quote:Under the current system the administrator has a severe disincentive to picking a teacher with an advanced degree.
But that just means there is a severe disincentive for a teacher to work toward an advanced degree or, if she has one, to apply for a teaching position. Either way, the person won't get much for his investment.
At least, under the current system, there is an incentive for established teachers to earn an advanced degree.
[ March 30, 2011, 03:26 PM: Message edited by: Wayward Son ]
Posts: 8681 | Registered: Dec 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:It takes two to tango. Teachers who forty years ago wouldn't dreamed of setting foot back in a classroom as a student now cheerfully sign up for, and let their employers pay for,
Except the employers do NOT pay for the classes. They MIGHT pay for some fraction of the cost.
I've spent 10,000 dollars on education since becoming a teacher (plus or minus a few bucks) and had 800 dollars of reinbursement (minus a few bucks, but I can't remember how much). ANd all 10,000 dollars have been for courses I am required by law to take. I suspect this scenario is far more common than the situation where the large majority of expenditures are reinbursed.
I am a retired teacher. Teaching was my second career, however I retired early. I taught for nine years. I retired because of the stress, overwork, lack of respect, and because I really did not need the money. I never worked less than 60 hours a week during the school year. I spent every weekend preparing lessons for the next week and creating meaningless paperwork for the school administrators. I spent every summer taking courses to maintain or upgrade my teaching certificate. I did not teach in a unionized district. I don't think it makes any difference. Public education is dysfunctional with or without unions. The problem starts in schools of education and credentialism.
Posts: 159 | Registered: May 2009
| IP: Logged |