiring situations do happen. I have no idea if that is the norm or exception. But that doesn’t seem to be completely irrelevant when you are talking about the quality of applicants. The more people going into the teacing, the better the “average” pool of the applicants will be.

I know plenty of HS teachers who don’t care much about students - they complain that “well I taught it but they didn’t learn it.” I think we see many of those here as well. “The content knowledge can follow,” maybe, but you are sacrificing some students in the mean time. When we talk about the incentives (in the form or more pay to math and science teachers), we aren’t necessarily talking about those people who would not make good teachers. We are trying to convince some of those who would otherwise consider teaching as their career but chose not to do so for whatever the reason. Some of them may be convinced to pursue teaching if they know that there is also monetary reward that is somewhat comparable to other options. I don’t dispute your claim that the content knowledge alone does not make good teachers - some of the worst teaching I have seen were at colleges by those professors with PhDs. On the other hand, your assumption that those people who will consider teaching because of better salary are only those with content knowledge alone. There are many people with solid content knowledge out there who would consider teaching if conditions were right - money alone may not be convincing enough, but it is a start.

By mmmm

September 13, 2008 10:22 PM | Link to this

Well, I hope it was obvious I meant “doesn’t seem to be relevant”

By bearcasey

September 15, 2008 10:53 AM | Link to this

I believe that quite a few people need lessons in “supply and demand.” These curves are based on assumptions… some of which DO NOT APPLY in the math/science teacher situation. To wit:

• “Supply” assumes that money is the overwhelming motivator in decision making. Just not true with a lot of math/science guys. Many of these people entered these fields PRECISELY because they wanted to avoid contact with annoyingly dumb people… lots of whom inhabit schools.

• The skill set necessary to be a good teacher is MUCH MORE prevalent in people interested in literature, history or foreign languages than in math/science guys. That’s why great math/science teachers are such gems! Too bad that more people aren’t great in BOTH.

• The amount of money required to lure great math/science people WHO CAN ACTUALLY TEACH into the below college level schools would be so expensive as to be prohibitive. Taxpayers would NEVER agree to it. I’m going to leave Cal Tech or IBM to teach at Northview answering to a glorified band director? I don’t think so.

By bearcasey

September 15, 2008 10:53 AM | Link to this

I believe that quite a few people need lessons in “supply and demand.” These curves are based on assumptions… some of which DO NOT APPLY in the math/science teacher situation. To wit:

• “Supply” assumes that money is the overwhelming motivator in decision making. Just not true with a lot of math/science guys. Many of these people entered these fields PRECISELY because they wanted to avoid contact with annoyingly dumb people… lots of whom inhabit schools.

• The skill set necessary to be a good teacher is MUCH MORE prevalent in people interested in literature, history or foreign languages than in math/science guys. That’s why great math/science teachers are such gems! Too bad that more people aren’t great in BOTH.

• The amount of money required to lure great math/science people WHO CAN ACTUALLY TEACH into the below college level schools would be so expensive as to be prohibitive. Taxpayers would NEVER agree to it. I’m going to leave Cal Tech or IBM to teach at Northview answering to a glorified band director? I don’t think so.

By A potential teacher

September 15, 2008 11:21 AM | Link to this

Having tutored math at the high school and university level in two different states, it is clear to me that many high school math teachers lack the necessary expertise. More than 30% of middle and high school math teachers don’t hold a in the subject matter they are teaching (ideally they would hold an advanced degree).

At the risk of offending others on this forum… education degrees are notoriously some of the easiest degrees at universities. Conversely, math, science, and engineering degrees are notoriously the most difficult. Higher expertise should result in higher pay.

Not all technically savvy individuals will make great teachers, but neither will those who excel in the liberal arts. Ability to teach will vary equally across all subjects.

The supply-demand argument is also very sound.

You want better schools? Pay teachers based upon their expertise and overall ability to teach. Use a management system to evaluate a teacher’s performance, not test scores. There are many great models at there that have worked well in industry and at universities.

Unfortunately, unions will continue to guarantee that bad teachers are paid well above their expertise and ability, while good teachers are paid poorly.

I worked at a tutoring center that employed engineers and math majors. Most all of these individuals were excellent teachers, and had a great level of expertise in mathematics. None of them (including me) chose to become teachers. Why? We can all get paid more than 50% more in industry.

By jim d

September 15, 2008 11:22 AM | Link to this

But Bear,

Lest you forget.

Teachers enter the occupation for the love of teaching, not the money. (just ask) :-)

And don’t forget the summers off thingy (lmao)

By TheBlogger

September 15, 2008 11:55 AM | Link to this

jim d - Just when many of us had hopes for you, you go and post something like that. How sad.

Let’s focus on the students and what is best for them.

Let’s start with the assumption that the math and science skills in our students are lacking. I say that it is an “assumption” because there is some evidence that those student skills are very good compared with students around the world. But, it is none-the-less an assumption.

Next, we also must include the assumption that the reason the first assumption may be true is because of lack of teacher skill. Again, we really don’t know that this is true or not….. there is no evidence to point in either direction.

However, there is real evidence that math and science teachers are hard to find to hire. Many/most schools have vacant positions waiting for a math or science teacher. Some fill those positions with unqualified people (they are not certified teachers). Some fill those positions with foreign teachers (a temporary fix).

Based on that real evidence, it is obvious that we must find qualified people for math and science teacher positions.

Therefore, if those positions came with a stipend (similar to a football coach, a basketball coach, etc.) or even with a supplement (similar to some administrators, etc.) then this should attract more people towards math and science teaching.

There may be that person out there that wants to teach and is deciding between math and social studies. It may just be that extra money that tips the scales for them to select math.

The point is - something must be done.

By mmmm

September 15, 2008 1:46 PM | Link to this

bearcasey

I agree with your assessment that there are bunch of dumb people walking around the hallways of schools - some call themselves teachers, unfortunately. However, I disagree with your other two points - I have had some horrible social study, literature, etc., teachers in my career as a student, K-12, college, and beyond. Moreover, there ARE plenty of people out there who would leave corporate positions to teach HS. Most of them would not necessarily ask for the equal pay - they may be willing to take a 30% cut instead of 50%.

A potential teacher Your assumption that an advanced degree will make someone a better teacher is completely false. Just look at those college classrooms with horrible professors.

Furthermore, the difference between the math and scince education majors and math and science majors is often 2 or 3 classes (in the content area). So, a math ed major may not take a Real Analysis but they are required to take non-Euclidean geometry as well as history of math, teaching math with technology, etc. Are they any easier? That will be a subjective question, but if you say they are, then you can probably make a case that a math/science ed majors are much more difficult than a history or literature majors (not education).

The Blogger It is not an assumption that our students are performing much below students from many our competitors. In fact, that has been the case over the past four-five decades. So, that may be an evidence that math and science aren’t as critical as some of the people seem to suggest.

Furthermore, whether or not it is a sufficient evidence can be disputed, but it is a fact that a high percentage of math and science teachers are teaching out of field.

By jim d

September 15, 2008 1:51 PM | Link to this

Blogger,

A little humor has to be thrown in every so often or these blogs would have us all teary-eyed.

By cobbteacher

September 24, 2008 8:03 PM | Link to this

NO WAY!!! Elementary school teachers in low-income, low-performing, inner-city, Title I schools work 10 times harder!! I should get a super sized bonus every time i can advance a student with horrible reading skills and even worse math skills to pass the state tests so they can even MAKE it to middle and high school!

By Future Physics Teacher

March 26, 2009 2:38 PM | Link to this

I agree with Tom: “Some people seem to think that occupational pay is based on amount of work. No, it’s based on how much people want (or need it) and how difficult it is to replace people. “

It’s never about how “hard” you work. Many people work there tails off in restaurant/construction jobs and get paid pretty minimal.

I think the reason why there isn’t enough candidates to choose from when hiring Math and Science Teachers is because their starting salary is too low. Why would most math/sci people want to teach and get a starting salary around $40,000, when they could be starting around $50,000 in the industry. Plus, there is much quicker advancement and advancement in pay in the industry. I mean, for a History major, a starting salary around $40,000 sounds really good right out of college, but for the person with an engineering degree may have to think twice before committing to teaching.

Same thing as stated before. Supply and Demand.

By gjovai gopjlzaud

April 1, 2009 5:32 AM | Link to this

mdoulpsg qiph omrzcsu ybvd thkdsniw vuqab olkxrph