The Observation Deck

Ivor Karabatkovic wrote:So when you think that teachers are in it for the $30,000 a year salary and June, July and August, think again. I'm sure there's teachers out there that are in it for those very reasons, but I haven't come across one yet. What I have come across is teachers that are passionate, love what they teach and who they are teaching, and work hard to be a positive influence on young minds, and only have 42 minutes to do all of the wild things that are expected from teachers nowadays.

We spend more money on education than most other countries and get some excellent results and some not so excellent results. One thing we know for sure is that the amount spent has very little to do with the results.

Anyway, Sticklands proposal is a just dog and pony show.

Starting teachers start in the $30,000 range, regardless of any salary or experience they have before they go back to get their license. I know people who left high figure jobs to go back to teach. You are quoting teachers with years of experience.

Ivor,
Your post was beyond impressive and it looks like you received some excellent schooling here! Of course the passion to learn and grow makes that combination unstoppable. Your future students are lucky!

I have two quotes for Mr. Wheeler:

"A teacher affects eternity; he can never tell where his influence stops"-Henry Adams

and

"There is no more noble profession than teaching. A great teacher is a great artist, but his medium is not canvas, but the human soul."-Anonymous

So you go on affecting human souls and thus eternity and let the critics keep on criticizing.

Teachers keep teaching
Preachers keep preaching

Bill,
I agree that property taxes should not go up to do more school funding, most especially when housing values are going down and it would seem that with new appraisals the schools will be getting less.

I believe the major cuts in the Cleveland schools are in anticipation of the high number of foreclosed homes and destroyed neighborhoods, is it not? You can't get blood from a rock, so children all over Cleveland will suffer for the greed of the adults involved in the housing market crash. Schools should not be affected by stupidity and greed in our housing market.

What do people think of Strickland's promise to "get rid of bad teachers"? Theoretically that sounds reasonable, but who determines "bad" and how? How do we protect teachers making higher salaries who have been teaching for years being fired to bring in two teachers at half the salary?

If a teacher inherits a classroom (like the one I am student teaching in) with grades 4-7 in Special Ed. and none can read above second grade level, how much time is given to bring them up and to what grade level is enough? In Cleveland there are no aides in most Special Ed. classrooms and in some suburbs there are, which also affects the outcome of how much you can accomplish in a year. You can't do much one-on-one work while alone in the classroom.

There are a lot of variables involved in education, far too many to list here, to be cut and dry with blanket generalizations on teaching or on funding. If Strickland has a dog and pony show, what did Taft have? What has he left us? Our children?

Justine Cooper wrote:Starting teachers start in the $30,000 range, regardless of any salary or experience they have before they go back to get their license. I know people who left high figure jobs to go back to teach. You are quoting teachers with years of experience.

Charlie Page wrote:In 2006-2007 school year, the average Lakewood Teacher Salary was $60,977. In that year, Lakewood spent $12,019 per pupil.

Average means some make more and some make less. Naturally the more years of experience you have the more you make. Still, an average of 61k per 9-10 months of work is not too shabby.

Thank you for explaining "average" to me. You forgot the mean and the mode.

I think years of dedication, thousands of dollars for education and legislation mandating higher education every five years at the teacher's expense in addition to the 6 or more years of schooling is justified. Do you suggest they stay at the same salary ten or twenty years into the school? Thirty? Would you?

For the record, my hairdresser, plumber, mechanic, heater repair man, roofer, etc. all make more per hour than I will with 7 years of education and with thousands spent on it. You do math your way, I will do it mine.

Our government now states that the high school students are the "front line" for global development, etc. Sounds like the ones preparing them for that should be compensated.

Horace Mann stated that human capital theory contends that investment in education will improve the quality of workers and, consequently, increase the wealth of the community. Yet you contest compensating teachers for this?

Mann also believed that "schooling would eliminate poverty by raising the wealth of the community and by preparing everyone to economically successful". See the reason taxes by everyone has been used for education, regardless if that one has children in school or not, was not really just to keep property values up. It was for the common good for all, that we all contribute in this country for the children who will take it over.

What salary would you put for those in charge of the many tasks asked of them, from "front line" to character building, to feeding meals that parents don't do, to preparing for ridiculous standardized tests for the children, to refereeing, cheerleading, supporting, buying supplies for?

I think years of dedication, thousands of dollars for education and legislation mandating higher education every five years at the teacher's expense in addition to the 6 or more years of schooling is justified.

Agreed

I agree with those supporting year-round schooling. Kids no longer need the summer off to tend to the crops, and with year-round schooling the educational experience could build steadily, without interruptions while the students get back into the learning mode following an extended break. With the extra time, we could produce more fully educated graduates, which is what many of our competitors in the world are already doing.

The complication I see is family vacations. But that isn't much of a complication. Few parents can take more than two or three weeks of vacation, and I think the schools should be smart enough to find a way that all students in a family could take off those same weeks. An advantage would be that it should be easier for parents to arrange child care for their students. We always had a parent home, so we never had to worry about that. But I wonder how the modern family, where all parents work, handles child care on an intermittent basis because their children are unsupervised during periods when school it out.

As to cost, I don't think the payroll of the teachers should go up too much. I suspect there is already a tacit understanding that salaries, although denominated in terms of academic years, actually reflect the knowledge that the employee has calendar year living expenses, and the wage package for the academic year has to be high enough to satisfy the calendar year expenses. If, for example, the living costs for a year are $60K, I doubt we could find enough good teachers by offering $45K and the chance to paint a lot of houses in the summer vacation.

The subject of competency of teachers is sensitive. On the one hand, it seems everyone agrees that there are some very good teachers, and some weak teachers. But when anyone ventures that we should do something about the weak teachers, it is as though all teachers have been maligned, and the educational complex reacts furiously. I think we see a similar reaction with professions like law and medicine, where the very people who should know who the weak members are, are reluctant to address them. It seems that we all know we make mistakes, and are afraid that if we participate in disciplining someone who makes too many mistakes, we create a risk that we ourselves will be disciplined. The unfortunate result is that members of a profession rarely act to remove others in their profession, even though those others are hurting people.

I don't agree that everyone who goes into teaching is altruistic. I think we all know that having a college degree is no longer a sign of academic achievement and excellence, and that many college graduates are working in jobs that once were the province of the high school graduate. I think some people look around and see that you don't do a lot of heavy lifting as a teacher, that you get a lot of time off, that your job is comparitively secure (schools don't go out of business, and there is apparently little pressure on the individual teacher to produce educated students), that salaries are competitive, and conclude that getting a degree in education is a relatively easy way to employment.

Notice that I agree that some people go into teaching because they see it as a way to improve our society, and I salute them. But there remain those who do it for less noble purposes, and waving the flag about how difficult it is to get certified ignores the reality that to get certified means you spend your time in a college of education, where, for example, the science and math courses are less rigorous than those like courses in other colleges.

Ah misconceptions, whether imagined or promulgated...

The effects are the same...

Regardless of how much back-to-school re-educational courses are mandated for teachers, regardess of how well, or under what criteria, decisions might be made as to what constitutes a "bad" teacher, the sad fact remains that PARENTING does NOT come with ANY instruction book whatsoever, nor does it require a prerequsite degree of some kind.

If parents do not read to their children, if they do not teach them simple letters, basic numeric concepts, and the infinite stuff of life during a child's formative pre-school years...and more importantly, if they do not support their children's education when it actually begins at the schoolhouse...

...then a child's school years will likely be problematic, no matter what school those students will enter.

About those so-called "bad teachers" too... (a questionable cause that some polemical elements of our society seem to love to fallaciously trumpet... )

I CAN THINK OF NO ONE, whether administrator, or teacher's union member, would advocate a truly "bad" teacher being in a classroom.

All that the teaching profession would advocate would be that reasonable legal due process and fair representation be applied to each situation, in order to negate the possibility of political or personally vindictive witch-hunts.

While it may be true that Lakewood's average salary could indeed be considerably higher than an entry level teacher's, the other side of such a coin would usually be that those types of teachers either have many years in the classroom, as well as more college courses under their belts, as well.

From time to time, districts, including Lakewood's, have had buy-outs, allowing a top-salary-heavy teaching staff to retire, opening more slots for new teachers coming in at lesser salaries. These CAN be expensive situations too, and a large number of new, less experienced teachers can bring difficulties as well.

As for year-round teaching and salaries? Teachers are NOT paid for days they do not teach. They are NOT paid for the summer. They receive a daily rate which accordingly would be extended by the 10 or 20 days added.

Want 20 more days? That will be (daily rate X number of days added)

Other expenses to be calculated in for a district would include insurance costs (liability and medical) district lights/water/ supplies, transportation, lunches etc...

Administrators normally have an extended contract anyway, but to keep buildings functioning beyond our present school year will be tremendously expensive.

THAT'S the reality.

If we want more school time for our students, get that checkbook out.

Great post Will.

Malcolm Gladwell's new book,

Outliers has a good deal to say about year-round schooling. Gladwell makes a great argument for it. Our current school year is based on an agrarian society which no longer exists. School systems around the world surpass us in both time spent in the classroom and positive results. I'd be fine with the year-round system.


I agree with Will that many teachers are not in it for truly altruistic reasons. These are the teachers who forget, or never learned, that we are public servants called to help raise the minds of our youth. I had these teachers growing up, as did all of you. These teachers sacrifice the possibilities of the classroom for the trivialities of a job. I am especially dissatisfied by those teachers who seem to be done learning. They grow habitual, and fail us Aside from being a teacher in this district, I am also a parent. I know that if my child was taught by such a teacher, I would hope that there was a mechanism by which this teacher could be reviewed and possibly removed if the negligence was proven.

I think Lakewood has good teachers in spades and I don't hear any of them complaining that we need bigger paychecks. I do hear that we are regularly recognized for being one of the most progressive and competent school districts in the state. My original issue with Bill Call's post was the assumption that somehow the Lakewood City School District was not up to snuff. This does not stand up to the overwhelming evidence that we are fortunate to have the opportunity to send our kids to Lakewood Schools.

(hmm. the clock on these posts are off by an hour. It's 11:05)

The one nice thing about year-round school is that children still attend school for the same amount of days, their schooling is just spread around a bit and like I said with a shorter summer break they tend to lose less information.

And Gary said something that is key, parental involvement does wonders.

Ivor, once you have kids of your own in America, they will probably be less successful than you at acquiring knowledge and skills. they will be too Americanized.

Lengthening the school year across the board is bad. there should be options for extra schooling or programs. but school is often a waste of time, so if you have to spend more time at school you are only wasting more time. and it would probably do good if half of students worked agricultural labor or mechanical work during the summer. the girls are probably more suited to textile work or helping out in the office. Henry Carey would probably agree.

the best most american parents can do is keep the television turned off, get the kids involved in doing useful work and talking to people who do useful work, and make sure they play a few sports or marching band.

Many of the great American inventors and industrialists of the 19th and early 20th century would never have gotten out the door in Europe or Japan: they frequently weren't from aristocratic or noble or samurai families, or did not have 4 year degrees. Today Japan's intensely competitive education system may pre-empt a lot of inventiveness, though they do have a very skilled set of engineers and technicians. America generally applies its inventiveness today to quack libertarian or greenspan-ian economic policies, wall street shenanigans, and marketing apparel endorsed by hip hoppers.[/url]

One part of the Governor's plan is to increase total State cost funding and total State aid by reducing the charge off from 23 to 20 mills. I think what that means is that the State will increase funding by that three mill before any mystery adjustments.

How will Lakewood do under this proposal?

http://news.cincinnati.com/assets/AB127476130.PDF

Hint:

Parma + $7.4 million
Solon + $4 million
Strongsville + $2.2 million

Drummmm Rolllllll
Lakewood + 0

Maybe the numbers are incorrect and maybe not. Someone should look into this. Real funding reform means I pay less and you pay more. Who is fighting this fight for us?

That's an interesting chart Bill, and I agree, it looks somewhat disturbing too.

I know that one big beef that we used to have in Parma was that we felt that we had to send too much of our own school monies downstate for redistribution to other districts.

Is this then like a reparations thing for past inequities? I don't know.

Bottom line though, as we can see in the last column of that chart. The actual payout increases per student don't look that impressive to me in the grand scheme of things.

Particularly in light of all the newer mandates that schools have to comply with.

Of course all this has to meander through the General Assembly.

When they're through with it....well, let's just say I'm not too optimistic.

Bill Call wrote:One part of the Governor's plan is to increase total State cost funding and total State aid by reducing the charge off from 23 to 20 mills. I think what that means is that the State will increase funding by that three mill before any mystery adjustments.

How will Lakewood do under this proposal?

http://news.cincinnati.com/assets/AB127476130.PDF

Hint:

Parma + $7.4 million
Solon + $4 million
Strongsville + $2.2 million

Drummmm Rolllllll
Lakewood + 0

Maybe the numbers are incorrect and maybe not. Someone should look into this. Real funding reform means I pay less and you pay more. Who is fighting this fight for us?

Wow. That is disturbing. Thanks for doing our homework Bill and if you find out if the numbers are correct please let us know. Even though I don't agree with all your views, I am always glad you are looking out for Lakewood!

If you think Strickland's plan is all dog and pony though, which I sure can't say yet, what do you think about his plan to get rid of "bad teachers"? Or some of his other ideas?

Will,
I think you would be surprised at how many teachers I hear in schools that would also agree that "bad" teachers should not be there. Trust me, most teachers know who that refers to but will not publicly discuss that for obvious reasons. And while I agree with you that there are altruistic teachers and not-so-altruistic teachers, I will always debate how "easy" it is to become a teacher and encourage you to check requirements, syllabuses, etc. at various schools before you decide. I have sat many a night in three and four hour classes with future teachers and I just haven't gotten the feel that anyone was there because it was an "easy" paycheck. Yes, there have been a few who made me think "I hope they never teach my children" for various reasons, but they are more the exception. And I have observed enough in Lakewood schools to know that Lakewood wouldn't hire those people. I think they have extremely high standards and I promise with the taxes we pay for this old house, I would not say that if I didn't see it.