Instruction for teachers

Re: Those teachers, Part 2, May 26, by Howard Levitt Mr. Levitt... Thank you for “Those Teachers-Part I and II.” A wonderful read, and I am not at all surprised that an orchestrated backlash may have occurred. Nonetheless, as I am sure you are tired of this issue at this point, I will add to your reading by offering this short missive in response to your “Part II.”

I am retiring after four decades dealing with teachers-in-training and would like to offer a slightly skewed reaction to your many and varied positions.

1. Teachers are well paid, especially if one factors in benefits. I am unsure why teachers are always bitching about how poorly paid they are and can only assume that it is a refrain used (by unions) to keep other issues off the radar. Further, it is easier for governments to throw money at an issue rather than deal with more serious educational problems.

2. Teachers have a light work schedule and the so-called “work at home” pleading is nothing more than clap-trap. Many other workers work at home, and so there is nothing special about teachers. The so-called research studies detailing a teachers actual hours are mostly self-generated and/or union sponsored; therefore, rather worthless as neutral reviews.

3. The summer break (harking back to an agrarian model) is obsolete in contemporary society. The only two reasons that I can understand for maintaining the current plan is that upgrades would cost too much (need to add AC to schools) or the summer camp industry would collapse. A solid emerging research base suggests that the long summer break is actually a negative factor in long-term learning. Four concluding observations: (a) the so-called discipline/review processes for teachers is a sham in that there are no stated criteria for judging what is good/poor teaching;

(b) all teachers are treated alike in that there is no merit/bonus for excellent work;

(c) up to one-third of new teachers leave within five years, thus creating a major “rotary” system that generally weakens school culture; and

(d) teachers are not recognized as a professional order but merely as a regulated trade and, as such, have no responsibility to maintain standards or self-discipline. Jon G. Bradley, Associate Professor, DISE/Education/McGill University

NIMBY should be NIMP (not in my profession). As a mother who has children working in education (some College of Teachers of Ontario [CTO] approved and others just “educators”), and one working in law, there is no argument from me on how much time is spent by either profession once they reach their respective designations.

In acquiring university degrees to pursue the required designation, law is much more detailed with a year articling before being called to the bar. Teachers do not have the same structure. After being hired either by a school board or a law firm, the additional training leading to more pay (i.e. summer school for CTO teachers) is not there for lawyers.

Lawyers do not get supplementary pay for more education.

Since the public purse pays CTO teachers, there is a never-ending flow of money. And to what end? Do teach- ers with more education make better teachers?

Marg Nixon, Barrie, Ont.