Florida Governor Rick Scott has just signed into law the nation's first bill that will set sweeping new teacher work rules dealing with hiring, firing, evaluations and merit pay.
While teachers and other activists protested Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker's actions vigorously and loudly in Madison in recent weeks, Florida's newly elected governor, Republican Rick Scott, and the Republican-dominated Florida Legislature quietly ushered through precedent-shattering and radical new legislation which will dramatically change the rules under which that state's teachers will work.…
Article comments
26 - Clavos
If you pay teachers with a master's degree less than what an MBA would earn, then why would anyone want to be a teacher?
...And a scarcity of applicants would, of course, result in wages going up.
Supply and demand -- applies to wages as it does to prices.
27 - Heloise
Doug wrote: "I'm always skeptical of ideas like this, what gets lost in the mix and Glenn mentioned briefly, are the things outside the teacher's control including students natural abilities and home environment which are often overlooked in the debate about teachers."
Well Doug teachers are taught a thing or two before they get in the classroom. And exactly what you have outlined they are taught that these are "excuses." In other words that old saw: all kids can and will learn.
Teachers have no cushion to fall back on, and no laurels to rest on from the getgo. In fact a principal here was fired for the double standard she spoke over the PA and said that 8 black boys kept the school from getting off the AYP list (or the bad list).
The black parents took her down and within two weeks she had to resign under fire. It was a double standard for her to mention what teachers cannot: where you came from or the color of your skin. In Texas, black skin still carries with it the stigma of stupidity.
The real problem is that teaching is a career or job and not a profession. Teachers do not go on to professional schools, like nursing, law or medical school. It is a job where you must have ONLY a BA or BS in order to teach. The standards and the pay is low in most rural areas.
This is where other countries have us beat. Teaching is more of a profession.
As for the job of administrators: they are the policeman of the schools, yes former teachers, with more training. They work hard though. Most schools could do without them if there were NO discipline problems. They do not exist in Catholic schools, except for the head nun, at least when I was in elementary and high school.
Heloise
28 - Glenn Contrarian
Clavos -
Actually, the law of supply and demand does not work in every case. Witness the dearth of science and math teachers we've had over the years - did it result in higher wages for the science and math teachers we have now?
No.
If we look at the countries where the students score much higher than we do, they do not see teachers as a matter of 'supply and demand', but as a crucial part of society that needs to be protected, honored...and paid well. But here in America, it's starting to seem as if teachers are seen by many as leeches, parasites on society because they're not businesspeople, but instead receive their paychecks from the taxpayer.
Yes, hold teachers accountable. Yes, fire the underperforming teachers (please!). Yes, get rid of the tenure system that allows underperforming teachers to coast once they've gained tenure. But pay the rest of them very well...and pay them enough that the money will attract the best and the brightest from our universities!
After all - whose worth is greater? A lawyer? Or a Wal-Mart manager? Or a teacher?
29 - Heloise
Teaching is a service, just short of flipping hamburgers in a fast food place and not a business. I don't think they will ever be paid well in our society.
30 - Glenn Contrarian
But that doesn't me we shouldn't try our best to support them getting better pay - through our votes, if nothing else.
31 - Clavos
Actually, the law of supply and demand does not work in every case. Witness the dearth of science and math teachers we've had over the years - did it result in higher wages for the science and math teachers we have now?
Lack of demand, Glenn. American kids shy away from science and math, thus, a lack of demand for science and math teachers.
32 - handyguy
#31 - that sounds wack to me. Any documentation? The need for more specialist teachers, especially in elementary schools and middle/junior high schools in poor neighborhoods, has been a much repeated mantra.
33 - Doug Hunter
#27
I couldn't make heads or tails of what you were saying in regards to my comment, whether agreeing or disagreeing. It'd be interesting to do a study by placing many of who we believe to be the absolute best teachers available in a poor performing school district and monitor the results over time compared to control groups.
34 - Clavos
Handy:
that sounds wack to me. It IS wack -- but, unfortunately, true.
Any documentation? Oh yeah. See below.
The need for more specialist teachers, especially in elementary schools and middle/junior high schools in poor neighborhoods, has been a much repeated mantra. Repeated by whom? Science and math teachers trying to create a market?
Documentation #1 says, in part:.
A common aversion to math and science by American students is well known. “It’s boring” or “It’s too hard” are among frequently cited reasons given by students.
Documentation #2 says in part:
In order for this country to compete effectively in the global economy, American educators have been charged with the daunting challenge of improving student math and science skills, even as student interest in traditional math and science courses is trending downward.
Documentation #3 says, in part:
In a nation that seems to have a cultural aversion to tackling "hard" subjects like math and science, can those numbers be achieved?
Documentation #4 (A teacher's blog) says, in part:
After some thought, I decided to write a letter based on my experiences giving books to kids at the food pantry, and the unabated gender gap I see in kids’ interest in science and math. Sure, the older kids are computer users, but computers are fun personal devices; they still display an aversion to math and science, especially the non-biological sciences. A few boys get drawn in by technology, but I don’t see it in girls. [I have a small sample size, I admit, and it is a rural area.]
Documentation #5 says, in part:
In most countries, math literacy is expected, but in the United States it seems socially acceptable to say “I hate math.” Many citizens and parents are complacent about math education. For instance, a 2007 poll of Kansas and Missouri parents conducted by Public Agenda found that only 25 percent thought their children should be studying more math and science; 70 percent “think things are fine as they are now.”
In raw numbers, the U.S. actually produces far fewer math majors today than the country did in the 1970s (see graphic), despite large increases in overall college enrollments. Math-averse students are missing out. A 2009 ranking by Careercast.com found that America’s top three jobs, based on income, employment outlook stress, work environment and physical demands, were: 1) mathematician; 2) actuary; and 3) statistician.
Need I go on?
Google it yourself; there are lots of references to the aversion on the part of the students to both math and the sciences.
35 - handyguy
Math and science are still required subjects in elementary, middle and high schools, whether kids are 'averse' to them or not. And college-bound students are not going to stop taking science and math if it is required to graduate. [Lower numbers of science and math students in college are a different matter; and indeed that might be related to a shortage of specialized teachers.]
Your long response didn't really address your assertion that fewer math and science teachers are needed.
36 - Clavos
Math and science are still required subjects in elementary, middle and high schools,...
Aversion means they not only don't like them, they don't take them. It is entirely possible to graduate high school these days with far fewer math and science credits than were required years ago.
As this study shows, increasingly, high school students are not required to take math beyond algebra 1 and geometry for graduation.
Actually, math beyond first year geometry or algebra 1 is less and less required these days, as are science disciplines such as Physics and Chemistry, both of which I took in high school decades ago.
The sources I linked in my previous comment confirmed these points.
Your long response didn't really address your assertion that fewer math and science teachers are needed.
No, not directly, I thought given the proof that fewer students enroll in math nd science courses beyond the bare requirements for graduation made it obvious that there is less demand for teachers in those disciplines.
I'm astonished that you defend the present state of American education so vigorously, handy, when voice after voice (including those of educators) is being raised these days pointing out just how deficient on so many levels our educational system is.
37 - handyguy
I'm not defending the status quo. But ideological approaches to this very complex issue could make things worse instead of better.
If it's true that lower graduation requirements have led to less need for science and math teachers, shame on whoever did that. We should raise the requirements and add teachers as necessary.
I like Arne Duncan, I like Michelle Rhee, I like Diane Ravitch. I even mostly like Randi Weingarten. They are all smart and they all care. They should be meeting regularly to come up with workable solutions, since a combination of their ideas and approaches may have a chance of working.
38 - Clavos
If it's true that lower graduation requirements have led to less need for science and math teachers, shame on whoever did that. We should raise the requirements and add teachers as necessary.
Quoted for Truth.
I like Arne Duncan, I like Michelle Rhee, I like Diane Ravitch. I even mostly like Randi Weingarten. They are all smart and they all care. They should be meeting regularly to come up with workable solutions, since a combination of their ideas and approaches may have a chance of working.
Ditto.
39 - handyguy
Rachel Maddow had a segment tonight on authoritarian conservatism vs libertarian conservatism.
She said Rick Scott is calling for mandatory drug testing, quarterly, for all state employees. Say what?! Craziness.
40 - Boeke
There is no Law Of Supply and Demand. There's a tendency of supply and demand, but no such law. Trying to call it a law is to try to create a spurious linkage to legitimize guesswork.
41 - Clavos
Deny it all you want, Boeke, but Supply and Demand are the very basis of economics, and they DO follow easily traceable (and predictable) paths as economic conditions change.
If you don't like "Law," no problem; we can call it the "Green and Purple Spotted Giraffe" of Supply and Demand -- doesn't change anything.
However, these sources choose to call it a law:
Here
And here
Google it. There are dozens of institutions, both in th business and the academic worlds that choose to call it a "law."
42 - Boeke
Sorry, Clavos, your citations are as superficial and naive as you appear to be.
For example: "A. The Law of Demand
The law of demand states that, if all other factors remain equal, the higher the price of a good, the less people will demand that good."
First year Econ students at good universities, know the familiar counter-example that disproves this presumption: during the Irish potato famine, as the price of potatoes rose the demand rose!
And all other factors remained equal (thus obviating the Economists usual excuse of 'externalities').
Shocking!
As an exercise for the student: see if you can figure out why.
43 - Clavos
Sorry, Clavos, your citations are as superficial and naive as you appear to be.
Thanks for your response, Boeke. In my naiveté, I thought you would look further and see that the idea of a Law of supply and demand is as widely held as the Theory of evolution.
First year Econ students at good universities, know the familiar counter-example that disproves this presumption: during the Irish potato famine, as the price of potatoes rose the demand rose!
I received my degree from the University of South Florida, which is probably no one's idea of a "good university," but I did notice that you deviously left out the other half of the equation, Boeke, it is, after all the Law of Supply and Demand. And, what happened in the Irish potato famine, of course, was that "all other factors" did not "remain equal," the supply plummeted, (it was a famine) which naturally resulted in rising prices, and because the potato crop was the principal source of nourishment in 19th century Ireland and people must eat to stay alive, so as the price of potatoes rose as a result of the diminishing supply, the demand remained strong, as the people began to cut out other foodstuffs they could no longer afford, seeking more and more potatoes against the diminishing supply.
But here, don't take my word for it, let The Economist explain it to you.
You disprove nothing. I took the same Econ courses.