NEA: Obama looks for "New Ways" to "Punish" Teachers...

[Samson]

Because employment is controlled by the necessity of mickey mouse teaching certificates and teachers' unions. That constitutes an economic cartel, which artificially inflates prices, in this case wages.

The proof is in looking at private schools, which are not bound to hire only those with certificates or union membership. Wages are much lower there and quality is much higher.

We've already established that teacher unions are not a factor in every state, yet there are public schools in Texas and NC. Keep beating that horse, but I'll not redress it.

I will conceed, even though you have no proof, that teachers in private schools make less than teachers in public schools. But this doesn't really support the argument that public school teachers are paid too much, rather, it supports the arguement that private school teachers are paid too little.

Quality is MUCH HIGHER in private schools: Probably a subject for another thread, but frankly I don't see how you could prove this since there's no yardstick that measures private education. i will conceed that SOME private schools are probably better than SOME public schools, but then, you could just as easily compare different public schools on this basis.

Go ahead and cherry pick.
Do TX and NC not require teaching certificates for employment in public schools?
How do you explain the fact that teachers in private schools, on your own admission, are both better and paid less? That would seem to be a contradiction, right? Is not the only difference between them either union membership or teaching credential required or both?

Cherry pick?

Well, excuse me for not generalising more to support your patently untrue contention that ALL teachers belong to unions and their pay is based on false markets.

Also, I conceeded that private schools generally pay less than public schools.

I did not conceed that the quality of teaching in private schools is generally better.

However, let's simply adress your contention that somehow, teacher licensing/certification creates a false market.

I assume that your theory goes something like this:

1. Teaching Jobs are only available to those with arbitrary certification, that is really meaningless
2. Certification makes me more employable than any Joe Schmow
3. Therefore, I demand to be paid whatever I feel the certificate is worth.
4. My demand will be more than private industry would pay me.

Is this about how your theory of overpaid teachers goes?

 

[The Rabbi]

We've already established that teacher unions are not a factor in every state, yet there are public schools in Texas and NC. Keep beating that horse, but I'll not redress it.

I will conceed, even though you have no proof, that teachers in private schools make less than teachers in public schools. But this doesn't really support the argument that public school teachers are paid too much, rather, it supports the arguement that private school teachers are paid too little.

Quality is MUCH HIGHER in private schools: Probably a subject for another thread, but frankly I don't see how you could prove this since there's no yardstick that measures private education. i will conceed that SOME private schools are probably better than SOME public schools, but then, you could just as easily compare different public schools on this basis.

Go ahead and cherry pick.
Do TX and NC not require teaching certificates for employment in public schools?
How do you explain the fact that teachers in private schools, on your own admission, are both better and paid less? That would seem to be a contradiction, right? Is not the only difference between them either union membership or teaching credential required or both?

Cherry pick?

Well, excuse me for not generalising more to support your patently untrue contention that ALL teachers belong to unions and their pay is based on false markets.

Also, I conceeded that private schools generally pay less than public schools.

I did not conceed that the quality of teaching in private schools is generally better.

However, let's simply adress your contention that somehow, teacher licensing/certification creates a false market.

I assume that your theory goes something like this:

1. Teaching Jobs are only available to those with arbitrary certification, that is really meaningless
2. Certification makes me more employable than any Joe Schmow
3. Therefore, I demand to be paid whatever I feel the certificate is worth.
4. My demand will be more than private industry would pay me.

Is this about how your theory of overpaid teachers goes?

Not even close.
Again you cherry pick, attributing to me the position that only teachers' unions are responsible for artificially high wages.
The theory is more like:
1) Teaching in public schools is dependent on teaching certification.
2) Necessity of a certificate serves to reduce the number of qualified teachers.
3) Such reduction in supply increases the price, or wage, or teachers.

The proof is that private schools, which do not have such a check on supply, pay less even while they attract better candidates.
Please feel free to show that
a) Teaching in public schools does not require certification.
b) That adding requirements will not reduce the number of people available for a particular job
c) That limiting supply does not raise prices

 

[Samson]

The proof is that private schools, which do not have such a check on supply, pay less even while they attract better candidates.
Please feel free to show that
a) Teaching in public schools does not require certification.
b) That adding requirements will not reduce the number of people available for a particular job
c) That limiting supply does not raise prices

First, let's eliminate the little myth you seem fixated on: Private Schools don't attract better teachers. In fact, both public and almost all private schools require certification (although private schools are not mandated to follow this).

Adding the certification requirement does reduce the employment pool.

Limiting the supply of apples will increase their value to cider manufacturers, but limiting the supply of pecans might not. You are trying to apply a rather general economic model to what most people feel is a highly specialized job :

The Teaching Certificate is Not just
1. an Unjustifiable, Arbitrary Obsticle to Market Entry,
2. that keeps all sorts of qualified people out of teaching,
3. who would no doubt be ready to work at a lower salary (exemplified by the lower salaries in private schools).

In fact, the reality is that in some states certification is fairly simple

 

[The Rabbi]

I see you're more interested in pushing your little agenda than engaging in the truth. So you cherry pick again, failing to mention that private school teachers get less pay. That they are also better teachers you simply deny.
And you deny the reality of teacher certification as a device to limit entrants to the field.
OK. There is no arguing with someone who has that mindset.
Have a good 'un.

 

[beowolfe]

This fucking shit is fucking bullshit if you fucking ask me, motherfucker!

Imagine how much it would suck to know that you, as a teacher, are trying to do everything possible to teach your students and to get them interested in learning, but that the kids are only interested in texting, sexting, fucking, and drugs, and that their parents couldn't care less about what they do...and because you are spending day in and day out babysitting these fucking piece of shit teen rejects who fail the standardized tests miserably, you end up losing your job.

Fuck it ALL!!!

So, you're for as long as they work hard, they should keep their jobs. Even if their hard work is uneffective. Interesting. I guess it's a good thing that standard of yours isn't applied across the economy.

 

[FrankieGA]

Hear is a thought,

It starts at home right? Not Always, but these days with the dual income families and less time at home for families to spend teaching and learning at home. It has been slowly but surely shifted to be the schools problem to discipline and make sure the kids are doing their homework, etc... I agree that Teachers are very often over burdened in their jobs and many regret even becoming a teacher in some cases. But if Parents would spend a little time making sure their kids are learning and reading and doing homework, it might just give the kids the push in the right direction.

And what about the "Voucher" system that was introduced years ago. Why could something like that not work in this country. If there is going to be a public school system, lets let schools fight for students. Better students will mean higher scores, more students, and even better pay for Teachers.

Fact is this is a two way street that needs to be addressed. There are multiple problems facing the educational system in this country that has severly fallen behind of where it once used to be.

 

[The Rabbi]

Vocuher program? You mean like the one Obama has gutted in DC?
Obama Offers D.C. Voucher Program Extension for Existing Students | 44 | washingtonpost.com

 

[FrankieGA]

Wow Eye opening article, thanks for the post.

So Obama is so worried about the kids, he guts the program, because the NEA says its a threat to the D.C. Public School System. These kids got an opportunity to leave their poverty stricken homes with a chance of going to a good school and it was taken away from them. Wow, those Dems have a huge heart? or a huge wallet to fill!!

 

[The Rabbi]

Democrats dont give a rat's ass about kids in failing schools. They are the biggest hypocrites on the planet.

 

[Samson]

Hear is a thought,

It starts at home right? Not Always, but these days with the dual income families and less time at home for families to spend teaching and learning at home. It has been slowly but surely shifted to be the schools problem to discipline and make sure the kids are doing their homework, etc... I agree that Teachers are very often over burdened in their jobs and many regret even becoming a teacher in some cases. But if Parents would spend a little time making sure their kids are learning and reading and doing homework, it might just give the kids the push in the right direction.

And what about the "Voucher" system that was introduced years ago. Why could something like that not work in this country. If there is going to be a public school system, lets let schools fight for students. Better students will mean higher scores, more students, and even better pay for Teachers.

Fact is this is a two way street that needs to be addressed. There are multiple problems facing the educational system in this country that has severly fallen behind of where it once used to be.

"Starting at home" is meaningless, and has nothing to do with NCLB, Obama Admin's revision of NCLB, or the NEA's proposals. Nothing can force parents to be "good parents."

Vouchers only work when there are alternatives: I.E. all the schools are near each other. Of course, having the alternative to go to one school in a blighted urban area, or another school in the same area isn't really an alternative. And if your school is the only one in the rural county, then there is no alternative.

Why not simply allow kids to enroll in any school that they wish? Forgettabout the vouchers. Then, all the homes that employ drivers, or can afford to have a stay-at-home-mom/dad will be able to transport their kids anywhere.

 

[The Rabbi]

So because this solution will only help some people but not all people it is no good. As for the people it will help, like those in the article I linked, fuck 'em.
Because the Democrats are the Plutocratic Party of Fuck You.

 

[hyakku]

Wow Eye opening article, thanks for the post.

So Obama is so worried about the kids, he guts the program, because the NEA says its a threat to the D.C. Public School System. These kids got an opportunity to leave their poverty stricken homes with a chance of going to a good school and it was taken away from them. Wow, those Dems have a huge heart? or a huge wallet to fill!!

Ok. I don't know if we just read the same article, but that article said he is going to EXTEND the funding for the current students. Before this legislation it was set to by subject to reauthorization by Congress, a congress that does not support it.

If what the article says is true, he's guaranteeing the funding for the kids currently enrolled and must battle a DEMOCRATIC congress to continue supporting a gradual phase out rather than an abrupt one.

The end of the article implies that this is an issue the Obama administration disagrees with, as they are seeking to EXTEND them without question.

 

[FrankieGA]

Look I live in a rural area, and quite frankly the schools are great, Mainly because we the parents stay actively involved with the school and our kids. Maybe if the PARENTS took an interest in their kids a little more in other parts of the country then maybe the problem would start to get resolved. And so lets just say, "Oh you can't change parents" and throw our hands up in the air? Again, instead of making anyone accountable for their actions we just as soon create more Government to try and "Help" the people out. Maybe if we educated our children more than turning a blind eye, there wouldn't be so many Young Parents out there that don't have a clue.

And I agree with Rabbi, Just because it won't help everyone you can't do it? Thats a load of bullshit....

 

[The Rabbi]

Originally the adminsitration was going to cut the entire program, including those already enrolled.
Then public backlash set in and they backed off, compromising by allowing kids already in it to finish school under the program. But they would not extend it to new students, despite evidence that the program worked. Why not? Because the unions opposed it as it made them look bad.

 

[FrankieGA]

"Obama must now convince Democratic lawmakers to endorse a gradual phase out by continuing to include grant funding in future appropriation bills."

He wants to gradually phase it out....

Then he has to "Battle" Congress to try and get it refunded....

 

[Samson]

Wow Eye opening article, thanks for the post.

So Obama is so worried about the kids, he guts the program, because the NEA says its a threat to the D.C. Public School System. These kids got an opportunity to leave their poverty stricken homes with a chance of going to a good school and it was taken away from them. Wow, those Dems have a huge heart? or a huge wallet to fill!!

Ok. I don't know if we just read the same article, but that article said he is going to EXTEND the funding for the current students. Before this legislation it was set to by subject to reauthorization by Congress, a congress that does not support it.

If what the article says is true, he's guaranteeing the funding for the kids currently enrolled and must battle a DEMOCRATIC congress to continue supporting a gradual phase out rather than an abrupt one.

The end of the article implies that this is an issue the Obama administration disagrees with, as they are seeking to EXTEND them without question.

You got it right:

The voucher program was created in 2003 and is a Republican favorite, .... But liberal education groups, including the National Education Association, have argued that the experimental program is poorly administered and that voucher recipients have not performed measurably better in their new schools.

The Department of Education recently issued a three-year analysis of student achievement under the program that showed limited gains in reading and no significant progress in math. .....

But the White House concluded that moving the children back to public schools amounted to an unnecessary disruption.

A. Repubs started it
B. It doesn't work
C. Obama is not "gutting" anything

 

[The Rabbi]

If the program is so bad why do the parents universally support it?
No, you got the real reason they are opposed: Republicans started it and unions are opposed to it.

 

[Samson]

But they would not extend it to new students, despite evidence that the program worked.

What "evidence" that the program worked? Your own linky says DOE found the difference was negligable at best.

Is this the same invisible evidence you have for believeing that private school teachers are better than public school teachers?

 

[Samson]

If the program is so bad why do the parents universally support it?
No, you got the real reason they are opposed: Republicans started it and unions are opposed to it.

Parents didn't wanna change schools AGAIN.

Had nothing to do with better learning, and everything to do with simple convenience.

 

[The Rabbi]

If the program is so bad why do the parents universally support it?
No, you got the real reason they are opposed: Republicans started it and unions are opposed to it.

Parents didn't wanna change schools AGAIN.

Had nothing to do with better learning, and everything to do with simple convenience.

You asked every parent involved and found that out?

Is this similar to your earthshattering discovery that restricting supply has no effect on price? You need a Nobel Prize for that. Even if the only thing you did was have good intentions.