Al Bundy;518703 wrote:Scores on all sections are closely related to reading ability. If you can comprehend a word problem and have a basic understanding of a graph/table/chart, etc., you will score high enough to pass. If you can't read, you won't pass any section.

ernest_t_bass;518787 wrote:So... In turn, the state will just read it to you, and modify the test to make it easier to pass.

Al Bundy;518794 wrote:Pretty much.

Scarlet_Buckeye;560458 wrote:I think this article pretty much is the bulleyes that examplifies that teachers are MORE than adequately paid, ESPECIALLY for a profession working a 185 day school year!!!

http://www.toledoblade.com/article/20101114/NEWS04/101119736/-1/ARCHIVES30

wkfan;560467 wrote:Ahhhh....if this was only true.

WebFire;560491 wrote:The problem is, by definition it is true. Unless your district forces you to work summers and through vacations. It's like being paid salary for a 40 hour per week job, but putting in 52. You are still going to get paid the salary for 40 hours.

Some put in more, some do not.

thedynasty1998;560524 wrote:SWCS district had an article this morning in the Dispatch about how they are refusing to do anything outside of what their contract states, such as tutoring or helping in volunteer activities.

Where do teachers get the balls to do something like this? They claim they don't get paid for these activities, therefore don't have to do it. Guess what, the rest of American gets paid a salary and they do whatever it takes to get the job done. It's shit like this that makes teachers look bad. If you want to renegotiate your contract, fine. But don't say that tutoring isn't in your contract therefore you are refusing to do it.

I thought they were in the business of educating?

thedynasty1998;560549 wrote:I agree that the whole district has problems, but when a teacher says they are not going to tutor a kid because it's not in their contract, they lose a lot of respect.

ccrunner609;560553 wrote:why? they shouldnt. Tutoring is a paid position. If they dont want to do it, why should they be forced to do it? You make it sound like that kid isnt going to get help when in reality that tutoring position will be filled and someone will be paid for it.

Maybe that teacher has their own children and paying day care is more per hour then that contract to tutor.

ccrunner609;560514 wrote:My last thought is.........those people went to college, got a job, was good enough to keep it and are now reaping the reward. I have been teaching for 16 years and I am not complaining about my pay now but I tell you for the first 10-12 years.....you dont make shit.

ccrunner609;560561 wrote:And thats what these BS articles in the paper dont talk about. But if your wife and friends are tutoring these kids before or after school they are probably doing it on contract time. To me thats part of the job and nothing extra.

Gblock;560565 wrote:my first job in 1997 i made 24,600 in toledo.

as far as tutoring it is dumb to say someone should do it for free just because it is good for the kids. the last time i needed a lawyer he charged me 250 dollars every hour he worked on my case. he didnt say "well i decided to give you a few hours free". When i went to the dentist he didnt say "dont worry about paying for your last cleaning I just decided to do it to help you out." Just because often teachers do extra things because they care you shouldnt judge others if they dont.

ccrunner609;560572 wrote:An average district may have a base of $30,000

ccrunner609;560576 wrote:bingo. Teachers doing the job of the parents, at least for young kids,

fan_from_texas;560574 wrote:FWIW, not even adjusting for inflation, that's about twice what a first year psychotherapist (who has a bachelor's and a master's) makes. This goes to my general point that most people aren't making bank when they just start out, and compared to people with similar levels of education/intellect/hours at work/etc., starting teachers do okay.



Though this is just anecdotal, we (my law firm) do free work for clients all the time.

It's tough for me to understand the "work to the contract" idea, but perhaps that's because we're not unionized. When my employer wants me to do something, I do it. If I think it's unreasonable or outside the scope of my employment, I can always quit and go elsewhere. We don't paid overtime or anything--it's straight salary, so when a call comes in at 11.00 at night that requires me to drop what I'm doing and work all night, I do it. Or if something pops up while I'm on vacation, I drop what I'm doing and get to work. I'm not complaining about it--I know what I bargained for--I'm just relating this to say that plenty of other professions are required to do things that aren't entirely within their contract description, or occur outside of standard business hours, and that's just part of the deal.

Con_Alma;560579 wrote:Teaching has truly become a blue collar/union job based on the above mindsets of adhering to job descriptions and thoughts of offering free services.

I wouldn't suggest that a teacher be "required" to tutor a child for "free" but I would expect a staff of teachers to work with the school in manning a tutoring center before or after school. It's the attitude of cooperation that I look for in employees.

Our public school system has gotten so far away from that from both the administration and teachers sides that it has become more about them individually than the higher calling of education.