6 ms·

>You mean to pay for teachers This is going to be a very interesting and telling litmus test for the future of the Country in the next few months. If public s

>You mean to pay for teachers This is going to be a very interesting and telling litmus test for the future of the Country in the next few months. If public schools go the route of remote teaching, which I think they will...then I don't see much choice but for State, County and local governments to go to war against the Teachers Unions and lay waste to upwards of 75% of the teacher workforce. Lets ballpark about 3M teachers losing their jobs and the entire educational system reformed where there is very limited public school in person attendance. As bad as losing 3M jobs would be to the economy, there will be untold negative impacts on children and parents that will have to leave their children unsupervised during the day.

ghaff 6y ago
Why do you think remote teaching takes markedly fewer people?
- tsherr 6y ago
  It should take one really good "lecturer" and then a bunch of TAs. The TAs would be lower paid off course. Would it be fewer overall all? Maybe not, but salaries would change.
giantg2 6y ago
It should be interesting. In a lot of states, it's not legal to leave your kids unsupervised depending on their age. I would guess that if they laid off teachers (which I think is unlikely on a massive scale due to them facilitating the online classes), then those laid off teachers might be hired as tutors or baby sitters.
jshaqaw 6y ago
I'm not so sure of this. First of all, remote learning takes just as many teachers as in-person learning unless the education plan is just "watch Khan academy and check in with us in a year." In fact under the hybrid models being proposed in areas like NYC it will take more teachers as the teacher doing in-class learning cannot simultaneously handle remote instruction. There are some decent ed-tech products out there but they can't put education on autopilot. Second, even if you had the technology to automate remote learning during the crisis, are you going to fire all your teachers only to rehire them in Spring/Summer? No I don't have a crystal ball on the future but I'd be surprised if by Spring we didn't have some form of viable if not 100% effective vaccine. We won't be locked inside forever.

ghaff 6y ago

Why do you think remote teaching takes markedly fewer people?

tsherr 6y ago
It should take one really good "lecturer" and then a bunch of TAs. The TAs would be lower paid off course. Would it be fewer overall all? Maybe not, but salaries would change.

giantg2 6y ago

It should be interesting. In a lot of states, it's not legal to leave your kids unsupervised depending on their age. I would guess that if they laid off teachers (which I think is unlikely on a massive scale due to them facilitating the online classes), then those laid off teachers might be hired as tutors or baby sitters.

jshaqaw 6y ago

I'm not so sure of this. First of all, remote learning takes just as many teachers as in-person learning unless the education plan is just "watch Khan academy and check in with us in a year." In fact under the hybrid models being proposed in areas like NYC it will take more teachers as the teacher doing in-class learning cannot simultaneously handle remote instruction. There are some decent ed-tech products out there but they can't put education on autopilot. Second, even if you had the technology to automate remote learning during the crisis, are you going to fire all your teachers only to rehire them in Spring/Summer? No I don't have a crystal ball on the future but I'd be surprised if by Spring we didn't have some form of viable if not 100% effective vaccine. We won't be locked inside forever.