[thechat] Jan 18 peace march

[Martin Burns]

On Tue, 21 Jan 2003, aardvark wrote:

> > From: Martin Burns <martin at easyweb.co.uk>
> >
> > > > If you have a limited supply of entry places to a high demand
> > > > profession, and the currency of entry is not money, then it'll
> > > > come down to talent.
> > >
> > > it's not a high demand profession, it's almost a fallback for
> > > many...
> >
> > ...because it's not a well paid profession.
>
> and because getting into teaching isn't as rigorous a process as it
> should be... it won't be well-paid *until* you can first limit it...
> why would a PhD want to teach? not for the money... but if you limit
> the requirements, the money follows...

Combine the 2 thusly:

Assume or change teacher training so it is a 1 year postgrad qualification
in your undergrad major (or a 3 year undergrad qualification). [This is
the UK model btw]. Make the final exams stringent, but based on classroom
ability. Note that you can be a real expert in your subject, and smart as
hell, but still a dolt of a teacher (and vice versa).

For new (post-training) entrants to the profession, starting September
2005, starting salaries will be 20% higher.

 From that point, existing teachers, including new teachers, who can show
aptitude in classroom teaching will get an accelerated payscale up to
whatever large sum is necessary to be competitive. Additional rewards for
non-teaching additional responsibilities are untouched by this, but the
balance will shift so that the best teachers don't automatically become
department heads and reduce their classroom time.

Put in place a rigourous, fair, open regime of inspection - don't just let
failing schools and teachers continue. Again, this is the UK model.

> [...]
> > However, what's the message you leave in the mind of the kids..?
> > Marketing Coca Cola. Depends on the age of the kids, of course. I get
> > *extremely* angry when my son's nursery wants to take him on a trip to
> > McDonalds and follow it up with a whole range of activities based on
> > McDonalds branded items.
>
> and as a parent, that's your right, and even your responsibility...
> unless you take them to mcdonalds whenever they want, it's not going
> to result in them taking in any more of that food...

Sure, but it's the 'at what age' point I was making... until he's old
enough to resist the institutional pressure (where, remember, he spends
most of his weekday waking hours), it's not appropriate.

> > I'm much less worried about having a brand sponsor the cafeteria than
> > the lessons/books, although I'm sure there are attempts to leverage
> > the one into the other.
>
> well, i tend to agree, and i'm sure there are attempts to leverage
> that (and i'd reward the marketing guy trying it, but still say no as
> a parent or teacher)...

Good reading:
http://www.amazon.co.uk/exec/obidos/ASIN/0333901649/

George Monbiot makes the point that you can't blame the corporations for
trying. You *can* blame public services for letting them get away with it.

Cheers
Martin

--
"Names, once they are in common use, quickly
 become mere sounds, their etymology being
 buried, like so many of the earth's marvels,
 beneath the dust of habit." - Salman Rushdie