Posts by Jose Wells3

Paul Davis2 said:It’s people like this—choosing a career solely based on how much free time they get—that prevent teachers from gaining any real professional respect in society. I want my kids being taught by true professionals, not just ladies who picked the job because their husbands make enough money to cover the bills.

No, you clearly don't understand how a teacher's schedule actually works. Someone might have a high-earning spouse and still work themselves to the bone, especially since their actual classroom hours are barely compensated. With this reform, those wages are going to get even worse.

Take me, for example. I don't even *have* to work, but that doesn't mean anything to me—I don't believe in being dependent on a spouse. The only upside to my job while we're financially comfortable is not having to worry about survival. But even then, I've been working 16-hour days for the last five days straight just so I can finally take some actual time off to hit the mountains. I've had to prep everything, bring everything, and map out every single obligation waiting for me.

With your attitude, maybe you'd prefer if these women weren't burdened by the struggle to survive? Then they could just teach for fun because the shorter immediate workload suits them perfectly.

From the perspective of someone without financial struggles, let me tell you: I would happily work an 8-to-4 schedule with my own office and all the other duties that make up a 40-hour week. As it stands, I work anywhere from eight to twelve hours. It is very, very rare for my week to be any shorter than that.

In that scenario, I’d cover your imaginary 23 hours of classroom time, and I’d work the full-day shift too, but only for my specific classes. I wouldn't bother with being a homeroom teacher, and I certainly wouldn't chase after extra certifications or advanced levels. Physically, I can't do it, and frankly, I won't—not with the sheer amount of work my subject requires. If you want to do this job properly, you end up taking half of it home with you.

So, I’m out. I’ll prepare my transition and leave; staying isn't even a thought. I’m a humanist, and I’m not afraid of being unemployed because I have more real-world experience than I ever did dealing with government nonsense. There is always an exit. My husband and I are already looking at countries where, once I pass the language exams, I'd be hired as a teacher instantly. I've already started researching. Honestly, I wouldn't even need to do that; I could just go back to school for a PhD, vocational training, or whatever else takes my fancy.

The MIT crowd? Honestly, they were absolute jokes—the kind of people you’d rather forget existed the moment they leave the room. It wasn't even that they were complaining.

My general takeaway: just a bunch of muscle heads. Their heads sort of wobbled around like those old turtle figurines grandmas used to keep on their bookshelves. And despite being in college, most of them had somehow completely skipped leg day... so, yeah...

There's even a running joke about them: Two MIT students are waiting for the bus when they see a third guy sprinting past, and they just yell, "Streber!"

That said, I know plenty of them who are brilliant experts. I’d never dream of generalizing.

But anyway, getting back to the main point...

How do we feel about the possibility of hitting our goals with such a demoralized workforce? And more importantly, is that really what we want?

Sarah Hall53 said:Hagan, what kind of high school program are we talking about here? We actually had something similar back in the day—it was called the Schwarzer method—and honestly, it worked wonders. I really think those kinds of programs should stick around longer.

I suppose anything is possible if you scale it correctly.

Personally, I’m the type who believes kids should be out there working manual jobs starting at thirteen.🤣

shadowtiger0, here’s the cold, hard truth, stripped of all the fluff.

Some people just aren't cut out for medicine, and if we relied on the KIF, they'd still be stuck in limbo. It comes down to raw human capacity and natural aptitude.

And let’s stop with this pyramid-style hierarchy nonsense. If we were being brutally honest, most of us wouldn't survive a day without support staff—cleaning crews, for instance. Even that high-and-mighty doctor would be absolutely nothing without the dedicated nurses who handle the messy reality of patient care.

John, high schools really need to bake internships into the curriculum—there are plenty of opportunities out there—and modernize how they actually structure the day, the week, the month... Cramming every single subject into one frantic week isn't doing anyone any favors, regardless of how much brainpower those students have. I have a mountain of ideas, as usual, but look—I’ll admit I can be pretty dictatorial, and I might not even be right. But for me? What’s the point of a high school grad who can't build a basic financial framework for a small project? Like, say, a study plan paired with a budget, or even just renovating their own room? What good is a graduate who can't write a decent essay in the very languages they spent years studying? Honestly, forget about any student who can't draft a formal letter, file an appeal against an administrative decision, or put together a killer resume. If they aren't volunteering and don't know anything beyond mindless chatter, what are they even doing?

As for vocational programs, I’d push for more meaningful hands-on training. If we don't have those opportunities locally, we should be looking at exchange programs—after all, we are part of the Western world. Mobility matters. I’d also pivot all those "unrelated" subjects to serve the core profession and future careers, while still keeping the essential general knowledge every human being needs to function.

shadowtiger0 said:There's a bit of everything, sure. I'll be the first to admit that an epidemiologist shouldn't be pulling the same paycheck as a surgeon—not that I even knew about this mess until now...—but they do.

That said, in most cases, doctors were top-tier students with incredible memories and a hell of a work ethic. On the day they decided to take on a grueling specialty right after graduation and grind away at it for years—believe me, that makes a massive difference compared to what we do.

I breezed through my college years... sort of. Some harder classes gave me a bit of trouble, but hey, I made it. If you saw the sheer volume of studying a doctor has to do, followed by their actual workload—you wouldn't say that.

Let me give you an example to illustrate: Pat. One of my buddies from the crew is getting married. We didn't have one of our resident doctors on duty at the ER that night. He rolls into the OR around 11 PM. Usually, he's this high-energy, hilarious guy—a textbook extrovert. This time, he's silent, eyes glued to the floor. We, being our usual "cheerful" selves, try to crack a few jokes to get him going. Finally, he snaps: "Guys, seriously, stop messing around, I just had a patient die on the table..."

Can you even imagine the looks on our faces? Now, imagine seeing that every single month for the rest of your life, while watching family members whine about every little thing while these guys just stay silent, swallow it, and push forward.

The medical professionals I know are all on the front lines actually working. As for those ones lounging in comfy office chairs? Not so much.

I'm not saying our job sucks (because it doesn't!), but it isn't like theirs. Not even close.

Listen, friend, in my career I've dealt with a student who was assaulted at thirteen, a sea of kids with parents struggling with alcoholism or drugs, children showing signs of schizophrenia, every possible spectrum of trauma, neglected and sick kids. My child's teacher lived through the death of a student. I am responsible for providing first aid in my school and I carry that weight with me every single day; I have a first aid kit right here in my classroom, I know how to administer an enema, I know how to react during a seizure. I deal with parents I'd have to report to CPS, I coordinate with the police, and I deal with lazy colleagues. Every day I'm in direct physical danger walking home late after a shift. Don't talk to me about responsibility.

A surgeon once told me he wouldn't teach even if they doubled his salary, because he's in awe of the patience required for our profession. He said performing heart surgery is routine for him, and at least his patients stay quiet.🤣

I love him and his dark sense of humor.

On the other hand, there's this jerk who told a pregnant woman she shouldn't address the baby by name because it's just a "fetus," not a person (I'm a pediatrician). Today, that same person sits there with a medical degree they basically memorized, unable to even deliver a baby anymore, instead spending their time sucking up to corrupt politicians and writing meaningless papers on medical history. They were always sleazy; I couldn't fathom them even studying medicine. Dirty nails, messy hair, zero hygiene.

Friend, you have no idea what it's like to face a reading list that spans 26 pages just for a single exam. A reading list.

Back when we were students, the hardest exams in the country were in my and your major: organic chemistry and new American literature. Nothing compared to medicine.

In my case, there were six semesters where retakes weren't even an option. In your colleagues' case, you already know the deal.

I never had a single exam like that.

Just being able to cram and having a high capacity for rote memorization doesn't mean everyone coming out of med school is worthy of respect. Just ask me about the doctors who treated me, or the idiot who told me when I was nineteen that I had six months to live after my brain scan came back...

John, in other countries, specialists are often restricted to technical colleges; if they want anything else, they have to retake exams or head back to school for extra training.

So, she wasn't talking about the high school graduation exams—that's what Mad meant. In America, our people can actually take them, which is a huge advantage and gives them a real shot at catching up. For instance, in my own field, I used to host free prep sessions, and about five percent of the group showed up. Out of those, three percent dropped out because the work was just too much for them—they’d rather be grabbing a beer at a local pub—while the other two percent absolutely crushed it.

I'm with you there, John, but that doesn't mean we should scrap high schools or strip them of their value—it means we need to evolve them. Vocational programs definitely need more support; that's where my heart lies. I never actually wanted to teach at a prep school; I wanted to be in a trade school because I live for the hands-on stuff. I love students who are out there doing practical work—they're more vibrant, more capable, and honestly, just more relatable to me. That said... I’ve been in some incredible academic academies and seen what they can achieve when done right.

My issue with our conversation is this palpable layer of frustration you carry, which seems rooted in your own educational background. I see it all the time with my colleagues, too—posting statuses like, "Another day down, and I still haven't used sine or cosine." Where's the progress in an attitude like that? It's just venting personal grievances. For me, physics was ruined by one bad teacher back when I was a driven high schooler, but I refuse to disrespect the subject. Why? Because I actually *need* that knowledge in my field to turn raw data into reality, to parse scientific papers, and to explain how scientific breakthroughs have shaped literary movements.

That sense of realism emerged from historical shifts and scientific leaps—take the invention of photography, for instance. None of your science classes will show you those intersections; only a subject like American English will. No math class is going to train you in reading comprehension, which is a skill you'll need to pass on in every other field, nor will any lab build your vocabulary the way a social studies course does. In the sciences, we expect kids to already possess those competencies; we don't spend our time building them from scratch.

Let me repeat this for anyone craving socialization: parents put the phones in their kids' hands, not the schools. You are the ones shaping your children's world. You aren't collaborating with other parents, and you aren't encouraging kids to go play in the park in the safest country in the world. You are responsible. We are responsible. Not the school. It isn't the school's job to fix a broken society by keeping kids trapped in an institution for longer hours. Our duty is to get them away from their screens and facilitate elective socialization, rather than forcing a manufactured version of society on them within a classroom.

It’s us, not the school. Even if schools try to help, you're the ones raising them with smartphones glued to their faces.

shadowtiger0 said:Whatever—the guy has a doctorate. We aren't educators. That's just the reality of it.

As for those jokes about our department? Sure, they exist. They exist for every major out there. But let's be real—we aren't kids anymore; we all know which programs are grueling and exactly what kind of people enroll in them.

So he’s a doctor. How does that make him better than you?

Maybe he’s a theorist who couldn't even perform a basic stitch if his life depended on it. Maybe he’s just some corrupt hack. Or maybe he’s a complete fraud who spent his career breeding offspring only to land a cushy seat at the National Academy of Sciences, churning out useless papers on our dime while we do the actual work (our editorial staff knows exactly who I mean). Perhaps he’d sell his Hippocratic Oath for five hundred bucks. Maybe he learned anatomy via YouTube. Or maybe he’s just completely incompetent.

My old man wasn't anything special, and honestly, he gave me a hard time my whole life. But even so? He was still a better human being than 80 percent of doctors out there, and far more capable of teaching practical skills than any MD I've ever met.

We don't all belong to that inner circle of "distinguished" doctors. There's a huge crowd of them in Congress, so clearly they're geniuses.

nimblelynx7 said:Then where else are you supposed to learn this stuff if not in college? Prep schools are honestly the worst kind of secondary education, even if they act all elite and superior. You spend four years studying everything, then graduate and realize you don't actually know anything useful; everything you learned is basically just trivia for pub quizzes. If you don't head straight to a university after that, you're screwed. You'll be forced into some specific vocational training for a job, and all that knowledge about the Baroque period, logic, the GDP of Uzbekistan, or Napoleon wars? You can just throw it in the trash.

So you're claiming the curriculum at an electrotechnical high school is a total joke, and anyone can teach it?

That's not how it works. Right now, in a school in Chicago, a PhD student from MIT is teaching a class—and get this, he actually graduated from a traditional high school before heading to MIT.

As much as high schools get on my nerves, your take is dangerous and frankly disrespectful to everyone coming out of those schools who go on to dominate enrollment at top-tier universities here in the States and abroad. I'm talking about our students, but also the world-class students everywhere.

There’s a more civilized, sensible way to say this, and I totally get your point—vocational programs really should have more rigorous curricula and better pathways into specialized university programs.

It’s unheard of, really—it's unbelievable that students from vocational tracks struggle to get into medical school.

shadowtiger0 said:Whatever—the guy has a doctorate. We aren't educators. That's just the reality of it.

As for those jokes about our department? Sure, they exist. They exist for every major out there. But let's be real—we aren't kids anymore; we all know which programs are grueling and exactly what kind of people enroll in them.

Which ones?

People call him a "veterinarian" as an insult because he treats students like a flock of sheep, assuming they can't tell the difference. Honestly, he should just stick to his degree—whether that means focusing on his actual field or tending to livestock—and stay far away from education reform.

There’s a running joke about those attending KFC, but I don't think it's helpful to weaponize someone's education level during a debate before they've even finished their own studies. Even if you believe it, it doesn't actually add anything to the conversation.

Before we dive in, perhaps we should take a collective look at how things are handled over in Europe at Eurydice ? That might help us draw some conclusions about what qualifications are actually necessary, what alternative pathways could look like, and where they fit within the educational hierarchy.

As I mentioned before, the issue of subpar degree programs persists. It’s the same old story: whenever people start criticizing education, they aim their shots at primary and secondary schools, while the universities are busy trying to "reform" everything—all while lazy bureaucrats and political appointees run failing departments.

The sheer rigidity of our university system is a problem in itself. On paper, you can supposedly do anything. In reality? You can't. How am I supposed to study chemistry alongside English literature, or physics with art history, if that’s the specific combination I want for my career? The system just won't allow it.

I also think it’s a solid idea to allow people to earn certifications for high-demand subjects through alternative routes. However, we should set some guardrails: perhaps a minimum of a Bachelor's degree for certain roles, or even a Master's combined with relevant teaching experience and a certain level of maturity.

I fully support involving students in the process. We need to drastically cut enrollment quotas for oversaturated fields and boost them for others. Furthermore, we should be hiring students to fill specialized vacancies via a centralized database. Honestly? I’d advocate for penalizing those who refuse such placements. Of course, this would have to be balanced with incentives for those who step up—things like seniority credits and academic points for practical skills.

My stance remains unchanged: for core subject instruction, nothing less than a Master's degree should be considered—except, perhaps, in cases of extreme teacher shortages. Even then, we could follow a hybrid model of classroom instruction and lectures, which I’ll detail further down.

While I welcome alternative pathways and additional training for non-educators, let’s be realistic: with salaries at this current level, nobody is going to jump into teaching for extra work.

In my view, it’s perfectly reasonable for elementary teachers to undergo a five-year program. They could complete three years of traditional lectures and exams, followed by two years of heavy practice and specialized coursework on a 70:30 ratio. A final thesis based on their actual field experience should be mandatory, along with a professional exam and licensing.

Early childhood educators could follow a similar track: three years of college followed by two years of hands-on practice and focused instruction with a reduced course load. This would culminate in a Master's thesis centered on their practical experience, topped off by a professional exam and licensure.

Oh, and yes—this would finally clear out the masses of pure theorists from the universities. I believe I've touched on that before.

mellowskipper said:In all fairness, for most nursing jobs, a high school diploma is still technically sufficient. But, naturally, young people want higher education—which makes sense, I guess. Though then they wouldn't end up doing the actual fundamental nursing work, the basic healthcare stuff. But that’s an aside. Just a parallel.

What kind of disaster would it be if someone with just a bachelor's degree taught math, chemistry, or physics in middle school? Or an RN with a specialized focus? And why would those professors be considered "below average"—compared to whom? Colleagues at the National Science Foundation or CERN?
I haven't exactly studied the Finnish education system or their specific test scores, so I'm not sure what exactly is meant by that, but I suspect the Finns themselves wouldn't mind hiring American workers, so I assume we fit right in alongside our own results.

We share one thing in common: we have the highest percentage of highly educated teachers. It's even more pronounced in our field; the top 10 percent consistently head toward teaching majors.

You've got it wrong.

We can debate all we want once university programs actually become good enough for advanced tracks to match the knowledge level needed to challenge gifted students. But they aren't. You see it yourself. Many simply aren't there yet. That is my bottom line.

Leah, negative selection happens for a reason, but I am completely with you. It’s exhausting watching colleagues play games while I’m pouring my blood and sweat into my teaching. I’d love nothing more than to finally see us get some momentum. But that won't happen without professional dignity, meaningful pedagogical reforms, and properly compensated wages.

If full-time hours become mandatory, any decent person will leave. Honestly, I wouldn't even have a problem switching to social sciences. I’d rather dig ditches than settle for this. At least nowadays, you actually have options to pivot. We know we have until 2027 to retrain. Use the Voucher, invest in ourselves, and go find some peace under the sun. No sane person is going to work like this—especially not for these wages.

So, we’re all chasing those Finnish-style results while relying on a teaching force that hasn't quite hit its stride educationally.

It’s really the one thing we actually have in common with the Finns, yet we seem completely incapable of tapping into the actual potential of the people right in front of us.

I mean, is anyone even going to mention the desperate need for a total overhaul of the university system?

Susan James said:Personally, I'd happily hand over some tablets to help get this done. 🙏

Did that 🤣

I try to encourage handwriting, I really do. But when you're dealing with an honors-level class? It becomes a struggle. Is it easier to just grab the tablets from the storage cabinet than to deal with their constant nonsense? Yes. It is.

Besides, topics like this aren't even out of the ordinary. We end up writing heaps of essays on stuff like this outside of regular school assignments anyway.

So, I asked the kids if they wanted to tackle this topic for their school assignment, and now I’m busy condensing part of the document to give them as reading material. The goal? To make sure their commentary actually makes sense when they sit down to write.

They did ask, though—can they just post their thoughts in the comments section over at 🤣

Paul Davis2 said:I’m not sure if you’ve had a chance to look, but this document is basically a goldmine of data. It even breaks things down by classroom hours versus extracurricular stuff.
Since we aren't part of the OECD, we can just do some quick math—multiply our instructional hours by the number of weeks in the school year to get our own estimate.

https://www.oecd.org/education/education-at-a-glance/

Yeah, I have that document—and the one they cite as the source, which is in English—plus I’ve read the annex too.

So, looking at the stats: a range of 14 to 17 hours, with about 21 teachers reporting availability at school. They list class periods as being either 45 or 60 minutes. We also see about 90 percent of teachers holding a Master's degree (High School Diploma level equivalence). The school year kicks off August 11th and wraps up June 3rd! I was browsing some of their brochures, and apparently, since many parents struggle to find childcare, they organize these organized camps. Their breaks run from December 22nd to January 8th, plus breaks in February and November. No other holidays are listed. Does that sound familiar?
Fair enough, our percentage of teachers with a High School Diploma isn't in that top 10 percent. I'll give you that.

We have the same percentage of people with pedagogical competencies, and there are a few alternative ways to get qualified there.

We have a minimum of 175 working days. This year we actually have more, and it seems like it's trending upward every year.

Why am I obsessed with Finland? Because they’re a homogeneous nation just like us—small population, similar struggles.

From what I follow, some of their newer ambitions are questionable, and they have some pretty heated debates about them. Honestly, they seem almost indifferent toward PISA testing; they argue there are better metrics and that they simply want what’s best for their students within their own context.

Estonia is a bit more direct, but their kids aren't stuck in school from dawn till dusk.

Personally? If I could just teach 25 hours of actual instruction without any homeroom duties, I’d be the happiest person alive. For me, the prep work is actually the fun part—I love designing lessons, grading essays, and playing around with new ideas. What kills me is the homeroom responsibility. The mountain of paperwork, the mediation, the endless emails, the constant contact with parents... sunny or not, just take the homeroom away from me.

And please, stop keeping kids in the classroom until 3:00 PM.

By the way, we aren't far off on that front either; my sixth graders only have 29 hours of regular instruction (not counting tutoring or after-school stuff). Classes end at 1:05 PM, with 15-minute breaks and 5-minute passing periods. In most other countries, breaks range from thirty minutes to an hour and a half—some are even longer, and in some places, they last 40 minutes.

Paul Davis2 said:We aren't Finland; they have much stricter entry requirements for teacher training programs. Plus, I think they factor in instructional hours (though I should double-check the primary sources since I'm not at my computer right now).

Salaries here need to go up.

It varies by person, but the folks in Stemovac certainly don't work the least—in fact, they carry full workloads. Others work significantly less. There isn't much room to increase the hourly rate for Stemovac teachers, even though that’s what the Department of Education wants.
On top of that, changing the work dynamics and conditions would lead to better schools. I honestly don't know if Finnish teachers even handle their own administration. Who does it for them? Who handles the assessment, the thinking, the descriptions, and the data entry for individual student progress in Finland?
This study isn't ancient (it's from 2020), and the data table is solid and concise.
https://www.scielo.br/j/cp/a/rVwRHXM...at=pdf&lang=en

Contact hours, including a ten-minute break, or perhaps longer if they deem it necessary.

rowdypanther12 said:Good grief, that's really all we need to complete the set.

I suspect quite a few people would be rather embarrassed by their own lack of foresight.

Paul Davis2 said:It’s about time.
The reality is that this reform needs to fundamentally overhaul our school system. We’re lagging behind—especially when it comes to instructional hours (we're practically at the bottom of the pack in the European Union), teacher pay, and overall student performance.

Look, I’m asking you one more time: where exactly did you find this data claiming we're at the bottom of Europe? Because when looking at Euridyc, from education standards to workload norms, we’re basically identical to Finland. Teachers in Finland probably spend the least amount of time in the classroom daily. Sure, they have 190 working days while we have 175—I can't be certain if all their days include professional development, but my eyes are crossing just trying to research this.

Their number of holidays is almost the same as ours; they enjoy very long summer breaks too.

We have the exact same percentage of highly educated professionals in our teaching force.

Our numbers regarding minimum and maximum workloads are practically identical (17/14), and they spend up to 21 hours in school—though total working hours (including prep time...) aren't explicitly listed for them. Then again, I saw some figure of 35.5 from another study. Also, our max load isn't 20 hours; for some subjects, it's 24 (likely outdated data). My load goes up to 22, with a minimum of 18. I personally work 19 subject hours, plus 4 hours for DOD, advisory roles, and ExxonMobil tasks.

Have you even looked at salary scales? Because if we're talking about pay, then yes, we are absolutely at the bottom.

And honestly, I don't know if you realize the nature of the document you're reading. The data is incomplete, missing, or simply unrecorded. Our teachers are buried under administrative mountains, whereas the Finnish Teacher Administration seemingly deals with the absolute bare minimum of paperwork.

Just look at their academic calendar, please.

Go ahead, give us another 15 days. I’m more than willing to work them. Just stop claiming we work the least in Europe. It's simply not true.