"J. Clarke" wrote in message
...
All you're talking about here is getting teachers a little exposure to
the world outside their classrooms!

First you have to convince the educational theorists that the teacher
actually has to have such experience, until then they'll fight you
tooth and claw.

Perhaps it'd be worth developing
an internship program and mandating three months of participation in
field-related work prior to granting a masters degree in education...

How many teachers have a master's degree?


Only a tenured one would try. The way union rules are constructed, people
with advanced degrees cannot be hired except at a higher rate of pay. Once
tenured, even with a guaranteed pay raise for life, only around 20% in my
state complete a masters. Teachers by and large are not academically
oriented.

Then there's the matter of what that advanced degree would consist of.
Having been there, it's a sorry set of feel-good no-fail most often no
research or paper courses designed to make it easy to get through, leaving a
money trail behind for the university. It's really disheartening to hear
the traditional "is this material going to be on the test" question posed
even in these classes by those seeking the most gain for the least effort.
If the teacher, and that's what they are, _teachers_, education is the
integration and internalization of knowledge, has this attitude, how can
they expect their pupils to react otherwise in their classrooms?

Even "professional development" courses which were conceived of as a way to
expose teachers to new methods rather than new information are going under
here, because the Intermediate School District tasked with providing them
has money problems, and won't pay for the subs and mileage. They're paying
for aides and special effort to teach the unreachable with that money.
Seems counterintuitive to spend increasingly on an individual kid, rather
than on the teacher who touches all of them, but that's what's happening,
and with the cooperation of the teachers themselves.

Then there are those like the people talking "constitution" and "law" to
deal with. They can't understand that with no obligation on those receiving
the money and effort to participate in obtaining a positive outcome, it's
merely sand down the rathole. Trouble is, such talk infects the parents and
kids with its arrogance and contempt for individual obligation every time
"rights" to the public purse, free of obligation, are mentioned.

Last time I checked, non-appearance in court resulted in forfeiture of bail
and the issuance of an arrest warrant. So the difference is?