I would love to see what it is these English professors do, not can do, do, other than teach.

Not always....

Thomas H. Maren - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

True. While there are a few who DO exceed, it is a safe bet that most won't. I myself have see a couple where they didn't follow the usual, most do. Safe bet. For every crack whore that changes for the better, there are hundreds more that don't. Which is the safety bet?

Not your fault but I have always thought that statement was sarcastically simple in implication. But, at the same time it is a good measure of how much Society values Teaching.

I worked for 18 Years as a Mechanic till I was injured badly enough to keep Me from wanting to do that type of work anymore. So in a sense I cannot Do; but it does not mean that I have not done something.

If I got a Job as Diesel Instructor at some Trade School I would have People like Yourself trying to fit Me into the "Those who cannot do, teach" and thinking that what I have to offer has no value.

This is not a respose to your comment but I am going to add it here instead of starting another Post.

Teaching is not valued because it does not show a Profit. As an example Privet Schools show a Profit, Teachers are better, Teachers get paid more and Students do better.

But, there is more going on then just the above. When Parents pay through the Nose they insist on value for their Money so the Parents pay attention to what is going on in the Private Schools and are right in the School Directors Face with complaints.

In other Countries where someone has to Pay for the Education of Children directly the Parents are actively going to make that Kid study and get as good a grades as possible.

That even works in Public Schools where Parents and Kids come from another Country where you had to Pay for Education.
The other issue is that Private Schools have a higher number of above averages Students to begin with.

It is really pathetic that with all of Mankind’s advancements that at least in the USA we simply do not know how to educate Kids.

This is an excellent point in favor of tenure. Yet it still permits tenure to work as a shield for bad or burnt out teachers. While there should be a means to protect teachers freedom to teach, how would you solve the problem of teachers with progressively lower success teaching rates as the teacher ages?

I've had some terrible professors who clearly only come to school to collect a pay check. Some have been dept. heads. This kind of thing is a disservice to the institution and students. I'm sure the same thing happens in every level of instruction.

Teaching should be valuable for the results it brings not because someone says it is great.

My point is that if you cannot diagnose what is out there today and can only do what was, the value is far less as time goes along.

It is not that we don't know how to educate, it is that we don't know how to graft motivation onto kids. On top of that, we insist on wasting resources on those that cannot and/or will not learn. By sparing me of the full sting of the stick of failure, you are robbing of the full understanding of the consequences of failure. This lowers the need and thus the value of education.

....and those who cannot teach, teach gym.

...I have heard from time to time.



We need Supermen & Superwomen in our classrooms....not clock punching, tenured loafers.
The entire Waiting for Superman is available on You tube. Spend a rainy afternoon watching it. ..takes about 2 hours or so.. Tragic what's going on in society.:mad::mad::mad:

Waiting For Superman - Official Trailer [HD] - YouTube

My niece's husband is a middle school principal in Lower Manhattan. Naturally, he thinks Charter Schools should not exist and Geoffrey Canada is the DEVIL.:rolleyes:

Right. The current arguments against tenure skew towards the notion that bad decisions were made by management in the past so employees of the present must be made to pay for mistakes they had nothing to do with.

If a teacher was told twenty years ago that there would be a lot of hard work to start with but it would all be worth it in the end and now, that the twenty years is passed, the current management says they don't care what sort of promises were made because they are now running things and if you don't like it then take a hike.

Except that there is nowhere to hike to.

Now the new management says they want to hire a bunch of new people who think more like they do and suddenly they find that no one wants to work for a bunch of managers that cannot be trusted to keep up their end of a deal. After all, if they would throw over the old teachers what's to keep them from throwing over the new ones? Who wants to work for someone who makes it all up as they go along or changes with the wind?

It tenure is a bad thing then it needs to be addressed in the future and not in the past.

I think I read somewhere that a lack of planning on your part doesn't constitute an emergency on my part. Still, it could be said about a worker that is worthless that he gets what he deserves.

Never disagree with honoring the past deal but not continuing with the stupid decisions of the past.

I have a couple of thoughts about that. First off, tenure neither endorses nor ultimately protects bad teachers. It takes more effort to get rid of a bad tenured teacher than a bad non-tenured teacher but it is possible. I have seen it done. Tenure is an excuse for administrators without backbone to explain why they haven't done their job. :)

But secondly, in any large organization there are going to be slackers. It's unavoidable and I don't know of any method to rid a large organization of people who are less productive than others. I don't know what an acceptable percentage is. I'm guessing somewhere around 10% or so. We just have to tolerate a certain amount of it in any organization.

Teacher burn out is a problem. I know of one fairly effective way to deal with it since the organization I worked for had the policy for a short period of time and I took advantage of it. It allowed a teacher to work overtime without pay and 'bank' the extra work. Then, when the bank had enough credits, the teacher could take a long vacation. Typically, one semester. The teacher then comes back renewed. I know it worked for me and I think it would be an effective policy to combat burn out. It wouldn't take care of the 'slacker' issue because they wouldn't be motivated to work the initial overtime but it goes help a lot with burn out.

I get paid $1000 a month. Why would I make waves if I am not compensated more? Now if there was a bounty on the bad teacher of say $500, I'd get rid of them. Once again, the problem is motivation.

Percentage is higher if it is difficult to fire.

If there is no protection for poor performance perhaps in burning yourself out or getting rid of poor performers solves that problem.

Still we have to deal with the problem of poor students

Most job functions are based on performance.
Tenure is a seniority based approach that works for hierarchy purposes, i.e. Unions, organized religions etc. With respect to teaching especially at the collegiate level it is a hindrance to progress. The vast majority of university professors are tenured and have been outside of reality waaay too long to correlate their taught theories to actual reality.

Regardless of your stance on tenure in general, a primary contributor too poor education lays in the ratio of quality teachers to students. The largest single contributor to poor teacher to student ratios is cost, now mind you this is not the teachers' salaries (most are underpaid) but total cost. One needs to question the administrative side of education, why is there typically a ratio of 3:1 between administrators and teachers? The primary objective is education not administration but the vast majority of funding goes to the latter rather than the former.

If only it were that simple. :rolleyes:

Sure, the teacher that is complacent is part of the issue but why does everyone seem to think that the right teacher can motivate the entire class? On a one to one basis, sure. That isn't practical in a class of say 30 + students. If the student has poor motivation because of lack of motivation, be it peer pressure, consequence of failure, parental attention, etc, etc, how can we expect a teacher, besides in a movie, to motivate class after class into doing their work?

I believe that the Parents are 90 Percent responsible for the Education of the Kids. Kids come here from other Countries not speaking English and when the have Parents willing to put the Boot to their Arse of those Kids do better than the US Born Kids.

In short there is a good reason why Indian and Asian Kids going to the same Public Schools manage to excel in the same Schools that the US Students are barely Mediocre in and that does not have much to do with the Teacher.

Teachers have no right any more do discipline Kids and in fact the School Districts don't even want Teachers to defend themselves when the Teacher is attacked by a Student.

With no discipline at School and none at Home the Students do as little as they please.

The resources are being wasted because they keep trying what is supposed to be new innovative things that Social Workers, Psychologist and so on are pushing for that work in isolated instances.

The motivation for the Kid has to come from their Family. For other types of motivation you need an environment like the Marne Corps.