Real change is finally giving our kids everything they need to have a fighting chance in today�??s world. That begins with recognizing that the single most important factor in determining a child’s achievement is not the color of their skin or where they come from; it’s not who their parents are or how much money they have. It’s who their teacher is.
How wrong can you be?
[quote]Magnate wrote:
Real change is finally giving our kids everything they need to have a fighting chance in today�??s world. That begins with recognizing that the single most important factor in determining a child’s achievement is not the color of their skin or where they come from; it’s not who their parents are or how much money they have. It’s who their teacher is.
How wrong can you be?
http://thepage.time.com/obamas-remarks-to-the-aft/
[/quote]
That is some really scary shit. To elevate a teacher above parents is horrible. This sounds like the kind of brainwashing the communists use.
In all my years of schooling I cannot think of a single teacher that had a significant impact.
I disagree. Parents have a much greater impact on a child’s achievments.
Does this theory hold true for his own children?
I continue to be flabbergasted at what comes out of Obama’s mouth from time to time. I once thought he was a idealist that I may have disagreed with on policy, but was a decent fellow on the whole - now I think he is the most inauthentic, cynical politician of his era.
He’s talking to people who, a little bit, think like substitute parents. I teach my students like I would teach my own kids. He’s saying stuff to appeal to a particular mindset.
This is the part that galls me: “But what I do oppose is using public money for private school vouchers. We need to focus on fixing and improving our public schools; not throwing our hands up and walking away from them.”
Who the fuck paid the tax dollars that he wants to throw around?
And yes, Zap, you don’t remember any teachers because of the lousy pay. You get what you pay for. Do you remember any particular K-Mart clerk?
[quote]Headhunter wrote:
He’s talking to people who, a little bit, think like substitute parents. I teach my students like I would teach my own kids. He’s saying stuff to appeal to a particular mindset.
This is the part that galls me: “But what I do oppose is using public money for private school vouchers. We need to focus on fixing and improving our public schools; not throwing our hands up and walking away from them.”
Who the fuck paid the tax dollars that he wants to throw around?
And yes, Zap, you don’t remember any teachers because of the lousy pay. You get what you pay for. Do you remember any particular K-Mart clerk?
[/quote]
I don’t remember excellent teachers because it is a job that does not require excellence.
Teachers get paid plenty. School taxes are high and unions are strong.
Privatize the whole thing and teachers would get paid less and do a better job. The problem with that is a significant portion of the country would be uneducated and there would be kids roaming the streets instead of being in school.
Pander bear is trying to stroke any group that he speaks to. He has no conviction.
People are swallowing his line of crap. That’s the joke of it all. But we are a representative republic. 1 person, 1 vote. Majority rules.
Read between the lines.
Obama despises his white family and refuses to acknowledge any positive influence they have on him, while keeping quiet about his mother’s two divorces and atheist beliefs; his biological father deserted him and left little real influence; and he wants to distance himself from his Muslim step-father.
What he is really saying is that his parents did not influence him. His greatest influence came from his liberal teachers and mentors for whom he is a puppet.
[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
Headhunter wrote:
He’s talking to people who, a little bit, think like substitute parents. I teach my students like I would teach my own kids. He’s saying stuff to appeal to a particular mindset.
This is the part that galls me: “But what I do oppose is using public money for private school vouchers. We need to focus on fixing and improving our public schools; not throwing our hands up and walking away from them.”
Who the fuck paid the tax dollars that he wants to throw around?
And yes, Zap, you don’t remember any teachers because of the lousy pay. You get what you pay for. Do you remember any particular K-Mart clerk?
I don’t remember excellent teachers because it is a job that does not require excellence.
Teachers get paid plenty. School taxes are high and unions are strong.
Privatize the whole thing and teachers would get paid less and do a better job. The problem with that is a significant portion of the country would be uneducated and there would be kids roaming the streets instead of being in school. [/quote]
I’m too lazy, since I’m a teacher and don’t have the desire to get a ‘real’ job, to hunt it down, but a couple of years ago I read a government study that showed that teacher pay, relative to other professions, peaked out in 1960. 1960! While engineers, scientists, doctors, accountants and so forth soared, teachers fell further and further behind.
You honestly expect someone to go into massive debt and study for years…to take a job that peaks out after 25 years or so…at $60,000? Several college majors now START at that rate.
Did you know that the number of administrators has doubled since 1992? Just in case you were wondering where your tax dollars really went… And this was after many district consolidated to save money and created mega-schools, you know, like Columbine?
I agree with this: Fire 90% of administrators. Cancel all programs that did not exist prior to 1960. Privatize the schools. And every teacher should start at $50,000 and hit $100,000 after 25 years. Then you might get something for your money.
[quote]Headhunter wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
Headhunter wrote:
He’s talking to people who, a little bit, think like substitute parents. I teach my students like I would teach my own kids. He’s saying stuff to appeal to a particular mindset.
This is the part that galls me: “But what I do oppose is using public money for private school vouchers. We need to focus on fixing and improving our public schools; not throwing our hands up and walking away from them.”
Who the fuck paid the tax dollars that he wants to throw around?
And yes, Zap, you don’t remember any teachers because of the lousy pay. You get what you pay for. Do you remember any particular K-Mart clerk?
I don’t remember excellent teachers because it is a job that does not require excellence.
Teachers get paid plenty. School taxes are high and unions are strong.
Privatize the whole thing and teachers would get paid less and do a better job. The problem with that is a significant portion of the country would be uneducated and there would be kids roaming the streets instead of being in school.
I’m too lazy, since I’m a teacher and don’t have the desire to get a ‘real’ job, to hunt it down, but a couple of years ago I read a government study that showed that teacher pay, relative to other professions, peaked out in 1960. 1960!
While engineers, scientists, doctors, accountants and so forth soared, teachers fell further and further behind.
You honestly expect someone to go into massive debt and study for years…to take a job that peaks out after 25 years or so…at $60,000? Several college majors now START at that rate.
Did you know that the number of administrators has doubled since 1992? Just in case you were wondering where your tax dollars really went… And this was after many district consolidated to save money and created mega-schools, you know, like Columbine?
I agree with this: Fire 90% of administrators. Cancel all programs that did not exist prior to 1960. Privatize the schools. And every teacher should start at $50,000 and hit $100,000 after 25 years. Then you might get something for your money.
[/quote]
Teachers at Catholic schools get under $ 30,000 and their students outperform the students from good public schools.
Your ideas on compensation for the job are really out in left field.
[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
Teachers at Catholic schools get under $ 30,000 and their students outperform the students from good public schools.
Your ideas on compensation for the job are really out in left field. [/quote]
Not really. It’s basic capitalism actually. Pay teachers more and you have more and better prospects applying. The argument isn’t that the current crop of teachers deserves more money, that would be leftist. It is that teachers need to be paid more so that we can get better teachers. I like HH’s solutions.
[quote]Headhunter wrote:
Do you remember any particular K-Mart clerk?
[/quote]
I DO! She had a misshapen arm, it was really small and twisted, it looked like a tree branch. Really fucking creepy. There was another one who had a full moustache and beard and bits of hair would fall off onto the counter when she was talking. I have never went back there after that, it was like a trip to the twilight zone.
[quote]Headhunter wrote:
I agree with this: Fire 90% of administrators. Cancel all programs that did not exist prior to 1960. Privatize the schools. And every teacher should start at $50,000 and hit $100,000 after 25 years. Then you might get something for your money.
[/quote]
You want to privatize schools yet have those private schools have to pay within a certain range?
Do you not think the protection that teachers unions and tenure affords a teacher is a decent trade off for a low starting wage (stop acting like youre stuck at $30,000)?
I’m all for paying on merit, but that leaves me to think maybe 5 teachers I’ve had since kindergarten actually deserve a decent check, and I can’t help but think the protection they get allows them to not give a fuck about the job - regardless of wage
Example: 7th grade teacher, made over $90,000 a year [near 25 years] would do no work day in day out, constantly talked about her cats, would randomly fail people on their tests without grading them, in general a bitch.
Never once disciplined until she hit a kid and called him a whiny little faggot - only got a 2 week suspension. She was making a decent check though.
[quote]skaz05 wrote:
Headhunter wrote:
Do you remember any particular K-Mart clerk?
I DO! She had a misshapen arm, it was really small and twisted, it looked like a tree branch. Really fucking creepy. There was another one who had a full moustache and beard and bits of hair would fall off onto the counter when she was talking. I have never went back there after that, it was like a trip to the twilight zone.[/quote]
lol! Point taken. But my point was that you don’t pay KMart clerks to impress you, so they don’t. That’s why strippers make more money…they impress you. Or they don’t get paid.
[quote]tedro wrote:
Not really. It’s basic capitalism actually. Pay teachers more and you have more and better prospects applying. The argument isn’t that the current crop of teachers deserves more money, that would be leftist. It is that teachers need to be paid more so that we can get better teachers. I like HH’s solutions.[/quote]
But it wouldn’t work that way, because of tenure.
If you raise salaries, you naturally attract individuals who want more money - presumably better and brighter. But in something resembling a market, the “new talent” would replace the crappy teachers after being lured in with higher wages - but we know no such thing would occur.
Tenure acts as the toughest form of protectionism. The higher wages might get a few bright newbies in the door, but would also just give a pay raise to legions of crappy teachers protected by tenure- and they would hunker down like never before.
Tenure protects bad teachers who stink at their job, and you just gave them a pay raise with no ability to replace them with the “newly attracted talent”.
Teachers will get more traction on pay raises when they are willing to be held accountable for the job they do. If they want to inject “market forces” into teacher compensation - higher wages to attract talent - they must also accept the other side of market forces - getting replaced when someone can do the job better.
When will that happen? Heh.
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
I continue to be flabbergasted at what comes out of Obama’s mouth from time to time. I once thought he was a idealist that I may have disagreed with on policy, but was a decent fellow on the whole - now I think he is the most inauthentic, cynical politician of his era.[/quote]
I am shocked…shocked!..that you would be flabbergasted by anything, leave alone by vacuous narcissism!
But…just in case anyone doubts him to be Opportunist-in-Chief, the Master of Double-talk…
Someone…cue the Obama Rapid Respone/Denial Team.
[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
Teachers at Catholic schools get under $ 30,000 and their students outperform the students from good public schools.
Your ideas on compensation for the job are really out in left field. [/quote]
While true, that has more to do with the type of kid who’s parents can afford private schooling, nothing to do with the teaching.
It is similar to why the Chinese have higher testing scores - they don’t let stupid kids stay in school too long.
[quote]Beowolf wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
Teachers at Catholic schools get under $ 30,000 and their students outperform the students from good public schools.
Your ideas on compensation for the job are really out in left field.
While true, that has more to do with the type of kid who’s parents can afford private schooling, nothing to do with the teaching.
It is similar to why the Chinese have higher testing scores - they don’t let stupid kids stay in school too long.[/quote]
At my high school, our avergae ACT score was 25, while the national was something like 20. The kids are brighter and the parents were a lot more involved. My mom and dad were always there volunteering and stuff. We used to make fun of the teachers for taking such loser jobs too, though not out loud to them. If I disrespected a teacher, my dad would have seriously beat me up.
[quote]tedro wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
Teachers at Catholic schools get under $ 30,000 and their students outperform the students from good public schools.
Your ideas on compensation for the job are really out in left field.
Not really. It’s basic capitalism actually. Pay teachers more and you have more and better prospects applying. The argument isn’t that the current crop of teachers deserves more money, that would be leftist. It is that teachers need to be paid more so that we can get better teachers. I like HH’s solutions.[/quote]
We pay teachers more already and it isn’t working. Our school system is rigged so their is no choice for the consumer. That invalidates the rules of competitive free enterprise.
No choice for consumer.
Union jacking up wages.
Artificial barries for entry.
With all these in place there is no point in raising salaries and hoping the teachers will be more motivated to do a better job.
[quote]Beowolf wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
Teachers at Catholic schools get under $ 30,000 and their students outperform the students from good public schools.
Your ideas on compensation for the job are really out in left field.
While true, that has more to do with the type of kid who’s parents can afford private schooling, nothing to do with the teaching.
It is similar to why the Chinese have higher testing scores - they don’t let stupid kids stay in school too long.[/quote]
Not in my school district and the local Catholic school. My school district is LOADED and full of rich kids including the sons and daughters of most of the Asian doctors at the hospital.
The local Catholic school is a dump and many of the kids are from working class families and they still out do the local public school that has a top reputation.
Part of the difference is the Catholic school actually teaches the kids the subject material while the the public school has constant assemblies wasting time with topics such as drugs, global warming etc.