One thing noted on my observation was "consistantly seeking to improve teaching methods and student learning." Personally, this seems like a no brainer, but I've been told many times that this trait is a tell-tale sign that I have worked in private industry several years prior to teaching.
In corporate America, employees are only as good as their last project. In order for an employee to be successful, they must constantly prove their value to the company. Current trend to even get a job is sending letters to employers displaying the potential employee's profit-making/cost-saving ability, instead of the usual resume highlighting skills and talents. Many in the business world see this as a solution to improving public education... teachers in high impact jobs and displaying exceptional teaching ability getting more pay, while those in lower impact jobs or not-stellar teaching (which is measured how?) get lower pay.
While this idea sounds good on paper - it doesn't translate well into real life. First, who decides what is "high impact"? Only teachers in science/math fields? The US could certainly use a few more, but is it more important that teaching English or History? Would higher quality English or History teachers be attracted to teaching in those fields if the salary were higher? Do we even want to pay to have students who are interested in government and taking part in the political process? Second, who decides what exceptional teaching ability? Grade distribution? Graduation rates? Exit exam scores? Popularity? Motivating the chronically unmotivated? Third, do parents really want their child treated like a factory widget or marketing campaign? And if not their kid, whose kid should be?
This leads to the final question, if teachers have no motivation to "constantly seek to improve" or "prove their value to the corporation," then why not stay exactly the same as 30 years ago? Isn't it funny that this is the same question we ask of students? If the student has no reason to keep learning, then why bother to do the assignments?
In corporate America, employees are only as good as their last project. In order for an employee to be successful, they must constantly prove their value to the company. Current trend to even get a job is sending letters to employers displaying the potential employee's profit-making/cost-saving ability, instead of the usual resume highlighting skills and talents. Many in the business world see this as a solution to improving public education... teachers in high impact jobs and displaying exceptional teaching ability getting more pay, while those in lower impact jobs or not-stellar teaching (which is measured how?) get lower pay.
While this idea sounds good on paper - it doesn't translate well into real life. First, who decides what is "high impact"? Only teachers in science/math fields? The US could certainly use a few more, but is it more important that teaching English or History? Would higher quality English or History teachers be attracted to teaching in those fields if the salary were higher? Do we even want to pay to have students who are interested in government and taking part in the political process? Second, who decides what exceptional teaching ability? Grade distribution? Graduation rates? Exit exam scores? Popularity? Motivating the chronically unmotivated? Third, do parents really want their child treated like a factory widget or marketing campaign? And if not their kid, whose kid should be?
This leads to the final question, if teachers have no motivation to "constantly seek to improve" or "prove their value to the corporation," then why not stay exactly the same as 30 years ago? Isn't it funny that this is the same question we ask of students? If the student has no reason to keep learning, then why bother to do the assignments?
Comments