Lets Decimate our Public Schools

They have both high pay and tenure and big benefits for few hours comparatively. Multiple studies show they come from the bottom 20% of college graduates and make more then their peers in that cohort in the private sector in real terms. Pay isn't the issue. Only .5% of teachers lose their jobs. They have the safest jobs in America. That is crazy. Is every other job not important and that is why we want them to have the best man for the job to ring up groceries? Tenure was to protect free speech. Not incompetence and lack of knowledge required to do your job.

 

That reminds me of a story I am reading. The school punishes 5% of its students, so 95% will succeed. The problem is that 5%, they could be incredibly smart, but they've been told they're no good. If the idea is to reward good teachers and punish bad ones, where does redemption come into place? One bad year, you lose your job. It's tough to then find a new one. Not only do you have to explain why you were fired, but also you have to live with that shame. It doesn't inspire hard work, it only takes it away.

 

The OP believes in excessive standardized testing over allowing teachers control of their classrooms; you shouldn't trust anything he says.

 

You seem to not take into account that teaching isn't solely classroom time. It cuts into time at home with grading papers, weekend field trips, supporting after hour programs and after hours disciplinary actions, etc.

 

That is a bold faced lie. When facts are against you, just make stuff up huh.

There isn't preferential funding, it's just that wealthier neighborhoods have more money to spend on school. Also, at risk schools usually have to pay teachers more. That means they get a better education right?

 

That's spending per student. Teacher pay is the discussion. Average teacher salary is on the lower end of the country averages.

 

My mother is a teacher, I am well aware. You don't think other professionals don't have work outside of 9-5?

- - - Updated - - -

So maybe we should cut the bottom 10% of administrators too. And not replace them.

 

Strong point. How about if you test in the bottom 10% two years in a row you are decimated. A year is a long time, a whole summer to improve their game.

 

*sigh*

Considering you didn't provide any facts to back up what you're calling factless arguing, one should simply dismiss you, but neocons travel in packs so they can make more noise and muddy arguments with half truths and other mumbo jumbo.

http://www.salon.com/2013/06/03/instead_of_a_war_on_teachers_how_about_one_on_poverty/

When you cross reference the likelihood of non-whites in sub-prime areas of the united states, it's obviously backed up by data. Whether intentional or not, it's definitely not something made up. Kids in crap neighborhoods get crap education and it's not by accident.

 

Salon.com doesn't count. I can't use info wars or front page or storm face or whatever it is called.

No but really. Name one year teachers made more (when Obama wasnt in office) in real terms them they do now. Please include benefits.

Name one good reason we want to keep the dumbest 10% in their field? When it is kids who will be stunted by their "just read the textbook a week ahead" grasp of the subject matter?

 

Yes, you're right. The best thing to do is underfund and cut till there's nothing left then blame the results on the people who got screwed. Sounds like a fun game. It worked with the post office, right?

 

I still feel that is too short, after all there could been a change in ciriculm. A better bet would be to test on a "as needed" basis. But I do agree to the idea of an evaluation, and not just some stupid test the students take at the beginning and end. There needs to be more to it.

 

That is all conservatives know how to do when it comes to governing, don't blame them.

 

We have choices its called living in the right district.

 

It is also known as white flight. Education should be uniform no matter where you go. It's not a 'privilege' only to be enjoyed by people who can afford to live where the better schools are (which are usually in predominately white neighboor hoods with parents who have higher income).

 

As needed means never. Yearly test, two times in a tow even after study means there is a problem. Bottom 10% wouldn't be allowed to pass the bar, not even bottom 40% why are we putting a lower standard in place for our kids?

- - - Updated - - -

But some people can't afford to leave the democrat run hell holes they find themselves born into.

 

Just where are these 10% of new teachers supposed to come from?

 

Are we concerned about total spending or teachers salaries then? Because minority schools usually have to pay teachers more due to the increased difficulties that come with the students. And you just claimed they get inferior educations.

 

Are you aware of the idea that there's more than one test inside of a test? There are a lot of reasons why a class doesn't do well on a test. A lot has to do with the teacher, but what if the problem is with the student? Or what about what the state defines a student should be able to do? I'll give you an example. I hated Algebra II, it is the only class I have ever cheated in. I hated it, because our teacher seemed to have given up on us. It might have been because he also coaches the 7th and 8th grade track team in the summer, but he was horrible. So what did I do? I worked hard enough to pass his class with an 80 average. I would have been seen as a student that struggled in his class, but improved throughout the year. For the state, everyone who takes Algebra also has to take a regents test, a state test. 1/3 of everyone who takes it, fails. At least in my school, and we're a good school. Students who are smart (For example one person I know and I both got 100's on the US regents) and studied failed the test. Doesn't mean the teacher is at fault, the state is.

 

That is too ideal, most college graduates don't go into teaching even with the tuition reimbursement programs, because they make just above minimum wage when their salaries are calculated for the whole year.

It has to come from higher pay and competitive education practices like physicians face. Good teachers aren't enough, there needs to be more funding for schools and equipment, as well as more welfare for communities.

 

It's overall. YOu need small classroom sizes, if there's issue with security then LOGICAL and not fear-mongering dealing with that issue (i.e. not designing the school to look and feel like a prison), funding of extra curricular activities that increases school participation (bands, sports, clubs, field trips, etc.). And where's your citation of information about inner city teachers getting more money?

What REALLY needs to change is not educating to a test. The idea of education is to teach critical thinking in the end by using skills and experience and research. Unfortunately, as George Carlin put it, they want us just smart enough to run the machines but still too dumb to realize we're getting (*)(*)(*)(*)ed every day.

 

You are wrong about the pay. They have multi million dollar pensions. They have never been paid more. Their classes have never been smaller. None of this thread has to do with pay. It has to do with whether or not you want the dumbest 10% in their field to stay teaching kids? Yes, or no? Don't deflect.

 

they have never been smaller.

that is a logical response? logic looks like security, you know, cops.

What subject tested do you think kids shouldnt learn? Be specific. No more abstract union talking points.

- - - Updated - - -

I am talking about testing the teachers for their grasp on the subject matter they teach. I am not talking about testing their kids. That is another thread.

 

Obviously, teachers need to take more time out of the year to devote teaching to the test. More standardized testing is the only way out of this hole! [/endsarcasm]

 

Barbwire fences is not security, it's prison.

No, you're misrepresenting what I said so first I'm going to put you back on track. I said 'teach critical thinking'. For instance being able to find out of a kid knows what 2+2 is simple. You hide it in an actual scenario where they have to deduce that indeed 2+2 is the problem they're looking at first. Because you can surely get a kid to memorize the answer to the question. But does that kid really get it? Who knows. You won't find that out until they're actually forced to use critical thinking using that knowledge. And if they fail to extract what the problem really is, then it's back to the drawing board and try a different method to convey this information.

I know this is oversimplifying it, but it illustrates the issues with 'teaching for the test'. I mean, any idiot can memorize something, but it's like language...you can say the words, but do you really know what they mean?