The Physics of Teacher's Pay - 09/27/05 03:06 PM
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/09/26/AR2005092601487.html?sub=new
The Sept. 17 editorial "Mr. Steele and Education" asked, "[D]oes it really make sense to pay a so-so high school physics teacher more than a fantastic elementary school teacher?"
"I teach elementary school, and while the subject matter may be elementary, the skills and preparation necessary to teach it are not. And without the simple, prerequisite skills I teach, a child would be unable to take high school physics." -Donna Resnik, Columbia
Are elementary educators (and educators in general) paid appropriately; if not then for what purpose? I think that what is learned in elementary school can have a profound influence on the educational/career path one takes later in life.
OTOH, "Many public-school children seem to know only two dates--1492 and 4th of July; and as a rule they don't know what happened on either occasion." Mark Twain.
Are elementary schools just an elaborate baby-sitting institution or is there something more. The problem is that because there are vastly different aptititudes in children, teaching in a one classroom setting, which professes the same information to the varying minds, is ineffective. I do not know how the elementary system is set up now but when I was a child I recall clearly "knowing" which kids "got it" and which kids did not. One child's lack of interest or ability would literally bring the entire classroom's progress to a screaching halt. I am not faulting the child; it is not THEIR fault, they are only children.
Another problem is that teaching Resources are limited for an elementary school teacher. Is it easier to instuct older children because they are (assumed to be) more mature? How can each child be guaranteed the same level of quality devotion and services.? Smaller classroom sizes would be a nice start. My elementary education was outstanding and enjoyable, that is my personal take. Because of my elementary studies I was opened to the marvel of science; this admiration still persists (even if I am not a scientist). Be that as it may, I think that elementary teachers are underappreciated for their contributions, especially given the (often difficult) age of thier pupils. It is a shame, oftenly, that too much attention can be devoted on the few and not the whole; due to inherent flaws in the public educational system (which can tend to focus on quantity and not quality).
To summarize the point of the article:
"[D]oes it really make sense to pay a so-so high school physics teacher more than a fantastic elementary school teacher?" My obiterdictum is, succintly, no. There are qualifications for my reply: This is based upon the assumption that the "so-so" high school physics teacher is opaque and unanble to convey material to their students. This also assumes that the "fantastic" elementary school teacher inspires and enraptures his or her students in the learning process. Whether or not the material presented is relatively more or less difficult is irrelevent. While I agree with TheFallibleFiend that a degree in physics requires keen acumen; it is the role of the teacher to aptly pass forth their knowledge. Furthermore, "so-so" and "fantastic" must be defined in that an annually renewed student population respectively receives the same experience year after year. A great educator leaves his or her students in awe and lusting for more, and does not just go through the motions. That sounds harsh but I have experienced both extremes, from the vantage as student.
Sincerely,
The Sept. 17 editorial "Mr. Steele and Education" asked, "[D]oes it really make sense to pay a so-so high school physics teacher more than a fantastic elementary school teacher?"
"I teach elementary school, and while the subject matter may be elementary, the skills and preparation necessary to teach it are not. And without the simple, prerequisite skills I teach, a child would be unable to take high school physics." -Donna Resnik, Columbia
Are elementary educators (and educators in general) paid appropriately; if not then for what purpose? I think that what is learned in elementary school can have a profound influence on the educational/career path one takes later in life.
OTOH, "Many public-school children seem to know only two dates--1492 and 4th of July; and as a rule they don't know what happened on either occasion." Mark Twain.
Are elementary schools just an elaborate baby-sitting institution or is there something more. The problem is that because there are vastly different aptititudes in children, teaching in a one classroom setting, which professes the same information to the varying minds, is ineffective. I do not know how the elementary system is set up now but when I was a child I recall clearly "knowing" which kids "got it" and which kids did not. One child's lack of interest or ability would literally bring the entire classroom's progress to a screaching halt. I am not faulting the child; it is not THEIR fault, they are only children.
Another problem is that teaching Resources are limited for an elementary school teacher. Is it easier to instuct older children because they are (assumed to be) more mature? How can each child be guaranteed the same level of quality devotion and services.? Smaller classroom sizes would be a nice start. My elementary education was outstanding and enjoyable, that is my personal take. Because of my elementary studies I was opened to the marvel of science; this admiration still persists (even if I am not a scientist). Be that as it may, I think that elementary teachers are underappreciated for their contributions, especially given the (often difficult) age of thier pupils. It is a shame, oftenly, that too much attention can be devoted on the few and not the whole; due to inherent flaws in the public educational system (which can tend to focus on quantity and not quality).
To summarize the point of the article:
"[D]oes it really make sense to pay a so-so high school physics teacher more than a fantastic elementary school teacher?" My obiterdictum is, succintly, no. There are qualifications for my reply: This is based upon the assumption that the "so-so" high school physics teacher is opaque and unanble to convey material to their students. This also assumes that the "fantastic" elementary school teacher inspires and enraptures his or her students in the learning process. Whether or not the material presented is relatively more or less difficult is irrelevent. While I agree with TheFallibleFiend that a degree in physics requires keen acumen; it is the role of the teacher to aptly pass forth their knowledge. Furthermore, "so-so" and "fantastic" must be defined in that an annually renewed student population respectively receives the same experience year after year. A great educator leaves his or her students in awe and lusting for more, and does not just go through the motions. That sounds harsh but I have experienced both extremes, from the vantage as student.
Sincerely,