Can anyone enlighten me as to why an elementary school in Fairfax County would employ two full time reading teachers and two full time SUM math teachers, yet doesn't have these "specialists" tasked with actually working with students or teachers in the classroom? They don't provide any type of interventions to struggling students in either subject area, nor do they actually teach! Please help me understand . . . .

I suggest you get on the wait list for these "easy" jobs. Better yet get a job at Gatehouse.

Money for nothing.

GET A LIFE AL, I don't think is fair that your father gave you a free house and your the one crying about teachers getting overpaid

Schools that score low get money for these positions. Some of the money may come from grants, rather than just school system funds. It is a step towards closing the achievement gap.

Too bad this effort to help rarely makes up for the lack of home support the kids who score poorly have.

The school system makes it looks like they are trying, but oversight on the folks in these positions is based at the school. I have seen some who skate by most days working with just a few kids a week. Cake job, if you can get it.

Some work diligently to help the entire school community. Kudos to them.

Which school?

These jobs also justify someone's job (maybe even more than one person) at Gatehouse (to oversee them, hold meetings for them to be "staff developed", etc.). These are the kinds of people who drive the "regular" teachers nuts in the school. They cause tension and low morale among the teachers who are really working. I understand what the OP is saying. If people don't really work with the students (and some of these folks have not done that in years) and they then try to tell the teachers what to do, there is resentment (especially among teachers with years of experience who probably know more than the "specialist" knows). The "specialist" usually got the job because they "know" someone or because they were looking for the cake job. This usually means that they are not respected by other teachers (which, unfortunately can also cause the specialist to steer clear of the "regular" teachers and hang out in an office somewhere because these people have no real power over other teachers---they do not evaluate them). I'm sorry to hear about this in your school, but I am not surprised at all. This is a poorly designed method of "helping kids". The better method would be to have everyone teaching and responsible for kids, but have one teacher who is already respected take a lighter load in order to learn whatever needs to be learned to keep up. In my opinion, EVERYONE in a building should have some direct responsibility for kids (I mean a real class where you have to give grades) for at least a couple of periods a day. No exceptions. There is only mutual respect when you know someone is walking in your shoes and has been walking there quite recently (at least in this business). Principals are an exception. We know how hard they work. That's a ridiculous job. This is just my two cents. FCPS has to put more people on the front lines and have fewer generals (or people who think they are generals---you wouldn't believe how these jobs go to people's heads). Many teachers simply tune these people out. Until FCPS makes teachers important (and right now they hardly feel that way), there will be a lot of unhappiness and low morale. They talk about "pushing down" initiatives. That is hardly a recipe for teacher happiness. It's going to get worse before it gets better. WAY TOO MANY CHEFS AND NOT ENOUGH COOKS IN THE KITCHEN.

to "Been there"----great post!

I worked for a school system that had this type of reading specialist 30 years ago! It was a waste then, and I imagine it is a waste now

The concept was that the reading specialist was a "consultant" to help the classroom teacher......good job for drinking coffee in the teacher's lounge and going to meetings. The "specialist" was never available after school when the classroom teacher had time to "consult". The classroom teachers resented the waste of a teacher slot. Especially, since the classroom teachers knew more about teaching reading than the specialist. "Been there" hit the nail on the head with his/her post.

Teachers should teach--not consult.

I work in a school where the specialists are the first ones out the door (as soon as the bell rings). Former teacher is absolutely correct that they are not available after school. They have a real sweet deal---no planning or papers to correct and they are out the door as soon as the bell rings. Meanwhile, the teachers are working like dogs. Teachers can't say anything about this for fear that their careers will go down the tubes. The "specialist" is usually well connected and loved at central office and the principal is forced to defend that person. You have to smile and act like this person is "wonderful". It's pretty sickening.

Some advice for the OP:

You sound like a very smart, reflective teacher. You are exactly the kind of person who should be in the classroom. When I started teaching, my best mentors were other, more experienced teachers. They can help you a heck of a lot more than a "specialist" can. Talk to others and you will find one or two experienced and caring teachers who click with you. Many of them enjoy the role of mentor and (shocking) they stay after school. The "specialist" isn't guaranteed to relate to you on a personal level even if the person is good at his/her job (and I'm giving a lot of optimism here). Often they are not "neutral" parties in the building if you know what I mean. That can be very uncomfortable.

Teaching is an extremely dynamic job. The people who are "pushing down initiatives" have most likely never done the job (or they did it years ago or they just don't understand the effects of their actions). They are reducing teaching to a series of boxes and checklists that take up precious time that you can use to reflect and react to your individual students. Teaching is not a video game where you can program a set of responses to the player's actions. This top down programmed approach is antithetical to what a great teacher wants to do. It does not encourage creativity on the part of the teacher. The best ideas in teaching are generated in the classroom. If you hang out with other experienced teachers, you will find the excitement and encouragement you need and deserve as a teacher. My biggest fear is that the top down system in combination with the low pay will discourage the best people from training for this job. When the whole job becomes programmed, the paycheck is all that is left (and it's not enough to suffer the lack of creative freedom for the pay---especially if you are a thoughtful, creative person). Lots of teachers who have many years in (the golden handcuffs) are suffering through these years with this stuff. The new teachers don't know the difference, but will they stay with this job? Are the students improving under this system? Did NCLB work?