This could be taken to mean that society (correctly, in my opinion) considers the work of schoolteachers to be more crucial for the future of our society than the work of "Wall Streeters." With a more important role in society comes higher responsibility and just possibly greater accountability.
The Answer Sheet opinion blog, from which this post commenting on a Jon Stewart Daily Show is kindly submitted for our discussion, basically has a theme of decrying any public policy that makes schoolteachers accountable for actually teaching something to the learners in their care. That's a defensible policy position, I suppose, if you think that employment in the public school system is a jobs program for graduates of teacher-training programs. But I think it is also a defensible policy position to agree that spending money on schools is good, good for society in general, but especially so if the schools actually help learners learn. If learners are not learning well in school, and similarly disadvantaged learners in other schools are learning better, let's learn from the schools that are doing better how they are succeeding, and emulate their practices. That doesn't sound very radical to me.
Right now in the United States, the school-to-school variance in learning results of pupils is not very large, not even particularly large between poor and rich neighborhoods (by international comparisons).[1] But the teacher-to-teacher variance in teaching effectiveness within any one school is quite large, and one of the best things schools could do to become more effective rapidly is simply to hire the best available teachers, and let the lowest few percent of teachers (by teacher effectiveness) seek other occupations more suited to their abilities.[2] Other measures to improve teacher quality will also be helpful for schools and the learners in their care.[3] Teachers who cheat on tests used in part to gauge the effectiveness of teachers cheat all of society out of having better teachers.
"This could be taken to mean that society (correctly, in my opinion) considers the work of schoolteachers to be more crucial for the future of our society than the work of "Wall Streeters." "
If that were true, wouldn't we pay them more and treat them better?
Teachers have job security that is very rare in the private sector. They also have fully funded benefits of a kind that is rare in most occupations at matching salaries. They also get a lot of psychic rewards from their jobs, and graduates of teacher-training programs are in large supply, changing the supply:demand ratio for that occupation. I would indeed be glad to pay teachers more in salary, but I'd also like to be sure that wherever your children or my children go to school, the friendly local school is hiring only effective teachers, not ineffective teachers. If teachers get behind public policies that ensure that, then I think they will see increases in pay. (See the links in my earlier post in this thread.)
How many teachers do you actually know? I ask because both my parents were teachers and most of their friends are teachers and it's a lot of hard work for not much reward if any, whether financial or otherwise.
Students arguing about their grades. Students refusing to write papers or read articles about subjects they cannot handle intellectually (because it "conflicts with their religion or politics"). Many students who simply don't care about the subject material or education in general. Poor pay and long hours spent gradings papers and tests. Administrative duties outside of their teaching duties. Low pay and patronizing moronic administrative staff. Pensions reduced so that state legislatures can give ill-advised tax breaks to the wealthy and corporations (but I repeat myself).
Teaching is something done out of passion and while I can understand the passion I've seen derived from touching one life, it sure isn't the cake-walk you're alleging.
The Answer Sheet opinion blog, from which this post commenting on a Jon Stewart Daily Show is kindly submitted for our discussion, basically has a theme of decrying any public policy that makes schoolteachers accountable for actually teaching something to the learners in their care. That's a defensible policy position, I suppose, if you think that employment in the public school system is a jobs program for graduates of teacher-training programs. But I think it is also a defensible policy position to agree that spending money on schools is good, good for society in general, but especially so if the schools actually help learners learn. If learners are not learning well in school, and similarly disadvantaged learners in other schools are learning better, let's learn from the schools that are doing better how they are succeeding, and emulate their practices. That doesn't sound very radical to me.
Right now in the United States, the school-to-school variance in learning results of pupils is not very large, not even particularly large between poor and rich neighborhoods (by international comparisons).[1] But the teacher-to-teacher variance in teaching effectiveness within any one school is quite large, and one of the best things schools could do to become more effective rapidly is simply to hire the best available teachers, and let the lowest few percent of teachers (by teacher effectiveness) seek other occupations more suited to their abilities.[2] Other measures to improve teacher quality will also be helpful for schools and the learners in their care.[3] Teachers who cheat on tests used in part to gauge the effectiveness of teachers cheat all of society out of having better teachers.
[1] http://educationnext.org/when-the-best-is-mediocre/
[2] http://hanushek.stanford.edu/sites/default/files/publication...
http://hanushek.stanford.edu/publications/valuing-teachers-h...
[3] http://hanushek.stanford.edu/sites/default/files/publication...