Free market principles demand that the way to impr. education is to pay teachers more

[gekaap]

You want a 'free market' in education?

Then the actual cost of educating children goes directly on the parents, at market value. You buy your kids' education the same way you would buy any good or service.

Rich or poor you pay the same amount, or you go without.

And those without children?? They don't pay anything.

Now who wants that?

And so you're saying that free market principles magically stop applying if the government is funding them? That's awfully bad news for those manufacturers who are competing for defense contracts.

 

[gekaap]

Flunked economics 101 or just read too many Soros/Huffington blogs?

Come back when you have some substance to contribute.

 

[Charles_Main]

Free market principles demand that the way to impr. education is to pay teachers more

You premise is completely flawed and shows your massive ignorance of Free Market Principles.

Free market principles say paying teachers according to their performance is the way to improve Education. Not giving Teachers Tenure and paying them all the same despite their performances.

Do a good job get paid more. That my friend is the way of the free market. There is no Free Market rule that says simply paying people more will make them do a better job, in fact the exact opposite is the case. If you do not do a good job the Free market says you deserve less than the good teachers.

Free market Principles say let Private Schools compete with Public Schools by giving Vouchers so not just the Rich can afford private schools. Make Schools compete for Students. That is how you Improve Education in this country.

You no Nothing of the Free market it seems.

 

[Oddball]

Second, as has already been said many times and you continue to ignore, the tax payers are already represented at the negotiation table by government officials.

Many of whom get elected by pandering to gubmint bureaucrats and taking their campaign donations....Some representation of the taxpayer.

Out in the real world, we call this arrangement collusion, anti-trust, corruption and rigging the game.

How many times does that need to spelled out for you?

 

[Oddball]

America does have some of the most abundant and most affordable of life's necessities in the world.

That IS a non sequitor.

Left to the free market, education would be no different.

That is an unfounded assumption.



What are you talking about now? What does this have to do with the price of tea in China, or the fact that according to free market principles the solution to too few quality people in the teaching profession is to offer better compensation?

and transition from a policy of prohibition to that of legalized alcohol?...We just did it and moved forward, that's how.

So what you're saying is that we should just give the teachers more money, and move on?

Oh, and we never really transitioned from prohibition to legalization, because we never really transitioned from legalization to prohibition.

As for the model, you could use that of Ford, McDonald's, Wal-Mart, Sears, you name it...Why is it you seem to need a giant centralized plan (most likely from the people responsible from screwing the whole thing up in the first place) before you'd act to ameliorate the situation?

What?

You wanted real world examples....That you deny them or they fly over your head is your problem.

 

[gekaap]

Free market principles say paying teachers according to their performance is the way to improve Education. Not giving Teachers Tenure and paying them all the same despite their performances. Do a good job get paid more. That my friend is the way of the free market. There is no Free Market rule that says simply paying people more will make them do a better job, in fact the exact opposite is the case. If you do not do a good job the Free market says you deserve less than the good teachers.

So you're suggesting that the free market only can operate when pay is handed out on a commission basis?

Free market Principles say let Private Schools compete with Public Schools by giving Vouchers so not just the Rich can afford private schools. Make Schools compete for Students. That is how you Improve Education in this country.

Private schools already compete for students. Suggesting otherwise is just silly. A voucher program will not do anything to create or change that competition. All it would do is dump government funds into private business. I thought that was a no, no for the conservative bend? Isn't that how prices rise through the roof? Isn't that supposedly why health care costs so much? If private schools want more students then they should adjust their tuition rates lower to attract more students. That's the free market way.

You no Nothing of the Free market it seems.

It seems to me that you have a specifically tailored notion of how you want free markets to work, regardless of whether or not it does happen that way.

 

[gekaap]

Out in the real world, we call this arrangement collusion, anti-trust, corruption and rigging the game.

How many times does that need to spelled out for you?

What, you don't like how your elected officials are elected? Well, I don't know what to tell you then. Maybe write your legislators to express your desire to see election reform. It might take a constitutional convention, though, in order to bring about the changes you want. If that fails there are several other nice countries that might elect their officials in a way you're more inclined to like.

 

[Oddball]

I get it...You're being dense on purpose.

Duly noted.

 

[Liability]

Good teacher educates his (or her) class very well.

Poor teacher does a shitty job of it.

Contracts require that both get pretty much the same raise.

Good teacher gets no reward for doing job better than poor teacher.

Now good teacher happens to be younger and a more recent graduate of the teaching mills. And the economy kinda blows. So in an effort to permit the local taxpayers to keep their own homes, the local gubmint allocates a smaller share of the tax revenues to the school district. Damnitall, some teachers have got to go. Nobody wants them to go, but go they must.

How does the school board determine which teachers gotta get the heave ho? Will it be based on merit? If so, the cheaper younger BETTER "good" teacher stays! Praise be to Allah, the children will be hurt less. Or will it be based on seniority? If the latter, the more expensive, older, worse educator stays and the better teacher gets the heave ho. Praise be to Allah, the unions have preserved a higher paying job at the expense of the children!

Free market "analysis" doesn't work in a non-free non-market.

Remember, public service union teachers in Wisconsin say "Fuck you!" to the children!

 

[Avorysuds]

Good teacher educates his (or her) class very well.

Poor teacher does a shitty job of it.

Contracts require that both get pretty much the same raise.

Good teacher gets no reward for doing job better than poor teacher.

Now good teacher happens to be younger and a more recent graduate of the teaching mills. And the economy kinda blows. So in an effort to permit the local taxpayers to keep their own homes, the local gubmint allocates a smaller share of the tax revenues to the school district. Damnitall, some teachers have got to go. Nobody wants them to go, but go they must.

How does the school board determine which teachers gotta get the heave ho? Will it be based on merit? If so, the cheaper younger BETTER "good" teacher stays! Praise be to Allah, the children will be hurt less. Or will it be based on seniority? If the latter, the more expensive, older, worse educator stays and the better teacher gets the heave ho. Praise be to Allah, the unions have preserved a higher paying job at the expense of the children!

Free market "analysis" doesn't work in a non-free non-market.

Remember, public service union teachers in Wisconsin say "Fuck you!" to the children!

QFT.

And this is where the debate gets lost... We see a rapid shift away from what really matters and what the debate is really about to trying to win political points. In the case of WI Walker (who I don't know for shit) is doing the best thing for future education of children while the Union has eroded education and symatainstly getting themselves and politicians rich... It's that simple, no more, no less...

The only other factor is that the state can no longer afford the corruption. But outside of being able to afford it or not it’s the children that suffer under the current system.

 

[rdean]

As a general rule, don't cite anything Texas when discussing education, unless you're prepared to use the phrase "extraordinarily bad" several times.

The truth is, Texas is a "huge" state right there in the middle of the country. They are a good barometer for what the right wing is thinking and for right wing positions. Bush was from Texas. And their Republican Party State Platform spells out the Republican Position probably better than any other state platform.

http://static.texastribune.org/media/documents/FINAL_2010_STATE_REPUBLICAN_PARTY_PLATFORM.pdf

I believe the Bush(s) are from Connecticut....He also graduated from Yale and the Harvard business school...hardly typical of Texas...lol. I don't claim him.

Actually, Bush's grade average was C minus. It was one of his many scandals when it became known his father pulled strings to get Boy George jumped over thousands more qualified who even had the money to pay. This is called "Affirmative Action", but the right only hates it when it's applied to poor people. The rich and connected get a "pass" because they must be "better". John McCain graduated 5th from the bottom out of a graduating class of 899. He too benefited from "dad's" and "granddad's" connections and wealth.

This is the reason Bush fit right in with the Texas elite. They share intellect and morals. Bush's entire business career is one of "bankruptcy" and "dishonesty" and "investigation". And he carried those morals and values shared, obviously, with the majority of the Confederate Conservative Republican Party, into the presidency. Leaving the country broke, the super rich, super, super rich and creating devastation everywhere he turned his "special" attention.

Miss me yet?

 

[Flopper]

If you have a shortage of people filling a given job field....

If you have too many people in the field performing at sub par....

If you cannot attract better skilled and qualified people....

The free market approach is to offer more highly skilled people a better salary than they will find elsewhere, so that they will want to do the job you are asking them. So why do so many conservatives so often complain about teachers being paid too much?

I think the bigger question here is why Democrats like to add thousands of government jobs when we already have a debt. It doesn't take an idiot to do the math. When a restaurant owner can't afford to pay more waitresses, he doesn't hire them. The government should not create more government jobs when there is no way to pay them....ESPCIALLY since we have a 14 trillion dollar debt.

There is a problem in your comparison. The restaurant owner does not have unlimited credit and can not create money. The government can. So the government can expand, limited only by Congress. This is a very powerful and useful tool if used correctly. The government can always afford to spend more than it collects in taxes but of course there is a price to pay in the form of inflation and eventually higher interest on the debt.

We will never pay off that 14 trillion dollar debt and there is no need to do so. However, deficits should be limited to national emergencies and there lies the problem. Some see the deterioration of the education system as an emergency. Some saw Iraq and Afghanistan as an emergency. Others saw the recession as an emergency. The only way to control the deficit is a balanced budget amendment.

 

[gekaap]

There is a problem in your comparison. The restaurant owner does not have unlimited credit and can not create money. The government can. So the government can expand, limited only by Congress. This is a very powerful and useful tool if used correctly. The government can always afford to spend more than it collects in taxes but of course there is a price to pay in the form of inflation and eventually higher interest on the debt.

We will never pay off that 14 trillion dollar debt and there is no need to do so. However, deficits should be limited to national emergencies and there lies the problem. Some see the deterioration of the education system as an emergency. Some saw Iraq and Afghanistan as an emergency. Others saw the recession as an emergency. The only way to control the deficit is a balanced budget amendment.

What a steaming pile of bile. I feel dirty for just reading it.

 

[Flopper]

In the case of teacher's unions, the "shareholder" is the taxpayer, who never gets a seat at the negotiating table.

Really? The taxpayer doesn't vote for the school board involved in negotiations? The taxpayer doesn't pay for school bonds? Teachers aren't taxpayers themselves?

Voting for the school board is like voting for president. The guy that seemed like a good choice gets power hungry. In a community, teachers are outnumbered in relation to the population of the community. The majority of voting taxpayers (at least in our area) tend to vote for board members who are going to appease the parents of the school. The teachers tend to want to vote for the board member who is going to do things right for the school and back up the teachers....however, they tend to get out voted.

My school contract I signed when I became a teacher pretty much said, (paraphrasing) "You are an educator with said district and we can make you teach any subject and make you do any job we wish." Administrations are figuring out how to write contracts to best support them and not the teacher.

Let's not forget Superintendents. From what I've seen in the last few years, Superintendents have gotten it figured out. They are staying at a school for a couple of years, pissing everyone off, then being "run off" by the community. HOWEVER, they leave before their contract is up and usually negotiate two to three more years of Salary from the schoo. The next year they get a job at another school and pull the same crap. Our former superintendent was run off from a previous school (our board was retarded to hire her). She was working for us and still getting full salary from the previous school. She was here a couple of years and got run off from our district. She got 2 more years of salary. So, now she's working at another school and now getting 3 salaries from three different schools. I have talked to people in other districts and their having the same problem.

Anyway, that's my rant.

School board positions are entry level positions in the world of political office. I would say half those who run have little interest in the schools. It's just a place to start their political career.

 

[Samson]

Really? The taxpayer doesn't vote for the school board involved in negotiations? The taxpayer doesn't pay for school bonds? Teachers aren't taxpayers themselves?

Voting for the school board is like voting for president. The guy that seemed like a good choice gets power hungry. In a community, teachers are outnumbered in relation to the population of the community. The majority of voting taxpayers (at least in our area) tend to vote for board members who are going to appease the parents of the school. The teachers tend to want to vote for the board member who is going to do things right for the school and back up the teachers....however, they tend to get out voted.

My school contract I signed when I became a teacher pretty much said, (paraphrasing) "You are an educator with said district and we can make you teach any subject and make you do any job we wish." Administrations are figuring out how to write contracts to best support them and not the teacher.

Let's not forget Superintendents. From what I've seen in the last few years, Superintendents have gotten it figured out. They are staying at a school for a couple of years, pissing everyone off, then being "run off" by the community. HOWEVER, they leave before their contract is up and usually negotiate two to three more years of Salary from the schoo. The next year they get a job at another school and pull the same crap. Our former superintendent was run off from a previous school (our board was retarded to hire her). She was working for us and still getting full salary from the previous school. She was here a couple of years and got run off from our district. She got 2 more years of salary. So, now she's working at another school and now getting 3 salaries from three different schools. I have talked to people in other districts and their having the same problem.

Anyway, that's my rant.

School board positions are entry level positions in the world of political office. I would say half those who run have little interest in the schools. It's just a place to start their political career.

I understand that Obama was Chairman of a Chicago Elementary School's PTA from 2002-2003.

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

If you have a shortage of people filling a given job field....

If you have too many people in the field performing at sub par....

If you cannot attract better skilled and qualified people....

The free market approach is to offer more highly skilled people a better salary than they will find elsewhere, so that they will want to do the job you are asking them. So why do so many conservatives so often complain about teachers being paid too much?

Uhm.. no. You really need an econ primer.

 

[gekaap]

Thanks for adding some substance to the discussion.

 

[Oddball]

The substance was in #2...You haven't the vaguest idea of what you're babbling about.

 

[Samson]

Damnitall, some teachers have got to go. Nobody wants them to go, but go they must.

Indeed, but where?

IMHO, if public schools are as fucked-up as Obama, et al. believes, then why can't teachers open successful private schools?

 

[Flopper]

Good teacher educates his (or her) class very well.

Poor teacher does a shitty job of it.

Contracts require that both get pretty much the same raise.

Good teacher gets no reward for doing job better than poor teacher.

Now good teacher happens to be younger and a more recent graduate of the teaching mills. And the economy kinda blows. So in an effort to permit the local taxpayers to keep their own homes, the local gubmint allocates a smaller share of the tax revenues to the school district. Damnitall, some teachers have got to go. Nobody wants them to go, but go they must.

How does the school board determine which teachers gotta get the heave ho? Will it be based on merit? If so, the cheaper younger BETTER "good" teacher stays! Praise be to Allah, the children will be hurt less. Or will it be based on seniority? If the latter, the more expensive, older, worse educator stays and the better teacher gets the heave ho. Praise be to Allah, the unions have preserved a higher paying job at the expense of the children!

Free market "analysis" doesn't work in a non-free non-market.

Remember, public service union teachers in Wisconsin say "Fuck you!" to the children!

Most states have tenure laws. Once a teacher makes it through the first few years they will have tenure. Tenured teachers can be fired for a number of reasons, but it's rare. Most districts will rid themselves or teachers that are bad employees in the first year or so. A tenured teacher who just can't teach, is often transfered, sometimes to a district level non-teaching position, other times to a position that no other teacher will accept in hopes of moving them on.