Add your review
Avg. Rating: 4
<<<<>>>>>
SURE! teachers have it easy - in the same sense that parents have it easy. You see, the truth is that when school districts throw a bunch of money at their problems, those problems tend to go away. I am a music educator - which means that I, 1) see between 50 and 120 students in one class (not exactly the size of your typical gen-ed class); 2) teach 7 classes per day including general music, orchestra, band and wind ensemble; 3) have ONE free/planning period (40 minutes) and one 30-minute lunch; 4) grade between 50 - 600 homework assignments at home per week (NOT Scantron) because I want to know that my kids are learning (and, no, Ingram, we don't get paid extra for that) 5) must stay 4 weeks ahead with lesson plans and concert schedules; 6) deal with irate parents wanting to know why their child is failing general music ("It's JUST music class!") and when I get home on the last day of class in June, I can relax because I have six weekdays to do nothing - before summer school classes start.
SUMMERS OFF? I personally know over 100 teachers, very few who have had a summer off since they were students in high school: EVERYbody has a secondary-income summer job or works (uncompensated) to prepare for their upcoming school year. The more the lay-public learns about the U.S. public school system, the more they will want to send their children to a private single-sex school, or home school their children.
I was disappointed that Eggers did not use any data collected from Chicago/Chicago suburban public school teachers, who are some of the best paid teachers in the country. (30+ year veterans w/MM typically earn over $100,000 - http://www.thechampion.org/teacher/cgi-bin/teacher.pl) However, they don't usually earn into the top tier of their income bracket until they are a few years from their retirement; NOT when their kids are going off to college when they need it.
The Bar Association is administered by Lawyers; the AMA is administered by doctors; but, Teachers are administered by the government. Now do you know why the public school system is spiraling out of control?
You want better test scores? You want higher ACT scores? You want your kids to get into a decent college? You want to again lead the world's civilized countries in education? The Republican answer is "lower the standards" - which doesn't work because then we end up with a "C" student in the Oval Office; you want change? Increase the teacher's income base!
One trick pony
There is a great need for a well-written book that takes on the shortcomings of the American educational system, but I'm sad to say that this is not it. What Eggers, et al. have given us is just another tome that presents a simplistic solution (this one being that teachers need to be paid more) but fails to take other issues into account. To be fair, other issues are mentioned, but the emphasis is put on higher wages.
My problem with this book lay on two fronts; the argument and the way it is presented. First lets start with the argument; that there is a shortage of skilled teachers because salaries are too low. As a former New York City schoolteacher, I was satisfied with compensation that I was receiving. In addition to a halfway decent salary, my health insurance and retirement benefits were more than adequate. On top of this, I had most of the summers off and all major (and many minor) holidays. I had a great lifestyle.
Yet despite all these perks, many of my fellow former teachers and I choose not to teach because of the basic fact that we just don't like the job. Some find the routine of presenting the same material 5-6 times a day boring. Others find that limited opportunity for advancement stifling. And many of us quit because of the asinine bureaucracies that run most school systems are just too much to deal with.
My other criticism of this book is the way it is written. For one, the research base is very limited. The authors say that they spoke to almost 200 teachers, which considering the number of teachers in this country seems like a paltry amount. My other problem lies in the author's attitude, especially in the section where they compare the `hard working teacher' with the `slacker salesman'. For one, the teacher is married with kids while the salesman isn't. Is it any wonder that the teacher has less free time? It would have been fairer if the authors compared the salesman's life to my life as a teacher in the month of July, where I taught summer school for 3 hours (raising my take home pay to $1200 a week), was in the park by 12:30 sunning myself, met my friends for happy hour, and ending the dayby going home with a girl who was way too young for me. All this with better benefits than the majority of other American workers.
Teachers DO Have it Easy!
Despite the authors' assertions to the contrary, public school teachers are very well-paid - considering they have a part-time job (short school day and year), excellent health insurance and retirement benefits, one of the lowest achievement scores of all college graduate groups, almost no risk of job loss, are almost impossible to fire for poor performance (nor are they paid less for such), and are paid far more (and receive better benefits) than most private school teachers.
Further, despite Eggers et al's selective citation of the evidence, there is very little evidence to support paying teachers on the basis of experience beyond the first few years, or paying more for taking additional courses.
The authors' would have us conclude, on the basis of a few selective anecdotes, that teachers are slaving away to further our childrens' education. Some do stay late - on the other hand, only someone with a death wish would stand in the exit of the teachers' parking lot at the end of the school day. And are we supposed to believe that even with time off for lesson planning and grading papers (middle- and high-school staff), P.E., art and music classes (elementary grades), that all/most teachers' spend long evenings working at home - including P.E., art, music, Kindergarten, etc.?
Improved productivity is reasonable grounds for increased pay. Yet, when Harvard economist Caroline Hoxby analyzed pupil achievement on the National Assessment of Education Progress from the early '70's vs. class size, she found the educators' productivity had declined about 50%! And columnist George Will writes: "A new assessment of adult literacy shows a sharp decline over the last decade, with only 31 percent of college graduates able to read and extrapolate from complex material. They were supposed to learn how to read before college . . .."
Thus the authors would have us pay MORE for LESS!
If you believe all the authors' propositions, I have a bridge to sell you!
Review this book
|
