Lots of good points here. I've got a buddy in teaching who just did the whole master's degree bit and will be working in the fall. He's under no illusions--he loves the kids and all, but at the end of the day, it's a way to bring home money for his family. Teachers are scapegoats right now, and any teacher with a job would be wise to save their salaries up, as we're currently in a climate where corporate reformers have convinced the public that teachers are the enemy and technology, privatization, and union-busting is the solution. Sound familiar?
Yes, very familiar, and what we're going to create via tech and run-education-like-a-business (I'm skipping unions because most teachers in most states aren't unionized) is a situation where the "haves" -- not necessarily the wealthy, but the kids who have parents who make good choices and support their educational options -- have more opportunities, whereas the "don't have" kids are going to flounder in a system with less and less to offer. I myself was a "don't have" kid; my parents were struggling with their divorce, too many kids and too little money -- they didn't pay much attention to my education, and they're more typical than the parents who are really paying attention and getting involved in a positive way.
The real implications of these legislative decisions won't show up for more than a decade, when we have a generation of kids who haven't been served, and they can't find substantial work.
Regarding this last point though, I know from my buddy that a lot of programs that offer certification take the same amount of time to get you a bachelor's + cert vs. a master's + cert, so it's a better deal to go for the master's, since at least that way you're higher on the pay scale. And in Illinois (specifically in Rockford), the pay difference between a BA and an MA is 33k vs 38k, which is pretty significant, even if it costs you 20k to get the degree, as you'd break even in 4 years. If you go through a program where you can work full time as my buddy did while in school, you can get through without taking on debt, which means that extra 5k starts paying dividends the moment you're hired. I definitely agree you don't need to spend 36k on either degree, however, especially if you're going with a public university.
Yes, I know of such programs, but they're not really the same amount of time -- it's more like less time than it would take to go the traditional route for a
bachelors AND a
masters. Regardless, the guy in this article didn't begin with the goal of teaching: He first earned a BS in Economics, so he wouldn't have been in such a program from the beginning.
And I do agree with you that he could've earned that masters somewhere in the 20K region rather than spending 36K.
Hey, I just thought of something. If he is laid off or 'fired' (not for cause) at the end of the school year, doesn't that mean that he gets to collect unemployment all summer, in addition to his teaching salary?
No, it doesn't work that way: When he began Year 1 as a teacher, he was given a contract to work August - June. He's saying he was "laid off" or "fired", but what he really means is that his contract ended. It's kind of like hiring a contractor to build a new house for you -- once your project is finished, you're done paying him, but he's not "laid off"; he's just concluded his business with you. Because he was always a contract worker and never had any promise of long-term employment, he is not eligible for benefits.
In my state -- in the past -- a teacher worked on one year contracts for the first five years, and then he or she was considered for "career status". By the end of five years, the people who signed on thinking teaching is an easy little job with summers off (that is, those who were ill-suited to the job in the beginning) tend to have left on their own. Or they've been let go. By the end of five years, the principal is able to say, "Yes, this is a person we want to keep" and that person becomes a "career teacher". This is often mistermed "tenure". It means that the school and the teacher don't go through the official process of offering /accepting a one-year contract every year, and it's assumed that the teacher is returning to the school -- until he or she says, "This is my last year." That person can be laid off or fired, but NOT unless it's "for cause".
Teachers want this stability. A one-year-contract teacher can be laid off or fired for any reason: The most common reason is that the principal has found someone who can teach Biology AND ALSO coach basketball, and he needs that basketball coach. The one-year-contract teacher could find that his or her contract was not renewed because the superintendent's nephew made a D in his class, because the principal's son graduated from college and needs a job, or because of he and the principal didn't particularly get on together. The school doesn't have to give a reason to "let go" a one-year-contract teacher, regardless of performance.
People who are ill-informed sometimes say, "But that's a protection that other workers don't have! Anyone can be let go at any time." It's not the same thing. A teacher who's working on a one-year contract essentially is "automatically let go" at the end of every year and has to compete to get his or her job back . . . every year, regardless of performance.
My state is trying to do away with this system and place everyone on one-year contracts . . . perpetually. You can imagine, teachers are against this! We want to know that if we're doing a good job, we have a reasonable expectation of having a job next year. Our young people are watching and learning: My daughter isn't planning to become a teacher, but her college is one of the biggest educators of future teachers in our state. Last year they graduated only FOUR students who are planning to teach high school. Couple that with the fact that three out of five new teachers leave the profession within five years. If the legislature continues to kick teachers, who will teach the next generation?
But, that's mostly off-topic.
