Date: Oct 5, 2012 4:52 PM Author: Greg Goodknight Subject: Re: US teachers are overworked and underpaid On 10/04/2012 09:15 AM, Paul Tanner wrote:

>> On Thu, Oct 4, 2012 at 2:11 AM, Greg Goodknight <good@nccn.net> wrote:

>> On 10/03/2012 07:59 AM, Paul Tanner wrote:

>>> That's right, and stupid it is to overwork teachers with respect to

>>> teaching loads, period.

>>

>> Not nearly as stupid as it is to hire teachers from the bottom of the

>> collegiate barrel in the first place

>>

> Well, there it is again: You admit that it is stupid to overwork US

> teachers regardless if whether you characterize them as stupid with

> respect to teaching loads (about 1100 hours per year) in comparison to

> countries that have performed at the top level in the world on

> international tests like Japan (600), Korea (550), Finland (600),

> France (620), and in comparison to the OECD average (

Paul, you're funny. We're not going to get silk purse educational

outcomes with sow's ear college graduates doing the teaching. Having

them work half as much as they do now isn't a solution, either; that

isn't the reason other countries seem to be doing better at teaching

than the US teacher corps is.

I don't have direct experience with the other country's treatment of

engineers, but American engineers working for French companies in the

California put in the hours and are as productive as anyone else. French

engineers working for French companies in CA are always going on

vacation. It's work to use 7 weeks of time off, and no, they aren't as

productive. There's a reason they had their office in California.

If you don't like teaching for the money and benefits you're getting, do

something else.

>

>>> And it's really stupid to overwork teachers as something they deserve

>>> for "being stupid" when it could actually be the case that the

>>> students are hurt even more by overworking "stupid" teachers compared

>>> to overworking "non-stupid" teachers.

>>

>> It isn't punishment for being academically weak, Paul,

>>

> I was accurately characterizing your attitude towards those teachers

> you characterize as stupid.

The answer isn't to ease the workload of teachers who shouldn't be

teaching, unless it's to reduce their workload to zero. Can we agree on

that?

>

> But, given that you've admitted twice implicitly that overworking

> teaching like this in the US hurts students by admitting twice

> explicitly that overworking teaching like this in the US is stupid,

> let's see you actually address the question of whether students are

> hurt even more by overworking "stupid" teachers compared to

> overworking "non-stupid" teachers. (I for one think that the

> ""non-stupid" teachers would be better equipped to handle the vastly

> increased stress of a teaching workload 50%-100% greater.)

I'm just aping your "idiotic" rhetoric, Paul. That's where the idiocy

started here.

What percentage of the current K-6 teacher corps met or exceeded the

average 1000 M+V SAT of their college bound high school cohort? Anyone

know? Would a teacher working as a "guide on the side" to tending their

flock discovering how to divide fractions but only scored 375 on the

SAT-M and barely passed the CBEST have better outcomes, per student, if

they had half the students?

>

>>> for "being stupid" when it could actually be the case that the

>>> students are hurt even more by overworking "stupid" teachers compared

>>> to overworking "non-stupid" teachers.

>> I've no problem with reducing the workload if we can tighten the standards

>> for teaching. Delaying or even abolishing tenure, and using value added

>> assessment techniques to identify weak teachers and remediate and remove if

>> necessary.

>>

>>

> If? You meant "only if"?

>

> Either way, this is very telling that you would hold the students

> hostage to you getting your conservative agenda implemented.

>

> If we really care for maximizing the welfare of the students, then

> there is no "if" or "only if" about it - if we really care about the

> students as much as we say we do, then we must be in favor of reducing

> the workload, period.

If you really cared about the students, you'd be leading an effort to

remove lousy teachers from the classroom rather than pushing your politics.

>

>>> These are private schools that have nothing to do with how many tax

>>> dollars public school teachers are paid and have nothing to do with

>>> what government contracts are with respect to working conditions for

>>> government employees.

>>

>> What you don't seem to realize, Paul, is that the teachers in the juku are

>> largely moonlighting public school teachers. It is part of their workload,

>> for which they get paid well. So it has everything to do with it.

>>

> Nonsense.

>

> In general: When employers are considering how much workload to put on

> their employees - as to how work much their employees can handle,

> these employers are not going to consider even one whit what their

> employees do in their free time outside of work.

Nonsense.

I can't remember a salaried professional (engineering) job where I

didn't sign a statement that I wouldn't do engineering work for anyone

else while on salary. Nor can I remember a job where my working hours

didn't exceed the norm in paradises like France. Welcome to the real

world, Paul.

- -Greg

>

> And again: US teachers are not overworked just in comparison to

> Japanese teachers - they are overworked in comparison to almost the

> entire OECD - here again are the numbers: US teaches are overworked

> (about 1100 teaching hours per year) in comparison to countries that

> have performed at the top level in the world on international tests

> like Japan (600), Korea (550), Finland (600), France (620), and in

> comparison to the OECD average (

>

> And consider this:

>

> If I teach 6 hours per day and have 20 students in each one hour

> class, then I have 120 total students to deal with. If I teach 3 hours

> per day and have 20 students in each one hour class, then I have 60

> total students to deal with. The teacher-pupil ratio is the same, but

> one teacher has double the teaching load of the other.

>

> It is mathematically inescapable that if we have US teachers roughly

> cut in half the total number of teaching hours per year from roughly

> 1100 to be in line with the teachers of these other countries like

> Japan (600), Korea (550), Finland (600), and France (620), and if the

> total number of hours US students spend in front of a teacher per year

> are not cut, then we have to roughly double the number of US teachers.

>

> That is, I think conservatives are not telling the truth when they

> claim that they are in favor of reducing the teaching loads of US

> public school teachers "if" whatever or "only if" whatever, since

> total government spending increases that would have to happen to hire

> up to twice as many public school teachers simply would be

> unacceptable to conservatives no matter what.