# Parent arrested at school board meeting for violating 2-minute rule



## Stubbly

"William Baer was arrested at the Gilford NH School Board meeting on 5/5/2014 for violating the 2-minute speaking rule imposed by board chairman Sue Allen. Allen restricted each speaker to a strict 2 minutes, statement format(no questions or answers), and only one speaking opportunity per person."

PART 1 - Gilford NH Parent arrested for violating 2-minute speaking rule





Raw video: Man arrested at Gilford school board meeting 
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OsbS9JD7Pvw#t=88

Man says free speech rights violated in arrest over book
Parents voice concerns over scene in assigned reading in Gilford
https://www.wmur.com/news/man-says-...ed-in-arrest-over-book/25834676#ixzz3159AAECU


----------



## SG_67

How dare he defy the High Priest of the school board! 

When will taxpayers learn to shut their mouths and accept what they're told. 


By the way, here's a link to page 313:


----------



## Stubbly

SG_67 said:


> How dare he defy the High Priest of the school board!
> 
> When will taxpayers learn to shut their mouths and accept what they're told.


Thanks for the link!

Who but a depraved government hack would consider this filth appropriate for high school kids?

BTW, the school board chairwoman seems to have a passive aggressive personality, as do most bureaucrats. To shut people up, she hides behind her ridiculous rules.


----------



## SG_67

All the more reason to reform public education and allow for private competition. Liberalize state and local rules regarding the joining of unions and link funding to the student and to test scores.


----------



## 32rollandrock

SG_67 said:


> How dare he defy the High Priest of the school board!
> 
> When will taxpayers learn to shut their mouths and accept what they're told.
> 
> By the way, here's a link to page 313:


Thank God there's nothing like that on television or the Internet...

In my experience, the collective wisdom of any given school board is something less than the IQ of my pug. They tend to be led around by bureaucrats who ended up as school bureaucrats after nearly flunking out of college, then becoming teachers, then acquiring master's degrees and PhD's by going to summer school and taking such classes as Life On The Planet Earth so that they could make more money thanks to ridiculous collective bargaining agreements that base salaries on how many letters appear after one's name. Dissatisfied with $80K-plus for working 180 five-hour days per year, they become administrators so that they can eventually become superintendents and make $250K per year to talk to school boards about stakeholders and forging partnerships and mission statements and action plans. And who would be silly enough to run for school boards? Someone silly enough to want to spend endless hours in meetings listening to overpaid blowhards in ill-fitting suits and bad ties talk about partnerships and mission statements and action plans.


----------



## Pentheos

32rollandrock said:


> Thank God there's nothing like that on television or the Internet...
> 
> In my experience, the collective wisdom of any given school board is something less than the IQ of my pug. They tend to be led around by bureaucrats who ended up as school bureaucrats after nearly flunking out of college, then becoming teachers, then acquiring master's degrees and PhD's by going to summer school and taking such classes as Life On The Planet Earth so that they could make more money thanks to ridiculous collective bargaining agreements that base salaries on how many letters appear after one's name. Dissatisfied with $80K-plus for working 180 five-hour days per year, they become administrators so that they can eventually become superintendents and make $250K per year to talk to school boards about stakeholders and forging partnerships and mission statements and action plans. And who would be silly enough to run for school boards? Someone silly enough to want to spend endless hours in meetings listening to overpaid blowhards in ill-fitting suits and bad ties talk about partnerships and mission statements and action plans.


Why don't you say what you mean???

(Nevermind, I agree with everything...sad state of affairs...glad I don't have kids...if I did, I'd homeschool to keep them out of the cesspool that is modern public education...really, public school is tantamount to child abuse.)


----------



## SG_67

Sometimes I wish you could go back to a time when kids in school actually learned things. 

As long as education remains in the public sector it will be victim to political machinations and become a football for those looking to use it as a stepping stone to furthering their political careers.


----------



## justonemore

SG_67 said:


> Sometimes I wish you could go back to a time when kids in school actually learned things.
> 
> As long as education remains in the public sector it will be victim to political machinations and become a football for those looking to use it as a stepping stone to furthering their political careers.


What sh*t... The private schools in Switzerland are considered a joke compared to the public schools (mostly those that are considered "american schools" for your oversears billionaires). Learn to look beyond the U.S and find the truth before posting....


----------



## Chouan

SG_67 said:


> Sometimes I wish you could go back to a time when kids in school actually learned things.


A tremendous leap from a person, an individual, using grotesquely disproportionate powers to enforce their will, to an assertion that kids in American schools don't learn things!



SG_67 said:


> As long as education remains in the public sector it will be victim to political machinations and become a football for those looking to use it as a stepping stone to furthering their political careers.


If education is in the private sector it will continue to be used as a means to make money, or as a means for wealthy people to impose their ideas on the youth of their country. Is education a money making scheme or a public service?


----------



## MaxBuck

I'm not keen on the reading material the guy objected to. And I'm befuddled by how the police can excuse arresting someone for breaking a rule set by a public school board but no actual laws.

Nonetheless, I have to take issue with comments like "public schools are a cesspool" and "I wish kids in school actually learned things." Are our public schools performing adequately? No. Do we need to improve them? Obviously yes. But our schools are being provided raw material (youth) who increasingly come from less-intelligent and less-motivated parents (often single mothers). They are hamstrung with budget constraints that limit instructional resources, most of which constraints result from demands by the handicapped lobby to mainstream developmentally-disabled kids, which is monstrously expensive. And we still produce graduates that, though they're not up to the levels of Korea or Finland, compare not unfavorably to graduates in many other developed nations without the diversity of population that we have. I think that's something that needs to be better recognized by the anti-public-schools crowd.


----------



## SG_67

Chouan said:


> A tremendous leap from a person, an individual, using grotesquely disproportionate powers to enforce their will, to an assertion that kids in American schools don't learn things!
> 
> If education is in the private sector it will continue to be used as a means to make money, or as a means for wealthy people to impose their ideas on the youth of their country. Is education a money making scheme or a public service?


As opposed to bureaucrats imposing their ideas? Right now the only people with access to private education, with some exception, are the rich. Much like in countries with a public healthcare sector where only the rich can afford private insurance. If education were decentralized more people would enter into the system and there would be more parity; it wouldn't be just for the rich anymore.

I'm not anti public education, but the system as it is doesn't work. Attempts at reform are doggedly opposed by unions with their own interests (remember the Chicago ordeal a couple of years ago?). As soon as someone mentions standardized testing the teachers unions trot out their same old arguments when in reality they don't want it because it actually measures what a kid has learned.

Why not expand charter schools? Why not try expanding the private sector into what has long since been a state monopoly?

MaxBuck mentions that many kids are the product of worsening social conditions and parents who are less educated and less motivated. How does that happen? Segments of our education system have become virtual ghettos where this gets perpetuated from one generation to another. Like the failed housing projects in Chicago that created large concentrations of poverty and crime, some of our schools have become the same. And pouring money into a broken system doesn't seem to work.

I am very pro education and I would be all for public schools if they worked uniformly. Something needs to be done to break the cycle and I'm fine with trying a market based approach vs. what we've had up to now.


----------



## WouldaShoulda

SG_67 said:


> How dare he defy the High Priest of the school board!
> 
> When will taxpayers learn to shut their mouths and accept what they're told.
> 
> By the way, here's a link to page 313:


Thanks!!

That reminded me of my first time.

So did the two minute rule.


----------



## SG_67

WouldaShoulda said:


> Thanks!!
> 
> That reminded me of my first time.
> 
> So did the two minute rule.


As long as it didn't end with you being arrested!


----------



## Stubbly

justonemore said:


> What sh*t... The private schools in Switzerland are considered a joke compared to the public schools (mostly those that are considered "american schools" for your oversears billionaires). Learn to look beyond the U.S and find the truth before posting....


Switzerland has a population of about 8 million people.

How is such a small country a comprehensive example of anything? Many large cities around the world have a larger population.


----------



## justonemore

Stubbly said:


> Switzerland has a population of about 8 million people.
> 
> How is such a small country a comprehensive example of anything? Many large cities around the world have a larger population.


I'm sorry to hear that 8 (million) times 'x" amount is too difficult for American politicians to comprehend. Much better tp ignore the pluses found elsewhere versus trying to actually make a change that is beneficial to the society that american politicians are supposed to serve


----------



## Stubbly

justonemore said:


> I'm sorry to hear that 8 (million) times 'x" amount is too difficult for American politicians to comprehend. Much better tp ignore the pluses found elsewhere versus trying to actually make a change that is beneficial to the society that american politicians are supposed to serve


American population: 313 million+
Switzerland population: 8 million+

Managing a large country, or a large anything, presents different problems. Managing a large-scale operation is far more difficult, but it can be done. I'm not making excuses for American politicians; many or most are corrupt and/or incompetent.


----------



## 32rollandrock

It is impossible for any educational system to overcome a crappy home life and parents who don't care or can barely read themselves or spend all their time drunk, but there is still plenty of room for improvement. I've recently become familiar with two cases where I live. In one, a former teacher now charged with sexually assaulting a boy kept his job after being caught giving kids back rubs at school and talking to them about sex and calling them at home and on their cell phones and giving them gifts and some other stuff. He got a short suspension that was reduced after the union protested. His GPA after two years of college? Right at 2.0. In another case, a math teacher was disciplined four times in less than a year before getting suspended after porn was found on his school-owned computer, and he had previously gotten in trouble for inappropriate use of computers. His GPA after two years of college? 1.88, which included a D in geometry--and this guy is teaching math. It is almost impossible to fire a teacher, even if they show up drunk for work or don't show up at all. That, at least, is how it works where I live, and so school districts foist bad teachers from one school to the next or one district to the next so that they become someone else's problem. These teachers after not many years earn more than $50,000 a year for working days well short of eight hours, they work just 180 days a year and they get pensions of 75 or 80 percent of their final salary upon retirement, and it doesn't take many years of service, at least compared with the private sector, before you're eligible to cash in.

The bottom line is, you can screw around in college until you've compiled such a poor academic record that you can't get into any kind of grad school, can't get a decent job in the private sector but you can become a teacher and be set for the rest of your life, regardless of whether you are good or bad at teaching kids. There is something deeply, deeply wrong with that. I would like to get a teaching job but I cannot because I haven't taken a lot of ridiculous classes in theory of child development and all the other silly courses that are required to obtain a teaching certificate. To become a teacher, I would have to go back to school for at least two years. Instead, I should be able to volunteer at a school and if it turns out that I can teach kids to read and write, then I should be able to get a job.

Read a story in NYT recently about a growing trend in which young folks teach for a few years, then go on to other things. They see teaching not as a career, but as a job you do for awhile before eventually landing on a career. That's the way it should be.

We can't expect kids to become the best-and-brightest when we tolerate teachers who have no options after college except for Burger King, the Army or the local schoolhouse.


----------



## justonemore

32rollandrock said:


> It is impossible for any educational system to overcome a crappy home life and parents who don't care or can barely read themselves or spend all their time drunk, but there is still plenty of room for improvement. I've recently become familiar with two cases where I live. In one, a former teacher now charged with sexually assaulting a boy kept his job after being caught giving kids back rubs at school and talking to them about sex and calling them at home and on their cell phones and giving them gifts and some other stuff. He got a short suspension that was reduced after the union protested. His GPA after two years of college? Right at 2.0. In another case, a math teacher was disciplined four times in less than a year before getting suspended after porn was found on his school-owned computer, and he had previously gotten in trouble for inappropriate use of computers. His GPA after two years of college? 1.88, which included a D in geometry--and this guy is teaching math. It is almost impossible to fire a teacher, even if they show up drunk for work or don't show up at all. That, at least, is how it works where I live, and so school districts foist bad teachers from one school to the next or one district to the next so that they become someone else's problem. These teachers after not many years earn more than $50,000 a year for working days well short of eight hours, they work just 180 days a year and they get pensions of 75 or 80 percent of their final salary upon retirement, and it doesn't take many years of service, at least compared with the private sector, before you're eligible to cash in.
> 
> The bottom line is, you can screw around in college until you've compiled such a poor academic record that you can't get into any kind of grad school, can't get a decent job in the private sector but you can become a teacher and be set for the rest of your life, regardless of whether you are good or bad at teaching kids. There is something deeply, deeply wrong with that. I would like to get a teaching job but I cannot because I haven't taken a lot of ridiculous classes in theory of child development and all the other silly courses that are required to obtain a teaching certificate. To become a teacher, I would have to go back to school for at least two years. Instead, I should be able to volunteer at a school and if it turns out that I can teach kids to read and write, then I should be able to get a job.
> 
> Read a story in NYT recently about a growing trend in which young folks teach for a few years, then go on to other things. They see teaching not as a career, but as a job you do for awhile before eventually landing on a career. That's the way it should be.
> 
> We can't expect kids to become the best-and-brightest when we tolerate teachers who have no options after college except for Burger King, the Army or the local schoolhouse.


All the more reason to support a national educational system based on education & merit. It works well elsewhere & should serve as an example to countries desiring to claim themself as "the best".


----------



## Tilton

^^ That's why teachers shouldn't be unionized and salaries should be higher. If an entry-level teaching job paid $80k it would attract much better talent and if they weren't unionized, bad teachers with poor performance wouldn't be retained and their methods and habits institutionalized. Poorly performing teachers (and I don't mean teachers whose students can't pass standardized tests - sometimes there's no avoiding students who don't care and won't try) should be extremely worried about their job security, but unfortunately that just isn't the case.


----------



## justonemore

Tilton said:


> ^^ That's why teachers shouldn't be unionized and salaries should be higher. If an entry-level teaching job paid $80k it would attract much better talent and if they weren't unionized, bad teachers with poor performance wouldn't be retained and their methods and habits institutionalized. Poorly performing teachers (and I don't mean teachers whose students can't pass standardized tests - sometimes there's no avoiding students who don't care and won't try) should be extremely worried about their job security, but unfortunately that just isn't the case.


Agreed but teachers also need to ve able to teach factual matters without fear of reprisal. U S. States that threaten teacher jobs for telling proven thoughts such as evolution over theoretical creationism need to be brought under control. State rights are great until we realize that their policies are detremental to the u.s. as a whole.


----------



## 32rollandrock

Tilton said:


> ^^ That's why teachers shouldn't be unionized and salaries should be higher. If an entry-level teaching job paid $80k it would attract much better talent and if they weren't unionized, bad teachers with poor performance wouldn't be retained and their methods and habits institutionalized. Poorly performing teachers (and I don't mean teachers whose students can't pass standardized tests - sometimes there's no avoiding students who don't care and won't try) should be extremely worried about their job security, but unfortunately that just isn't the case.


The economy is so bad right now that recent, deserving college graduates with good grades are working at Starbucks. Along the same lines, thousands of journalists who would make good teachers have been thrown out of work due to the decline in the newspaper industry. The point is, I don't think that you would have to offer $80K these days to get good teachers. Outside the New Yorks and Chicagos and Los Angeles's of the world, $40K is considered a pretty good starting salary for a fresh college graduate. The problem is, they can't get teaching jobs because they don't have teaching certificates because they didn't take the required courses, and the required courses are, on the whole, much easier courses than courses in majors other than education, which I don't think should be a major at all.

What might help, I think, is a minimum GPA--if you don't have at least a 3.0 GPA in an academic subject (and courses on "education" et al don't count) then you can't be a teacher, period. Wouldn't take care of everything, but it would rid the system of academic lard-asses who have no business teaching anything to anyone.


----------



## 32rollandrock

Stubbly said:


> American population: 313 million+
> Switzerland population: 8 million+
> 
> Managing a large country, or a large anything, presents different problems. Managing a large-scale operation is far more difficult, but it can be done. I'm not making excuses for American politicians; many or most are corrupt and/or incompetent.


I wouldn't call them incompetent. I think that they are very good at what they do. Too good, in fact.


----------



## Tilton

32rollandrock said:


> The economy is so bad right now that recent, deserving college graduates with good grades are working at Starbucks. Along the same lines, thousands of journalists who would make good teachers have been thrown out of work due to the decline in the newspaper industry. The point is, I don't think that you would have to offer $80K these days to get good teachers. Outside the New Yorks and Chicagos and Los Angeles's of the world, $40K is considered a pretty good starting salary for a fresh college graduate. The problem is, they can't get teaching jobs because they don't have teaching certificates because they didn't take the required courses, and the required courses are, on the whole, much easier courses than courses in majors other than education, which I don't think should be a major at all.
> 
> What might help, I think, is a minimum GPA--if you don't have at least a 3.0 GPA in an academic subject (and courses on "education" et al don't count) then you can't be a teacher, period. Wouldn't take care of everything, but it would rid the system of academic lard-asses who have no business teaching anything to anyone.


Sure, I don't disagree with any of that, but I wasn't talking about EVERY college grad, just those who immediately rule out teaching because of the low pay. DC was recently ranked the most expensive place to live in the US but teachers were don't make more than $2-3k more than newly minted teachers in my hometown of Podunk, VA which has a COL about 40% lower, but guess who's always hiring new teachers? Podunk, VA. I am in the demographic you're talking about - recent graduates - and I can tell you from experience that all of the people my age to a few years younger I know who can't find a $35-40k job are being too picky or have unrealistic expectations. They have the mindset that they are too good, too qualified to be an admin assistant and make $40k, but then turn around and take a job waiting tables or as a barista because they think it is more noble than being a first year peon in the white collar world. I know not every person in my age group is like that, but you'd probably be surprised to understand how many really are. I have this conversations with several people regularly when they complain about being broke because Starbucks patrons don't tip well.


----------



## Stubbly

32rollandrock said:


> I wouldn't call them incompetent. I think that they are very good at what they do. Too good, in fact.


I assume you mean American politicians are competent in matters of malfeasance, not competent as leaders.


----------



## 32rollandrock

Stubbly said:


> I assume you mean American politicians are competent in matters of malfeasance, not competent as leaders.


American politicians couldn't spell "leaders" if you spotted them everything but the "s."


----------



## justonemore

32rollandrock said:


> American politicians couldn't spell "leaders" if you spotted them everything but the "s."


are american politicians not supposed to be representatives versus leaders?


----------



## 32rollandrock

Tilton said:


> Sure, I don't disagree with any of that, but I wasn't talking about EVERY college grad, just those who immediately rule out teaching because of the low pay. DC was recently ranked the most expensive place to live in the US but teachers were don't make more than $2-3k more than newly minted teachers in my hometown of Podunk, VA which has a COL about 40% lower, but guess who's always hiring new teachers? Podunk, VA. I am in the demographic you're talking about - recent graduates - and I can tell you from experience that all of the people my age to a few years younger I know who can't find a $35-40k job are being too picky or have unrealistic expectations. They have the mindset that they are too good, too qualified to be an admin assistant and make $40k, but then turn around and take a job waiting tables or as a barista because they think it is more noble than being a first year peon in the white collar world. I know not every person in my age group is like that, but you'd probably be surprised to understand how many really are. I have this conversations with several people regularly when they complain about being broke because Starbucks patrons don't tip well.


Nearly 30 years ago, I started out in a clerical position and worked my way up. Anyone unwilling to do the same is getting, I think, exactly what they deserve.

I recently took a leave to help a relative with some medical issues and spent a fair amount of time in a coffee shop because it had WiFi and cheap beer. Got to know a couple of folks there, including a well-spoken, obviously intelligent guy who worked behind the counter. He was pretty open about stuff. Said he takes home less than $2,000 a month and that he's no better off at 30 than he was at 18. I asked him how many roommates he had and he said six. The thought of what's-a-guy-like-you-doing-in-a-place-like-this crossed my mind. Then again, I read sob stories about barely employed or unemployed college graduates with crushing student loan debt and every last one of them involves going to a private or out-of-state school instead of a less-expensive in-state university and then majoring in History of French Theater or something like that. You could get away with that sort of thing back in the 80s, I think, but no more. Still, I think there's a lot to be said for a true liberal arts education, and that's why this teacher thing infuriates me so much. We give gold-plated teaching jobs to mediocre or sub-mediocre students upon graduation when there are unemployed or under-employed liberal arts graduates who actually know enough about the given subject matter to be able to teach kids about literature or history. And it really is un-fixable, at least from within the system.


----------



## 32rollandrock

justonemore said:


> are american politicians not supposed to be representatives versus leaders?


You can represent constituents when it comes to stuff like fighting against proposals to put toxic waste dumps in your district, but it is impossible to truly represent everyone's interests because people in the United States are so diverse. Instead, you end up pandering. The ideal politicians/leaders are those who say, usually indirectly, "Hey, here's who I am, here's what I believe in and here's how I'd vote on gun control/drug legalization/abortion/health-care reform/pick-a-subject." If the majority of voters like your position, then you get the job. Guns and Prohibition are two good examples. The majority of the public didn't favor Prohibition, just as most Americans today neither own guns nor favor allowing people to buy guns online or pack heat in airports or bars or do a lot of other things involving firearms. Nonetheless, guns are everywhere--the state of Georgia just legalized guns in airports, bars, churches, daycare centers and a lot of other places (but not the state Capitol, go figure)--and that's because the pro-gun lobby, like the pro-Prohibition lobby, has proven adept at getting folks elected who will pass laws against the wishes of the majority of the electorate while defeating politicians who take stands based on common sense and what they feel is truly right. In the end, everyone suffers except the minority that got its way and their bought-and-paid-for politicians who are neither representatives nor leaders. They are narcissistic cowards.


----------



## SG_67

justonemore said:


> Agreed but teachers also need to ve able to teach factual matters without fear of reprisal. U S. States that threaten teacher jobs for telling proven thoughts such as evolution over theoretical creationism need to be brought under control. State rights are great until we realize that their policies are detremental to the u.s. as a whole.


Please name a state or district that has threatened a teacher's job if they don't teach creationism? Are you kidding me?


----------



## Stubbly

SG_67 said:


> Please name a state or district that has threatened a teacher's job if they don't teach creationism? Are you kidding me?


I'm with you!

However, some other people live in an alternate universe.


----------



## Stubbly

justonemore said:


> are american politicians not supposed to be representatives versus leaders?


I don't see much of a distinction between being a representative and a leader. These roles are intertwined.


----------



## MaxBuck

SG_67 said:


> I am very pro education and I would be all for public schools if they worked uniformly. Something needs to be done to break the cycle and I'm fine with trying a market based approach vs. what we've had up to now.


We're in an interesting social experiment right now in Ohio, where lots of "charter schools" have sprouted up and are competing, if you will, with public schools.

Long term it will be interesting to see how the charters measure up. The first five or so years, though, aren't encouraging; many charters have gone belly up within a semester of opening, and the performance overall has been underwhelming. I'm a market proponent, but so far the Ohio charter schools don't seem to speak well for market-based education.

What would I do if I were Education Czar?

1. Outlaw teacher unions. If teachers wish to be regarded as professionals, they need to start acting like it. Employment at will.

2. Pay teachers better. Goes along hand-in-glove with 1.

3. Get the developmentally-disabled back into their own schools. Sympathy and encouragement would be fine ... if we could afford them. As it is, these kids are resource hogs who can eat up to 50% of local school budgets, while constituting less than 5% of the student population. That's just nuts.

4. Make teacher pay performance-based, but not until we come up with better metrics on just what performance measures can be affected by the teachers, and what measures are not really correlated with teacher skill.

This last one is going to be by far the most complicated and difficult, but honestly the teaching profession needs to do a better job of figuring out how to educate children, from a process standpoint. I don't think education schooling right now is very scientific; it seems like trial-and-error to me. Figuring out what metrics are appropriate will require figuring out exactly what it is that good teachers do to get the best possible results across a wide range of student capability levels.


----------



## WouldaShoulda

MaxBuck said:


> 3. Get the developmentally-disabled back into their own schools.


I know Special Ed teachers who say "my kids can't be mainstreamed, are you nuts??"

They feel very alone.


----------



## 32rollandrock

Due respect, but I cannot agree with most of what you say--it reminds me of NCLB, which hasn't worked. Here is my prescription for reform.

1. Expel students who disrupt class. And if you flunk out, that means you leave school, not get passed on to the next grade. The public owes no obligation to kids--and their families--who show no interest in obtaining an education. They can come back and try again, but only after sitting out for a year or so. Start doing this in the eighth grade. Good kids too often don't get the education they deserve because instruction is aimed at the lowest common denominator, i.e., nincompoops who just aren't going to make it, no matter how much time they spend in school screwing things up for everyone else. Create some sort of vocational program for kids who get thrown out of school because they're disruptive or aren't motivated enough to learn, but keep a tight rein on it--second chances are fine, but not fourth and fifth and sixth chances. As it stands now, there are no consequences for kids who need consequences.

2. As previously stated, minimum college GPAs in academic subjects--math, history, literature and the like--for teachers. If you can't prove mastery, or at least competence, of a subject in college, you have no business teaching it in public schools.

3. Cut funding for schools. Yes--cut it. We can do more--a lot more--with less. The problem, in my view, is that we've somehow decided that money is needed to produce excellence, and while there is a point of diminishing returns, you can't keep throwing money at failing schools and expect different results. The amount of money in our educational system has created incentives for people to make careers out of education--superintendents who preside over failing schools routinely earn $250,000 a year or more, teachers are drawn to the "profession" because, between their teaching positions and whatever other side jobs they hold in their spare time, they can pull down six figures with relative ease, and even without side jobs, it's a comfortable salary, and you can't be fired no matter what you do. That's ridiculous--a recipe for attracting lard asses. Teaching is not rocket science, and yet we have made it out to be exactly that. You don't need a PhD or a masters degree to be a good teacher, you need to know your subject and have a knack with kids. And that's it. Teachers should be teachers for five years or so then move onto something else in life. Let's face it--at 180 five-hour days a year, it's a pretty cushy job. Recognize that.

4. Abolish teaching certificates. If you can pass a background check, aren't a pedophile and possess a bachelor's degree with decent grades, that should be enough. Anyone majoring in education should automatically be disqualified.

5. Empower principals, but hold them accountable. Remove the power of school boards to hire and fire. Principals are the exception--they should be able to make careers out of education, and they should be paid more--a lot more--than superintendents. Let principals hire and fire teachers.

6. Limit school board meetings to 60 minutes, with public comment excluded from that limit. Alternatively, establish a time bank for school board meetings so that there's a limit on how long blowhards can spend chewing cud--you have, say, 18 hours per calendar year to spend in meetings. Way too many school board members show up unprepared and so everyone suffers while bureaucrats 'splain stuff in ways that make sense to bureaucrats and vested interests but to no thinking person. Establishing time limits would force school board members to do their homework and think about stuff, which would actually serve as a real-life example to students on how to succeed after graduation.

There's probably more I can't think of right now.



MaxBuck said:


> We're in an interesting social experiment right now in Ohio, where lots of "charter schools" have sprouted up and are competing, if you will, with public schools.
> 
> Long term it will be interesting to see how the charters measure up. The first five or so years, though, aren't encouraging; many charters have gone belly up within a semester of opening, and the performance overall has been underwhelming. I'm a market proponent, but so far the Ohio charter schools don't seem to speak well for market-based education.
> 
> What would I do if I were Education Czar?
> 
> 1. Outlaw teacher unions. If teachers wish to be regarded as professionals, they need to start acting like it. Employment at will.
> 
> 2. Pay teachers better. Goes along hand-in-glove with 1.
> 
> 3. Get the developmentally-disabled back into their own schools. Sympathy and encouragement would be fine ... if we could afford them. As it is, these kids are resource hogs who can eat up to 50% of local school budgets, while constituting less than 5% of the student population. That's just nuts.
> 
> 4. Make teacher pay performance-based, but not until we come up with better metrics on just what performance measures can be affected by the teachers, and what measures are not really correlated with teacher skill.
> 
> This last one is going to be by far the most complicated and difficult, but honestly the teaching profession needs to do a better job of figuring out how to educate children, from a process standpoint. I don't think education schooling right now is very scientific; it seems like trial-and-error to me. Figuring out what metrics are appropriate will require figuring out exactly what it is that good teachers do to get the best possible results across a wide range of student capability levels.


----------



## SG_67

MaxBuck said:


> We're in an interesting social experiment right now in Ohio, where lots of "charter schools" have sprouted up and are competing, if you will, with public schools.
> 
> Long term it will be interesting to see how the charters measure up. The first five or so years, though, aren't encouraging; many charters have gone belly up within a semester of opening, and the performance overall has been underwhelming. I'm a market proponent, but so far the Ohio charter schools don't seem to speak well for market-based education.
> 
> What would I do if I were Education Czar?
> 
> 1. Outlaw teacher unions. If teachers wish to be regarded as professionals, they need to start acting like it. Employment at will.
> 
> 2. Pay teachers better. Goes along hand-in-glove with 1.
> 
> 3. Get the developmentally-disabled back into their own schools. Sympathy and encouragement would be fine ... if we could afford them. As it is, these kids are resource hogs who can eat up to 50% of local school budgets, while constituting less than 5% of the student population. That's just nuts.
> 
> 4. Make teacher pay performance-based, but not until we come up with better metrics on just what performance measures can be affected by the teachers, and what measures are not really correlated with teacher skill.
> 
> This last one is going to be by far the most complicated and difficult, but honestly the teaching profession needs to do a better job of figuring out how to educate children, from a process standpoint. I don't think education schooling right now is very scientific; it seems like trial-and-error to me. Figuring out what metrics are appropriate will require figuring out exactly what it is that good teachers do to get the best possible results across a wide range of student capability levels.


You bring up some interesting points. The issue of unionization and teacher tenure is a breeding ground for mediocrity.

I recall the kerfuffle here in Chicago last year when the teachers union went up against City Hall, and guess what, they won! Why, because of the familiar refrain to "it's about the kids". People eat this stuff up.

While there is much to be said about the sad state of the family in many communities and how that leads to poor student performance, the education system needs to be held to stricter standards with the measure of success being student achievement and not inputs.


----------



## 32rollandrock

SG_67 said:


> You bring up some interesting points. The issue of unionization and teacher tenure is a breeding ground for mediocrity.
> 
> I recall the kerfuffle here in Chicago last year when the teachers union went up against City Hall, and guess what, they won! Why, because of the familiar refrain to "it's about the kids". People eat this stuff up.
> 
> While there is much to be said about the sad state of the family in many communities and how that leads to poor student performance, the education system needs to be held to stricter standards with the measure of success being student achievement and not inputs.


Unions aren't inherently bad. In theory, at least, they can check the power of robber barons and bought-and-paid-for politicians. The pendulum has obviously swung, but stay tuned. I wouldn't be surprised if unions make a comeback in arenas beyond the public sector. Too many hardworking people are working too hard while folks at the top get rich--that might sound like Marxist stuff, but it's true. Just look at the concentration of wealth in America over the past 30 years or so. It can't go on forever without a huge correction, and unions stand ready and willing.

I remember the Chicago stuff, too. It reminds me of firefighters--if you say anything bad about compensation for teachers or firefighters, you either hate kids or America or both. For those without college degrees, you can't do better in America today than become a firefighter or a plumber. Being from Illinois, SG 67 should know this as well as anyone. Pensions for firefighters in the Land of Lincoln extend not just until they die, but until their spouses die, so the wife of a firefighter who dies from anything--cancer, suicide, murder, or a drunken driving incident in which the firefighter was drunk--is set for life. Firefighters make $70k or so a year in communities where the average wage is half that, and they work one 24-hour shift, much of which is spent sleeping, then get three days off, regardless of the paucity of fires these days owing to modern fire-resistant building materials. And if they don't get any sleep during their 24-hour shift, who wants someone driving a fire truck at breakneck speed who hasn't slept in more than a day? As for plumbers, look up what a plumber for the state prison system in Illinois makes. At last check, several earned more than $100k, and these are in rural areas where most prisons have been built. It's fairly easy to extrapolate why this might be the case. If I'm a bored inmate, I might as well clog my toilet and cause a flood. So, they need plumbers, and if it happens at just the right time, as I'm sure it does, then plumbers are due overtime. My dad often said that the only thing you need to know to be a plumber is that water runs downhill and payday is Friday. I suspect he was right.


----------



## SG_67

32rollandrock said:


> Unions aren't inherently bad. In theory, at least, they can check the power of robber barons and bought-and-paid-for politicians. The pendulum has obviously swung, but stay tuned. I wouldn't be surprised if unions make a comeback in arenas beyond the public sector. Too many hardworking people are working too hard while folks at the top get rich--that might sound like Marxist stuff, but it's true. Just look at the concentration of wealth in America over the past 30 years or so. It can't go on forever without a huge correction, and unions stand ready and willing.
> 
> I remember the Chicago stuff, too. It reminds me of firefighters--if you say anything bad about compensation for teachers or firefighters, you either hate kids or America or both. For those without college degrees, you can't do better in America today than become a firefighter or a plumber. Being from Illinois, SG 67 should know this as well as anyone. Pensions for firefighters in the Land of Lincoln extend not just until they die, but until their spouses die, so the wife of a firefighter who dies from anything--cancer, suicide, murder, or a drunken driving incident in which the firefighter was drunk--is set for life. Firefighters make $70k or so a year in communities where the average wage is half that, and they work one 24-hour shift, much of which is spent sleeping, then get three days off, regardless of the paucity of fires these days owing to modern fire-resistant building materials. And if they don't get any sleep during their 24-hour shift, who wants someone driving a fire truck at breakneck speed who hasn't slept in more than a day? As for plumbers, look up what a plumber for the state prison system in Illinois makes. At last check, several earned more than $100k, and these are in rural areas where most prisons have been built. It's fairly easy to extrapolate why this might be the case. If I'm a bored inmate, I might as well clog my toilet and cause a flood. So, they need plumbers, and if it happens at just the right time, as I'm sure it does, then plumbers are due overtime. My dad often said that the only thing you need to know to be a plumber is that water runs downhill and payday is Friday. I suspect he was right.


Illinois public sector pensions are a whole other issue. We truly have the most inefficient and and ridiculous pension system in the country.

I really don't have a problem with private sector unions. I'm all for collective bargaining as long as the government doesn't put it's finger on the scales.

It's public sector unions that bother me. The union sits on one side of the table and the pols on the other. They're not bargaining with their own money but with mine. They're decisions are not always based on what's best for the shareholder (voter) but what's best for their careers. It's turns the bargaining game on its head.


----------



## MaxBuck

SG_67 said:


> It's public sector unions that bother me. The union sits on one side of the table and the pols on the other. They're not bargaining with their own money but with mine.


This.


----------



## Chouan

There is no single profession in the English speaking world where people who know nothing feel themselves to be an expert on more than that of education. Just because a person has been to school, or they have children who have been to school, a mass of armchair experts, who know nothing of the reality of teaching, feel themselves qualified to pontificate about what is wrong with education, teaching, teachers, schools, the syllabus, the system, the managers of the system and the pay structure.
Strangely enough, the "can't do, teach" attitude is absent in virtually every other culture in the world. In virtually every other culture teachers are respected by parents, children behave better, and children progress better. In the English speaking world, however, everybody, apparently, is more of an expert on education than trained teachers are, and even more of an expert than those fools who have studied education at a higher level than teachers have.
Why is it that in Finland, and China, for example, where educational results are far higher than in the English speaking world, teachers are far more respected, by kids and parents, are far better paid, have far smaller classes, longer holidays, far fewer contact hours with kids, and far smaller classes. Might there be a correlation?


----------



## SG_67

Chouan said:


> There is no single profession in the English speaking world where people who know nothing feel themselves to be an expert on more than that of education. Just because a person has been to school, or they have children who have been to school, a mass of armchair experts, who know nothing of the reality of teaching, feel themselves qualified to pontificate about what is wrong with education, teaching, teachers, schools, the syllabus, the system, the managers of the system and the pay structure.
> Strangely enough, the "can't do, teach" attitude is absent in virtually every other culture in the world. In virtually every other culture teachers are respected by parents, children behave better, and children progress better. In the English speaking world, however, everybody, apparently, is more of an expert on education than trained teachers are, and even more of an expert than those fools who have studied education at a higher level than teachers have.
> Why is it that in Finland, and China, for example, where educational results are far higher than in the English speaking world, teachers are far more respected, by kids and parents, are far better paid, have far smaller classes, longer holidays, far fewer contact hours with kids, and far smaller classes. Might there be a correlation?


I don't think anyone is suggesting that they know how to teach. And by the way, as long as my tax dollars are going to pay teachers and build schools, damn right I'm going to be part of the discussion. Perhaps in Europe the notion of just paying taxes and turning a blind eye is customary but not here.

No one has suggested they know how to teach kids, but when you look at the drop out rates, reading and arithmetic competency levels in this country, parent, whose children by the way are the those being taught, have a right to demand more.

Much has been said about Unions and how they keep employers honest. When it comes to the schools, it's the parents that keep the schools, teachers and teachers unions honest. Or at least that's the way it's supposed to be. When you look at public schools that are successful, the one common denominator is an involved parent community. The person who signs my checks doesn't know the ins and outs of my profession, but he does understand the bottom line and if my performance is not up to par, then I have to answer for it.

Saying to him that he doesn't know what I do or how I do it and therefore cannot comment on my performance is grounds for dismissal. Strangely, this is not how it is in the public schools.


----------



## justonemore

Oh for the "good ole days".....

https://imageshack.com/i/n62plozj

https://imageshack.com/i/n8w8ckj


----------



## 32rollandrock

SG_67 said:


> The union sits on one side of the table and the pols on the other. They're not bargaining with their own money but with mine.


This, this, this and this again.


----------



## justonemore

32rollandrock said:


> This, this, this and this again.


But amazingly enough public education works in just about every country but the U.S.

Are there any public costs where the politicians don't bargain with taxpayer money? Does the public get much say in daily military expenditures? Parks? Roads? Police agencies (to include, marshalls, nsa, fbi, cia, etc)? Lawyer services? etc? Are you advocating a public vote on how much we can pay these people? If the public wanted to have a direct vote on military funding and decided to half it, that would be fine? If the public decided to double or triple educational spending, then it would be fine with you as well, correct? Just to be certain....If the public wanted a Library..Politicians should have no say but hold a direct vote on the isssue. BUT..Not only on the general issue, all the détails as well. $1 million for alibrary, but $300'000 for the building, $400'000 for the materials, and $300'000 in staffing for the next 10 years.,.... Under those exact circumstances, a public Library and it's financing is acceptable? We should be able to vote on the final cost of say military helicopters (or if we want them at all)? Switzerland often does this. They will be voting pretty soon as to buying new military aircraft (Grippens) and it seems that the result will most likely be no.


----------



## Tilton

32rollandrock said:


> Due respect, but I cannot agree with most of what you say--it reminds me of NCLB, which hasn't worked. Here is my prescription for reform.
> 
> 1. Expel students who disrupt class. And if you flunk out, that means you leave school, not get passed on to the next grade. The public owes no obligation to kids--and their families--who show no interest in obtaining an education. They can come back and try again, but only after sitting out for a year or so. Start doing this in the eighth grade. Good kids too often don't get the education they deserve because instruction is aimed at the lowest common denominator, i.e., nincompoops who just aren't going to make it, no matter how much time they spend in school screwing things up for everyone else. Create some sort of vocational program for kids who get thrown out of school because they're disruptive or aren't motivated enough to learn, but keep a tight rein on it--second chances are fine, but not fourth and fifth and sixth chances. As it stands now, there are no consequences for kids who need consequences.
> 
> 2. As previously stated, minimum college GPAs in academic subjects--math, history, literature and the like--for teachers. If you can't prove mastery, or at least competence, of a subject in college, you have no business teaching it in public schools.
> 
> 3. Cut funding for schools. Yes--cut it. We can do more--a lot more--with less. The problem, in my view, is that we've somehow decided that money is needed to produce excellence, and while there is a point of diminishing returns, you can't keep throwing money at failing schools and expect different results. The amount of money in our educational system has created incentives for people to make careers out of education--superintendents who preside over failing schools routinely earn $250,000 a year or more, teachers are drawn to the "profession" because, between their teaching positions and whatever other side jobs they hold in their spare time, they can pull down six figures with relative ease, and even without side jobs, it's a comfortable salary, and you can't be fired no matter what you do. That's ridiculous--a recipe for attracting lard asses. Teaching is not rocket science, and yet we have made it out to be exactly that. You don't need a PhD or a masters degree to be a good teacher, you need to know your subject and have a knack with kids. And that's it. Teachers should be teachers for five years or so then move onto something else in life. Let's face it--at 180 five-hour days a year, it's a pretty cushy job. Recognize that.
> 
> 4. Abolish teaching certificates. If you can pass a background check, aren't a pedophile and possess a bachelor's degree with decent grades, that should be enough. Anyone majoring in education should automatically be disqualified.
> 
> 5. Empower principals, but hold them accountable. Remove the power of school boards to hire and fire. Principals are the exception--they should be able to make careers out of education, and they should be paid more--a lot more--than superintendents. Let principals hire and fire teachers.
> 
> 6. Limit school board meetings to 60 minutes, with public comment excluded from that limit. Alternatively, establish a time bank for school board meetings so that there's a limit on how long blowhards can spend chewing cud--you have, say, 18 hours per calendar year to spend in meetings. Way too many school board members show up unprepared and so everyone suffers while bureaucrats 'splain stuff in ways that make sense to bureaucrats and vested interests but to no thinking person. Establishing time limits would force school board members to do their homework and think about stuff, which would actually serve as a real-life example to students on how to succeed after graduation.
> 
> There's probably more I can't think of right now.


I agree with all of this, but would add more funding for vocational programs to the list. I am a firm believer that only about 25% of students who attend college have any business being in college. Along with this, you need to fire or retrain guidance counselors so that they stop perpetuating the myth that college is the only way for anyone to ever be happy, successful, and productive in the long run.


----------



## justonemore

Tilton said:


> I agree with all of this, but would add more funding for vocational programs to the list. I am a firm believer that only about 25% of students who attend college have any business being in college. Along with this, you need to fire or retrain guidance counselors so that they stop perpetuating the myth that college is the only way for anyone to ever be happy, successful, and productive in the long run.


I'll agree with a bit of your ideas here. Vocational schools are a great alternative for those not cut out for university level studies (I wouldn't want my doctor or lawyer to try acting as my carpenter either). One of the great lies of American capitilism is that anyone can do whatever they want and will advance in life should they try hard enough. It's just not true and it ends in frustration for those that are guided to go routes that aren't really suitable for them. The reality is that very few people will be able to go into big business , médicine, law, etc. and be a success.


----------



## Earl of Ormonde

Only in America!

The only answer for nonsense like this, and mini-emperors on school boards is FULL local govt control of schools with proper funding, proper unified legislation, properly trained staff and properly constituted boards.

Private schools in Sweden are going bust at a satisfying rate because all they are concerened with is making a profit, but they can't deliver to the standards specified in the Schools and Education Act, parents realise it, and local govts close them down.

The private sector has NO PLACE WHATSOEVER IN EDUCATION, HEALTH CARE OR THE EMERGENCY SERVICES


----------



## Earl of Ormonde

justonemore said:


> But amazingly enough public education works in just about every country but the U.S.


In fact, you can take it even further than that, many countries have ONLY state or municipal schools.


----------



## Hitch

Earl of Ormonde said:


> Only in America!
> 
> The only answer for nonsense like this, and mini-emperors on school boards is FULL local govt control of schools with proper funding, proper unified legislation, properly trained staff and properly constituted boards.
> 
> Private schools in Sweden are going bust at a satisfying rate because all they are concerened with is making a profit, but they can't deliver to the standards specified in the Schools and Education Act, parents realise it, and local govts close them down.


 Over here private schools are forced to compete with public schools in that the parents must pay for both, is that true in Sweden?


> The private sector has NO PLACE WHATSOEVER IN EDUCATION,


 hmmm I wonder if the gents at Stanford, Princeton, Yale, Swarthmore, Columbia , MIT ,CIT, etc... would agree


> HEALTH CARE OR THE EMERGENCY SERVICES


Well you forgot food production, thats always turned out well. I wonder, were your meds produced in the government sector or private? Here almost 100 % of meds originate from the private, as does the furnishings, lab equipment, cleaning products and virtually every used in health care.


----------



## justonemore

Hitch said:


> Over here private schools are forced to compete with public schools in that the parents must pay for both, is that true in Sweden?/quote]
> 
> The private sector has NO PLACE WHATSOEVER IN EDUCATION,


 hmmm I wonder if the gents at Stanford, Princeton, Yale, Swarthmore, Columbia , MIT ,CIT, etc... would agree 
Well you forgot food production, thats always turned out well.[/QUOTE]

Here we have both & the private schools are usually considered a joke for out of town folks that can't speak any of the 4 local languages (I believe they're known as "American Schools"). Compared to the actual Swiss schools, the only advantage is being able to say you paid more for an inferior education.


----------



## Earl of Ormonde

Hitch said:


> Over here private schools are forced to compete with public schools in that the parents must pay for both, is that true in Sweden?/quote]


It depends where you consider the competition exists. Private schools over here get the same grant per pupil from the local council that the public schools get but that's where public finding into private schools ends in Sweden.

But where public schools are FREE - totally free for pupils. Private schools take a term fee per pupil. Simply and obviously because where public schools are totally funded by public money, private schools are mostly funded by the parents. The only true competition is in attracting pupils. Private schools in Sweden are considered a failed experiment and are collapsing every day because they promise the world and deliver nothing & when they don't show a profit they declare bankruptcy & leave students stranded, this happened to 3 private school companies last year & hundreds of pupils from 12 - 19 were left stranded prior to the new term without a school place. 
Legislation was only deregulated about 20 years ago to allow for private schools in Sweden & it simply hasn't worked.
It


----------



## Earl of Ormonde

Hitch said:


> Well you forgot food production, thats always turned out well.


I didn't forget it, as food production has never been a public sector function, so not pertinent to my view.
Health care in Europe means what it says on the can "care" i.e. by medical staff. What they use in hospitals and clinics is of course produced by the private sector as is nearly everything used in schools and by the emergency services. I'm not talking about products here but the provision of a service owned by the public sector and provided by people paid wages from public money.


----------



## Hitch

Earl of Ormonde said:


> I didn't forget it, as food production has never been a public sector function,


 Never?


> so not pertinent to my view.
> Health care in Europe means what it says on the can "care" i.e. by medical staff. What they use in hospitals and clinics is of course produced by the private sector as is nearly everything used in schools and by the emergency services. I'm not talking about products here but the provision of a service owned by the public sector and provided by people paid wages from public money.


So in contrast to _ NO PLACE WHATSOEVER IN ,_ every section you mentioned is completely dependent on the private sector.


----------



## Hitch

Earl of Ormonde said:


> It depends where you consider the competition exists. Private schools over here get the same grant per pupil from the local council that the public schools get but that's where public finding into private schools ends in Sweden.
> 
> But where public schools are FREE - totally free for pupils. Private schools take a term fee per pupil. Simply and obviously because where public schools are totally funded by public money, private schools are mostly funded by the parents. The only true competition is in attracting pupils. Private schools in Sweden are considered a failed experiment and are collapsing every day because they promise the world and deliver nothing & when they don't show a profit they declare bankruptcy & leave students stranded, this happened to 3 private school companies last year & hundreds of pupils from 12 - 19 were left stranded prior to the new term without a school place.
> Legislation was only deregulated about 20 years ago to allow for private schools in Sweden & it simply hasn't worked.
> It


*A small but growing share*

The principle that parents have the right to place their children in an independent school is well established in Sweden. Initially, there were very few independent schools, but as the result of changes in legislation beginning in the early 90s, independent schools have challenged the old public "monopoly" by increasing in number. These schools offer parents a broad range of choices in terms of profiles, aims, and pedagogic methods, subject to limitations caused by the distance between the school and the home.
The proportion of students in independent schools has grown considerably since the beginning of the 90s, although the sector is still very small. In school year 1990-91, about 0.9 per cent of all Swedish pupils in compulsory education (ages 6-15, approximately) were enrolled in independent schools, whereas in 2007-08 the figure had grown to about 9 per cent. The same trend may be observed in secondary education (ages 16-18, approximately), where the share has grown from 1.5 per cent to 17 per cent during the same period.

Two-decades into its free-market experiment, about a quarter of once staunchly Socialist Sweden's secondary school students now attend publically-funded but privately run schools, almost twice the global average.

Ahead of elections next year, politicians of all stripes are questioning the role of such firms, accused of putting profits first with practices like letting students decide when they have learned enough and keeping no record of their grades. This is the complaint, or complaints of a similar vein, wrt the public schools here.

https://www.reuters.com/article/2013/12/10/us-sweden-schools-insight-idUSBRE9B905620131210

It seems your conclusion is less than universal.


----------



## Earl of Ormonde

Hitch said:


> Never? So in contrast to _ NO PLACE WHATSOEVER IN ,_ every section you mentioned is completely dependent on the private sector.


You're confusing ownership (i.e. of a public sector function or infrastructure) with the purchasing of products, products which for the public sector are bought with public money. There is no connection. If we take your logic any further you will end up saying that the public sector is part of the private sector because it buys stuff from companies!

Public & private sector functions, services and infrastructure are determined as either public or private by ownership i.e. are they owned by the local council, the state or by a company NOT by where they buy stuff! Your logic is proposing an impossibility.

(BTW, my new job since Nov 2013 is with the govt section of the Swedish Ministry of Defence for the Protection of Vital Societal Functions & Critical Infrastructure)


----------



## Hitch

Earl of Ormonde said:


> You're confusing ownership (i.e. of a public sector function or infrastrucutre) with the purchasing of products, products which for the public secotr are bought with public money. There is no connection. If we take your logic any further you will end up saying that the public sector is part of the private sector becausei t buys stuff from companies!
> 
> Public & private sector functions, services and infrastructure are determined as either public or private by ownership i.e. are they owned by the local council, the state or by a company NOT by where they buy stuff! Your logic is proposing an impossibility.


I refer you to your capitalized remarks.


----------



## Earl of Ormonde

Hitch said:


> It seems your conclusion is less than universal.


My view is widespread in Sweden in 2014. The figures and opinions there are both incorrect and misleading, which is not surprising really considering the source of the article. But you were not to know that Friskolornasriksförbund, the creator of the article, is the Swedish National Association of Private Schools.

The Devil can easily misquote the Bible to you.


----------



## Earl of Ormonde

Hitch said:


> I refer you to your capitalized remarks.


Do you really not know the difference between service ownership & product procurement? The public sector's main "criticla dependency" is public money not the private sector.
"Critical dependencies","business continuity management" and "contingency planning" are all related subjects that I work with.


----------



## Chouan

SG_67 said:


> I don't think anyone is suggesting that they know how to teach. And by the way, as long as my tax dollars are going to pay teachers and build schools, damn right I'm going to be part of the discussion. Perhaps in Europe the notion of just paying taxes and turning a blind eye is customary but not here.


It's not a question of whether they know how to teach, it's a question of people who know nothing telling people who know considerably more than they do what they should be doing. As has been pointed out elsewhere, would you, or others who have no professional knowledge, presume to tell the US Navy what their navigating officers should be doing, or what qualifications they should have, how their tours of duty should be arranged or how much authority Captains should have? Or the US version of the police? Yet people with no professional knowledge of education presume to tell teachers where they're going wrong and how education should be organised.



SG_67 said:


> No one has suggested they know how to teach kids, but when you look at the drop out rates, reading and arithmetic competency levels in this country, parent, whose children by the way are the those being taught, have a right to demand more.


Perhaps that is true in the US, but to extrapolate that to all publicly funded schools is stretching what little evidence you have.



SG_67 said:


> Much has been said about Unions and how they keep employers honest. When it comes to the schools, it's the parents that keep the schools, teachers and teachers unions honest. Or at least that's the way it's supposed to be. When you look at public schools that are successful, the one common denominator is an involved parent community. The person who signs my checks doesn't know the ins and outs of my profession, but he does understand the bottom line and if my performance is not up to par, then I have to answer for it.


Quite. Education, in Britain at least, has a means at it's disposal to deal with incompetent teachers, however, I don't believe that teachers need to be kept honest, as you put it, which is something of a insult to American teachers.



SG_67 said:


> Saying to him that he doesn't know what I do or how I do it and therefore cannot comment on my performance is grounds for dismissal. Strangely, this is not how it is in the public schools.


So are you proposing that a person who has no knowledge of education should be able to assess a teacher's performance?


----------



## Chouan

32rollandrock said:


> Due respect, but I cannot agree with most of what you say--it reminds me of NCLB, which hasn't worked. Here is my prescription for reform.
> 
> 1. Expel students who disrupt class. And if you flunk out, that means you leave school, not get passed on to the next grade. The public owes no obligation to kids--and their families--who show no interest in obtaining an education. They can come back and try again, but only after sitting out for a year or so. Start doing this in the eighth grade. Good kids too often don't get the education they deserve because instruction is aimed at the lowest common denominator, i.e., nincompoops who just aren't going to make it, no matter how much time they spend in school screwing things up for everyone else. Create some sort of vocational program for kids who get thrown out of school because they're disruptive or aren't motivated enough to learn, but keep a tight rein on it--second chances are fine, but not fourth and fifth and sixth chances. As it stands now, there are no consequences for kids who need consequences.
> 
> 2. As previously stated, minimum college GPAs in academic subjects--math, history, literature and the like--for teachers. If you can't prove mastery, or at least competence, of a subject in college, you have no business teaching it in public schools.
> 
> 3. Cut funding for schools. Yes--cut it. We can do more--a lot more--with less. The problem, in my view, is that we've somehow decided that money is needed to produce excellence, and while there is a point of diminishing returns, you can't keep throwing money at failing schools and expect different results. The amount of money in our educational system has created incentives for people to make careers out of education--superintendents who preside over failing schools routinely earn $250,000 a year or more, teachers are drawn to the "profession" because, between their teaching positions and whatever other side jobs they hold in their spare time, they can pull down six figures with relative ease, and even without side jobs, it's a comfortable salary, and you can't be fired no matter what you do. That's ridiculous--a recipe for attracting lard asses. Teaching is not rocket science, and yet we have made it out to be exactly that. You don't need a PhD or a masters degree to be a good teacher, you need to know your subject and have a knack with kids. And that's it. Teachers should be teachers for five years or so then move onto something else in life. Let's face it--at 180 five-hour days a year, it's a pretty cushy job. Recognize that.
> 
> 4. Abolish teaching certificates. If you can pass a background check, aren't a pedophile and possess a bachelor's degree with decent grades, that should be enough. Anyone majoring in education should automatically be disqualified.
> 
> 5. Empower principals, but hold them accountable. Remove the power of school boards to hire and fire. Principals are the exception--they should be able to make careers out of education, and they should be paid more--a lot more--than superintendents. Let principals hire and fire teachers.
> 
> 6. Limit school board meetings to 60 minutes, with public comment excluded from that limit. Alternatively, establish a time bank for school board meetings so that there's a limit on how long blowhards can spend chewing cud--you have, say, 18 hours per calendar year to spend in meetings. Way too many school board members show up unprepared and so everyone suffers while bureaucrats 'splain stuff in ways that make sense to bureaucrats and vested interests but to no thinking person. Establishing time limits would force school board members to do their homework and think about stuff, which would actually serve as a real-life example to students on how to succeed after graduation.
> 
> There's probably more I can't think of right now.


Do people see what I mean about people who know nothing about schools pontificating about how education and teaching should be run? The *"180 five-hour days a year, it's a pretty cushy job. Recognize that."* is a bit of a giveaway!


----------



## SG_67

Chouan said:


> It's not a question of whether they know how to teach, it's a question of people who know nothing telling people who know considerably more than they do what they should be doing. As has been pointed out elsewhere, would you, or others who have no professional knowledge, presume to tell the US Navy what their navigating officers should be doing, or what qualifications they should have, how their tours of duty should be arranged or how much authority Captains should have? Or the US version of the police? Yet people with no professional knowledge of education presume to tell teachers where they're going wrong and how education should be organized.


This goes on all the time in government. Local library boards are not composed of librarians. Our CIA director is not a CIA agent. Our own president never held an executive position before becoming the ultimate CEO. He has no military experience yet he's the commander in chief.



> Perhaps that is true in the US, but to extrapolate that to all publicly funded schools is stretching what little evidence you have.


I'm not suggesting it for any other place than the U.S. People in other countries are responsible for the organization of their own societies and public institutions.



> Quite. Education, in Britain at least, has a means at it's disposal to deal with incompetent teachers, however, I don't believe that teachers need to be kept honest, as you put it, which is something of a insult to American teachers.


It's not an insult. Every employee, regardless of position or institution needs to be held accountable. No profession is that noble that we need to give a pass for poor performance, except perhaps those in elected office! You said it yourself, in the UK you have system for handling incompetent teachers; that keeps them honest I would argue.



> So are you proposing that a person who has no knowledge of education should be able to assess a teacher's performance?


Yes. Outputs are what matters. When there are institutional trends present and schools are underperforming, tax payers have a right to demand change. I don't have to know the minutiae of teaching or education to know when it's product is defective. If I eat a crappy steak that I paid good money for, I don't have to understand the ins and outs of being a chef to know whether it suits my tastes and to ask for a remedy.


----------



## justonemore

I think the current didain for education in the U.S.comes from the conservative myth that educators are all bleeding heart démocrates. Both of my grandparents were life long educators that served their community for over 50 years. When my grandmother died, there was a parade in her honor that passed by her former school. In the community I was raised, I was the Grandson of Mrs. X. the teacher that many people respected and enjoyed having in elementary school. The last time I returned "home" (at age 40), I was still treated to the "Aren't you mrs. X's Grandson?" comment. 

Both of my grandparents were conservative republicans. I disagree with many of their viewpoints politically but they were constant figures in their community and served it well. I am quite happy they died before the republican party started attacking their lifetime of service.


----------



## justonemore

SG_67 said:


> This goes on all the time in government. Local library boards are not composed of librarians. Our CIA director is not a CIA agent. Our own president never held an executive position before becoming the ultimate CEO. He has no military experience yet he's the commander in chief.
> 
> .


That you think the U.S. president needs military service is a bit spooky. But, then again, your views are all a bit spooky and devoid of logic.


----------



## justonemore

SG_67 said:


> This
> 
> Yes. Outputs are what matters. When there are institutional trends present and schools are underperforming, tax payers have a right to demand change. I don't have to know the minutiae of teaching or education to know when it's product is defective. If I eat a crappy steak that I paid good money for, I don't have to understand the ins and outs of being a chef to know whether it suits my tastes and to ask for a remedy.


Complete Cr*p..... Eating a steak has no relation as to anything other than eating a steak. You have tastebuds. Congrats. So does everyone else. Most people have no clue as to developing a lesson plan (let alone one that meets the standards of the current politcal bull cr*p...).


----------



## justonemore

How does Israel handle their educational system? As all Americans are paying for Israelis to be better educated than Americans, perhaps we should directly follow their example???


----------



## eagle2250

^^ (Responding to post #61)
I suspect the apparent malaise we see in our present day teaching profession is not unique to education, but rather is evident in most professions today. Teachers such as your grandparents, dedicated to their art form and committed to insuring the academic futures of the youngsters entrusted to their care, are much more rarely found in today's classrooms. Today's pitiful vocational/professional standards, reflected in the work efforts of far too many are reflective of values embraced by the "ME" generation. Your Grandmother was a sterling representative of what Tom Brokaw termed "The Greatest Generation!"


----------



## justonemore

Can you go into the DMV and tell them how to do their jobs? Last time I visited such a facility it was actually the DMV that told me how to do things.


----------



## Earl of Ormonde

eagle2250 said:


> but rather is evident in most professions today.


So very, very true. When I started work as a translator and publishing editor in my old job back in 2000, perfection was expected in my translating and editing and from my boss and my customers and perfection (as far as I could get it) was what I always tried to deliver. But then about 5 years ago, companies, customers and even my section and department bosses started bandying a phrase around that has become widespread & a catch-all excuse for slacking. I used to get this "James, it doesn't need to be perfect, good enough is good enough"


----------



## Shaver

justonemore said:


> How does Israel handle their educational system? As all Americans are paying for Israelis to be better educated than Americans, perhaps we should directly follow their example???


Is this an example of the immanuelrx effect? https://askandyaboutclothes.com/community/showthread.php?187125-IsItJustMe&p=1553008#post1553008


----------



## justonemore

Shaver said:


> Is this an example of the immanuelrx effect? https://askandyaboutclothes.com/community/showthread.php?187125-IsItJustMe&p=1553008#post1553008


Ooof, sorry to say it, but even after looking at the link, your meaning is a bit beyond me. Any chance of clarification?


----------



## Shaver

justonemore said:


> Ooof, sorry to say it, but even after looking at the link, your meaning is a bit beyond me. Any chance of clarification?


Sorry my friend, it was a good natured tease re the introduction of the inflammatory term 'Israel' into this thread. :rolleyes2:


----------



## SG_67

Someone, anyone please explain what the word Cr*p means. I'm unaware of the use of an * as a substitute for a letter of the alphabet. 

Is symbolic logic creeping into our everyday language? :icon_scratch:


----------



## Shaver

SG_67 said:


> Someone, anyone please explain what the word Cr*p means. I'm unaware of the use of an * as a substitute for a letter of the alphabet.
> 
> Is symbolic logic creeping into our everyday language? :icon_scratch:


You have not previously encountered this measure of self-censorship, the use of a vulgar word hinted at by the removal of one or more characters?


----------



## MaxBuck

Earl of Ormonde said:


> So very, very true. When I started work as a translator and publishing editor in my old job back in 2000, perfection was expected in my translating and editing and from my boss and my customers and perfection (as far as I could get it) was what I always tried to deliver. But then about 5 years ago, companies, customers and even my section and department bosses started bandying a phrase around that has become widespread & a catch-all excuse for slacking. I used to get this "James, it doesn't need to be perfect, good enough is good enough"


Like it or not, this is the outcome of the increasing metricization of business, especially in the USA but also worldwide.

When every business decision and action is subject to scrutiny as to its profit optimization through sophisticated measurement techniques, the result will be that activity that doesn't optimize profits will be frowned upon. Given that the workload expectations of professionals and subprofessionals alike have increased over the past 15 years or so, it's rational to avoid perfectionism. Neither the employee nor employer finds perfection to be desirable, given the constraints business is operating within.


----------



## SG_67

Shaver said:


> You have not previously encountered this measure of self-censorship, the use of a vulgar word hinted at by the removal of one or more characters?


Thank you my good man! I knew there was a good explanation!


----------



## justonemore

Shaver said:


> You have not previously encountered this measure of self-censorship, the use of a vulgar word hinted at by the removal of one or more characters?


inded such a comment is a bit funny. I was trying to avoid the "Vulgar" label, but as SG has used the full word several times in his posts, I suppose I should have done so as well? I Wonder if it would have avoided the confusion....or ...As my "vulgarity" is his primary excuse to avoid logical arguement, I would guess that any word he decides to take "offense" to, will be subject to examination...(Yes SG you have come out and stated that another member's idea was "bûllshit", vulgar as the word may be to some). Of course this is the same guy that denies his earlier comments as to "the vetting" of a god, a religious system, and poverty.... a study composed by those that study religion, if it happened to actually be a study... My questions as to validity were of course ignored(post #28 in the Homeless in the U.K (Spec. London) thread). Of course this is the same guy that harps on minor errors in typing over the main arguement. I would guess his next "honest" question will concern the meaning of "B.S."

Was it the Grimm brothers that hinted to the thought ..."Any excuse will serve a tyrant"?


----------



## 32rollandrock

Chouan said:


> Do people see what I mean about people who know nothing about schools pontificating about how education and teaching should be run? The *"180 five-hour days a year, it's a pretty cushy job. Recognize that."* is a bit of a giveaway!


I think that I do know a bit about schools, having attended them for nearly 20 years. It ain't rocket science. If it were, then mediocre academic performers in college would not be able to land jobs as teachers. And it is a cushy job compared to what most people do. As stated, the hours are shorter, you work barely half the year and--this is key--it matters not at all whether you are competent. All you have to do is show up. All you have to do to get a raise is pass post-graduate classes that have nothing whatsoever to do with making you better at what you are paid to do, and the post-graduate classes are absurdly simple. Now, things may be different in England, but that's the way it works in the United States--you really and truly can get away with things as a teacher that would get you fired from McDonald's.

To say that people who aren't teachers or DMV workers or whatever aren't qualified to pontificate about jobs they don't hold is, due respect, rubbish. One example. A few years ago, my father suffered an aortic aneuryism that necessitated emergency surgery--he was very fortunate to have survived. He was discharged while still in a fair amount of pain. The task at hand was simple: He needed to be transferred from his hospital bed to a wheelchair, taken downstairs to a waiting car, driven home and put to bed. The nursing staff got him dressed while he was still in bed, had him sit up and only then did they go hunting for his keys/wallet/phone and other personal effects. It took more than a half-hour to find them. In the meantime, his pain from being in a sitting position increased to the point where he had to lay back down in bed--I was there, and it was not an easy thing to witness. A relative who is a nurse explained in a most condescending manner that this was entirely appropriate--the staff was following protocol, nurses are experts at what they do and I simply didn't understand when I said that they should have gotten everything together and ready before sitting him up in bed for transfer to a wheelchair. BS. Some things are matters of simple common sense. I didn't need to be a doctor or nurse to know a blithering idiot when I saw one.

So I'm sticking to my guns. I think it's ridiculous to pay $70k-plus to teachers who nearly flunked out of college, and throw in gold-plated pension plans and do this regardless of whether they are competent teachers. I think it's ridiculous that you can't fire a teacher who doesn't show up for work and doesn't call in--and yes, this really happens. They have to do it two or three times before they face any serious discipline. Same thing with drunkeness--at least where I live, you cannot fire a teacher for showing up drunk. They have to be given second or even third chances. And where I live is not unusual. This is how the public schools work in the United States, where most everyone who has attended a public school has had the misfortune to be stuck in a class with an incompetent teacher--I graduated from high school more than 30 years ago, and I can remember more than a few. Nothing ever happened to them--they just kept phoning it in until they reached retirement age.

Now, it is true that teaching CAN be a challenging, rewarding career. It can be a difficult job if you take it seriously. But it can also be the easiest job imaginable. That's what happens in any situation where there is no accountability.


----------



## justonemore

The average teacher makes $50'000.. Average.... Thus many make less than your version of $70'000 plus... Putting up with the current parental concern of "i'll sue your a*s" dictates having at least a mediocre salary. If you find McDonald's to be the ideal example, then I do hope that you and your family will be happy working there (or perhaps walmart is more to your style?). I myself find education and a privately owned business exact opposites. While I am more than happy to pay for the neighborhood kids to be educated, I only go the MickyDs when I desire to vomit.

The current attitude of U.S. parents makes education a low level occupation. Anything that is said or done comes Under question... That little Johnny bullies the others is of no concern to the parents of little Johnny. That little Suzy can't count is of course the teachers fault versus the parents desire to Watch the simpsons when they return from work. While I agree that school regulations go too far, it is the direct cause of idiot parents that aren't capable of parenting their idiot children. Any schooling dépends on work outside of the school. If I go to a class and don't bother to study what was taught, it is not the fault of the teacher. If Î am given homework and don't follow through, it is not the fault of the teacher. If my children are given something to do at home and I don't help them follow through, it is not the fault of the teacher. All this is the fault of the student and the parents. Basic Math has not changed. Basic Science has not changed. Basic whatever, has not changed. Teacher, parent, student...the expectations are the same... What has failed? Eduction or parenting?

That you had a problem with the U.S. medical system is hardly a shock but it still has nothing to do with the U.S. education system. Medical services in the U.S. are private versus public aren't they? 

The fact is that your opinion in any matter isn't much taken into concern. Welcome to the U.S..

There is no question as to military spending and welfare checks to foreign countries, but education is of course a problem... And yet...Americans Wonder why they place so low in international education standings. Duhhh... Simple math must be hard...


----------



## Chouan

32rollandrock said:


> I think that I do know a bit about schools, having attended them for nearly 20 years. It ain't rocket science. If it were, then mediocre academic performers in college would not be able to land jobs as teachers. And it is a cushy job compared to what most people do. As stated, the hours are shorter, you work barely half the year and--this is key--it matters not at all whether you are competent. All you have to do is show up. All you have to do to get a raise is pass post-graduate classes that have nothing whatsoever to do with making you better at what you are paid to do, and the post-graduate classes are absurdly simple. Now, things may be different in England, but that's the way it works in the United States--you really and truly can get away with things as a teacher that would get you fired from McDonald's.
> 
> To say that people who aren't teachers or DMV workers or whatever aren't qualified to pontificate about jobs they don't hold is, due respect, rubbish. One example. A few years ago, my father suffered an aortic aneuryism that necessitated emergency surgery--he was very fortunate to have survived. He was discharged while still in a fair amount of pain. The task at hand was simple: He needed to be transferred from his hospital bed to a wheelchair, taken downstairs to a waiting car, driven home and put to bed. The nursing staff got him dressed while he was still in bed, had him sit up and only then did they go hunting for his keys/wallet/phone and other personal effects. It took more than a half-hour to find them. In the meantime, his pain from being in a sitting position increased to the point where he had to lay back down in bed--I was there, and it was not an easy thing to witness. A relative who is a nurse explained in a most condescending manner that this was entirely appropriate--the staff was following protocol, nurses are experts at what they do and I simply didn't understand when I said that they should have gotten everything together and ready before sitting him up in bed for transfer to a wheelchair. BS. Some things are matters of simple common sense. I didn't need to be a doctor or nurse to know a blithering idiot when I saw one.
> 
> So I'm sticking to my guns. I think it's ridiculous to pay $70k-plus to teachers who nearly flunked out of college, and throw in gold-plated pension plans and do this regardless of whether they are competent teachers. I think it's ridiculous that you can't fire a teacher who doesn't show up for work and doesn't call in--and yes, this really happens. They have to do it two or three times before they face any serious discipline. Same thing with drunkeness--at least where I live, you cannot fire a teacher for showing up drunk. They have to be given second or even third chances. And where I live is not unusual. This is how the public schools work in the United States, where most everyone who has attended a public school has had the misfortune to be stuck in a class with an incompetent teacher--I graduated from high school more than 30 years ago, and I can remember more than a few. Nothing ever happened to them--they just kept phoning it in until they reached retirement age.
> 
> Now, it is true that teaching CAN be a challenging, rewarding career. It can be a difficult job if you take it seriously. But it can also be the easiest job imaginable. That's what happens in any situation where there is no accountability.


There are clearly differences in British and American school education. On the other hand, you, and others, seem to have presented a series of generalisations that suggest that teachers are to blame for the under-achievement of kids, because of their incompetence, laziness, lack of qualifications themselves etc etc. As Justonemore has pointed out, nowhere does anybody seem to consider that the kids' parents might have a role in their kids under-achievement! I'll address the other points you've made in a more specific response.


----------



## SG_67

32rollandrock said:


> I think that I do know a bit about schools, having attended them for nearly 20 years. It ain't rocket science. If it were, then mediocre academic performers in college would not be able to land jobs as teachers. And it is a cushy job compared to what most people do. As stated, the hours are shorter, you work barely half the year and--this is key--it matters not at all whether you are competent. All you have to do is show up. All you have to do to get a raise is pass post-graduate classes that have nothing whatsoever to do with making you better at what you are paid to do, and the post-graduate classes are absurdly simple. Now, things may be different in England, but that's the way it works in the United States--you really and truly can get away with things as a teacher that would get you fired from McDonald's.
> 
> To say that people who aren't teachers or DMV workers or whatever aren't qualified to pontificate about jobs they don't hold is, due respect, rubbish. One example. A few years ago, my father suffered an aortic aneuryism that necessitated emergency surgery--he was very fortunate to have survived. He was discharged while still in a fair amount of pain. The task at hand was simple: He needed to be transferred from his hospital bed to a wheelchair, taken downstairs to a waiting car, driven home and put to bed. The nursing staff got him dressed while he was still in bed, had him sit up and only then did they go hunting for his keys/wallet/phone and other personal effects. It took more than a half-hour to find them. In the meantime, his pain from being in a sitting position increased to the point where he had to lay back down in bed--I was there, and it was not an easy thing to witness. A relative who is a nurse explained in a most condescending manner that this was entirely appropriate--the staff was following protocol, nurses are experts at what they do and I simply didn't understand when I said that they should have gotten everything together and ready before sitting him up in bed for transfer to a wheelchair. BS. Some things are matters of simple common sense. I didn't need to be a doctor or nurse to know a blithering idiot when I saw one.
> 
> So I'm sticking to my guns. I think it's ridiculous to pay $70k-plus to teachers who nearly flunked out of college, and throw in gold-plated pension plans and do this regardless of whether they are competent teachers. I think it's ridiculous that you can't fire a teacher who doesn't show up for work and doesn't call in--and yes, this really happens. They have to do it two or three times before they face any serious discipline. Same thing with drunkeness--at least where I live, you cannot fire a teacher for showing up drunk. They have to be given second or even third chances. And where I live is not unusual. This is how the public schools work in the United States, where most everyone who has attended a public school has had the misfortune to be stuck in a class with an incompetent teacher--I graduated from high school more than 30 years ago, and I can remember more than a few. Nothing ever happened to them--they just kept phoning it in until they reached retirement age.
> 
> Now, it is true that teaching CAN be a challenging, rewarding career. It can be a difficult job if you take it seriously. But it can also be the easiest job imaginable. That's what happens in any situation where there is no accountability.


What 32rollandrock says is unfortunately true to a large degree. I don't think teachers should be a protected class and although they serve an important function and role in society, I'm not about to saint them and revere them the way some are. I think a lot of it is people just afraid to go against teachers sometimes because they are afraid of the backlash; "how could you be against the kids?". This is a popular refrain anytime the teachers union wants to go in for a contract negotiation. A few facts, at least about Chicago teachers (CPS):

1) On average CPS teachers report spending ~38 hours/week in class

2) Average school days worked 170 (nationwide average is 180).

3) Average salary (base, not including coaching or summer school teaching) ~75K. Extrapolate that to a full work year and you'll have $114,705.

4) Average class size in high school 24.6 students (national average 23.4)


----------



## justonemore

1. 40 hours a week in class means that they spend 40 hours a week in class. At least another 20 hours go to grading papers, doing paperwork, preparing lesson plans, participating in conférences etc. Teachers are not babysitters no matter how much you'd like them to be.

2. Is the 10 day work difference over a year period a big thing? Given your love of sending billions overseas, I fail to understand your problem with others benefiting slightly from their chosen careers. A bank CEO can make billions a year and take half a year off at the cost of society, yet, a teacher should work 365 days a year at minimum wage while teaching 1000 kids per hour? Is that your take on reality? 

3. Where do you get the $75'000? Any references or just more BS? You mention unsited figures for Chicago over national numbers, but you are being critcal over the national system.. Any reason as to confusing the numbers or is it just more unfounded BS?

4. Average class size means exactly what to you? What would be better? 10 or 50?


----------



## Chouan

32rollandrock said:


> I think that I do know a bit about schools, having attended them for nearly 20 years. It ain't rocket science. If it were, then mediocre academic performers in college would not be able to land jobs as teachers. And it is a cushy job compared to what most people do. As stated, the hours are shorter, you work barely half the year and--this is key--it matters not at all whether you are competent. All you have to do is show up. All you have to do to get a raise is pass post-graduate classes that have nothing whatsoever to do with making you better at what you are paid to do, and the post-graduate classes are absurdly simple. Now, things may be different in England, but that's the way it works in the United States--you really and truly can get away with things as a teacher that would get you fired from McDonald's.




AS far as hours are concerned, let me give you an example. I, and nearly all other teachers at the place where I work now arrive before 0800 (contracted to start at 0830) to get the room ready, resources out etc etc. Normal working day is through to 1600. On Monday there is a weekly meeting which goes on until 1730. On Tuesday there is extra training until 1700 (not contracted for). On Wednesday and Thursday I do extra classes for my two GCSE groups, as does the rest of the department, so finish on these days at 1645-1700 depending upon how energetic the kids feel (not contracted for). This works out to 44.5 hours. No marking or preparation yet. I have 8 KS3 classes each of about 30 kids. If I mark their books every other week, and take 3 minutes per book that is 720 minutes, so 360 minutes per week, another 6 hours. Then I have about 40 GCSE students, if I allow 5 minutes per book, that is another 3 hours, then I have 3 A Level classes, which, although smaller, need more time, so lets say another hour a week each for them. So that adds up to an extra 12 hours a week in total. That's 56.5 hours a week just teaching and marking, and that doesn't include lesson planning and producing resources, and assumes minimal time spent marking. That also doesn't include meeting parents after school or formally arranged and timetabled parents' evenings.

Whether teaching is regarded as a profession bothers me not at all. It does need professional qualifications, a good degree and a PGCE or similar post graduate qualification; I have an MA as well as a BA, as do others. I have colleagues with D.Phils and PhDs as well.



32rollandrock said:


> So I'm sticking to my guns. I think it's ridiculous to pay $70k-plus to teachers who nearly flunked out of college, and throw in gold-plated pension plans and do this regardless of whether they are competent teachers. I think it's ridiculous that you can't fire a teacher who doesn't show up for work and doesn't call in--and yes, this really happens. They have to do it two or three times before they face any serious discipline. Same thing with drunkeness--at least where I live, you cannot fire a teacher for showing up drunk. They have to be given second or even third chances. And where I live is not unusual. This is how the public schools work in the United States, where most everyone who has attended a public school has had the misfortune to be stuck in a class with an incompetent teacher--I graduated from high school more than 30 years ago, and I can remember more than a few. Nothing ever happened to them--they just kept phoning it in until they reached retirement age.
> 
> Now, it is true that teaching CAN be a challenging, rewarding career. It can be a difficult job if you take it seriously. But it can also be the easiest job imaginable. That's what happens in any situation where there is no accountability.


I've attached a link to the teachers' pay scales. These are teachers, not head teachers etc. As you can see, teachers aren't paid anywhere near the sum you've mentioned. A Head of Department, with full seniority and responsibility pay points, and who has jumped through the necessary hoops to gain the increments for teaching ability will be earning about £40000 p.a
Teachers are observed and assessed three times a year, by the school, and if their teaching fails to meet the required level of competence they can be removed from their post. Being in school under the influence of drink, ie at a level that would fail a drink driving test would result in instant dismissal.
As far as the easiness of the job is concerned, don't tell any teacher it's easy until you've tried it. Half of those who start training as a teacher have left before they've completed their first year in post, either through a lack of ability or commitment or because they can't deal with the stress and the hours.


----------



## Chouan

SG_67 said:


> 1) On average CPS teachers report spending ~38 hours/week in class
> 
> 2) Average school days worked 170 (nationwide average is 180).
> 
> *3) Average salary (base, not including coaching or summer school teaching) ~75K. Extrapolate that to a full work year and you'll have $114,705.*
> 
> 4) Average class size in high school 24.6 students (national average 23.4)


Except that teachers' pay was originally paid hourly, in Britain at least. It was then consolidated, ie the hourly pay for the hours taught was collected together and then divided into months and paid monthly.
I think that I've shown the error of your 38 hours a week in class equating to 38 hours a week working.


----------



## SG_67

justonemore said:


> 1. 40 hours a week in class means that they spend 40 hours a week in class. At least another 20 hours go to grading papers, doing paperwork, preparing lesson plans, participating in conférences etc. Teachers are not babysitters no matter how much you'd like them to be.
> 
> 2. Is the 10 day work difference over a year period a big thing? Given your love of sending billions overseas, I fail to understand your problem with others benefiting slightly from their chosen careers. A bank CEO can make billions a year and take half a year off at the cost of society, yet, a teacher should work 365 days a year at minimum wage while teaching 1000 kids per hour? Is that your take on reality?
> 
> 3. Where do you get the $75'000? Any references or just more BS? You mention unsited figures for Chicago over national numbers, but you are being critcal over the national system.. Any reason as to confusing the numbers or is it just more unfounded BS?
> 
> 4. Average class size means exactly what to you? What would be better? 10 or 50?


The average salary for a CPS teacher is ~75K / SCHOOL year. That's a 9 month contract. This does not include extra pay for coaching or teaching summer school. This is a matter of public record so you're free to look it up yourself.

We all work extra hours at home. That's the nature of the modern world. Each district has different rules governing prep work and many allow for extra time for class prep. CPS actual instructional time is capped at 296 min. / day. That's 4.9 hours of instruction time so there's plenty of time for grading and developing lesson plans. As for teachers being baby sitters, that's not what I pay them to do.

1000 kids/hour? 365 days/year? This alone constitutes a good enough reason to ignore you! As for sending billions overseas, how wrong you are again. I'm in favor of sending *trillions *overseas so that rich Israeli oligarchs can continue to wear bespoke Savile Row suits and keep their Swiss bankers happy. All this, mind you, as people are starving out in the street for all to see.


----------



## SG_67

Chouan said:


> Except that teachers' pay was originally paid hourly, in Britain at least. It was then consolidated, ie the hourly pay for the hours taught was collected together and then divided into months and paid monthly.
> I think that I've shown the error of your 38 hours a week in class equating to 38 hours a week working.


I can't speak for other districts, but CPS actual instruction time is capped at 296 min./day.


----------



## 32rollandrock

justonemore said:


> 1. 40 hours a week in class means that they spend 40 hours a week in class. At least another 20 hours go to grading papers, doing paperwork, preparing lesson plans, participating in conférences etc. Teachers are not babysitters no matter how much you'd like them to be.
> 
> 2. Is the 10 day work difference over a year period a big thing? Given your love of sending billions overseas, I fail to understand your problem with others benefiting slightly from their chosen careers. A bank CEO can make billions a year and take half a year off at the cost of society, yet, a teacher should work 365 days a year at minimum wage while teaching 1000 kids per hour? Is that your take on reality?
> 
> 3. Where do you get the $75'000? Any references or just more BS? You mention unsited figures for Chicago over national numbers, but you are being critcal over the national system.. Any reason as to confusing the numbers or is it just more unfounded BS?
> 
> 4. Average class size means exactly what to you? What would be better? 10 or 50?


You think I'm generalizing? OK...

I'm not sure how we're arriving at 40 hours a week in class. Where I live, the classes at the public high school start at 8:30 a.m. and school is dismissed at 3:30 p.m. That's seven hours. Elementary schools start at 9 a.m. and dismiss at 3:30 p.m.--that's 6.5 hours. There is also lunch. High school teachers teach five or six one-hour classes each day. They have more than an hour each day to grade papers/tests. Teachers aren't babysitters? That depends on the teacher--some are, some are not. There are teachers who assign homework and teachers who do not. The latter can easily become babysitters--I remember such teachers when I was in school.

Teacher salaries are matters of public record because teachers are public employees. Where I live, a teacher with 15 or so years of experience makes more than $66,000 a year (and that includes teachers assigned to work in middle school libraries, and so they have no tests or papers to grade), and the cost of living is relatively low--you can buy a nice house in a decent neighborhood for $120,000. Don't go saying that SG 67 is wrong, get your facts and prove him so. The facts are easy to look up, and the figures that SG 67 cites sound right to me. Then again, I've actually done a bit of homework on what teachers are paid. You should, too. Here, for example, is the salary schedule for school teachers in St. Louis, where the average salary in 2010 was $50,000 and the public schools are so bad that no one sends their kids there unless they have no other options:

https://www.slps.org/cms/lib03/MO01... salary schedules/Teacher Salary Schedule.pdf

Here's a state by state breakdown:

Average salaries can be somewhat misleading because they include new teachers who start out at $40k or so--a teacher with 12 years or so in the classroom can easily top $60k, as where I live, or more. In Chicago, where SG 67 lives, six figure salaries for teachers aren't unusual:

https://articles.chicagotribune.com...0100714_1_school-teachers-salaries-six-figure

Ever heard of rubber rooms? That's where they send teachers who are so utterly incompetent, or even dangerous, that they cannot work in classrooms but, thanks to teachers' unions, cannot be fired. Check this out:

https://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2009/08/31/090831fa_fact_brill

https://nypost.com/2013/01/27/one-year-on-the-job-13-years-in-rubber-room-earns-perv-teacher-1m/

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/10/16/rubber-rooms-in-new-york-city-22-million_n_1969749.html

These are not generalizations, these are facts. Specifics. Now, I am not saying that schools can fix kids from dysfunctional families. They cannot. But it is very possible for teachers to make six figures or close to it simply by staying in positions where the work day is less than eight hours, they work 180 days a year (the typical work year is 260 days, not including vacations) and it is virtually impossible to get fired unless you rape a kid. If you can show I'm wrong, please do so.


----------



## 32rollandrock

I'm talking about schools in the United States, not England. I know nothing about how schools operate in England. I do know a bit about how they're run in the United States. Please see my most recent post that includes salary schedules, etc.

I'm not saying that all teachers are bad. They are not. What I am saying is that there are too many bad teachers, it is nigh impossible to get rid of them and students suffer because of it. As for pay and work schedules, I'm sorry, but teachers in the United States do not have to work as many hours as most other people have to work. They just don't--see my posting for when school begins and ends in my community. There's an hour or two built into each day to grade papers. I applaud any and all dedicated teachers, but it is all-too-easy to coast. I work at least 60 hours a week at my job and get paid less than a teacher and work year around. Many people I know do the same.



Chouan said:


> AS far as hours are concerned, let me give you an example. I, and nearly all other teachers at the place where I work now arrive before 0800 (contracted to start at 0830) to get the room ready, resources out etc etc. Normal working day is through to 1600. On Monday there is a weekly meeting which goes on until 1730. On Tuesday there is extra training until 1700 (not contracted for). On Wednesday and Thursday I do extra classes for my two GCSE groups, as does the rest of the department, so finish on these days at 1645-1700 depending upon how energetic the kids feel (not contracted for). This works out to 44.5 hours. No marking or preparation yet. I have 8 KS3 classes each of about 30 kids. If I mark their books every other week, and take 3 minutes per book that is 720 minutes, so 360 minutes per week, another 6 hours. Then I have about 40 GCSE students, if I allow 5 minutes per book, that is another 3 hours, then I have 3 A Level classes, which, although smaller, need more time, so lets say another hour a week each for them. So that adds up to an extra 12 hours a week in total. That's 56.5 hours a week just teaching and marking, and that doesn't include lesson planning and producing resources, and assumes minimal time spent marking. That also doesn't include meeting parents after school or formally arranged and timetabled parents' evenings.
> 
> Whether teaching is regarded as a profession bothers me not at all. It does need professional qualifications, a good degree and a PGCE or similar post graduate qualification; I have an MA as well as a BA, as do others. I have colleagues with D.Phils and PhDs as well.
> 
> I've attached a link to the teachers' pay scales. These are teachers, not head teachers etc. As you can see, teachers aren't paid anywhere near the sum you've mentioned. A Head of Department, with full seniority and responsibility pay points, and who has jumped through the necessary hoops to gain the increments for teaching ability will be earning about £40000 p.a
> Teachers are observed and assessed three times a year, by the school, and if their teaching fails to meet the required level of competence they can be removed from their post. Being in school under the influence of drink, ie at a level that would fail a drink driving test would result in instant dismissal.
> As far as the easiness of the job is concerned, don't tell any teacher it's easy until you've tried it. Half of those who start training as a teacher have left before they've completed their first year in post, either through a lack of ability or commitment or because they can't deal with the stress and the hours. [/FONT][/SIZE]


----------



## justonemore

SG_67 said:


> The average salary for a CPS teacher is ~75K / SCHOOL year. That's a 9 month contract. This does not include extra pay for coaching or teaching summer school. This is a matter of public record so you're free to look it up yourself.
> 
> We all work extra hours at home. That's the nature of the modern world. Each district has different rules governing prep work and many allow for extra time for class prep. CPS actual instructional time is capped at 296 min. / day. That's 4.9 hours of instruction time so there's plenty of time for grading and developing lesson plans. As for teachers being baby sitters, that's not what I pay them to do.
> 
> 1000 kids/hour? 365 days/year? This alone constitutes a good enough reason to ignore you! As for sending billions overseas, how wrong you are again. I'm in favor of sending *trillions *overseas so that rich Israeli oligarchs can continue to wear bespoke Savile Row suits and keep their Swiss bankers happy. All this, mind you, as people are starving out in the street for all to see.


sweet. The u.s. spends 11'000 per student yearly. Funding for your saville row wearing buddies is greater per person than this. Your priorities are obviously not to the society you that supports you. If the u.s. is so bad, why not go get a free ride in your favored country?


----------



## 32rollandrock

justonemore said:


> sweet. The u.s. spends 11'000 per student yearly. Funding for your saville row wearing buddies is greater per person than this. Your priorities are obviously not to the society you that supports you. If the u.s. is so bad, why not go get a free ride in your favored country?


I'm so sick of talk about school funding. The way the school system is presently set up in the United States, you could double, even triple, the amount of money schools get and it would make zero difference. I can only speak for schools where I live and where I have lived (and I have not lived in particularly upscale areas) and the schools have not hurt for money. One example. A local suburban school district hired a superintendent in 2007 for an annual salary of $188k. He retired five years later at a salary of nearly $270k. In addition to giving him a healthy salary bump on his way out the door (which presumably increased his pension benefits) the district agreed to pay for health insurance for him and his wife for ten years. And schools need more money? Give me a break.

Also, not hearing any response to financials provided by myself and SG 67. You asked for specifics, you got them, now, it seems, the subject is changing. Why is that?


----------



## Earl of Ormonde

justonemore said:


> 1. 40 hours a week in class means that they spend 40 hours a week in class.


NO WAY!!! In what country is that then? For starters, the "study hour" in, for example, the UK and Sweden (among others) is 45 minutes not 60. Then as a general rule of thumb teachers in, for example, the UK and Sweden, for 6 to 16 year olds work with the children in the classroom from between about 0800 at the earliest to 1600 at the latest on a normal schoolday. But about 0830 to 1400 is more common, for kids up to about 11, then about 0830 to 1530 up to age 16, that's 6 and a half hours, minus lunch and 2 breaks brings it down another hour to 5 and a half hours @ 5 days a week = 27 and a half hours a week in the classroom actually teaching that's if it is the same teacher teaching every single subject & taking sports as well, but let's be generous and call it 30. You see, you have to factor that in as well that it isn't one teacher that teaches all subjects and certainly not all the non-academic subjects like sports, workshop, home economics, music. So of that 30 hours "teaching time" a fair bit of it will be devoted to preparing lessons and marking tests and papers, while other teachers take the kids for sports, music, carpentry etc.

"40 hours a week in class means that they spend 40 hours a week in class" Not in any country I've ever visited!!! Not by a long way!!!


----------



## Earl of Ormonde

32rollandrock said:


> High school teachers teach five or six one-hour classes each day.


But I wonder if the US doesn't also use the same 45 minute "study hour" that most of Europe has used since at least when I went to school in the 60s?


----------



## SG_67

Earl of Ormonde said:


> But I wonder if the US doesn't also use the same 45 minute "study hour" that most of Europe has used since at least when I went to school in the 60s?


The problem is that there is no one standard. Each district determines these things in conjunction with collective bargaining with the teachers. There are obviously state standards but there's quite a bit of variability in terms of structure, especially between states.

Also in the states, school funding is achieved primarily through local taxes. There is also state and federal funds for districts.

The subject of federal funding is a sticky subject because everyone wants federal money but object to testing mandates.


----------



## 32rollandrock

According to The New Yorker article previously posted (and I would recommend it highly as a starting point for discussion of what's wrong with the current system) the work day for a teacher in the NYC public schools is seven hours, and that includes 40 minutes for lesson preparation.

Here it is again, and the situation hasn't changed much in many districts since the story was published:

https://m.newyorker.com/reporting/2009/08/31/090831fa_fact_brill


----------



## SG_67

32rollandrock said:


> According to The New Yorker article previously posted (and I would recommend it highly as a starting point for discussion of what's wrong with the current system) the work day for a teacher in the NYC public schools is seven hours, and that includes at least one hour for lesson preparation and grading papers.


Almost every school district is like this. Teachers unions have really scored big and know exactly what notes to hit. Remember, it's all about the kids! Anything that appears to further burden the teachers will by necessity be bad for the kids.

Pension reform? The kids suffer. Longer school days? Kids suffer. Teacher testing? Kids suffer.

The kids are suffering but only because of a public school system that is failing the most vulnerable kids. Reform is fine as long as the teachers unions get a piece of the action.

The notion that not enough money is thrown at schools is a ruse. Some of the worst performing districts spend the most money per pupil.


----------



## MaxBuck

SG_67 said:


> The notion that not enough money is thrown at schools is a ruse. Some of the worst performing districts spend the most money per pupil.


While I don't support "throwing money at the problem," you need to take a close look at how much of that $/pupil is attributable to accommodating the developmentally disabled (i.e., mentally retarded, including the functionally ineducable). Many school districts are hamstrung by unfunded mandates imposed by federal or state regulations. Unless and until we stop allowing ourselves to be blackmailed by the disabled lobby, we'll continue to suffer from inefficient education expenditures.

We see the same sort of BS in handicapped-access ramps on city sidewalks; curbing being ripped up and replaced at monumental expense because of deviations from ADA specifications that don't actually limit wheelchair navigation. It's a disgrace.


----------



## SG_67

MaxBuck said:


> While I don't support "throwing money at the problem," you need to take a close look at how much of that $/pupil is attributable to accommodating the developmentally disabled (i.e., mentally retarded, including the functionally ineducable). Many school districts are hamstrung by unfunded mandates imposed by federal or state regulations. Unless and until we stop allowing ourselves to be blackmailed by the disabled lobby, we'll continue to suffer from inefficient education expenditures.


Good point!


----------



## 32rollandrock

SG_67 said:


> Good point!


Bad point. The developmentally disabled need and deserve services. To abandon such people is to abandon whatever principles and values we might have as a society.


----------



## Chouan

Earl of Ormonde said:


> NO WAY!!! In what country is that then? For starters, the "study hour" in, for example, the UK and Sweden (among others) is 45 minutes not 60. Then as a general rule of thumb teachers in, for example, the UK and Sweden, for 6 to 16 year olds work with the children in the classroom from between about 0800 at the earliest to 1600 at the latest on a normal schoolday. But about 0830 to 1400 is more common, for kids up to about 11, then about 0830 to 1530 up to age 16, that's 6 and a half hours, minus lunch and 2 breaks brings it down another hour to 5 and a half hours @ 5 days a week = 27 and a half hours a week in the classroom actually teaching that's if it is the same teacher teaching every single subject & taking sports as well, but let's be generous and call it 30. You see, you have to factor that in as well that it isn't one teacher that teaches all subjects and certainly not all the non-academic subjects like sports, workshop, home economics, music. So of that 30 hours "teaching time" a fair bit of it will be devoted to preparing lessons and marking tests and papers, while other teachers take the kids for sports, music, carpentry etc.
> 
> "40 hours a week in class means that they spend 40 hours a week in class" Not in any country I've ever visited!!! Not by a long way!!!


Where I teach we have 5 lessons in a day, 3 of 75 minutes, with 2 of 70 minutes. We have a break of 20 minutes, a registration/tutor time of 20 minutes, 2 "movement" times of 5 minutes to allow kids and teachers to move rooms, and a lunch break of 35 minutes. It is a state school, although an "academy".
Lessons do not end when the bell goes, in the sense that there is nothing more to be done. Rooms have to be tidied, students have to be spoken to about their behaviour, good or bad. The room then needs to be prepared for the next lesson. So a 20 minute break actually works out at about 10 minutes, and the 35 minute lunch break works out to be about 20-25 minutes.
Those that don't know, or understand, or feel jealous of the "short hours and long holidays" and the "gold plated" pensions (that we make considerable contributions to) thus won't accept anything beyond their own prejudiced views.
If teaching is such a doddle, such an easy well paid doddle, why don't you try it? It should be sooooo easy for you. Only you won't, because it isn't.


----------



## Shaver

32rollandrock said:


> I think that I do know a bit about schools, having attended them for nearly 20 years. It ain't rocket science.......


I have attended the football for longer than that. Perhaps I am qualified to be the manager of England? :cool2:


----------



## Earl of Ormonde

Chouan said:


> Those that don't know, or understand, or feel jealous of the "short hours and long holidays" and the "gold plated" pensions (that we make considerable contributions to) thus won't accept anything beyond their own prejudiced views.
> If teaching is such a doddle, such an easy well paid doddle, why don't you try it? It should be sooooo easy for you. Only you won't, because it isn't.


Whoa!!!! Hold your horses there a minute. You've got the wrong end of stick. I was ONLY responding to the specifics in the post that said 40 hours a week is 40 hours a week in the classroom teaching children.

I WAS NOT responding to the discussion about the teacher's job being easy or cushy nor am I criticising it, far from it.

READ AGAIN what I wrote & you will see that it is simply a response about the numbers.

You've read me totally wrong, I have ALWAYS supported the cause of teachers for more money and always said it is a tough and stressful job, and one of the most necessary jobs.

So please, before you throw any more insults at me understand me correctly! But I understand the defensiveness and frustration in your repsonse and defend it because teachers are taking a lot of unnecessary flak in this thread.

As for trying it, I did, I was a full time police instructor from 1986 to 1990. And I was a full time English teacher from 1996 to 2001.


----------



## justonemore

Earl of Ormonde said:


> Whoa!!!! Hold your horses there a minute. You've got the wrong end of stick. I was ONLY responding to the specifics in the post that said 40 hours a week is 40 hours a week in the classroom teaching children.
> 
> I WAS NOT responding to the discussion about the teacher's job being easy or cushy nor am I criticising it, far from it.
> 
> READ AGAIN what I wrote & you will see that it is simply a response about the numbers.
> 
> You've read me totally wrong, I have ALWAYS supported the cause of teachers for more money and always said it is a tough and stressful job, and one of the most necessary jobs.
> 
> So please, before you throw any more insults at me understand me correctly! But I understand the defensiveness and frustration in your repsonse and defend it because teachers are taking a lot of unnecessary flak in this thread.
> 
> As for trying it, I did, I was a full time police instructor from 1986 to 1990. And I was a full time English teacher from 1996 to 2001.


If you read my post correctly, I stated that 40 hours of classroom time means 40 hours in the classroom. I never stated that many or most teachers actually do so. There is a difference (in the teaching world) between classroom time and admin. time. My post (#80) was in reposnse to SG's comment that teachers for the Chicago Public Schools spend 38 hours per week in the classroom (post #79). If what he mentioned is true, then the same teachers have, as a general rule, another 20 hours of admin time (2 hours of class to 1 hour of admin).


----------



## justonemore

32rollandrock said:


> You think I'm generalizing? OK...
> 
> I'm not sure how we're arriving at 40 hours a week in class. Where I live, the classes at the public high school start at 8:30 a.m. and school is dismissed at 3:30 p.m. That's seven hours. Elementary schools start at 9 a.m. and dismiss at 3:30 p.m.--that's 6.5 hours. There is also lunch. High school teachers teach five or six one-hour classes each day. They have more than an hour each day to grade papers/tests. Teachers aren't babysitters? That depends on the teacher--some are, some are not. There are teachers who assign homework and teachers who do not. The latter can easily become babysitters--I remember such teachers when I was in school.
> 
> Teacher salaries are matters of public record because teachers are public employees. Where I live, a teacher with 15 or so years of experience makes more than $66,000 a year (and that includes teachers assigned to work in middle school libraries, and so they have no tests or papers to grade), and the cost of living is relatively low--you can buy a nice house in a decent neighborhood for $120,000. Don't go saying that SG 67 is wrong, get your facts and prove him so. The facts are easy to look up, and the figures that SG 67 cites sound right to me. Then again, I've actually done a bit of homework on what teachers are paid. You should, too. Here, for example, is the salary schedule for school teachers in St. Louis, where the average salary in 2010 was $50,000 and the public schools are so bad that no one sends their kids there unless they have no other options:
> 
> https://www.slps.org/cms/lib03/MO01... salary schedules/Teacher Salary Schedule.pdf
> 
> Here's a state by state breakdown:
> 
> Average salaries can be somewhat misleading because they include new teachers who start out at $40k or so--a teacher with 12 years or so in the classroom can easily top $60k, as where I live, or more. In Chicago, where SG 67 lives, six figure salaries for teachers aren't unusual:
> 
> https://articles.chicagotribune.com...0100714_1_school-teachers-salaries-six-figure
> 
> Ever heard of rubber rooms? That's where they send teachers who are so utterly incompetent, or even dangerous, that they cannot work in classrooms but, thanks to teachers' unions, cannot be fired. Check this out:
> 
> https://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2009/08/31/090831fa_fact_brill
> 
> https://nypost.com/2013/01/27/one-year-on-the-job-13-years-in-rubber-room-earns-perv-teacher-1m/
> 
> https://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/10/16/rubber-rooms-in-new-york-city-22-million_n_1969749.html
> 
> These are not generalizations, these are facts. Specifics. Now, I am not saying that schools can fix kids from dysfunctional families. They cannot. But it is very possible for teachers to make six figures or close to it simply by staying in positions where the work day is less than eight hours, they work 180 days a year (the typical work year is 260 days, not including vacations) and it is virtually impossible to get fired unless you rape a kid. If you can show I'm wrong, please do so.


38 hours was quoted by SG in post # 79 and I was responding by using his "proven" and "easliy researchable" figures (he quoted 38 hours and I rounded up). I wasn't going to bother to chase his figures and he obviously wasn't going to bother providing a simple link to back up his "facts".


----------



## Earl of Ormonde

justonemore said:


> If you read my post correctly, I stated that 40 hours of classroom time means 40 hours in the classroom.


Well, I did read it correctly, I contested what you wrote. You wrote "1. 40 hours a week in class means that they spend 40 hours a week in class. At least another 20 hours go to grading papers, doing paperwork, preparing lesson plans, participating in conférences etc.

And you have just confirmed that by saying "I never stated that many or most teachers actually do so." Exactly, most don't. But nor did you deny it and make that clear, you made it sound like most teachers physically spend 40 hours a week in a classroom & then work another 20 on top of that, making it sound like a teacher works 60 hours a week at school. THAT is what I am contesting.

Well, that's the end of that discussion then. I contested what you wrote & you've just confirmed it.


----------



## justonemore

Earl of Ormonde said:


> Well, I did read it correctly, I contested what you wrote. You wrote "40 hours of classroom time means 40 hours in the classroom".
> And you have just ocnfirmed that by saying "I never stated that many or most teachers actually do so."
> 
> Well, that's the end of that discussion then. I contested what you wrote & you've just confirmed it.


And did you not undertsand that post 80 was in repsonse to post 79 claiming chicago teachers spend 38 hours of "classroom" time per week? Not sure how you're getting confused on this but o.k.


----------



## Earl of Ormonde

I am not confused about anything. I am responding to your claim of a 60 hour working week for a teacher, 40 of which you claim they spend in the classroom.


----------



## Chouan

Earl of Ormonde said:


> Whoa!!!! Hold your horses there a minute. You've got the wrong end of stick. I was ONLY responding to the specifics in the post that said 40 hours a week is 40 hours a week in the classroom teaching children.
> 
> I WAS NOT responding to the discussion about the teacher's job being easy or cushy nor am I criticising it, far from it.
> 
> READ AGAIN what I wrote & you will see that it is simply a response about the numbers.
> 
> You've read me totally wrong, I have ALWAYS supported the cause of teachers for more money and always said it is a tough and stressful job, and one of the most necessary jobs.
> 
> So please, before you throw any more insults at me understand me correctly! But I understand the defensiveness and frustration in your repsonse and defend it because teachers are taking a lot of unnecessary flak in this thread.
> 
> As for trying it, I did, I was a full time police instructor from 1986 to 1990. And I was a full time English teacher from 1996 to 2001.


My unreserved apology, I was, partly, conflating your post with previous ones.


----------



## Earl of Ormonde

Chouan said:


> My unreserved apology, I was, partly, conflating your post with previous ones.


No problem mate, I understand your frustration with the people here denigrating the very necessary and very professional role of teachers and simply comparing them with non-vocational jobs and everyday trades.


----------



## justonemore

Earl of Ormonde said:


> I am not confused about anything. I am responding to your claim of a 60 hour working week for a teacher, 40 of which you claim they spend in the classroom.


One last time for clarity. My post was in response to post 79 which claimed 38 hours in classroom. Did you bother to read post 79 from SG? He made the claim that teachers in chicago work such(38 hours per week in the classroom). My claim was that a teacher spends another half of that (or any amount of classroom time) in doing admin. It is basic math. A teacher spending 2 hours in the classroom will need about an hour of admin. Times it by ten or twenty & the math doesn't change.


----------



## SG_67

32rollandrock said:


> Bad point. The developmentally disabled need and deserve services. To abandon such people is to abandon whatever principles and values we might have as a society.


Not suggesting that they should be abandoned at all.

To integrate the developmentally disabled into regular schools, for lack of a better term, is an inefficient means of educating them.

Their should be funding for special education programs for children within whatever spectrum of developmental disorders there are. But there has to be a more efficient means of doing this than in the regular school system as it over burdens the resources available for other students.

In my opinion, practicality and efficiency have to trump the notion that children will be stigmatized or that there is a general stigma associated with having your child in a "special school".

In the end it's the special needs children that suffer as they are having to compete for the same resources in the school system so important life skills and communications skills may get short shrift.

I recall some time ago when the state lotteries were introduced, the money raised was supposed to go toward education. With better oversight and less bureaucracy we could probably make some headway toward a better system that serves all kids, those requiring standard instruction as well as special needs.


----------



## justonemore

SG_67 said:


> Not suggesting that they should be abandoned at all.
> 
> To integrate the developmentally disabled into regular schools, for lack of a better term, is an inefficient means of educating them.
> 
> Their should be funding for special education programs for children within whatever spectrum of developmental disorders there are. But there has to be a more efficient means of doing this than in the regular school system as it over burdens the resources available for other students.
> 
> In my opinion, practicality and efficiency have to trump the notion that children will be stigmatized or that there is a general stigma associated with having your child in a "special school".
> 
> In the end it's the special needs children that suffer as they are having to compete for the same resources in the school system so important life skills and communications skills may get short shrift.
> 
> I recall some time ago when the state lotteries were introduced, the money raised was supposed to go toward education. With better oversight and less bureaucracy we could probably make some headway toward a better system that serves all kids, those requiring standard instruction as well as special needs.


Is the Illinois lottery no longer used for educational benefit? While I wish I could say I was shocked, I'm really not.


----------



## SG_67

justonemore said:


> One last time for clarity. My post was in response to post 79 which claimed 38 hours in classroom. Did you bother to read post 79 from SG? He made the claim that teachers in chicago work such(38 hours per week in the classroom). My claim was that a teacher spends another half of that (or any amount of classroom time) in doing admin. It is basic math. A teacher spending 2 hours in the classroom will need about an hour of admin. Times it by ten or twenty & the math doesn't change.


Instruction time is capped at 296 minutes / day. Most teachers report spending just under 8 hrs. In a given day in school. There is admin time built in there. This notion that teachers work 60-70 hrs a week, much of that on their own time is not grounded in fact. It's a headline and nothing more. It looks good on a protest sign but that's as far as it goes.

Also bear in mind that the salaries stated are for a school year; roughly 9 months. Teachers have their summer to work other jobs, tutor (quite lucrative) and teach summer school (even more lucrative....trust me!). I can't speak for over districts, but it is possible for CPS teachers to make 6 figure salaries.

There's also the issue of automatic pay raises for obtaining a masters degree.

Teacher tenure and the issue of seniority is another problem. Most teachers unions out a value on seniority and tenure. What this does is make certain teachers safe when it comes to cuts or school closings. A more energetic and successful teacher may get cut based not on performance but nothing more than someone else has warmed his or her seat for a longer period of time.


----------



## SG_67

justonemore said:


> Is the Illinois lottery no longer used for educational benefit? While I wish I could say I was shocked, I'm really not.


It's supposed to be but it operates much the same way as social security does. Funds are used from it for other purposes and an "IOU" is placed in the safe with future revenues hopefully going to pay it off.


----------



## justonemore

SG_67 said:


> Instruction time is capped at 296 minutes / day. Most teachers report spending just under 8 hrs. In a given day in school. There is admin time built in there. This notion that teachers work 60-70 hrs a week, much of that on their own time is not grounded in fact. It's a headline and nothing more. It looks good on a protest sign but that's as far as it goes.
> 
> Also bear in mind that the salaries stated are for a school year; roughly 9 months. Teachers have their summer to work other jobs, tutor (quite lucrative) and teach summer school (even more lucrative....trust me!). I can't speak for over districts, but it is possible for CPS teachers to make 6 figure salaries.
> 
> There's also the issue of automatic pay raises for obtaining a masters degree.
> 
> Teacher tenure and the issue of seniority is another problem. Most teachers unions out a value on seniority and tenure. What this does is make certain teachers safe when it comes to cuts or school closings. A more energetic and successful teacher may get cut based not on performance but nothing more than someone else has warmed his or her seat for a longer period of time.


Ok your post mentioned 38 hours of class time. You gave no link and when asked, you thought it my job to find the info you referenced (which as it usually the author's job to provide references, I'm not going to do so). There is a big difference in the education community as to 38 hours of class time compared to a 38 hour work week. Did you accidently misquote something or is the site you quoted incorrect? These problems are the reasons one usually provides a quoted link when asked. Many professions differentiate between hours. A lawyer will often charge for courtroom time over office time over consultaion time. A dr. Will charge for office time, surgery time, consulting time, etc. While teachers can't charge for admin time the same as drs. and lawyers do, it doesn't mean that admin time doesn't exist.

I'm not sure why you have a problem with people that have obtained further education gaining a pay raise. In the private sector is this not normal? If the place of business decided not to pay the employee more, then the employee usually goes elsewhere. Don't they? A better educated educator shouldn't be a problem in my thoughts. Your arguement seems to be that there should be no benefit career Wise as to bettering your knowledge/performance. Private employees can do so, why should public employees not be able to do so as well? Isn't it just part of the system? >People work to make money and people better themselves careerwisein order to make more money. Surely you don't think a Med. Dr. should make the same as a high school grad that works as a waiter?

Do you have any idea as to how lucrative tutoring actually is? How much $$ per hour? How many hours are possible? Tutoring usually consists of driving to some far away place to meet a client for all of 45-60 minutes (if they don't bother to cancel a couple hours in advance and stiff you on the tuition fee). Travel costs are on the teacher, material costs are on the teacher (yep, if the student wants to use a certain book, you need one too). The only thing actually paid is "classroom" time. If you work alone then you need to hunt down students. If you work for a "business" then you get a quater of the price and limited hours. From what I have seen and done, it is hardly "Lucrative" versus being a complete waste of time.

Seniority is standard in pretty much all businesses. While I would disagree with keeping a teacher that can't teach, I would also be worried that without nsuch protections, it would be easy to replace long term dedicated teachers with the excuse of "cost". Taking a proven teacher of 30 years that makes more than a 22 y.o. recent grad is efficient for the budget but does nothing to show dedication to those that have served many, many years of their lives for the public good (and teaching sucks everywhere. it even sucks here in switzerland where we have very little liabilty issues compared to the U.S.)


----------



## justonemore

SG_67 said:


> It's supposed to be but it operates much the same way as social security does. Funds are used from it for other purposes and an "IOU" is placed in the safe with future revenues hopefully going to pay it off.


if I remember correctly, the only reason the lottery & gambling were allowed in Illinois was to benefit education. Again, while not shocked, I am a bit disappointed to hear it.


----------



## Earl of Ormonde

justonemore said:


> Did you bother to read post 79 from SG?


Don't get snarky with me!

Yes I read it 
But it doesn't matter what you were responding to. You made a claim that I KNOW is incorrect.

1. teachers do not physically spend 40 hours a week in a classroom. They have no reason to and no opportunity to.


----------



## 32rollandrock

Chouan said:


> Where I teach we have 5 lessons in a day, 3 of 75 minutes, with 2 of 70 minutes. We have a break of 20 minutes, a registration/tutor time of 20 minutes, 2 "movement" times of 5 minutes to allow kids and teachers to move rooms, and a lunch break of 35 minutes. It is a state school, although an "academy".
> Lessons do not end when the bell goes, in the sense that there is nothing more to be done. Rooms have to be tidied, students have to be spoken to about their behaviour, good or bad. The room then needs to be prepared for the next lesson. So a 20 minute break actually works out at about 10 minutes, and the 35 minute lunch break works out to be about 20-25 minutes.
> Those that don't know, or understand, or feel jealous of the "short hours and long holidays" and the "gold plated" pensions (that we make considerable contributions to) thus won't accept anything beyond their own prejudiced views.
> *If teaching is such a doddle, such an easy well paid doddle, why don't you try it? It should be sooooo easy for you. Only you won't, because it isn't.*


As I said in an earlier post, I absolutely would try it, want to try it. I'd do it in a heartbeat. The problem is, I don't hold a teaching certificate, and you can't be a teacher in the United States without one. And what would it take to get a teaching certificate? I'd have to go back to college for two years and take a bunch of silly courses in theory of childhood development and other rot. Why do we require teaching certificates? Because of teacher unions. You see, if any intelligent person who gets on well with kids could become a teacher, then the stranglehold that unions have on the U.S. educational system would be weakened. I couldn't become a teacher even if I demonstrated mastery in a subject, say English, and I volunteered at schools and youth groups and proved that I worked well with kids.

Again, I've said from the start (you can look it up): I would very much like to be a teacher. Why? Frankly, while I would be a responsible, dedicated teacher and I think that I would enjoy the work (no sense doing something you don't enjoy), I wouldn't have to work as hard as I do now, I'd have tons more time off, there's more job security, I'd get better health benefits and I'd be set for life thanks to pension benefits. I like to write and would have time to do freelance work.

Did you read the New Yorker article? If so, what did you think? How can anyone defend a system that operates in that fashion?


----------



## justonemore

Earl of Ormonde said:


> Don't get snarky with me!
> 
> Yes I read it
> But it doesn't matter what you were responding to. You made a claim that I KNOW is incorrect.
> 
> 1. teachers do not physically spend 40 hours a week in a classroom. They have no reason to and no opportunity to.


ummm. I responded to a claim that anyone with basic logic capabilities will assume as incorrect..I never claimed teachers work 40 hours per week, in fact it was SG that claimed teachers have "38 classroom hours per week".

Oh. there is no "snarkiness" compared to asking you to realize the actual situation. I respect you as a senior member of AAAC but there is no way I'll allow you to misread the situation without further comment.If any senior member of this site is willing to back you up, then I will be more than happy to apoligize for any confusion. I do hope you are of the same mind?


----------



## justonemore

Shaver said:


> Unnecessarily harsh, isn't it?


Indeed. And I edited my post (before I noticed yours) in order to portray such. However...Is there really a need as to commenting on the first person that suggested such?


----------



## Shaver

justonemore said:


> Indeed. And I edited my post to in ordedr to portray such.


All gone now.


----------



## Tilton

For some of high school, I went to a public high school. Teachers there were excellent - it was easily one of the best public high schools in Virginia - but teachers taught 5 courses at 45min each. That's <4hrs of instruction/day. Included in the day is an hour-long lunch, 5 minute breaks between each class (for a total of 30min), one 45min planning period, and one 45min admin period. That's 6.75hrs including lunch. Teachers were contracted to be at school from 8AM-3PM. Becoming friends with several of my former teachers while in college through alumni events, I heard over and over that after you teach for 3-4 years, it becomes significantly easier because you just recycle new lesson plans that you developed early in your career for each new crop of students and so your workload goes down substantially at that point. Looking online at public records, entry-level teachers in my district were earning $38,000/yr in an area that has a 14% lower cost of living than the national average and the school year is 190 days.


----------



## justonemore

Shaver said:


> All gone now.


Now now my sweetie. Are we not aware of the old expression "the pot calling the kettle back"? I went too far and tried to edit my post before too much insult was done...There is still a post here by "others ", that has not been edited.. Are you claiming that certain circumstances allow such versus others? Or is it your level of frustration compared to mine? :devil:


----------



## Shaver

justonemore said:


> Now now my sweetie. Are we not aware of the old expression "the pot calling the kettle back"? I went too far and tried to edit my post before too much insult was done...There is still a post here by "others ", that has not been edited.. Are you claiming that certain circumstances allow such versus others? Or is it your level of frustration compared to mine? :devil:


The raven chides blackness. :redface:

Sorry.


----------



## SG_67

I'm not talking about Dr.'s and Lawyers. Each profession determines what a work day is. In the case of teachers, this is something negotiated in their collective bargaining agreement. As for making money, I don't have a problem with anyone making as much money as they can, but there has to be some absolute value that any profession can claim and money they can command.

In any profession merit is what counts. Performance should, and in many cases, the only thing that matters. Seniority may certainly be a factor, but it should not be the only factor to the exclusion of anything else.

https://www.cps.edu/Programs/DistrictInitiatives/FullDay/Documents/PrincipalGuideES.pdf

https://www.cps.edu/About_CPS/At-a-glance/Documents/EmployeePositionRoster_12312013.pdf


----------



## Earl of Ormonde

justonemore said:


> 1. *40 hours a week in class means that they spend 40 hours a week in class.* At least another 20 hours go to grading papers, doing paperwork, preparing lesson plans, participating in conférences etc. Teachers are not babysitters no matter how much you'd like them to be.


QFT....QED


----------



## 32rollandrock

Tilton said:


> For some of high school, I went to a public high school. Teachers there were excellent - it was easily one of the best public high schools in Virginia - but teachers taught 5 courses at 45min each. That's <4hrs of instruction/day. Included in the day is an hour-long lunch, 5 minute breaks between each class (for a total of 30min), one 45min planning period, and one 45min admin period. That's 6.75hrs including lunch. Teachers were contracted to be at school from 8AM-3PM. Becoming friends with several of my former teachers while in college through alumni events, I heard over and over that after you teach for 3-4 years, it becomes significantly easier because you just recycle new lesson plans that you developed early in your career for each new crop of students and so your workload goes down substantially at that point. Looking online at public records, entry-level teachers in my district were earning $38,000/yr in an area that has a 14% lower cost of living than the national average and the school year is 190 days.


These are some of the better points that have been made in a thread that is fast devolving.


----------



## Chouan

32rollandrock said:


> As I said in an earlier post, I absolutely would try it, want to try it. I'd do it in a heartbeat. The problem is, I don't hold a teaching certificate, and you can't be a teacher in the United States without one. And what would it take to get a teaching certificate? I'd have to go back to college for two years and take a bunch of silly courses in theory of childhood development and other rot. Why do we require teaching certificates? Because of teacher unions. You see, if any intelligent person who gets on well with kids could become a teacher, then the stranglehold that unions have on the U.S. educational system would be weakened. I couldn't become a teacher even if I demonstrated mastery in a subject, say English, and I volunteered at schools and youth groups and proved that I worked well with kids.
> 
> Again, I've said from the start (you can look it up): I would very much like to be a teacher. Why? Frankly, while I would be a responsible, dedicated teacher and I think that I would enjoy the work (no sense doing something you don't enjoy), I wouldn't have to work as hard as I do now, I'd have tons more time off, there's more job security, I'd get better health benefits and I'd be set for life thanks to pension benefits. I like to write and would have time to do freelance work.
> 
> Did you read the New Yorker article? If so, what did you think? How can anyone defend a system that operates in that fashion?


Neither can you be a teacher in the UK without one, either three years doing a BEd or a year doing a PGCE. I found my PGCE really useful. As a good History graduate who had taught at University I thought that teaching kids would be fairly easy, only it wasn't. We did a limited amount of theoretical stuff, a lot of practical stuff, and then wrote a dissertation on an aspect of teaching. We were frequently observed and had to pass every observation, we had to demonstrate understanding of our subject (easy) the syllabus, which in the UK is constantly changing, grades and grade boundaries, which are also constantly changing due the wonders of political control, demonstrate inclusiveness, differentiation, empathy, sympathy, develop an ability to role-play, ie BE the teacher etc etc. It wasn't just a course based on attendance. Three of the group of 20 that started dropped out as they couldn't deal with it. Two more left teaching during their first year, that I know of. It was a valuable and useful experience and I don't think that anyone, no matter how clever or good with kids they might be should be allowed to teach until they've learnt the full set of skills, and proved it. I certainly wouldn't have wanted an unqualified person teaching my kids!
We don't need a PGCE because of Unions, we need a PGCE in order for teachers to be properly trained. You're right, any intelligent person who gets on with kids *could* become a teacher, but, to my mind they'd have to prove it, and their commitment, first.


----------



## 32rollandrock

Chouan said:


> Neither can you be a teacher in the UK without one, either three years doing a BEd or a year doing a PGCE. I found my PGCE really useful. As a good History graduate who had taught at University I thought that teaching kids would be fairly easy, only it wasn't. We did a limited amount of theoretical stuff, a lot of practical stuff, and then wrote a dissertation on an aspect of teaching. We were frequently observed and had to pass every observation, we had to demonstrate understanding of our subject (easy) the syllabus, which in the UK is constantly changing, grades and grade boundaries, which are also constantly changing due the wonders of political control, demonstrate inclusiveness, differentiation, empathy, sympathy, develop an ability to role-play, ie BE the teacher etc etc. It wasn't just a course based on attendance. Three of the group of 20 that started dropped out as they couldn't deal with it. Two more left teaching during their first year, that I know of. It was a valuable and useful experience and I don't think that anyone, no matter how clever or good with kids they might be should be allowed to teach until they've learnt the full set of skills, and proved it. I certainly wouldn't have wanted an unqualified person teaching my kids!
> We don't need a PGCE because of Unions, we need a PGCE in order for teachers to be properly trained. You're right, any intelligent person who gets on with kids *could* become a teacher, but, to my mind they'd have to prove it, and their commitment, first.


I think that this sounds good, at least in theory, but the reality, at least in the United States, is that way too many teachers get certificates who have no business being teachers. I'm also struck by the idea of "proper training." The best teachers I can remember had little, if anything, in common with each other. Their teaching methods were as diverse as they were effective. When it comes to teaching, the way to prove skill and commitment isn't through academia or certification, in my opinion. A teacher who succeeds at a private or parochial school where state certification isn't required should be able to teach in public schools without having to obtain a certificate. A math whiz who volunteers in classrooms and is observed to be effective with kids should be able to become a teacher. I cannot imagine what a dissertation on teaching would look like. I have read an autobiography of a public school superintendent in the United States (yes, some fool really wrote one) and it was, as they say on your side of the pond, bloody awful, filled with cliches and pseudo-psych babble about forging partnerships with stakeholders and achieving consensus across the spectrum and the other usual nonsense.

Once again, we may be talking apples and oranges given that I know nothing about the system in England. Again, have you read the New Yorker piece? It would take just a few minutes. I'd be interested in your take.

Addendum: I've re-read one of your earlier posts and see some key differences between England and the U.S. It is good, I think, that teachers who show up drunk are terminated--that doesn't happen here. It is good that there is some sort of classroom observation to ensure quality--that isn't a given here. Virtually all teachers--more than 95 percent--receive the highest possible rating on performance evaluations. That should be impossible regardless of the profession. When the government tried to reform the performance evaluation system to make it meaningful, the teacher union lobby in the state where I live successfully lobbied the legislature to exempt the evaluations from public disclosure laws so no one can see them. It's impossible now for anyone to say whether they are meaningful or not, but, as a parent and taxpayer, I think that I should be able to see them so I can make informed decisions about what school/class my child should attend.

Again, much of this is in the cited article. Please read it and tell me what you think. I should add that the publication is a liberal one and so expose is all the more credible.


----------



## Chouan

32rollandrock said:


> I think that this sounds good, at least in theory, but the reality, at least in the United States, is that way too many teachers get certificates who have no business being teachers. I'm also struck by the idea of "proper training." The best teachers I can remember had little, if anything, in common with each other. Their teaching methods were as diverse as they were effective. When it comes to teaching, the way to prove skill and commitment isn't through academia or certification, in my opinion. A teacher who succeeds at a private or parochial school where state certification isn't required should be able to teach in public schools without having to obtain a certificate. A math whiz who volunteers in classrooms and is observed to be effective with kids should be able to become a teacher. I cannot imagine what a dissertation on teaching would look like. I have read an autobiography of a public school superintendent in the United States (yes, some fool really wrote one) and it was, as they say on your side of the pond, bloody awful, filled with cliches and pseudo-psych babble about forging partnerships with stakeholders and achieving consensus across the spectrum and the other usual nonsense.
> 
> Once again, we may be talking apples and oranges given that I know nothing about the system in England. Again, have you read the New Yorker piece? It would take just a few minutes. I'd be interested in your take.
> 
> Addendum: I've re-read one of your earlier posts and see some key differences between England and the U.S. It is good, I think, that teachers who show up drunk are terminated--that doesn't happen here. It is good that there is some sort of classroom observation to ensure quality--that isn't a given here. Virtually all teachers--more than 95 percent--receive the highest possible rating on performance evaluations. That should be impossible regardless of the profession. When the government tried to reform the performance evaluation system to make it meaningful, the teacher union lobby in the state where I live successfully lobbied the legislature to exempt the evaluations from public disclosure laws so no one can see them. It's impossible now for anyone to say whether they are meaningful or not, but, as a parent and taxpayer, I think that I should be able to see them so I can make informed decisions about what school/class my child should attend.
> 
> Again, much of this is in the cited article. Please read it and tell me what you think. I should add that the publication is a liberal one and so expose is all the more credible.


It is an interesting article, and does seem to be a somewhat grotesque concept. In the UK if a teacher is accused of hitting a kid, or something like that, they are suspended and sent home on full pay, until the incident is investigated, then they are reinstated, or sacked. The whole process usually lasts 3-4 months at most. Similarly, if a teacher is believed to be incompetent, the capability procedure lasts about 2 months, in school, in which the teacher is frequently observed, in the hope that their teaching will improve, after which the teacher is either fully reinstated, or had their employment terminated. It seems to me that the situation obtaining in New York is an extreme reaction to the situation that existed before, with what looks to have been excessive interference by politicians in teaching and teaching careers. No wonder the teaching unions have taken such an extreme position if things were so bad before!

Your suggestion that a maths whizz who can teach kids well shouldn't need to be trained is an erroneous one though. In the same way that a person who can prepare a really good dinner for a party of friends is not qualified to be a chef. Talent and skill, without training, isn't sufficient. It isn't the teaching of a single lesson that shows a teaching ability, it is the ability to teach lesson after lesson, to kids of differing ability, of differing age groups, of differing attitudes, for a sustained period. Putting such a person into a school as a full-time teacher, without adequate preparation, would be doing them a great disservice.

I would suggest that the earlier suggestions that a teacher can be hired or fired, at will, by the Principal is a very bad one. It would be quite possible for a teacher to be fired by a Principal on personal grounds; after all, it would be very easy for a clever Principal to find reasons to fire a teacher that they simply don't like, or to make their working lives so burdensome that they leave of their own volition.


----------



## SG_67

The Chouan's point about not needing additional training, yet this is what happens in colleges and universities. 

An interesting story in the news this morning, the state of Indiana is going to allow professional to teach in the public schools without a teaching certificate, provided they have at least 3 years of professions experience in the subject being taught. I'll assume this applies to more technical subjects such as math and science. 

It will be interesting to watch.


----------



## Chouan

SG_67 said:


> The Chouan's point about not needing additional training, yet this is what happens in colleges and universities.
> 
> An interesting story in the news this morning, the state of Indiana is going to allow professional to teach in the public schools without a teaching certificate, provided they have at least 3 years of professions experience in the subject being taught. I'll assume this applies to more technical subjects such as math and science.
> 
> It will be interesting to watch.


There is a very big difference between teaching in schools and teaching in universities. I have done both, and teaching at university level is much, much easier than teaching in a school.


----------



## SG_67

Chouan said:


> There is a very big difference between teaching in schools and teaching in universities. I have done both, and teaching at university level is much, much easier than teaching in a school.


I'm sure the age of the students has a lot to do with it, also too those at University are there by choice where as in public schools it is by mandate.

I've never taught at the public school level but I have served as clinical faculty as well as taught at the university level and had to develop lesson plans as well as lecture notes, outlines and design tests.

There are many resources available to instructors for the design and implementation of lesson plans. Many college textbooks come in both student as well as instructor editions with the instructor editions having suggested test questions after each chapter.


----------



## Chouan

SG_67 said:


> I'm sure the age of the students has a lot to do with it, also too those at University are there by choice where as in public schools it is by mandate.
> 
> I've never taught at the public school level but I have served as clinical faculty as well as taught at the university level and had to develop lesson plans as well as lecture notes, outlines and design tests.
> 
> There are many resources available to instructors for the design and implementation of lesson plans. Many college textbooks come in both student as well as instructor editions with the instructor editions having suggested test questions after each chapter.


Quite. If one is teaching History undergraduates at university, as I did, there are a series of things that make the teaching easier.
1) They chose the course, so want to be taught.
2) If they're not motivated that's their responsibility, not the lecturer's.
3) If they lose interest they stop attending, rather than being forced to attend and then disrupting the lesson.
4) They're usually more mature, and thus usually more responsible.
5) They're usually brighter, as a group, and so more able and more able to learn and focus.
6) They're usually interested enough to engage with the subject, usually leading to proper discussion involving most of the students.
7) There's no parental issues.
8) Essays etc as independent learning get done without them having to be chased up. Or they don't, but still don't need to be chased up.
9) Exposition of information is usually sufficient, ie. lectures, rather than having to devise and plan varieties of approaches to keep the kids engaged.
Obviously, different subjects will have widely differing approaches, but essentially an expert telling kids stuff would be fine at a university but hopeless at a school.


----------



## Earl of Ormonde

Chouan said:


> There is a very big difference between teaching in schools and teaching in universities. I have done both, and teaching at university level is much, much easier than teaching in a school.


Definitely. I taught English to a class of Swedish 14 year olds a few times & each time thought "NEVER AGAIN"

I've also taught English to Swedish adults at uni level in their preparation for sitting the advance Cambridge English Certificate. Much easier.


----------



## eagle2250

Chouan said:


> There is a very big difference between teaching in schools and teaching in universities. I have done both, and teaching at university level is much, much easier than teaching in a school.


My friend, this is a point on which we are in complete agreement. Over the years and as a second job, I served as an adjunct professor at several universities and after retiring from my full time employment for the second time, I decided to take a look at teaching (in our secondary school system) as a potential third career. To check it out, I signed on with five local school districts to substitute teach in the middle schools and high schools they managed. For two years I worked (full time) as a substitute teacher, deciding if it would be worth completing the additional 60 college credits necessary to be certified as a full time teacher. Trying to teach pre-teens and teens is a lot like herding cats! Frankly it was some of the most frustrating and hardest work I've ever done. I salute those with the guts to do it and can do it well!

I decided to stay retired (from paid employment) and focus on volunteer work.


----------



## 32rollandrock

Chouan said:


> It is an interesting article, and does seem to be a somewhat grotesque concept. In the UK if a teacher is accused of hitting a kid, or something like that, they are suspended and sent home on full pay, until the incident is investigated, then they are reinstated, or sacked. The whole process usually lasts 3-4 months at most. Similarly, if a teacher is believed to be incompetent, the capability procedure lasts about 2 months, in school, in which the teacher is frequently observed, in the hope that their teaching will improve, after which the teacher is either fully reinstated, or had their employment terminated. It seems to me that the situation obtaining in New York is an extreme reaction to the situation that existed before, with what looks to have been excessive interference by politicians in teaching and teaching careers. No wonder the teaching unions have taken such an extreme position if things were so bad before!
> 
> Your suggestion that a maths whizz who can teach kids well shouldn't need to be trained is an erroneous one though. In the same way that a person who can prepare a really good dinner for a party of friends is not qualified to be a chef. Talent and skill, without training, isn't sufficient. It isn't the teaching of a single lesson that shows a teaching ability, it is the ability to teach lesson after lesson, to kids of differing ability, of differing age groups, of differing attitudes, for a sustained period. Putting such a person into a school as a full-time teacher, without adequate preparation, would be doing them a great disservice.
> 
> I would suggest that the earlier suggestions that a teacher can be hired or fired, at will, by the Principal is a very bad one. It would be quite possible for a teacher to be fired by a Principal on personal grounds; after all, it would be very easy for a clever Principal to find reasons to fire a teacher that they simply don't like, or to make their working lives so burdensome that they leave of their own volition.


Thanks for taking the time. It really does work like this in the United States, and not just in New York. I would encourage you, though, to be a bit less defensive. What happened in the past may or may not have been bad. I frankly do not know. But what is going on now is indefensible. It hurts kids, and that is, or should be, the bottom line. The kids don't know or care what happened 50 years ago. I am familiar with a case in which a high school teacher dropped in at weekend parties held by her students. If memory serves, she was found lying on a bed with a male student. She was suspended (with pay, of course), but not fired--again, it is virtually impossible to fire a teacher in the United States. She agreed to leave, however, on the condition that the district write her a glowing letter of recommendation. The district did so, and she was quickly hired by another school district. She is now an inmate, having been found guilty of sexually assaulting students at the district that hired her.

Unconscionable.

I respectfully disagree with not allowing a math whiz to teach absent a teaching certificate. I'm not suggesting that you turn the whiz loose in a classroom and see how it goes, I'm suggesting that the person be given a chance, observed closely as they student teach under the supervision of an existing teacher and given a job if they do well. That would greatly widen the hiring pool for teachers, and I think that would be a good thing.


----------



## MaxBuck

Chouan said:


> ... suggestions that a teacher can be hired or fired, at will, by the Principal is a very bad one. It would be quite possible for a teacher to be fired by a Principal on personal grounds; after all, it would be very easy for a clever Principal to find reasons to fire a teacher that they simply don't like, or to make their working lives so burdensome that they leave of their own volition.


Kind of like what happens in the rest of the working world. In other words, we non-teachers can be fired for almost any reason (including our boss just doesn't like us), and our only recourse is to go find another job somewhere else.

Teachers in the USA live in a wonderland in which they are treated quite differently from other working stiffs. There would be a downside to employment at will, as you've outlined here, but the benefits (ability to fire incompetents) would far outweigh the negatives -- particularly from a student perspective, which is the population we ought to be most concerned about. If you ask me whether the welfare of teachers or the welfare of students should be more important in the education system, I'll come down on the side of the students every time.


----------



## Chouan

MaxBuck said:


> Kind of like what happens in the rest of the working world. In other words, we non-teachers can be fired for almost any reason (including our boss just doesn't like us), and our only recourse is to go find another job somewhere else.
> 
> Teachers in the USA live in a wonderland in which they are treated quite differently from other working stiffs. There would be a downside to employment at will, as you've outlined here, but the benefits (ability to fire incompetents) would far outweigh the negatives -- particularly from a student perspective, which is the population we ought to be most concerned about. If you ask me whether the welfare of teachers or the welfare of students should be more important in the education system, I'll come down on the side of the students every time.


Just because it happens elsewhere in the world of work doesn't make it right. If a capability process can be agreed by the teaching unions in the UK as being a fair system, surely the same kind of thing could be operated in the US?


----------



## Chouan

32rollandrock said:


> I respectfully disagree with not allowing a math whiz to teach absent a teaching certificate. I'm not suggesting that you turn the whiz loose in a classroom and see how it goes, I'm suggesting that the person be given a chance, observed closely as they student teach under the supervision of an existing teacher and given a job if they do well. That would greatly widen the hiring pool for teachers, and I think that would be a good thing.


It would indeed, but I would still argue that even a maths whizz should be supported and should follow a planned programme of study that would fully prepare them for teaching. The UK is currently trialing a kind of training on the job scheme which has graduates with experience in the workplace are able to train in school, supported by a university which provides the "in house" training and the programme of study that the trainee follows. They spend some time observing, then spend increasing amounts of time teaching with a teacher in the room with them, at first just parts of lessons, until their mentor thinks them capable of teaching a whole lesson, ultimately taking lessons by themselves. 
That a person is a maths whizz is no guarantee that they can teach kids who have problems with numeracy. Often a person who is good at a subject finds it hard to understand how people can't "get it" as easily as they can. Being able to do something well doesn't necessarily mean that they can explain things well.


----------



## 32rollandrock

Chouan said:


> It would indeed, but I would still argue that even a maths whizz should be supported and should follow a planned programme of study that would fully prepare them for teaching. The UK is currently trialing a kind of training on the job scheme which has graduates with experience in the workplace are able to train in school, supported by a university which provides the "in house" training and the programme of study that the trainee follows. They spend some time observing, then spend increasing amounts of time teaching with a teacher in the room with them, at first just parts of lessons, until their mentor thinks them capable of teaching a whole lesson, ultimately taking lessons by themselves.
> That a person is a maths whizz is no guarantee that they can teach kids who have problems with numeracy. Often a person who is good at a subject finds it hard to understand how people can't "get it" as easily as they can. Being able to do something well doesn't necessarily mean that they can explain things well.


Absolutely agree--just because you do something well doesn't mean you can teach it to someone. That said, it is entirely impossible to teach a subject to someone that you do not know yourself. Understanding that personal anecdotes can be dangerous, I recall an English teacher when I was in high school who either didn't know proper grammar or didn't care to use it--she had all kinds of trouble with noun-subject agreement and so forth. An English teacher. I have read about cases of teachers in charge of Spanish classes who couldn't speak Spanish.

I am glad to hear that there is a way to become a teacher in England that doesn't involve quitting one's job, going back to school and racking up two years worth of student loan debt. It would be nice if such a thing existed here.


----------



## Chouan

32rollandrock said:


> Absolutely agree--just because you do something well doesn't mean you can teach it to someone. That said, it is entirely impossible to teach a subject to someone that you do not know yourself. Understanding that personal anecdotes can be dangerous, I recall an English teacher when I was in high school who either didn't know proper grammar or didn't care to use it--she had all kinds of trouble with noun-subject agreement and so forth. An English teacher. I have read about cases of teachers in charge of Spanish classes who couldn't speak Spanish.
> 
> I am glad to hear that there is a way to become a teacher in England that doesn't involve quitting one's job, going back to school and racking up two years worth of student loan debt. It would be nice if such a thing existed here.


Even a PGCE, a Post Graduate Certificate of Education https://www.educ.cam.ac.uk/courses/pgce/ other courses and institutions are available, of course, which has always been regarded as the best training for secondary school, rather than a BEd, only takes one year to complete, actually less, start in September, finish in June.


----------



## 32rollandrock

Chouan said:


> Even a PGCE, a Post Graduate Certificate of Education https://www.educ.cam.ac.uk/courses/pgce/ other courses and institutions are available, of course, which has always been regarded as the best training for secondary school, rather than a BEd, only takes one year to complete, actually less, start in September, finish in June.


The more we talk about this, the more it seems that there are a lot of differences between the English system and the one here.


----------



## MaxBuck

Chouan said:


> Just because it happens elsewhere in the world of work doesn't make it right.


Agree to disagree here.


----------



## Earl of Ormonde

Chouan said:


> Just because it happens elsewhere in the world of work doesn't make it right.





MaxBuck said:


> Agree to disagree here.


I can understand that Max, maybe that goes some of the way to explaining the insular American psyche (not you personally, but the State) that maskes the USA as a State always go its own way with regard to global issues, and explaining why the USA is the ONLY western country that thinks it is okay to execute its criminals. The massive irony is especially tangible when a criminal is killed by the state for the crime of............ killing.........hhhmmmm


----------



## SG_67

Earl of Ormonde said:


> I can understand that Max, maybe that goes some of the way to explaining the insular American psyche (not you personally, but the State) that maskes the USA as a State always go its own way with regard to global issues, and explaining why the USA is the ONLY western country that thinks it is okay to execute its criminals. The massive irony is especially tangible when a criminal is killed by the state for the crime of............ killing.........hhhmmmm


Every state goes it's own way and those that don't do so because they have no other options.

This country has earned that right where as other nations have abdicated their sovereignty to the state.


----------



## Chouan

SG_67 said:


> Every state goes it's own way and those that don't do so because they have no other options.
> 
> *This country has earned that right where as other nations have abdicated their sovereignty to the state.*


Could you explain what you mean when you say that: 1) the US has "earned that right". and 2) "Other nations have abdicated their sovereignty to the state". As the statement makes little sense to me beyond a vague assertion of something or other. Thanks


----------



## SG_67

Chouan said:


> Could you explain what you mean when you say that: 1) the US has "earned that right". and 2) "Other nations have abdicated their sovereignty to the state". As the statement makes little sense to me beyond a vague assertion of something or other. Thanks


The U.S. has organized itself, sometimes with great difficulty, and fostering an atmosphere that has allowed it to prosper and become a great power. Therefore, it has earned that right.

Other nations, not all but certainly others, have abdicated the risk associated with a liberal economy and opted for the social protection of the state in return to high taxes and a more centralized and planned economy. Factors such as labor markets, banking, taxation are more tightly controlled in some countries. I suppose we can throw education into this as well since it's the basis of this thread.

As a result, there are greater protections, but at the risk of growth.


----------



## Chouan

SG_67 said:


> The U.S. has organized itself, sometimes with great difficulty, and fostering an atmosphere that has allowed it to prosper and become a great power. Therefore, it has earned that right.
> 
> Other nations, not all but certainly others, have abdicated the risk associated with a liberal economy and opted for the social protection of the state in return to high taxes and a more centralized and planned economy. Factors such as labor markets, banking, taxation are more tightly controlled in some countries. I suppose we can throw education into this as well since it's the basis of this thread.
> 
> As a result, there are greater protections, but at the risk of growth.


So "This country has earned that right where as other nations have abdicated their sovereignty to the state." is simply a meaningless jingoistic assertion of American superiority. Just as long as we know.


----------



## justonemore

Chouan said:


> So "This country has earned that right where as other nations have abdicated their sovereignty to the state." is simply a meaningless jingoistic assertion of American superiority. Just as long as we know.


and the main problem with such a statement is that nothing out of the U.S. is considered as #1 unless you take the military into consideration. I would happily pay less for better service even if it was state controlled over private nonsense. As you've mentioned, something meant to be a service is not the same as something meant to be a profit driven business. Even university level education in switzerland doesn't cause a family to forego food & housing in hopes that they'll be able to pay for studies.a few hundred is much more reasonable compared to 10s of thousands. Of course merit plays a big part & the society doesn't believe that higher levels of education should be given due to economic advantage. There are many state funded schools for "blue colar" workers as well. Find the fit, fit it, it works.


----------



## 32rollandrock

justonemore said:


> and the main problem with such a statement is that nothing out of the U.S. is considered as #1 *unless you take the military into consideration*. I would happily pay less for better service even if it was state controlled over private nonsense. As you've mentioned, something meant to be a service is not the same as something meant to be a profit driven business. Even university level education in switzerland doesn't cause a family to forego food & housing in hopes that they'll be able to pay for studies.a few hundred is much more reasonable compared to 10s of thousands.


How many wars have we won lately?


----------



## justonemore

32rollandrock said:


> How many wars have we won lately?


lately? None??? Or are we stuck on ww2 versus the military failures since then? Hard to say what winning really is on such topics. Either way, the failure of the U.S. military is not a result of finance whereas the failure of the U.S. education system is a direct result of lack of support (both financial & societal).


----------



## MaxBuck

justonemore said:


> ... something meant to be a service is not the same as something meant to be a profit driven business.


Who, in your world, is empowered to ascertain just exactly what everything is "meant to be?"


----------



## Earl of Ormonde

SG_67 said:


> Every state goes it's own way and those that don't do so because they have no other options.
> 
> This country has earned that right where as other nations have abdicated their sovereignty to the state.


I really don't know how to respond intelligently to such blatant inexactitudes.

The reason most other countries abide by certain UN Resolutions (that the USA ignores), isn't because they don't have a choice but because they have a moral and ethical conscience.

"other *nations *have abdicated their *sovereignty *to the *state*"

What? Now, that sounds like the paranoia of the Montana Militiaman I heard on the history channel a few years back.

So, you think that the people of the USA are the Nation and distinct from the govt, which is the State. 
Whereas, most everyone else uses the terms of nation and state as synoyms with the govt being part of and represnting the people as individuals and the nation/society/the state as a whole.

In one phrase you have split the USA into 1. The people 2. A nation 3. A state 4. And the govt. WOW you win this weeks fragmentation award!

I'm glad there are only a few Americans around that think like that.


----------



## Shaver

Earl of Ormonde said:


> I really don't know how to respond intelligently to such blatant inexactitudes.
> 
> The reason most other countries abide by certain UN Resolutions (that the USA ignores), isn't because they don't have a choice but because they have a moral and ethical conscience.
> 
> "other *nations *have abdicated their *sovereignty *to the *state*"
> 
> What? Now, that sounds like the paranoia of the *Montana Militiaman *I heard on the history channel a few years back.
> 
> So, you think that the people of the USA are the Nation and distinct from the govt, which is the State.
> Whereas, most everyone else uses the terms of nation and state as synoyms with the govt being part of and represnting the people as individuals and the nation/society/the state as a whole.
> 
> In one phrase you have split the USA into 1. The people 2. A nation 3. A state 4. And the govt. WOW you win this weeks fragmentation award!
> 
> I'm glad there are only a few Americans around that think like that.


Montana militiaman, eh? 
Now *that *could explain why our friend is so highly-tuned to the expressions which allegedly intimate at a New World Order. :devil:


----------



## SG_67

Earl of Ormonde said:


> I really don't know how to respond intelligently to such blatant inexactitudes.
> 
> The reason most other countries abide by certain UN Resolutions (that the USA ignores), isn't because they don't have a choice but because they have a moral and ethical conscience.


States are neither moral or immoral. States have interests and that's about it. Nations abide by certain behaviors because 1) it is in their interests to do so, 2) to do otherwise would incur some action from another that the state could not endure without pain (deterrence). That's really about it. We can pretend otherwise, but it is the truth.

This isn't some kind of primitive notion that has been wiped out due to globalization. Nations act in their own interests; sometimes that means going against "international norms" and sometimes with. Both incur a cost that must be weighed against what is best for the state. Any world leader who thinks or acts otherwise deserves to lose power, be it by revolt or by election.



> "other *nations *have abdicated their *sovereignty *to the *state*"
> 
> What? Now, that sounds like the paranoia of the Montana Militiaman I heard on the history channel a few years back.
> 
> So, you think that the people of the USA are the Nation and distinct from the govt, which is the State.
> Whereas, most everyone else uses the terms of nation and state as synoyms with the govt being part of and represnting the people as individuals and the nation/society/the state as a whole.


The people have instituted a government to protect their rights. The government serves the people and the people are sovereign. This isn't crazy Montana Freemen rhetoric. It's the foundational principles of our nation. I realize that to some the Declaration of Independence and our Bill of Rights are curious historical relics but when viewed as a contract between people and government it makes sense. The people are the shareholders and we elect a board of directors, for lack of a better analogy. The boards function is to protect the rights and interests of those shareholders. If they fail to do so, they are no longer elected to represent the shareholders.



> I'm glad there are only a few Americans around that think like that.


I applaud you for your idealism, and I'm glad the world has people like you in it, because we need to be reminded of what an ideal world is like. Unfortunately, your views are not inline with the true nature of how states interact.

You may choose to live with the Eloi and ignore the Morlocks, but the Morlocks do exist.


----------



## justonemore

SG_67 said:


> The people have instituted a government to protect their rights. The government serves the people and the people are sovereign. This isn't crazy Montana Freemen rhetoric. It's the foundational principles of our nation. I realize that to some the Declaration of Independence and our Bill of Rights are curious historical relics but when viewed as a contract between people and government it makes sense. The people are the shareholders and we elect a board of directors, for lack of a better analogy. The boards function is to protect the rights and interests of those shareholders. If they fail to do so, they are no longer elected to represent the shareholders.
> 
> .


Umm. But according to your earlier theory, it's not the people compared to the wealthy (and this is normal "political behavior" according to your theory) ..Therefore, "The rights of the people" are actually the rights of the wealthy.. As to your own statements, The government is not there to protect "the people" as they are not at all "sovereign"... You are contradicting your previous thoughts here. Are the "people" in charge of the government or are the "few" in charge of the government? The bill of rights and the consitutution have gone the way to wealthy political contributors. You have already admitted it(and accepted it as "good"). Why try to back track at this point? Should the public control gonverment or is it the politcally rich? Can you perhaps clarify your viewpoint?


----------



## SG_67

justonemore said:


> Umm. But according to your earlier theory, it's not the people compared to the wealthy (and this is normal "political behavior" according to your theory) ..Therefore, "The rights of the people" are actually the rights of the wealthy.. As to your own statements, The government is not there to protect "the people" as they are not at all "sovereign"... You are contradicting your previous thoughts here. Are the "people" in charge of the government or are the "few" in charge of the government? The bill of rights and the consitutution have gone the way to wealthy political contributors. You have already admitted it(and accepted it as "good"). Why try to back track at this point? Should the public control gonverment or is it the politcally rich? Can you perhaps clarify your viewpoint?


How can I argue with such logic!


----------



## justonemore

SG_67 said:


> How can I argue with such logic!


As it comes from you, I suppose you'll just continue on and try to play both sides of the coin. Or.. Perhaps you'll try to clarify your position? Either way, unless you can actually understand what logic pertains to, we'll see more contradictory points from our greatest member SG...Or am I mistaken & you didn't claim such? We can all read your previous posts claiming that the rich should dominate. Are you denying it now?

The rich should dominate through lobbying the politicians (including the lobby you wish to deny), because the people themselves aren't capable of deciding on what is right or wrong without the viewpoint of the Koch brothers (did I spell it ok this time?)....But... the public, shouldn't have the same rights as those that pay more? This has always been your claim compoared to mine. I will once again state that the U.S. is controled by lobbies versus American Citizen viewpoints. Should the U.S. decide on a direct democracy, I will glady state differently... Otherwise... Americans are very little more than slaves to a system that abuses the masses and gives to the rich. The Koch brothers giving $70 million to influence political élections is fine with you but the average American stating tnhat the Koch bothers have no right to do so is against your ideology.

You give no logic yourself versus one liner BS statements. As such, I will continue to debate you only in the interests of true Americans. Your previous statements have shown that your interest is to yourself and to those that have interests only to themselves. You certainly have a right to your point of view, but when the masses ask to hang you by the neck, don't come crying to me (although I'd still be willing to back you up, I Wonder if you'd do the same)....


----------



## SG_67

justonemore said:


> As it comes from you, I suppose you'll just continue on and try to play both sides of the coin. Or.. Perhaps you'll try to clarify your position? Either way, unless you can actually understand what logic pertains to, we'll see more contradictory points from our greatest member SG...Or am I mistaken & you didn't claim such? We can all read your previous posts claiming that the rich should dominate. Are you denying it now?
> 
> The rich should dominate through lobbying the politicians (including the lobby you wish to deny), because the people themselves aren't capable of deciding on what is right or wrong without the viewpoint of the Koch brothers (did I spell it ok this time?)....But... the public, shouldn't have the same rights as those that pay more? This has always been your claim compoared to mine. I will once again state that the U.S. is controled by lobbies versus American Citizen viewpoints. Should the U.S. decide on a direct democracy, I will glady state differently... Otherwise... Americans are very little more than slaves to a system that abuses the masses and gives to the rich.
> 
> You give no logic yourself versus one liner BS statements. As such, I will continue to debate you only in the interests of true Americans.


I think before you start to throw down the gauntlet and challenge someone, you should have your facts straight. You've already confused me several times with other forum members. Please do your homework and get back to me.


----------



## justonemore

SG_67 said:


> I think before you start to throw down the gauntlet and challenge someone, you should have your facts straight. You've already confused me several times with other forum members. Please do your homework and get back to me.


Ok. I'll do so. And should I prove you to be in contradition of your previous viewpoints, will you admit it? Or will I be wasting my time on someone that says they are correct no matter what? As you've mentioned, I have agreed when I'm wrong... Will you? If I do the research through the threads, If I provide the quotes.. Will it matter? I've asked many members here to be honest as to their points of view and they have responded in an honest manner. Will you? Have you not made these claims? or will I need to go through 100 threads and a 1000 posts to show you as dishonest? Can you prove yourself as honest in these forums for once or should we just ignore you from now on? Not that it matters to me.. I will coninue on the pointless debate just to contradict trolls such as you and Hitch, but if you are at all serious, I would guess you could admit to your past posts.


----------



## SG_67

justonemore said:


> Ok. I'll do so. And should I prove you to be in contradition of your previous viewpoints, will you admit it? Or will I be wasting my time on someone that says they are correct no matter what? As you've mentioned, I have agreed when I'm wrong... Will you? If I do the research through the threads, If I provide the quotes.. Will it matter? I've asked many members here to be honest as to their points of view and they have responded in an honest manner. Will you? Have you not made these claims? or will I need to go through 100 threads and a 1000 posts to show you as dishonest? Can you prove yourself as honest in these forums for once or should we just ignore you from now on? Not that it matters to me.. I will coninue on the pointless debate just to contradict trolls such as you and Hitch, but if you are at all serious, I would guess you could admit to your past posts.


I agree that you are wasting your time! Finally, you and I agree on something.

And calling someone a troll just because you don't agree with a person's point of view is a bit childish.

Now go get your shine box!


----------



## Tilton

justonemore, Hitch and SG are not trolls, they are just your antipodes. Being diametrically opposed to your viewpoints doesn't mean that they are trolls - they aren't posting things that are intentionally inflammatory, you're just getting worked up over differences of opinions. You seem to do this with some regularity.


----------



## Chouan

Tilton said:


> justonemore, Hitch and SG are not trolls, they are just your antipodes. Being diametrically opposed to your viewpoints doesn't mean that they are trolls - they aren't posting things that are intentionally inflammatory, you're just getting worked up over differences of opinions. You seem to do this with some regularity.


I would suggest that you look at Hitch's postings. Having done so, see if you can see if there is anything in them them that is anything beyond smartar$se one liners, or things calculated to annoy.


----------



## Shaver

Chouan said:


> I would suggest that you look at Hitch's postings. Having done so, see if you can see if there is anything in them them that is anything beyond smartar$se one liners, or things calculated to annoy.


* I am not a troll. I am a King.
*


----------



## Stubbly

SG_67 said:


> I agree that you are wasting your time! Finally, you and I agree on something.
> 
> And calling someone a troll just because you don't agree with a person's point of view is a bit childish.
> 
> Now go get your shine box!


:icon_cheers:


----------



## Stubbly

justonemore said:


> The Koch brothers giving $70 million to influence political élections is fine with you...


The Koch brothers?? That's rich.

Most of the Top 20 All-Time political donors are Democrat groups = many hundreds of $$$ millions.

*Heavy Hitters: Top All-Time Donors, 1989-2014*
https://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/list.php


----------



## Tilton

I posted that list a few pages back. Yes, Kochs are #59 whereas 11 of the top 15 are liberal unions, which doesn't include the #1, Act Blue, which has out-donated the #2 group by more than double the amount the Kochs have donated.


----------



## Stubbly

Tilton said:


> I posted that list a few pages back.


Sorry, I missed that.



Tilton said:


> Kochs are #59 whereas 11 of the top 15 are liberal unions, which doesn't include the #1, Act Blue, which has out-donated the #2 group by more than double the amount the Kochs have donated.


It's not fair to mention labor unions. You must be a racist. 

Also, using the Koch brothers three times in one paragraph must count for something.



justonemore said:


> The rich should dominate through lobbying the politicians (including the lobby you wish to deny), because the people themselves aren't capable of deciding on what is right or wrong without the viewpoint of the *Koch brothers* (did I spell it ok this time?)....But... the public, shouldn't have the same rights as those that pay more? This has always been your claim compoared to mine. I will once again state that the U.S. is controled by lobbies versus American Citizen viewpoints. Should the U.S. decide on a direct democracy, I will glady state differently... Otherwise... Americans are very little more than slaves to a system that abuses the masses and gives to the rich. The *Koch brothers* giving $70 million to influence political élections is fine with you but the average American stating tnhat the *Koch bothers* have no right to do so is against your ideology.


----------



## Chouan

Stubbly said:


> Sorry, I missed that.
> 
> It's not fair to mention labor unions. You must be a racist.
> 
> Also, using the Koch brothers three times in one paragraph must count for something.


I would first suggest that there is a difference between significant political donations from an organisation that represents workers, which naturally seeks to improve the lot of its members, and that of individuals who seek to improve their own personal lot.
I would also suggest that, if there is a result to be gained from significant political donations, ie if a significant donation results in an action that benefits the donor, then some Americans, be they members of trade unions or individuals are buying favours from a political system.
Finally, if people, whether members of particular trade unions or wealthy individuals are able to buy political influence and favours from political parties, then they are "more equal than others", which suggests that the US, linking to another thread, is indeed an oligarchy, if wealth, either collective or individual, means direct political influence.


----------



## SG_67

Forgive me but the above statement about the intentions of unions vs. the Koch Bros. is absurd!

Money is money. If we are to start looking at the motives of contributors, it will be a slippery slope. There is nothing noble about unions giving money. They do so in order to prop up their own status quo. As for the Koch Bros., this has become a really tired trope. There are plenty of billionaires who give for various reasons. If you want to limit the giving of private money to political causes, be they for advocacy ads, organizations or directly to candidates, then it should count for everyone.

Widows and orphans, environmentalists, public health advocates, homeless advocates should therefore be limited in their speech as much as the Koch bros., the oil lobby and anyone else you find to have ignoble motives.


----------



## Chouan

SG_67 said:


> Forgive me but the above statement about the intentions of unions vs. the Koch Bros. is absurd!
> 
> Money is money. If we are to start looking at the motives of contributors, it will be a slippery slope. There is nothing noble about unions giving money. They do so in order to prop up their own status quo. As for the Koch Bros., this has become a really tired trope. There are plenty of billionaires who give for various reasons. If you want to limit the giving of private money to political causes, be they for advocacy ads, organizations or directly to candidates, then it should count for everyone.
> 
> Widows and orphans, environmentalists, public health advocates, homeless advocates should therefore be limited in their speech as much as the Koch bros., the oil lobby and anyone else you find to have ignoble motives.


Please explain what there is in my post that is absurd. There may be things that you don't agree with, but that, of itself, doesn't make the post absurd. In any case, I've made no mention of the "Koch brothers", whoever they might be.


----------



## SG_67

Chouan said:


> Please explain what there is in my post that is absurd. There may be things that you don't agree with, but that, of itself, doesn't make the post absurd. In any case, I've made no mention of the "Koch brothers", whoever they might be.


Please don't take it personally. I'm not calling you absurd, only what you wrote. And you quoted a post which referenced the Koch bros.

The absurdity is in the statement that unions give money in order to better the lot of the workers and therefore somehow that giving is more noble than when millionaires give money in order to better their own interests.

Furthermore, you state that the money from unions "naturally seeks" to benefit workers.

My point is that money is money. If you're suggesting that somehow there is moral money and immoral money, then that's where I will take issue with you.


----------



## Chouan

SG_67 said:


> Please don't take it personally. I'm not calling you absurd, only what you wrote. And you quoted a post which referenced the Koch bros.
> 
> _*The absurdity is in the statement that unions give money in order to better the lot of the workers and therefore somehow that giving is more noble than when millionaires give money in order to better their own interests. *_
> 
> Furthermore, you state that the money from unions "naturally seeks" to benefit workers.
> 
> My point is that money is money. If you're suggesting that somehow there is moral money and immoral money, then that's where I will take issue with you.


How is that absurd? Are you suggesting that unions give money *not* to benefit their members?


----------



## SG_67

Unions give money for any number of reasons, some of which I'm sure is for the continued life of the union itself and to increase membership, and therefore perpetuate the life of the union and those that benefit from it.

A few years ago, a company called international brands, which owned the Hostess brand of snacks (twinkles, etc.) was in financial straights. When they approached the union regarding labor concessions, the unions wouldn't budge. Intl. brands closed it's doors and all the drivers, workers and laborer a were out of work. The union hardly served the workers and American labor history is rich with such stories.

To a large extent labor unions exist to serve themselves. If they could, and they have tried, they would write and pass through state legislators laws that would compel workers in any industry to join unions as a condition of employment. They have fought for, and have been losing the effort toward, automatic garnishment of wages in order to pay dues. In states that have recently become right to work, union membership has dropped dramatically. 

Unions in many ways are at odds and adversarial toward their members and rely on archaic laws in order to prop up their very existence. 

So when unions give money to politicians, I don't view it as anything more than unions looking out for their own self interest. They same as I view anyone or any entity giving money. 

I'm armed with a brain and my vote. Those willing to give away their vote are free to do so I suppose and to allow themselves to be influenced by how cool a candidate is, how well he dances, plays a saxophone, has a cool playlist on his iPod or whether he wears boxers or briefs, are free to do so.


----------



## Tilton

Generally, union spending to influence policy is only spent on perpetuation of union, not workers rights or higher wages. They want regulations in place that will compel workers to join unions and pay dues through garnished wages, putting money in their coffers. How is that any different than the Koch brothers spending money to lobby for their petroleum interests? Unions work by restricting employment in a specific sector of the economy and driving up the wages of the workers who join the union. But, that means that the employers are forced to 1) produce less due to a smaller workforce, and 2) charge more to customers to make the same profit. At a certain point, it becomes very reasonable to off-shore production to have lower wages, produce more with the same money, and charge less to customers to make the product more appealing. This ultimately hurts the economy. 

Companies have an inherent interest in maintaining good relationships with their employees, but unions force them to treat every employee the same, which stifles the growth of both employee and employer. 95% of working Americans make more than minimum wage because companies want to reward and retain good employees, but with unionized employees, that isn't possible. GM shrank because of unions while Toyota, a non-union shop, grew. Similarly, non-union Jet Blue grew while TWA, a union shop, had to shut down. Unions spend money on politics to keep unions in place. Why? Because unions make a lot of money without really having to produce anything. 

And you can't say you want money out of politics without saying you want unions out of politics - look at the chart, unions are the largest segment of political donors.


----------



## Chouan

SG_67 said:


> Unions give money for any number of reasons, some of which I'm sure is for the continued life of the union itself and to increase membership, and therefore perpetuate the life of the union and those that benefit from it.
> 
> A few years ago, a company called international brands, which owned the Hostess brand of snacks (twinkles, etc.) was in financial straights. When they approached the union regarding labor concessions, the unions wouldn't budge. Intl. brands closed it's doors and all the drivers, workers and laborer a were out of work. The union hardly served the workers and American labor history is rich with such stories.
> 
> To a large extent labor unions exist to serve themselves. If they could, and they have tried, they would write and pass through state legislators laws that would compel workers in any industry to join unions as a condition of employment. They have fought for, and have been losing the effort toward, automatic garnishment of wages in order to pay dues. In states that have recently become right to work, union membership has dropped dramatically.
> 
> Unions in many ways are at odds and adversarial toward their members and rely on archaic laws in order to prop up their very existence.
> 
> So when unions give money to politicians, I don't view it as anything more than unions looking out for their own self interest. They same as I view anyone or any entity giving money.
> 
> I'm armed with a brain and my vote. Those willing to give away their vote are free to do so I suppose and to allow themselves to be influenced by how cool a candidate is, how well he dances, plays a saxophone, has a cool playlist on his iPod or whether he wears boxers or briefs, are free to do so.


You appear to have what I would describe as a particularly American view of unions, that is, to an extent, shared by the right in Britain. That some union officials are more concerned with their personal position is true, in the same way that those that run businesses are usually more concerned with their personal position than with the companies that they run. Obviously, if the company folds they suffer, but their own position is what motivates them, which, in business terms is a good thing. However, I would suggest that the welfare of the members of a union is what the leadership _*should*_ be concerned with. If it isn't then that is a problem with that union. However, although I am without expert knowledge of all American unions, I would suggest that it is something of a generalisation to suggest that all unions behave that way.
What I do know about US labour relations is that there has been an ongoing battle between repressive and anti-democratic employers and unions that have often developed disproportionately to combat that repression. Look at Ford in the 1920's, for example to see repressive practices.


----------



## 32rollandrock

SG_67 said:


> So when unions give money to politicians, I don't view it as anything more than unions looking out for their own self interest. They same as I view anyone or any entity giving money.


It really is simple economics. In Illinois, where SG lives, the overwhelming number of state workers are union members--I believe the figure is in excess of 90 percent. These include people who are obviously supervisors--I personally know one such person. The only reason that they are union members is that that is the only way that they can get raises. If you're not in the union, you go without, and so the percentage of unionized employees has increased steadily through the years so that it now includes practically everyone. The percentage of unionized workers in the United States is less than 12 percent, by the way.

I don't begrudge my friend's decision to join a union, given that it was a choice between going without a raise and getting something in his bank account. But it did get bad enough that at one point, there was a concern that employees tasked with lobbying the legislature, or assisting behind the scenes with lobbying efforts, were union members, and the question naturally arose: How can you lobby lawmakers on labor issues when you are both a public employee and a union member?

I'm not sure what the answer is. I think that outlawing unions is going too far. But I also think that public-sector unions have far too much power,and it's not surprising. When you can deliver votes, and unions can, politicians will pay for that, especially since it's not their money.


----------



## SG_67

32rollandrock said:


> It really is simple economics. In Illinois, where SG lives, the overwhelming number of state workers are union members--I believe the figure is in excess of 90 percent. These include people who are obviously supervisors--I personally know one such person. The only reason that they are union members is that that is the only way that they can get raises. If you're not in the union, you go without, and so the percentage of unionized employees has increased steadily through the years so that it now includes practically everyone. The percentage of unionized workers in the United States is less than 12 percent, by the way.
> 
> I don't begrudge my friend's decision to join a union, given that it was a choice between going without a raise and getting something in his bank account. But it did get bad enough that at one point, there was a concern that employees tasked with lobbying the legislature, or assisting behind the scenes with lobbying efforts, were union members, and the question naturally arose: *How can you lobby lawmakers on labor issues when you are both a public employee and a union member?
> *
> I'm not sure what the answer is. I think that outlawing unions is going too far. But I also think that public-sector unions have far too much power,and it's not surprising. When you can deliver votes, and unions can, politicians will pay for that, especially since it's not their money.


Exactly! In the states and localities public sector unions negotiate wages as well as other conditions of work and employment. Strangely enough, in the Federal system this is not possible. Why? Because of the inherent conflict of interest.


----------



## SG_67

Chouan said:


> You appear to have what I would describe as a particularly American view of unions, that is, to an extent, shared by the right in Britain. That some union officials are more concerned with their personal position is true, in the same way that those that run businesses are usually more concerned with their personal position than with the companies that they run. Obviously, if the company folds they suffer, but their own position is what motivates them, which, in business terms is a good thing. However, I would suggest that the welfare of the members of a union is what the leadership _*should*_ be concerned with. If it isn't then that is a problem with that union. However, although I am without expert knowledge of all American unions, I would suggest that it is something of a generalisation to suggest that all unions behave that way.
> What I do know about US labour relations is that there has been an ongoing battle between repressive and anti-democratic employers and unions that have often developed disproportionately to combat that repression. Look at Ford in the 1920's, for example to see repressive practices.


I can appreciate your grasp of the historical context, but the world is a different place. 
You're correct, union leadership *SHOULD* be concerned with those things, but often they are not. I'm all for letting people spend money on political issues. Everyone is entitled to have a voice and some people's voice is louder than others, particularly when money determines how far that voice carries. Is it good or bad? I'm not really sure. It's the system we have and it serves us well.

What it does do, is force the electorate to be more attentive. We're not in a parliamentary system where we vote for a party. We vote for individuals, and voters have a voice when it comes to their vote. The world is not ideal, but that's why we have a constitution and laws.


----------



## Chouan

SG_67 said:


> I can appreciate your grasp of the historical context, but the world is a different place.
> You're correct, union leadership *SHOULD* be concerned with those things, but often they are not. I'm all for letting people spend money on political issues. Everyone is entitled to have a voice and some people's voice is louder than others, particularly when money determines how far that voice carries. Is it good or bad? I'm not really sure. It's the system we have and it serves us well.
> 
> What it does do, is force the electorate to be more attentive. We're not in a parliamentary system where we vote for a party. We vote for individuals, and voters have a voice when it comes to their vote. The world is not ideal, but that's why we have a constitution and laws.


But the historical context is important. Where there is a history of avaricious employers using harsh means to enforce their domination over the work force, paying them in scrip rather than money and using armed thugs as enforcers, how do you think unions are going to develop and what form will they take? It seems, to me, very blinkered to blame "the unions" for the current situation when the problem was caused by the employers in the first place. Look at the West Virginia coal mines, or the Colorado gold mines for examples. That well-justified hatred of perceived exploiters and exploitation doesn't just go away.

In the UK there are two main teaching unions, for example, a smaller one, and a union specifically for teachers in private education. None are compulsory to join, yet nearly all teachers are members of a union. Apart from negotiating and communicating with the employers the unions provide legal representation in case of malicious complaints or allegations or any other problems and support and training, and charitable help to people in education with specific problems, medical issues, for example. Pay negotiations are national, so a teacher of given ability will be paid the same anywhere in the UK, except in London where there are special increments based on the increased cost of living there. I can see no conflict of interest between being a public employee and a union member.

Essentially the teaching unions are a pressure group for education as a whole, not just for the benefit of teachers. When our current Education Secretary decided to introduce a ridiculous new syllabus for History, for example, the teaching unions (as well as everybody else who had any idea about the teaching of history) told him that it wasn't workable. Although he complained about ideological opposition, to a Tory any union's view is ideologically driven, and in any case, as if a new Tory syllabus about Britain's greatness wasn't also ideologically driven, he eventually realised that it was a fight that he wouldn't win, and the new syllabus, essentially, stayed pretty much the same. A union stance that was nothing to do with teachers' pay, or power, or conditions, but was concerned with education and the benefit of the kids.

There is currently a dispute about pay and conditions as well, Gove is attempting to break the teachers' National Pay agreement, as well as reducing pensions (that we've paid into) increase our pension contributions, and increase the retirement age, even though the Teachers' Pension Fund is in a very healthy condition, as well as other erosions of conditions. Limited industrial action has been taking place for the last two+ years.


----------



## SG_67

^ Are public sector unions in the UK allowed to contribute money to political campaigns?


----------



## Tilton

Chouan, unions were useful then, no doubt, but there has been a significant amount of legislation since then that prevents companies from such practices now. 

Also, as someone raised in Coal Country, it is very rare to find coal miners in the Appalachians that begrudge coal mining. Have you ever been to West Virginia? Without a college degree, it isn't easy to make $60k in West Virginia and the coal mines give people that opportunity and (and I've known quite a few coal miners) they appreciate it and have a lot of pride in their work. The animosity that exists is akin to that of people being offended by the Redskins football team name: American Indians, by a great majority, are not offended and indeed are in favor of the name, while white liberals who have no skin in the game are the ones harboring resentment.


----------



## 32rollandrock

Chouan said:


> Essentially the teaching unions are a pressure group for education as a whole, not just for the benefit of teachers.


That is 100-percent, absolutely not true in the United States. The unions will tell you that they're in it for the kids, but their actions belie that. I can't speak for how it works in England, but in the United States, don't look at what teacher unions say, look at what they do. If there is any benefit to kids that comes from anything a teachers union does in the United States, it is only tangential to what teachers want for themselves.


----------



## Chouan

SG_67 said:


> ^ Are public sector unions in the UK allowed to contribute money to political campaigns?


Yes. They are members of the Trades Union Congress, which contributes money to the Labour Party, mainly because the unions set up the Labour Party in the first place.


----------



## SG_67

Chouan said:


> Yes. They are members of the Trades Union Congress, which contributes money to the Labour Party, mainly because the unions set up the Labour Party in the first place.


I'm just curious if you see anything wrong with this arrangement?

I understand the history here, but the open admission that a union just mainly contributes to a particular political party seems as corrosive across the pond as it does here.

Perhaps it's a cultural difference as Europeans, and yes, even the English, have often been more tolerant of a certain level of socialism and socialist politics within their midst. Perhaps it's due to the parliamentary nature of your governments where they have to be placated due to the need to build a coalition.


----------



## Chouan

SG_67 said:


> I'm just curious if you see anything wrong with this arrangement?


No, nothing at all. Neither am I supporter in any sense of the Labour Party.



SG_67 said:


> I understand the history here, but the open admission that a union just mainly contributes to a particular political party seems as corrosive across the pond as it does here.


How is it corrosive? The Labour Party was set up as the party of the working man, under the auspices of the union movement, as a genuine voice of the working man, rather than having essentially middle class or aristocratic parties, such as the Liberals or the Tories speaking for them.



SG_67 said:


> Perhaps it's a cultural difference as Europeans, and yes, even the English, have often been more tolerant of a certain level of socialism and socialist politics within their midst. Perhaps it's due to the parliamentary nature of your governments where they have to be placated due to the need to build a coalition.


Why wouldn't we be? You write that as if its a bad thing!


----------



## SG_67

As I said, I make concessions for cultural and historical differences. 

I just ask that in the same way as we view the politics and political history of the UK, you recognize that things are different in the states and that our relationship with our government is a bit different. Hence, different traditions and different values. 

We put a premium on individual liberty and a non-intrusive government; a vestige of the Jeffersonian vision. We have a long history of seeing government intrusion as unwelcome.


----------



## Langham

Chouan said:


> ...
> *Essentially the teaching unions are a pressure group for education as a whole, not just for the benefit of teachers. *When our current Education Secretary decided to introduce a ridiculous new syllabus for History, for example, the teaching unions (as well as everybody else who had any idea about the teaching of history) told him that it wasn't workable. Although he complained about ideological opposition, to a Tory any union's view is ideologically driven, and in any case, as if a new Tory syllabus about Britain's greatness wasn't also ideologically driven, he eventually realised that it was a fight that he wouldn't win, and the new syllabus, essentially, stayed pretty much the same. A union stance that was nothing to do with teachers' pay, or power, or conditions, but was concerned with education and the benefit of the kids.
> 
> There is currently a dispute about pay and conditions as well, Gove is attempting to break the teachers' National Pay agreement, as well as reducing pensions (that we've paid into) increase our pension contributions, and increase the retirement age, even though the Teachers' Pension Fund is in a very healthy condition, as well as other erosions of conditions. Limited industrial action has been taking place for the last two+ years.


What self-serving claptrap. The unions think nothing of closing down schools to protect their mollycoddled existence - I doubt whether school closure does a great deal for children's education.

Gove is quite right to attempt to align their pension and retirement arrangements with the private sector. People are living longer, after all.


----------



## Chouan

Langham said:


> What self-serving claptrap. The unions think nothing of closing down schools to protect their mollycoddled existence - I doubt whether school closure does a great deal for children's education.
> 
> Gove is quite right to attempt to align their pension and retirement arrangements with the private sector. People are living longer, after all.


Thus the voice of the anti-Welfare State, privately educated right of British politics. The ignorance is only matched by the ideologically driven prejudice. To argue with this viewpoint would only suggest that this is a view that is worth taking seriously.


----------



## Chouan

SG_67 said:


> We put a premium on individual liberty and a non-intrusive government; a vestige of the Jeffersonian vision. We have a long history of seeing government intrusion as unwelcome.


You appear to be suggesting here that others don't. Is that your stance?


----------



## Langham

Chouan said:


> Thus the voice of the anti-Welfare State, privately educated right of British politics. The ignorance is only matched by the ideologically driven prejudice. To argue with this viewpoint would only suggest that this is a view that is worth taking seriously.


My politics are generally to the right of yours Chouan, that's a safe bet. Nevertheless, I do see a place for trade unions; but I take exception to the rank hypocrisy of the work shy and people like you damaging our children's education as a means of extorting money from the government, while having the gall to proclaim that really you are in some way promoting educational standards, when your actions are clearly doing the opposite.


----------



## SG_67

Chouan said:


> You appear to be suggesting here that others don't. Is that your stance?


Not at all. I'm simply trying to interpret your remark about how Europeans tend to tolerate varying degrees of socialism in their politics. You stated that I made it sound as if though that was a bad thing. Perhaps you meant that tongue in cheek.


----------



## Chouan

Langham said:


> My politics are generally to the right of yours Chouan, that's a safe bet. Nevertheless, I do see a place for trade unions; but I take exception to the rank hypocrisy of the work shy and people like you damaging our children's education as a means of extorting money from the government, while having the gall to proclaim that really you are in some way promoting educational standards, when your actions are clearly doing the opposite.


See what I mean? How could anybody respond to this seriously!


----------



## Chouan

SG_67 said:


> Not at all. I'm simply trying to interpret your remark about how Europeans tend to tolerate varying degrees of socialism in their politics. You stated that I made it sound as if though that was a bad thing. Perhaps you meant that tongue in cheek.


I don't see how tolerating varying degrees of socialism means that Europeans don't value individual freedom. Look at the Universal Declaration of the Rights of Man for a classic European view of what freedom means. How can tolerating varying degrees of socialism be a bad thing?


----------



## Earl of Ormonde

Well, I know where I'd rather live. ANYWHERE in Europe rather than the USA.


----------



## SG_67

Chouan said:


> I don't see how tolerating varying degrees of socialism means that Europeans don't value individual freedom. Look at the Universal Declaration of the Rights of Man for a classic European view of what freedom means. How can tolerating varying degrees of socialism be a bad thing?


Jean Kirkpatrick once called the declaration of the rights of man a "letter to Santa Claus". It's one thing to write up a document that bleeds with socialist propaganda. It was socialism before there was socialism. It's quite meaningless actually.

A look at the constitution of the DPRK also guarantees political freedom, the right to food and healthcare, the right to an education and the freedom of religion. I'm not sure where the Dear Leader stands on this though.


----------



## Chouan

SG_67 said:


> Jean Kirkpatrick once called the declaration of the rights of man a "letter to Santa Claus". It's one thing to write up a document that bleeds with socialist propaganda. It was socialism before there was socialism. It's quite meaningless actually.


So if some American politician says that, it must necessarily be true? I rather thought that it was a contemporaneous European mirror of the US Bill of Rights, based on the same principles. Your view would suggest that the US Bill of Rights is, therefore, also a letter to Santa and therefore also meaningless proto-Socialism.



SG_67 said:


> A look at the constitution of the DPRK also guarantees political freedom, the right to food and healthcare, the right to an education and the freedom of religion. I'm not sure where the Dear Leader stands on this though.


So you believe that the constitution of North Korea and the US Bill of Rights are of the same value? That's a curious statement from an American!


----------



## SG_67

Chouan said:


> So if some American politician says that, it must necessarily be true? I rather thought that it was a contemporaneous European mirror of the US Bill of Rights, based on the same principles. Your view would suggest that the US Bill of Rights is, therefore, also a letter to Santa and therefore also meaningless proto-Socialism.
> 
> So you believe that the constitution of North Korea and the US Bill of Rights are of the same value? That's a curious statement from an American!


Read the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the US Bill of Rights and see if you can tell the difference. As for the DPRK, I'm simply illustrating that just because one puts out a document, it's meaningless unless there is law and a culture of trying to live up to it.


----------



## Chouan

SG_67 said:


> Read the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the US Bill of Rights and see if you can tell the difference. As for the DPRK, I'm simply illustrating that just because one puts out a document, it's meaningless unless there is law and a culture of trying to live up to it.


So what is it that you're suggesting about European culture and law that makes it different to the US? You appear to have been suggesting that the US, which was, of course, based on an English view of law and government, is somehow more connected to the idea of liberty than Europe. I would suggest that the legally based restrictions of individual freedom that obtained in the US until relatively recent times would suggest otherwise.


----------



## SG_67

^ I can't speak to the intention of dead men, certainly not from >200 years ago. 

What I can do, however, is look at the outcomes. I realize this is a gross simplification, however I think it's fair to say that the American system tries, at least, to create a level playing field for everyone. Success and failure go hand in hand and neither is guaranteed.

In the European system, it seems to me that the focus is on equal outcomes. The idea of a social safety net has metastasized to a point where it actually interferes with free enterprise. President Hollande last week chimed in the a proposed buyout of French firm Alstom by GE, saying the that GE offer was not good enough! I honestly can't imagine the POTUS weighing in on the merger and purchase of companies. 

The state likes to involve itself intimately in every aspect of an individuals life. Read the afore mentioned declaration of human rights. The Bill of Rights is a general document with broad guidelines allowing a society to order itself with a basic, and I would add elegant, set of rules. The Declaration of the Rights of Man is incredibly specific. It permeates into the recesses of the culture. In any system that is ordered so specifically, the outcome will be that people will look for loopholes (hey, it doesn't specifically mention this or that, so.....). 

I'm not touting the superiority of one system over the other. I'm not wise enough to know. What I am saying is that the two systems are definitely different and the product of two different cultures.


----------



## Chouan

SG_67 said:


> ^ I can't speak to the intention of dead men, certainly not from >200 years ago.
> 
> What I can do, however, is look at the outcomes. I realize this is a gross simplification, however I think it's fair to say that the American system tries, at least, to create a level playing field for everyone. Success and failure go hand in hand and neither is guaranteed.
> 
> In the European system, it seems to me that the focus is on equal outcomes. The idea of a social safety net has metastasized to a point where it actually interferes with free enterprise. President Hollande last week chimed in the a proposed buyout of French firm Alstom by GE, saying the that GE offer was not good enough! I honestly can't imagine the POTUS weighing in on the merger and purchase of companies.
> 
> The state likes to involve itself intimately in every aspect of an individuals life. Read the afore mentioned declaration of human rights. The Bill of Rights is a general document with broad guidelines allowing a society to order itself with a basic, and I would add elegant, set of rules. The Declaration of the Rights of Man is incredibly specific. It permeates into the recesses of the culture. In any system that is ordered so specifically, the outcome will be that people will look for loopholes (hey, it doesn't specifically mention this or that, so.....).
> 
> I'm not touting the superiority of one system over the other. I'm not wise enough to know. What I am saying is that the two systems are definitely different and the product of two different cultures.


I would suggest that you look at the origins of both documents. I would suggest that the political culture that created the Bill of Rights was exactly the same political culture that created the Rights of Man. There are even commonalities of authors, in that the political views of Tom Paine were part of the political culture that created both documents.
The other points I'll address later.


----------



## SG_67

Chouan said:


> I would suggest that you look at the origins of both documents. I would suggest that the political culture that created the Bill of Rights was exactly the same political culture that created the Rights of Man. There are even commonalities of authors, in that the political views of Tom Paine were part of the political culture that created both documents.
> The other points I'll address later.


The political and cultural circumstances behind the Bill of Rights and the Declaration of the Rights of Man, not to mention the political culture were completely different!

The political culture that gave rise to the Bill of Rights did not end in the reign of terror, the execution of clergy, nuns and the eventual beheading of its leaders. The sensibilities were certainly those of the enlightenment, but not all enlightenment thinkers were alike. The French Revolution was a revolution where as the transition of the colonies to an independent country was not. It was a re-assertion of the rights under English law.

As for Thomas Paine, though he influenced both events, it does not therefore follow that the fruits of those events are similar. Political writings are always reflected, refracted and otherwise distilled through the prism of the culture. Revolutionary France was a completely different world from the American colonies. In fact, the British monarchy was a different institution from the French monarchy of the time.


----------



## Langham

Chouan said:


> See what I mean? How could anybody respond to this seriously!


Clearly the task is beyond you - and I can't say I particularly care one way or the other, because many of your posts are so dull. I would suggest. Quite.


----------



## Chouan

SG_67 said:


> The political and cultural circumstances behind the Bill of Rights and the Declaration of the Rights of Man, not to mention the political culture were completely different!
> 
> The political culture that gave rise to the Bill of Rights did not end in the reign of terror, the execution of clergy, nuns and the eventual beheading of its leaders. The sensibilities were certainly those of the enlightenment, but not all enlightenment thinkers were alike. The French Revolution was a revolution where as the transition of the colonies to an independent country was not. It was a re-assertion of the rights under English law.
> 
> As for Thomas Paine, though he influenced both events, it does not therefore follow that the fruits of those events are similar. Political writings are always reflected, refracted and otherwise distilled through the prism of the culture. Revolutionary France was a completely different world from the American colonies. In fact, the British monarchy was a different institution from the French monarchy of the time.


The political culture was exactly the same! The political developments, and the places, or places, in which the identical political cultures took root were different. The ideas, however, were the same. Montesquiou created the model for your constitution, he also created the model for that of the French constitutional monarchy. That the political development of France was different to that of the US was because of a different social, economic and political milieu. Political repression and proscription of the opponents of the American Revolution occurred in America, but of a different pattern to that of France, partly because America wasn't at war with its neighbours, whereas France was. Desperate times called for desperate measures, which weren't, however, quite as bad as many think.


----------



## Chouan

Langham said:


> Clearly the task is beyond you - and I can't say I particularly care one way or the other, because many of your posts are so dull. I would suggest. Quite.


Please feel free to post pointless, ignorant opinions and personal invective whenever you feel like. Whatever contempt you feel for me is completely ignored. On the other hand, I suppose it shows that your personal message to me was also entirely worthless, as it was clearly without sincerity; you clearly haven't changed at all.


----------



## SG_67

Chouan said:


> The political culture was exactly the same! The political developments, and the places, or places, in which the identical political cultures took root were different. The ideas, however, were the same. Montesquiou created the model for your constitution, he also created the model for that of the French constitutional monarchy. That the political development of France was different to that of the US was because of a different social, economic and political milieu. Political repression and proscription of the opponents of the American Revolution occurred in America, but of a different pattern to that of France, partly because America wasn't at war with its neighbours, whereas France was. Desperate times called for desperate measures, which weren't, however, quite as bad as many think.


The names are the same but the political culture was not, I'm sorry. The two societies were structured completely differently with different systems of government.

Political repression is one thing, but are you suggesting that the barbarity of the French Revolution and the reign of terror was akin to what occurred here? And frankly, France was not at war with it's neighbors before the French revolution. It was in a state of relative peace. After the revolution, it was France who initiated the revolutionary wars as a means of preemption and preservation of the newly found Republic.


----------



## Chouan

SG_67 said:


> The names are the same but the political culture was not, I'm sorry. The two societies were structured completely differently with different systems of government.


They were indeed, if it is possible to say that France had a system of government at all. However, the political theories and the political culture of the philosophes and the other architects of the enlightenment, wherever they were, were the same. That the concept of constitutional government was developed in Britain, then America and France is proof of that.



SG_67 said:


> Political repression is one thing, but are you suggesting that the barbarity of the French Revolution and the reign of terror was akin to what occurred here?


Of course it is, we're talking about degrees of repression and proscription, not their existence. If political proscriptions and repression exists, then it is possible to say that they can be worse than others, but the repression still exists.



SG_67 said:


> And frankly, France was not at war with it's neighbors before the French revolution. It was in a state of relative peace. After the revolution, it was France who initiated the revolutionary wars as a means of preemption and preservation of the newly found Republic.


You're right, it wasn't in 1789, the year in which the Revolution is usually thought to have started. But the political repression and proscriptions were a product of the war as much as of the Revolution. The war started in 1792 when France was still a monarchy, partly as an attempt of the moderates to head off the potential problems of internal dissension and radicalism using the old remedy of an external threat to unify a state. It was the failure of the war and the fear of defeat that drove the radicalisation of the government, leading to the end of the monarchy and the establishment of the Republic in 1793, and which led to the repressions and proscriptions, formalised as the Terror.


----------



## SG_67

^ I'm not arguing about the people involved, only in how those things were applied.

As for repression and proscription as you call it, terror as it has been known, I'm sorry but your dead wrong in comparing the two! The colonies after winning independence did not turn on one another and reign terror. The French did. The Americans did not kill Anglican clergy, the French killed catholic priests and nuns. The Americans did not change the calendar, the French attempted to in order to complete break from the past. 

Any vestige of the ancien regime was a target for destruction. The American revolution in many ways was a restoration of the order they had seen as having been eroded, namely English law and the rights of englishmen. The French Revolution was a completely different matter though. The Americans did not try to invade England after the revolution and did not persecute, at least systematically, English or royal sympathizers. 

There was no equivalent of Robespierre of the ministry for public safety in America as there was in France.


----------



## Dhaller

How did this devolve into a discussion about the French Revolution?

Back to the original point: the man decided that he was More Special than Anyone Else, and so he broke a rule. It's not a matter of the content of what he said, but simply the modern American notion of "I'm Super-Special". It pervades everything American from having a "personal Jesus" to the ultra-high divorce rate ("I'm not personally 100% happy with no effort, so screw this!")

Maybe next time he'll show a modicum of respect for his fellows' time (oh, who am I kidding!)

DH


----------



## Chouan

Perhaps, but to have him arrested?!


----------



## 32rollandrock

Dhaller said:


> How did this devolve into a discussion about the French Revolution?


How could this not devolve into a discussion about the French Revolution?


----------



## MaxBuck

32rollandrock said:


> How could this not devolve into a discussion about the French Revolution?


Or, indeed, the Spanish Inquisition?


----------



## Carguy

MaxBuck said:


> We're in an interesting social experiment right now in Ohio, where lots of "charter schools" have sprouted up and are competing, if you will, with public schools.
> 
> Long term it will be interesting to see how the charters measure up. The first five or so years, though, aren't encouraging; many charters have gone belly up within a semester of opening, and the performance overall has been underwhelming. I'm a market proponent, but so far the Ohio charter schools don't seem to speak well for market-based education.
> 
> What would I do if I were Education Czar?
> 
> 1. Outlaw teacher unions. If teachers wish to be regarded as professionals, they need to start acting like it. Employment at will.
> 
> 2. Pay teachers better. Goes along hand-in-glove with 1.
> 
> 3. Get the developmentally-disabled back into their own schools. Sympathy and encouragement would be fine ... if we could afford them. As it is, these kids are resource hogs who can eat up to 50% of local school budgets, while constituting less than 5% of the student population. That's just nuts.
> 
> 4. Make teacher pay performance-based, but not until we come up with better metrics on just what performance measures can be affected by the teachers, and what measures are not really correlated with teacher skill.
> 
> This last one is going to be by far the most complicated and difficult, but honestly the teaching profession needs to do a better job of figuring out how to educate children, from a process standpoint. I don't think education schooling right now is very scientific; it seems like trial-and-error to me. Figuring out what metrics are appropriate will require figuring out exactly what it is that good teachers do to get the best possible results across a wide range of student capability levels.


OK, so I admit that I didn't read all 10 pages of comments on this topic, but that being said, I realize 2 things - 1) I agree with ALL of the above, and 2) there are many diverse and deeply held opinions about this subject. One thing I agree with more than anything else, is that teachers unions have GOT to go! As many small businesses (and large ones also) with a limited and defined amount of resources have learned - you have to focus the resources you have on what provides the best return of those resources. An example would be a family printshop - it has no business in currency speculation. Teachers unions provide NO value in the educational process. A fair amount of the money they collect is spent on politics and issues from removed from the needs of their members and the students they serve - which should be their primary and sole concern. I won't touch on the other things that are wrong with the system, but one thing that I feel is missing from the discussion is PARENT accountability. My wife and I have 4 children and we are blessed enough that she is able to stay home with them. I've worked hard and paid more than my share of dues to get where I am and no one guarantees me a job. If I screw up bad enough, I'm gone - it's that simple. I don't need a union to tell me how to think or vote under the guise of protecting my interests. Back to the parent issue...my wife works harder than any teacher I know with our children to see that they get all of the benefits their educations can offer. We are hard on our children and we expect a great deal from them. We support and respect our children's teachers, but that's getting harder and harder to do when we are faced with growing incompetence, indifference, and sheer laziness from those who teach our children. Don't even get me started on the dumb ideas that our government spends BILLIONS of dollars on, those things that hide behind stupid and meaningless names such as "No child left behind", "Race to the Top", and "Common core standards", each of which is more ridiculous than the next. In America, we have a very diverse population, which makes it almost impossible to mandate from the federal government what works in NYC or California will also work in Texas or Georgia. One of the other things we have in America is a rapidly growing population that seems to want to "have its cake and eat it too" so to speak. We want others to bear the responsibility for educating our children while we do less and less of the things that being a parent requires, yet we want all of the input and none of the responsibility. We reap what we sow, and now we have a system that rewards failure and minimizes accountability and politicians who pander and lie to us to keep their jobs. We know things are wrong but we don't know the first thing about how to fix them or even where to start. The system is entrenched with politicians, lobbyists, and bureaucrats who think of nothing but protecting their jobs and their power, all at the expense of the kids they are supposed to "serve". Yet we parents and citizens keep electing these people back into the system and accept worsening results - all so we don't have to be responsible for our kids. I could go on for pages here, but I'll follow the "two minute rule" and gracefully shut up.

i fear for my country and what it's become, and I'm saddened for my daughters for whom they'll have a choice of marrying - boys who wonder why they can't get jobs playing video games all day and who want a mommy instead of a partner for a wife. I'm saddened for my sons to know that most of the girls who they'll watch become women are going to be bubble headed, pretty idiots who know more about the Starbucks menu than about how to count the change they get from their overpriced frappewhatevers. They'll know more about the world as they view it from lying on their backs - believing that laying in bed on Sunday morning screaming "oh God, oh God" constitutes a religion....one that allows them to say that they are "spiritual but not religious", and thinking that a "conscious uncoupling" actually sounds like a pretty good idea when it comes to children.


----------



## Chouan

Carguy said:


> OK, so I admit that I didn't read all 10 pages of comments on this topic, but that being said, I realize 2 things - 1) I agree with ALL of the above, and 2) there are many diverse and deeply held opinions about this subject. One thing I agree with more than anything else, is that teachers unions have GOT to go! As many small businesses (and large ones also) with a limited and defined amount of resources have learned - you have to focus the resources you have on what provides the best return of those resources. An example would be a family printshop - it has no business in currency speculation. Teachers unions provide NO value in the educational process. A fair amount of the money they collect is spent on politics and issues from removed from the needs of their members and the students they serve - which should be their primary and sole concern. I won't touch on the other things that are wrong with the system, but one thing that I feel is missing from the discussion is PARENT accountability. My wife and I have 4 children and we are blessed enough that she is able to stay home with them. I've worked hard and paid more than my share of dues to get where I am and no one guarantees me a job. If I screw up bad enough, I'm gone - it's that simple. I don't need a union to tell me how to think or vote under the guise of protecting my interests. Back to the parent issue...my wife works harder than any teacher I know with our children to see that they get all of the benefits their educations can offer. We are hard on our children and we expect a great deal from them. We support and respect our children's teachers, but that's getting harder and harder to do when we are faced with growing incompetence, indifference, and sheer laziness from those who teach our children. Don't even get me started on the dumb ideas that our government spends BILLIONS of dollars on, those things that hide behind stupid and meaningless names such as "No child left behind", "Race to the Top", and "Common core standards", each of which is more ridiculous than the next. In America, we have a very diverse population, which makes it almost impossible to mandate from the federal government what works in NYC or California will also work in Texas or Georgia. One of the other things we have in America is a rapidly growing population that seems to want to "have its cake and eat it too" so to speak. We want others to bear the responsibility for educating our children while we do less and less of the things that being a parent requires, yet we want all of the input and none of the responsibility. We reap what we sow, and now we have a system that rewards failure and minimizes accountability and politicians who pander and lie to us to keep their jobs. We know things are wrong but we don't know the first thing about how to fix them or even where to start. The system is entrenched with politicians, lobbyists, and bureaucrats who think of nothing but protecting their jobs and their power, all at the expense of the kids they are supposed to "serve". Yet we parents and citizens keep electing these people back into the system and accept worsening results - all so we don't have to be responsible for our kids. I could go on for pages here, but I'll follow the "two minute rule" and gracefully shut up.
> 
> i fear for my country and what it's become, and I'm saddened for my daughters for whom they'll have a choice of marrying - boys who wonder why they can't get jobs playing video games all day and who want a mommy instead of a partner for a wife. I'm saddened for my sons to know that most of the girls who they'll watch become women are going to be bubble headed, pretty idiots who know more about the Starbucks menu than about how to count the change they get from their overpriced frappewhatevers. They'll know more about the world as they view it from lying on their backs - believing that laying in bed on Sunday morning screaming "oh God, oh God" constitutes a religion....one that allows them to say that they are "spiritual but not religious", and thinking that a "conscious uncoupling" actually sounds like a pretty good idea when it comes to children.


Could I suggest that you do read the whole thread before you comment further. Could I also suggest that you realise that this an international forum, not just an American one.


----------



## Shaver

Chouan said:


> Could I suggest that you do read the whole thread before you comment further. Could I also suggest that you realise that this an international forum, not just an American one.


Oh Chouan, have you not seen the most recent map of the world?


----------



## Carguy

Chouan said:


> Could I suggest that you do read the whole thread before you comment further. Could I also suggest that you realise that this an international forum, not just an American one.


Given that the subject was an AMERICAN and not an international school board meeting, dealing with our education system, I felt I was on pretty safe ground. I didn't notice that the meeting in question and thus the thread itself was international? I don't live in Europe so I know nothing of their education system, nor frankly, do I want to learn. You might not have noticed that I was very careful to express that these were MY opinions of our education system. As the subject matter was decidedly American, might I suggest with all due respect that I am somewhat more knowledgable than someone who doesn't live here. I would hardly offer any opinion as to the state of education in Switzerland or Great Britain. I had no intention of indicating any attempt to portray an "America is #1" nonsense, nor do I think I did. To compare education in other sovereign countries to American would be comparing apples to oranges, and foolish to boot. Should you ever catch me offering my opinion on some other nations' education system, feel free to chastise me.


----------



## immanuelrx

Shaver said:


> Oh Chouan, have you not seen the most recent map of the world?


Hmm....seems about right. The only thing I see wrong with this map is you need remove the A in America. We have shortened the word to Merica. We also shoot our rifles in the air and say, "Yeee-Haaaww!" every time someone says Merica.


----------



## Chouan

Carguy said:


> Given that the subject was an AMERICAN and not an international school board meeting, dealing with our education system, I felt I was on pretty safe ground. I didn't notice that the meeting in question and thus the thread itself was international? I don't live in Europe so I know nothing of their education system, nor frankly, do I want to learn. You might not have noticed that I was very careful to express that these were MY opinions of our education system. As the subject matter was decidedly American, might I suggest with all due respect that I am somewhat more knowledgable than someone who doesn't live here. I would hardly offer any opinion as to the state of education in Switzerland or Great Britain. I had no intention of indicating any attempt to portray an "America is #1" nonsense, nor do I think I did. To compare education in other sovereign countries to American would be comparing apples to oranges, and foolish to boot. Should you ever catch me offering my opinion on some other nations' education system, feel free to chastise me.


Yet, as threads develop a life of their own you'll find that it had moved beyond America's shores. If you'd read the whole thread you'd have realised that, which is why I suggested that it would have made sense for you to have commented once you'd read the whole thread. 
I do find it curious though that you think it necessary to tell the membership, not that you "*don't live in Europe so I know nothing of their education system," *but more that you aren't interested *"nor frankly, do I want to learn.*". That you don't live in Europe is self-evident. That you're not interested in Europe is reasonable, for an American. That you feel it necessary to tell the membership that you don't want to learn speaks volumes. Such a self-limiting view of the world is, frankly, depressing, though not surprising, to read.


----------



## Chouan

immanuelrx said:


> Hmm....seems about right. The only thing I see wrong with this map is you need remove the A in America. We have shortened the word to Merica. We also shoot our rifles in the air and say, "Yeee-Haaaww!" every time someone says Merica.


In the air? Or at somebody who doesn't look like everybody else?


----------



## immanuelrx

Chouan said:


> In the air? Or at somebody who doesn't look like everybody else?


We only do that in the name of freedom Chouan. They are special freedom bullets. I thought you understood that Merica does everything in the name of freedom? Kind of like we don't water-board terrorist. We baptist terrorist with the waters of freedom.

Seriously though, if I were to shoot people who don't look like me, that would be most of the people in the United States since I am of hispanic heritage. If fact, I look more like middle-easterns than caucasian americans since I do have some middles eastern background as well.


----------



## Carguy

Chouan said:


> Yet, as threads develop a life of their own you'll find that it had moved beyond America's shores. If you'd read the whole thread you'd have realised that, which is why I suggested that it would have made sense for you to have commented once you'd read the whole thread.
> I do find it curious though that you think it necessary to tell the membership, not that you "*don't live in Europe so I know nothing of their education system," *but more that you aren't interested *"nor frankly, do I want to learn.*". That you don't live in Europe is self-evident. That you're not interested in Europe is reasonable, for an American. That you feel it necessary to tell the membership that you don't want to learn speaks volumes. Such a self-limiting view of the world is, frankly, depressing, though not surprising, to read.


Apparently, you have a tendency to read into things beyond their original meaning. As this appears to be a repeated issue for you, I'll clarify. I didn't say that I didn't want to learn PERIOD, merely that I didn't want to learn about Europe's education system...and I stand by that statement. I enjoy learning about things that interest me and/or those that impact my life in some meaningful manner. As Europe's education system does neither of these things, I have no interest in it whatsoever. As my knowledge of it is very limited, I'll refrain from commenting on it, a course of action any wise man in a similar situation would follow.


----------



## Tilton

Chouan said:


> In the air? Or at somebody who doesn't look like everybody else?


Just a little side note on this: approximately 90% of all deadly shootings in America are intraracial. 84% of white victims are murdered by whites, 93% of black victims are murdered by blacks.

This might be interesting to you: https://projects.wsj.com/murderdata/#view=all
And I would be remiss to send you to look at that database without also supplying relevant demographic data: https://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/00000.html


----------



## Chouan

Tilton said:


> Just a little side note on this: approximately 90% of all deadly shootings in America are intraracial. 84% of white victims are murdered by whites, 93% of black victims are murdered by blacks.
> 
> This might be interesting to you: https://projects.wsj.com/murderdata/#view=all
> And I would be remiss to send you to look at that database without also supplying relevant demographic data: https://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/00000.html


Actually, I was responding to immanuelrx in the same spirit of humour and irony with which he made in his post about 'Merica. Nothing critical intended. I thought his posts refreshingly funny, actually.


----------



## 32rollandrock

This just in:

https://www.nytimes.com/2014/06/11/us/california-teacher-tenure-laws-ruled-unconstitutional.html?hp

Someone oughta give this judge a medal. Reader's Digest version: Teacher tenure laws are unconstitutional because the end result is all the bad teachers end up at poor schools, thus depriving the economically disadvantaged of their right to a decent education. "It shocks the conscience," he said. Absolutely, spot-on right.


----------



## SG_67

^ The whole concept of tenure seems odd to me at any level.


----------



## 32rollandrock

SG_67 said:


> ^ The whole concept of tenure seems odd to me at any level.


I don't find it odd at universities--there really is something to the concept of academic freedom, and tenure goes a long way toward guaranteeing that. But the concept falls apart at K-12, where teachers are required to follow standard curriculums.

After reading the judge's ruling (there's a link to it in the article) I'm a bit concerned, not at his logic, but at his use of boldface, like someone who was writing for an Internet forum. Plus one glaring typo. Hopefully, his legal reasoning will survive appeal. It certainly passes the common-sense test.

Not to delve too far into details, but I was struck by the two-year tenure track in California that really is not. In essence, at 18 months--or two academic years--districts have to decide whether a teacher should continue. But it's really not two years. Decisions are due in March, before teachers have taught for two years, and, practically speaking, the decisions have to be made even earlier. There is also something called credentialing, that I confess I don't completely understand. The upshot is, it is possible, apparently due to differing deadlines for decisions, to become tenured in California and yet not be credentialed as a teacher. What a Rube Goldberg way of designing an educational system.


----------



## Chouan

Article that might be of interest.
https://www.theguardian.com/education/2014/jun/10/10-things-teachers-want-to-say-parents-cant


----------



## 32rollandrock

Chouan said:


> Article that might be of interest.
> https://www.theguardian.com/education/2014/jun/10/10-things-teachers-want-to-say-parents-cant


I like number 8. I have a nephew (in-law) who flunked math and is now enrolled in summer school. Why did he flunk math? Apparently, one of his aunts did all of his homework for him, which didn't bode well come test time. Now, his parents are blaming his aunt for the boy's failure at math. Meanwhile, he's missed a day or two, already, of summer school because he's been out of town--but within a 45 minute drive of home--visiting relatives. He's also supposed to be mowing our lawn this summer to earn pocket cash, but you can guess how that's going.

So, in some cases, it doesn't matter what schools or teachers do. Some kids are just going to fail.


----------

