With Market Rates Unaffordable, Oakland Turns To Building Teacher-Only Affordable Housing

David_42

Registered Democrat.
Aug 9, 2015
3,616
833
245
Can't wait how people blame teachers for this one..
With Market Rates Unaffordable, Oakland Turns To Building Teacher-Only Affordable Housing
When the Oakland school year began Monday, the city’s public school system was still scores of teachers short of the number it needs. The Oakland Unified School District (OUSD) has thrown job fairs and deployed administrative employees with teaching credentials to the classroom to cover the shortfall.

But now, thanks to a twist in a city land deal that’s been years in the making, the district may have a new lure to offer potential hires: teachers-only affordable housing.

OUSD is weighing a bid to build below-market rental housing units for city teachers on a plot of land near Lake Merritt. Earlier this summer, the acre appeared to be headed destined to turn into high-end housing. But critics scuttled the deal before it could receive final city council approval, and Oakland announced it would accept new proposals for developing the land.

Converting the plot to teacher-specific housing at an affordable price could solve multiple problems at once for the district. Rents are rising faster in Oakland than almost anywhere else in the country — including neighboring San Francisco, though separating the two cities’ readings downplays the connection between San Francisco’s infamously tight real estate market and Oakland’s role as first-choice spillover city for many people who work across the bay. The 12.1 percent increase in rental costs from 2014 to 2015 is second only to Denver’s 14.2 percent hike, according to Trulia.

As rents boomed, teacher salaries didn’t keep pace. The contract approved by teachers earlier this summer includes gradual 14 percent raises, but Oakland Educational Association (OEA) members are hardly thriving. First, that 14 percent hike over three years will mostly be playing catchup to the 12 percent rent increase that’s already happened.

Second, the raise is applied to an obscenely low floor. Out of 125 major city school districts analyzed in a 2014 National Council on Teacher Quality (NCTQ) report, Oakland ranked 121st on teacher pay. After adjusting for cost of living in the various cities, the NCTQ report estimated that Oakland teachers start at just $25,713 and never earn more than $42,420 in salary. Pittsburgh, at the top of the report’s list, pays teachers a starting salary of $42,420 and allows pay as high as $106,000 a year in cost-of-living terms.

As it’s become harder and harder to live in the city on a teacher’s salary, OUSD’s teachers have been pushed outside the city where their students live. About three in four Oakland teachers lived in the city when teacher’s union president Trish Gorham started in the system 20 years ago, she told the Contra Costa Times, but now that ratio is down below 60 percent.

The pinch between pay and housing costs that Oakland’s teachers face is common around the country. For decades, teacher pay has fallen as a share of GDP per capita—indicating that society is placing a shrinking value on the profession as compared to other lines of professional work. As the rental market has tightened dramatically in recent years and the housing market has struggled, it has become very difficult to afford a place to live as a public school educator.
 
Can't wait how people blame teachers for this one..
With Market Rates Unaffordable, Oakland Turns To Building Teacher-Only Affordable Housing
When the Oakland school year began Monday, the city’s public school system was still scores of teachers short of the number it needs. The Oakland Unified School District (OUSD) has thrown job fairs and deployed administrative employees with teaching credentials to the classroom to cover the shortfall.

But now, thanks to a twist in a city land deal that’s been years in the making, the district may have a new lure to offer potential hires: teachers-only affordable housing.

OUSD is weighing a bid to build below-market rental housing units for city teachers on a plot of land near Lake Merritt. Earlier this summer, the acre appeared to be headed destined to turn into high-end housing. But critics scuttled the deal before it could receive final city council approval, and Oakland announced it would accept new proposals for developing the land.

Converting the plot to teacher-specific housing at an affordable price could solve multiple problems at once for the district. Rents are rising faster in Oakland than almost anywhere else in the country — including neighboring San Francisco, though separating the two cities’ readings downplays the connection between San Francisco’s infamously tight real estate market and Oakland’s role as first-choice spillover city for many people who work across the bay. The 12.1 percent increase in rental costs from 2014 to 2015 is second only to Denver’s 14.2 percent hike, according to Trulia.

As rents boomed, teacher salaries didn’t keep pace. The contract approved by teachers earlier this summer includes gradual 14 percent raises, but Oakland Educational Association (OEA) members are hardly thriving. First, that 14 percent hike over three years will mostly be playing catchup to the 12 percent rent increase that’s already happened.

Second, the raise is applied to an obscenely low floor. Out of 125 major city school districts analyzed in a 2014 National Council on Teacher Quality (NCTQ) report, Oakland ranked 121st on teacher pay. After adjusting for cost of living in the various cities, the NCTQ report estimated that Oakland teachers start at just $25,713 and never earn more than $42,420 in salary. Pittsburgh, at the top of the report’s list, pays teachers a starting salary of $42,420 and allows pay as high as $106,000 a year in cost-of-living terms.

As it’s become harder and harder to live in the city on a teacher’s salary, OUSD’s teachers have been pushed outside the city where their students live. About three in four Oakland teachers lived in the city when teacher’s union president Trish Gorham started in the system 20 years ago, she told the Contra Costa Times, but now that ratio is down below 60 percent.

The pinch between pay and housing costs that Oakland’s teachers face is common around the country. For decades, teacher pay has fallen as a share of GDP per capita—indicating that society is placing a shrinking value on the profession as compared to other lines of professional work. As the rental market has tightened dramatically in recent years and the housing market has struggled, it has become very difficult to afford a place to live as a public school educator.

First, you people on the left seem oblivious to math.

The city government does not have unlimited funds. You can't fund *everything* and more, and never run out of cash.

Of course the automatic answer is "Let's increase teacher pay". So who is going to pay for that? More taxes? The public doesn't want higher taxes.

So lets cut Medicaid Medicare. Oh no! Can't do that!. Let's cut food stamps or welfare. Oh no! Can't do that!.

Ok, then you can't have more teacher pay. It's called math. The magic money tree doesn't exist just because you demand more cash.

Second, I find it ironic. It seems the problem was accidentally mentioned in the article.

This is my opinion, and I have no proof... yet. But I wager the answer was in the key starting comment....

Community outrage helped scuttle the city's proposal earlier this year to sell an acre of prime Lake Merritt real estate to a developer planning to build a luxury tower.
Interesting..... So they are 'outraged' and scuttling projects to create more housing in the city.... then they are complaining about the high cost of rentals.

Anyone else see the issue? Let's limit supply of housing... then complain the price is going up?

Demand for housing is always going up, unless you have a shrinking population. Oakland doesn't.

But supply is being limited. The government is preventing developers from building more housing units.

Granted this could be an isolated incident, but I doubt it. If the "community" is 'outraged' because someone wanted to build more housing, I betcha this is a pattern. A pattern that limits supply of housing, which drastically drives up cost.

I bet you the whole problem they are trying to solve, is caused by their own bad policies.
 
Firing a teacher means the teacher also loses his or her housing. That's gonna work out real good.
 
This is a stupid plan. The solution is to give parents vouchers that they can use to pay tuition as the public or private school of their children. Then the public schools will be forced to compete with the private sector, and changes will be made.

I know that liberals are totally against this plan to reform public schools, but I have never heard them articulate a logical reason.
 
Can't wait how people blame teachers for this one..
With Market Rates Unaffordable, Oakland Turns To Building Teacher-Only Affordable Housing
When the Oakland school year began Monday, the city’s public school system was still scores of teachers short of the number it needs. The Oakland Unified School District (OUSD) has thrown job fairs and deployed administrative employees with teaching credentials to the classroom to cover the shortfall.

But now, thanks to a twist in a city land deal that’s been years in the making, the district may have a new lure to offer potential hires: teachers-only affordable housing.

OUSD is weighing a bid to build below-market rental housing units for city teachers on a plot of land near Lake Merritt. Earlier this summer, the acre appeared to be headed destined to turn into high-end housing. But critics scuttled the deal before it could receive final city council approval, and Oakland announced it would accept new proposals for developing the land.

Converting the plot to teacher-specific housing at an affordable price could solve multiple problems at once for the district. Rents are rising faster in Oakland than almost anywhere else in the country — including neighboring San Francisco, though separating the two cities’ readings downplays the connection between San Francisco’s infamously tight real estate market and Oakland’s role as first-choice spillover city for many people who work across the bay. The 12.1 percent increase in rental costs from 2014 to 2015 is second only to Denver’s 14.2 percent hike, according to Trulia.

As rents boomed, teacher salaries didn’t keep pace. The contract approved by teachers earlier this summer includes gradual 14 percent raises, but Oakland Educational Association (OEA) members are hardly thriving. First, that 14 percent hike over three years will mostly be playing catchup to the 12 percent rent increase that’s already happened.

Second, the raise is applied to an obscenely low floor. Out of 125 major city school districts analyzed in a 2014 National Council on Teacher Quality (NCTQ) report, Oakland ranked 121st on teacher pay. After adjusting for cost of living in the various cities, the NCTQ report estimated that Oakland teachers start at just $25,713 and never earn more than $42,420 in salary. Pittsburgh, at the top of the report’s list, pays teachers a starting salary of $42,420 and allows pay as high as $106,000 a year in cost-of-living terms.

As it’s become harder and harder to live in the city on a teacher’s salary, OUSD’s teachers have been pushed outside the city where their students live. About three in four Oakland teachers lived in the city when teacher’s union president Trish Gorham started in the system 20 years ago, she told the Contra Costa Times, but now that ratio is down below 60 percent.

The pinch between pay and housing costs that Oakland’s teachers face is common around the country. For decades, teacher pay has fallen as a share of GDP per capita—indicating that society is placing a shrinking value on the profession as compared to other lines of professional work. As the rental market has tightened dramatically in recent years and the housing market has struggled, it has become very difficult to afford a place to live as a public school educator.

The great plan. Make the free market unworkable and then offer a socialist solution to it.
 
Chinese drivin' up housing costs here...

The great sprawl: Chinese cash floods US housing market
Fri, Dec 04, 2015 - Chinese families are looking for a safe place to invest their money. From rural Texas to Silicon Valley, US real estate is an increasingly popular destination for their cash
Canyon Lake Ranch was once a playground for Christian day campers and then was a corporate retreat with water skiing, barbecues and cowboy shoot-’em-up shows. Hawks now circle above 43.7 sunbaked hectares occupied by copperhead snakes, a few coyotes and the occasional construction truck. Soon, this ranch will be a gated subdivision of 99 mini-mansions designed for buyers from China. The developer, Zhang Long, a Beijing businessman, is keeping three plots to build his own estate along the site of an old rodeo arena.

This luxury development 56km northwest of Dallas is the latest frontier in a global buying phenomenon as Chinese money becomes a major force in real estate around the world. The flood of money is likely to persist, despite the tumult in China. While a currency devaluation and stock market crash have crimped the country’s buying power overseas, the resulting uncertainty is making many Chinese individuals and companies eager to invest anywhere except their home country. In London, Chinese investors are purchasing high-end apartments in wealthy neighborhoods and big skyscrapers in the financial district. In Canada, they are paying US$1 million for modest Vancouver bungalows. In Australia, a Chinese sovereign wealth fund bought nine office towers, one of the biggest real-estate transactions in that nation’s history.

In the US, the home-buying spree began on the coasts, where Chinese buyers snapped up luxury condos in Manhattan and McMansions in Silicon Valley, pushing up home values in big cities. It is now spreading to the middle of the country, where prices are more modest and have room to run. The homes in Corinth, Texas, are to feature two master suites, one for the buyers, the other for aging parents. A concierge service is to help new arrivals from overseas order Internet service and pay electric bills. Chauffeurs are to ferry homeowners until they learn to navigate the loops and spurs of Texas freeways. “When Chairman Zhang saw the strength of the Texan economy, he decided it was time that the Asian community should be presented an opportunity to invest in the ‘American dream,’ marketing materials for the development read.

The great property rush is part of the tidal wave of Chinese money that is pouring into the global economy and reshaping financial markets. In residential and commercial real estate, the flow of cash is upending the traditional dynamics of buying and selling. This year, Chinese families represented for the first time the largest group of overseas homebuyers in the US. Big spenders on new homes are helping prop up local economies in the Midwest. However, in dense areas like San Francisco and Manhattan, they are also affecting the affordability and availability of housing, as demand outpaces supply and bidding wars ensue.

MORE
 
Chinese drivin' up housing costs here...

The great sprawl: Chinese cash floods US housing market
Fri, Dec 04, 2015 - Chinese families are looking for a safe place to invest their money. From rural Texas to Silicon Valley, US real estate is an increasingly popular destination for their cash
Canyon Lake Ranch was once a playground for Christian day campers and then was a corporate retreat with water skiing, barbecues and cowboy shoot-’em-up shows. Hawks now circle above 43.7 sunbaked hectares occupied by copperhead snakes, a few coyotes and the occasional construction truck. Soon, this ranch will be a gated subdivision of 99 mini-mansions designed for buyers from China. The developer, Zhang Long, a Beijing businessman, is keeping three plots to build his own estate along the site of an old rodeo arena.

This luxury development 56km northwest of Dallas is the latest frontier in a global buying phenomenon as Chinese money becomes a major force in real estate around the world. The flood of money is likely to persist, despite the tumult in China. While a currency devaluation and stock market crash have crimped the country’s buying power overseas, the resulting uncertainty is making many Chinese individuals and companies eager to invest anywhere except their home country. In London, Chinese investors are purchasing high-end apartments in wealthy neighborhoods and big skyscrapers in the financial district. In Canada, they are paying US$1 million for modest Vancouver bungalows. In Australia, a Chinese sovereign wealth fund bought nine office towers, one of the biggest real-estate transactions in that nation’s history.

In the US, the home-buying spree began on the coasts, where Chinese buyers snapped up luxury condos in Manhattan and McMansions in Silicon Valley, pushing up home values in big cities. It is now spreading to the middle of the country, where prices are more modest and have room to run. The homes in Corinth, Texas, are to feature two master suites, one for the buyers, the other for aging parents. A concierge service is to help new arrivals from overseas order Internet service and pay electric bills. Chauffeurs are to ferry homeowners until they learn to navigate the loops and spurs of Texas freeways. “When Chairman Zhang saw the strength of the Texan economy, he decided it was time that the Asian community should be presented an opportunity to invest in the ‘American dream,’ marketing materials for the development read.

The great property rush is part of the tidal wave of Chinese money that is pouring into the global economy and reshaping financial markets. In residential and commercial real estate, the flow of cash is upending the traditional dynamics of buying and selling. This year, Chinese families represented for the first time the largest group of overseas homebuyers in the US. Big spenders on new homes are helping prop up local economies in the Midwest. However, in dense areas like San Francisco and Manhattan, they are also affecting the affordability and availability of housing, as demand outpaces supply and bidding wars ensue.

MORE

This is going to happen. And it's not necessarily bad.

Remember that the primary wealth that most people have, outside of 401K and IRAs, and second to a money losing asset (namely automobiles), is their homes.

And remember also, that the only value..... the ONLY value that a home has, is what people are willing to pay for your home (the demand for housing). More people willing to buy your home, is the only reason your home becomes more valuable over time.

So more Chinese willing to buy homes, is not inherently bad.

However, as your article correctly says, if the price drives up too high, it prevents new people from getting homes. That's entirely true.

What your article does not account for, is local policies that drive up housing costs. Namely building height restrictions, minimum lot sizes, and "green space" laws.

These local, and state level laws, drive up the cost of housing in those markets. This is why in states like Texas, and Cities like LA can have median prices of half a million, and Columbus Ohio, has prices in the $90,000.

If Chinese money was to blame, then it would effect everywhere. Rather, it is these local laws and ordinances that cause the biggest rise in price.

That isn't to say Chinese money does not contribute to a rise in prices, just like the guy down the street, the newly married couple, the house flipper who wants to fix it up and resell it, the developer that wants to tear it down and build an apartment building there, or even the elderly couple that wants to buy their retirement home.

All of them contribute to housing prices going up, equally as much.

The spikes in prices we see in specific areas, is due more to local laws.
 
Can't wait how people blame teachers for this one..
With Market Rates Unaffordable, Oakland Turns To Building Teacher-Only Affordable Housing
When the Oakland school year began Monday, the city’s public school system was still scores of teachers short of the number it needs. The Oakland Unified School District (OUSD) has thrown job fairs and deployed administrative employees with teaching credentials to the classroom to cover the shortfall.

But now, thanks to a twist in a city land deal that’s been years in the making, the district may have a new lure to offer potential hires: teachers-only affordable housing.

OUSD is weighing a bid to build below-market rental housing units for city teachers on a plot of land near Lake Merritt. Earlier this summer, the acre appeared to be headed destined to turn into high-end housing. But critics scuttled the deal before it could receive final city council approval, and Oakland announced it would accept new proposals for developing the land.

Converting the plot to teacher-specific housing at an affordable price could solve multiple problems at once for the district. Rents are rising faster in Oakland than almost anywhere else in the country — including neighboring San Francisco, though separating the two cities’ readings downplays the connection between San Francisco’s infamously tight real estate market and Oakland’s role as first-choice spillover city for many people who work across the bay. The 12.1 percent increase in rental costs from 2014 to 2015 is second only to Denver’s 14.2 percent hike, according to Trulia.

As rents boomed, teacher salaries didn’t keep pace. The contract approved by teachers earlier this summer includes gradual 14 percent raises, but Oakland Educational Association (OEA) members are hardly thriving. First, that 14 percent hike over three years will mostly be playing catchup to the 12 percent rent increase that’s already happened.

Second, the raise is applied to an obscenely low floor. Out of 125 major city school districts analyzed in a 2014 National Council on Teacher Quality (NCTQ) report, Oakland ranked 121st on teacher pay. After adjusting for cost of living in the various cities, the NCTQ report estimated that Oakland teachers start at just $25,713 and never earn more than $42,420 in salary. Pittsburgh, at the top of the report’s list, pays teachers a starting salary of $42,420 and allows pay as high as $106,000 a year in cost-of-living terms.

As it’s become harder and harder to live in the city on a teacher’s salary, OUSD’s teachers have been pushed outside the city where their students live. About three in four Oakland teachers lived in the city when teacher’s union president Trish Gorham started in the system 20 years ago, she told the Contra Costa Times, but now that ratio is down below 60 percent.

The pinch between pay and housing costs that Oakland’s teachers face is common around the country. For decades, teacher pay has fallen as a share of GDP per capita—indicating that society is placing a shrinking value on the profession as compared to other lines of professional work. As the rental market has tightened dramatically in recent years and the housing market has struggled, it has become very difficult to afford a place to live as a public school educator.

Let's just take a giant step backward a hundred years. That's what they used to do in rural communities and transportation was rough at best. They put up one room housing where teachers, usually single women, could live. That was how they'd attract teachers. Now areas are so developed, transportation isn't an issue, teachers are paid well for nine months' work doled out over twelve, teaching assistants, tenure, retirement, and they still want subsidized housing? Kids today can self educate with the Internet. Teachers are quickly making themselves obsolete. Hurray!!!
 
A whole acre, how many housing units with parking can you get on a single acre? An acre is about 210 feet square. Sounds like pork to placate the NEA to me.
 
A whole acre, how many housing units with parking can you get on a single acre? An acre is about 210 feet square. Sounds like pork to placate the NEA to me.

What is the reason they are having trouble finding teachers? Will the offer of a cheap home make up for large classes with ten different languages being spoken by students?
 
When tenured teachers and a HUGE big fat layer of pork aka non-teaching administrators gobble up the lions share of taxpayer school funding this leaves fuck all to pay new teachers, which is why new teachers are paid shit wages and can't afford housing.
 
Really bad idea.

If you need to pay them more then do it. Using accounting tricks like this is asinine.

Yeah, just pay them more. Pretty easy when you are not the one directly footing the bill. This is the problem with Americans today. This is the only reason the democrats ever win any election anywhere at any time. You all just assume someone else is going to pay the bill, and that it won't be you.
 
This is a stupid plan. The solution is to give parents vouchers that they can use to pay tuition as the public or private school of their children. Then the public schools will be forced to compete with the private sector, and changes will be made.

I know that liberals are totally against this plan to reform public schools, but I have never heard them articulate a logical reason.

Ah, the old vouchers argument that has failed in every instance where it has been tried! Bravo!

Vouchers are nothing but a way to take money from public education to subsidize the private school educations of rich kids who do not want to attend schools with poor students or students of color.
 
This is a stupid plan. The solution is to give parents vouchers that they can use to pay tuition as the public or private school of their children. Then the public schools will be forced to compete with the private sector, and changes will be made.

I know that liberals are totally against this plan to reform public schools, but I have never heard them articulate a logical reason.

Ah, the old vouchers argument that has failed in every instance where it has been tried! Bravo!

Vouchers are nothing but a way to take money from public education to subsidize the private school educations of rich kids who do not want to attend schools with poor students or students of color.

Yeah, and that's what we should do. Public schools are out performed by private schools constantly and consistently. And contrary to claiming it doesn't work, there are numerous examples where it has worked.

The Beautiful Tree: A Personal Journey Into How the World's Poorest People Are Educating Themselves: James Tooley: 9781933995922: Amazon.com: Books

The Beautiful Tree
By James Tooley, details school choice systems around the world, where public 'free' education is routinely out done by private schools in even the absolute poorest places in the world.

Public education in America is a disaster. Money SHOULD be taken away from public schools and given to better schools.

Only in moron brain damage left-tard land, do we punish success and reward failure. How about we reward success, and punish failure.... crazy concept huh? Obviously public is SO terrible, that this basic concept is hard to grasp.
 
This is a stupid plan. The solution is to give parents vouchers that they can use to pay tuition as the public or private school of their children. Then the public schools will be forced to compete with the private sector, and changes will be made.

I know that liberals are totally against this plan to reform public schools, but I have never heard them articulate a logical reason.

Ah, the old vouchers argument that has failed in every instance where it has been tried! Bravo!

Vouchers are nothing but a way to take money from public education to subsidize the private school educations of rich kids who do not want to attend schools with poor students or students of color.

Yeah, and that's what we should do. Public schools are out performed by private schools constantly and consistently. And contrary to claiming it doesn't work, there are numerous examples where it has worked.

The Beautiful Tree: A Personal Journey Into How the World's Poorest People Are Educating Themselves: James Tooley: 9781933995922: Amazon.com: Books

The Beautiful Tree
By James Tooley, details school choice systems around the world, where public 'free' education is routinely out done by private schools in even the absolute poorest places in the world.

Public education in America is a disaster. Money SHOULD be taken away from public schools and given to better schools.

Only in moron brain damage left-tard land, do we punish success and reward failure. How about we reward success, and punish failure.... crazy concept huh? Obviously public is SO terrible, that this basic concept is hard to grasp.

You really should educate yourself on this topic before pontificating. Comparing schools systems in the US to any others is always an apples to watermelon comparison. there are no other countries with our unique demographics so all comparisons are bogus.

Also, since private schools get to select their students, can kick out disciplinary problems, do not have to handle handicapped or learning disabled students, I would damn sure hope they got better results! See how your comparison falls apart at the slightest touch?

I am a conservative, but the one thing I cannot stand is for the talk-radio informed education bashers that love to talk out of theirbacksides on this topic. I have been both a classroom teacher and administrator. and I can tell you that you are unfortunately clueless when it comes to public education.

I honestly wish those of you who bash public education would spend a little time shadowing a teacher or principal at your local schools so you can see what you would not see in any private school.
 
This is a stupid plan. The solution is to give parents vouchers that they can use to pay tuition as the public or private school of their children. Then the public schools will be forced to compete with the private sector, and changes will be made.

I know that liberals are totally against this plan to reform public schools, but I have never heard them articulate a logical reason.

Ah, the old vouchers argument that has failed in every instance where it has been tried! Bravo!

Vouchers are nothing but a way to take money from public education to subsidize the private school educations of rich kids who do not want to attend schools with poor students or students of color.

Yeah, and that's what we should do. Public schools are out performed by private schools constantly and consistently. And contrary to claiming it doesn't work, there are numerous examples where it has worked.

The Beautiful Tree: A Personal Journey Into How the World's Poorest People Are Educating Themselves: James Tooley: 9781933995922: Amazon.com: Books

The Beautiful Tree
By James Tooley, details school choice systems around the world, where public 'free' education is routinely out done by private schools in even the absolute poorest places in the world.

Public education in America is a disaster. Money SHOULD be taken away from public schools and given to better schools.

Only in moron brain damage left-tard land, do we punish success and reward failure. How about we reward success, and punish failure.... crazy concept huh? Obviously public is SO terrible, that this basic concept is hard to grasp.

You really should educate yourself on this topic before pontificating. Comparing schools systems in the US to any others is always an apples to watermelon comparison. there are no other countries with our unique demographics so all comparisons are bogus.

Also, since private schools get to select their students, can kick out disciplinary problems, do not have to handle handicapped or learning disabled students, I would damn sure hope they got better results! See how your comparison falls apart at the slightest touch?

I am a conservative, but the one thing I cannot stand is for the talk-radio informed education bashers that love to talk out of theirbacksides on this topic. I have been both a classroom teacher and administrator. and I can tell you that you are unfortunately clueless when it comes to public education.

I honestly wish those of you who bash public education would spend a little time shadowing a teacher or principal at your local schools so you can see what you would not see in any private school.
Aha. A member of the educational establishment speaks up. Of course plying the party line for all its worth.
Let me guess: your solutions involve smaller class size, better teacher training, and higher pay for teachers.
 

New Topics

Forum List

Back
Top