What is wrong with this world? (Should ALL the kids be WINNERS?)

[IPT]

And for families that can not afford the $1000/yr/child? Or families that do not value education to pay the $1000/yr/child? Seems like you will still have some of the same problems we have now. Children from more well off families will go to better schools while children from less fortunate families will go to worse schools.

You've hit the nail on the head.  Voucher programs are just another effort by "business folks" to cut their taxes that go towards education, while leaving the door wide open to spend anything they want on private schools.

My son goes to public school, even though we can afford private school.  He's had a mix of good-to-great teachers, and looks forward every day to new challenges in his classroom.  Overall I think our school is rated middle/upper for our area, but that hasn't prevented the state from cutting educational budgets so they've had to eliminate teaching positions and increase class sizes.  I never expected growing up that my government would be so focused on cutting education funding, the concept is so at odds with our image as a great nation.

again thats a broad brush
like i mentioned, my school district budget's gone up pretty much every year about 2% a year.  The proposed school budget for 2014-2015 is $212,730,695.  Property tax for this coming year will increase 1.34%

[Tarzan]

<snipped big section of stuff I agreed with whole-heartedly...>

The biggest problem with education in my view is the idea of grade levels. It's why I hated traditional school so much. If it wasn't for alternative school where I was able to complete courses on my own very quick pace I wouldn't have even graduated.
People learn things in different ways, at different paces. It would be much better to have classes based on aptitude than age group... at least for those of us that would operate better that way.

My father was a schoolteacher, and he always let us have the choice; we could go to school, or be home-schooled.  Some years I went to public school, and some years I worked my butt off at home.  It was fun, and I learned a ton of stuff, ended up going into college at 16 and graduating early, but in retrospect I missed the public school years more than I expected.  My spouse was a schoolteacher when we met, so we could home-school easily, but I want my son to build interpersonal skills as well as academic skills.  The US public school system is a real melting pot of cultures and backgrounds, and that's the sort of rich variety in life I want him to experience as part of growing up in America.

[tp4tissue]

What is winning....   

Why do we need to WIN..

What DO WE WIN...


If those parameters are not clearly defined, given how we sugar coat the world to children, it's no wonder they're all so confused and aimless..

[IvanIvanovich]

Interacting with others is an important skill to learn. Even with a mixed age classes based on skill level as I propose, it would still be a school with school hours or close to it so there would still be recess and activities. From my own experience, all my friends were met through my outside interests I had at the time. I rarely had friends that were from my same school, they lived all over town. Generally people make friends with others with common interests rather than simply being the same age, from the same neighborhood.

[iri]

The proposed school budget for 2014-2015 is $212,730,695.

[Krogenar]

And for families that can not afford the $1000/yr/child?

Those families still have the voucher and the choice of public schools (or private schools) that are willing to take the voucher face value. And maybe there are schools with a tuition of (voucher value) + (amount that the family can afford). Even if they don't have the money, at least parents have a choice. And that's something that they don't have now.

Or families that do not value education to pay the $1000/yr/child?

Excellent point! How do you save a child with parents that don't give a damn? You don't. If your parents don't think education is of any value whatsoever, you likely have bad parents. And I don't believe a government bureaucrat is going to swoop in and save that child. I would prefer a system that allows the children who can be saved, to be saved. Right now if your parents value education a great deal but don't have the money for a private school ... they're screwed. At least with a voucher a caring parent would have some choices, as opposed to no choices.

[tp4tissue]

So...   ya'll preaching about friendship and interaction advice  based on what experience... HAHAHAHA..


When was the last time you had AFK friends.. or WANTED to be AFK..

[paicrai]

should all kids have ebola

[tp4tissue]

should all kids have ebola

no...

maybe... welll... no... not allllll

[SpAmRaY]

should all kids have ebola

You try it first and see what happens.

[Novus]

This isn't the America I grew up in.

[Xowie]

And for families that can not afford the $1000/yr/child?

Those families still have the voucher and the choice of public schools (or private schools) that are willing to take the voucher face value. And maybe there are schools with a tuition of (voucher value) + (amount that the family can afford). Even if they don't have the money, at least parents have a choice. And that's something that they don't have now.

It still doesn't seem like they have the choice if they do not have the money. A counter scenario is that private schools are initially financially comparable, until there are no more public schools. Then tuition is raised and there are no more choices left.

Or families that do not value education to pay the $1000/yr/child?

Excellent point! How do you save a child with parents that don't give a damn? You don't. If your parents don't think education is of any value whatsoever, you likely have bad parents. And I don't believe a government bureaucrat is going to swoop in and save that child. I would prefer a system that allows the children who can be saved, to be saved. Right now if your parents value education a great deal but don't have the money for a private school ... they're screwed. At least with a voucher a caring parent would have some choices, as opposed to no choices.

I am not sure if I agree with dooming children based on their parents choices. In reality, sure that happens. I do not think that it should be a blatant goal though.

[paicrai]

should all kids have ebola

You try it first and see what happens.

sure send me some body fluids and ill hand it over to the kindergarten

[Krogenar]

again thats a broad brush
like i mentioned, my school district budget's gone up pretty much every year about 2% a year.  The proposed school budget for 2014-2015 is $212,730,695.  Property tax for this coming year will increase 1.34%

Like I said before, the unions never have enough money. And they never will have enough. That's what socialized organizations do -- they invariably offer a low-quality product at a very high price.

I don't mind paying for education, I just expect to get some value. As it stands now, if I send my child to a private school I still have to pay for the crappy public school. So I end up paying twice for education. And this also distorts the housing market -- the quality of the local public schools determines house prices, and that makes no sense at all.

[Novus]

You know what's funny. Kids that go to a private school and can't get into an ivy league or public ivy or even a 1st tier college.

[SpAmRaY]

You know what's funny. Kids that go to a private school and can't get into an ivy league or public ivy or even a 1st tier college.

because they are white? 

[demik]

You know what's funny. Kids that go to a private school and can't get into an ivy league or public ivy or even a 1st tier college.

because they are white? 

yup. oppression of whites is incredible.

or maybe they thought since they can afford private schools they ****ed around and wasted their high school time.

[Krogenar]

It still doesn't seem like they have the choice if they do not have the money. A counter scenario is that private schools are initially financially comparable, until there are no more public schools. Then tuition is raised and there are no more choices left.

So in your counter scenario privately run schools provide a better education than a public school, and then those public schools go out of business. And then all those schools do what? Raise the price? By then there's an actual education market (what we have now amounts to a cartel), and jacking up prices just makes the other schools look more attractive.

I am not sure if I agree with dooming children based on their parents choices. In reality, sure that happens. I do not think that it should be a blatant goal though.

It's not my goal to doom any children. Fate and bad choices did that -- I just want to see the children who do have a fighting chance get that chance. And competition raises the bar for all competitors. Not every consumer fights for quality, etc. -- but the few who do drive improvements that benefit those others. This wouldn't be a perfect system (every child gets a perfect education), but it would be far better than what we have now -- not because it wouldn't produce failures, but because it wouldn't reward those failures.

And think about all the political nonsense that would end if most schools were private? No longer would children have a 'right' to attend. A privately run school could outline, in writing, that there is or is not a Christmas Pageant every year. So if a parent gets their panties in twist over that event (or lack of the event) it was all up front at the start. And if they're that incensed, they can pull their child out of the school and find one that suits them. No more huge court cases over bull****.

[Krogenar]

You know what's funny. Kids that go to a private school and can't get into an ivy league or public ivy or even a 1st tier college.

because they are white?

Or Asian. Damned non-minority Asians!

[Xowie]

again thats a broad brush
like i mentioned, my school district budget's gone up pretty much every year about 2% a year.  The proposed school budget for 2014-2015 is $212,730,695.  Property tax for this coming year will increase 1.34%

I don't mind paying for education, I just expect to get some value. As it stands now, if I send my child to a private school I still have to pay for the crappy public school. So I end up paying twice for education. And this also distorts the housing market -- the quality of the local public schools determines house prices, and that makes no sense at all.

I am not sure how a voucher program changes this fact. I also really do not know too much about the voucher program, so maybe it is my ignorance. It seems like with this program, you still pay taxes, and then the government redistributes this and gives everyone an education credit. So if you are very well off (as in you pay more into taxes then what you get back) then you are still paying more for education and also possibly still subsidizing the crappy school system depending on where other people send their kids to. If you are not so well off (as in your credit is more than you paid in), you are accepting a hand out (which I do not think you are in favor of).

[Krogenar]

I don't mind paying for education, I just expect to get some value. As it stands now, if I send my child to a private school I still have to pay for the crappy public school. So I end up paying twice for education. And this also distorts the housing market -- the quality of the local public schools determines house prices, and that makes no sense at all.

I am not sure how a voucher program changes this fact. I also really do not know too much about the voucher program, so maybe it is my ignorance. It seems like with this program, you still pay taxes, and then the government redistributes this and gives everyone an education credit.

Correct - an educational voucher program would still require income redistribution. The difference is that the one person most likely to care about the quality of a child's education (the parent) now controls how that money is spent. I don't mind paying for other people's education either, so long as it's a good education. I do have a problem with money being pissed away on a ****ty education.

The concept of educational vouchers started with Nobel Prize-winning economists Milton and Rose Friedman. An explanation of their proposal is here: http://www.edchoice.org/The-Friedmans/The-Friedmans-on-School-Choice

I appreciate you being open to at least hearing the idea out Xowie, instead of just declaring me to be Satan. 

So if you are very well off (as in you pay more into taxes then what you get back)

Fun fact: Only the top 50% of all income earners pay Income Taxes. The bottom half pay nothing, or receive money. So you're talking about roughly 50% of the population.

then you are still paying more for education and also possibly still subsidizing the crappy school system depending on where other people send their kids to. If you are not so well off (as in your credit is more than you paid in), you are accepting a hand out (which I do not think you are in favor of).

I'm not against a 'handout' or a 'safety net' -- but modern progressives have made these 'nets' into hammocks -- systems that purport to help people, but instead trap them in a life of infantilization and dependency. No other nation on earth spends as much as America does for education, for such a horrid result. Progressives don't care about the results of their handouts, just their noble intent. It's a bit like giving a homeless person money, when you know they're going to use it to buy 'Wild Irish Rose'-brand whiskey in the plastic bottle. The fact they're killing themselves with your handout doesn't bother the Progressive. What matters to him is being able to smell their own fragrant farts and say, "I'm part of the solution!" -- even as they're part of the problem.

Our educational system does not work. We need to break that system open and allow for competition.

[Novus]

You know what's funny. Kids that go to a private school and can't get into an ivy league or public ivy or even a 1st tier college.

because they are white? 

You know what's funny. Kids that go to a private school and can't get into an ivy league or public ivy or even a 1st tier college.

because they are white?

Or Asian. Damned non-minority Asians!

What...  )
you guys :/
The point is that private schools are supposed to make college applications easier but there's no point if you spend all that money and then the kid doesn't get into a high tier school. Congrats you just wasted 4-7 years of money.

[The Mad Professor]

The problem with government education vouchers is that it makes the U.S. too much of a nanny state. Federal government interference in education (i.e. - NCLB and standardized testing) is what got us to this point. Adding more government interference will only serve to make things worse.

What needs to happen is that the government needs to back off and instead of mandating "YOUR CHILD MUST PASS NO MATTER WHAT" and using standardized tests, how about you federally subsidize teaching programs to produce better, more knowledgeable teachers as well as have a higher salary structure for teachers.

[tbc]

The broader point I've seen explicated by a few responses is that kids need to learn to win, so they are better prepared for life in general.  Sure, if you want kids to be sociopathic little monsters that have zero empathy or ability to work cooperatively.  I want my son to learn how a team operates, how players with strong skills in one or another area share the load, communicate and work together so the whole team wins.  And realize as well that next season they could be the ones on the "other" team, so play fair and enjoy the game.
 
The quote I like that best exemplifies my point of view is from Martina Navratilova;  "What matters isn't how well you play when you're playing well. What matters is how well you play when you're playing badly."

i completely agree with your end goal, but i say if you really want to encourage your kid to develop those skills/mindser, then based on practical experience, i would say that team sports really isn't the way to go.

individual sports accomplish that much more effectively.  why?

-you're by yourself; there is NEVER anyone you can blame or whose hardwork you can take credit for.  you're sad you lose? well, that's because YOU are not working hard enough.  someone in a individual sport will never spend time whining and will instead spend that whining time practicing and getting better.

-everyone needs mentorship.  if the athlete wants to get better, they WILL learn to develop their ability to talk to adults.  if they don't their coach will just ignore and leave them to rot.  why am I rotting? they will ask.  well, you'll have an easy answer for them.

-you still need your teammates.  but this time it's for practice and moral support rather than the actual competition.  this is the same thing as with the coach; learning to treat others well and give and take apppropriately.  there are some individual sports that you NEED a team mate for, such as wrestling.

[jdcarpe]

FYI, I just ignored most of what Tarzan and Krogenar said, as their discussion is hardly relative to this topic. And offensive to my special snowflake nature.

Ray, you want to know what's wrong with people today?

This Wikipedia entry sums it up pretty well.

[SpAmRaY]

FYI, I just ignored most of what Tarzan and Krogenar said, as their discussion is hardly relative to this topic. And offensive to my special snowflake nature.

Ray, you want to know what's wrong with people today?

This Wikipedia entry sums it up pretty well.

So if I don't like it now just wait 20-40 years and it'll all change.

Now I know where some of those terms originated.

[noisyturtle]

If everyone's a winner, no one's a winner. Kids today are pussified by the nanny state of America, and drastically underprepared for the way the real world works.

Source: I was a 30 year old college student

Also the school systems aren't helping with their ****ty zero tolerance laws. Did you hear the one about the father who's being threatened by CSS to have his son taken away and put into foster care for spinning a pen in school, even after he complied with their ridiculous psych evaluation requests?

[Krogenar]

FYI, I just ignored most of what Tarzan and Krogenar said, as their discussion is hardly relative to this topic. And offensive to my special snowflake nature.

Ray, you want to know what's wrong with people today?

This Wikipedia entry sums it up pretty well.

So if I don't like it now just wait 20-40 years and it'll all change.

Now I know where some of those terms originated.

A fascinating theory, Snowflake! It's like astrology for an entire generation of people.

[Altis]

Reminds me of this (satire) about soccer without the ball so that everyone is equal:

http://www.cbc.ca/thisisthat/blog/2013/09/03/to-ensure-every-child-wins-ontario-athletic-association-removes-ball-from-soccer/

But in all seriousness, the "everyone is a winner" mentality is certainly far ahead here in Canada.

We had an Edmonton teacher fired because he still gave out zeros for absent assignments and skipped tests.

He ended up in court and after over two years won his case against the school board, and they've removed the policy, but still...

Original story:
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/edmonton/edmonton-teacher-suspended-for-giving-0s-1.1131453

Recent updates:
http://www.ctvnews.ca/canada/edmonton-teacher-fired-for-breaking-no-zero-grading-policy-wins-appeal-1.1984000

[The Mad Professor]

I'm sorry, but I'm of the firm belief that while we need to protect our children from harm, we also need to make them understand how the world works. Hard work is rewarded. Laziness is not.

[dorkvader]

Maybe it's because I did a different sport than most people, but winning was never a motivation for me. I played to have fun. Later the official motto of the league I was in was "for the love of the sport". My motivation for doing well in sports was out of respect for my opponent and for the sport in general.

So I never put much value in the medals and trophies. I remember being annoyed that they went out to 15'th place for all events, it made the awards ceremony last forever.

[paicrai]

ayyy lmao

[azhdar]

Maybe it's because I did a different sport than most people, but winning was never a motivation for me. I played to have fun. Later the official motto of the league I was in was "for the love of the sport". My motivation for doing well in sports was out of respect for my opponent and for the sport in general.

So I never put much value in the medals and trophies. I remember being annoyed that they went out to 15'th place for all events, it made the awards ceremony last forever.

what kind of sports was it ?

[SpAmRaY]

Maybe it's because I did a different sport than most people, but winning was never a motivation for me. I played to have fun. Later the official motto of the league I was in was "for the love of the sport". My motivation for doing well in sports was out of respect for my opponent and for the sport in general.

So I never put much value in the medals and trophies. I remember being annoyed that they went out to 15'th place for all events, it made the awards ceremony last forever.

what kind of sports was it ?

math team?

[jdcarpe]

Maybe it's because I did a different sport than most people, but winning was never a motivation for me. I played to have fun. Later the official motto of the league I was in was "for the love of the sport". My motivation for doing well in sports was out of respect for my opponent and for the sport in general.

So I never put much value in the medals and trophies. I remember being annoyed that they went out to 15'th place for all events, it made the awards ceremony last forever.

what kind of sports was it ?

Bloodsport

[SpAmRaY]

Maybe it's because I did a different sport than most people, but winning was never a motivation for me. I played to have fun. Later the official motto of the league I was in was "for the love of the sport". My motivation for doing well in sports was out of respect for my opponent and for the sport in general.

So I never put much value in the medals and trophies. I remember being annoyed that they went out to 15'th place for all events, it made the awards ceremony last forever.

what kind of sports was it ?

Bloodsport

[paicrai]

all children 12 and below in the countries with the largest populations should compete it bloodsports 2 da deth

[demik]

we should all fence. look at what a wonderful person linkbane is and he fences!

[HoffmanMyster]

My son goes to public school, even though we can afford private school.  He's had a mix of good-to-great teachers, and looks forward every day to new challenges in his classroom.

Sounds like you got lucky to me.    My middle school cut funding, and of course they cut the newer teachers, regardless of what they taught.  We ended up with a terrible math teacher teaching us history...      That was absolutely the worst teacher experience of my life. 

That's why I think that before we even start talking about funding, the discussion should be about tenure, and the fact that who keeps their job doesn't depend on anything other than how long they've been there.  If that were addressed, teachers would probably try harder and maybe we wouldn't have to argue about politics.



And to address Ray's initial post here, no, all the kids should not be winners.  Because that's just silly.  And as others have said, a fine was not needed and the mercy rule should have just ended the game like every other mercy rule I'm aware of.

[azhdar]

My middle school cut funding, and of course they cut the newer teachers, regardless of what they taught.  We ended up with a terrible math teacher teaching us history...      

I got learnt algorithms and JAVA by a 70yo lady who couldn't turn on a computer .

If I didn't have basic algo knowledge prior to that , I might have trust her on her lessons . Got awful grades but at least I didn't unlearnt .

[Tarzan]

If that were addressed, teachers would probably try harder and maybe we wouldn't have to argue about politics.

Try harder?  Seriously?

In my opinion, teachers can't win, because the game is rigged against them.  If a school district does well on mandatory standardized testing, they're slated for budget cuts, because those class sizes are obviously too small and they can obviously replicate such stellar results at a lower cost, packing students in fewer classes with fewer teachers.

If a school district does poorly in the mandatory testing Olympics, they're slated for budget cuts, because obviously they're not prioritizing their budgets appropriately, so cutting budgets will provide incentive to focus on the core STEM skills (or whatever the buzzword du jour is this time).

Meanwhile, the county/state/Federal legislators in charge of setting (translation: cutting) educational budgets send their kids to private school. 

It's enough to make a guy cynical about the real reasons motivating all this slashing of school budgets.  Union busting?  More tax cuts for the wealthy?  Reducing government payrolls because people who work for the government are evil? 

Ideology always trumps idealism.

.................................................

And to Spamray's point; yes, all kids should be winners.  If you want your kid to learn victory uber alles, pay for private lessons and sign them up for junior Olympics.  If it's recreational league play, which all the parents are paying for, then making sure losers are sent off the field in a humiliating defeat only ensures the league will shed parents and money, and eventually fold altogether.

I was having this exact "all kids should be winners" conversation with another hockey dad last Sunday, he was telling me about a new coach who hadn't got the message we were a recreational league.  The coach in question only put his strongest players in the game, for the entire game.  The other four kids just sat on the bench.  That's not right, the unspoken rule in Mites Hockey is that all kids get equal ice time, not just the hot shots. 

Kids with natural ability or lots of private lessons are encouraged to try out for the Selects team, they're the ones that travel to other rinks for inter-league play.  The rest of the 16 teams play every other team once, then we split into A group and B group, then each group plays the other 8 teams for end of season rankings.  Next season the kids are shuffled and assigned to new teams so each team has a mix of birth years/skill levels.  The focus is on building skills, playing fair, and having fun.

Because kids should be allowed to just be kids.

[HoffmanMyster]

If that were addressed, teachers would probably try harder and maybe we wouldn't have to argue about politics.

Try harder?  Seriously?

Yes.  Seriously.

Look, I'm not trying to pick a fight.  I'm just telling you my experiences and outlining the things that in my experience were the big problems with the schools that I went to.  What a lot of people fail to remember is that our country is absolutely massive, and things that are a problem in one area are not a problem in another area.

Furthermore, you're really not even responding to what I said.  I didn't suggest that budget cuts were the solution.  I simply suggested something else that I believe is a problem and that, if addressed, makes budget cuts less bad (we lost many excellent young teachers due to budget cuts, and kept terrible older teachers).

And I know that there are loads of incredible teachers out there - I've had quite a few of them.  I've also had quite a few terrible teachers that just didn't care.  And why should they?  They're not going to get fired for not caring.  Those are the teachers, however uncommon in your area, that I was referring to.  Reward good teachers, not old teachers.

[Tarzan]

If that were addressed, teachers would probably try harder and maybe we wouldn't have to argue about politics.

Try harder?  Seriously?

Yes.  Seriously.

Look, I'm not trying to pick a fight.  I'm just telling you my experiences and outlining the things that in my experience were the big problems with the schools that I went to.  What a lot of people fail to remember is that our country is absolutely massive, and things that are a problem in one area are not a problem in another area.

Furthermore, you're really not even responding to what I said.  I didn't suggest that budget cuts were the solution.  I simply suggested something else that I believe is a problem and that, if addressed, makes budget cuts less bad (we lost many excellent young teachers due to budget cuts, and kept terrible older teachers).

And I know that there are loads of incredible teachers out there - I've had quite a few of them.  I've also had quite a few terrible teachers that just didn't care.  And why should they?  They're not going to get fired for not caring.  Those are the teachers, however uncommon in your area, that I was referring to.  Reward good teachers, not old teachers.

It sounds good as a concept, but all too often this is the sort of language used to justify cuts to every teacher's pay.  The fact is that standardized testing, and teaching to the test, as so many school districts are forced to do, doesn't actually identify good teachers.  No test is going to flag that teacher who keeps my son enthused about going to school every day, keeps him motivated to read at home to be better prepared for the class discussion, or dragging us to school after hours to help dig a frog pond or build a Monarch butterfly habitat garden so the kids can observe nature up close. 

Honestly, what I'd like is a serious national conversation about what it would take to bring all schools up to the highest possible standard.  A Manhattan Project for public schools.  How much would it take to hire and retain top-flight talent as educators, pay teachers what we pay software developers or lawyers, and have schools compete on how broadly educated their students are, not on how to do more with less.

But if we can't even find funds to fix bridges in the United States, the education of our future generations doesn't stand a chance.

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/10/27/opinion/paul-krugman-ideology-and-investment.html?_r=0

[Krogenar]

That's why I think that before we even start talking about funding, the discussion should be about tenure, and the fact that who keeps their job doesn't depend on anything other than how long they've been there.  If that were addressed, teachers would probably try harder and maybe we wouldn't have to argue about politics.

I agree. Tenure was designed for higher education so that professors could have political views without fear of reprisals -- not as a way to secure a sinecure. As things stand now, a teacher has to rape students on videotape in order to get fired in a timely fashion. (Rubber Rooms)

When I was in high school a teacher rigged his tests so that students would almost all pass. He actually italicized the correct answers on a multiple choice exam. When it was discovered, he called in the union to protect him, and it took over a year for him to be removed from the school. My principal at the time, his hands tied, put this teacher in the hall as a hall monitor. And the lazy bastard sat there for over a year, reading The New York Times all day. My first thought was: "Does this guy have any sense of self-respect at all?" Would I stay on a job where I clearly wasn't wanted, and when I was clearly caught doing something wrong?

I had great teachers, too. Ironically, New York State teacher's unions reject the concept of 'merit pay' for exceptional teachers.

But again, and again, the only possible solution is more money, more teachers, more power for the unions.

And to address Ray's initial post here, no, all the kids should not be winners.  Because that's just silly.  And as others have said, a fine was not needed and the mercy rule should have just ended the game like every other mercy rule I'm aware of.

Agreed. Being totally destroyed on the field is not necessary for children. We have The Jets for that.

EDIT:

Honestly, what I'd like is a serious national conversation about what it would take to bring all schools up to the highest possible standard.  A Manhattan Project for public schools.  How much would it take to hire and retain top-flight talent as educators, pay teachers what we pay software developers or lawyers, and have schools compete on how broadly educated their students are, not on how to do more with less.

What you're describing is called a 'market'. I'd love to see privately run schools fighting over good teachers, and using benefits packages, salaries, etc. as incentives. And I'd love to see ****ty, phone-it-in teachers get unceremoniously ****-canned. Then education would start to improve. I'd love to see schools of all kinds, perhaps some with a focus -- music, science, art, theater, etc. Then you could send each of your children to the school that best suits their interests and/or talents. That would be something.

But the first step is getting rid of the teacher's unions, unfortunately.

[tp4tissue]

That's why I think that before we even start talking about funding, the discussion should be about tenure, and the fact that who keeps their job doesn't depend on anything other than how long they've been there.  If that were addressed, teachers would probably try harder and maybe we wouldn't have to argue about politics.

I agree. Tenure was designed for higher education so that professors could have political views without fear of reprisals -- not as a way to secure a sinecure. As things stand now, a teacher has to rape students on videotape in order to get fired in a timely fashion. (Rubber Rooms)

When I was in high school a teacher rigged his tests so that students would almost all pass. He actually italicized the correct answers on a multiple choice exam. When it was discovered, he called in the union to protect him, and it took over a year for him to be removed from the school. My principal at the time, his hands tied, put this teacher in the hall as a hall monitor. And the lazy bastard sat there for over a year, reading The New York Times all day. My first thought was: "Does this guy have any sense of self-respect at all?" Would I stay on a job where I clearly wasn't wanted, and when I was clearly caught doing something wrong?

I had great teachers, too. Ironically, New York State teacher's unions reject the concept of 'merit pay' for exceptional teachers.

But again, and again, the only possible solution is more money, more teachers, more power for the unions.

And to address Ray's initial post here, no, all the kids should not be winners.  Because that's just silly.  And as others have said, a fine was not needed and the mercy rule should have just ended the game like every other mercy rule I'm aware of.

Agreed. Being totally destroyed on the field is not necessary for children. We have The Jets for that.

More money is the solution to the education problem.. Absolutely, YES..

Teachers make nothing, and their job is to deal with the worst bunch of people on earth, kids, I'm not saying it's the kid's fault, it's just how humans are. ..

However,   is more education necessary better for the country, IF we're to assume the country must remain an independent power..


Do you think it's easy to make smart people go to war.. join the army.. or work hard for little pay..


This is a tough choice... and time and time again.. empires fall because occupational forces becomes impossibly expensive..   look at iraq..   being bankrupt and not getting the damn oil is the reason we're out of there...   

[SpAmRaY]

Teachers make nothing

I would say this depends on location.

AND your definition of nothing. What would you consider to be decent teacher pay?

[tp4tissue]

Teachers make nothing

I would say this depends on location.

AND your definition of nothing. What would you consider to be decent teacher pay?

to deal with animals that you emotionally abuse and scar you ?... 

More than they're getting now..

[SpAmRaY]

Teachers make nothing

I would say this depends on location.

AND your definition of nothing. What would you consider to be decent teacher pay?

to deal with animals that you emotionally abuse and scar you ?... 

More than they're getting now..

While I can agree you couldn't pay me enough to be a school teacher, looking at our local districts pay database from 2010 the average pay was ~$60K.

Perhaps I'm out of touch but would most people not consider $60K/yr decent pay?? Especially for a job where you get 3 months off in the summer time?

[Tarzan]

What you're describing is called a 'market'. I'd love to see privately run schools fighting over good teachers, and using benefits packages, salaries, etc. as incentives. And I'd love to see ****ty, phone-it-in teachers get unceremoniously ****-canned. Then education would start to improve. I'd love to see schools of all kinds, perhaps some with a focus -- music, science, art, theater, etc. Then you could send each of your children to the school that best suits their interests and/or talents. That would be something.

No, I'm not describing a "market."  I'm describing a well-funded public school system. 

But the first step is getting rid of the teacher's unions, unfortunately.

And that's your real motive.  Not better education for children, just union-bashing like you've done in so many other threads here.

[Krogenar]

While I can agree you couldn't pay me enough to be a school teacher, looking at our local districts pay database from 2010 the average pay was ~$60K.
Perhaps I'm out of touch but would most people not consider $60K/yr decent pay?? Especially for a job where you get 3 months off in the summer time?

Factor in almost perfect job security, health benefits, and a pension Ray. Then how does it seem? Oh, and they can take summers off, or work, their choice. I have no problem with teacher's being well paid -- the work they do is crucial -- but the unions insist on zero accountability, and no other option to solve problems aside from more teachers and more money.

But the first step is getting rid of the teacher's unions, unfortunately.

And that's your real motive.  Not better education for children, just union-bashing like you've done in so many other threads here.

Yes, my real motive is to annihilate teacher's unions (not teachers, just the unions) because they're hurting children. They don't give a damn about children or their education, only power. Americans must break the teacher's unions monopolistic stranglehold on education. A case in point -- Harlem Success Academy Charter Schools. Run by a woman named Eva Moskowitz, these schools have improved the educations of the most at-risk children in NYC. Their success rates with children are nearly inverse to the success rate for public schools. And naturally, the UFT (United Federation of Teachers) hound them at every turn.

Why? Because mediocrity is the natural enemy of success. If people see great alternatives to public schools, that chips away at the unions' power, and they can't have that. So they're doing everything in their power to stop the success.