Posts by Paul Davis2

Sarah Hall53 said:Honestly, there’s a ton of stuff I’d change—so much—but it’s definitely not the things they’re targeting, and it’s certainly not going to be done the way they’re planning to do it.
If these proposed changes actually go through, though? Yeah, I’m handing in my resignation.

Why not? They claim it's the "ideal" way to work—switching things up every 5, 10, or 15 years. Plus, at the Institute, there's a whole crowd of young talent just waiting for an opening.

Sarah Hall53 said:Man, this just isn't going to be recognized for what it actually is. It’s going to end up being extra weight on my shoulders, yours, and everyone else's—just more busywork. They’re basically saying that on-call shifts don't count toward our core hours because they aren't "direct instruction," as if I'm just sitting there guarding the chairs and the walls or something. We're talking about an 8-hour shift every week—that's a literal full workday right there—and it all gets dumped into some vague "other duties" bucket without any actual time tracking.
And let's talk about how these teaching programs work—they don't even acknowledge the time we spend prepping lessons or handling all the paperwork. Yet, they still expect us to differentiate everything into at least three levels, provide one-on-one support, and handle constant formative assessments. You really want to call that recognizing our hard work?

Jose Wells3 sounds like a truly dedicated teacher—honestly, I'd love to have them teaching my kids. You, on the other hand, are a bit of a mystery to me; you seem unhappy with your job, yet you wouldn't change a thing about it.

And let's be real—differentiation should be happening from day one, every single period. Anything less is just failing the students.

Jose Wells3 said:You really are a one-dimensional person who is impossible to talk to.

If I were allowed, I’d just dump my entire life's work on you: my digital logs, my calendar, my hourly logs and scheduling, my task timers, and my full productivity tracking for the last year. I did all that just to see if my time management was actually off. Every single thing I’ve recorded—every conversation and how long they lasted (especially with parents), every email and the time spent on them, every tiny detail from other duties, every single professional and unprofessional substitution I make just so I can be damn prepared and ensure no one else has to pick up my slack. My contributions to the school, my colleagues, tracking student needs, their individual portfolios, the data charts... Honestly, if I just sent you screenshots of my notes, you'd finally understand what actual professionalism looks like. You’d realize that in 70 percent of cases, the "unprofessional" ones are making inhuman efforts just to maintain teaching standards and decorum, while there's still a small percentage of idiots that need to be purged from the faculty, much like in the corporate world.

In a country where I'm aiming to move, maybe I'll get an extra hour in my day along with 90 percent less paperwork and dealing with parent drama. ☕

Then I guess it's a shame you aren't teaching my kids.
And why the complaining when you're doing all this work that will finally get recognized?
And yeah, if I were in your shoes, I’d move to that "ideal" country too—the one where parents stay out of the classroom. It’s written in every textbook: hands-off parents. That's the global dream, right?

Sarah Hall53 said:So, a friend of mine just landed a gig abroad—working in a school over there. She spends about eight hours a day inside the school building, and she even has her own private office space. The best part? She doesn't bring a single scrap of paperwork home with her, and honestly, nobody even expects her to. Once those eight hours are up, she’s officially off the clock. Her workload is basically split down the middle—maybe 55% actual teaching and 45% lesson planning—with almost zero administrative headaches. And the pay? It’s roughly five times what we make here.

Exactly what this reform proposal is aiming for. Five times the salary? And no prep work at home? I have to wonder, though—what kind of school ignores all the paperwork? Who handles the grading and assessments? Is this woman working in New York City?

Sarah Hall53 said:But honestly, who is even supposed to get that kind of salary under this half-baked reform idea? Maybe someone who only pulls 30 hours of direct classroom time a week, I guess.

Teachers in the school district are currently looking at 25.5 hours of direct instruction.

Adam Diaz67 said:I guess most of those women teach because they actually love the job, not just because it was the best option available. The semi-flexible schedule and guaranteed long vacations are nice bonuses, sure. But picking a career based on having more free time isn't weird; plenty of people do it. They’ll take a smaller paycheck if it means more downtime. Honestly, a lot of American companies balance out lower salaries with remote work, flexible shifts, or extra PTO anyway.

Teachers can't get respect because society basically doesn't give a damn about them. They're underpaid, stripped of all authority, kids laugh in their faces, and parents actually threaten them. It’s a pretty motivating environment, I suppose. If you take away the last remaining perk of the job, you'll see how fast the whole system falls apart. Right now, the only thing keeping things going is the sheer enthusiasm of the teachers themselves.

Well, if the pay is $3667, then nobody will be underpaid.

Jose Wells3 said: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.

So, what’s the plan then—are you going to leave teaching behind to chase a PhD, or maybe just pick up some part-time gig? Or, you know, maybe you'll head overseas to work in a school where they actually call your husband by his name. I wonder how much time teachers over there actually spend physically being inside the school building.
I know exactly what goes into a school day and how teaching specializations are decided. I see firsthand how hard my colleagues work, how much effort I put in myself, and the level of dedication at the schools my kids attend—all while watching the lack of professionalism that seems to be creeping in everywhere.

Sarah Hall53 said:shorter *flexible* hours.
I end up putting in way more than 40 hours most weeks—it’s just that half of it happens fluidly from my home office.
And honestly, I think that might be the very last thing left that makes a career in education even remotely appealing to talented people. (Let's be real, the pay definitely isn't doing it, and neither are the working conditions or the general respect you get from society.)
Do you think someone preferring that kind of flexible schedule is somehow unprofessional, or does that stigma only apply to teachers?

Look, for actual professionals and high performers, this kind of reform isn't an issue. The real problem lies with people who choose a career outside their field and then act shocked when they aren't respected for it. It’s a bit like those old-school bureaucrats who thought tenure was a substitute for competence.

Kate Jackson4 said:Even their scheduling won't work anymore

It's a given that most women flock to teaching because the lifestyle suits family life. If the husband pulls in a solid salary, working at a school means being home after four or five hours instead of eight, leaving plenty of time for domestic duties

But honestly, that perceived advantage over other careers is evaporating now that remote work and flexible hours are becoming standard everywhere
In my firm, anyone with young kids just works from home when they get sick. They don't even bother calling in sick; the boss knows they won't be at 100% capacity, but they'll hit at least 50%. It saves everyone the headache of finding coverage, and the essential tasks still get done—it’s a win-win for both the employer and the staff

If you have that kind of flexibility plus a 20% higher paycheck, why on earth would anyone choose teaching? You'd be working significantly less than an 8-to-3 shift, yet you're still hauling grading home and spending nights prepping lesson plans

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.

rowdypanther12 said:My daughter ended up dropping out too, mostly because they started teaching Python in 7th grade, and coding at that level just isn't her thing.
She actually loved working with Logo and micro:bit, but Python is way beyond what she’s interested in right now.
I honestly don't know how much longer she'd stick with school if they kept adding stuff like this to the curriculum.😂

Python is being taught in 5th and 6th grade now, which is a pretty steep learning curve. My kids have a great computer science program and top-tier teachers. I doubt the curriculum will shrink anytime soon—since not everyone had access to these classes in the earlier grades, they're trying to close that gap. At least at my kids' school, only a handful of students were taking the electives.

hiddendriver34 said:So, what you're saying is we might actually end up with smarter, happier kids, satisfied parents, and teachers who don't hate their jobs? Sounds like a plan to me. 😁

My kids will be out of elementary school in about two years, and honestly, I’m not thrilled with their education. What’s the fix? Beats me. All I know is everyone inside that school building seems completely burnt out.

hiddendriver34 said:Maybe try giving my original post another read and actually answer the question I asked, rather than putting words in my mouth that I never even said?

Honestly, at this point, it's pretty clear we all need to work on our reading comprehension skills. 😁

Look, you’re reading way too much into this—you’re overanalyzing instead of just seeing the core issue. The bottom line is simple: we have some of the lowest hourly pay rates in all of Europe, student competency is dropping, and everyone is miserable—the kids, the parents, and the teachers. It's a total stalemate where nobody wins.

We’re looking at a pilot program that comes with funding, infrastructure investment, and a framework designed to align with successful school systems worldwide—the kind where student outcomes and overall satisfaction actually trend upward. It isn't being shoved down anyone's throat as some magic fix; it's being presented as a flexible foundation. And yet, somehow, it's still hitting a wall.

hiddendriver34 said:It’s like everyone is just parroting the same old lines over and over again. It’s become such a cliché—you know, that whole "wherever there's a Turk, you'll find little Moe" kind of thing. Everyone's just repeating it like a broken record.

In the US, the tradition of full-day schooling has been around for at least fifty years. My husband grew up with that setup—he had full-day classes throughout his entire elementary school years, which back then lasted until the end of sixth grade. His older brother and sister went through the exact same thing. It was a long time ago, but that's just how things were done.

Our traditions are just built differently here. Look, I’m not saying that locking the door every single time is always the ultimate answer, but why on earth is full-day schooling considered the gold standard? I’m genuinely curious about the logic behind it. I don't want the usual "because everyone else is doing it" excuse—that doesn't explain anything. What is the actual, tangible advantage? Mandatory. All-day classes? Seriously? That sounds like a total grind.

You’ve got a point there. Around here, the traditional way works great.

wanderingbadger44 said:Are we talking about the students?
It feels genuinely inhumane to expect a thirteen-year-old to grind through six hours of standard classes, only to immediately jump into elective language blocks or computer science labs, followed by extra tutoring or remedial sessions, and then somehow find the energy for extracurriculars.

I don't know much about the specific after-school programs, but plenty of kids end up heading straight to those too.

Think about it—not a single adult out there can maintain peak concentration for eight full hours at a job. Yet, we expect a child to be fully dialed in, active, and engaged during every single period of the school day.

It’s honestly no wonder so many kids just hit a wall and give up; trying to sustain that level of intensity is practically impossible.

Every single day, middle schoolers are stuck dealing with seven or eight hours of various lessons.

On days when I leave right after the main six-hour stretch, I see them still sitting there, waiting for their coding clubs, foreign language electives, geography groups, or extra help... and my heart just breaks for them.

An 8-to-3 schedule is pretty standard across the USA—literally everywhere. In places where the day seems shorter, they aren't actually doing continuous instruction; it includes lunch breaks and various group activities. It’s not a solid block from 8 to 3; it’s a series of breaks, meals, and social periods.
Trying to run non-stop instruction from 8 to 3 just isn't realistic.

jadetinker85 said:It's a Fact-checker thing: 25 hours of direct instruction clearly rubs a lot of people the wrong way. They don't care if that's standard practice in the world's top educational systems. Apparently, teachers should just pull 40-hour weeks and stay glued to their desks if we want everyone to be happy.

Under the pilot program, teachers will handle somewhere between 20 and 25 hours in the classroom, depending on the subject. It’s pretty much the same standard you'd see anywhere else in the States.

Sarah Hall53 said:The thing is, they’re going to be expected to handle makeup exams and their regular homework all at once. It's basically paying them for one job while demanding three different things at the same time.

Look, if your principal and the school board don't even sign up for the pilot program, you aren't formally obligated to do anything. What you described—trying to do three things at once—is just unrealistic. If they try it, the whole thing will fall apart within a single semester, and they'll end up facing a completely different mess.

jadetinker85 said:It seems like whenever a country supports your point of view, mentioning the USA or the United Kingdom is fine (not sure why those two specifically), but if it doesn't fit your narrative, suddenly the argument is that we aren't Finland. Neither the USA nor the United Kingdom look like models we should be following—especially not the USA.
No, I encourage constructive debate, provided it stays within the bounds of decent communication. If it doesn't, then yes, you have to step in and set boundaries.

Exactly. Culturally speaking, Estonia shares much more in common with Finland than it does with us. We can try to emulate anyone we want, but school doesn't exist in a vacuum—it's a reflection of society. Whether teachers here in America have it the worst, whether they're overworked, whether the Department of Education ignores them, or if parents are just being irrational while everything is permitted... honestly, I haven't the slightest clue.

jadetinker85 said:What does it matter that we aren't Finland? Weren't you using the USA and the United Kingdom as benchmarks? We aren't either of those, either.
In Finland, given how much they invest in education, there's no question that both the curriculum and the teaching methods are tailored to age-appropriate developmental competencies. We could look to Estonia as an example; despite being a smaller post-communist nation, they successfully implemented the Finnish model.
But we aren't Estonia. 🙄

Look, in an open dialogue, you can bring up any country you want. I mentioned the US as a response to The Hague. You can't just jump from one thing to another and then try to lecture students on what they are or aren't allowed to mention, right?

Jose Wells3 said:Contact hours, including a ten-minute break, or perhaps longer if they deem it necessary.

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/

Jose Wells3 said: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.

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