I really like this balanced approach to the education problem our country faces:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/romney-vs-teachers-unions-the-inconvenient-truth/2012/05/30/gJQA7KVv1U_story.html
Thursday, May 31, 2012
Tuesday, May 29, 2012
Teachers and Servers: Don't you dare talk bad about them!
I am surprised with the vigorous defenses people make when I talk negatively against teachers or servers/waiters. I could criticize any profession aside from that of a homemaker or soldier, without receiving a passionate response, but my criticisms of teachers and waiters make even the meek write me messages in capital letters.
Why? (Let's put aside the fact, for a moment, that I criticize teacher compensation structures, not teachers.)
Low wages?
Are you all so protective of teachers and servers because they don't make much? Garbage men, court clerks, and bank tellers don't make much. Produce boys at grocery stores don't make much? Why would you protect a waiter more vigorously than a cashier? Besides, Waiters make at least minimum wage--they have to--and teachers make as much as social workers, court clerks, and even some nurses. Furthermore, Teachers and Waiters know how much they will be paid when they sign up. Their base wages are basically more predictable than any other profession.
Because everyone is related to a teacher or a waiter?
Really? The entire professional should be free from criticism because you know someone? Your Aunt or sister is a great teacher so all teachers should make twice as much?
Because they are picked on so much?
So are lawyers. People hate us. Usually they hate us because of one isolated run-in with an attorney or based on some running joke. But nobody defends lawyers.. My wife wouldn't even defend my profession. :)
Because people underestimate how hard the job is?
Yeah, I get it: teachers work more than 9 months a year, and waiters don't always get great tips. I'm not sure I understand why that should save them from criticism.
Because their income potential is limited?
This one makes sense. Although some attorneys and medical residents actually make FAR less than teachers per hour (even super teachers), those attorneys and doctors can go on to make much more. Still though, is this a surprise?
Because they have no control?
Teacher's don't tend to open their own businesses or move to more exciting fields. The unions and governments hold teachers down. So this makes them blameless? Waiters are stuck with base wages of 2.50 an hour and they can't seem to move up, but they could leave and do something else.
Because I'm not qualified to criticize?
I'm not saying I am qualified to fix the educational system, but I think I have enough experience to point out deficiencies in the system. Besides, since when does someone have to be "qualified" before they can criticize something? How does the old cliche` go? I don't need to know how to sing to tell if someone is out of key? I have attended eleven schools in my life. (4 elementary schools, a "sixth-grade center", one middle school, one high school, one college, and two universities.) I estimate I've taken classes from 60-75 teachers. I've been involved in termination hearings for teachers with tenure. I think I can recognize that there is a MASSIVE difference in the performance of teachers and schools and they all tend to get paid based on anything but ability. I would think effective, hard-working teachers would be losing their minds over the current education system.
I don't think I am qualified to criticize waiters... so I don't. But people mostly get upset when I criticize the merits of tipping in America.
I know it's probably a combination of these and other reasons, but I am impressed by the sensitivity.
Why? (Let's put aside the fact, for a moment, that I criticize teacher compensation structures, not teachers.)
Low wages?
Are you all so protective of teachers and servers because they don't make much? Garbage men, court clerks, and bank tellers don't make much. Produce boys at grocery stores don't make much? Why would you protect a waiter more vigorously than a cashier? Besides, Waiters make at least minimum wage--they have to--and teachers make as much as social workers, court clerks, and even some nurses. Furthermore, Teachers and Waiters know how much they will be paid when they sign up. Their base wages are basically more predictable than any other profession.
Because everyone is related to a teacher or a waiter?
Really? The entire professional should be free from criticism because you know someone? Your Aunt or sister is a great teacher so all teachers should make twice as much?
Because they are picked on so much?
So are lawyers. People hate us. Usually they hate us because of one isolated run-in with an attorney or based on some running joke. But nobody defends lawyers.. My wife wouldn't even defend my profession. :)
Because people underestimate how hard the job is?
Yeah, I get it: teachers work more than 9 months a year, and waiters don't always get great tips. I'm not sure I understand why that should save them from criticism.
Because their income potential is limited?
This one makes sense. Although some attorneys and medical residents actually make FAR less than teachers per hour (even super teachers), those attorneys and doctors can go on to make much more. Still though, is this a surprise?
Because they have no control?
Teacher's don't tend to open their own businesses or move to more exciting fields. The unions and governments hold teachers down. So this makes them blameless? Waiters are stuck with base wages of 2.50 an hour and they can't seem to move up, but they could leave and do something else.
Because I'm not qualified to criticize?
I'm not saying I am qualified to fix the educational system, but I think I have enough experience to point out deficiencies in the system. Besides, since when does someone have to be "qualified" before they can criticize something? How does the old cliche` go? I don't need to know how to sing to tell if someone is out of key? I have attended eleven schools in my life. (4 elementary schools, a "sixth-grade center", one middle school, one high school, one college, and two universities.) I estimate I've taken classes from 60-75 teachers. I've been involved in termination hearings for teachers with tenure. I think I can recognize that there is a MASSIVE difference in the performance of teachers and schools and they all tend to get paid based on anything but ability. I would think effective, hard-working teachers would be losing their minds over the current education system.
I don't think I am qualified to criticize waiters... so I don't. But people mostly get upset when I criticize the merits of tipping in America.
I know it's probably a combination of these and other reasons, but I am impressed by the sensitivity.
Friday, May 25, 2012
Ted Talks: Dreams and Responsibility and Brainwashing
Most people don't have time to "find their passion," so they need to learn how to develop their current situation into their passion. This can happen only if you convince yourself that you must be incredibly good at even what you don't like doing.
Last week, I found myself bored on a four-hour drive, so I downloaded the "TED" app on my phone and listened to some remarkable Ted Talks. While I was completely overtaken by a new fascination with TED, I couldn't fight back the dissonance I felt. It was a dissonance between Passion, Dreams, and Responsibility.
In Steve Jobs' legendary Stanford commencement address, he emphasized that the secret to success and happiness was to find your passion. I suppose you could call that address the "Gospel of Jobs." He didn't come up with the idea, but he definitely popularized the idea into a near-cliche. My Dad's response to this type of talk is always, "Go be a pharmacist, and find your passion outside of work."
Several of the TED talks I listened to mentioned passion and dreams, and a few of them even referred directly to the Jobs' address. One talk spoke about how you will fail to have a great career because you will fail to either find your passion or follow it (mostly because you are scared.)
While the presenters of the TED talks were incredibly inspiring, and undoubtedly successful in their own fields, none of them seemed to acknowledge that most ordinary people simply don't have enough time or freedom to go passion hunting. I found myself saying, "Well, if I could go back to my freshman year of college, I could follow some of this advice." But THAT is the problem. If I could go back in time, I would worry constantly about how to ensure that I still find my lovely wife and two daughters. I sincerely wouldn't give them up for the world. I simply can't believe that I would have developed into the man she fell in love with, had I spent the five years preceding our meeting running about, sampling all the potential passions. I dread the thought that I would have screwed up what is great about my life by trying to replace a good career with my "one true passion."
During high school, I was exposed to virtually everything. From individual sports to the debate team, from shop class to acapella choir. I learned about economics, science, math, cooking, music, and philospophy, but I lacked the emotional maturity and experience to truly evaluate what my passion would be. At one point I thought my passion might be medicine; I wanted to be a surgeon. But how, without spending a single moment as a surgeon, could I know whether that is my true "passion."
Now I have significant family responsibilities. Would Steve Jobs and the TED talkers still recommend I hunt for my passion? How does a full-time professional with a family and other responsibilities have time for such pursuits?
I could commit full-time to statistical research and blogging, to a medical education, or to becoming an announcer at the Olympics. Those things may carry a possibility of being a passion. But they also carry a limited chance at success, combined with a guaranteed sacrifice of a great career and living situation.
Fortunately, my TED listening also introduced me to the Optimism Bias, and the Happy Secret to Better Work. While the Speakers would never dare admit it, they stealthily offered a healthy dose of realism into a syrup of idealism. You can listen to the talks by clicking on the links, but my general impression was that people can control their own passion through their perspective and attitude.
I've spoken with many law-school graduates who are now saddled with debt. Several of them are in good jobs in areas they aren't fond of. A few of them don't have jobs at all. The natural reaction is to say, "I shouldn't have gone to law school. I should have _____." So they spend their days dreaming of what could have been instead of what can be.
An unfortunate reality is that, although your passion can be found within the confines of your choices, the freedom to develop your passion is only granted if you can provide high-quality work in a timely manner. An attorney with no savings is not going to be able to instantly start teaching "law-practice management seminars" for money. He will most likely need to dominate the job he is currently in and develop the skills and connections he needs along the way. This can be negatively referred to as "paying your dues." I like to think of it as "making yourself valuable."
My suggestion, then, is to convince yourself that completing any mundane, dues-paying, rat-race work is actually an essential step to developing your passion. In order to find your passion, run straight through your challenges, instead of looking for a way around them. You will feel proud and accomplished, and your happiness will make you even more effective.
Become an expert in your field, and then carve out your passion.
Last week, I found myself bored on a four-hour drive, so I downloaded the "TED" app on my phone and listened to some remarkable Ted Talks. While I was completely overtaken by a new fascination with TED, I couldn't fight back the dissonance I felt. It was a dissonance between Passion, Dreams, and Responsibility.
In Steve Jobs' legendary Stanford commencement address, he emphasized that the secret to success and happiness was to find your passion. I suppose you could call that address the "Gospel of Jobs." He didn't come up with the idea, but he definitely popularized the idea into a near-cliche. My Dad's response to this type of talk is always, "Go be a pharmacist, and find your passion outside of work."
Several of the TED talks I listened to mentioned passion and dreams, and a few of them even referred directly to the Jobs' address. One talk spoke about how you will fail to have a great career because you will fail to either find your passion or follow it (mostly because you are scared.)
While the presenters of the TED talks were incredibly inspiring, and undoubtedly successful in their own fields, none of them seemed to acknowledge that most ordinary people simply don't have enough time or freedom to go passion hunting. I found myself saying, "Well, if I could go back to my freshman year of college, I could follow some of this advice." But THAT is the problem. If I could go back in time, I would worry constantly about how to ensure that I still find my lovely wife and two daughters. I sincerely wouldn't give them up for the world. I simply can't believe that I would have developed into the man she fell in love with, had I spent the five years preceding our meeting running about, sampling all the potential passions. I dread the thought that I would have screwed up what is great about my life by trying to replace a good career with my "one true passion."
During high school, I was exposed to virtually everything. From individual sports to the debate team, from shop class to acapella choir. I learned about economics, science, math, cooking, music, and philospophy, but I lacked the emotional maturity and experience to truly evaluate what my passion would be. At one point I thought my passion might be medicine; I wanted to be a surgeon. But how, without spending a single moment as a surgeon, could I know whether that is my true "passion."
Now I have significant family responsibilities. Would Steve Jobs and the TED talkers still recommend I hunt for my passion? How does a full-time professional with a family and other responsibilities have time for such pursuits?
I could commit full-time to statistical research and blogging, to a medical education, or to becoming an announcer at the Olympics. Those things may carry a possibility of being a passion. But they also carry a limited chance at success, combined with a guaranteed sacrifice of a great career and living situation.
Fortunately, my TED listening also introduced me to the Optimism Bias, and the Happy Secret to Better Work. While the Speakers would never dare admit it, they stealthily offered a healthy dose of realism into a syrup of idealism. You can listen to the talks by clicking on the links, but my general impression was that people can control their own passion through their perspective and attitude.
I've spoken with many law-school graduates who are now saddled with debt. Several of them are in good jobs in areas they aren't fond of. A few of them don't have jobs at all. The natural reaction is to say, "I shouldn't have gone to law school. I should have _____." So they spend their days dreaming of what could have been instead of what can be.
An unfortunate reality is that, although your passion can be found within the confines of your choices, the freedom to develop your passion is only granted if you can provide high-quality work in a timely manner. An attorney with no savings is not going to be able to instantly start teaching "law-practice management seminars" for money. He will most likely need to dominate the job he is currently in and develop the skills and connections he needs along the way. This can be negatively referred to as "paying your dues." I like to think of it as "making yourself valuable."
My suggestion, then, is to convince yourself that completing any mundane, dues-paying, rat-race work is actually an essential step to developing your passion. In order to find your passion, run straight through your challenges, instead of looking for a way around them. You will feel proud and accomplished, and your happiness will make you even more effective.
Become an expert in your field, and then carve out your passion.
Wednesday, May 9, 2012
Teacher Pay
Hey you! Yeah you, the wonderful teacher. I'm not trying to pick a fight with you, but I'm troubled. Teacher pay in the U.S. makes no sense to me.
You are a great teacher, and I'm not criticizing you. I completely accept the possibility that thousands of teachers provide excellent instruction every day. The time you spend trying to effectively teach children is incredibly valuable to society.
I'm troubled because you work at a public school for the same amount of money as Mr. Crappy down the hall. I'm troubled because you are a better teacher than Mr. Masters, but he gets paid more for getting a wasteful graduate degree in an unrelated field. I'm troubled because someone as talented as you doesn't have the means, ability, or courage to go down a different road. I think teacher pay oppresses you.
As I've said before, the market for teachers suggests there are more teachers available than there are teaching positions. This is part of the reason why wages have stayed low. This increased supply of teachers in relation to demand pulls wages down while the unions and social morals pull wages up. The result, is juuuuust enough money to keep you there and keep your mouth shut. Public schools are like a smoked beehive. The bees are angry on the inside, but too paralyzed to really do anything about it.
As an illustration of my point, lets examine the extremes.
First, lets make our hypothetical world. We announce new federal legislation that will go into effect in four years. This legislation will mandate that all teachers be fired, that they be eligible for rehire, and that the minimum wage for public school teachers be raised to $120,000.
Maybe I'm wrong, but I think the demand for education-education would explode. Professionals would go back to school for a career switch, students would choose teaching programs over law school, med school, and pharmacy school. To counter the massive demand for education and the massive supply of new applicants, entrance exams would be created and schools would begin to require graduate degrees. Suddenly you'd have to take the GRE or T-SAT to get an education degree. Perhaps there would even be an educator's bar that would require a teacher bar exam of sorts.
Four years would pass and suddenly schools would have a huge variety of people to choose from. Unfortunately, the methods used to evaluate teachers suck now, so they wouldn't properly value or measure your years of experience and dedication. Most likely, they would choose the shiny ivy-league grads who tested in the top 10 percentile on the T-SAT. Your school board and superintendent would want to rehire you, but he'd have to justify the decision to parents and the community.
Let's say you get rehired. Phew! The industry would be hyper-competitive. Tenure would die because the public would be outraged if you couldn't be fired when you are making that type of money. The teachers who could handle larger class sizes would get preferential treatment and teachers would put in more and more time to preserve their job. The teacher evaluation techniques would still be ineffective, and you'd have to impress your managers in the same way everyone else in the world does. Work more than everyone else and become invaluable. Bring in private donations to your school, and keep the parents happy. Publish articles and get famous. All that jazz.
So, you tell me, would that make education better? Would test scores go up? Would "real" learning increase? My guess is that currently under-achieving schools would benefit greatly from the program while those schools that currently perform well would see marginal gains. Maybe I'm wrong and new teachers wouldn't fix the broken system.
Now for the opposite extreme. Sorry folks, we are still going to require the same standards and pre-requisites, but we have to cut your pay. You will make $18,000 per year plus $750 per year of experience.
I'm not totally convinced, but I can imagine demand for education-education would slow down substantially. However, the current teachers would probably revolt. Maybe the unions would do what they do and get the teachers to strike. Everyone would chant and holler and stare at each other for a while. Strikes make a difference, but I don't think it's that substantial. OR Maybe, just maybe, some teachers would get motivated and set up a lobby for vouchers or start fund raising for scholarships. A group of great teachers like you would break off and start competing with the public schools and you would own them. Maybe parents would realize that your school performs better than the public school and they'd start to lobby for more schools like yours. Maybe the wait list for your school would get so long that copy cats would pop up all over.
Maybe. I don't know. But you do, don't you? You can beat them, can't you?
The median state in the union spends about $11,000 per pupil each year. If you and four friends figure out how to educate 150 students, your school would have a gross revenue of $1.65 million dollars. Pay some MBA you trust $150,000 to run the place, spend $950,000 a year on expenses and you'd still have over $100,000 each for your salary.
I know this is oversimplified. But have you at least crunched the numbers? Could you sell a school to parents without a football field or bus system? Could you use a caterer for school lunches? Or are you paralyzed by union and bureaucratic smoke?
With all of the complaining I hear about teacher wages and treatment, I can't believe there isn't one private school business plan for every two teachers out there. Why don't you help get someone elected who can clear the way for private schools and vouchers?
Maybe it's because you are content with the wages you get.
How can I possibly draw any other conclusion? You go to school knowing what you'll get paid when you graduate, you know that you won't get merit pay, and you know that it will be a largely thankless job, yet you do it anyway. An on top of it, your lobby opposes private schools. You pay dues to a union, and it strikes down any competition that could provide better employment.
I honestly think the education lobbies want your pay to stay low, but not that low. If it gets too high, they know the pressure for merit pay and higher qualifications will be intense. If it gets too low, both the quality and willingness to play the game will drop.
I'm troubled. I don't get why so many people do what you with the wage ceiling where it is. At least underpaid professionals in other industries can dream of making it big one day. I'm troubled that you don't seem to be doing anything to change the system. You are seriously leaving education reform to the lawyers... and that's suspect.
You are a great teacher, and I'm not criticizing you. I completely accept the possibility that thousands of teachers provide excellent instruction every day. The time you spend trying to effectively teach children is incredibly valuable to society.
I'm troubled because you work at a public school for the same amount of money as Mr. Crappy down the hall. I'm troubled because you are a better teacher than Mr. Masters, but he gets paid more for getting a wasteful graduate degree in an unrelated field. I'm troubled because someone as talented as you doesn't have the means, ability, or courage to go down a different road. I think teacher pay oppresses you.
As I've said before, the market for teachers suggests there are more teachers available than there are teaching positions. This is part of the reason why wages have stayed low. This increased supply of teachers in relation to demand pulls wages down while the unions and social morals pull wages up. The result, is juuuuust enough money to keep you there and keep your mouth shut. Public schools are like a smoked beehive. The bees are angry on the inside, but too paralyzed to really do anything about it.
As an illustration of my point, lets examine the extremes.
First, lets make our hypothetical world. We announce new federal legislation that will go into effect in four years. This legislation will mandate that all teachers be fired, that they be eligible for rehire, and that the minimum wage for public school teachers be raised to $120,000.
Maybe I'm wrong, but I think the demand for education-education would explode. Professionals would go back to school for a career switch, students would choose teaching programs over law school, med school, and pharmacy school. To counter the massive demand for education and the massive supply of new applicants, entrance exams would be created and schools would begin to require graduate degrees. Suddenly you'd have to take the GRE or T-SAT to get an education degree. Perhaps there would even be an educator's bar that would require a teacher bar exam of sorts.
Four years would pass and suddenly schools would have a huge variety of people to choose from. Unfortunately, the methods used to evaluate teachers suck now, so they wouldn't properly value or measure your years of experience and dedication. Most likely, they would choose the shiny ivy-league grads who tested in the top 10 percentile on the T-SAT. Your school board and superintendent would want to rehire you, but he'd have to justify the decision to parents and the community.
Let's say you get rehired. Phew! The industry would be hyper-competitive. Tenure would die because the public would be outraged if you couldn't be fired when you are making that type of money. The teachers who could handle larger class sizes would get preferential treatment and teachers would put in more and more time to preserve their job. The teacher evaluation techniques would still be ineffective, and you'd have to impress your managers in the same way everyone else in the world does. Work more than everyone else and become invaluable. Bring in private donations to your school, and keep the parents happy. Publish articles and get famous. All that jazz.
So, you tell me, would that make education better? Would test scores go up? Would "real" learning increase? My guess is that currently under-achieving schools would benefit greatly from the program while those schools that currently perform well would see marginal gains. Maybe I'm wrong and new teachers wouldn't fix the broken system.
Now for the opposite extreme. Sorry folks, we are still going to require the same standards and pre-requisites, but we have to cut your pay. You will make $18,000 per year plus $750 per year of experience.
I'm not totally convinced, but I can imagine demand for education-education would slow down substantially. However, the current teachers would probably revolt. Maybe the unions would do what they do and get the teachers to strike. Everyone would chant and holler and stare at each other for a while. Strikes make a difference, but I don't think it's that substantial. OR Maybe, just maybe, some teachers would get motivated and set up a lobby for vouchers or start fund raising for scholarships. A group of great teachers like you would break off and start competing with the public schools and you would own them. Maybe parents would realize that your school performs better than the public school and they'd start to lobby for more schools like yours. Maybe the wait list for your school would get so long that copy cats would pop up all over.
Maybe. I don't know. But you do, don't you? You can beat them, can't you?
The median state in the union spends about $11,000 per pupil each year. If you and four friends figure out how to educate 150 students, your school would have a gross revenue of $1.65 million dollars. Pay some MBA you trust $150,000 to run the place, spend $950,000 a year on expenses and you'd still have over $100,000 each for your salary.
I know this is oversimplified. But have you at least crunched the numbers? Could you sell a school to parents without a football field or bus system? Could you use a caterer for school lunches? Or are you paralyzed by union and bureaucratic smoke?
With all of the complaining I hear about teacher wages and treatment, I can't believe there isn't one private school business plan for every two teachers out there. Why don't you help get someone elected who can clear the way for private schools and vouchers?
Maybe it's because you are content with the wages you get.
How can I possibly draw any other conclusion? You go to school knowing what you'll get paid when you graduate, you know that you won't get merit pay, and you know that it will be a largely thankless job, yet you do it anyway. An on top of it, your lobby opposes private schools. You pay dues to a union, and it strikes down any competition that could provide better employment.
I honestly think the education lobbies want your pay to stay low, but not that low. If it gets too high, they know the pressure for merit pay and higher qualifications will be intense. If it gets too low, both the quality and willingness to play the game will drop.
I'm troubled. I don't get why so many people do what you with the wage ceiling where it is. At least underpaid professionals in other industries can dream of making it big one day. I'm troubled that you don't seem to be doing anything to change the system. You are seriously leaving education reform to the lawyers... and that's suspect.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)