4 ms·

If you want to attract someone competent to a profession, generally it has to be seen as a desirable profession. As long as teaching is seen as a last resort pe

If you want to attract someone competent to a profession, generally it has to be seen as a desirable profession. As long as teaching is seen as a last resort people wont respect it and you'll keep attracting large numbers of teachers whose only qualification was that they couldn't find a better job somewhere else. To put it bluntly, teaching has been made into an objectively shitty profession, which is why you can't attract good teachers. If you want good teachers, you need to pay them more and give them the freedom to actually teach. There have been multiple blog posts on here about attracting good software engineers, and I believe the same principles apply to any profession: You need to: * Pay top dollar for talent. * Allow significant autonomy. The teacher in the article indicated that neither of these goals were met in his career, and he indicated that they likely wouldn't get met. Based on his awards, I would say he was a "top quartile teacher," so there's some evidence in this that if we had paid him more and reduced requirements imposed by the school district, then he might have stayed on. That would certainly have made things better for his students.

NoMoreNicksLeft 12y ago
> If you want to attract someone competent to a profession, generally it has to be seen as a desirable profession. This is flawed logic. You're selecting for status-seeking personalities, not competence. > As long as teaching is seen as a last resort people wont respect it and you'll keep attracting large numbers of teachers whose only qualification was that they couldn't find a better job somewhere else. This is flawed logic. You don't even seem to consider the possibility that you've already managed to recruit as many competent teachers as can exist, and that you have so many incompetent ones because your demand outstrips supply. If there are only 20,000 good teachers, and you need 1 million... then no matter how much respect they get, you'll never get more than 20,000 good teachers. You'll just fill the remainder with jackasses. > To put it bluntly, teaching has been made into an objectively shitty profession, They're being rewarded commensurate with their results. > If you want good teachers, you need to pay them more You're selecting for greedy people, not competence. Again, flawed logic. > You need to: * Pay top dollar for talent. * Flawed logic. If you are an individual who wants a small number of good teachers (say, as tutors for your son Richie Rich), then this is an effective strategy. You're using your immense wealth to lure good teachers away from other jobs. This is not just an ineffective strategy for a large nation-state, it's an economically and educationally disastrous one. You can't afford it, and you will incentivize a large number of incompetent assholes to become teachers for the "top dollar" pay. Your tests and qualifications can't weed them out because they will attempt to game any tests you present. They will become teachers, fuck it up not just with their incompetence, but also with their toxic personalities. Do you even think about this stuff, or do you just repeat what you've heard other people say (people who haven't thought about it either)?
- JediWing 12y ago
  >This is flawed logic. You're selecting for status-seeking personalities, not competence Huh? So anyone who wants autonomy and to be well paid is a status seeker? Sounds more to me like they're a typical human being. > You don't even seem to consider the possibility that you've already managed to recruit as many competent teachers as can exist, and that you have so many incompetent ones because your demand outstrips supply. I think that idea is so implausible that it's not worth considering. You seriously think you couldn't lure some bright creative minds who would have done an excellent job teaching by making the profession better compensated? Not just those currently on the market but the 18 year olds who are choosing their fields of study? You don't think there have been plenty of people who have kind of wanted to be teachers, then turned on the news and decided "I don't want to put up with that" and then go choose something else? > They're being rewarded commensurate with their results. Wow. Way to grossly oversimplify one of the most important public policy issues of our time. You can't ignore externalities that affect student performance and place all the blame on teachers. There are way way too many factors to try to pin blame on any one segment. >Your tests and qualifications can't weed them out because they will attempt to game any tests you present. No more than any other profession considered prestigious is "gamed" today. You do realize teachers need to go through a degree program, background checks and professional testing per subject they teach, don't you? And that's today let alone if we further incentivize the profession. > This is not just an ineffective strategy for a large nation-state, it's an economically and educationally disastrous one. Hiring bright people to do a job that's vitally important to our society at a fair market price? The government spends enough money on nonsense that paying teachers well would be a drop in the bucket.
  - NoMoreNicksLeft 12y ago
    > Wow. Way to grossly oversimplify one of the most important public policy issues of our time. You can't ignore externalities that affect student performance a I can. If I hire a contractor to build a house in the shape of a giant ice cream cone, then I expect that result. At the very most, he should shortly conclude that it is not possible (I'd still be liable to pay him for some reasonable hours that it took to come to that realization). But if he can't do it, he can't just keep billing hours not doing it. They're paid commensurate with their results. > I think that idea is so implausible that it's not worth considering. You seriously think you couldn't lure some bright creative minds who would have done an excellent job teaching by making the profession better compensated? No. See, you're probably a bright and creative guy yourself (at least within some narrow scope). So your ego gets in the way and you assume that this means that you'd be a great teacher, if only they had signaled to you early on that you'd've been paid well to go into it (and you can't switch now, it'd mean going back to college). But you're wrong. I don't need someone who is above average in creativity to teach my children. I need someone who feels highly motivated to teach them. This is the single most important criteria to being a good teacher. And the fact that you didn't go into teaching means you've failed this test miserably. You failed it because you are very unmotivated... low pay, or maybe lack of respect, these things discouraged you. People are somewhat fungible, in that we could maybe squeeze out a few thousand more good teachers. Maybe. But at that point we're spending far more to get those last few thousand than we were to get the first few thousand good teachers. Just like anything else, we start running into diminishing returns. We'd double education spending to get even 20,000 more good teachers nationwide. Is our good teacher deficit only 20,000? I've heard numbers more like 500,000. If we have to double it for an extra 20,000, how much will the real number cost? You're just not thinking about this clearly, and if I must be downvoted then I must... it's more important that you people hear, however briefly, some sense on the matter. > No more than any other profession considered prestigious is "gamed" today. Yes, and that level of gaming is bizarre and culturally-suicidal. Let's talk about those "gamed" professions: politicians. Do you want those kind of people molding your young children (supposing you have any)? Too stupid to teach the kids anything other than manipulation and deceit, filling their heads with crackpot ideas, or just toying with them for their own amusement, and able to shrug off any scandal that malfeasance and abuse sends their way? The few other prestigious professions, they're not quite as bad as politics, but they have insanely prohibitive constraints. You can't usually game becoming an astronaut, but a nation of 300 million only comes up with dozens that make the cut. > You do realize teachers need to go through a degree program, I work as a university, and every term I have to prepare a program that sends out end of term letters (probation and suspension). Which college do you think gets the most of those, per capita? But perhaps the college of education is just tougher than the college of engineering. Maybe it's a more rigorous program. And the truth is, they don't need to go through a degree program. When I lived in Atlanta, I saw a newspaper article where they were hiring anyone with a GED to be a teacher, age 18 and up. Seriously. Don't remember the details, and I'm sure some part of it was that they'd put you through a degree program eventually (on your own dime or their? don't remember), but you don't ned a degree. You just need a pulse, a blank felony record (or not?), and a birth certificate proving you were born 18 or more years ago. > The government spends enough money This is a child's view of budgeting. Just because money is wasted elsewhere doesn't mean all should be invited to waste even more money. > Huh? So anyone who wants autonomy and to be well paid is a status seeker? You lost track of the conversation. Though people often argue that they should be paid more, the original comment was that they should be better respected. That's status. I concede that I added arguments to my own comment that addressed both status and pay. I'm merely clarifying: if you raise the status of the job, you get status-seekers, if you raise the pay, you get money-seekers. Neither of these is anything that will improve educational outcomes. They both do however improve election results for political parties that cater to teacher's unions.

NoMoreNicksLeft 12y ago

> If you want to attract someone competent to a profession, generally it has to be seen as a desirable profession. This is flawed logic. You're selecting for status-seeking personalities, not competence. > As long as teaching is seen as a last resort people wont respect it and you'll keep attracting large numbers of teachers whose only qualification was that they couldn't find a better job somewhere else. This is flawed logic. You don't even seem to consider the possibility that you've already managed to recruit as many competent teachers as can exist, and that you have so many incompetent ones because your demand outstrips supply. If there are only 20,000 good teachers, and you need 1 million... then no matter how much respect they get, you'll never get more than 20,000 good teachers. You'll just fill the remainder with jackasses. > To put it bluntly, teaching has been made into an objectively shitty profession, They're being rewarded commensurate with their results. > If you want good teachers, you need to pay them more You're selecting for greedy people, not competence. Again, flawed logic. > You need to: * Pay top dollar for talent. * Flawed logic. If you are an individual who wants a small number of good teachers (say, as tutors for your son Richie Rich), then this is an effective strategy. You're using your immense wealth to lure good teachers away from other jobs. This is not just an ineffective strategy for a large nation-state, it's an economically and educationally disastrous one. You can't afford it, and you will incentivize a large number of incompetent assholes to become teachers for the "top dollar" pay. Your tests and qualifications can't weed them out because they will attempt to game any tests you present. They will become teachers, fuck it up not just with their incompetence, but also with their toxic personalities. Do you even think about this stuff, or do you just repeat what you've heard other people say (people who haven't thought about it either)?

JediWing 12y ago
>This is flawed logic. You're selecting for status-seeking personalities, not competence Huh? So anyone who wants autonomy and to be well paid is a status seeker? Sounds more to me like they're a typical human being. > You don't even seem to consider the possibility that you've already managed to recruit as many competent teachers as can exist, and that you have so many incompetent ones because your demand outstrips supply. I think that idea is so implausible that it's not worth considering. You seriously think you couldn't lure some bright creative minds who would have done an excellent job teaching by making the profession better compensated? Not just those currently on the market but the 18 year olds who are choosing their fields of study? You don't think there have been plenty of people who have kind of wanted to be teachers, then turned on the news and decided "I don't want to put up with that" and then go choose something else? > They're being rewarded commensurate with their results. Wow. Way to grossly oversimplify one of the most important public policy issues of our time. You can't ignore externalities that affect student performance and place all the blame on teachers. There are way way too many factors to try to pin blame on any one segment. >Your tests and qualifications can't weed them out because they will attempt to game any tests you present. No more than any other profession considered prestigious is "gamed" today. You do realize teachers need to go through a degree program, background checks and professional testing per subject they teach, don't you? And that's today let alone if we further incentivize the profession. > This is not just an ineffective strategy for a large nation-state, it's an economically and educationally disastrous one. Hiring bright people to do a job that's vitally important to our society at a fair market price? The government spends enough money on nonsense that paying teachers well would be a drop in the bucket.
- NoMoreNicksLeft 12y ago
  > Wow. Way to grossly oversimplify one of the most important public policy issues of our time. You can't ignore externalities that affect student performance a I can. If I hire a contractor to build a house in the shape of a giant ice cream cone, then I expect that result. At the very most, he should shortly conclude that it is not possible (I'd still be liable to pay him for some reasonable hours that it took to come to that realization). But if he can't do it, he can't just keep billing hours not doing it. They're paid commensurate with their results. > I think that idea is so implausible that it's not worth considering. You seriously think you couldn't lure some bright creative minds who would have done an excellent job teaching by making the profession better compensated? No. See, you're probably a bright and creative guy yourself (at least within some narrow scope). So your ego gets in the way and you assume that this means that you'd be a great teacher, if only they had signaled to you early on that you'd've been paid well to go into it (and you can't switch now, it'd mean going back to college). But you're wrong. I don't need someone who is above average in creativity to teach my children. I need someone who feels highly motivated to teach them. This is the single most important criteria to being a good teacher. And the fact that you didn't go into teaching means you've failed this test miserably. You failed it because you are very unmotivated... low pay, or maybe lack of respect, these things discouraged you. People are somewhat fungible, in that we could maybe squeeze out a few thousand more good teachers. Maybe. But at that point we're spending far more to get those last few thousand than we were to get the first few thousand good teachers. Just like anything else, we start running into diminishing returns. We'd double education spending to get even 20,000 more good teachers nationwide. Is our good teacher deficit only 20,000? I've heard numbers more like 500,000. If we have to double it for an extra 20,000, how much will the real number cost? You're just not thinking about this clearly, and if I must be downvoted then I must... it's more important that you people hear, however briefly, some sense on the matter. > No more than any other profession considered prestigious is "gamed" today. Yes, and that level of gaming is bizarre and culturally-suicidal. Let's talk about those "gamed" professions: politicians. Do you want those kind of people molding your young children (supposing you have any)? Too stupid to teach the kids anything other than manipulation and deceit, filling their heads with crackpot ideas, or just toying with them for their own amusement, and able to shrug off any scandal that malfeasance and abuse sends their way? The few other prestigious professions, they're not quite as bad as politics, but they have insanely prohibitive constraints. You can't usually game becoming an astronaut, but a nation of 300 million only comes up with dozens that make the cut. > You do realize teachers need to go through a degree program, I work as a university, and every term I have to prepare a program that sends out end of term letters (probation and suspension). Which college do you think gets the most of those, per capita? But perhaps the college of education is just tougher than the college of engineering. Maybe it's a more rigorous program. And the truth is, they don't need to go through a degree program. When I lived in Atlanta, I saw a newspaper article where they were hiring anyone with a GED to be a teacher, age 18 and up. Seriously. Don't remember the details, and I'm sure some part of it was that they'd put you through a degree program eventually (on your own dime or their? don't remember), but you don't ned a degree. You just need a pulse, a blank felony record (or not?), and a birth certificate proving you were born 18 or more years ago. > The government spends enough money This is a child's view of budgeting. Just because money is wasted elsewhere doesn't mean all should be invited to waste even more money. > Huh? So anyone who wants autonomy and to be well paid is a status seeker? You lost track of the conversation. Though people often argue that they should be paid more, the original comment was that they should be better respected. That's status. I concede that I added arguments to my own comment that addressed both status and pay. I'm merely clarifying: if you raise the status of the job, you get status-seekers, if you raise the pay, you get money-seekers. Neither of these is anything that will improve educational outcomes. They both do however improve election results for political parties that cater to teacher's unions.