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.

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.

So... In turn, the state will just read it to you, and modify the test to make it easier to pass.

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.

Pretty much.

Al Bundy;518794 wrote:Pretty much.

It's the major thing I don't understand about my profession... It seems that kids are no longer allowed to fail. Some string will be pulled.

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

Scarlet,

I work at probably the poorest school in the state and that's most certainly not the case.

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

Ahhhh....if this was only true.

Yeah or all of the extra time spent after the school day.

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

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.

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.

And those who do not put in the amount of time required to get the complete and total job done correctly are generally out of a job within a couple of years.

Sounds kinda like what you people call a 'real job' or what happens when a school is run like a business.

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;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?

It's called 'working to the contract'.

Trust me, teachers do many, many things that are not in their contracts that are in the best interests of the kids education...however, when they feel that their district is screwing them in negotiations, working conditions, administrator crap, etc....this is a ploy to get both sides to the table to settle it. Extra time spent tutoring kids after the school day ends, serving on PTA, etc is NOT part of their contract.

With all of the levy crap that has been going on in SWCS over the last few years, this is not surprising. Seems that the administration is very narcissistic and intent on 'my way or the highway' regardless of that the district residents or employees think of feel (sound like another administration about 6 hours east of here?).

You could not pay me enough to live or work in that district.

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.

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.

You do understand that is not what is in their job description, right?

I'm just saying that, as their district does when threatening to cancel sports if a levy is not passed (remember, this did happen in SWCS), the kids bear the brunt of contract differences. The road runs two ways here......were you equally as disgusted when the district superintendent proposed raises for the administrators and school board agreed when the levy passed? If not, then you might want to express your displeasure with your vote the next time....

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.

Or the tutoring might not be a supplemental contract, like where my wife teaches. Each and every year, a group of teachers at her school tutors struggling students for about 10 weeks or so....free of charge...AND provides snacks.

Why?

It helps the kids out. The teachers don't get paid for it and, in fact, spend money out of their pocket to help out.

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.

How much do teachers make the first 10-12 years? How does that compare to other people will similar education levels and intellect?

No doubt 1st year teachers aren't making bank. But I don't think most people coming straight out of school are making bank, either, even if they're working long hours. It's tough to make a true apples-to-apples comparison because every profession is different. Generally, though, I think for the level of education and natural smarts, teachers do pretty well.

Yes, I was even more displeased with the administrators. And I was a voter in SWCS at the time of the levy and I voted against it each time.

Guess what, I have a job description too, and sometimes I have to do things outside of my description and stay over my normal working hours. It's life.

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;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.

They are doing it after their contract time ends.

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

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.

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.

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.

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

That's right in line with average starting salaries for english majors, sociology majors, psychology majors, history majors, and other liberal arts majors. That is, not a ton of money, but generally what you can expect starting in a new profession with a bachelor's not in a hard science.

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.

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

This has been my complaint for a long time. A teacher cannot be effective if the ultimate responsibility to educate a child does not exists in the hands of the parent. A teacher or school system should be chosen to augment the efforts of the parent...they can't replace them nor should they.

When a parent relies entirely on a school system to educate their child and places the full responsibility on them it won't work.

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.

Lawyers dont exactly have standard hours they are contracted to work though....so its a tough comparison. I'm sure some days you might work all night and on some days you probably have nothing to do...(just based on my brother who is an attorney)

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.

I would agree with you, and FFT's post above, if this type of behavior were the norm. It is not. It is a form of 'civil disobediance' that happens when working environments, etc are not in line with wwhat they should be.

Not having read the article in today's paper, I would suggest that the teacher's in question are 'protesting' something that the bozos in the SWCS are doing that is out of line.. Coupling that with the fact that most of the citizens of that district feel the same way about the administration of the district, and you have a really contentious situation.

The problem is...who suffers.

it is the children.