Public Education is a Socialist Monopoly

[JonathanQuick]

"Public education is a socialist monopoly, a real one." - Milton Friedman

There is no correlation between educational spending and educational achievement. None. The pretense that more money will "solve" the problem has been argued by teachers' unions for decades, utterly without success.

It is truly shameful.

Albert Shanker said "When kids start paying union dues, I'll start representing them."

Shanker was the president of the American Federation of Teachers for years.

[Twiler]

"Public education is a socialist monopoly, a real one." - Milton Friedman

There is no correlation between educational spending and educational achievement. None. The pretense that more money will "solve" the problem has been argued by teachers' unions for decades, utterly without success.

It is truly shameful.

Albert Shanker said "When kids start paying union dues, I'll start representing them."

Shanker was the president of the American Federation of Teachers for years.

Are you saying that:

1. Giving money to schools is a bad idea.

or

2. Schools are not using money correctly.

or

3. People are advocating an increase in funding over other possible solutions.

[IMST]

I think he's opposed to public education in general. Because poor people shouldn't have access to such a luxury item. or something.

[Craig4]

"Public education is a socialist monopoly, a real one." - Milton Friedman

There is no correlation between educational spending and educational achievement. None. The pretense that more money will "solve" the problem has been argued by teachers' unions for decades, utterly without success.

It is truly shameful.

Albert Shanker said "When kids start paying union dues, I'll start representing them."

Shanker was the president of the American Federation of Teachers for years.

So, what is your alternative for educating our youth?

[Vorticity]

"Public education is a socialist monopoly, a real one." - Milton Friedman

Depending on your definitions of "public", "socialist", and "monopoly", this statement is either false, or true but a tautology.

If you define "public education" to mean "government-run education" and "socialist" also as "government-run", then this is clearly true, but a tautology: Yes, all government-run schools are government-run. The government has a monopoly by definition. It's like left-handed people having a monopoly on being left-handed.

If by "public education" you mean a more general definition, then the existence and legality of private (i.e. not government-run) schools clearly illustrates that there is no government monopoly on such ventures.

There is no correlation between educational spending and educational achievement. None.

I don't know whether this statement is true or not. It certainly wouldn't surprise me if it were true, if we define "educational spending" as government spending (e.g. as raised by taxes).

What would surprise me is if there were no correlation between school district socio-economic status and educational achievement.

I remember when I was young, the area I lived in (suburban L.A.) had a number of different school districts, as well as a wide spread in socio-economic status. In our area, the kids in the wealthier school districts generally went to college, and the kids from the poorer school districts generally didn't.

Two possible factors that may explain this are as follows:

1) Expectation. In the more well-off school districts (in one of which I was fortunate enough to grow up), it was simply assumed (by parents and peers) that one was going to college. Getting into college was not seen as an achievement, but simply as the normal state of affairs. Not getting into college, on the other hand, was seen as a great failure. In the poorer school districts, it was the other way around: Going to college was seen as a great achievement, whereas not going was the regular state of affairs. This makes sense in a circular way: The better off the parents, the greater the probability that they themselves went to college, and thus the greater the probability that they'd expect their offspring to go.

2) Private funding of public schools. In our (well-off) school district, a large part of the schools' funding came from non-government sources: Bake sales, school funding drives, private donations in the form of no-strings cash or as money for a specific project (e.g. a building or playground), etc. This private funding was invariably local, generally given by the parents of the students themselves. I would expect such private funding to be greatly reduced in poorer districts. Any study of correlations between educational spending would have to be careful to control for this, and not just take into account direct tax-generated government outlay.

The pretense that more money will "solve" the problem has been argued by teachers' unions for decades, utterly without success.

Money may or may not "solve" the problem, depending on how you define the problem. As I've said above, if the problem is lack of educational achievement, then it would not surprise me if money does not solve the problem. I don't know.

But there are other problems. I give you the following, admittedly anecdotal, true story to illustrate what I mean:

When I lived in Oakland, CA a few years ago, I knew a woman who was an elementary school teacher in an Oakland school. The school had so little money that there was literally no money for supplies for the teachers, except for the following: Each teacher was given one number 2 pencil for each student for each year. That's it. No paper. No pens. No erasers. No paint. No books. Everything else she needed to run a first grade class for a full year had to come out of her own meager salary.

Could her "problem" have been solved with more money? Well... yes. By definition.

[Weak Kitten]

When I lived in Oakland, CA a few years ago, I knew a woman who was an elementary school teacher in an Oakland school. The school had so little money that there was literally no money for supplies for the teachers, except for the following: Each teacher was given one number 2 pencil for each student for each year. That's it. No paper. No pens. No erasers. No paint. No books. Everything else she needed to run a first grade class for a full year had to come out of her own meager salary.

Could her "problem" have been solved with more money? Well... yes. By definition.

Those stories just break my heart and are far too common. Often, like with the Detroit schools near where I grew up, there is corruption on some level which is funneling funds away from where they are really needed. So the teachers cry that they need more money, and they are right, but everyone looks at the amount of money being sent to the schools and thinks they are being greedy.

Personally, I think socialized education is essential for producing the educated workforce necessary to a healthy modern capitalist system. Yes, I said it, a socialist system is necessary to strengthen a capitalist system. The world is rarely black and white.

[excaza]

No, you can't solve our country's education problem simply by throwing money at it, but that doesn't mean more money isn't needed. It is needed.

In general, and of course there are exceptions, the classroom sizes are growing too large for proper student-teacher interaction. Schools lack the funding to adequately provide both supplies and educational resources to the growing student population. Couple that with curious budget choices in many cases and you run into trouble pretty quickly.

This isn't to say you cannot get a great education from a public school, even an extremely poor one. You could throw hundreds of millions of dollars per student, per year, and that's not going to guarantee a good education. As Vorticity said, cultural expectations play an extremely important role, maybe even moreso than funding. You can see examples of this both in our country, and all over the world.

A proper education should be a basic human right, but I realize that's just wishful thinking.

[Francesca R]

"Public education is a socialist monopoly, a real one." - Milton FriedmanJust FYI, even Friedman still believed that education should be publicly funded (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/School_voucher)

[drkitten]

Just FYI, even Friedman still believed that education should be publicly funded (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/School_voucher)

Goodness. Who'd have thunk that a conservatard quote-mine would get something wrong.

[Francesca R]

Friedman is probably struck off the OPer's quote list now, disqualified for not having eaten enough babies.

[drkitten]

Friedman is probably struck off the OPer's quote list now, disqualified for not having eaten enough babies.

Well, that's the problem.

Like most of today's right-wing activists, he has a quote list, not a reading list.

It's astonishing how much of their lame quote-spam evaporates when you look at the quoted authors in context.

For that matter, it's astonishing how much of their lame link-spam actually contradicts the posts in which the spam is presented. It's almost as though they don't bother to read what they forward....

[JonathanQuick]

Are you saying that:

1. Giving money to schools is a bad idea.

or

2. Schools are not using money correctly.

or

3. People are advocating an increase in funding over other possible solutions.

1. We have TRIED increasing the funding in CURRENT DOLLARS for decades. All it has gotten us is endless demands for MORE MONEY. Money has not solved any problem yet, and so naturally teachers' unions promise that THIS TIME, THIS TIME it will! How gullible can people be.

2. No, schools are NOT using money correctly. Their administrative staffs are bloated. They keep incompetent teachers. And they pay them too much. At my district, teachers top out at over $95,000 for 9 months work.
Sickening, particularly when teachers graduate in the bottom third of their college classes, on average.

3. People don't advocate more money so much as teachers' unions do.
Now these unions have brainwashed parents and kids into standing on the corners for them, demanding higher funding and of course higher taxes to pay for it.

[JonathanQuick]

Goodness. Who'd have thunk that a conservatard quote-mine would get something wrong.

Spoken like a true liberal. I present the ideas of well-known figures, one of whom was a Nobel Laureate, and the other president of a teachers' union, and you call me a "conservatard."

How enlightened of you. How utterly brilliant.
Congratulations. You have learned your liberal lessons
only too well.

What next, call me a "fascist" and a "Nazi"?

What is very telling is that not one of your friends has admonished you for your hatefulness and violation of the rules of this forum. It is SUPPOSED to consist of intelligent discussions, not petty name-calling, like "conservatard."

[excaza]

Do you have a checklist of talking points you're going through?

[JonathanQuick]

Do you have a checklist of talking points you're going through?

I made precisely two points before stooping to address the childish name-calling of your pal and fellow liberal, who called me a "conservatard."

Is that too many for you to follow?

If you'd like to change the subject, and discuss the educational theme of your choice, I'm your huckleberry.

It's interesting that you jump on ME, pretending that I am too stupid to present a coherent argument on my own, but you had absolutely no problem with your pal calling ME a "conservatard."

Name-calling is the sine qua non of liberal argumentation.
So too are lies.

[stokes234]

There is no correlation between educational spending and educational achievement. None.

Does this mean if you spent literally no money on a school, and had no teachers, buildings, books etc - just made the kids stand in a field for 7 years or something - they would achieve the same exam results as kids who had been through 7 years of public education?

I find that hard to believe.

[John Jones]

"Public education is a socialist monopoly, a real one." - Milton Friedman

There is no correlation between educational spending and educational achievement. None. The pretense that more money will "solve" the problem has been argued by teachers' unions for decades, utterly without success.

It is truly shameful.

Albert Shanker said "When kids start paying union dues, I'll start representing them."

Shanker was the president of the American Federation of Teachers for years.


What do you propose as a solution?

[Twiler]

And what has this got to do with socialism?

[excaza]

It's only "SOCIALISM OMGOMGOMGOMGOMG COMMIES!" if it's not directly benefiting you.

duhhh

[themusicteacher]

I'm trying to figure out if you've got some sort of point or if this is just empty ideological bellyaching. I'm guessing the latter. You propose no solutions to what I assume is your tacit assertions that we spend too much on education and get too little in return. Unless you've got something relevant to say, I'm having trouble taking you seriously.

[Vorticity]

Spoken like a true liberal. I present the ideas of well-known figures, one of whom was a Nobel Laureate, and the other president of a teachers' union, and you call me a "conservatard."...

So, naturalists observe, a troll
Hath smaller trolls that on him prey
And these have smaller still to slight 'em
And so proceed ad infinitum.

[Madalch]

So, naturalists observe, a troll
Hath smaller trolls that on him prey
And these have smaller still to slight 'em
And so proceed ad infinitum.
I thought it was:
Greater whorls have little whorls
Which feed on their velocity
And little whorls have lesser whorls
And so on to viscosity.

[Vorticity]

I thought it was:
Greater whorls have little whorls
Which feed on their velocity
And little whorls have lesser whorls
And so on to viscosity.

Close. It's:

Greater trolls have little trolls
Which feed on their verbosity
And little trolls have lesser trolls
And so on to ferocity.

[Roboramma]

Spoken like a true liberal. I present the ideas of well-known figures, one of whom was a Nobel Laureate, and the other president of a teachers' union, and you call me a "conservatard."

I don't think its the fact that you were quoting a Nobel Laureate that he took exception to. It's the fact that your quote was taken out of context.
Do you disagree that your quote was taken out of context?

[GreyArea]

Say, you're not a Democrat, are you?
...facts matter little to those on the left.
The left... ...One such leftist...
...how the left reviled President Bush... But when a lefty does likewise...
...typical of the left...
...the left, which category clearly includes you...
Yes indeed, condescension and arrogance are always "perfectly valid" to you leftists.
The left is always eager to rewrite history.... ...too goofy for even leftists. ...whom leftists choose to ignore... Riddle me that, lefty.
...any leftist or atheist... ...expect non-answers from the left. ...spin for the left...
...your many leftist pals...
...leftists and atheists put their words and their prejudices...
...he classified himself as a liberal.... ...a "compassionate" (ha, ha, ha) liberal... ...liberal mantra...
...leftists would use against me... ...which leftists pretend I cannot... ...He calls himself a liberal... ...liberal John Kerry...
A. San Franciscans make much, much more than Kansans, and
B. San Franciscans are liberals, and Kansans are conservatives.
Leftists should read... ... and other lefties who are almost always quite hateful.
...never a fellow liberal... ...a lifelong atheist...
...The problem with leftists...
"Public education is a socialist monopoly, a real one." - Milton Friedman
...No, leftists are wrong. Barack Obama, the pathological narcissist and destructive socialist, is wrong.
Albert Einstein was wrong when he rejected science in favor of his atheist dogma.
Leftists who promote and support the butchering of innocent, unborn babies are not just wrong, but evil.
...the latest criminal enterprise of the greedy left...
Spoken like a true liberal... ... liberal lessons...
...the left has reviled and ridiculed... ...a LEFTIST, like you... ...your fellow leftists. ...double standard by the left? Ready, march: Left, left, left left left.
...all marching in absolute lockstep...
...your pal and fellow liberal...

Name-calling is the sine qua non of liberal argumentation....
[This forum] is SUPPOSED to consist of intelligent discussions, not petty name-calling...

...desist with your pernicious attacks. You have little else but attacks.

Are you sure you disapprove of name-calling? You seem to use "leftist" and "liberal" and "socialist" as if they were epithets and perfect synonyms. They are neither. Yet I think I can hear a sneer every time you type them.

Maybe you should trade in your hobby-horse for a bicycle. Then ride it to the hardware store and take a long look at the paint supplies. There are more shades available than just black and white, and not all the brushes are broad.


Furthermore,

...on the Culture...
The Culture (http://groups.google.com/group/rec.arts.sf.written/msg/2b05e32641fee4c2?hl=en&)? I resemble that remark!

...in your pre-eminent Majesterium...
The Magisterium (http://www.hisdarkmaterials.org/srafopedia/index.php/Magisterium)? You resemble that remark!

Your understanding of science and rational discussion needs help. It's even worse than baddies in novels. You should calm down, lurk for a while, maybe ask a question every so often and listen to the answers, and think before typing. People will respond much better to you if you take these steps.

[Weak Kitten]

Anyway, you've vented your rage at the current system. That's nice and all but do you have a viable alternative?

Don't say privatizing the schools, that's a whole big can of worms with just as much corruption, waste and poor management. Plus it would seriously impact our supply of inexpensive educated individuals in the workforce. Even janitors need to know how to read in the modern world.

[Doubt]

2. No, schools are NOT using money correctly. Their administrative staffs are bloated. They keep incompetent teachers. And they pay them too much. At my district, teachers top out at over $95,000 for 9 months work.
Sickening, particularly when teachers graduate in the bottom third of their college classes, on average.


Name the district so we may have a chance to verify this $95,000 salary.

[Ysidro]

Anyway, you've vented your rage at the current system. That's nice and all but do you have a viable alternative?

Don't say privatizing the schools, that's a whole big can of worms with just as much corruption, waste and poor management. Plus it would seriously impact our supply of inexpensive educated individuals in the workforce. Even janitors need to know how to read in the modern world.

Nonsense! If those janitors need to read they can teach themselves! They don't need any fancy education or books or words or anything!

[Chucky]

"Public education is a socialist monopoly, a real one." - Milton Friedman

There is no correlation between educational spending and educational achievement. None. The pretense that more money will "solve" the problem has been argued by teachers' unions for decades, utterly without success.

It is truly shameful.

Albert Shanker said "When kids start paying union dues, I'll start representing them."

Shanker was the president of the American Federation of Teachers for years.

delete

[Weak Kitten]

Nonsense! If those janitors need to read they can teach themselves! They don't need any fancy education or books or words or anything!

Yeah, it's not like janitors need to be able to read the cleaner bottles to see what ingredients they contain. There's nothing wrong with mixing cleaners! That giddy feeling you get when you mix ammonia and bleach is perfectly safe!

[Craig4]

Still waiting for that alternative.

[cwalner]

Name the district so we may have a chance to verify this $95,000 salary.
That does not seem that far fetched to me. IIRC, I remember once seeing the salary tier for the OUSD (Orange County, CA) that topped out around 70k and that was about 20 years ago.

However, to get that amount, you have to be in the district for over 15 years, have a Masters Degree and have taken extra ongoing courses in education.

If someone is willing to dedicate that much to being a High School teacher, then $95k seems like very fair compensation to me.

The bit that I doubted was the statement that teachers generally graduate in the bottom 1/3 of their class.

[Mark R]

Like most problems you are not going to solve education just by throwing more money at it. It has to be targeted in order to be effective.

A simplification I frequently see by people who protest more spending on education is to only look at the dollar amount and not place it in the proper context. The schools with the greatest need are going to require more funds than schools that are doing well.

Consider it this way. You have two homeowners. Owner A has a nice house, nothing fancy but everything is working. If he suddenly finds himself with $10,000 he has to spend on his house, there is a lot of little things he can spend that money on to improve the house. Now lets take owner B. His house just burned to the ground. He is also given $10,000 that must be spent on his house. While that money is nice to have, it is certainly not going to get him even with owner A. He is starting so far behind, more money will be required just to achieve parity with where owner A started from.

Again, I readily admit more money itself does not solve problems, but it is a necessary component to enact measures that will address many of the problems education faces.

[ThermionicScott]

Y'know, it's not just funny that the OP doesn't have a better (non-socialist) idea for education, but that in ~12 hours, no one else seems to, either...

- Scott

[lionking]

Still waiting for that alternative.
Of course there's a solution, silly. The government just has to get out of the way and allow good, hard workers to earn enough to send their kids to expensive private schools. But many won't be able to do that regardless of the system, you say? Well that's just tough. The children of the poor won't contribute anything, so why waste money on their education. :rolleyes:

[lionking]

Y'know, it's not just funny that the OP doesn't have a better (non-socialist) idea for education, but that in ~12 hours, no one else does either...

- Scott
The dual tier system in Australia, with public schools educating the majority, works quite fine, thanks very much.

[ThermionicScott]

The dual tier system in Australia, with public schools educating the majority, works quite fine, thanks very much.

Ah, but you're saying there's a place for government-funded schools. I wonder if the OP agrees with that much.

After all, public schools educate the majority of students here in America, as well... :wink:

- Scott

[lionking]

Ah, but you're saying there's a place for government-funded schools. I wonder if the OP agrees with that much.

After all, public schools educate the majority of students here in America, as well... :wink:

- Scott
As you say, the OP has not put forward an alternative to publically funded education in an advanced economy. That's because there isn't one.

[Roboramma]

As you say, the OP has not put forward an alternative to publically funded education in an advanced economy. That's because there isn't one.

At least not a viable one that works, anyway. Which explains ThermionicScott's observation that no one has been able to find one so far.

[Finn McR]

Y'know, it's not just funny that the OP doesn't have a better (non-socialist) idea for education, but that in ~12 hours, no one else seems to, either...

- Scott

Dude, sorry, but my irony and "thinky" meter are all broken by this time of night (0254 EST), but it seems to me that the importance of public education, and thus the "idea" for education is a problem of a hundred or so years. I am hoping that it is irony that I am missing in the , "~12 hours" comment. And, hey, if I'm right... good one, FTW!

[Francesca R]

Here are some more Friedman quotes, taken from Capitalism and Freedom (1962), chapter VI: The Role of Government In Education (http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=iCRk066ybDAC&pg=PA85&dq=capitalism+and+freedom+Friedman+chapter+VI&hl=en&ei=GLe-TIqWI4P88AbKzLi6Bg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CCsQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q&f=false)":

"A stable and democratic society is impossible without a minimum degree of literacy and knowledge on the part of most citizens and without widespread acceptance of some common set of values"
" . . . the gain from the education of a child accrues not only to the child or to his parents but also to other members of the society"
"Most of us, however, would probably conclude that the gains [from schooling] are sufficiently important to justify some government subsidy"
" . . . the imposition of a mnimum required level of schooling and the financing of this schooling by the state can be justified by the "neighborhood effects" [externalities] of schooling"
Of course, he is mostly opposed to nationalised schools, or publicly funded vocational or higher education, and would no doubt be less generous with "vouchers" than most rich country governments, but the OP doesn't look quite so correct now, does it?

[excaza]

"Everyone should have an education, but the government shouldn't pay for it."

I'd rather spend a few extra bucks on my taxes every year than have 16 years of student loans as opposed to 4, thank you very much.

[Belz...]

Spoken like a true liberal.

13 posts in, and he's already categorizing the other posters.

[lionking]

13 posts in, and he's already categorizing the other posters.

I'm anxiously waiting for his solution to the socialist scourge of education.

[drkitten]

I'm anxiously waiting for his solution to the socialist scourge of education.

You won't get one. There's no quotation he can take out of context to provide one.

[excaza]

The alternative is slashing government education spending, forcing public schools to turn semi-private (charging tuition, but some government subsidy).

At least that's what I'm assuming he wants.

I don't see any difference.

[Weak Kitten]

The alternative is slashing government education spending, forcing public schools to turn semi-private (charging tuition, but some government subsidy).

At least that's what I'm assuming he wants.

I don't see any difference.

Actually, the difference would be increased administrative costs for the individual schools. They would have to hire new staff to deal with financial transactions they don't have to worry about in the current system.

Plus you would get into a problem of juvenile delinquency. All of those kids who's parents don't care enough or can't afford to send them to school roaming the streets looking for something to do. You can't force them to go to school, they aren't paying for that. So, out of boredom and a lack of anything better to do with their time, they turn to petty crime and vandalism. They get sent to juvenile detention centers and we as tax payers end up spending more on them then we would have spent just sending them to school.

Always try to think your ideas through to their logical outcomes. The system now is not perfect but the alternatives can be far worse and more expensive. Let's just work on reforming the system we have now rather then tossing everything out on a whim.

[excaza]

Poor wording on my part.

"I don't see how it's any better" is what I meant. And probably should have written :p

[Craig4]

So, I'll ask again. What is the alternative to current publicly funded education?

[excaza]

Plus you would get into a problem of juvenile delinquency. All of those kids who's parents don't care enough or can't afford to send them to school roaming the streets looking for something to do. You can't force them to go to school, they aren't paying for that. So, out of boredom and a lack of anything better to do with their time, they turn to petty crime and vandalism. They get sent to juvenile detention centers and we as tax payers end up spending more on them then we would have spent just sending them to school.

Not my kid, not my problem, you socialist!

:duck:

[drkitten]

Not my kid, not my problem, you socialist!


So if your kid breaks my window, whose problem is it?

[excaza]

So if your kid breaks my window, whose problem is it?

Typical lefty, you should have bought better windows.

[GreyArea]

Typical lefty, you should have bought better windows.
There's a lot of potential there: unbreakable windows, paint-proof siding, surveillance cameras. The video arcades would make a windfall. Think of the boost in the GDP!

[Cleon]

Name the district so we may have a chance to verify this $95,000 salary.

It's not unheard of for a teacher's salary to max out at around that level, especially in wealthier areas.

However...To get that kind of pay, you generally have to have a PhD with several decades' teaching experience. Those that get those sorts of salaries are few and far between.

[Startz]

The average salary for public school teachers, base pay plus merit pay and other state supplements is $51,660. (Source: Digest of Education, 2009, Table 75).

[StuBob]

Maybe you should trade in your hobby-horse for a bicycle. Then ride it to the hardware store and take a long look at the paint supplies. There are more shades available than just black and white, and not all the brushes are broad.


This is a quote of beauty, GreyArea! :)

[GreyArea]

At my district, teachers top out at over $95,000 for 9 months work.
Sickening, particularly when teachers graduate in the bottom third of their college classes, on average.
Something tells me these would not be the same people, even assuming the figures are correct.

[GreyArea]

This is a quote of beauty, GreyArea! :)

Thank you very much.
:blush:

[uruk]

Name the district so we may have a chance to verify this $95,000 salary.
Yea, I want to work there. I've been teaching at a local community college for eleven years and my salary is only $60,000. And I graduated Suma cum laude

[Alt+F4]

In New York City public schools a teacher's salary can max out at $100,000 after 22 years of service (and a Master's Degree plus 30 additional credit).

Rest in peace Albert Shanker.

[uruk]

1. We have TRIED increasing the funding in CURRENT DOLLARS for decades. All it has gotten us is endless demands for MORE MONEY. Money has not solved any problem yet, and so naturally teachers' unions promise that THIS TIME, THIS TIME it will! How gullible can people be. No, not really. Funding for schools have been tied to student performance based on a standardized test. It's known as the TAKS test-soon-to-be-renamed STARS. The better students perform at a school the more funding it recieves. The assumption being that a school that performs badly necessarily means that the school adminstration and faculty are poor. This is not always the case and I'll explain later.

Schools with poorly perfoming students go on a three strike system, After the third strike or poor student perfomance on the TAKS test, the principal of the school is reassigned and a new "fireman" principal is assigned. If the students perfom badly again the administrative staff and faculty is sacked and replaced with fresh blood. During this time the student performance expectation is set to 100% passing, which is an impossibility especialy where there are students with learning disabilities and students who have emotional problems.

This system inevitably encourages the school districts to cheat on the test results to maintain TAKS compliance. (I have wittnessed this personally.) Other ways of dealing with perfomance issue is to redraw districts so that a "scapegoat" school recieves all the special ed. and emotionaly disturbed students. (again, I have wittnessed this personally) Other schools in the district perform better when the "problem" children are redistributed within the district.

The problem is that the assumption is that it is the school and faculty that is the sole reason or cause for the poorly performing students. The education adminstrations seem to fail to recognise that there is a whole battery of reasons that students do not perfom well. Here are a few.

1. Parents: Students perform better in school when the parent encourages the student and participates in their childs education. The issue here is that parents fail to do so for various reasons. limited contact with child due to work hours, time management issues, domestic abuse and neglect, and apathy. Part of the job of parenting include the childs education. You do see a distinct correlation with student performance and parential attention.
I have personally seen parents refusing to answer phones and doors or fail to respond to requests for meetings about the performance of thier children. I have personally wittnessed parents deny thier childrens poor behaiviour when it is played back form them on survailence tapes.

2. Socio-economic: Some cultures and economic areas are not education friendly. In the area where I grew up and live the predominate culture is hispanic and the main economy was agriculutural. Most hispanic familes down here were once employed mainly by farms and packing plants. Families did not see education past the first few grades as being necessary. You just learned how to read and write and do basic math and then you were off to work in the fields or packing plant. For women, it was get married and produce more filed workers. Now that the economy is changing from agriculture to service and industrial education is becoming more of an important issue. But the family attitudes concerning education have not kept up with the times. You also have parents that become jealous that thier child is recieving a higer education than they had. They feel that their authority as parents is being threatend by the higher education the child is recieving.

3. Education Adminstration ignorance, apathy and corruption: I live in an are that is 90% hispanic. I have actually read memo from the state board admonishing school districts down here for not having enough caucasians in school districts. Where are we supposed to bus them in from, up state?!?! There are school districts where the local schoolboards vote themselves a payraise at the begining of every meeting. We are in a economically depressed are yet we have some of the higest paid schoolboard members in the state.
And the forementioned gerrymandering of school districts to favor certain schools over others.

4. Special interest groups: The usual cast of characters that try to bend the content of education to thier particular agenda. Both liberal and conservatives camps are guilty of this.


2. No, schools are NOT using money correctly. Their administrative staffs are bloated. They keep incompetent teachers. And they pay them too much. At my district, teachers top out at over $95,000 for 9 months work.
Sickening, particularly when teachers graduate in the bottom third of their college classes, on average. There are methods for dealing with poor performing teachers, even those who are union. Testing is one such method, re-certification is another.
I think you will find that in the majority of school districts teacher's salaries are below $60,000 a year. A $95,000 salary seems more like the exception that the rule.

3. People don't advocate more money so much as teachers' unions do.
Now these unions have brainwashed parents and kids into standing on the corners for them, demanding higher funding and of course higher taxes to pay for it.
Teaching children requires money for materials and classrooms and equipment, and cooling and heating, and feeding the children, and providing for thier safety, and transportation, administration etc.. The teacher's salary is just one small percentage of that total bill.

No one is saying that corruption and mismanagement is not rampant and present, but taking it out on the teachers is not the answer. Teachers do not make the rules, they are only employees doing what they are told. The stress in getting so bad that there are very high burnout and turnover rates amoung teachers (which some see as good since the individual teacher's salary does not get that high due to quitting at an early date)
Also there are fewer americans that want to become teachers because of the stress. So now there is a growing trend to import teachers form other countries. The Phillepenes and India are the two largest sources of imported teachers

It is easier to blame the teachers for the poor performance of students than to accept the fact that there are also more complicated socio-economic reasons behind a students perfomance.

our education systen cannot improve untill these issues are properly addressed.

[MattusMaximus]

JonathanQuick, you have been asked this repeatedly and not answered, but I'll ask once again...

What is your alternative to the public education system (presumably within the U.S.)? What do you propose to do to "fix the system"?

It's easy to gripe and moan, but coming up with solutions - that takes hard work and a willingness to actually solve the problem. As I tell my physics students, you can scream & moan all day long about how "physics is hard" and "this isn't fair" etc, but unless you think & work hard at it, you'll just flunk like the rest of the slackers :)

[Schrodinger's Cat]

I'm confused.

I took an art adult education course at Brookline High in Massachusetts, which is a public school, but in a wealthy community, and very well funded. This high school has up to date computer labs that trains students on a vast variety of computer pograms, with plenty of computers so each student can have their own during labs. They have scientific laborities with an enormous amounts of resources so that students are able to do a huge range of experiments. Their textbooks are up to date. For their arts program, they have an entire builing JUST for arts. It is loaded with many, many art supplies, like what you'd see at a small university, as well as a huge array of musical instruments. They also have a building just for sports, and they have a pool, a gym, a great field, and plenty of sports equipment to go around to all the students.

Is the OP honestly suggesting that this school has no advantage over a school in a ghetto that has five kids sharing one textbook that's ten years out of date, which has only a handful of out of date computers with no modern computer programs, and a school with little to know sports or arts resources because they simply can't afford it? Is he HONESTLY arguing a kid in a poor school where you've got 30 kids sharing 2 40 year old microscopes is not at a disadvantage compared to a student who has a wide array of modern scientific devices with which he can do advanced laboratory testing?

Of course money doesn't solve everything.

But, Jonathan, since you seem to be unaware of this fact, you should know that money can actually be exchanged for goods and services. These services include resources which are necessary to teach students things. You can lecture a kid on how to use JAVA all you want, but unless you have a computer to show them how to do it, it's probably not going to sink in.

[MattusMaximus]

Yea, I want to work there. I've been teaching at a local community college for eleven years and my salary is only $60,000. And I graduated Suma cum laude

I earn about $88,000 a year, but then I have a Masters degree in physics (not in physics education, thank you) and have been teaching for about 13 years. In the free market, I can demand a higher salary than most others in my field due to my degree and experience. In addition, I happen to teach in a well-to-do community who wants real experts in their subject matter teaching at the local high school.

So, even in our "evil, socialist" system there is a fair amount of capitalism and free-market forces at work. Ironic, given the OP :rolleyes:

[MattusMaximus]

Is the OP honestly suggesting that this school has no advantage over a school in a ghetto that has five kids sharing one textbook that's ten years out of date, which has only a handful of out of date computers with no modern computer programs, and a school with little to know sports or arts resources because they simply can't afford it? Is he HONESTLY arguing a kid in a poor school where you've got 30 kids sharing 2 40 year old microscopes is not at a disadvantage compared to a student who has a wide array of modern scientific devices with which he can do advanced laboratory testing?

I think the OP is simply venting his spleen: "SOCIALISM IS EEEVIIIILLLLLL!!!11!1" :jaw-dropp

It'll be interesting to see whether or not he returns to offer any solutions. Of course, that would require work and a desire to solve the problem, as opposed to griping about it.

[Doubt]

It's not unheard of for a teacher's salary to max out at around that level, especially in wealthier areas.

However...To get that kind of pay, you generally have to have a PhD with several decades' teaching experience. Those that get those sorts of salaries are few and far between.

My father retired as a high school teacher with 26 years in. Had his maters degree and taught US history, (including AP classes), English and Psychology. He retired in the late 80's.

As an Engineer, I had almost matched his yearly income at retirement when I had 5 years experience. And I was not considered well paid at that time.

The upside for him is a pretty good pension.

[Madalch]

This high school has up to date computer labs that trains students on a vast variety of computer pograms...

I take it that the school doesn't have a lot of Jewish students?

[blutoski]

In New York City public schools a teacher's salary can max out at $100,000 after 22 years of service (and a Master's Degree plus 30 additional credit).

That could be a grandfathered rate, though. There could also be zero people actually accomplishing this rate group. It'd be interesting to see what the typical wages look like, as opposed to hypothetical maxima. There are a couple of Amway billionaires out there, but I wouldn't let that convince me that Amway is a business of billionaires.

Which brings up one of the consequences of pay-for-quality that hasn't been discussed: if schools are forced to pay higher salary/compensation/bonuses for higher quality teachers, this may direct their hiring to low-quality teachers for budgetary reasons.

Here in BC, we have a similar merit-based scheme which means that teachers with doctorates in education get great salary. All two of them. Result: DEd graduates are more likely to get hired by McDonald's than by a school district. We ultimatley find them managing corporate in-house training for $150k+/yr.

[excaza]

I take it that the school doesn't have a lot of Jewish students?

Complete opposite, actually. Brookline is a very Jewish suburb of Boston.

[MattusMaximus]

I love it when people want to bitch and moan about teachers, they always seem to cherry-pick the few highly paid teachers within a given district and then yell at the top of their lungs about how crazy it is that "these teachers are being paid so much!" Of course, they ignore the majority of younger teachers which don't even come close to earning that top level of pay.

[Schrodinger's Cat]

I take it that the school doesn't have a lot of Jewish students?

Hehe, you know it's funny you said that, because Brookline actually has one of the highest concentration of Jews in the country. You can't swing a dead cat* without hitting a temple.




*this was not an invitation to kill and swing me

[Cleon]

Complete opposite, actually. Brookline is a very Jewish suburb of Boston.

He was referring to SC's "pograms" typo. ;)

[MattusMaximus]

Come to think of it, if teaching in a public school were such a cushy job, as so many critics claim, then how come so few of these critics want to teach? They'd be fools not to take advantage of such a "cushy" situation, wouldn't they? :rolleyes:

[Schrodinger's Cat]

He was referring to SC's "pograms" typo. ;)

LOL I can't believe I missed that. I knew he was joking about something but I didn't quite get it. Didn't even notice my own typo, even when he quoted me.

Inattentive cat is inattentive

:D

[Madalch]

*this was not an invitation to kill and swing me
I can't kill you- you're not alive! At least, not until I open the box and look at you....

[Madalch]

LOL I can't believe I missed that. I knew he was joking about something but I didn't quite get it. Didn't even notice my own typo, even when he quoted me.

Inattentive cat is inattentive

That's fine- I was starting to think I had imagined it.....

[excaza]

He was referring to SC's "pograms" typo. ;)

Went right over my head :D

[JonathanQuick]

I'm anxiously waiting for his solution to the socialist scourge of education.

I'll just bet you are.

Nobel Laureate Milton Friedman campaigned tirelessly on behalf of kids getting a better education. His interim solution was school vouchers.

Call it "school choice" - you know, like Bill and Hillary Clinton practiced, by sending Chelsea to Sidwell Friend's School.

By the way, Al and Tipper Gore sent their precious kids there as well.

And you'll NEVER guess where Barack Obama and Michelle "I've never been proud of America" send their kids.

Incidentally, isn't it the pinnacle of hypocrisy that thousands of public school teachers send their kids to... private schools...... while preaching exactly the opposite.

[excaza]

Private schools are not a solution.

[IMST]

I'll just bet you are.

Nobel Laureate Milton Friedman campaigned tirelessly on behalf of kids getting a better education. His interim solution was school vouchers.

Call it "school choice" - you know, like Bill and Hillary Clinton practiced, by sending Chelsea to Sidwell Friend's School.

By the way, Al and Tipper Gore sent their precious kids there as well.

And you'll NEVER guess where Barack Obama and Michelle "I've never been proud of America" send their kids.

Incidentally, isn't it the pinnacle of hypocrisy that thousands of public school teachers send their kids to... private schools...... while preaching exactly the opposite.

I know rather a lot of public school teachers. I know none of them with kids in private school. I'd love to see evidence that there's any kind of trend for teachers to do so. I suspect there is not.

[brenn]

I think he's opposed to public education in general. Because poor people shouldn't have access to such a luxury item. or something.

Well, the market value of an education IS relative to the education of everyone else, so he may have a point. In that sense, it is like giving everyone more money to make everybody rich.

[blutoski]

I know rather a lot of public school teachers. I know none of them with kids in private school. I'd love to see evidence that there's any kind of trend for teachers to do so. I suspect there is not.

I think it's true that some public school teachers send their kids to private schools.

It's not clear why this would be evidence of hypocricy. Lots of businesspeople send their kids to public schools, and I don't think this is a compromise of any sort.

[JonathanQuick]

I earn about $88,000 a year, but then I have a Masters degree in physics (not in physics education, thank you) and have been teaching for about 13 years. In the free market, I can demand a higher salary than most others in my field due to my degree and experience. In addition, I happen to teach in a well-to-do community who wants real experts in their subject matter teaching at the local high school.

So, even in our "evil, socialist" system there is a fair amount of capitalism and free-market forces at work. Ironic, given the OP :rolleyes:

Please, please, enough with the "free-market forces at work."

1. Your pal, uruk, claims to have graduated Suma (SIC) cum laude:

"Yea, I want to work there. I've been teaching at a local community college for eleven years and my salary is only $60,000. And I graduated Suma cum laude "

Pretty funny. Roll your eyes on that one, physicist.

2. You work 9 months, not 11 1/2. Adjust for that. You're good at math.

3. Granted that physicists are much more intelligent than the average teacher. What then do you do to try to get rid of the dross? Nothing is probably a good guess. Your union won't let you do a damn thing.
Kids are stuck with incompetents all over America.

4. Finally, why don't you put in your application for a job earning MORE than
$8,888.88 a month, plus all the cushy benefits teachers get. I'll bet you $10,000 you can't find such a job in 90 days.

See, I wagered two leftists a few years ago when they shot their mouths off.
The first was Ken Minyard, a retiring talk show host. He called all conservatives "stupid." I offered to pay for IQ tests for both of us, and the loser would pay the winner $10,000. Big Mouth Ken passed.

Then fat boy Josh Mankewicz of NBC, I believe, said the same thing in an e-mail to me. I made that offer to tubby, and he passed.

My last test came in at 135 or 140, I can't recall which. But as a chemical engineer, I have respect for other science grads. For education and sociology majors, feminist studies, ethnic studies, basket weaving, and so forth, not so much.

Incidentally, I found it extremely bad judgment on your part when you hatefully attacked the emeritus physics professor at UC Santa Barbara.

Extremely bad judgment.

[JonathanQuick]

Private schools are not a solution.

Teacher's Union Talking Point #1

Why then do thousands of public school teachers send THEIR kids to private schools, as do the Obamas?

The hypocrisy is stultifying, sickening, nauseating.

[JonathanQuick]

I think it's true that some public school teachers send their kids to private schools.

It's not clear why this would be evidence of hypocricy. (SIC) Lots of businesspeople send their kids to public schools, and I don't think this is a compromise of any sort.

"Some".

That's good. "Some."

You obviously have no idea how many.
Teachers' unions keep their sheep in tow.

Now please learn how to spell words you select to write.

[JonathanQuick]

It's not unheard of for a teacher's salary to max out at around that level, especially in wealthier areas.

However...To get that kind of pay, you generally have to have a PhD with several decades' teaching experience. Those that get those sorts of salaries are few and far between.

Try a master's degree, and a "super max" designation.

You people really have to get together so you don't waste so much time on idle speculation.

[lionking]

So no solution then. Thanks.

[excaza]

(drivel snipped)
Incidentally, isn't it the pinnacle of hypocrisy that thousands of public school teachers send their kids to... private schools...... while preaching exactly the opposite.

Curious how you don't mention any conservatives in your rant.

How is it hypocrisy? They're not saying everyone should go to public schools. They're saying public schools need help. And they do.

[blutoski]

"Some".

That's good. "Some."

So we agree?



You obviously have no idea how many.

Didn't say I did. I'm pretty sure 'some' is true.

In any case, you can enlighten us: how many?





Teachers' unions keep their sheep in tow.

I'm not a teacher. I'm a manager in a communications firm.





Now please learn how to spell words you select to write.

Hopefully, you're not that upset about typos? Isn't a proper discussion supposed to be about the facts of the situation, rather than the participants?

[JonathanQuick]

I know rather a lot of public school teachers. I know none of them with kids in private school. I'd love to see evidence that there's any kind of trend for teachers to do so. I suspect there is not.

"25% of public school teachers in Washington and Baltimore send their children to private schools." -

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2004/sep/22/20040922-122847-5968r/

Can't you teachers do ANY of your own homework?

Pathetic.

Grade "F" for all of you.

[excaza]

Teacher's Union Talking Point #1
:rolleyes:

Why then do thousands of public school teachers send THEIR kids to private schools, as do the Obamas?
Because they want to and can afford to.

The hypocrisy is stultifying, sickening, nauseating.
You have yet to explain how it's hypocritical. They're still supporting the public schools with the taxes they pay. Schools their kids aren't attending. How selfless of them.

[excaza]

Also, could you please present a solution?

Without ranting about the evil communist socialist liberals?

[blutoski]

How is it hypocrisy? They're not saying everyone should go to public schools. They're saying public schools need help. And they do.

Yes, it seems very consistent to me, actually.

[JonathanQuick]

So we agree?

No, we do not agree.

"Some" was intended to dismiss the relatively large numbers.
It was your attempt to lend support to teachers' unions and
their hypocrisy.






Hopefully, you're not that upset about typos?

Far less "upset" than Leftists were about Dan Quayle's reading of "potatoe," which had been misspelled by a teacher. Naturally teachers and other Leftists everywhere attributed the ignorance to Dan Quayle, and laughed derisively at him.

At Barack Obama, for "Cinco de quatro", not so much.
At Barack Obama, for "I've been to like 57 states," not at all.
At Barack Obama, for his claim that your "insurance premiums could decrease by 3,000 percent," never.

Leftist ignorance never seems to show up in the major liberal media.
Not ABC, not CBS, not NBC, not CNN, not the New York Times, not USA Today, not Time, not Newsweek, not PBS.

But whenever George Bush slipped up, that was published, you betcha.

A conservative gaffe is used to brand the conservative as "stupid."
A liberal gaffe is trivialized, ignored, and brushed off, just as you did your own here.

[blutoski]

"25% of public school teachers in Washington and Baltimore send their children to private schools." -

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2004/sep/22/20040922-122847-5968r/

Can't you teachers do ANY of your own homework?

I'm not a teacher.



Pathetic.

Could we discuss the facts, rather than sling insults?




Grade "F" for all of you.

Firstly: I don't remember you stating Washington or Baltimore in your earlier claim.
This is called 'moving the goalposts'.

Secondly: I did say 'some' and did not specifiy a quantity. Why would this be a fail?

[excaza]

A conservative gaffe is used to brand the conservative as "stupid."
A liberal gaffe is trivialized, ignored, and brushed off, just as you did your own here.
The only one here attempting to turn this into a bipartisan debate is you with your ranting about the evil liberals.

The topic is public education. Education is not bipartisan. You expressed your problem, now present a solution.

Take your idiotic rants somewhere else.

[JonathanQuick]

:rolleyes:


Because they want to and can afford to.

"Share!" This is the siren song of the Left.
"Share!"

Except in giving kids a decent education, that is.

No sharing there. Only obeisance to teachers' unions.

The dropout rate in inner city public schools is horrific, not that you give a damn. The nuns do. Private schools do. And they do a far better job of educating kids. THAT is why public school teachers send THEIR kids to private schools, while demanding - demanding that others not be given vouchers.


You have yet to explain how it's hypocritical. They're still supporting the public schools with the taxes they pay. Schools their kids aren't attending. How selfless of them.

"Selfless." Yeah. How "selfless" teachers are when they say one thing and do exactly the opposite, claiming that vouchers would cripple public education.

How about teachers smoking up a storm all over the school grounds, while lecturing kids NOT to smoke...

How about teachers eating crap, being overweight, and lecturing kids to do the opposite.

Let me guess: You're a teacher, right? And you voted for Obama.
Isn't HE doing a swell job of destroying America.

[excaza]

The dropout rate in inner city public schools is horrific, not that you give a damn. The nuns do. Private schools do. And they do a far better job of educating kids. THAT is why public school teachers send THEIR kids to private schools, while demanding - demanding that others not be given vouchers.
No, I don't give a damn, which is why I keep saying the public school system needs help. Are you being intentionally dense?

Let me guess: You're a teacher, right?
No, and I went to private schools.

And you voted for Obama.
Irrelevant

Isn't HE doing a swell job of destroying America.
:rolleyes: Did you make this thread to talk about education, or to rant about the evil liberals?

[blutoski]

No, we do not agree.

"Some" was intended to dismiss the relatively large numbers.
It was your attempt to lend support to teachers' unions and
their hypocrisy.

I'm pretty sure you can't divine my intentions.

I was replying to a post where somebody else had misunderstood your post to have meant that there was a 'trend' which is not what you wrote - I was actually defending your position.

Lesson learned.







Far less "upset" than Leftists were about Dan Quayle's reading of "potatoe," which had been misspelled by a teacher. Naturally teachers and other Leftists everywhere attributed the ignorance to Dan Quayle, and laughed derisively at him.

At Barack Obama, for "Cinco de quatro", not so much.
At Barack Obama, for "I've been to like 57 states," not at all.
At Barack Obama, for his claim that your "insurance premiums could decrease by 3,000 percent," never.

Leftist ignorance never seems to show up in the major liberal media.
Not ABC, not CBS, not NBC, not CNN, not the New York Times, not USA Today, not Time, not Newsweek, not PBS.

But whenever George Bush slipped up, that was published, you betcha.

A conservative gaffe is used to brand the conservative as "stupid."
A liberal gaffe is trivialized, ignored, and brushed off, just as you did your own here.

? I'm not one of those people you describe above. Not sure what that has to do with this discussion. Just pointing out that I'd prefer to stick to the topic. It's not clear from the above if you agree.

[Weak Kitten]

I thought I made some good points about the unintended consequences of switching to a private system.

Vouchers will only work if there is some sort of price control to makes certain that in every area there is a school that can be completely paid for by the voucher. Otherwise we return to my earlier point of poor families being unable to pay leading to juvenile delinquency, a rise in crime and damage to the greater economic system.

Why do you hate capitalism? Why do you want to rob this country of a cheap, educated workforce?

[excaza]

I thought I made some good points about the unintended consequences of switching to a private system.

Vouchers will only work if there is some sort of price control to makes certain that in every area there is a school that can be completely paid for by the voucher. Otherwise we return to my earlier point of poor families being unable to pay leading to juvenile delinquency, a rise in crime and damage to the greater economic system.

Why do you hate capitalism? Why do you want to rob this country of a cheap, educated workforce?

Didn't you see? Obama! Clinton! Gore! Liberals! Hypocrisy!

[blutoski]

I thought I made some good points about the unintended consequences of switching to a private system.

Vouchers will only work if there is some sort of price control to makes certain that in every area there is a school that can be completely paid for by the voucher.

What I've seen in regions that use the voucher system is that they do market segment in such a way that the voucher is essentially price-setting.

That is: if the voucher is for $5,000/yr and a private school obtains efficiencies to operate at $4,000/yr, they will still be able to charge $5,000/yr because that's what most parents have in their pockets when they're shopping around.

My guess is that this would be common. Profits can be obtained through either increasing prices or decreasing costs. If a voucher creates a dominant price ceiling, these schools are highly motivated to control costs to increase their margins. ie: provide the minimum services necessary to preserve accreditation, and every penny withdrawn from providing education to children can be pocketed as dividends. The more the better.

And this is not specific to voucher systems or government initiatives... As an example, here in BC when an insurance company adds a rider for chiropractic treatments and limit it to a $50-per-visit and max 10 visits, chiropractors suddenly start charging $50-per-visit and say that the patient's complaint will take exactly 10 visits to treat. It's just ordinary product marketing.

[Weak Kitten]

What I've seen in regions that use the voucher system is that they do market segment in such a way that the voucher is essentially price-setting.

That is: if the voucher is for $5,000/yr and a private school obtains efficiencies to operate at $4,000/yr, they will still be able to charge $5,000/yr because that's what most parents have in their pockets when they're shopping around.

My guess is that this would be common. Profits can be obtained through either increasing prices or decreasing costs. If a voucher creates a cost ceiling, these schools are highly motivated to control costs to increase their margins. ie: provide the minimum services necessary to preserve accreditation.

Thank you. That is a well thought out and reasonable response to my questions and concerns.

It is nice to see that this did work out in some locations. I would like to see it tested in a variety of locations including impoverished areas before we turn over to a totally new system. However, I'm glad to see someone bring an actual successful test to the discussion.

Also, do not dismiss the value of sociology majors. They are often the ones who are trained to look for unintended consequences in systems. If you tell them what your rewards system is they will tell you the behavior you are likely to get, and sometimes it is not the behavior you actually wanted.

[uruk]

Please, please, enough with the "free-market forces at work."

1. Your pal, uruk, claims to have graduated Suma (SIC) cum laude:

"Yea, I want to work there. I've been teaching at a local community college for eleven years and my salary is only $60,000. And I graduated Suma cum laude "

Pretty funny. Roll your eyes on that one, physicist. Wow, miss hitting the "m" key a second time and they jump down your throat. You sound like my 5th grade english teacher.

2. You work 9 months, not 11 1/2. Adjust for that. You're good at math. I work year 'round jack. Ever heard of summer semesters? And I attend training semenars in the interim. My wife is getting upset because our vacations are usually postponed because of the training seminars.

3. Granted that physicists are much more intelligent than the average teacher. What then do you do to try to get rid of the dross? Nothing is probably a good guess. Your union won't let you do a damn thing. "No child left behind" is not the teacher's nor the union's fault. I believe a President with the initials H.W.B initiated that piece of crap legislation. teachers would love to fail a student who is not passing thier class, but you have to look at the reasons for the student's performance. is it the teachers fault or maybe it could be the student who rather text his/her buddies than listen to the teacher who is at fault. Special interest groups and parent's lawyers limit what the teacher can do to a student who is obstinate. And foolish legislation like what "No child left behind" degraded to means that teachers can't fail the student either. So why are you blaming the teacher for this?

If the student is failing all of his classes, then I'd say it is a fair bet that it is the student's fault. if all of a teachers students are failing, then I'd say maybe the teacher is at fault. The world is not a simple place. There could also be other reasons than the dumb student/bad teacher paradigm.

Kids are stuck with incompetents all over America. Incompetent teachers are usualy weeded out during the probation period. But nothing is perfect, some will get through, but these are a small percentage. You will run the gamut of poor to mediocre to superior teachers. We all can't be superior teachers just like we all can't be rich. So you want only superior teachers then? Ok how about only superior doctors and chemical engineers and CEO's and actors and musicians and politicians can only work. Would that peachy utopia be more to your liking? Good luck finding it.

4. Finally, why don't you put in your application for a job earning MORE than
$8,888.88 a month, plus all the cushy benefits teachers get. I'll bet you $10,000 you can't find such a job in 90 days. Come again? My pay check is only $3,000 a month.
Do you want to try the "cushy"'' job of teaching for a year or two? Be my guest.

See, I wagered two leftists a few years ago when they shot their mouths off.
The first was Ken Minyard, a retiring talk show host. He called all conservatives "stupid." I offered to pay for IQ tests for both of us, and the loser would pay the winner $10,000. Big Mouth Ken passed.

Then fat boy Josh Mankewicz of NBC, I believe, said the same thing in an e-mail to me. I made that offer to tubby, and he passed.

My last test came in at 135 or 140, I can't recall which. I guess that's what he got for painting people and professions with a broad brush, huh.

But as a chemical engineer, I have respect for other science grads. For education and sociology majors, feminist studies, ethnic studies, basket weaving, and so forth, not so much. So I guess the world should only be the way you want it to be. Sorry buddy but the world is far bigger and there are far more people in it than the world you have pictured in your head.

We all have to compromise.

[uruk]

"25% of public school teachers in Washington and Baltimore send their children to private schools." -

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2004/sep/22/20040922-122847-5968r/

Can't you teachers do ANY of your own homework?

Pathetic.

Grade "F" for all of you.

I think 25% percent of teachers in washington and Baltimore does not constitute all the teachers in the U.S. Thousands do, thousands more don't. Even if you look at Washinton and Baltimore only one quarter of teachers send thier kids to private school. 75% don't.

[Jeff Corey]

i'm not sure that teachers graduated in the bottom third of their class, but have seen data on the GRE scores of their education professors that are dismaying.

[Schrodinger's Cat]

I'll just bet you are.

Nobel Laureate Milton Friedman campaigned tirelessly on behalf of kids getting a better education. His interim solution was school vouchers.

Call it "school choice" - you know, like Bill and Hillary Clinton practiced, by sending Chelsea to Sidwell Friend's School.

By the way, Al and Tipper Gore sent their precious kids there as well.

And you'll NEVER guess where Barack Obama and Michelle "I've never been proud of America" send their kids.

Incidentally, isn't it the pinnacle of hypocrisy that thousands of public school teachers send their kids to... private schools...... while preaching exactly the opposite.

The two top ranked schools in Boston are Boston Latin and Brookline High, which are both public, but very well funded. They are also very high ranked on a national level. Now Boston Latin, you have to place into, and Brookline High is in a wealthy community. Isn't it likely that both funding of schools and the socioeconomic conditions the kids come from plays a huge part, and you are overhyping the "public" vs "private" aspect of it?

I went to public high school in a Boston suburb. My parents (who are very well off financially) looked into sending me to private school because we were Catholic and they liked the idea of me getting a Catholic education. Every private Catholic high school in the area was rated far lower than my public high school (which isn't to say they were bad, not just as good as ours). In fact, the only private school (not even Catholic) they could find that outranked my high school was a boarding school, and they didn't want to send me to boarding school. Thus, I stayed at public school, where I received an excellent education.

Massachusetts is very highly ranked in education because in our state we VALUE education. Us New Englanders are infamous bookworms who just love to learn. This is in both public and private schools. I'd put our top public schools against anything but the most elite private schools in many other states any day of the week.


Which isn't to say this is true across the board, or that there are no problems with public education, just to make that clear. I'm just arguing that being a private school doesn't inherently make you better than a public school, and that I find your argument that a well funded public school with a multitude of resources has no advantage over some dilapidated school where the kids are sharing a handful of decades old resources does not make sense to me, especially given my experience and knowledge of well funded Mass. public schools which are highly ranked and beat out private schools in the area.

I'm confused.

I took an art adult education course at Brookline High in Massachusetts, which is a public school, but in a wealthy community, and very well funded. This high school has up to date computer labs that trains students on a vast variety of computer pograms, with plenty of computers so each student can have their own during labs. They have scientific laborities with an enormous amounts of resources so that students are able to do a huge range of experiments. Their textbooks are up to date. For their arts program, they have an entire builing JUST for arts. It is loaded with many, many art supplies, like what you'd see at a small university, as well as a huge array of musical instruments. They also have a building just for sports, and they have a pool, a gym, a great field, and plenty of sports equipment to go around to all the students.

Is the OP honestly suggesting that this school has no advantage over a school in a ghetto that has five kids sharing one textbook that's ten years out of date, which has only a handful of out of date computers with no modern computer programs, and a school with little to know sports or arts resources because they simply can't afford it? Is he HONESTLY arguing a kid in a poor school where you've got 30 kids sharing 2 40 year old microscopes is not at a disadvantage compared to a student who has a wide array of modern scientific devices with which he can do advanced laboratory testing?

Of course money doesn't solve everything.

But, Jonathan, since you seem to be unaware of this fact, you should know that money can actually be exchanged for goods and services. These services include resources which are necessary to teach students things. You can lecture a kid on how to use JAVA all you want, but unless you have a computer to show them how to do it, it's probably not going to sink in.

any response to this?

[Alt+F4]

Come to think of it, if teaching in a public school were such a cushy job, as so many critics claim, then how come so few of these critics want to teach? They'd be fools not to take advantage of such a "cushy" situation, wouldn't they? :rolleyes:

Good point.

[Alt+F4]

Grade "F" for all of you.

Ha, ha, ha...be as jealous as you want to be. I have my $86,000 a year salary, 14 weeks paid vacation a year and a 7 hour work day.

[Lisa Simpson]

My sister-in-law who works serving lunches at a local school, got an email today saying the Orange County Register is doing a story on school employee salaries and under the FOIA, they are handing over all salary information from the district. Not by name, just position, years worked and salary. I expect the right-leaning paper is doing an "expose" on overpaid school employees. :rolleyes:

[stokes234]

I read through all of this, and made a tick on a piece of paper every time jonathan quick posted an alternative to public schools.

My blank piece of paper tells me he doesn't have a particularly strong case. Adios, thread.

[uruk]

"Share!" This is the siren song of the Left.
"Share!" WWJD? I mean, isn't it a christian ideal?

Except in giving kids a decent education, that is.

No sharing there. Only obeisance to teachers' unions. Sorry, I'm not union, niether is my wife. Her hands are tied by parents, lawyers, special interest groups, apathetic and corrupt school boards, and short sighted, simple minded, pie-in-the-sky legislation.

The dropout rate in inner city public schools is horrific, not that you give a damn. Actualy we do. But the reasons for the dropouts have more to do with socio-economic reasons than it does with the schools or teachers. The nuns do. Private schools do. And they do a far better job of educating kids. Hey it's nice not to have your hands tied by special interest groups, parents with lawyers and mindless legislation.

THAT is why public school teachers send THEIR kids to private schools, Do you think the amount of violence and drugs in the schools might also might also be a factor?

Are violence drugs and gang activity also the teachers and union's fault? Is the local economy the teachers fault? Is the local culture the teacher's fault? Are apathetic parents the teachers fault? Are children that are emotionaly disturbed due to domestic neglect and abuse the teacher's fault? Is learning disabilities due to fetal drug and alcohol syndrome the teachers fault? Is a student who gets no discipline at home and has no respect for authority the teachers fault?

Is everything wrong with the school system the sole fault of the teachers in your mind? You need to get a reality check and look at ALL the issues, not just cherry pick the ones that support your world view or agenda. Don't be so purposfully small minded.

The real world is a much more complex and complicated world than you can possibly concieve.

~snip~


"Selfless." Yeah. How "selfless" teachers are when they say one thing and do exactly the opposite, claiming that vouchers would cripple public education. You think being a teacher is a cushy, easy job? Then you have obviously never been a teacher.
Ever been yelled at nose to nose by a parent who is screaming at you that her little Johnny is failing because you are a bad teacher and that her Johnny is a saint would never neglect his homework and is a good boy dispite the fact that "little johnny" obstinately refuses to do any work, tears up assignements, habitualy skips class, constantly disprupts class and hurles epithets at you all class long and there is nothing you can do about it. ( Do you know what the definition of a sociopath is?)

You can't yell back at him, you can't administer corporal punishment, you can't fail him, you can't "shame' him, If you send him to the principal, the principal send him right back, The parent constantly ignores your request for interventions and meetings, Your write ups are ignored by the principal and administration, your only hope for peace is to have the kid take a swing at you so you can call security to remove the kid. That will at least postpone the inevitable parent complaints and threats of lawsuits and the coercement of administration for you to drop the assault charges, long enough for you to actually get some teaching done so the students who want to learn can learn. And all this is your day between the mountain of paper work you have to do by the end of the day.

And that is your day without any "thanks" from anyone. Even the good students.

How about teachers smoking up a storm all over the school grounds, while lecturing kids NOT to smoke... Where have you been for the past 10 years? Smoking is prohibited in schools. The only people who smoke in school are the students.

How about teachers eating crap, being overweight, and lecturing kids to do the opposite. I've never ran into any. It's usually the slim atheletic coaches and health teacher who lecture the students on eating habits.

Let me guess: You're a teacher, right? And you voted for Obama. Yes and no.
Isn't HE doing a swell job of destroying America. No worse than the one before him.

[SezMe]

Oh, boy. Some claims we can test and look at how meaningful they are.

1. We have TRIED increasing the funding in CURRENT DOLLARS for decades.

Source?

Their administrative staffs are bloated.

Source?

And they pay them too much.
Source? Define "too".

At my district, teachers top out at over $95,000 for 9 months work.
Source? for both the salary and 9 months. How many teachers make that rate? What percent is that?

What is the median salary? Starting salary? Why is max rate a better measure than statistics such as these?

Sickening, particularly when teachers graduate in the bottom third of their college classes, on average.

Source?

3. People don't advocate more money so much as teachers' unions do.
Now these unions have brainwashed parents and kids into standing on the corners for them, demanding higher funding and of course higher taxes to pay for it.

I'd ask for a source but "brainwashing" seems a bit nebulous to verify.

Good for you, JQ, for making clear, testable claims that we can use to assure ourselves that you are being factual.

[uruk]

~snip~
I went to public high school in a Boston suburb. My parents (who are very well off financially) looked into sending me to private school because we were Catholic and they liked the idea of me getting a Catholic education. Every private Catholic high school in the area was rated far lower than my public high school (which isn't to say they were bad, not just as good as ours). In fact, the only private school (not even Catholic) they could find that outranked my high school was a boarding school, and they didn't want to send me to boarding school. Thus, I stayed at public school, where I received an excellent education.

~snip~

Same with the Montessori schools in our area. My older brother's daughter goes to a Montressori school and she performs worse than my younger brother's daughter who is in public school and three grades lower than my older brother's daughter.

[excaza]

Every private Catholic high school in the area was rated far lower than my public high school (which isn't to say they were bad, not just as good as ours). In fact, the only private school (not even Catholic) they could find that outranked my high school was a boarding school, and they didn't want to send me to boarding school. Thus, I stayed at public school, where I received an excellent education.

Saint John's for the win! Although being a girl there might not work so well ;)

[Doubt]

Try a master's degree, and a "super max" designation.

You people really have to get together so you don't waste so much time on idle speculation.

I am still waiting for a source about the $95,000 salaries. Surly you have a source for this.

[excaza]

I am still waiting for a source about the $95,000 salaries. Surly you have a source for this.

As others have pointed out, it's not a surprising figure. It's almost certainly the result of both an advanced degree and a few decades of teaching experience. Regardless, it's far, far from the mean and to use it as a statistic is just dishonest.

[GreyArea]

Same with the Montessori schools in our area. My older brother's daughter goes to a Montressori school and she performs worse than my younger brother's daughter who is in public school and three grades lower than my older brother's daughter.

Uruk, to what do you attribute the difference? Do your brothers have different home environments as far as learning is concerned? Or is it something about Montessori schools?

[cwalner]

My sister-in-law who works serving lunches at a local school, got an email today saying the Orange County Register is doing a story on school employee salaries and under the FOIA, they are handing over all salary information from the district. Not by name, just position, years worked and salary. I expect the right-leaning paper is doing an "expose" on overpaid school employees. :rolleyes:

I grew up there, and I thought the public education was quite good. Similar to what SC said, OC is fairly affluent, so they get plenty of extra funding via booster clubs, PTA's, etc. Also considering the cost of living in OC, I would be surprised if they were not in the high end of salaries as well.

I also wonder why some people think that $60k-$100k is too much for somebody responsible for teaching our children? This is a profession that requires a bachelor's degree and additional education (and those level salaries typically require master's or higher). I can't think of any other profession that pays that little for that level of educational requirement.

[Doubt]

As others have pointed out, it's not a surprising figure. It's almost certainly the result of both an advanced degree and a few decades of teaching experience. Regardless, it's far, far from the mean and to use it as a statistic is just dishonest.

I still want the answer. I want to see what the average is for that district to see how badly distorted it really is. There is also the possibility that the numbers were pulled out of an orifice that does not see much daylight.

[Startz]

While on average teachers earn less than other college graduates, there are a small number of schoool districts that pay teachers fairly well. The median pay in Scarsdale, NY (an extremely affluent NYC suburb) was $116,000 as of a couple years ago.

If you look at student test scores, adjust for state median income, and compare against per student spending you find a slightly negative correlation. If you do the same looking at the effect of teacher salaries relative to median college-educated earnings in a state, you find a strong positive correlation. Although controlling for confounding variables is extraordinarily difficult, this does suggest that simply increasing spending is not terribly effective but that increasing teacher salaries does improve student outcomes.

[MattusMaximus]

Ha, ha, ha...be as jealous as you want to be. I have my $86,000 a year salary, 14 weeks paid vacation a year and a 7 hour work day.

Despite the insults slung around by the OP, I think it worth mentioning that I actually teach 11 months of the year. That's because I also teach every summer at the local community college, so I'm also a college professor in addition to being a high school instructor.

Yup, every year when we get to the last day of school (on a Friday) at my high school, I'm starting my preparations for my college course, which starts the following Monday. So my break is exactly... one weekend.

Wow, I'm such a slacker :rolleyes:

To the OP: have you ever taught?

[MattusMaximus]

I read through all of this, and made a tick on a piece of paper every time jonathan quick posted an alternative to public schools.

My blank piece of paper tells me he doesn't have a particularly strong case. Adios, thread.

Actually, to be fair, he did say that he thought school vouchers was a viable alternative. So he's NOT okay with public money going to public schools, but he is okay with taxpayer dollars going to private institutions. So if the taxpayers are still paying for it, how is it NOT "socialism", exactly?

Seems to me the OP just wants a different kind of socialism.

[MattusMaximus]

i'm not sure that teachers graduated in the bottom third of their class, but have seen data on the GRE scores of their education professors that are dismaying.

This is a valid criticism of the teacher education system, in my opinion. One area which is in dire need of reform is better standards for prospective teachers. I cannot tell you how sick I got of hearing other teaching candidates in my program going on about how education was "such an easy major."

Of course, they took the easy road, got a less than impressive degree, and now many cannot find work or got substandard positions. However, I - with my advanced degree (M.S. in physics) and community college experience (I started to teach at the CC level before I was certified at the HS level) - got a damn good teaching position because I was a good candidate who didn't take the easy, slacker road.

See? Within the parameters of the public education system, the free market works :)

To my earlier point about lousy teacher preparation in university programs, I think that is partly the fault of education professors who foster such a lackadaisical environment. Change is really needed at that level, but I don't know how to institute it.

[Craig4]

So publicly funded public schools are socialist and publicly funded (through vouchers) private schools aren't?

[Schrodinger's Cat]

"25% of public school teachers in Washington and Baltimore send their children to private schools." -

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2004/sep/22/20040922-122847-5968r/

Can't you teachers do ANY of your own homework?

Pathetic.

Grade "F" for all of you.

Wait a minute, I thought private schools didn't exist in the United States?

You did after all, say that public schools have a socialist monopoly on education.

Maybe you should learn what words mean before you use them in thread titles.

Also, how do you account for the fact that all the nations which outrank us in education also primarily use a public education program?

[Francesca R]

Nobel Laureate Milton Friedman campaigned tirelessly on behalf of kids getting a better education. His interim solution was school vouchers.Not only do you quote mine Friedman out of context; then you attribute something to the fellow that you can't support.

[Schrodinger's Cat]

By the way, Jonathan, for an FYI

There's simply no reason to be so nasty. I don't know if a liberal killed your puppy when you were a kid or something, but there's just no need for the sort of language and anger you have expressed since joining JREF.

This is supposed to be a place of learning and dialogue, and though discussions of course get animated, people like you who are intent on starting off angry, completely unprovoked, really poison the well and just unnecessarily spread negativity.


Just because someone thinks differently than you doesn't mean you have to hate them. I'm a tree hugging vegetarian left leaning agnostic married to a thestic, right leaning war veteran who was raised on a cattle ranch, and we are madly in love. I've always had plenty of friends on both sides of the political spectrum.

It really makes me sad when I encounter people like you who just have so much hate for people just because they think differently than you do.

The big difference between you and me is that though I'm left leaning and you obviously are hard right, I don't consider the connotation "right" to be an insult just because it doesn't represent my personal ideology.

[Weak Kitten]

Just because someone thinks differently than you doesn't mean you have to hate them. I'm a tree hugging vegetarian left leaning agnostic married to a thestic, right leaning war veteran who was raised on a cattle ranch, and we are madly in love. I've always had plenty of friends on both sides of the political spectrum.

Wow, that's great. Are you one of those nice vegetarians who lets others eat meat around them and doesn't make faces or anything? Actually, I've know a lot of vegetarians like that.

Myself, I married a registered Republican who works as an accountant for the county. He is a sad accountant because it seems that the leading Republicans currently have all the economic understanding of a rabbit in matting season. We often talk about hoping that the moderate Republicans will leave the party and form some sort of fiscal responsibility party.

Anyway, the point is that the posters here have diverse viewpoints and backgrounds. It is wrong to assume that everyone arguing to keep schools publicly funded is a raging liberal.

[Schrodinger's Cat]

Wow, that's great. Are you one of those nice vegetarians who lets others eat meat around them and doesn't make faces or anything? Actually, I've know a lot of vegetarians like that.


I cook meat for my husband all the time. :)

I don't think eating meat is in and of itself wrong, though I do think the conditions of factory farms are deplorable and morally wrong. My husband's family owns a wonderful free range black angus beef cattle ranch, and the cows are very well treated and have vast, wide open spaces to roam about in.

I personally love animals so much that I just don't want to eat them, but I don't think anyone else should feel compelled to feel that way.

I'm very much a "to each his own" kind of person.

And I also agree with you that it is quite silly to suggest that only liberals are for public education. I came from an upper middle class community with both liberals and conservatives alike, and there were plenty kids of conservatives at public school who could have easily been sent to private ones. It's just like, as I said earlier, our public school was simply better than any of the private ones around, minus Cushing Academy, the boarding school, so why would they have?

[JonathanQuick]

Despite the insults slung around by the OP, I think it worth mentioning that I actually teach 11 months of the year.

My wife was a teacher for years. Years. Teachers' contracts typically call for ~180 work days a year. Anything more than that, and you get extra pay, don't you.

Now as to "insults," I have attended school board meetings where teachers called anyone who didn't march in lockstep with them "Nazis."

Teachers always portray themselves as martyrs, "dedicated" is a favorite term. Ah yes, "dedicated." So unquantifiable, so immaterial. A "dedicated" incompetent is still worthless.

Now on to your next point(s).

That's because I also teach every summer at the local community college, so I'm also a college professor in addition to being a high school instructor.

Color me impressed. Ward Churchill was a college professor as well.
So is Nicholas DeGenova, of similar infamy. Oh and don't forget Bill Ayers, the terrorist.

Yup, every year when we get to the last day of school (on a Friday) at my high school, I'm starting my preparations for my college course, which starts the following Monday. So my break is exactly... one weekend.

Please, I need my hankerchief. You're making me cry. I mean, compared to those overpaid slackers in American uniforms in Iraq and Afghanistan, you're something very special.

Wow, I'm such a slacker :rolleyes:

To the OP: have you ever taught?

Have you ever earned combat pay, and heard incoming?

It is almost a requirement to be a card-carrying Leftist in order to teach.
All others are ostracized, not tolerated. They do not comport to the socialist mentality as so elegantly described by Harvard Professor, Ruth Wisse, in her Wall Street Journal article: The Herd of Independent Minds

[excaza]

Yeah, you're clearly interested in rational, civilized discussion.

[JonathanQuick]

By the way, Jonathan, for an FYI

There's simply no reason to be so nasty. I don't know if a liberal killed your puppy when you were a kid or something, but there's just no need for the sort of language and anger you have expressed since joining JREF.

Please, quote my nastiest language.

While I wait to read your impression of whatever I said that was so nasty, these are a few of my favorite compliments from Leftists:

"It used to be **** (rhymes with "Nick") and ****** (rhymes with "bigger"), but now it's 'tax cut'." - Charles Rangel, liberal, New York

"The extra chromosome right wing." - Former Vice President, Al Gore, who flunked out of Vanderbilt Divinity School

"fascists, Nazis, racists, greedy rich, flat earthers, brain dead, right wing religious extremists, anti-science...."



This is supposed to be a place of learning and dialogue, and though discussions of course get animated, people like you who are intent on starting off angry, completely unprovoked, really poison the well and just unnecessarily spread negativity.

I quoted a union boss, and a Nobel Laureate. Naturally their words infuriate you. Naturally. But hate speech from a fellow Lefty... not a blink from you.
Only complete agreement.

Where's your integrity?


Just because someone thinks differently than you doesn't mean you have to hate them. I'm a tree hugging vegetarian left leaning agnostic married to a thestic, right leaning war veteran who was raised on a cattle ranch, and we are madly in love. I've always had plenty of friends on both sides of the political spectrum.

And you've always thought of, if not called, Dan Quayle "stupid," and Ronald Reagan "stupid" and George Bush "stupid."

When have you EVER rebuked a fellow Leftist for their hate speech?

Be honest, all of you. Think about that one even if you cannot or will not answer it openly here.

It is your assignment for the day.

It really makes me sad when I encounter people like you who just have so much hate for people just because they think differently than you do.

Let me repeat: I opened by quoting a Nobel Laureate. You're calling a distinguished professor hateful? You're calling a teachers' union president hateful?

Wait a minute. On that last note, I really do agree with you. The only trouble is, Albert Shanker was behaving in a hateful manner towards the kids.

The big difference between you and me is that though I'm left leaning and you obviously are hard right, I don't consider the connotation "right" to be an insult just because it doesn't represent my personal ideology.

How about "neocon"?
How about "right wing religious extremist"?
How about "clinging to their Bibles and guns"?
You know, those things your beloved husband clings to?
The very things our Founding Fathers clung to.

And speaking of agnostics and their kindred, how about that love-child, Richard Dawkins, huh! Even his fellow evolutionist said, "Dawkins book, The God Delusion, makes me embarrassed to be an atheist."

"The Pope is evil." - atheist Richard Dawkins in one of his many e-mails to me

Truly a bitter, hateful, and very petty man, Dawkins. Oh, and a teacher.

[Cleon]

They do not comport to the socialist mentality as so elegantly described by Harvard Professor, Ruth Wisse, in her Wall Street Journal article: The Herd of Independent Minds

Weird, how teachers and professors are everything wrong with the world until you find one that agrees with you. You're not going to compare her with DeGenova, Ayers, or Churchill? I wonder why not. :rolleyes:

[excaza]

So, Jonathan, when did you want to dispense with your idiotic ranting and actually discuss education?

[Schrodinger's Cat]

Please, quote my nastiest language.




This was already done in #25, but I'll repost:


Originally Posted by JonathanQuick
Say, you're not a Democrat, are you?
Originally Posted by JonathanQuick
...facts matter little to those on the left.
Originally Posted by JonathanQuick
The left... ...One such leftist...
Originally Posted by JonathanQuick
...how the left reviled President Bush... But when a lefty does likewise...
Originally Posted by JonathanQuick
...typical of the left...
Originally Posted by JonathanQuick
...the left, which category clearly includes you...
Originally Posted by JonathanQuick
Yes indeed, condescension and arrogance are always "perfectly valid" to you leftists.
Originally Posted by JonathanQuick
The left is always eager to rewrite history.... ...too goofy for even leftists. ...whom leftists choose to ignore... Riddle me that, lefty.
Originally Posted by JonathanQuick
...any leftist or atheist... ...expect non-answers from the left. ...spin for the left...
Originally Posted by JonathanQuick
...your many leftist pals...
Originally Posted by JonathanQuick
...leftists and atheists put their words and their prejudices...
Originally Posted by JonathanQuick
...he classified himself as a liberal.... ...a "compassionate" (ha, ha, ha) liberal... ...liberal mantra...
Originally Posted by JonathanQuick
...leftists would use against me... ...which leftists pretend I cannot... ...He calls himself a liberal... ...liberal John Kerry...
A. San Franciscans make much, much more than Kansans, and
B. San Franciscans are liberals, and Kansans are conservatives.
Originally Posted by JonathanQuick
Leftists should read... ... and other lefties who are almost always quite hateful.
Originally Posted by JonathanQuick
...never a fellow liberal... ...a lifelong atheist...
Originally Posted by JonathanQuick
...The problem with leftists...
Originally Posted by JonathanQuick
"Public education is a socialist monopoly, a real one." - Milton Friedman
Originally Posted by JonathanQuick
...No, leftists are wrong. Barack Obama, the pathological narcissist and destructive socialist, is wrong.
Albert Einstein was wrong when he rejected science in favor of his atheist dogma.
Leftists who promote and support the butchering of innocent, unborn babies are not just wrong, but evil.
...the latest criminal enterprise of the greedy left...
Originally Posted by JonathanQuick
Spoken like a true liberal... ... liberal lessons...
Originally Posted by JonathanQuick
...the left has reviled and ridiculed... ...a LEFTIST, like you... ...your fellow leftists. ...double standard by the left? Ready, march: Left, left, left left left.
Originally Posted by JonathanQuick
...all marching in absolute lockstep...
Originally Posted by JonathanQuick
...your pal and fellow liberal...

Name-calling is the sine qua non of liberal argumentation....



It is truly sad that you throw out "left" as an insult. You seem to be downright obsessed with leftists. Using "left" as a perjorative indicates that you think merely not thinking like yourself is enough to denegrate someone.

I can't believe you don't classify your posted remarks as "nasty." Is it really just that you hate leftists so much that you think anything horrible you say about them is not offensive because it's simply true? It would be the equivilent of saying such things to Nazis, or the KKK, groups that are so horrible that any bad thing you say about them is appropriate because it is a given fact they are evil?



While I wait to read your impression of whatever I said that was so nasty, these are a few of my favorite compliments from Leftists:

"It used to be **** (rhymes with "Nick") and ****** (rhymes with "bigger"), but now it's 'tax cut'." - Charles Rangel, liberal, New York

"The extra chromosome right wing." - Former Vice President, Al Gore, who flunked out of Vanderbilt Divinity School

"fascists, Nazis, racists, greedy rich, flat earthers, brain dead, right wing religious extremists, anti-science...."





I quoted a union boss, and a Nobel Laureate. Naturally their words infuriate you. Naturally. But hate speech from a fellow Lefty... not a blink from you.
Only complete agreement.

Where's your integrity?




And you've always thought of, if not called, Dan Quayle "stupid," and Ronald Reagan "stupid" and George Bush "stupid."

When have you EVER rebuked a fellow Leftist for their hate speech?
Be honest, all of you. Think about that one even if you cannot or will not answer it openly here.

It is your assignment for the day.



Let me repeat: I opened by quoting a Nobel Laureate. You're calling a distinguished professor hateful? You're calling a teachers' union president hateful?

Wait a minute. On that last note, I really do agree with you. The only trouble is, Albert Shanker was behaving in a hateful manner towards the kids.



How about "neocon"?
How about "right wing religious extremist"?
How about "clinging to their Bibles and guns"?
You know, those things your beloved husband clings to?
The very things our Founding Fathers clung to.

And speaking of agnostics and their kindred, how about that love-child, Richard Dawkins, huh! Even his fellow evolutionist said, "Dawkins book, The God Delusion, makes me embarrassed to be an atheist."

"The Pope is evil." - atheist Richard Dawkins in one of his many e-mails to me

Truly a bitter, hateful, and very petty man, Dawkins. Oh, and a teacher.

There are few things more desperate than justifying your own hatred by pointing out that of others. Of course there are hateful people on the left. You ask, "When have you ever called out a felow leftist for their hate speach?"

Why do you assume that I don't? have you checked my entire posting history? I actually do this on a regular basis here on JREF when people write things which denegrate all religious people, or all right wingers. I don't think they're any less guilty of bad behavior than you are. I also comment negatively on stories posted on JREF about leftists making such offensive or inflamatory comments. For instance, recently there was a thread about how Dawkins even criticized the "X-Files" as being anti skeptic and pro-woo, and I wrote about how I think he has a serious victim mentality issue. I've never been a fan of Dawkins, never read any of his books, only a couple articles.

Again, you're bigotry is showing. you assume oh, I'm a leftist. That means I apologize for all leftists and never call out their hate speech, when actually, I do this very regularly, as my posting history shows.

Why does the fact that angry liberals exist somehow justify your own behavior? Since joining JREF, your posts have been nothing but angry and negative.

I could easily find just as hateful quotes by conservatives as you can by liberals, but I would never use that as an excuse to use "conservative" or "right" as a perjorative term, nor do I go on lengthy rants about how much I hate conservatives and blame them for everything.

So your response to negativitiy is to be as negative as possible? And to be negative to people here, who have nothing to do with Dawkins or Gore or any of those people? You decide that because you can find leftists who say nasty stuff, you owe it to the universe to hate all leftists? It's not like this somehow balances things out. All it does is create even more negativity.

I was beaten and sexually assaulted in college. I have absolutely no hatred in me for men simply because a minority of men commit sexual assaults and one did so to me. But you, all it takes is someone saying nasty names (and not even to you directly, just in general), and that's all it takes for you to hate all liberals, use the word left as if it equals evil, and makes you incapable of talking about anything else except how liberals are destroying the universe?

Do you think I have the right to beat and sexually assault men, because one did so to me? Would the man who assaulted me have been justified if he had even been abused by a woman?

If not, how can you argue that a few liberals saying bad things makes it okay for you to be a mean, hateful person to all liberals?

Seriously man, the people here have nothing to do with any of the people whose quotes you put up here. Al Gore and Dawkins mean nothing to me. Al Gore I don't have any feelings towards one way or another, Dawkins I actively don't like. I can find stuff ten times worse from Limbaugh and Glenn Beck and a million other right wingers, and I don't go around saying "this is how all rightists act" "the greedy right" "Yes indeed, condescension and arrogance are always "perfectly valid" to you rightests."

The people who are most vocal on either side of the political isle are, in general, the least representative of the majority of viewpoints. Most people, right, left, in between, are moderates. But moderates don't get news stories about them because they don't use inflammatory language which causes the media to take notice. The fact that you go out of your way to search for the most offensive aspects of the left and then use that as justification to paint ALL leftists as arrogant and condenscending and greedy is just very very sad.

Also, your point about don't I care about people insulting my husband with being denegrated by leftists. My husband has lived in Massachusetts for years, in one of the most liberal areas of not only Massachusetts in the nation. He is very vocal about his political views. He has never been treated with anything but respect by any liberals he has encountered. He has never been insulted. He has never received anything but accolades and appreciation for his military service. So I don't need to worry about him, because thankfully, out of the hundreds of liberals he has spoken with regarding his political views, not a one of them has been the left wing version of you.

But guess who threatened to disown him and called him a disgrace when he got home from Iraq and decided he no longer supported the war effort and thought Iraq had been a horrible mistake? Guess who told him he was a traitor and a failure because he had a political opinion which differed from their own? His conservative parents.

If the fact that "someone in their group said something offensive" is all it takes to make you hate a group in total, why don't you hate the right, as you could just as easily find equally offensive statements on their side as well?

Why do you hate, Jonathan? Why is it that I can get beaten and assaulted and not have one ounce of bitterness in me, but you can't hear some news story about some leftist saying something stupid without going apoplectic and becoming enraged at all leftists?

[Schrodinger's Cat]

By the way, I expect an apology for you saying I never call out leftists when I do this all the time. If you demand proof, let me know and I will easily post you the dozens if not hundreds of posts I have written doing so, both calling out leftist posters for their hate speech, and condemning hate speech posted here on JREF that is attributed to leftist figures.

Also, you seem to assume that no leftists do this, ever. I can provide plenty of posts not just from myself, but from fellow leftists calling out other leftists for saying inflamatory and hateful things about the right.

You owe this forum an apology. You are a new member here and you know nothing about us. You've just decided, in your bigotry, that simply knowing we are leftists means you know everything about us and how we operate.

This is not some MSNBC or Fox News message board. This is a web site for critical thinkers. Though we do, unfortunately, get people like you from both sides of the political isle, there are plenty of right wingers here who defend leftists against hate speech by the right, and plenty of leftists who defend right wingers against hate speech by the left. I can also find plenty of religious people defending non religious people, and I can find non religious people defending religious people.

Recently there was an atheist member who made a public apology and temporarily quit JREF because he had made some very offensive statements against all Christians, and he was so thoroughly chastised by other JREFers (some of his loudest detractors being atheists) that he felt shamed at his behavior.


Which again, is why it makes me sad when people like you insist on joining up on JREF. You don't appreciate the atmosphere of respect and dialogue we seek to accomplish here, and you want to turn this place into some juvenile cable news political showdown.

Please stop trying to ruin this web site. We haven't done anything to you, we don't deserve the vitriol you are dispensing here.

[This forum] is SUPPOSED to consist of intelligent discussions, not petty name-calling...


Are you serious? You've got less than 50 posts on JREF, and yet we were able to identify you insulting leftists just for being leftists over two dozen times. You posting history here is 100% negative and insulting. What's more, you are a liar who states that all us leftists have never called out other leftists, and that we are "in complete agreement" with any leftist hate speech we hear. You don't even have 50 posts, and those posts consist of little more than name calling and lying, and you have the nerve to lecture others about intelligent discussions?

[Craig4]

"25% of public school teachers in Washington and Baltimore send their children to private schools." -

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2004/sep/22/20040922-122847-5968r/

Can't you teachers do ANY of your own homework?

Pathetic.

Grade "F" for all of you.

You may be making an unfounded assumption about the value any of us place in your assessment. So about that alternative, will you be offering one?

[MattusMaximus]

<... garbled crazy rant deleted... >

It is almost a requirement to be a card-carrying Leftist in order to teach.
All others are ostracized, not tolerated. They do not comport to the socialist mentality as so elegantly described by Harvard Professor, Ruth Wisse, in her Wall Street Journal article: The Herd of Independent Minds

Wow, you should tell that to all of my colleagues who identify openly as conservative Republicans, with some of whom I have very good personal relationships. Who also, by the way, support the union.

I guess they're just "traitors" :rolleyes:

[MattusMaximus]

You may be making an unfounded assumption about the value any of us place in your assessment. So about that alternative, will you be offering one?

His solution is school vouchers - which is another form of socialism. Take money from the taxpayers and have the government give it to private institutions, but the source is still compulsory payments by the taxpayers.

Hence, according to his own arguments, it is socialism :)

[MattusMaximus]

Have you ever earned combat pay, and heard incoming?

If I answered "yes", would you cease ranting against teachers & their unions?

I didn't think so.

Besides, I didn't know the subject of this thread had anything to do with the military or combat scenarios.

[Craig4]

His solution is school vouchers - which is another form of socialism. Take money from the taxpayers and have the government give it to private institutions, but the source is still compulsory payments by the taxpayers.

Hence, according to his own arguments, it is socialism :)

Oh sorry, I meant another solution since his solution still smacks of socialism.

[Vorticity]

Have you ever earned combat pay, and heard incoming?

You ever dance with the devil in the pale moonlight?

You ever seen a grown man naked?

[Cleon]

Have you ever been in a Turkish prison?

[Vorticity]

Oh, by the way, just out of curiosity since I was a physics major at UCSB:


Incidentally, I found it extremely bad judgment on your part when you hatefully attacked the emeritus physics professor at UC Santa Barbara.

Extremely bad judgment.

What's this about, then?

[Schrodinger's Cat]

If I answered "yes", would you cease ranting against teachers & their unions?

I didn't think so.

Besides, I didn't know the subject of this thread had anything to do with the military or combat scenarios.

For what it's worth, my husband is a conservative who has heard incoming fire and has been at war.

He is in favor of public education.

And he would think Jonathan's anti liberal rants are disgusting and frankly disturbing. His battle buddy and best friend is a hard core liberal, and his wife is a left leaning moderate.

[uruk]

Uruk, to what do you attribute the difference? Do your brothers have different home environments as far as learning is concerned? Or is it something about Montessori schools?

My older brother is a college educated veteran who works in the aerospace industry. His wife has a masters in fine arts and teaches at a local university. His wife even taught art at the Montessori school herself. Although there may be issues with my brother being away from home for long periods of time his daughter seems relativly well adjusted. His wife said that the majority of the teachers at the Montessori do not have degrees and teaching certificates. They recieve low pay and do not follow any form of standardized curriculum.

It seems the school may be a scam by the person who runs it. So far no governmental body has come in to deal with the situation. The parents don't complain because the children never seem to fail thier courses. My neice passes her classes with "A"s dispite the fact that she can't read and do math properly.

My younger brother is a help desk jocky for well known telecommunication company and has only a highschool education. But he is a diciplinarian and ecourages and participates in his son's and daughter's education. He's there for all the parent/teachers meetings and cracks the whip on them doing thier homework.

[Craig4]

Have you ever earned combat pay, and heard incoming?



As it happens I'm married to a public school teacher who has done both those things. I'm not a teacher but I've also done both those things. Neither of us are impressed by this question.

[ThermionicScott]

So, no real solution yet, but an "interim" one that subsidizes private schools with public money. Consider me unswayed. :rolleyes:

- Scott

[uruk]

It seems to me that JQ is regurgitating the usual teaparty bullet items.
I've hear it all the time on talk radio. Cirticizim, criticizim, criticizim, but no alternatives or solutions. It seems they like the status quo.

And it worries me when some cry for Constitutional oringinalisim. Exactly how far back do they want to go with the Constitution? Pre-fourteenth admendment?

[excaza]

It seems to me that JQ is regurgitating the usual teaparty bullet items.
I've hear it all the time on talk radio. Cirticizim, criticizim, criticizim, but no alternatives or solutions. It seems they like the status quo.

And it worries me when some cry for Constitutional oringinalisim. Exactly how far back do they want to go with the Constitution? Pre-fourteenth admendment?

Single classroom schools, I guess.

[Craig4]

Reading the rants on other boards about creationism I suspect this has a lot to do with his objection to his children being taught science.

[excaza]

Unfortunately for him, they teach evolution in private schools too.

doh

[Shalamar]

Unfortunately for him, they teach evolution in private schools too.

doh

You should see his rants over in the religion section in regards to evolution.

They're exactly the same rants as in this thread. Non-stop bile against 'leftists'.

[MattusMaximus]

This is a valid criticism of the teacher education system, in my opinion. One area which is in dire need of reform is better standards for prospective teachers. I cannot tell you how sick I got of hearing other teaching candidates in my program going on about how education was "such an easy major."

Of course, they took the easy road, got a less than impressive degree, and now many cannot find work or got substandard positions. However, I - with my advanced degree (M.S. in physics) and community college experience (I started to teach at the CC level before I was certified at the HS level) - got a damn good teaching position because I was a good candidate who didn't take the easy, slacker road.

See? Within the parameters of the public education system, the free market works :)

To my earlier point about lousy teacher preparation in university programs, I think that is partly the fault of education professors who foster such a lackadaisical environment. Change is really needed at that level, but I don't know how to institute it.

Ironically, here I am - a teacher on the inside looking out - and I'm providing what I feel to be a legitimate criticism of the profession, yet JQ says nothing in response to this criticism. He doesn't even take the time to agree or disagree.

Guess he's just too busy saving the world from "socialism", eh?

[MattusMaximus]

Oh, by the way, just out of curiosity since I was a physics major at UCSB:

What's this about, then?

He's probably referring to this post on the global warming thread (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=6446568&postcount=688), and here's my response to it. (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=6447527&postcount=695) Apparently, he didn't like my criticism of Lewis's nutbag claims.

</derail>

[Schrodinger's Cat]

Ironically, here I am - a teacher on the inside looking out - and I'm providing what I feel to be a legitimate criticism of the profession, yet JQ says nothing in response to this criticism. He doesn't even take the time to agree or disagree.

Guess he's just too busy saving the world from "socialism", eh?

Yes Matt, but have you ever slept in a foxhole with the sound of incoming fire echoing around you?

That's what's REALLY relevent to this conversation.

[Praktik]

Oh and don't forget Bill Ayers, the terrorist.


Yes. Let's never forget Bill Ayers. I'm sure your ilk will be around to ensure we don't for some time yet...:)

[GreyArea]

This was already done in #25, but I'll repost
Thanks for the citation, Schrodinger's Cat. :) I think I could add a few more now, but the point is made.

My older brother is....
And thanks, Uruk, for answering my questions.


Have you ever earned combat pay, and heard incoming?
And you've always thought of, if not called, Dan Quayle "stupid," and Ronald Reagan "stupid" and George Bush "stupid."
...
How about "neocon"?
How about "right wing religious extremist"?
How about "clinging to their Bibles and guns"?
Hey, Jonathan, it looks like you're running low on litmus paper. Here's a new pack of strips for you.

http://www.scientificsonline.com/media/catalog/product/cache/2/image/348x/9df78eab33525d08d6e5fb8d27136e95/3/0/3021313_1.jpg

By the way, I learned about them in public school.


Oh, and remember to apologize to the Cat (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=6466023&postcount=137).

[Praktik]

Have you ever been in a Turkish prison?

"Jimmy, you ever watch gladiator movies?"

[uruk]

Ironically, here I am - a teacher on the inside looking out - and I'm providing what I feel to be a legitimate criticism of the profession, yet JQ says nothing in response to this criticism. He doesn't even take the time to agree or disagree.

Guess he's just too busy saving the world from "socialism", eh?

The "easy" education degree road is an attempt to fill in teaching position with any swinging "you-know-whats" they can find. My wife tells me tales of a woefully incompetent business major who lucked in on an accellorated education certificate program. The poor woman can barely read much less teach. She is not going to make it past her probation period.

That is another issue with the education system. There is a shortage of teachers and budgets in economically depressed school districts. teachers are regularly finding themselves with classes that have 60 to 100 students in them and no budget to hire more teachers. Teachers burnout fast and hard and new teacher candidates are few and far between. Some who do thier internships decide quickly they don't want to teach. And in come the outsourced teachers from India and the Phillipines.

[uruk]

Yes Matt, but have you ever slept in a foxhole with the sound of incoming fire echoing around you?

That's what's REALLY relevent to this conversation.

My wife has had students take swings, and throw wadded up assignments, textbooks, and epithets at her. Does that count?

I had another friend who taught at a juvenile detention center have a student thrown a desk at her.

War ha! Try dealing with 60 emotionaly disturbed special ed students.

[excaza]

I am very glad to have participated in this thread. Jonathan has provided a very convincing alternative to the current public school system.

[Schrodinger's Cat]

Class is in session.

1. I quoted the late Professor Milton Friedman, a Nobel Laureate in economics. HE said public education is a socialist monopoly.
Do you think perhaps HE knows something about socialism and monopolies?

2. www.dictionary.com

monopoly - n., exclusive control of a commodity or service in a particular market, or a control that makes possible the manipulation of prices.


Teachers' unions have been artificially manipulating prices for decades - decades, even as productivity has fallen, and administrative costs have skyrocketed, relative of course to the rest of educational skyrocketing.




They're socialist too, aren't they. I have never once advocated doing away with public education. Your pretense to the contrary is anti-intellectual.

Maybe you should learn what sentences mean before you respond to them.

I can't be spending all this time on teaching you and explaining such trivia.

Lots of other folks have issues I must address. Yours seem to be the most, well, the most jejune, shall we say.


So no apology to me and other forum members for lying about us and trying to wreck the forum with your negativity and hateful demeanor, then?

I put a lot of thought into writing you two separate posts regarding your behavior here, and how this forum operates, and how you saying myself and other leftists here go along with the hate speech of liberals is nothing more than a lie. I talked about personal experiences regarding myself and my husband. But you completely ignored all that.


My posts to you were not naive, they were well thought out. But you ignored those well thought out posts, picked on one brief comment I made, and labeled me jejune. And really, considering the hysterical nature of your rants, my response to your posts here was a lot more considerate and mature than you deserve.

I deserve an apology, and so do other forum members here. You have been nothing but hateful and hysterical, and you are a liar.

You are not only a liar, you are a hypocrite. You are, quite frankly, the worst and most offensive troll we've had on here in awhile, and you lecture others on intellectual integrity.

You demand to know the combat experience of others as if this in some way affects their ability to have opinions on the education system, yet you call ME jejune.

Also as far as "I have never once advocated doing away with public education" Well then I simply misunderstood you because you consistantly refused to clarify your position. People asked you exactly what you were talking about and what your position was, and someone pointed out that Friedman was in favor of public education, and you never responded to that. Considering the nature of your OP, and the fact that you refused to claridy your position because instead you decided writing YOU GET AN F in big red letters and screaming SOCIALISM about a hundred times would be enough to clarify your position, but it wasn't. Maybe if you were able to present yourself in a clear and coherent manner rather than screaming LIBERALS SOCILAISM LIBERALS SOCIALISM and pointedly ignoring questions asking for clarification, I would have been better able to understand your point. Now that you say you AREN'T against public education, I simply have no idea what your point is.

I also wrote you a considerably well thought out point about public schools and how funding has affected them in Massachusetts, and you ignored those posts as well. Had you responded to them and better clarified your position, I would know what your position IS. At this point, I simply have no idea what you're driving at.

Except I do know what you're driving at. You hate us, because you refuse to think like you. That is the only point this thread ever had, or any of your posts have. We get it, you hate us. You think every single liberal is a greedy, conciousless, arrogant, blah blah blah whatever million other bad things you've said. You think your hatred justifies you lying about us.

We get the point, okay. WE GET IT.


Can you leave JREF now and go to some political blog where such hateful hysterics are more enjoyed by people there?

[Schrodinger's Cat]

This was already done in #25, but I'll repost:



It is truly sad that you throw out "left" as an insult. You seem to be downright obsessed with leftists. Using "left" as a perjorative indicates that you think merely not thinking like yourself is enough to denegrate someone.

I can't believe you don't classify your posted remarks as "nasty." Is it really just that you hate leftists so much that you think anything horrible you say about them is not offensive because it's simply true? It would be the equivilent of saying such things to Nazis, or the KKK, groups that are so horrible that any bad thing you say about them is appropriate because it is a given fact they are evil?



There are few things more desperate than justifying your own hatred by pointing out that of others. Of course there are hateful people on the left. You ask, "When have you ever called out a felow leftist for their hate speach?"

Why do you assume that I don't? have you checked my entire posting history? I actually do this on a regular basis here on JREF when people write things which denegrate all religious people, or all right wingers. I don't think they're any less guilty of bad behavior than you are. I also comment negatively on stories posted on JREF about leftists making such offensive or inflamatory comments. For instance, recently there was a thread about how Dawkins even criticized the "X-Files" as being anti skeptic and pro-woo, and I wrote about how I think he has a serious victim mentality issue. I've never been a fan of Dawkins, never read any of his books, only a couple articles.

Again, you're bigotry is showing. you assume oh, I'm a leftist. That means I apologize for all leftists and never call out their hate speech, when actually, I do this very regularly, as my posting history shows.

Why does the fact that angry liberals exist somehow justify your own behavior? Since joining JREF, your posts have been nothing but angry and negative.

I could easily find just as hateful quotes by conservatives as you can by liberals, but I would never use that as an excuse to use "conservative" or "right" as a perjorative term, nor do I go on lengthy rants about how much I hate conservatives and blame them for everything.

So your response to negativitiy is to be as negative as possible? And to be negative to people here, who have nothing to do with Dawkins or Gore or any of those people? You decide that because you can find leftists who say nasty stuff, you owe it to the universe to hate all leftists? It's not like this somehow balances things out. All it does is create even more negativity.

I was beaten and sexually assaulted in college. I have absolutely no hatred in me for men simply because a minority of men commit sexual assaults and one did so to me. But you, all it takes is someone saying nasty names (and not even to you directly, just in general), and that's all it takes for you to hate all liberals, use the word left as if it equals evil, and makes you incapable of talking about anything else except how liberals are destroying the universe?

Do you think I have the right to beat and sexually assault men, because one did so to me? Would the man who assaulted me have been justified if he had even been abused by a woman?

If not, how can you argue that a few liberals saying bad things makes it okay for you to be a mean, hateful person to all liberals?

Seriously man, the people here have nothing to do with any of the people whose quotes you put up here. Al Gore and Dawkins mean nothing to me. Al Gore I don't have any feelings towards one way or another, Dawkins I actively don't like. I can find stuff ten times worse from Limbaugh and Glenn Beck and a million other right wingers, and I don't go around saying "this is how all rightists act" "the greedy right" "Yes indeed, condescension and arrogance are always "perfectly valid" to you rightests."

The people who are most vocal on either side of the political isle are, in general, the least representative of the majority of viewpoints. Most people, right, left, in between, are moderates. But moderates don't get news stories about them because they don't use inflammatory language which causes the media to take notice. The fact that you go out of your way to search for the most offensive aspects of the left and then use that as justification to paint ALL leftists as arrogant and condenscending and greedy is just very very sad.

Also, your point about don't I care about people insulting my husband with being denegrated by leftists. My husband has lived in Massachusetts for years, in one of the most liberal areas of not only Massachusetts in the nation. He is very vocal about his political views. He has never been treated with anything but respect by any liberals he has encountered. He has never been insulted. He has never received anything but accolades and appreciation for his military service. So I don't need to worry about him, because thankfully, out of the hundreds of liberals he has spoken with regarding his political views, not a one of them has been the left wing version of you.

But guess who threatened to disown him and called him a disgrace when he got home from Iraq and decided he no longer supported the war effort and thought Iraq had been a horrible mistake? Guess who told him he was a traitor and a failure because he had a political opinion which differed from their own? His conservative parents.

If the fact that "someone in their group said something offensive" is all it takes to make you hate a group in total, why don't you hate the right, as you could just as easily find equally offensive statements on their side as well?

Why do you hate, Jonathan? Why is it that I can get beaten and assaulted and not have one ounce of bitterness in me, but you can't hear some news story about some leftist saying something stupid without going apoplectic and becoming enraged at all leftists?



By the way, I expect an apology for you saying I never call out leftists when I do this all the time. If you demand proof, let me know and I will easily post you the dozens if not hundreds of posts I have written doing so, both calling out leftist posters for their hate speech, and condemning hate speech posted here on JREF that is attributed to leftist figures.

Also, you seem to assume that no leftists do this, ever. I can provide plenty of posts not just from myself, but from fellow leftists calling out other leftists for saying inflamatory and hateful things about the right.

You owe this forum an apology. You are a new member here and you know nothing about us. You've just decided, in your bigotry, that simply knowing we are leftists means you know everything about us and how we operate.

This is not some MSNBC or Fox News message board. This is a web site for critical thinkers. Though we do, unfortunately, get people like you from both sides of the political isle, there are plenty of right wingers here who defend leftists against hate speech by the right, and plenty of leftists who defend right wingers against hate speech by the left. I can also find plenty of religious people defending non religious people, and I can find non religious people defending religious people.

Recently there was an atheist member who made a public apology and temporarily quit JREF because he had made some very offensive statements against all Christians, and he was so thoroughly chastised by other JREFers (some of his loudest detractors being atheists) that he felt shamed at his behavior.


Which again, is why it makes me sad when people like you insist on joining up on JREF. You don't appreciate the atmosphere of respect and dialogue we seek to accomplish here, and you want to turn this place into some juvenile cable news political showdown.

Please stop trying to ruin this web site. We haven't done anything to you, we don't deserve the vitriol you are dispensing here.



Are you serious? You've got less than 50 posts on JREF, and yet we were able to identify you insulting leftists just for being leftists over two dozen times. You posting history here is 100% negative and insulting. What's more, you are a liar who states that all us leftists have never called out other leftists, and that we are "in complete agreement" with any leftist hate speech we hear. You don't even have 50 posts, and those posts consist of little more than name calling and lying, and you have the nerve to lecture others about intelligent discussions?

What is your response to this, JQ? I will keep posting this until I get a response and an apology.

[Schrodinger's Cat]

How many times did you laugh and guffaw right along with your liberal friends as they derided Dan Quayle, or George Bush for being "stupid"?

Don't answer. You won't give an honest answer.



"Hate" is your word. Like Leftists on any message board, you misconstrue what I say, put words in my mouth, misspell, pretend that Leftists are sugar and spice and everything nice, and never, ever concede a single grain of a point I make.
I quote you chapter and verse, and then respond, and you blather nonsense.
It's quite wearying. I shan't do it much more.





No, I didn't use those exact words. You see, you can't even copy accurately.

I would say "contempt" is the appropriate feeling I have for Leftists, pathological liars and hypocrites, overall.



Bravo. Good for you. Good start. Now keep it up. I take on Republicans when appropriate. They just don't seem to call me "fascist" and "racist" and "Nazi" and "stupid." It's the gentle, loving Leftists who do that.



Again, your intellectualism is showing.



Sorry, I hadn't noticed. All I read of you is misspellings and your condemnations of every word I say, confounded by your own misunderstandings and projections, particularly of "hate".








Respond to Albert Shanker, please. Tell me about all the wonderful things HE did for kids.




This is a thread on "Education" and the "people here" are completely cut off from Albert Shanker and Milton Friedman?

Strange, no?



Bush is the world's #1 terrorist.
Bush is stupid.
Hey, to hear Leftists, those aren't hateful at all. No, they're "true."


Now please be so kind, so benevolent, so wonderful (as you have been arguing on behalf of yourself) that you take a few posts and argue with somebody else here besides me. Someone who, say, is too lazy to look up elementary data and post it in support of the deplorable state of public education in America today.

Here's a very interesting question for all of you to consider.
And please, no quick internet searches.
If you can't answer off the top of your head, or make an educated guess,
say nothing.

What is the strongest correlate to educational achievement?

Every teacher should know this, but I have yet to meet one who does.
I believe the physicist will get closest to it, but I'm quite sure he will miss it.


Again, you are a liar. I repeatedly said that we get plenty of nasty leftists here, and I go after them as I am after you now. But you state "you pretend liberals are sugar and spice and everything nice." I do not think liberals have any more morality or honesty as a group that conservatives do. I do not think liberals are better in any way than conservatives. I think conservatives and liberals are both people, and that's that. I certainly do not think Liberals are sugar and spice and everything nice, and I talked about, extensively, how I recognize the misdeeds of liberals just as much as I do of conservatives.

Is it possible for you to write a post without lying?

Originally Posted by JonathanQuick
Say, you're not a Democrat, are you?
Originally Posted by JonathanQuick
...facts matter little to those on the left.
Originally Posted by JonathanQuick
The left... ...One such leftist...
Originally Posted by JonathanQuick
...how the left reviled President Bush... But when a lefty does likewise...
Originally Posted by JonathanQuick
...typical of the left...
Originally Posted by JonathanQuick
...the left, which category clearly includes you...
Originally Posted by JonathanQuick
Yes indeed, condescension and arrogance are always "perfectly valid" to you leftists.
Originally Posted by JonathanQuick
The left is always eager to rewrite history.... ...too goofy for even leftists. ...whom leftists choose to ignore... Riddle me that, lefty.
Originally Posted by JonathanQuick
...any leftist or atheist... ...expect non-answers from the left. ...spin for the left...
Originally Posted by JonathanQuick
...your many leftist pals...
Originally Posted by JonathanQuick
...leftists and atheists put their words and their prejudices...
Originally Posted by JonathanQuick
...he classified himself as a liberal.... ...a "compassionate" (ha, ha, ha) liberal... ...liberal mantra...
Originally Posted by JonathanQuick
...leftists would use against me... ...which leftists pretend I cannot... ...He calls himself a liberal... ...liberal John Kerry...
A. San Franciscans make much, much more than Kansans, and
B. San Franciscans are liberals, and Kansans are conservatives.
Originally Posted by JonathanQuick
Leftists should read... ... and other lefties who are almost always quite hateful.
Originally Posted by JonathanQuick
...never a fellow liberal... ...a lifelong atheist...
Originally Posted by JonathanQuick
...The problem with leftists...
Originally Posted by JonathanQuick
"Public education is a socialist monopoly, a real one." - Milton Friedman
Originally Posted by JonathanQuick
...No, leftists are wrong. Barack Obama, the pathological narcissist and destructive socialist, is wrong.
Albert Einstein was wrong when he rejected science in favor of his atheist dogma.
Leftists who promote and support the butchering of innocent, unborn babies are not just wrong, but evil.
...the latest criminal enterprise of the greedy left...
Originally Posted by JonathanQuick
Spoken like a true liberal... ... liberal lessons...
Originally Posted by JonathanQuick
...the left has reviled and ridiculed... ...a LEFTIST, like you... ...your fellow leftists. ...double standard by the left? Ready, march: Left, left, left left left.
Originally Posted by JonathanQuick
...all marching in absolute lockstep...
Originally Posted by JonathanQuick
...your pal and fellow liberal...

If you do not see this as hateful, than you have serious issues. If you don't think making over two dozen scathing insulting references in a matter of less than 50 posts reflects a hatred of liberals, then all I can say is that you were raised with very different values than I was.


Hey, to hear Leftists, those aren't hateful at all. No, they're "true."

No, they aren't. Stop telling me what I think. I do not think these things are true.

And again, you say that because some people (never myself, mind you) called Bush a terrorist, this somehow makes your comments not hateful? As if hate negates hate.

Also, as to your Bush being stupid thing...

let me tell you a little story about my liberal family. When Bush was running, a friend of mine was over who made a comment about Bush being stupid. Do you know what my mother said to him, quite sternly, "He is not stupid. He may not be the most erudite individual, but he is not stupid. You don't get where he is, even with his connections, by being stupid." I challenge you to find me ever agreeing with a liberal here who called Bush stupid, because it never would have happened.

Jonathan, why do you insist on lying so frequently, especially when these lies can be so easily pointed out to you? Anyone here can see my posts saying how I dislike nasty liberals as much as nasty right wingers, and I think they poison the well as much as people like you do, and that I call them out when I see them. Yet you said that I said they are sugar and spice and everything nice.

I take on Republicans when appropriate. They just don't seem to call me "fascist" and "racist" and "Nazi" and "stupid." It's the gentle, loving Leftists who do that.

Of course they don't, because they agree with you. But I could find a million references of them calling people who don't agree with them those exact words (nazi, fascist, etc). As I said, my husband has never once been met with the least bit of contempt in our uber liberal community for being a conservative, but he was called a traitor and a failure and condemned by his own CONSERVATIVE parents for simply disagreeing with them on a political point (the war). Also, I went to college in the south. I know several people who were disowned by their conservative parents for no other reason than they were no longer conservatives. (though again, my point isn't that only conservatives do bad nasty things, only that they do them with as much frequency as liberals do).


I would say "contempt" is the appropriate feeling I have for Leftists, pathological liars and hypocrites, overall.

So you must really hate yourself then, musn't you?

You have lied about me frequently. You also blast liberals who condemn even a SINGLE conservative, yet you then condemn ALL liberals. That is hypocracy.

You are a hypocite.

You are a liar.

You state you have contempt for me because I am a leftist? Why is that? I work at a non profit cancer hospital, one of the top ranked in the world, as a matter of fact, and run by Harvard University. I was an excellent student and I'm currently in grad school. I pay my taxes. I have voted for Republicans in the past because I thought they would honestly doing a better job than the democrat who was running. I even CAMPAIGNED for a Republican gubanatorial candidate once. I volunteer frequently. I am the proud wife of a veteran. I have worked in third world orphanages. I am a former Catholic who, while no longer practicing, still participates with religious organizations, and donates to them as well, and has a great deal of respect for religon in general (even if certain religious practices and dogma upset me).

I was raised in a well off, liberal, devoutly Catholic family. My parents are big philanthropists. They also have voted Republican when Republicans were genuinely the better candidate. My parents did foster care. They have given enormous amounts of money to charity and raised me to be nothing but conscious of my community. They had me volunteering in soup kitchens at the age of 11 so I could start learning about helping the less fortunate. They raised me to be keenly aware of my duties to my country and my community. They also have many conservative friends and highly respect them. I was NEVER taught that Republicans were bad simply because my family was not Republicans. I was taught to be respectful of people from different political viewpoints, and my mother chastised a friend for calling Bush stupid. I have never agreed with a liberal here who called Bush stupid or a terrorist. In fact, I've chastised liberals multiple times for making Bush is Hitler or similarly ridiculous references.

Please, tell me what it is about myself and my family which deserves your contempt merely because we are leftists.

Please tell me why you have lied repeatedly, then condemned liars. Please explain how you can say you hate hypocrites, while demonstrating some of the most astonishing hypocrisy we have seen here on JREF for awhile.

You further lied when you said I hadn't conceded to a single point you made, when I stated I agreed with you about the hateful nature of some liberals and how their words should be condemned as well, such as Dawkins.

[Vorticity]

What is the strongest correlate to educational achievement?

Educational achievement.

No other quantity can exceed educational achievement's correlation coefficient of 1 with itself.

[MattusMaximus]

I am very glad to have participated in this thread. Jonathan has provided a very convincing alternative to the current public school system.

Yup, he's provided his version of socialism ;)

[Schrodinger's Cat]

Like Leftists on any message board, you misconstrue what I say, put words in my mouth

You're right, I did misunderstand what you said.

I'd rather be someone who misunderstands and makes some typos then be an unapologetic liar and hypocrite like you any day of the week.


I find it hilarious that you slam me (and liberals) for putting "words in your mouth" when in the very same sentence you LIED and stated

pretend that Leftists are sugar and spice and everything nice

After I specifically stated that not only are they not any of these things, they exhibit bad behavior, same as conservatives, and deserve to get called out for it when they do.

How do you justify the fact that your posts are filled with lies and hypocrisy if you claim to have such contempt for both?

At this point I simply don't think you're being serious or sincere. I think you're in "oh look, I'm gong to go on the internet and mindlessly lie and insult liberals because for whatever messed up reason, that's fun to me!" mode.

Now please be so kind, so benevolent, so wonderful...

Wow, you think me saying I don't hate and judge people just because they think differently than me, and saying that I think leftists and rightists should be held equally accountable, is me thinking I'm "kind, benevolent, and wonderful?" You must have really low standards of human behavior if you think not being full of vitriol and judging people equally is some sort of especially impressive trait. I don't know where you're from, but I feel bad for you that your life experiences are so bad that simply not being a bigot= benevolent. The posts I wrote about myself, the mentality I described, is true not simply for myself, but for any person I care to associate with, both liberal and conservative, and is true for most people here at JREF. What I described is simply being a good and decent human being. The fact that this comes across as exceptionally benevolent to you is quite telling.


that you take a few posts and argue with somebody else here besides me

You're really good at throwing out insults, but can't take it when someone calls you out on it? Lame. Stop using leftist as an insult every other sentence and you'll stop getting called out on it.

But at this point I rather think you're not serious at all are you? I think you're just being intentionally pedantic, dishonest, and offensive. "Oh, let's rile up the liberals on the internet! That's how I get my kicks!" Or maybe this is all some attempt at satire?

[SezMe]

Good luck, SCat. JQ will simply disappear before responding in any kind of substantial manner.

[Schrodinger's Cat]

Good luck, SCat. JQ will simply disappear before responding in any kind of substantial manner.

No, my guess is that he'll say that Bill Clinton lied, so that makes it okay that he's a liar. And then perhaps say that Al Gore is a hypocrite who advocates environmentalism while flying around in private jets, so that makes it okay that he's a hypocrite.

Of course I'm no psychic, but that's how he's handled all other call outs on his behavior. If a liberal has ever done it, that magically makes it okay if he does it.

Though again, at this point I'm not really taking him seriously anymore. I no longer believe the sincerity of his liberal hysteria.

[majamin]

When people like JonathanQuick infest a thread, I do the following: Like a good scientist, I just pretend that I'm witnessing a curious form of human life, observing, documenting, amazed at all of its freaky appendages and remarkable features. Any outbursts of perverted and demented expression is put clearly into context, and inevitably spare my laptop from a fit of pure rage ...

[Jeff Corey]

This is a valid criticism of the teacher education system, in my opinion. One area which is in dire need of reform is better standards for prospective teachers. I cannot tell you how sick I got of hearing other teaching candidates in my program going on about how education was "such an easy major."

Of course, they took the easy road, got a less than impressive degree, and now many cannot find work or got substandard positions. However, I - with my advanced degree (M.S. in physics) and community college experience (I started to teach at the CC level before I was certified at the HS level) - got a damn good teaching position because I was a good candidate who didn't take the easy, slacker road.

See? Within the parameters of the public education system, the free market works :)

To my earlier point about lousy teacher preparation in university programs, I think that is partly the fault of education professors who foster such a lackadaisical environment. Change is really needed at that level, but I don't know how to institute it.

Neither do I. There are a majority of Ed majors in my critical thinking class and when I say things from their assigned reading in "50 great myths about popular psychology","there is no evidence like that teaching styles should be matched to learning styles", they say that their Ed prof told them different.
Ed departments should be abolished and the students should just learn the content they are to teach from the Biology, English, Math or other departments,

[Jeff Corey]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OCFjK6oqwsE
Joey, you silly liberal person, you.







oh snap, this was a response to a previous gladiator post,

[JonathanQuick]

//

I also wonder why some people think that $60k-$100k is too much for somebody responsible for teaching our children? This is a profession that requires a bachelor's degree and additional education (and those level salaries typically require master's or higher). I can't think of any other profession that pays that little for that level of educational requirement.

Please.

The local papers featured an article where hundreds showed up for just a few teaching jobs. Yet all we hear is "poor, poor pitiful me" caterwauling, as dictated by the unions. It never changes.

If, in fact, teachers were so terribly underpaid, why are there no ads in the newspapers for them? Why were so many allegedly "laid off" and instead of their being happy to earn more elsewhere, they simply beat their breasts and demand ever higher tribute from the taxpayers.

[TFian]

Jonathan, would you consider a fully private educational system a "capitalist monopoly"?

[JonathanQuick]

Educational achievement.

No other quantity can exceed educational achievement's correlation coefficient of 1 with itself.

You say absolutely nothing, and think yourself clever.

The physicist had absolutely nothing to contribute as well.

Zero from the lot of you in response to a very important question that nobody here can answer, notwithstanding your incredible pretensions of enlightenment and brilliance about all things educational.

Here again is the question:

What is the strongest correlate to educational achievement?

Every teacher should know this, but I have yet to meet one who does.
I believe the physicist will get closest to it, but I'm quite sure he will miss it.

Vorticity desperately needs to look up "correlate."

The highest correlate to educational achievement is the educational level of the subject's father.

Men in prison have all too often fathered children who will have lives of privation and ignorance.

Men with doctorates and masters' degrees, on the other hand, understand the value of family relationships, and education, and their offspring tend to do well in schools for obvious reasons.

Now please continue to ridicule me, in violation of Rule 12. The correlate provided above should make most of you quite angry, if for no other reason than I stated it.

[JonathanQuick]

Good luck, SCat. JQ will simply disappear before responding in any kind of substantial manner.

Santa Barbara?

I prepared an e-mail today and sent it to Professor Lewis at UCSB, as well as his friend, Professor Callan at Princeton.

Lewis took the breathtakingly rare step of standing alone to expose the fraud, the abuse, the incredible waste and inhumanity of the global warming scam.

His courageous act in resigning from the American Physical Society should give scientists all over America who are engaged in this massive scam the shock and the shame they desperately need to stop the deceit. But I am sure they will not.

[bozman]

Boy, this guy sure has a thing about quoting rules. :O

[majamin]

What is the strongest correlate to educational achievement?


Student time-on-task. Also noteworthy are Marzano's "High-yield instructional strategies". Anything else?

[Doubt]

Still waiting for that school district JQ is in where the teachers top out at 95 grand a year.

How hard is it to answer that question?

[bozman]

Still waiting for that school district JQ is in where the teachers top out at 95 grand a year.

How hard is it to answer that question?

My father is a school teacher and he'd like to know this too.

[TFian]

Still waiting for that school district JQ is in where the teachers top out at 95 grand a year.

95k eh? I guess I picked the wrong major..

[cwalner]

Please.

The local papers featured an article where hundreds showed up for just a few teaching jobs. Yet all we hear is "poor, poor pitiful me" caterwauling, as dictated by the unions. It never changes.

If, in fact, teachers were so terribly underpaid, why are there no ads in the newspapers for them? Why were so many allegedly "laid off" and instead of their being happy to earn more elsewhere, they simply beat their breasts and demand ever higher tribute from the taxpayers.

You do of course realize that we are in the middle of a recession, with unemployment higher than we've seen in a generation. Even if they are qualified for higher paying jobs, not many of those are hiring atm either.

I am curious as to what you think is a fair and reasonable salary for a teacher.

[SezMe]

Santa Barbara?
Yeah but I'm not responsible for all the loons who live here. Now, can we get back to some of the "facts" I questioned in #113.

[Mark R]

The highest correlate to educational achievement is the educational level of the subject's father.

Men in prison have all too often fathered children who will have lives of privation and ignorance.

Men with doctorates and masters' degrees, on the other hand, understand the value of family relationships, and education, and their offspring tend to do well in schools for obvious reasons.

Best indicator of student achievement is parental involvement. I find it odd you completely neglect to include a mother's influence. Yes, the odds a child will receive a degree go up when one parent has a degree and go up more when both do.

Parents who have a degree are obviously more likely to instill in their children a desire to receive a higher education. Parents who do not have a degree can still create an expectation in their children to receive a higher education as well.

What you are talking about is socioeconomic status. And when you are up, SE tends to keep you up and when you are down, SE tends to keep you down. This contributes to generational poverty and impoverished neighborhoods. Impoverished neighborhoods tend to have poor performing schools. Is there something wrong with trying to break this cycle? Is there a way to do it that does not involve public education?

[Travis]

I really don't have a problem with teachers making $95,000 a year. Educating the youth of this country is one of the most important things there is. Maybe the pay scale should reflect that. Besides teaching is not like other jobs. Teachers are not just fact shovelers. They know that there is nuance to the way it is done and each class is going to need things done a particular way. Classrooms have personalities that need to be addressed. Then there is the fact that they don't have regular work days. There are tests to prepare, tests to grade, essays to evaluate and all that homework to be gone over and all that generally begins after the buses have taken the kids back to their homes.

And how would vouchers solve anything? All you would be doing is moving kids into school districts that probably won't have room for everyone that wants to get in. What's to be done with those that don't get in? If you have 40,000 students in a city with only three schools considered premiere and desirable a fat lot of good those vouchers did for the majority of the students. Maybe....just maybe what should really be done is to try and make all the schools desirable. Crazy idea I know.

How might that be done? I won't pretend that I know for sure but here are a few ideas.

Make teaching pay competitive against the private sector: That would probably mean paying them more on average. But if you want a chemist as good as the ones that work for the companies you might need to pay them better. Universities already know that.

Streamline administration and overhead costs: We really need to abandon the idea of individual school districts that each have different curriculum and requirements. This is inefficient and largely counterproductive. We need uniform curriculum standards and standardized material appropriation. This allows for efficiencies of scale.

Lower the teacher to student ratio: this is the hopeful benefit of making teacher pay competitive and overhead costs slimmer. With fewer students to oversee teachers can better attend to their individual needs. No longer do only trouble makers and Aspergers students get all the attention.

Optimize school campus size: consolidating smaller schools and breaking up larger ones can allow for a uniformity in campus material costs and allocations.

Does anyone else have any ideas?

[Schrodinger's Cat]

Santa Barbara?

I prepared an e-mail today and sent it to Professor Lewis at UCSB, as well as his friend, Professor Callan at Princeton.

Lewis took the breathtakingly rare step of standing alone to expose the fraud, the abuse, the incredible waste and inhumanity of the global warming scam.

His courageous act in resigning from the American Physical Society should give scientists all over America who are engaged in this massive scam the shock and the shame they desperately need to stop the deceit. But I am sure they will not.

Why does someone who lies as much as you care about deceit?

Now please continue to ridicule me, in violation of Rule 12.

You need to learn what ridicule means. What you were doing before was ridicule. Us calling you out for it is pointing out YOUR ridicule.

You don't just get to pathologically lie and insult people, then whine when someone points it out to you and act like a victim.

You're just a bully, and nothing more. And like all bullies, the second someone stands up to you, you hide behind your mother's legs and cry out, "Why are these people being SO MEAN to me?!"

And you know what's the most pathetic thing? You're a bully ON THE INTERNET. Where you're nice and safe behind your little computer screen you act so big and bad.

And even when someone stands up to you on the internet, it's just too much to handle, and you whine like you're actually being persecuted.


You know what the saddest thing is? I haven't even insulted you. I didn't call you conservatard or any of the many, many insults you have hurled at ALL liberals. I haven't called you a single insult. The only thing I have done is point out what you have proven yourself to be: a liar, and a hypocrite.

It is impossible for you to deny you are a liar, because I have easily pointed out where you have lied. It is impossible for you to deny that you are a hypocrite, because I have easily pointed out where you were one.

It's not ridicule to point out the contents of a person's posts. It's like you pointing out my spelling errors. That's not ridicule, that's just the truth. I DID have spelling errors.

YOU are a liar. I called you a liar. That's not ridicule. That's what you are. If you don't like it, stop lying.

[excaza]

At least he managed to make a post without mentioning liberals, communists, or socialists.

Though he still hasn't managed to make one about education.

[Flo]

I really don't have a problem with teachers making $95,000 a year. Educating the youth of this any country is one of the most important things there is. Maybe the pay scale should reflect that.

:clap:

[Schrodinger's Cat]

I really don't have a problem with teachers making $95,000 a year. Educating the youth of this country is one of the most important things there is. Maybe the pay scale should reflect that. Besides teaching is not like other jobs. Teachers are not just fact shovelers. They know that there is nuance to the way it is done and each class is going to need things done a particular way. Classrooms have personalities that need to be addressed. Then there is the fact that they don't have regular work days. There are tests to prepare, tests to grade, essays to evaluate and all that homework to be gone over and all that generally begins after the buses have taken the kids back to their homes.

And how would vouchers solve anything? All you would be doing is moving kids into school districts that probably won't have room for everyone that wants to get in. What's to be done with those that don't get in? If you have 40,000 students in a city with only three schools considered premiere and desirable a fat lot of good those vouchers did for the majority of the students. Maybe....just maybe what should really be done is to try and make all the schools desirable. Crazy idea I know.

How might that be done? I won't pretend that I know for sure but here are a few ideas.

Make teaching pay competitive against the private sector: That would probably mean paying them more on average. But if you want a chemist as good as the ones that work for the companies you might need to pay them better. Universities already know that.

Streamline administration and overhead costs: We really need to abandon the idea of individual school districts that each have different curriculum and requirements. This is inefficient and largely counterproductive. We need uniform curriculum standards and standardized material appropriation. This allows for efficiencies of scale.

Lower the teacher to student ratio: this is the hopeful benefit of making teacher pay competitive and overhead costs slimmer. With fewer students to oversee teachers can better attend to their individual needs. No longer do only trouble makers and Aspergers students get all the attention.

Optimize school campus size: consolidating smaller schools and breaking up larger ones can allow for a uniformity in campus material costs and allocations.

Does anyone else have any ideas?

Very well said, Travis.

I think another issues is that we need to start spending the kind of resources on gifted students that we do on special ed and remedial students. Special ed students receive far more funding and resources than gifted students do.

Now of course, I'm not saying special ed students don't deserve attention and education. But the fact is gifted students are simply going to contribute more to the economy and the work force. A special ed student is someone we are just trying to bring to the remedial level of abilities. Yet if gifted students received the kind of attention and resources that are reserved for special ed kids, their potential for success is huge.

There was an interesting article in Newsweek about this a couple years ago, in which a mother compared the school resources for her autistic son vs her gifted daughter:

http://www.newsweek.com/2009/02/27/autism-and-education.html

It pains me to suggest taking some of the federal money designated for my disabled son and spending it on my overperforming daughter. My son will probably meet minimum standards, but most parents of autistic children describe goals for their kids in much more modest terms: being able to bathe themselves, get a job, or live semi-independently. My daughter has the potential for much more. If she were given even a fraction of the customized education that my son receives, she could learn the skills needed to prevent the next worldwide flu pandemic, or invent a new form of nonpolluting transportation. Perhaps she could even discover a cure for autism.





Best indicator of student achievement is parental involvement. I find it odd you completely neglect to include a mother's influence. Yes, the odds a child will receive a degree go up when one parent has a degree and go up more when both do.

Parents who have a degree are obviously more likely to instill in their children a desire to receive a higher education. Parents who do not have a degree can still create an expectation in their children to receive a higher education as well.


They discussed this in the book "Freakonomics," that the biggest correlating factors in the academic success of a child is the academic expectations and success of the parents.

There was also a 30 year study by the US Dept of Education "Strong Families, Strong School" which found the same results:

http://www.projectappleseed.org/strongfamiliesschools.pdf

Parental involvement is the most important factor in academic success of the child.


This is also discussed on the Michigan Dept of Education website:

The most consistent predictors of children’s academic achievement and social adjustment are parent expectations of the child’s academic attainment and satisfaction with their child’s education at school

Jonathan, why do you completely discount the educational achievement of the mother? Why do you only single out the father?

What year do you think this is, 1950? It's 2010, bub. I know just as many women who are the top earners in their household as I do men, and I know just as many women who are as educated or better educated than their spouses as I do men. My mother is more educated and makes more money than my father. I am more educated and earn more than my husband.

Every study I have found shows that *parental* involvement and *parental* academic achievement is the strongest factor. I have not found one single study that supports your claim that the father alone is the primary factor. As Mark said:

the odds a child will receive a degree go up when one parent has a degree and go up more when both do.

One PARENT. Not father. PARENT.



Men with doctorates and masters' degrees, on the other hand, understand the value of family relationships, and education, and their offspring tend to do well in schools for obvious reasons

Women have been earning more undergraduate degrees than men since the 1980s.

More women than men earned doctorates in 2009. (50.4%)

More women than men earn graduate degrees. (60%)

http://www.usatoday.com/news/education/2010-09-15-womenphd14_st_N.htm

In light of these facts, how do you possibly justify your post in which you only single out the academic acheivements of men, considering women today are more educated than men are?

You ask why I don't concede to your points (though I did concede to a couple, in actuality). Maybe it's because everything you post is a lie, offensive, or wrong? Or all three?

Reading your posts is like being stuck in a time warp. The Red Scare is alive and well, and women don't count.

You should really consider joining us in the 21st century sometime. It's pretty cool here. We have I-pods!

[Jeff Corey]

Best indicator of student achievement is parental involvement. I find it odd you completely neglect to include a mother's influence. Yes, the odds a child will receive a degree go up when one parent has a degree and go up more when both do.

Parents who have a degree are obviously more likely to instill in their children a desire to receive a higher education. Parents who do not have a degree can still create an expectation in their children to receive a higher education as well.

What you are talking about is socioeconomic status. And when you are up, SE tends to keep you up and when you are down, SE tends to keep you down. This contributes to generational poverty and impoverished neighborhoods. Impoverished neighborhoods tend to have poor performing schools. Is there something wrong with trying to break this cycle? Is there a way to do it that does not involve public education?

This: http://www.air.org/reports-products/index.cfm?fa=viewContent&content_id=221
"this report considers six nonschool factors that are related to student achievement. These are the highest level of education attained by either of the students’ parents; the highest occupational status of either of the students’ parents; the number of books that students have access to in the home; whether students speak the native language of the country at home; students’ immigrant status; and students’ family structure."
But these are just the non-school factors. Other studies have focused on school factors, such as teacher preparation and availability of textbooks.

[Francesca R]

(This is the only way I can quote the relevant text . . )[ . . . ]I quoted the late Professor Milton Friedman, a Nobel Laureate in economics. HE said public education is a socialist monopoly. Do you think perhaps HE knows something about socialism and monopolies?
Yes he knows something about socialism and monopolies. But you don't know anything much about him. You quote-mined, missing quite a trick, then you made something up. People don't need to know more than Friedman to know more than you.

Appealing to authority when you get what the authority said wrong isn't a logic fallacy so much as a competence one.

[majamin]

So, in summary, there are many factors to student achievement, including

School/Teacher:

1. Guaranteed and Viable Curriculum
2. Challenging Goals and Effective Feedback
3. Parent and Community Involvement
4. Safe and Orderly Environment
5. Collegiality and Professionalism
6. Instructional Strategies
7. Classroom Management
8. Classroom Curriculum Design

Student:

9. Home Environment
10. Learning Intelligence/ Background Knowledge
11. Motivation

[source (http://blondepz.homestead.com/What_Works_in_Schools_Marzano_cover__handouts_1570 21_7.pdf)]

... but I'm willing to guess that JQ will find either strawman our replies, or go back to ranting about "socialists" and "lefties". I hope you prove me wrong, JQ. I really do.

[MattusMaximus]

Student time-on-task. Also noteworthy are Marzano's "High-yield instructional strategies". Anything else?

Well, the quality of the teacher in the room is a big one, as well. Probably, in my view, the most important thing.

But then, I already mentioned that in my previous post criticizing teacher preparation :)

[Schrodinger's Cat]

Men with doctorates and masters' degrees, on the other hand, understand the value of family relationships

so

having a doctorate in physics = you by default understand the value of family relationships?

Why would having a graduate degree or a doctorate make you incapable of having an affair, killing your wife, abusing your children, or just being a neglectful or bad parent in general?

[MattusMaximus]

Still waiting for that school district JQ is in where the teachers top out at 95 grand a year.

How hard is it to answer that question?

Actually, teachers in my district can top out at $100K+ per year, but that's with 20 years experience and a Master's degree + an additional 60 credit hours of coursework.

And that's in a very well-to-do community which places an extraordinary value on its children getting a good, solid education.

In other words, no where close to the ordinary.

[majamin]

Well, the quality of the teacher in the room is a big one, as well. Probably, in my view, the most important thing.

But then, I already mentioned that in my previous post criticizing teacher preparation :)

Agreed. Do you think the teaching quality influences the effectiveness of time-on-task significantly?

[Francesca R]

Someone asked me about the authenticity of the OP quote: "Public education is a socialist monopoly, a real one."

I would not doubt that Friedman said this. There are stacks of curated quote libraries (http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en&q=Milton+Friedman+quotes&aq=f&aqi=g-sx8&aql=&oq=&gs_rfai=) to look through. It is not in wikiquote (http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Milton_Friedman) as far as I can tell.

There is the following from a talk to the Cato Institute in 1998 called "The Suicidal Impulse of the Business Community (http://www.cato.org/events/friedman.html)"

I have for a long time been in favor of trying to privatize schooling through a voucher system. But what I want to talk about is a little different from that. As we all know, our public education system is a socialist enterprise. [ . . . ] And in addition, in the interim you had the unionization of the teachers, so that today our elementary and secondary school is not only a socialist enterprise it's also an almost completely unionized enterprise. It is a monopoly, a real monopoly, not a fake one.

So it's not as if Friedman was at all in favour of publicly owned and administered schools--he wasn't. Almost everything about it went against the "Free to Choose" doctrine.

But he was in favour of public financing of schools via the voucher idea. As I quoted in post 41 (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=6461271#post6461271), Friedman thought that the huge positive externalities of an educated population--coupled with his limited-but-existent treatise on the alleviation of poverty--justified public subsidy. I have never seen anything indicating the voucher idea was "interim", to be replaced by some private-charity-if-you're-lucky/stay stupid-if-you-are-unlucky financing method.

That's about the total of my injection to this debate.

[Schrodinger's Cat]

Someone asked me about the authenticity of the OP quote: "Public education is a socialist monopoly, a real one."

I would not doubt that Friedman said this. There are stacks of curated quote libraries (http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en&q=Milton+Friedman+quotes&aq=f&aqi=g-sx8&aql=&oq=&gs_rfai=) to look through. It is not in wikiquote (http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Milton_Friedman) as far as I can tell.

There is the following from a talk to the Cato Institute in 1998 called "The Suicidal Impulse of the Business Community (http://www.cato.org/events/friedman.html)"



So it's not as if Friedman was at all in favour of publicly owned and administered schools--he wasn't. Almost everything about it went against the "Free to Choose" doctrine.

But he was in favour of public financing of schools via the voucher idea. As I quoted in post 41 (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=6461271#post6461271), Friedman thought that the huge positive externalities of an educated population--coupled with his limited-but-existent treatise on the alleviation of poverty--justified public subsidy. I have never seen anything indicating the voucher idea was "interim", to be replaced by some private-charity-if-you're-lucky/stay stupid-if-you-are-unlucky financing method.

That's about the total of my injection to this debate.

Thanks for digging that up, Francesca

[Schrodinger's Cat]

There happened to be an article out today discussing this subject called, "The Myth of Charter Schools," regarding several films such as "Waiting for Superman" out right now regarding charter vs public schools:

http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/2010/nov/11/myth-charter-schools/

Some highlights:

The annual Gallup poll about education shows that Americans are overwhelmingly dissatisfied with the quality of the nation’s schools, but 77 percent of public school parents award their own child’s public school a grade of A or B, the highest level of approval since the question was first asked in 1985


Known as the CREDO study, it evaluated student progress on math tests in half the nation’s five thousand charter schools and concluded that 17 percent were superior to a matched traditional public school; 37 percent were worse than the public school; and the remaining 46 percent had academic gains no different from that of a similar public school. The proportion of charters that get amazing results is far smaller than 17 percent.



Why did he not look into the charter schools whose leaders are paid $300,000–$400,000 a year to oversee small numbers of schools and students?

[TFian]

This quote was my favorite

It bears mentioning that nations with high-performing school systems—whether Korea, Singapore, Finland, or Japan—have succeeded not by privatizing their schools or closing those with low scores, but by strengthening the education profession. They also have less poverty than we do. Fewer than 5 percent of children in Finland live in poverty, as compared to 20 percent in the United States. Those who insist that poverty doesn’t matter, that only teachers matter, prefer to ignore such contrasts.

I'm involved with a public school teacher, and from what I hear, it's "All work and no appreciation". :(

[Cleon]

I'm involved with a public school teacher, and from what I hear, it's "All work and no appreciation". :(

It really is. Teachers get it from all sides; they're convenient scapegoats for administrators, politicians, parents, and students.

[TFian]

It really is. Teachers get it from all sides; they're convenient scapegoats for administrators, politicians, parents, and students.

On top of that, pretty insulting wages. It's not even remotely proportional to the service they provide.

[bikerdruid]

On top of that, pretty insulting wages. It's not even remotely proportional to the service they provide.

i'm a retired teacher. however, with my education and experience, in alberta, my annual salary would be about $100,000/year.
working conditions and class sizes are the major concerns here, not teacher's pay.

[TFian]

i'm a retired teacher. however, with my education and experience, in alberta, my annual salary would be about $100,000/year.
working conditions and class sizes are the major concerns here, not teacher's pay.

I'm sure it varies between Canadian provinces and US states. In the public schools I went to, along with the one my partner works at, all the teachers complained about the pay, proclaiming that they should be more for the type of work they do. He makes pretty low himself as well.

[Vorticity]

Educational achievement.

No other quantity can exceed educational achievement's correlation coefficient of 1 with itself.

You say absolutely nothing, and think yourself clever.


Whatever you say, Edgar Allan.

I give you flippant responses because I simply don't believe in the reality of the character you're inhabiting.

At any rate, my statement above is literally correct. You asked "What is the strongest correlate to educational achievement?" It is certainly true that no two numeric quantities can possess a correlation coeffcient greater than one, and that the correlation coefficient of any quantity with itself is one.

In lieu of the traditional posting of kitten pictures and recipes I might, if I feel so inclined later, prove this fact in this thread, using the Cauchy-Schwartz inequality.


The physicist had absolutely nothing to contribute as well.


Another physicist here, incidentally. (With a PhD, since you seem to place value on such things...)


Vorticity desperately needs to look up "correlate."


Uh-huh.

But never mind all that, Edgar. The important thing here is that there are probably some typos and misspellings in this post.

(Mods: If you choose to move this post because I refer to the fact that JQ here is clearly a spouse of Virginia Clemm, please at least leave the bit above about correlation coefficients. Thanks.)

[Vorticity]

Blast! I see he's been suspended.

Ping-pong interruptus.

[Mark R]

This: http://www.air.org/reports-products/index.cfm?fa=viewContent&content_id=221
"this report considers six nonschool factors that are related to student achievement. These are the highest level of education attained by either of the students’ parents; the highest occupational status of either of the students’ parents; the number of books that students have access to in the home; whether students speak the native language of the country at home; students’ immigrant status; and students’ family structure."
But these are just the non-school factors. Other studies have focused on school factors, such as teacher preparation and availability of textbooks.

I did not mean to indicate that parental involvement is the only indicator. Of course there is an assortment of factors that impact students achievement, both in and out of the classroom.

It is the factors I cannot control that makes teaching tough sometimes. Just today one of the best students I have ever had missed a fairly large assignment, which is completely unlike her. When I inquired why she mentioned her parents are getting divorce and it is affecting her.

I would hate to see her loose her way because of this, and I will do my best to see she does not, but we all know it happens.

[Mark R]

Well, the quality of the teacher in the room is a big one, as well. Probably, in my view, the most important thing.

But then, I already mentioned that in my previous post criticizing teacher preparation :)

My school got several teachers transferred in that were previously working at a continuation school for several years.

The study guide one of the teachers provided for his students made its way to the district and contributed to this teacher no longer being at our school. This study guide looked like someone barely literate wrote it. There was no proper capitalization or punctuation and it was written in a mix of English and Spanish. Not translated mind you, but all mixed together in some barely comprehensible manner.

What stuck out the most to me was instead of George Washington it was Jorge Washington. This was a high school U.S. history class...I do not think getting the name of the first president right is too much to ask.

So yes, teacher quality is a significant issue in education. Unfortunately, it is not usually this easy to spot an ineffective teacher.

[Jeff Corey]

Or to get rid of one, at any level ranging from kindergarden to graduate school, once they get tenure.

[John Jones]

[QUOTE=JonathanQuick;6468302]You say absolutely nothing, and think yourself clever.

The physicist had absolutely nothing to contribute as well.

Zero from the lot of you in response to a very important question that nobody here can answer, notwithstanding your incredible pretensions of enlightenment and brilliance about all things educational.

Here again is the question:

What is the strongest correlate to educational achievement?

Every teacher should know this, but I have yet to meet one who does.
I believe the physicist will get closest to it, but I'm quite sure he will miss it.

Vorticity desperately needs to look up "correlate."

The highest correlate to educational achievement is the educational level of the subject's father.

Men in prison have all too often fathered children who will have lives of privation and ignorance.

Men with doctorates and masters' degrees, on the other hand, understand the value of family relationships, and education, and their offspring tend to do well in schools for obvious reasons.

[...]QUOTE]

That's it? That's your point?

Educated fathers tend to raise educated children?

Hey! It works for me.

Is anybody opposed to this platitude?

[majamin]

Vorticity desperately needs to look up "correlate."


No, he doesn't. Corr(X,X)=1 for any random variable X. See Vorticity's response here (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=6471342#post6471342).

Anyways, there are many variables to consider. "Being alive" or "student achievement" being correlated to "student achievement" isn't interesting, so it's a question of which variables, at the community/school/student level, correlate with student achievement. You've been given a few responses by different posters. Kindly go up and read them JQ, and then reply.

[majamin]

Blast! I see he's been suspended.

Ping-pong interruptus.

Why? (well, I think I know why, but what specifically?)

[Vorticity]

Why? (well, I think I know why, but what specifically?)

Well, I see he got some yellow cards here (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=189320) and here (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=189063)...

[bozman]

That boy ain't right. :D

Nah, I don't have a problem with him. He's a bit abrasive, but he makes people think. Sort of.

[majamin]

Well, I see he got some yellow cards here (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=189320) and here (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=189063)...

I guess this is why I'm not a moderator, but why where these posts flagged? I've seen worse, and deserved vitriol directed at nutcases around here by decent people trying to express themselves. It doesn't make him any less infuriating to converse with, of course.

[lionking]

That boy ain't right. :D

Nah, I don't have a problem with him. He's a bit abrasive, but he makes people think. Sort of.

If "think" is a synonym for beating your head against the wall, I suppose you're right.;)

[SezMe]

I guess this is why I'm not a moderator, but why where these posts flagged? I've seen worse, and deserved vitriol directed at nutcases around here by decent people trying to express themselves. It doesn't make him any less infuriating to converse with, of course.
I flagged one of his/her posts but am not sure if it was one cited by Vorticity. The problem is not, IMO, the vitriol in any one post but the fact that no matter the thread topic, JQ will inevitably go off topic to rag on the evil liburels. So the issue is spam.

[bozman]

If "think" is a synonym for beating your head against the wall, I suppose you're right.;)

Like this? http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v689/bozman007/Message%20Board%20Graphics/Smilies/banghead.gif?

[majamin]

I flagged one of his/her posts but am not sure if it was one cited by Vorticity. The problem is not, IMO, the vitriol in any one post but the fact that no matter the thread topic, JQ will inevitably go off topic to rag on the evil liburels. So the issue is spam.

That very well could be it. Thanks for pointing that out.

[bozman]

I flagged one of his/her posts but am not sure if it was one cited by Vorticity. The problem is not, IMO, the vitriol in any one post but the fact that no matter the thread topic, JQ will inevitably go off topic to rag on the evil liburels. So the issue is spam.

The constant rule quoting was a but much too, but I don't think it's an offense. Playing deputy-mod might qualify though.

[Travis]

It really is. Teachers get it from all sides; they're convenient scapegoats for administrators, politicians, parents, and students.

Definitely. Both my parents worked in schools so I got to see the nuts and bolts of those organizations. Teachers having breakdowns was disturbingly common.

[SezMe]

The constant rule quoting was a but much too, but I don't think it's an offense. Playing deputy-mod might qualify though.
I'm not aware of such a position. Perhaps you can cite where reporting a possible violation of the MA qualifies one to be a "deputy-mod". Do I get a nifty badge? Three brownie points? Frequent-whiner miles? Do tell.

[bozman]

I'm not aware of such a position. Perhaps you can cite where reporting a possible violation of the MA qualifies one to be a "deputy-mod". Do I get a nifty badge? Three brownie points? Frequent-whiner miles? Do tell.

Sorry, I was thinking of another site I post on. They tend to look down on people who constantly quote rules and want everyone to leave it to the mods.

And I'll SHARE my brownies with you (since you're a fellow Californian ;)), but you can't have all of them. And that includes the brownie points.

[SezMe]

Sorry, I was thinking of another site I post on. They tend to look down on people who constantly quote rules and want everyone to leave it to the mods.
No sweat.

And I'll SHARE my brownies with you (since you're a fellow Californian ;)), but you can't have all of them. And that includes the brownie points.
Damn. Maybe when Gov. Moonbeam is back in office there will be plenty of brownies to go around. :)

[Aitch]

Damn. Maybe when Gov. Moonbeam is back in office there will be plenty of brownies to go around. :)

I hope you mean these (http://www.jamieoliver.com/recipes/chocolate-recipes/bloomin-brilliant-brownies) and not these (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brownie_%28folklore%29) or, unless things are worse out west than I thought, these (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brownie_%28Girl_Guides%29)! :jaw-dropp

[moebob]

I work in an Elementary School in upstate N.Y. I am the Cook-manager. We are a very small school. I believe we have under 600 students. I have made friends with some of the teachers. They deal with all the same kids that I do. I watch how they all work. They all have different styles, which is perfict! Different strokes, for different folks. Some of them have been there long enough, that when they promote, they request certain teachers, for certain kids, that they think will connect better! I think that is a beautiful, caring, thing to do! On the other side, we also have teachers, that have more credentuals, and have been higher educated, but they don't teach well! You could be Albert Einstien, but if you can't explain it to a child, then what good are you?

[NobbyNobbs]

This just in: "Half of all teachers perform below median ability!"
And in related news, "Fifty percent of educators report above average income"


1.
2. No, schools are NOT using money correctly. Their administrative staffs are bloated. They keep incompetent teachers. And they pay them too much. At my district, teachers top out at over $95,000 for 9 months work.
Sickening, particularly when teachers graduate in the bottom third of their college classes, on average.
it.

I posted this in a different thread awhile ago, but it's quite relevant.

did this once before when I was teaching, out of curiousity, but I'll do it again.

Mayday, suppose you get a VERY generous starting offer of 40K a year. School starts at 7:30 and lets out at 3, but teachers needto be there at 7 and usually stay until4, longer if they are involved in after-school activities. That's a 9 hour day. When you go home, you have to grade papers, write lesson plans, and prepare materials for the next day. This takes a minimum of 2 hours, making it an 11 hour day. There are 180 days in the school year.

180*11=1980 hours. So far.

Not all of that lesson planning gets completed during the week. I estimate I averaged 3 hours each weekend on schoolwork. There are about 36 weeks in a school year.

36*3=108
1980+108=2088 hours. So far.

Our school had two weeks in August for orientation and preparation, and one week in June for wrap-up. That's another 15 days at 8 hours each.

15*8=120
2088+120=2208 hours. So far.

As mentioned before, you have maintain certification. I worked at a private school and didn't have to, so I'd appreciate other teachers verifying or correcting this, but I think you need 40 hours of classes a year.

2208+40=2248 hours
40000/2248=17.79 dollars an hour

Again, that's with an absurdly high starting salary and no extra duties. Can you make 70K a year teaching? Sure. After 25 years.

I don't know how nursing compares but I'd be interested in seeing a similar breakdown. Regardless, one thing is certain. Only a fool goes into teaching for the money.

Mayday, you just may be that fool.

FWIW, I was a physics teacher. At a private school. No union. I don't have strong feelings one way or the other about vouchers. And my kids go to public school. Stick that in your bell curve and smoke it.

... married ... and we are madly in love.

Damn. There go my chances.

[uruk]

I'm involved with a public school teacher, and from what I hear, it's "All work and no appreciation". :(

Amen to that brother! The teacher gets blamed for everything that is wrong with the education system dispite the fact that teachers are only employees. Teachers do not make the policy decisions, or budgetary decicisions, or the curriculum standards. (Oddly, it is usually MBAs that make these decisions. Most schoolboards are made up of people who's only experiance with education is having gone to school; see the Texas school board.)

It is easy to blame the teacher. We are the low man on the totem pole. Administration never blame themselves for any incompetency or poor judgement they may exhibit and no elected official would ever blame parents for thier apathy. So that leaves the teachers as a prime scapegoat for everything that is wrong with the system.

Teachers are also a popular target of the teaparty because of the unions. With everything that teachers have to put up with being at the bottom of what I like to call the "fecal funnel" (because the crap rolls down on us from all sides), is it a wonder why we band together when no one will defend us?

[blutoski]

There happened to be an article out today discussing this subject called, "The Myth of Charter Schools," regarding several films such as "Waiting for Superman" out right now regarding charter vs public schools:

http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/2010/nov/11/myth-charter-schools/

Some highlights:

My only concern is that parental satisfaction may not be the best way to evaluate school performance either. (This is a problem in healthfraud as well: patients rave about their quacks all the way to an early grave.)

I also recommend a close look at the database for selection bias.

I was able to find a bit of a loophole in the private/public comparisons often profferred here in BC by the Fraser Institute and some other freemarket operations. There is a tendency to survey only current private schools, which means the ones that failed at the end of last year are not part of a comparison.

Parents who salvaged their kids from a closed/bankrupt school are not being asked to evaluate it, because their kids are enrolled in a different school right now. The worst private schools are often not even part of these comparisons, which gives an inaccurate result.

[JonathanQuick]

On top of that, pretty insulting wages. It's not even remotely proportional to the service they provide.

Then why are there hundreds of applications for jobs as teachers, hmmm?

Our local school district pays up to $95,000 for 9 months of work. And the benefits are super, far better than social security.

The "service they provide" varies wildly, thanks to teachers' unions which always insist on keeping even the most incompetent of teachers.

Shame on teachers for this despicable nonsense. Shame on them all.
What cowards.

A teacher made such a comment to some of his students a year or two ago.
It was the same old poormouth claim the public has been subjected to for decades, and his students passed it on in a prominent newspaper article. So I went to the nearest public school and took pictures of the cars in the lot.

Wow.

Brand new BMWs, Mercedes, Lexuses, Volvos, and other high-end cars.

Then I went to the District headquarters, and photographed those PLUS two new Jaguars.

I sent all these digital photos to the subject teacher, the board of education, the district bigwigs, and the newspaper.

The original teacher making the Big Lie was terribly embarrassed and claimed he was just trying to be "clever with words."

His "clever with words" is what any objective person would call "a lie."

Teachers are not supposed to lie and misrepresent, but they do all the time.

The biggest lie of all is the poormouth claim, followed by the pretense that they could make SO MUCH MORE MONEY in the private sector.

[majamin]

Then why are there hundreds of applications for jobs as teachers, hmmm?


Certainly, there are more than hundreds of applications for teaching jobs ...


Our local school district pays up to $95,000 for 9 months of work. And the benefits are super, far better than social security.

The "service they provide" varies wildly, thanks to teachers' unions which always insist on keeping even the most incompetent of teachers.


Wildly? Do you have any proof of how wild (varied) this is?


Shame on teachers for this despicable nonsense. Shame on them all.
What cowards.


So, the teachers are behind all of this? A mass collusion to teach poorly and getting paid well for it?


A teacher made such a comment to some of his students a year or two ago.
It was the same old poormouth claim the public has been subjected to for decades, and his students passed it on in a prominent newspaper article. So I went to the nearest public school and took pictures of the cars in the lot.

Wow.

Brand new BMWs, Mercedes, Lexuses, Volvos, and other high-end cars.

Then I went to the District headquarters, and photographed those PLUS two new Jaguars.

I sent all these digital photos to the subject teacher, the board of education, the district bigwigs, and the newspaper.

The original teacher making the Big Lie was terribly embarrassed and claimed he was just trying to be "clever with words."

His "clever with words" is what any objective person would call "a lie."

Teachers are not supposed to lie and misrepresent, but they do all the time.


That's quite an extraordinary story and situation. I hope you don't think that the state of wealth in that school is common.


The biggest lie of all is the poormouth claim, followed by the pretense that they could make SO MUCH MORE MONEY in the private sector.

Some private schools do offer better pay, so what? If I'm making less than 50k per year as a teacher, wouldn't it be plausible to want to switch to a school that pays better?

[Doubt]

Our local school district pays up to $95,000 for 9 months of work. And the benefits are super, far better than social security.



I have asked you several times in this thread for evidence about the 95k a year. You have ignored this request. Evidence please. There is no reason for anyone here to take your word for it. Failure to support this assertion looks dishonest.

Put up or shut up. If you have no evidence, just say so.

BTW, One of the reasons I want the info is to see if I can compare it to local demographic info.

[Garrison0fMars]

Then why are there hundreds of applications for jobs as teachers, hmmm?

Our local school district pays up to $95,000 for 9 months of work. And the benefits are super, far better than social security.

The "service they provide" varies wildly, thanks to teachers' unions which always insist on keeping even the most incompetent of teachers.

Shame on teachers for this despicable nonsense. Shame on them all.
What cowards.

A teacher made such a comment to some of his students a year or two ago.
It was the same old poormouth claim the public has been subjected to for decades, and his students passed it on in a prominent newspaper article. So I went to the nearest public school and took pictures of the cars in the lot.

Wow.

Brand new BMWs, Mercedes, Lexuses, Volvos, and other high-end cars.

Then I went to the District headquarters, and photographed those PLUS two new Jaguars.

I sent all these digital photos to the subject teacher, the board of education, the district bigwigs, and the newspaper.

The original teacher making the Big Lie was terribly embarrassed and claimed he was just trying to be "clever with words."

His "clever with words" is what any objective person would call "a lie."

Teachers are not supposed to lie and misrepresent, but they do all the time.

The biggest lie of all is the poormouth claim, followed by the pretense that they could make SO MUCH MORE MONEY in the private sector.

Translation : I'm a right wing blowhard who just shouts out nonsensical rantings. No one's going to take you seriously if you continue that.

[bikerdruid]

I have asked you several times in this thread for evidence about the 95k a year. You have ignored this request. Evidence please. There is no reason for anyone here to take your word for it. Failure to support this assertion looks dishonest.

Put up or shut up. If you have no evidence, just say so.

BTW, One of the reasons I want the info is to see if I can compare it to local demographic info.

i am a retired teacher in northern alberta, canada.
my current salary, with 6 years of university, and maximum experience grid, would currently be just over $100,000.
not bad for 200 days of work per year. (the teaching year in alberta)

[ria_rokz]

i am a retired teacher in northern alberta, canada.
my current salary, with 6 years of university, and maximum experience grid, would currently be just over $100,000.
not bad for 200 days of work per year. (the teaching year in alberta)

What school division? I will be stepping into the education field as a teacher in northern Alberta, Canada, and my starting salary will be just under 50,000 based on zero years experience and four years of university. Of course, cost of living is pretty high so that's not too spectacular. If I take a full-time job, I can expect 11+ hour days, including at least one weekend day, and using at least half of the summer to prepare yearly plans, unit plans, and gather resources - I believe one of the other posters referred to this.

To get slightly back on topic, I can speak as a person currently undergoing teacher training that a shift is starting to occur. We are starting to get away from knowledge-based education and teaching students to be effective critical thinkers (I think we can all agree from our experiences on these boards that many people are seriously lacking this skill).

The difficulty is that most of us were taught in a system that valued knowledge more than the ability to think, and as the saying goes, "old habits die hard". The paradigm shift is starting but the transition will take some time.

[JonathanQuick]

GRADE F FOR ALL OF YOU.

Ha, ha, ha...be as jealous as you want to be. I have my $86,000 a year salary, 14 weeks paid vacation a year and a 7 hour work day.


Look, another poor, poor, pitiful, overworked, underpaid teacher.

Q.E.D.


I should be jealous of YOU?

I paid more than that in taxes two years ago.
Then I quit working. My investments were making more than I was.
A lot more.

I had an account with a well-known investment manager, but as good as he was at beating the indices, my other accounts not under his control were outperforming him under my direction.

For example, I forwarded him a Wall Street Journal article encouraging Americans to pull investments from international companies which invest in countries sponsoring terrorism. One such company is Total Fina S.A., ticker symbol TOT.

He would not do it.

So I ordered him to sell all my TOT.
I had to sign paperwork since my decision might have untoward consequences on the performance of my portfolio.

Done.

In place of TOT, he purchased BHP for me.

One year later, TOT had risen 20%. Uh oh.
How did BHP do in the same period?
Up around 70%.

His clients lost many millions of dollars when he dismissed the WSJ and the best interests of not just America but the world. And so did he.

I comment on this to preclude the anticipated rebuttals from people who will no doubt attack me as a liar. This is a favorite tactic of the left - lying about the individual, instead of responding to what he said.

[JonathanQuick]

Originally Posted by Doubt View Post
I have asked you several times in this thread for evidence about the 95k a year. You have ignored this request. Evidence please. There is no reason for anyone here to take your word for it. Failure to support this assertion looks dishonest.

Put up or shut up. If you have no evidence, just say so.

BTW, One of the reasons I want the info is to see if I can compare it to local demographic info.

i am a retired teacher in northern alberta, canada.
my current salary, with 6 years of university, and maximum experience grid, would currently be just over $100,000.
not bad for 200 days of work per year. (the teaching year in alberta)

Funny that no leftist EVER questions the veracity of a fellow lefty.

Doubt doesn't ask YOU to "put up or shut up." Only me.
Such is the integrity, the fairness, the honesty of the left.

As if HIS investigations would be fair and objective, much less conclusive.

[JonathanQuick]

///

To get slightly back on topic, I can speak as a person currently undergoing teacher training that a shift is starting to occur. We are starting to get away from knowledge-based education and teaching students to be effective critical thinkers (I think we can all agree from our experiences on these boards that many people are seriously lacking this skill).
///

If you are referring to teachers as seriously lacking in "this skill" (knowledge-based education and teaching students to be effective critical thinkers), I agree.

New York City schools were featured on a national news investigation a few years ago, and they showed a huge building where hundreds of incompetent teachers were housed daily. They teach nobody. They do whatever they want. They cannot be fired because of the teachers' union.

It is disgraceful. What have teachers done to correct this abomination?

It is widespread throughout America, this inability to fire incompetent teachers.

[bikerdruid]

What school division? I will be stepping into the education field as a teacher in northern Alberta, Canada, and my starting salary will be just under 50,000 based on zero years experience and four years of university. Of course, cost of living is pretty high so that's not too spectacular. If I take a full-time job, I can expect 11+ hour days, including at least one weekend day, and using at least half of the summer to prepare yearly plans, unit plans, and gather resources - I believe one of the other posters referred to this.

To get slightly back on topic, I can speak as a person currently undergoing teacher training that a shift is starting to occur. We are starting to get away from knowledge-based education and teaching students to be effective critical thinkers (I think we can all agree from our experiences on these boards that many people are seriously lacking this skill).

The difficulty is that most of us were taught in a system that valued knowledge more than the ability to think, and as the saying goes, "old habits die hard". The paradigm shift is starting but the transition will take some time.

peace river #10...however, the pay scale is pretty similar all over the province.

[ria_rokz]

If you are referring to teachers as seriously lacking in "this skill" (knowledge-based education and teaching students to be effective critical thinkers), I agree.

New York City schools were featured on a national news investigation a few years ago, and they showed a huge building where hundreds of incompetent teachers were housed daily. They teach nobody. They do whatever they want. They cannot be fired because of the teachers' union.

It is disgraceful. What have teachers done to correct this abomination?

It is widespread throughout America, this inability to fire incompetent teachers.

Eh... wut? The skill I referred to was the ability to think critically, not knowledge-based education. Knowledge-based education had value before the internet, but now we have free and nearly unlimited access to information and therefore need to learn how to evaluate sources. This requires critical thinking.

So the New York City system is corrupt. That doesn't mean all public education is corrupt. But wait, this only refers to one school. Do you have an article that discusses this? Are there other examples of this? One single instance of anecdotal evidence is rather weak.

Obviously there are issues that need to be rectified, but I think you are unfairly categorizing teachers into one single lump. Actually, you imply that teachers should be firing teachers. That technically is more up to administrators and school boards, and these people are not necessarily teachers.

Furthermore, not all teachers' unions are so bad. The Alberta Teachers' Association (http://www.teachers.ab.ca/Pages/Home.aspx) is more than just a union.

[ria_rokz]

peace river #10...however, the pay scale is pretty similar all over the province.

True, although I've noticed when I go through the collective agreements it is a bit lower in Edmonton and Calgary. I compared PRSD with PWSD and saw they were pretty much the same.

[bikerdruid]

Furthermore, not all teachers' unions are so bad. The Alberta Teachers' Association (http://www.teachers.ab.ca/Pages/Home.aspx) is more than just a union.

after many years as a member, and many thousands paid in dues, i think the ATA is a money guzzling bureaucracy.
i'm not a big fan. sorry.
if it was an effective union, classroom conditions would be a lot better in conservative-stricken alberta.

[majamin]

New York City schools were featured on a national news investigation a few years ago, and they showed a huge building where hundreds of incompetent teachers were housed daily. They teach nobody. They do whatever they want. They cannot be fired because of the teachers' union.

It is disgraceful. What have teachers done to correct this abomination?

It is widespread throughout America, this inability to fire incompetent teachers.

Turn down the rant-o-matic. It's getting in the way of a productive discussion. It would be neat-o if you could kick the hyperbole habit while you're at it ("they teach nobody", "they do whatever they want"), and lay out the evidence to illustrate the grim 'reality' of the teaching profession. A news investigation does NOT cut it. Anecdotes and personal experiences do NOT cut it.

I'd be happy to discuss the "firing of incompetent teachers", but not in the way you're engaging in it.

[Doubt]

Funny that no leftist EVER questions the veracity of a fellow lefty.

Doubt doesn't ask YOU to "put up or shut up." Only me.
Such is the integrity, the fairness, the honesty of the left.

As if HIS investigations would be fair and objective, much less conclusive.

bikerdruid is in Canada. Not very relevant to your claims about US teachers. I told you why I wanted the info. Can you not support your claim? Also, he told us a location. That can be used to verify what he claims. You have supplied nothing.

Also, you have no clue if I am left or right. Asking you for info does not = left. Challenging you to support your claims does not = left. It's called being a skeptic. Put up or shut up. Stop playing games. If the facts are on your side this should not be a problem for you. Otherwise, the null hypothesis is what we are left with.

How hard can this be? Are you telling the truth or are you lying?

Supply the info so we can see if it is true.

[Travis]

Okay, let us assume that teachers are being paid $95,000 a year. I'd like you to argue why they shouldn't be paid that much.

Conversely I'd like you to explain why CEO's that show up to work a couple of times a week to issue nonsensical catch phrases for a couple of hours before returning home to snort cocaine off of hookers are deserving of their multimillion dollar salaries.


Also I'd like you to imagine just what things might be like without teachers unions. They are not the monsters that you have made them out to be.

[Jeff Corey]

...New York City schools were featured on a national news investigation a few years ago, and they showed a huge building where hundreds of incompetent teachers were housed daily. They teach nobody. They do whatever they want. They cannot be fired because of the teachers' union.

It is disgraceful. What have teachers done to correct this abomination?

It is widespread throughout America, this inability to fire incompetent teachers.

Ya know, I live in NY, relatively near The City, and never heard about those "hundreds of teachers".
How about you do your homework and find a reliable reference for this claim. Not the National Inquirer or the Teabag Daily Rag, please.

[Travis]

My dad had many dealings with the teachers union here in California over the years and he had nothing but respect for them. Many a time a school wanted to throw a teacher under the bus because they were older and earning more (younger teachers are cheaper) and they would stop that crap cold.

[Garrison0fMars]

i am a retired teacher in northern alberta, canada.
my current salary, with 6 years of university, and maximum experience grid, would currently be just over $100,000.
not bad for 200 days of work per year. (the teaching year in alberta)

Isn't Johnathan talking about the US educational system, not the Canadian one?