Education: Fire, Not Hire!

[PoliticalChic]

1. "In a high-profile presser on the economy last Friday, President Obama’s central proposal was to hire more public employees. Then, in his weekly address, he argued that hiring more public school teachers would allow the U.S. to educate its way to prosperity. His Republican presidential rival, Governor Romney, has recommended precisely the opposite...



2. ...let’s look at public school employment and student enrollment over time.

3. ...enrollment is only up 8.5% since 1970, whereas employment is up 96.2%. In other words, the public school workforce has grown 11 times faster than enrollment over the past 40 years.

4. If we went back to the staff-to-student ratio we had in 1970, we’d be saving $210 billion annually.




5. ...improved student achievement boosts economic growth. So if the 2.9 million extra public school employees we’ve hired since 1970 have improved achievement substantially, we might well be coming out ahead economically. So let’s look at those numbers…

6. Despite hiring nearly 3 million more people and spending a resulting $210 billion more every year, achievement near the end of high school has stagnated in math and reading and actually declined slightly in science since 1970.

7. ...the total cost per pupil of each graduating class from 1970 to the present. ... on a per pupil basis, a K-12 education has gone from about $55,000 to about $150,000 in real, inflation-adjusted terms.



8. The implications of these charts are tragic: The public school monopoly is warehousing 3 million people in jobs that appear to have done nothing to improve student learning.



9. Our K-12 government school system simply does not know how to harness the skills of our education workforce, and...

10. ... is preventing these people from contributing to our economy while consuming massive quantities of tax dollars. "
President Obama is Totally Wrong on Education: America Needs to Fire, Not Hire, More Teachers




Obama, again.....

Thinking that is not just wrong....

...but is deleterious.

 

[PratchettFan]

1. "In a high-profile presser on the economy last Friday, President Obama’s central proposal was to hire more public employees. Then, in his weekly address, he argued that hiring more public school teachers would allow the U.S. to educate its way to prosperity. His Republican presidential rival, Governor Romney, has recommended precisely the opposite...



2. ...let’s look at public school employment and student enrollment over time.

3. ...enrollment is only up 8.5% since 1970, whereas employment is up 96.2%. In other words, the public school workforce has grown 11 times faster than enrollment over the past 40 years.

4. If we went back to the staff-to-student ratio we had in 1970, we’d be saving $210 billion annually.




5. ...improved student achievement boosts economic growth. So if the 2.9 million extra public school employees we’ve hired since 1970 have improved achievement substantially, we might well be coming out ahead economically. So let’s look at those numbers…

6. Despite hiring nearly 3 million more people and spending a resulting $210 billion more every year, achievement near the end of high school has stagnated in math and reading and actually declined slightly in science since 1970.

7. ...the total cost per pupil of each graduating class from 1970 to the present. ... on a per pupil basis, a K-12 education has gone from about $55,000 to about $150,000 in real, inflation-adjusted terms.



8. The implications of these charts are tragic: The public school monopoly is warehousing 3 million people in jobs that appear to have done nothing to improve student learning.



9. Our K-12 government school system simply does not know how to harness the skills of our education workforce, and...

10. ... is preventing these people from contributing to our economy while consuming massive quantities of tax dollars. "
President Obama is Totally Wrong on Education: America Needs to Fire, Not Hire, More Teachers




Obama, again.....

Thinking that is not just wrong....

...but is deleterious.

You are both right and wrong, because you are lumping everyone into this category of "public employee".

In 1970, if you went into your typical high school you would have found a principal and one or two vice-principals. They would have been the entire technical, non-teaching staff in the school. If a student needed counseling, that would have been done by a teacher - who would have been assigned specific hours for that purpose. If a social worker was needed, the local government would have been called in.

Walk into a high school today and you will find it packed with full time counselors, psychiatrists, etc. I live in a county with a sizable school system. It's current budget calls for 14,777 teachers and 4,200 "specialists". These include career counselors, pshyicatrists and psychologists, social workers, athletic trainers, etc. We aren't talking about janitors and HVAC technicians or even the office staff it takes to run a large organization. These are people dedicated to things which are only peripherally related to education. Most of those staff are actually higher paid than the average teacher.

It isn't teachers who are the problem. We could significantly cut schools budgets and increase the number of teachers if we simply went back to the idea that the purpose of a school is to educate.

 

[old navy]

I agree pratchettfan. My system sounds similar to yours. A couple of years ago one of my HS students had 160 hours per month of special education services. That included her counselor, psychologist, social worker, interpretor for her mother, and people I cannot remember.

Just this morning I watched an interview from Gov. Christie (not my governor) in which he told the federal government to stop sending his state money to hire government employees. He said they were too expensive, hard to manage, and he would be stuck with them when the fed's money ran out. I agree.

 

[Mad Scientist]

It isn't teachers who are the problem. We could significantly cut schools budgets and increase the number of teachers if we simply went back to the idea that the purpose of a school is to educate.

I agree. The Teachers aren't the problem, the NEA is.

Old article, but it still applies today:
Education chief calls union 'terrorist' group - Boston.com

Education Secretary Rod Paige called the nation's largest teachers' union a "terrorist organization" yesterday, taking on the 2.7-million-member National Education Association early in the presidential election year.
Paige said he had made clear to the governors that he was referring to the Washington-based union organization, not the teachers it represents.
To that, Weaver said, "We are the teachers, there is no distinction."
Paige's Education Department is working to enforce a law that amounts to the biggest change in federal education policy in a generation. He has made no attempt to hide his frustration with the NEA, which has long supported Democratic presidential candidates.

 

[Moonglow]

1. "In a high-profile presser on the economy last Friday, President Obama’s central proposal was to hire more public employees. Then, in his weekly address, he argued that hiring more public school teachers would allow the U.S. to educate its way to prosperity. His Republican presidential rival, Governor Romney, has recommended precisely the opposite...



2. ...let’s look at public school employment and student enrollment over time.

3. ...enrollment is only up 8.5% since 1970, whereas employment is up 96.2%. In other words, the public school workforce has grown 11 times faster than enrollment over the past 40 years.

4. If we went back to the staff-to-student ratio we had in 1970, we’d be saving $210 billion annually.




5. ...improved student achievement boosts economic growth. So if the 2.9 million extra public school employees we’ve hired since 1970 have improved achievement substantially, we might well be coming out ahead economically. So let’s look at those numbers…

6. Despite hiring nearly 3 million more people and spending a resulting $210 billion more every year, achievement near the end of high school has stagnated in math and reading and actually declined slightly in science since 1970.

7. ...the total cost per pupil of each graduating class from 1970 to the present. ... on a per pupil basis, a K-12 education has gone from about $55,000 to about $150,000 in real, inflation-adjusted terms.



8. The implications of these charts are tragic: The public school monopoly is warehousing 3 million people in jobs that appear to have done nothing to improve student learning.



9. Our K-12 government school system simply does not know how to harness the skills of our education workforce, and...

10. ... is preventing these people from contributing to our economy while consuming massive quantities of tax dollars. "
President Obama is Totally Wrong on Education: America Needs to Fire, Not Hire, More Teachers




Obama, again.....

Thinking that is not just wrong....

...but is deleterious.

Funnt how the OP writer left out actual figures of student increase. In Benton County Arkansas. Student enrollment increased 45% from 2000 to 2011.

More schools were built and the ones on the books were built after the recessions started. Schools are not as over crowded as before.

Schools alone increase propery values and increase the number of homes built by their construction. Entire communities are created just be a school being built. The economic advantages are immense.
Repubs and people that are old like polichic, who probably asertaind her acidic retorts from going to public schools, want to destroy public education, and the teachers union.
People like this want teachers and schools to go away. Child labor is on their minds.
"We don't need no stinking education" the assholes say, but without it our society would slowly grind to a halt.
Should we allow only rich people to obtain an education?
Hell no, they control societies way too long to trust them again.
I am not saying that the system is perfect, but it is better than what was there before the great nation of the USA gave opportunity to all and not just the rich.

 

[PoliticalChic]

1. "In a high-profile presser on the economy last Friday, President Obama’s central proposal was to hire more public employees. Then, in his weekly address, he argued that hiring more public school teachers would allow the U.S. to educate its way to prosperity. His Republican presidential rival, Governor Romney, has recommended precisely the opposite...



2. ...let’s look at public school employment and student enrollment over time.

3. ...enrollment is only up 8.5% since 1970, whereas employment is up 96.2%. In other words, the public school workforce has grown 11 times faster than enrollment over the past 40 years.

4. If we went back to the staff-to-student ratio we had in 1970, we’d be saving $210 billion annually.




5. ...improved student achievement boosts economic growth. So if the 2.9 million extra public school employees we’ve hired since 1970 have improved achievement substantially, we might well be coming out ahead economically. So let’s look at those numbers…

6. Despite hiring nearly 3 million more people and spending a resulting $210 billion more every year, achievement near the end of high school has stagnated in math and reading and actually declined slightly in science since 1970.

7. ...the total cost per pupil of each graduating class from 1970 to the present. ... on a per pupil basis, a K-12 education has gone from about $55,000 to about $150,000 in real, inflation-adjusted terms.



8. The implications of these charts are tragic: The public school monopoly is warehousing 3 million people in jobs that appear to have done nothing to improve student learning.



9. Our K-12 government school system simply does not know how to harness the skills of our education workforce, and...

10. ... is preventing these people from contributing to our economy while consuming massive quantities of tax dollars. "
President Obama is Totally Wrong on Education: America Needs to Fire, Not Hire, More Teachers




Obama, again.....

Thinking that is not just wrong....

...but is deleterious.

Funnt how the OP writer left out actual figures of student increase. In Benton County Arkansas. Student enrollment increased 45% from 2000 to 2011.

More schools were built and the ones on the books were built after the recessions started. Schools are not as over crowded as before.

Schools alone increase propery values and increase the number of homes built by their construction. Entire communities are created just be a school being built. The economic advantages are immense.
Repubs and people that are old like polichic, who probably asertaind her acidic retorts from going to public schools, want to destroy public education, and the teachers union.
People like this want teachers and schools to go away. Child labor is on their minds.
"We don't need no stinking education" the assholes say, but without it our society would slowly grind to a halt.
Should we allow only rich people to obtain an education?
Hell no, they control societies way too long to trust them again.
I am not saying that the system is perfect, but it is better than what was there before the great nation of the USA gave opportunity to all and not just the rich.

1. So....are you a product of government schools?
Yes?
Case closed.


2. Based on your careful reading of the OP, the take-away, as far as you're concerned is the value of constructing school buildings?
Really?
Is English a second language for you?
Do you have a first language?


3. The article's writer noted "......enrollment is only up 8.5% since 1970,..."
My assumption was that the data applies to the nation...not just
" In Benton County Arkansas. Student enrollment increased 45% from 2000 to 2011."

And it clearly says 'since 1970."
What the heck is wrong with you???


4. I see the problem in your emphatic "The economic advantages are immense."

Why does the obligation to fill the lacunae of the government school system fall to little ol' me????

OK:

ed·u·ca·tion/ˌejəˈkāSHən/
Noun:
The process of receiving or giving systematic instruction, esp. at a school or university: "a new system of public education".
The theory and practice of teaching.


ec·o·nom·ic/ˌekəˈnämik/
Adjective:
Of or relating to economics or the economy.
Justified in terms of profitability.


I know, I know....they both start with "e"....

 

[PoliticalChic]

1. "In a high-profile presser on the economy last Friday, President Obama’s central proposal was to hire more public employees. Then, in his weekly address, he argued that hiring more public school teachers would allow the U.S. to educate its way to prosperity. His Republican presidential rival, Governor Romney, has recommended precisely the opposite...



2. ...let’s look at public school employment and student enrollment over time.

3. ...enrollment is only up 8.5% since 1970, whereas employment is up 96.2%. In other words, the public school workforce has grown 11 times faster than enrollment over the past 40 years.

4. If we went back to the staff-to-student ratio we had in 1970, we’d be saving $210 billion annually.




5. ...improved student achievement boosts economic growth. So if the 2.9 million extra public school employees we’ve hired since 1970 have improved achievement substantially, we might well be coming out ahead economically. So let’s look at those numbers…

6. Despite hiring nearly 3 million more people and spending a resulting $210 billion more every year, achievement near the end of high school has stagnated in math and reading and actually declined slightly in science since 1970.

7. ...the total cost per pupil of each graduating class from 1970 to the present. ... on a per pupil basis, a K-12 education has gone from about $55,000 to about $150,000 in real, inflation-adjusted terms.



8. The implications of these charts are tragic: The public school monopoly is warehousing 3 million people in jobs that appear to have done nothing to improve student learning.



9. Our K-12 government school system simply does not know how to harness the skills of our education workforce, and...

10. ... is preventing these people from contributing to our economy while consuming massive quantities of tax dollars. "
President Obama is Totally Wrong on Education: America Needs to Fire, Not Hire, More Teachers




Obama, again.....

Thinking that is not just wrong....

...but is deleterious.

You are both right and wrong, because you are lumping everyone into this category of "public employee".

In 1970, if you went into your typical high school you would have found a principal and one or two vice-principals. They would have been the entire technical, non-teaching staff in the school. If a student needed counseling, that would have been done by a teacher - who would have been assigned specific hours for that purpose. If a social worker was needed, the local government would have been called in.

Walk into a high school today and you will find it packed with full time counselors, psychiatrists, etc. I live in a county with a sizable school system. It's current budget calls for 14,777 teachers and 4,200 "specialists". These include career counselors, pshyicatrists and psychologists, social workers, athletic trainers, etc. We aren't talking about janitors and HVAC technicians or even the office staff it takes to run a large organization. These are people dedicated to things which are only peripherally related to education. Most of those staff are actually higher paid than the average teacher.

It isn't teachers who are the problem. We could significantly cut schools budgets and increase the number of teachers if we simply went back to the idea that the purpose of a school is to educate.

Welcome to the board, Pratch....

Couple of things about your post, and Navy and Doc Phibes...

1. The OP is clearly about the number of employees in the school system...not generally 'public employees.'


2. While it would be hard to argue with you guys that teachers are not wholly the target...nor should they be....my conversations with many teachers has taught me that almost every job classification in the schools, from guidance councilor, to supervisor, to principal, and most of the others you can name all begin as teacher.

They are all or were teachers.

The insanity is that, in theory, if you are very good at being a teacher, you leave the classroom and move "up" to supervisor...at a much higher salary.

Bet we could save tons of dough by making salary less as one moves "up."
Just use technology to tie the teacher to the results of his/her efforts.


3. But if we can all agree that the system does a terrible job of accomplishing the goal with which it is charged...

...aren't you as shocked as I am that it has grown eleven times as fast as the student body??


Does this apply:

Definition for featherbedding:
Web definitions:
the practice (usually by a labor union) of requiring an employer to hire more workers than are required.



Bet we all agree on that.

 

[iamwhatiseem]

Our education system is the greatest embarrassment this country has.
The most advanced, wealthiest country in the world has a sub-par system ripe with corruption and incompetence.
Obama is simply repeating the same failed liberal mantra that they have touted for 40 years - "we can spend our way to a better education". It is stupid, tragic and filled to the teeth with Democratic Party/teacher union corruption.
It is time for a system overhaul - beginning with outlawing unions in the education system.

 

[PratchettFan]

1. "In a high-profile presser on the economy last Friday, President Obama’s central proposal was to hire more public employees. Then, in his weekly address, he argued that hiring more public school teachers would allow the U.S. to educate its way to prosperity. His Republican presidential rival, Governor Romney, has recommended precisely the opposite...



2. ...let’s look at public school employment and student enrollment over time.

3. ...enrollment is only up 8.5% since 1970, whereas employment is up 96.2%. In other words, the public school workforce has grown 11 times faster than enrollment over the past 40 years.

4. If we went back to the staff-to-student ratio we had in 1970, we’d be saving $210 billion annually.




5. ...improved student achievement boosts economic growth. So if the 2.9 million extra public school employees we’ve hired since 1970 have improved achievement substantially, we might well be coming out ahead economically. So let’s look at those numbers…

6. Despite hiring nearly 3 million more people and spending a resulting $210 billion more every year, achievement near the end of high school has stagnated in math and reading and actually declined slightly in science since 1970.

7. ...the total cost per pupil of each graduating class from 1970 to the present. ... on a per pupil basis, a K-12 education has gone from about $55,000 to about $150,000 in real, inflation-adjusted terms.



8. The implications of these charts are tragic: The public school monopoly is warehousing 3 million people in jobs that appear to have done nothing to improve student learning.



9. Our K-12 government school system simply does not know how to harness the skills of our education workforce, and...

10. ... is preventing these people from contributing to our economy while consuming massive quantities of tax dollars. "
President Obama is Totally Wrong on Education: America Needs to Fire, Not Hire, More Teachers




Obama, again.....

Thinking that is not just wrong....

...but is deleterious.

You are both right and wrong, because you are lumping everyone into this category of "public employee".

In 1970, if you went into your typical high school you would have found a principal and one or two vice-principals. They would have been the entire technical, non-teaching staff in the school. If a student needed counseling, that would have been done by a teacher - who would have been assigned specific hours for that purpose. If a social worker was needed, the local government would have been called in.

Walk into a high school today and you will find it packed with full time counselors, psychiatrists, etc. I live in a county with a sizable school system. It's current budget calls for 14,777 teachers and 4,200 "specialists". These include career counselors, pshyicatrists and psychologists, social workers, athletic trainers, etc. We aren't talking about janitors and HVAC technicians or even the office staff it takes to run a large organization. These are people dedicated to things which are only peripherally related to education. Most of those staff are actually higher paid than the average teacher.

It isn't teachers who are the problem. We could significantly cut schools budgets and increase the number of teachers if we simply went back to the idea that the purpose of a school is to educate.

Welcome to the board, Pratch....

Couple of things about your post, and Navy and Doc Phibes...

1. The OP is clearly about the number of employees in the school system...not generally 'public employees.'


2. While it would be hard to argue with you guys that teachers are not wholly the target...nor should they be....my conversations with many teachers has taught me that almost every job classification in the schools, from guidance councilor, to supervisor, to principal, and most of the others you can name all begin as teacher.

They are all or were teachers.

The insanity is that, in theory, if you are very good at being a teacher, you leave the classroom and move "up" to supervisor...at a much higher salary.

Bet we could save tons of dough by making salary less as one moves "up."
Just use technology to tie the teacher to the results of his/her efforts.


3. But if we can all agree that the system does a terrible job of accomplishing the goal with which it is charged...

...aren't you as shocked as I am that it has grown eleven times as fast as the student body??


Does this apply:

Definition for featherbedding:
Web definitions:
the practice (usually by a labor union) of requiring an employer to hire more workers than are required.



Bet we all agree on that.

Am I shocked? No. I have been working with governments for the last 30 years. I would be shocked if it had not gone up like that. The primary goal of most government managers is to build a base. You want as many people under you, and have them as highly graded as you can, in order to justify your own position. It is the natural state of bureaucracy. That is not to say people are not dedicated to the job. It is just that the people who tend to be dedicated to the job are not the people who tend to get into management positions. That has been what I have observed, in any case.

I can tell you that while the principals always come out of the teaching staff, in my area the specialists do not. That 4200 number I cited are all specialists. The principals and teaching supervisors are all counted in the teaching staff. I am not an education expert and my personal experience has only involved three school districts. So my observations are not comprehensive by any means.

 

[PratchettFan]

Our education system is the greatest embarrassment this country has.
The most advanced, wealthiest country in the world has a sub-par system ripe with corruption and incompetence.
Obama is simply repeating the same failed liberal mantra that they have touted for 40 years - "we can spend our way to a better education". It is stupid, tragic and filled to the teeth with Democratic Party/teacher union corruption.
It is time for a system overhaul - beginning with outlawing unions in the education system.

You are wrong. But, in your heart, you knew that.

 

[iamwhatiseem]

Our education system is the greatest embarrassment this country has.
The most advanced, wealthiest country in the world has a sub-par system ripe with corruption and incompetence.
Obama is simply repeating the same failed liberal mantra that they have touted for 40 years - "we can spend our way to a better education". It is stupid, tragic and filled to the teeth with Democratic Party/teacher union corruption.
It is time for a system overhaul - beginning with outlawing unions in the education system.

You are wrong. But, in your heart, you knew that.

Nope. I am wholly correct.
The teachers unions are not totally at fault - however there is no chance of real improvement without abolishing the union system in our schools. And a whooooole lot of teachers will say the same.

 

[PratchettFan]

Our education system is the greatest embarrassment this country has.
The most advanced, wealthiest country in the world has a sub-par system ripe with corruption and incompetence.
Obama is simply repeating the same failed liberal mantra that they have touted for 40 years - "we can spend our way to a better education". It is stupid, tragic and filled to the teeth with Democratic Party/teacher union corruption.
It is time for a system overhaul - beginning with outlawing unions in the education system.

You are wrong. But, in your heart, you knew that.

Nope. I am wholly correct.
The teachers unions are not totally at fault - however there is no chance of real improvement without abolishing the union system in our schools. And a whooooole lot of teachers will say the same.

So, your suggestion is we fix the schools by first turning teachers into second class citizens. An interesting approach. Somehow, I doubt a whoooooole lot of teachers will agree.

Teachers are not the problem and the union is not the problem. They are just an easy scapegoat.

 

[iamwhatiseem]

You are wrong. But, in your heart, you knew that.

Nope. I am wholly correct.
The teachers unions are not totally at fault - however there is no chance of real improvement without abolishing the union system in our schools. And a whooooole lot of teachers will say the same.

So, your suggestion is we fix the schools by first turning teachers into second class citizens. An interesting approach. Somehow, I doubt a whoooooole lot of teachers will agree.

Teachers are not the problem and the union is not the problem. They are just an easy scapegoat.

Sorry - I thought I was speaking to someone familiar with how schools work...obviously I am not. So I won't waste anymore time.
But I will leave you with this...you say 2nd class citizens? Are you aware that school administrators cannot pay outstanding teachers one dime more than the schools worst teachers? That is right - in our current system there is no financial incentive for teachers to perform well. They will never be rewarded for it monetarily.
Also, teachers have the lowest firing rate of any other occupation in America. In other words, the people we hold responsible for the critical job of educating our children - are the least disciplined people in America for poor performance.

[Flip]...here's a nickel kid...go buy some gum to entertain yourself.

 

[PratchettFan]

Nope. I am wholly correct.
The teachers unions are not totally at fault - however there is no chance of real improvement without abolishing the union system in our schools. And a whooooole lot of teachers will say the same.

So, your suggestion is we fix the schools by first turning teachers into second class citizens. An interesting approach. Somehow, I doubt a whoooooole lot of teachers will agree.

Teachers are not the problem and the union is not the problem. They are just an easy scapegoat.

Sorry - I thought I was speaking to someone familiar with how schools work...obviously I am not. So I won't waste anymore time.
But I will leave you with this...you say 2nd class citizens? Are you aware that school administrators cannot pay outstanding teachers one dime more than the schools worst teachers? That is right - in our current system there is no financial incentive for teachers to perform well. They will never be rewarded for it monetarily.
Also, teachers have the lowest firing rate of any other occupation in America. In other words, the people we hold responsible for the critical job of educating our children - are the least disciplined people in America for poor performance.

[Flip]...here's a nickel kid...go buy some gum to entertain yourself.

You have not a clue. Which is probably the real problem. Schools are not run by teachers. They are run by School boards, which are generally elected. Those running for the office understand it is not important for them to run the school properly. They only have to act as if they care what you think. But you go ahead and blame your scapegoat, if that makes you feel better.

 

[blimpo]

Administrations of schools are top-heavy, teachers are not part of that. We basically have enough staff to barely get by.
Actual cases in point:
My average class size last year was 28 students (room had 30 desks). We were 3 books short.
I had special ed kids in 2 classes where no aide was available for the class.
All Health classes that had special ed kids had NO aides at all. Tests had to be given only when an aide could slip free for 15 minutes or so to read the tests to them and the tests had to be very brief.
Those are facts.
We also had a special ed kid that required an aide to be with him all day (IEP required it).

 

[blimpo]

Nope. I am wholly correct.
The teachers unions are not totally at fault - however there is no chance of real improvement without abolishing the union system in our schools. And a whooooole lot of teachers will say the same.

So, your suggestion is we fix the schools by first turning teachers into second class citizens. An interesting approach. Somehow, I doubt a whoooooole lot of teachers will agree.

Teachers are not the problem and the union is not the problem. They are just an easy scapegoat.

Sorry - I thought I was speaking to someone familiar with how schools work...obviously I am not. So I won't waste anymore time.
But I will leave you with this...you say 2nd class citizens? Are you aware that school administrators cannot pay outstanding teachers one dime more than the schools worst teachers? That is right - in our current system there is no financial incentive for teachers to perform well. They will never be rewarded for it monetarily.
Also, teachers have the lowest firing rate of any other occupation in America. In other words, the people we hold responsible for the critical job of educating our children - are the least disciplined people in America for poor performance.

[Flip]...here's a nickel kid...go buy some gum to entertain yourself.

Keep your nickel.
Possibly because, unlike other professions, teachers aren't really there for the money. When our principal was out of the building it was business as usual.
How many other professions are like that when the boss is away?

 

[del]

So, your suggestion is we fix the schools by first turning teachers into second class citizens. An interesting approach. Somehow, I doubt a whoooooole lot of teachers will agree.

Teachers are not the problem and the union is not the problem. They are just an easy scapegoat.

Sorry - I thought I was speaking to someone familiar with how schools work...obviously I am not. So I won't waste anymore time.
But I will leave you with this...you say 2nd class citizens? Are you aware that school administrators cannot pay outstanding teachers one dime more than the schools worst teachers? That is right - in our current system there is no financial incentive for teachers to perform well. They will never be rewarded for it monetarily.
Also, teachers have the lowest firing rate of any other occupation in America. In other words, the people we hold responsible for the critical job of educating our children - are the least disciplined people in America for poor performance.

[Flip]...here's a nickel kid...go buy some gum to entertain yourself.

Keep your nickel.
Possibly because, unlike other professions, teachers aren't really there for the money. When our principal was out of the building it was business as usual.
How many other professions are like that when the boss is away?

pretty much all of them.

have a cookie and stfu

 

[blimpo]

Sorry - I thought I was speaking to someone familiar with how schools work...obviously I am not. So I won't waste anymore time.
But I will leave you with this...you say 2nd class citizens? Are you aware that school administrators cannot pay outstanding teachers one dime more than the schools worst teachers? That is right - in our current system there is no financial incentive for teachers to perform well. They will never be rewarded for it monetarily.
Also, teachers have the lowest firing rate of any other occupation in America. In other words, the people we hold responsible for the critical job of educating our children - are the least disciplined people in America for poor performance.

[Flip]...here's a nickel kid...go buy some gum to entertain yourself.

Keep your nickel.
Possibly because, unlike other professions, teachers aren't really there for the money. When our principal was out of the building it was business as usual.
How many other professions are like that when the boss is away?

pretty much all of them.

have a cookie and stfu

What planet are you on Janet?

Can't handle reality huh?

And you can stick your stupid letters where the sun don't shine. Don't you have summer reading to do before you start the 6th grade?

 

[PoliticalChic]

Administrations of schools are top-heavy, teachers are not part of that. We basically have enough staff to barely get by.
Actual cases in point:
My average class size last year was 28 students (room had 30 desks). We were 3 books short.
I had special ed kids in 2 classes where no aide was available for the class.
All Health classes that had special ed kids had NO aides at all. Tests had to be given only when an aide could slip free for 15 minutes or so to read the tests to them and the tests had to be very brief.
Those are facts.
We also had a special ed kid that required an aide to be with him all day (IEP required it).

As much as I like to fight with you, this:
"Administrations of schools are top-heavy, teachers are not part of that."
...is an analysis that I hear more often from teachers than any other.
And what follows is a truth about the system....that teachers, for the most part, want to do a good job...no, a great job, but get very little help from a CYA educrat administration that will regularly take the side of misbehaving students, and look to find the teacher at fault for every problem.

And, it makes sense, that is the analysis does, from a human nature perspective. Administrators have 'fled' or 'escaped' the classroom, and don't want any taint to put them back.

Of course, the second greatest complaint from teachers is discipline....
....and I would like to see a protocol that removes such problems from their class...to another class...then to another school....then to a 'special school.'

The rule should be that the obligation to educate is, first, to the class, and second, to the individual student.

 

[del]

Keep your nickel.
Possibly because, unlike other professions, teachers aren't really there for the money. When our principal was out of the building it was business as usual.
How many other professions are like that when the boss is away?

pretty much all of them.

have a cookie and stfu

What planet are you on Janet?

Can't handle reality huh?

And you can stick your stupid letters where the sun don't shine. Don't you have summer reading to do before you start the 6th grade?

so you're position is that only teachers do their jobs when the boss isn't around?



gmafb, tubby, that dog won't hunt

try again