 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Car Forum / Driving, Maintenance, Tuning / Driving / July 2008What's wrong with our schools? Teachers with 5 DUIs.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/25430476/ Superintendent: Bad teachers hard to fire Some say teacher tenure rules need to be overhauled to address problem updated 2:58 p.m. MT, Sat., June. 28, 2008 MIDDLE ISLAND, N.Y. - Few people know better than school superintendent Allan Gerstenlauer that disciplining a tenured teacher can be a long and expensive process. An English teacher in his Long Island district remains on the payroll, earning an annual salary of $113,559, even after pleading guilty earlier this month to drunken driving charges — her fifth DWI arrest in seven years. The teacher will remain on paid leave at least until a disciplinary hearing in August, and it will be up to an impartial arbitrator to decide whether she needs to be fired as she faces a likely prison sentence. (snip) ------------------------------- One more reason DUI should always be a felony, even for first timers. Make it a lot easier to fire teachers. I don't want a violent drug criminal teaching my kids. On Jun 29, 11:59 pm, "Speeders & Drunk Drivers are MURDERERS" <xeton2...@yahoo.com> wrote: <maniacal crossposting adjusted> > http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/25430476/ > [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > this month to drunken driving charges — her fifth DWI arrest in seven > years. What impaired the teacher who was charged with learning you to count? ----- - gpsman > http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/25430476/ > [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > it a lot easier to fire teachers. I don't want a violent drug criminal > teaching my kids. Having taught high school briefly in a southern school I would have to describe it as one of the worst jobs I ever had. There is a shortage of teachers in most states and the education system in the US has declined greatly since the 1960s. Many of the problems are caused by the underfunding of schools created primarily by the GOP with vouchers, charter schools and tax cuts. > declined greatly since the 1960s. Many of the problems are caused by > the underfunding of schools created primarily by the GOP with > vouchers, charter schools and tax cuts. Underfunding? On what planet? Billions upon billions upon billons in federal reserve notes go into the government schools. government schools do not exist to create thinking people. They exist to create people who are loyal to the government and just barely smart enough to be taxpayers.* *may actually end up dependent on government too. On Jun 30, 12:36 am, Brent P <tetraethylleadREMOVET...@yahoo.com> wrote: > > declined greatly since the 1960s. Many of the problems are caused by > > the underfunding of schools created primarily by the GOP with > > vouchers, charter schools and tax cuts. > > Underfunding? On what planet? Billions upon billions upon billons in > federal reserve notes go into the government schools. No, those go to "education", Sparky, much of which is applied to mismanagement of public schools, most of which is applied to defining what should be taught, and implementing a rigorous "how to" teach, by those who have never taught anything to anybody, to teachers... the basics of which were successfully taught to the WWI generation and has not changed one single iota since. Retarded children are now forced into "normal" classrooms. We certainly wouldn't want these children to be left behind now, would we? Teachers unqualified to teach these children spend a great deal of time just trying to control them and prevent them from injuring themselves and others when they could be "teaching". "Test scores are what we think they should be... lemme think..." "All we've done is micromanaged what to teach and how to teach it, and thrown some retarded kids into classrooms, and eliminated discipline... the only reasonable conclusion is that it must be faulty teachers." > government schools do not exist to create thinking people. Even the example of you fails to meet the criteria to support your conclusion. > They exist to > create people who are loyal to the government and just barely smart > enough to be taxpayers.* I guess you'll be home schooling if you can ever find somebody stupid enough to receive and carry your seed to term...? It would probably be best if you lowered your expectations regarding the number of graduation ceremonies you subsequently expect to attend.. ----- - gpsman > Having taught high school briefly in a southern school I would have to > describe it as one of the worst jobs I ever had. There is a shortage > of teachers in most states and the education system in the US has > declined greatly since the 1960s. Many of the problems are caused by > the underfunding of schools created primarily by the GOP with > vouchers, charter schools and tax cuts. Underfunding, my butt. The problem with schools is money is spent on BS subjects like foreign languages and literature and history and all the other liberal arts crap. Schools should be for turning out engineers and physicists. Useful people that actually produce things. > Underfunding, my butt. The problem with schools is money is spent on > BS subjects like foreign languages and literature and history and > all the other liberal arts crap. Schools should be for turning out > engineers and physicists. Useful people that actually produce > things. Number one spoken language in the world is (in terms of number of people speaking it) ........ Chinese. If you can write, thank an English lit teacher. Those who refuse to learn history are doomed to repeat it -- just like we are reliving 1930's Germany now. Certainly we need 10 times the number of engineers and scientists than we have now, but maybe we need more "liberal arts crap" too. > > Underfunding, my butt. The problem with schools is money is spent on > > BS subjects like foreign languages and literature and history and [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > Certainly we need 10 times the number of engineers and scientists than > we have now, but maybe we need more "liberal arts crap" too. The biggest problem with public schools is the politicians won't let the educators educate. In my town, there are also some public schools that are literally falling apart due to age and disrepair and a lack of adequate funds to fix them. >> > Underfunding, my butt. The problem with schools is money is spent on >> > BS subjects like foreign languages and literature and history and [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] >are literally falling apart due to age and disrepair and a lack of >adequate funds to fix them. And you can thank federal interference like no child left behind (or as I like to call it no child learns the basics) which has teachers teaching kids to pass a standardized test instead of educating them. In the mean time, the Asians and Indians continue to eat our lunch. Thanks, Democrats! Thanks, Republicans! -- "The people who cast the votes don't decide an election, the people who count the votes do." --Joseph Stalin . > Those who refuse to learn history are doomed to repeat it -- just like > we are reliving 1930's Germany now. History would be a valuable thing to know - if it was true. But it's all lies. Historians still accept the official story on 911 even though everyone knows it's a lie. History books are written by govts. >> Having taught high school briefly in a southern school I would have to >> describe it as one of the worst jobs I ever had. There is a shortage [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > other liberal arts crap. Schools should be for turning out engineers and > physicists. Useful people that actually produce things. And what kind of engineer are you? And when your car breaks down, your plumbing stops up, your roof leaks, or your furnace breaks down, exactly what kind of engineer will you be calling? When you go to the supermarket, what kind of engineer picked the vegetables, slaughtered the meat, and is running the cash register? When you turn on your TV, how many physicists did it take to produce the show you're watching? When your house catches fire, how many physicists will be on the fire crew that puts it out? When the local police department catches the speeders and drunk drivers that you're so worried about, how many physicists will be involved? Since those are the only useful people. Bo Raxo >>>Having taught high school briefly in a southern school I would have to >>>describe it as one of the worst jobs I ever had. There is a shortage [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] > > Bo Raxo As a person who holds an engineering degree I find this discussion somewhat pertinent but also sad, in a way. Personally, I think that anyone aspiring to be an engineer should *also* have hands on ability. I fix everything myself at my house, although I did pay to have the A/C installed. At the same time, I find myself doing a lot of stuff myself simply *because* I don't know who I could pay to do a better job than I would do myself... nate  Signaturereplace "roosters" with "cox" to reply. http://members.cox.net/njnagel >>>>Having taught high school briefly in a southern school I would have to >>>>describe it as one of the worst jobs I ever had. There is a shortage [quoted text clipped - 38 lines] > > nate My husband, also an engineer, fixes everything in our home. If it's something he isn't familiar with, he studies it first. That's the thing about engineers, they enjoy learning how things work. Plus, who is going to do a better job on your own house/things than yourself. At least I know when he troubleshoots the problem, he's not going to screw up something small, into a big problem, so he can charge me ten times as much for a simple repair. ;) td > And when your car breaks down, your plumbing stops up, your roof > leaks, or your furnace breaks down, exactly what kind of engineer will [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > Since those are the only useful people. Don't be so literal. I admit plumbers and auto mechanics and many others are useful people. But artists and historians and sociologists are not. People that make or grow or fix things are important. People that play with words are parasites. >> And when your car breaks down, your plumbing stops up, your roof >> leaks, or your furnace breaks down, exactly what kind of engineer [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > People that make or grow or fix things are important. People that > play with words are parasites. People like you, for instance? On Jul 1, 12:17 pm, "Speeders & Drunk Drivers are MURDERERS" <xeton2...@yahoo.com> wrote: > > And when your car breaks down, your plumbing stops up, your roof > > leaks, or your furnace breaks down, exactly what kind of engineer will [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > People that make or grow or fix things are important. People that play > with words are parasites. Your world must be a really drab, uninteresting place. > But artists and historians and sociologists are not. Engineering is almost as much an art as it is science. > People that make or grow or fix things are important. People that play > with words are parasites. No, People who manipulate fiat money are parasites. >> And when your car breaks down, your plumbing stops up, your roof >> leaks, or your furnace breaks down, exactly what kind of engineer will [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] >People that make or grow or fix things are important. People that play >with words are parasites. Where does that put, say, a talent agent or a bad lawyer? Can parasites feed on parasites? How low can you go? >Many of the problems are caused by > the underfunding of schools created primarily by the GOP with > vouchers, charter schools and tax cuts. Very interesting comment since the article stated that the teacher was making 113k a year. What do you think her salary would be if they were funded to your standards? In article <e2853ca8-48ed-4876-b8fd-e8a8d8eb79ed@2g2000hsn.googlegroups.com>, > >Many of the problems are caused by > > the underfunding of schools created primarily by the GOP with [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > making 113k a year. What do you think her salary would be if they were > funded to your standards? More than $35k a year? Teachers making $35k a year that dont have to buy the kids school supplies out of their own pocket? Most principles dont even make over $113k a year. Was this a private school? I believe teachers should make as much as police. > In article > <e2853ca8-48ed-4876-b8fd-e8a8d8eb79ed@2g2000hsn.googlegroups.com>, [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > dont even make over $113k a year. Was this a private school? I believe > teachers should make as much as police. I don't know about where you live, but here the salaries in private schools are very low, often lower than public schools (though the benefit packages are often very good). I never quite got the logic behind the "raise teacher pay" argument: it's a noble calling, they do it because they love it, but if you pay them better they'll teach more? If you raise the pay enough to make people go in to it just for the money you'll get better teachers? Doesn't make sense. It is ridiculous that some teachers have to buy supplies out of their own pocket. And here in California they can't even deduct it from their taxes, thanks to a change made last year to balance the state budget. They used to be able to at least buy those supplies with pre-tax dollars, but no more. Which offends the hell out of me. As for paying teachers on par with cops, just how much more in taxes are you volunteering to pay? If we calculate it'll take an extra $500 a month on your property tax bill, are you ready to enthusiastically fork over that cash? Because it's easy to make these pronouncements until you actually have to pay for them. Bo Raxo >>In article >><e2853ca8-48ed-4876-b8fd-e8a8d8eb79ed@2g2000hsn.googlegroups.com>, [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > they'll teach more? If you raise the pay enough to make people go in to it > just for the money you'll get better teachers? Doesn't make sense. If you pay teachers a living wage, people who do want to become teachers won't go to another profession because they don't have a trust fund to live off of. $35K is not enough to live off of in most places, at least not comfortably. > It is ridiculous that some teachers have to buy supplies out of their own > pocket. And here in California they can't even deduct it from their taxes, [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > cash? Because it's easy to make these pronouncements until you actually > have to pay for them. If your kids actually learn something, they might not grow up to be criminals because they'll be able to do honest jobs. nate Signaturereplace "roosters" with "cox" to reply. http://members.cox.net/njnagel >>>In article >>><e2853ca8-48ed-4876-b8fd-e8a8d8eb79ed@2g2000hsn.googlegroups.com>, [quoted text clipped - 28 lines] > $35K is not enough to live off of in most places, at least not > comfortably. And the teachers most in demand, math and science teachers, are always *most* in demand because they can earn three times as much and more in the the private sector. Often times, the person teaching your kid math or science did not major in those subjects. td >>>>In article >>>><e2853ca8-48ed-4876-b8fd-e8a8d8eb79ed@2g2000hsn.googlegroups.com>, [quoted text clipped - 33 lines] > the private sector. Often times, the person teaching your kid math or > science did not major in those subjects. Have you ever taken a college level mathematics course? I recall taking two quarters of advanced calculus in college, and I really don't see how that would equip someone to teach a room full of fourth graders long division. I had some high school math teachers who really knew math, but didn't know crap about teaching. I had a college astronomy professor who was highly regarded in his field, and was an awful teacher - he'd spend the entire two hours facing away from the class, nose in the chalkboard, while the hundred or so of us in the class scratched our heads and figured we could ask the t.a.'s in section what the hell was going on. Point being, 90% of the stuff taught to kids isn't remotely advanced, and doesn't require a college degree in that subject. It requires an ability to engage the students, to gauge their progress, to adapt the curriculum to best deliver understanding. In other words, not a knowledge of advanced biology or physics or chemistry, but an advanced knowledge of how to teach. Bo Raxo >>>>>In article >>>>><e2853ca8-48ed-4876-b8fd-e8a8d8eb79ed@2g2000hsn.googlegroups.com>, [quoted text clipped - 39 lines] > that would equip someone to teach a room full of fourth graders long > division. Elementary school teachers, are equipped to teach all subjects. Of course my remarks were geared to high school students/teachers, where the teacher is usually required to have majored in the subject they are teaching. Elementary school teachers, teach all subjects to their classes. >>>>>In article >>>>><e2853ca8-48ed-4876-b8fd-e8a8d8eb79ed@2g2000hsn.googlegroups.com>, [quoted text clipped - 49 lines] >best deliver understanding. In other words, not a knowledge of advanced >biology or physics or chemistry, but an advanced knowledge of how to teach. I had a full year of calculus in high school. You couldn't get in to the class unless you demonstrated a high level of aptitude in mathematics. Maybe little Johnny shouldn't even be in the calculus class if he isn't self-motivated to learn calculus. Again, Boron puts the burden onto stick authority figures for everything, including motivating him to learn. The problem is that nowadays the school system is geared to little mister and miss mediocrity. It's about babysitting, socializing and separating the students and their families from their money. Which is okay -- you gotta take care of mister and miss mediocrity since they're the ones paying most of the taxes, casting most of the votes and buying most of the products. But there are kids who want to learn, and they should be allowed to learn in a learning environment. All this mess did start with the GOP cutting government funding for schools and turning education into a for-profit venture. BTW, the worst teacher I ever had sounded very much like Boron. Big galoot who was a coach assigned to teach a history class. Unbelievably stupid and arrogant man. Halfway through, he assigned topics to the kids and had them teach the class, since he knew nothing about the subject. The class was just a waste of a semester. Last day of class, instead of a test, he brought his GEE-tar. Couldn't sing or play either. > And the teachers most in demand, math and science teachers, are always > *most* in demand because they can earn three times as much and more in the > the private sector. Often times, the person teaching your kid math or > science did not major in those subjects. The school system and the society at large does not value math and science. Engineering hasn't been a valued profession for longer than I've been alive. I get the feeling that after 1969 (moon landing) nobody really cared any more. Engineering became just a profession of 'nerds and geeks' or in the views of the corporate world replacable cogs. Kids are taught from the very begining that this society most values people who move money around and those who play the social and political games well. Technical competence is of little value. Marketeers and traders, and other professions that live off the creation of others are more valued. IMO It's a symptom of the parasite economy we have. The host is dying. I believe now, as I have learned more that it is due to monetary policy and how money is created and flows. Money is created out of thin air and supports the financial industry first, not from producing more materials, more goods. The result is a skewing of the nation's priorities. Why create something new yourself if you can just print money and have someone else overseas do it for you? On Jun 30, 7:06 pm, Brent P <tetraethylleadREMOVET...@yahoo.com> wrote:<maniacal crossposting adjusted> > The school system and the society at large does not value math and > science. Engineering hasn't been a valued profession for longer than > I've been alive. Sure. Thats why engineering students from the world over flock to the US. > Kids are taught from the very begining that this society most values > people who move money around and those who play the social and political > games well. Sure. It's a kindergarten course. > Technical competence is of little value. Imagined competence is of little value. Real competence is always in demand. > Marketeers and > traders, and other professions that live off the creation of others are > more valued. I don't know about that, but nothing is worth sh.t until somebody sells it. > IMO It's a symptom of the parasite economy we have. The host is dying. That's "parasitic"... and if the host dies, what supports the parasites? > I believe now, as I have learned more that it is due to monetary > policy and how money is created and flows. Money is created out of thin > air and supports the financial industry first, not from producing more > materials, more goods. I think you have mistaken money for value. > The result is a skewing of the nation's > priorities. Why create something new yourself if you can just print > money and have someone else overseas do it for you? You seem to think money spawns creation, and money is free for the printing, you just can't get any of it. There's a reason you can't get any, and it's nobody's fault but your own. Eventually one must thrust aside whatever circumstances have influenced their feelings of hopelessness, and cast aside "can't", and then accomplish something. Or not. There certainly doesn't seem to be much positive return in seeking validation of one's "can't do" attitude via Usenet, all day, every day. Ask any employer. A bad attitude most often trumps competency, which is why the competent often stand in the unemployment line. ----- - gpsman >> And the teachers most in demand, math and science teachers, are always >> *most* in demand because they can earn three times as much and more in the [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] >priorities. Why create something new yourself if you can just print >money and have someone else overseas do it for you? Perfectly said. Last time I looked, the USA had a $550 billion trade deficit in a time when there are many more global customers than ever. That's because, as you say, it is about: ">people who move money around > and those who play the social and political >games well. Technical competence is of > little value. Marketeers and >traders, and other professions that > live off the creation of others are >more valued." >>>And the teachers most in demand, math and science teachers, are always >>>*most* in demand because they can earn three times as much and more in the [quoted text clipped - 33 lines] >>live off the creation of others are >>more valued." That is true. If you want to make money, you have to have people skills. Sales, management, etc. The real question is, why isn't there any formal training (in engineering disciplines; for all I know this is taught elsewhere) in those intangibles? There's no reason an engineer *can't* deal with people effectively - and while some people seem to be innately born with that ability, many more are not. A person who is technically knowledgeable makes a far better manager or sales rep than one who is not; but there seems to be in many cases invisible walls between "sales" "management" and "engineering" and it really takes a (rare) individual who is willing to break those walls down and more importantly has enough knowledge in at least two of those three mutually exclusive disciplines to get the respect and buy-in of all involved to create a truly cooperative workplace. nate Signaturereplace "roosters" with "cox" to reply. http://members.cox.net/njnagel >>>>And the teachers most in demand, math and science teachers, are always >>>>*most* in demand because they can earn three times as much and more in the [quoted text clipped - 50 lines] >three mutually exclusive disciplines to get the respect and buy-in of >all involved to create a truly cooperative workplace. One of the reasons for those walls is that the sales and management people who don't have technical knowledge are afraid they will be upstaged by people who do have technical knowledge. So they sometimes deliberately keep the technically literate out of the sales and management side. >>>>>And the teachers most in demand, math and science teachers, are always >>>>>*most* in demand because they can earn three times as much and more in the [quoted text clipped - 56 lines] > deliberately keep the technically literate out of the sales and > management side. One fundamental truth is that if you have a choice of two approximately (and I do mean that loosely) equal candidates for a job, and you get the feeling that one is a "sharer" (e.g. will willingly train other employees and share knowledge, lessons learned, etc. with minimal or no prompting) and one who may be technically superior, but likes to keep the "tricks of the trade" to himself, you're ALWAYS better off with the first, if you have any kind of long term goals at all. The first will bring everyone around him up; the second will attempt to advance himself by putting others down. nate Signaturereplace "roosters" with "cox" to reply. http://members.cox.net/njnagel > The real question is, why isn't there any formal training (in > engineering disciplines; for all I know this is taught elsewhere) in > those intangibles? There's no reason an engineer *can't* deal with > people effectively - and while some people seem to be innately born with > that ability, many more are not. Many do go to the marketing route. I've known several that have gone into marketing. One that went into finance into the banking industry. Some have made being an interface between the US and China their business. Lot's stop doing engineering because one gets to a point and there just isn't any more monetary reward. It's just less people to do the work of creation. The problem is that sales is valued, the creation of the product sold is not. The creation of the product is something to send overseas, something to have done in China. Companies have no problem cutting costs by sending manufacturing overseas. Then they see that they can save even more by sending engineering too. A sales person often gets a cut of what product he can move. The engineer doesn't get any cut of the cost he cuts out of a product. He doesn't get any share of the products he creates, even if he created them out of thin air without marketing people or industrial design. It's what is valued. Sales, marketing, finance, etc doesn't require the kind of schooling that engineering does and in the end it pays more. Then throw on the nerd, geek, etc views on top of that. So there's hard work, bad perception, a lot of schooling, job loss to other countries, and not as much money after a certain point and we wonder why there's a shortage of american kids going into the field? On Jun 30, 11:24 pm, Brent P <tetraethylleadREMOVET...@yahoo.com> wrote:<maniacal crossposting adjusted> > A sales person often gets a cut of what product he can move. Always. And they provide the salary of "engineers" who spend all day every day f.cking off on the internet. > The > engineer doesn't get any cut of the cost he cuts out of a product. That's part of the job of engineering, Sparky. > He > doesn't get any share of the products he creates, even if he created > them out of thin air without marketing people or industrial design. When he gets an idea of which he is confident of practicality and demand, he becomes an "entrepreneur". And hires "salespeople" > It's what is valued. Sales, marketing, finance, etc doesn't require the > kind of schooling that engineering does and in the end it pays more. You got that f.cking right, mostly. More than doctors, lawyers and engineers, and "engineers". But sales and marketing is a "life", not a "job", and pays more or less in direct proportion to effort and wisdom and skill. You don't sell, you don't eat. How'd you like to have "performance" the measure of your wages? "There is no lower paid easy work, or higher paid hard work than sales". > we wonder > why there's a shortage of american kids going into the field? I guess some do. It seems pretty clear to others that them feriners are willing to out-learn and out-work crybaby Americans by a pretty fair stretch, and be appreciative and supportive of, and loyal to their employers. And not spend all day every working day dicking around on Usenet. ----- - gpsman >That is true. If you want to make money, you have to have people >skills. Sales, management, etc. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >people effectively - and while some people seem to be innately born with >that ability, many more are not. Because it's not engineering; if an engineer wants that stuff, he needs to look outside the discipline. Personally, I think schmoozers are largely born and not made... no amount of training is going to make an introvert (which many, though by no means all, engineers are) into an extravert. There's also the issue of lack of integrity, which lack appears required in sales and marketing (and management), and is detrimental in engineering. Which is why IME, engineers often complain about marketing and sales making promises the engineers are then expected to make good on (never mind their feasibility). SignatureThere's no such thing as a free lunch, but certain accounting practices can result in a fully-depreciated one. >>>In article >>><e2853ca8-48ed-4876-b8fd-e8a8d8eb79ed@2g2000hsn.googlegroups.com>, [quoted text clipped - 28 lines] > $35K is not enough to live off of in most places, at least not > comfortably. I agree that this is pretty low, but I'm under the impression that's the starting wage in most places, and it goes up from there. Do you realize there are plenty of law enforcement jobs that pay around that amount. Starting pay with the Border Patrol before it was merged with DHS was actually less than this. Plenty of small town cops make $30-$35K a year (which is why they often have a second job). >> It is ridiculous that some teachers have to buy supplies out of their own >> pocket. And here in California they can't even deduct it from their [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > If your kids actually learn something, they might not grow up to be > criminals because they'll be able to do honest jobs. Oh, I quite agree. It's a good investment. But the investment is not merely in teacher salaries. There is too much control vested in the local school districts, too much duplication of facilities, not enough specialization at the high school level, and inflexible labor contracts thanks to small districts trying to negotiate with large, experienced unions (and my fellow Democrats always caving to government employee unions). The real reforms you need would involve taking money from wealthy districts and shifting it to poor ones - politically, that won't fly as long as every school district is its own little independent island. An extra couple of thousand a year in the pay packet won't reform education - and really, that's what you're talking about, not some thirty or forty percent hike. Bo Raxo >The real reforms you need would involve taking money from wealthy districts >and shifting it to poor ones - politically, that won't fly as long as every >school district is its own little independent island. That will just bring the wealthy districts down without helping out the poor ones. SignatureThere's no such thing as a free lunch, but certain accounting practices can result in a fully-depreciated one. >>The real reforms you need would involve taking money from wealthy districts >>and shifting it to poor ones - politically, that won't fly as long as every >>school district is its own little independent island. > > That will just bring the wealthy districts down without helping out > the poor ones. It could work if properly implemented. Teachers need more latitude to discipline students however and have options to remove disruptive students from their classrooms. Used to be if you got in trouble at school the mere threat of your dad finding out about it was enough to keep you in line (e.g. "I won't tell your dad you got sent to the office if you don't end up back here this semester.") Anymore it seems that the parents don't give a crap and they're just as likely to call up the principal and complain that their little snowflake is getting picked on as it is that they'll be punished at home. nate Signaturereplace "roosters" with "cox" to reply. http://members.cox.net/njnagel >>>The real reforms you need would involve taking money from wealthy districts >>>and shifting it to poor ones - politically, that won't fly as long as every [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > It could work if properly implemented. And that's why it will never work, it will never be properly implemented. It's a concept of socialized costs and central control. Central control simply cannot distribute resources properly. It's an impossible task because the central management can never have all the required information nor understand the differences of each locality. > Teachers need more latitude to > discipline students however and have options to remove disruptive [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > principal and complain that their little snowflake is getting picked on > as it is that they'll be punished at home. These are all arguments for decentralization IMO. With the centralized system there is no 'knowing the parents'. Instead there are policies and proceedures. These things are a one-size-fits-all nature and are often developed as knee-jerk reactions to some incident. It doesn't take the kids long to figure this out and to start using it to their advantage. >>>The real reforms you need would involve taking money from wealthy districts >>>and shifting it to poor ones - politically, that won't fly as long as every [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >discipline students however and have options to remove disruptive >students from their classrooms. You're assuming the vast majority of teachers are any good in the first place. They're union workers on a strict seniority system; that doesn't bode well. Give them more latitude and they'll just f.ck up bigger. Throw more money into the poor districts and they'll just piss it away. A favorite is to spend money on physical plant without doing a damn thing about the actual instruction; a lot of money can be consumed that way, and it sure LOOKS liks progress is being made. (but in fact they'll f.ck up the physical plant work, too) SignatureThere's no such thing as a free lunch, but certain accounting practices can result in a fully-depreciated one. > If you pay teachers a living wage, people who do want to become > teachers won't go to another profession because they don't have > a trust fund to live off of. > > $35K is not enough to live off of in most places, at least not > comfortably. Except that it's 35K for 8 or 9 months of work. Nobody is stopping them from getting a summer job for another $10-15k. > > If you pay teachers a living wage, people who do want to become > > teachers won't go to another profession because they don't have [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > Except that it's 35K for 8 or 9 months of work. Nobody is stopping > them from getting a summer job for another $10-15k. a) it's hard to find "summer work" that pays well. Summer jobs are by nature transient and pay as such. b) ooh, 45 or 50K a year. Where do I sign up? THAT'S BIG BUCKS DUDE!!!!one!!eleventy! (oh, wait, I make more than that already. never mind.) even given your best case, around here, 50K would leave you in a group home with three other poor people living like college students, and a 20 year old beater car. Plus the uncertainty of whether one's going to be able to find summer work or not, and the only vacation time one gets would be school holidays. Not exactly the lifestyle most intelligent people would choose for themselves. Unless/until teachers' pay is comparable to that of a reasonable professional occupation, the only people you're going to get are either the bottom of the barrel who can't *get* any other job, or those rare nutcases who simply are driven to teach and are willing to put up with the low pay, administrative BS, and douchebag students to be able to do what they love. nate On teacher pay and spending more money on education.... Teachers in the chicago area make a damn good amount of money as far as I can tell. They are union protected and hide behind various licensing and educational requirements to protect their jobs. I have a master of science degree in mechanical and aerospace engineering. I would not be allowed to teach 3rd grade math without taking a bunch of elementary education course work, geting licensed, joining the union, etc and so forth. (Occasionally they are so short of teachers in math and science they'll make temporary special rules so that all the crapola isn't required for people with engineering and science degrees. However it is just that, an exception.) When jobs are protected in this manner poor performance will be the norm. The USA throws so much money at education that the cost per student is much higher than in countries that have much better results. The issue is that school in the USA is not designed to produce knowledgable, thinking, creative people. It's designed to produce people who make good, obedient consumers and taxpayers. Except I think they over cooked it and now it's a swarm of morons. What needs to be done is first remove central control, the federal government from the picture. The more local the schools the better. Sure some bad schools may persist. However when central control takes over it allows people in control to take away from those they don't like as well as bring every school down. With central control gone, the idiotic 'new math', 'feel good', and other BS ideas will die off. People will be empowered locally instead of being the victim of some centralized department of education at some larger level of government. The next step is remove the protections that leave bad teachers in place and drive good teachers out. The idea is to get basic education back that concentrates on thinking ability. Most everything a kid learns in school will be obsolete rather quickly. What is needed from the experience is the ability to think. To have the creative spirit nurtured rather than snuffed out as the schools do today. A one room school house using methods towards these ends will do better than the most expensive school with all the computers and weight rooms that a person can imagine. Those who can think can teach themselves anything they need to know. Take someone with such an education from the 18th century and I'll wager he could learn to use computers in a short time on his own. The problem with education isn't the money IMO. It's the very design of it in the USA. (but for those who think spending more money will help, feel free to end the empire to free up money and reduce federal taxation to help local economies) http://www.bls.gov/oco/ocos069.htm#earnings http://wiki.answers.com/Q/How_much_money_does_a_police_officer_earn > In article > <e2853ca8-48ed-4876-b8fd-e8a8d8eb79ed@2g2000hsn.googlegroups.com>, [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > dont even make over $113k a year. Was this a private school? I believe > teachers should make as much as police. For this thread: http://www.deliberatedumbingdown.com/ http://www.johntaylorgatto.com/underground/ You are a parent of school age children. You believe that the school that your child is attending is doing an absolutely lousy job of educating your children. Do you accept what they are doing and do nothing to get your children that you think your children need, or do you do something about it? And "if" you cannot get the results you want, what would you do...keep sending your children to the same school? And if you do nothing, then whose fault is that, the schools or yours as a parent? > For this thread: > > http://www.deliberatedumbingdown.com/ > > http://www.johntaylorgatto.com/underground/ > You are a parent of school age children. You believe that the school that > your child is attending is doing an absolutely lousy job of educating your [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > sending your children to the same school? And if you do nothing, then whose > fault is that, the schools or yours as a parent? The fact of the matter is the government school is by force* so it's a moot point unless you either have A) influence. B) Money. *homeschooling apparently is made more and more difficult and opposed by teachers' unions and others with interests in the government schools. And given what you wrote, I take it you didn't read the books. >> For this thread: >> >> http://www.deliberatedumbingdown.com/ >> >> http://www.johntaylorgatto.com/underground/ > http://www.bls.gov/oco/ocos069.htm#earnings > > http://wiki.answers.com/Q/How_much_money_does_a_police_officer_earn Damn, preschool teachers only make 22k a year. What is the poverty level? In California I read starting salary for CHP is $65k, all they do is give out tickets, big whoop. >>Many of the problems are caused by >>the underfunding of schools created primarily by the GOP with [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > making 113k a year. What do you think her salary would be if they were > funded to your standards? 113K is more than I make and I don't consider myself poor and I certainly don't get the huge vacations that teachers get. The problem clearly isn't money Even though in this case the teacher has a problem with drinking, most of the problem with education stems from parents who expect the schools to do their parenting for them. >>> Many of the problems are caused by >>> the underfunding of schools created primarily by the GOP with [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > The problem clearly isn't money 113K is far from an average teacher's salary, unless things have changed radically since my dad retired. Most teachers have an average or below average standard of living based on the standards of the community in which they teach. > Even though in this case the teacher has a problem with drinking, most > of the problem with education stems from parents who expect the schools > to do their parenting for them. On that we can agree. I'd have a drinking problem too if I had to put up with average HS students on a daily basis. nate Signaturereplace "roosters" with "cox" to reply. http://members.cox.net/njnagel > >http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/25430476/ > [quoted text clipped - 32 lines] > > - Show quoted text - I'd say it's primarily caused by local school boards not wanting to raise taxes. that said, >100K is not a bad salary (if my dad, a HS teacher, had made a comparable inflation-adjusted amount when I was a kid...) Oh, and I'd be drinking heavily too if I had to teach HS. kids these days are right little bastards. nate > I'd say it's primarily caused by local school boards not wanting to > raise taxes. that said, >100K is not a bad salary (if my dad, a HS [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > nate Article says she's a teacher but at that salary, 113K, i really doubt it. Prolly an administrator also. On Jun 29, 11:59 pm, "Speeders & Drunk Drivers are MURDERERS" <xeton2...@yahoo.com> wrote: > One more reason DUI should always be a felony, even for first timers. Make > it a lot easier to fire teachers. I don't want a violent drug criminal > teaching my kids. I fixed your headline to reflect reality. >On Jun 29, 11:59 pm, "Speeders & Drunk Drivers are MURDERERS" ><xeton2...@yahoo.com> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > >I fixed your headline to reflect reality. Indeed you did. >http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/25430476/ > [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] >it a lot easier to fire teachers. I don't want a violent drug criminal >teaching my kids. So...who did she attack? >>One more reason DUI should always be a felony, even for first timers. >>Make it a lot easier to fire teachers. I don't want a violent drug >>criminal teaching my kids. > > So...who did she attack? WTF does that mean? You saying drunk drivers are NOT violent? HAHAHA. Innocent americans are killed and maimed by DUIs everyday, you ignoramus. >>>One more reason DUI should always be a felony, even for first timers. >>>Make it a lot easier to fire teachers. I don't want a violent drug [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >WTF does that mean? You saying drunk drivers are NOT violent? HAHAHA. >Innocent americans are killed and maimed by DUIs everyday, you ignoramus. Innocent american are killed and maimed by sober drivers every day as well. By that standard, everyone who drives is violent. > An English teacher in his Long Island district remains on the payroll, > earning an annual salary of $113,559, even after pleading guilty earlier > this month to drunken driving charges — her fifth DWI arrest in seven > years. It *is* too hard to fire teachers for incompetence or not doing their jobs. Blame the NEA. But a DWI case has nothing to do with the job of teaching. Conviction of a crime that doesn't involve violence, theft, or fraud, and doesn't occur on the job, shouldn't get *anyone* fired. On Jul 7, 2:48 pm, John David Galt <j...@diogenes.sacramento.ca.us> wrote: > It *is* too hard to fire teachers for incompetence or not doing their jobs. > Blame the NEA. Why the NEA? > But a DWI case has nothing to do with the job of teaching. Conviction of a > crime that doesn't involve violence, theft, or fraud, and doesn't occur on > the job, shouldn't get *anyone* fired. How 'bout a judge, or lawyer, or cop...? ----- - gpsman In article <a87a65a9-4cd6-4903-a95b-8a0df16421ee@k30g2000hse.googlegroups.com>, > On Jul 7, 2:48 pm, John David Galt <j...@diogenes.sacramento.ca.us> > wrote: [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > How 'bout a judge, or lawyer, or cop...? How about the "Great Decider", you know the one with his finger on the button to nuclear weapon's? What about random drug testing? Our congress seems to LOVE passing laws allowing testing of 16 year old working a cash register at taco bell, what if THEY had to take drug tests? > How about the "Great Decider", you know the one with his finger on the > button to nuclear weapon's? What about random drug testing? Our > congress seems to LOVE passing laws allowing testing of 16 year old > working a cash register at taco bell, what if THEY had to take drug > tests? Like Ron Paul said, congress keeps their drug of choice (alcohol) legal. On Jul 7, 2:48 pm, John David Galt <j...@diogenes.sacramento.ca.us> wrote: > > An English teacher in his Long Island district remains on the payroll, > > earning an annual salary of $113,559, even after pleading guilty earlier [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > crime that doesn't involve violence, theft, or fraud, and doesn't occur on > the job, shouldn't get *anyone* fired. I'd be willing to bet there's plenty of jobs that if one got a DWI it would result in loss of employment. Mine, for instance - although I would like to think that I could simply transfer into an engineering position (with resulting pay cut and loss of company provided vehicle) but I'm not real anxious to test that theory. I think pretty much anyone (at my place of employment) that has to drive for work would be canned for a DWI. nate >> An English teacher in his Long Island district remains on the >> payroll, earning an annual salary of $113,559, even after [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > fraud, and doesn't occur on the job, shouldn't get *anyone* > fired. Hmmm. So if a teacher got caught picking up a hooker and smoking a little crack, you wouldn't have a problem with him or her teaching your kids? That's a great role model you've got there! >>> An English teacher in his Long Island district remains on the >>> payroll, earning an annual salary of $113,559, even after [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > > That's a great role model you've got there! Yes, we should shield our kids from reality! And how does the bahavior of the teacher change the subject matter? >>>> An English teacher in his Long Island district remains on the >>>> payroll, earning an annual salary of $113,559, even after [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > And how does the bahavior of the teacher change the subject > matter? There's more to teaching than just the subject matter in the text book. You're giving a lesson that the decisions you make in life have no consequences. > You're giving a lesson that the decisions you make in life > have no consequences. And what's your lesson here? Do something people in power don't like that harms no one besides yourself if that and you get punished severely? I suppose that's good if you want to raise a slave population. >> You're giving a lesson that the decisions you make in life >> have no consequences. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > punished severely? I suppose that's good if you want to raise a > slave population. My lesson is that self-destructive behavior has consequences. >>> You're giving a lesson that the decisions you make in life >>> have no consequences. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > My lesson is that self-destructive behavior has consequences. And doing some 'illegal' drug is more or les self-destructive than a 'legal' one exactly how? Because the government punishes one but not the other. That's what you are teaching. >>>> You're giving a lesson that the decisions you make in life >>>> have no consequences. [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > than a 'legal' one exactly how? Because the government punishes > one but not the other. That's what you are teaching. No, I don't want any teacher strung out on legal drugs either. I never said anything about the behavior being legal or illegal. >>> An English teacher in his Long Island district remains on the >>> payroll, earning an annual salary of $113,559, even after [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > > That's a great role model you've got there! Where are you going to find people who are totally free of vices to teach? And secondly where are you going to find enough of them? >>>> An English teacher in his Long Island district remains on the >>>> payroll, earning an annual salary of $113,559, even after [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > to teach? And secondly where are you going to find enough of > them? It's not finding someone that doesn't have a vice, it's finding someone who isn't into self-destructive behavior. Keep teaching kids with the lesson that the decisions you make in life have no consequences and you WON'T be able to find enough of them. >>>>> An English teacher in his Long Island district remains on the >>>>> payroll, earning an annual salary of $113,559, even after [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > It's not finding someone that doesn't have a vice, it's finding > someone who isn't into self-destructive behavior. That difference is a matter of opinion that varies from person to person. To some people drinking a single beer is a self-destructive behavior. To some people looking at a playboy publication is a self-destructive behavior. To some people eating meat is a self-destructive behavior. Etc and so on. > Keep teaching kids with the lesson that the decisions you make in > life have no consequences and you WON'T be able to find enough of > them. Strawman. >> It's not finding someone that doesn't have a vice, it's finding >> someone who isn't into self-destructive behavior. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > self-destructive behavior. To some people eating meat is a > self-destructive behavior. Etc and so on. I like to deal with reality and objective thinking. To any reasonable thinking person, the example that I gave of smoking crack with a whore is self-destructive behavior. I would say there's a strong correlation between smoking crack and ending up in the gutter. However, there's not a strong correlation of drinking 1 beer and ending up in the gutter. >> Keep teaching kids with the lesson that the decisions you make in >> life have no consequences and you WON'T be able to find enough of >> them. > > Strawman. Your favorite word when you have no reply. >>> It's not finding someone that doesn't have a vice, it's finding >>> someone who isn't into self-destructive behavior. [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > However, there's not a strong correlation of drinking 1 beer and ending > up in the gutter. What you or anyone else considers the relative risks to be is irrelevant. You're firing the person because of a vice. Not because of his job performance, but because he has vice A instead of vice B. Did you ever think that maybe the harsh penalties and illegality of certain vices is what makes for the strong correlation of ending up in the gutter as you put it? During the 20s and 30s one could be crippled by some speakeasy gin. It was a direct result of the illegality. There were all sorts of dangerous forms of alcohol when it was illegal. Same way as it is with the drugs that are illegal today. >>> Keep teaching kids with the lesson that the decisions you make in >>> life have no consequences and you WON'T be able to find enough of [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Your favorite word when you have no reply. My favorite when I refuse to defend an extreme argument someone else assigns me. >>>> It's not finding someone that doesn't have a vice, it's >>>> finding someone who isn't into self-destructive behavior. [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > because of his job performance, but because he has vice A > instead of vice B. I guess when you believe that you shouldn't make judgements about anybody, that's the end result. All behavior is justifiable. All behavior is acceptable. Note that I'm not making ANY kind if distinction between legal and illegal activities. >>>>> It's not finding someone that doesn't have a vice, it's >>>>> finding someone who isn't into self-destructive behavior. [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > anybody, that's the end result. All behavior is justifiable. All > behavior is acceptable. Nice strawman. > Note that I'm not making ANY kind if distinction between legal and > illegal activities. So you go full circle. Good luck finding people with zero vices, people who have no flaws, weaknesses, consumption of substances or other 'self-destructive' characteristics, habbits, or indulgences legal or illegal that wants to teach. Or maybe it's better to settle for job performance and let people have their private lives. A behavior that is a problem for the children will show up in their job performance. >>>>>> It's not finding someone that doesn't have a vice, it's >>>>>> finding someone who isn't into self-destructive behavior. [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > > Nice strawman. Do you not understand a statement and commentary when you read it? >> Note that I'm not making ANY kind if distinction between legal >> and illegal activities. [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > people have their private lives. A behavior that is a problem > for the children will show up in their job performance. There's no circle here and I'm not looking for zero vices. A manager or owner can make a judgement on what "vice" (if getting coked up and picking up whores can be considered a "vice") is acceptable and what vice is not, just like one can make a judgement on work ethic, dress code, job performance, and personal conduct in the office. >>>>>>> It's not finding someone that doesn't have a vice, it's >>>>>>> finding someone who isn't into self-destructive behavior. [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] > > Do you not understand a statement and commentary when you read it? So I'm supposed to magically know when your reply to me containing the word 'you' means me or the general population? If you did not mean me, your reply is nonsense because nobody is arguing that. Also, once a week has passed, why did the thread back up? >>> Note that I'm not making ANY kind if distinction between legal >>> and illegal activities. [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] >> people have their private lives. A behavior that is a problem >> for the children will show up in their job performance. > There's no circle here and I'm not looking for zero vices. A > manager or owner can make a judgement on what "vice" (if getting > coked up and picking up whores can be considered a "vice") is > acceptable and what vice is not, just like one can make a > judgement on work ethic, dress code, job performance, and personal > conduct in the office. Why should it be any knowledge of the employer what is done outside of work? If job performance suffers, deal with that. Otherwise you're pushing towards a corporatist/fascist system where people's lives are controlled. |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2008 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.