Jump to content
Political Discussion Forums

Teachers Should Be Paid More


Recommended Posts

Yet, with time, we no longer need slide rulers, and we no longer need school libraries.

Our western, State-organized education system is on the verge of a revolutionary change.

You're exactly right. Technology has eliminated the need for traditional libraries and librarians. The books are being removed and the spaces are now being repurposed into comfortable 'learning lounges' and meeting/group work spaces in many schools.

The role of the teacher used to be the deliverer of information. We hurled facts and concepts at students and tested what stuck. However, now the accumulated knowledge of human history is accessible in seconds through a cell phone. Teaching facts is now less important, but problem identification, creativity, collaboration and critical thinking skills are more important than ever. Since lecture has always been a horribly inefficient method of teaching, modern educators are now becoming learning facilitators. The guide on the side, not the sage on the stage.

Those who believe that teachers are replaceable by tech only see part of the picture. Web enabled devices can replace the secondary school system of the past; thankfully the education system is beginning to move beyond that old model. In the near future lecture will be a rarity and teachers will spend most of their time providing the scaffolding and direction students need to work their way through authentic real world, project based problems.

Our western, State-organized education system is perpetually on the verge of change, but it seems that the internet and cheap tech has finally provided the means to make it possible.

Edited by Mighty AC
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 136
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Why?

People once used slide rules to make calculations, now they use calculators.

People once used tellers to transact at a bank, now they use ATMs.

GostHacked, imagine how many math teachers lost their jobs because of calculators. Or, imagine how many school librarians have lost their jobs because of the Internet. Sadly, none.

Yet, with time, we no longer need slide rulers, and we no longer need school libraries.

-----

When the State changes, it changes in catastrophic fashion.

Our western, State-organized education system is on the verge of a revolutionary change.

Auguste - it has already been pointed out to you why you're wrong on this count. I'm not sure why you didn't absorb it.

Certain things just require humans to work. Teaching children is one of them. They thought TV would do this in the 1960s and 1970s but it doesn't work.

Until we have robots that can't be differentiated from people we'll need people for certain jobs that need personal touch. Would you like to see a robot coddling a baby in a daycare centre ? Do you think the baby would like that ?

That being said - your point stands: state-run services are the slowest to change, because of the politics involved in making change happen, and this shouldn't be so.

I would much prefer that the state employ cutting edge private agencies to make change happen, then to lay off workers (at full salary) who are deemed redundant. Many of them will find other work when they realize that they're not currently useful, but - even better - some can be retrained and redeployed to new areas. This is known as: win, win, win.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Certain things just require humans to work. Teaching children is one of them.

Huh? Very quickly, kids learned how to use smartphones.

How did kids learn this so fast?

And yet Modern States allow governments to confiscate/spend billions to hire "teachers" who force/regulate kids to spend years in school "to learn"?

MH, as institutions go and based on historical experience, government is the worst teacher.

----

IMHO, the current generation has a tremendous, accumulated knowledge to pass on to the future. Among institutions of a civilized State, current governments are arguably the worst method to transfer this knowledge.

Edited by August1991
Link to post
Share on other sites

Teachers put in mour yearly hours than 99% of the private sector.

That's almost certainly false since during 2 whole months they put in close to zero hours per day. But even if it was true, so? That doesn't mean they deserve 100K. Nobody forced them to become teachers, that was their choice. In fact right now its difficult to find a permanent job as a new graduate teacher. I say get rid of the ones collecting 80K and hire the new grads who are eager to work and not just to report their various entitlements.

Edited by hitops
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 2 weeks later...

That's almost certainly false since during 2 whole months they put in close to zero hours per day. But even if it was true, so? That doesn't mean they deserve 100K. Nobody forced them to become teachers, that was their choice. In fact right now its difficult to find a permanent job as a new graduate teacher. I say get rid of the ones collecting 80K and hire the new grads who are eager to work and not just to report their various entitlements.

Yah Teachers don't get paid for those 2 months so it is really fair to count them?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Which they aren't paid for. If you want them to work during that time you are going to have to pay them for that time.

Actually they are compensated for that time. Their salary is an annual salary but paid out over 10 months. Like any salaried position, you get paid to get your job done....not by the hour.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Actually they are compensated for that time. Their salary is an annual salary but paid out over 10 months. Like any salaried position, you get paid to get your job done....not by the hour.

Yes I agree they are paid for the job they do which means they do not work in the summer which is why they don't get paid for that time.

Link to post
Share on other sites

No poster here has noted that kids learn quickly how to use smartphones, and yet no government schoolteacher ever taught them how to do this. Why?

Why is learning calculus different from learning how to text?

Current generations have a tremendous amount of knowledge to pass on to the future. And IMHO, government is a bad institution for transferring knowledge.

Edited by August1991
Link to post
Share on other sites

No poster here has noted that kids learn quickly how to use smartphones, and yet no government schoolteacher ever taught them how to do this. Why?

Why is learning calculus different from learning how to text?

Because learning calculus is not required to communicate with your friends, have a social life, and be popular. Also, smartphones are specifically designed to be as easy to use as possible so as to sell to the most possible users. The same cannot be said of calculus.

Your usual inapplicable analogies aside, I'd agree that most teachers are not particularly effective at "transferring knowledge". Most knowledge and skills worth having is best acquired by trying and doing something for yourself. Going to your smartphone example, one much more quickly learns to use a smartphone by playing with one than one would by looking at powerpoint slides of how to use one, or listening to someone lecture about how to use one.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The reality is that our whole society is out of whack when we pay Business Graduates and lawyers more than medical professionals or teachers. It doesn't take a very intelligent individual to become either a lawyer of a graduate with a MBA, so why are they being so favourablly treated in our society when they contribute so little? We have even allowed these MBA and lawyers to creep into the hierarchy of government and the senior ranks of public services, while we are eliminating the jobs of the front-line civil servants to make way for more MBA's, this is crazy. In education without teachers the children are graduating without the skills necessary to be successful in life. ON the advice of these bean-counting MBAs we are eliminating teaching positions by socially promoting children through the education system even though they do not have adequate skills to go on to the next level, and we wind up graduating kids with a diploma not worth the paper it is printed on, it ends up in many instances of being little more that a certificate of completion for crayon class.

Maybe instead of wasting all of this money on hiring lawyers and MBA, we should instead be spending money for professionals in those areas, as that would make much more sense.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yah Teachers don't get paid for those 2 months so it is really fair to count them?

No I think they do, their biweekly payments do not change in the summer time. They put in more hours per day in the school year and then get far more than that back during the breaks.

Regardless at the end of the day, nobody put a gun to their heads and forced them to become teachers. It's amazing to me how many people feel they deserve a great salary just because they are doing the thing they chose to do. The role of government hiring should be to provide a service to Canadians, not provide jobs to individuals. There is no evidence that highly paid public sector teachers are any better at delivering that service that lowly paid ones. The only place it's true is in private schools, where teachers can be paid more at prestigious ones if they are good, and the kids coming from those schools obviously do much better.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The only place it's true is in private schools, where teachers can be paid more at prestigious ones if they are good, and the kids coming from those schools obviously do much better.

Even there, it is likely that the majority of the difference in performance is not due to the teachers, but due to the fact that kids in expensive private schools come predominantly from stable, affluent, two-parent families.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Even there, it is likely that the majority of the difference in performance is not due to the teachers, but due to the fact that kids in expensive private schools come predominantly from stable, affluent, two-parent families.

Indeed, that's probably true though it's impossible to to really isolate the variables.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Your usual inapplicable analogies aside, I'd agree that most teachers are not particularly effective at "transferring knowledge". Most knowledge and skills worth having is best acquired by trying and doing something for yourself. Going to your smartphone example, one much more quickly learns to use a smartphone by playing with one than one would by looking at powerpoint slides of how to use one, or listening to someone lecture about how to use one.

Agreed. In fact, the transfer of knowledge is a waste of a teachers time. Project Based Learning is the way forward. Students acquire skills and knowledge as they need them to solve authentic problems, with teachers facilitating and providing the scaffolding for the process.

I observed a grade 11 tech class this week, in which, the teacher allowed students to chose their own projects. Some chose to get an A+ cert, some were programming AI, some were building robots and one group built a working, crude smart home device.

Their project turns on and off 3 electrical devices via voice commands. To make it work they adapted open source voice recognition software to accept their commands, wrote their own real time OS and then they actually built a board with transistors, relays, batteries, switches and soldered it all together. They can now speak commands to turn on and off lights, electronics, etc.

The students researched and honed, programming, engineering, electrical, collaboration, problem solving and IT skills completely on their own, as they needed them to solve a problems. It was amazing to witness just how engaging and chaotic authentic, student centered, project based learning can be. This is the way forward and I see it being introduced, in varying amounts, into most classes.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Because learning calculus is not required to communicate with your friends, have a social life, and be popular.

IOW, according to you, our schools should teach kids irrelevant information. (If it's irrelevant, why teach it?)

Well, I happen to think that calculus is important in understanding friends, communicating, having a social life. Unfortunately, our schools teach calculus badly.

----

Bonam, here's my point: To text one another, kids are at least literate. Sadly, I bet they learn the alphabet more quickly from cellphones than from our schoolteachers.

Also, smartphones are specifically designed to be as easy to use as possible so as to sell to the most possible users. The same cannot be said of calculus.

Bonam, would we exist as a species if learning were difficult? Edited by August1991
Link to post
Share on other sites

No poster here has noted that kids learn quickly how to use smartphones, and yet no government schoolteacher ever taught them how to do this. Why?

Learning to use a device is intuitive as the devices are *designed* for common use.

Why is learning calculus different from learning how to text?

It's not intuitive. But learning to *text* implies that the texter already knows how to read and spell (somewhat), which is also not intuitive.

As I have pointed out to you several times (to absolutely no response from you) there are things that robots can not do alone - and teaching children is one of them. Devices are referred to as teaching aids because they aid the teacher - a human being.

If you want to continue to explore this "robots will teach our students" meme, without even acknowledging that I have pointed this out to you several times already, I suppose there's nothing I can do, except point out that this is at least the third time that I have pointed this out to you - and keep upping the count every time you repeat your assertion while ignoring challenges to your point.

It's bad to ignore challenges. Rocky III ignored challenges, and now we have Mr. T to deal with. Pity the fool.

Current generations have a tremendous amount of knowledge to pass on to the future. And IMHO, government is a bad institution for transferring knowledge.

Education boards are not government - they are institutions designed to pursue a mission of education, granted the means to do so by government. That is not to say they're independent of government either.
Link to post
Share on other sites

Wayne McQ - I have been a lawyer for 34 yrs. I am offended at your recent post. You obviously have no idea what it takes to become a lawyer or MBA. I agree that doctors deserve to well paid, especially those that save sick children. Society rewards certain professional groups becuz society thinkd their talents are valuable WITHOUT A UNION

Link to post
Share on other sites

As I have pointed out to you several times (to absolutely no response from you) there are things that robots can not do alone - and teaching children is one of them. Devices are referred to as teaching aids because they aid the teacher - a human being.

If you want to continue to explore this "robots will teach our students" meme, without even acknowledging that I have pointed this out to you several times already, I suppose there's nothing I can do, except point out that this is at least the third time that I have pointed this out to you - and keep upping the count every time you repeat your assertion while ignoring challenges to your point.

I disagree, MH. People ultimately teach themselves, and I suspect that robots can help people do this.

To be honest, MH, I don't know exactly how people learn something new. But I reckon that the way we teach people now is very inefficient.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The reality is that our whole society is out of whack when we pay Business Graduates and lawyers more than medical professionals or teachers.

In this society, another teacher is like one more drop of water. While water is important for life, another drop changes nothing.

The discovery of a new diamond, OTOH, would change the price of diamonds. And another Steve Jobs would change the price of a share.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Wayne McQ - I have been a lawyer for 34 yrs. I am offended at your recent post. You obviously have no idea what it takes to become a lawyer or MBA.

"What it takes?" It takes many years to learn, uh, the Cambodian language... So what?

Because it takes a long time to learn something is no reason to merit a high salary.

I agree that doctors deserve to well paid, especially those that save sick children. Society rewards certain professional groups becuz society thinkd their talents are valuable WITHOUT A UNION

As Shakespeare asked about love and a rose, is the "Law Society" or "Medical Association" not a UNION by any other name?
Link to post
Share on other sites

"What it takes?" It takes many years to learn, uh, the Cambodian language... So what?

Anyone can learn the Cambodian language but only a limited few are accepted into law school. So yes it is a matter of What it Takes.

The last time I checked, there weren't too many people saying..."Hey...if teaching doesn't work out for me, then I'll become a lawyer as a back up plan." Unfortunately, we hear the reserve being said all too often. Perhaps not people just aspiring to be lawyers but unsuccesful candidates from any profession can use teaching as a back up.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Announcements




  • Tell a friend

    Love Political Discussion Forums? Tell a friend!
×
×
  • Create New...