why are professors and teachers so liberal?

[jon_forward]

she did not try to spank him..just keep him after school for something I did. I BROKE one of HER rules....HAHAHAHA... 42 years old and when I walk into that school the kids KNEW something was up...they parted like the red sea did for moses...Also had a rule at this school that homework would last no longer then 45 minutes a night. yea right...more like 2-3 hrs...I went off on that problem tooo.. they said that if it was a problem why didnt the students say anything.. FEAR...DUH.. if they were keeping my son after for something I did what would they do if he fucked up? At the end of the one sided little pep talk his math teacher tried to act as reinforcements..did not work..told him his taxi ride was waiting to haul his lazy ass 4 blocks to the bar..he left.. DUI 1 year before..damn drunk, I think he took his lunch at the bar...If all the schools are like this one we are doomed...fire em all and start over..start with the 200K Supers on down..

 

[montyfowler]

Originally posted by Bry
Monty, you demand that schools meet established standards or be shut down, as if schools were businesses. You expect them to produce well educated and disciplined children from completely raw material, and you seem to expect them to do this without help from parents and community. My guess is you're going to be shutting down alot of schools.

With this voucher thing, am I to understand that you think it is a good idea that the education you receive should be in proportion to the money your parents earn? Nice vicious circle that would create.

Don't stifle an inquisitive mind? I'm not sure what that's supposed to mean in the context of thirty unruly kids in a small room (if it's not a trailer parked in back of the main building) for an hour, but If I'm the teacher, I'll probably spend more time trying to get attention and solve disputes than answering to your child's inquisitiveness.

What job do you know of that has these kinds of demands, plus your added resume requirements, that rewards all of $20,000 a year? My guess is there are an awful lot of teachers with a tendency toward charity work.

I wish public schools were run like businesses instead of NPO's. If it don't work it ought to be fixed. Right?

I never said parents are absolved of their responsiblity to actively participate in their child's education. Every parent has a duty to not only know what is going on in school, but to take a daily active role in helping their child with home work, activities, and sports. Many schools do not encourage or reinforce this behavior because they fail to communicate properly with parents. A meeting with the teacher once per academic quarter is not effective communication.

I don't know what voucher program you're talking about... But the one I am in favor of is quite simple. You take the total school district budget, divide it by the number of students, and give each family that amount of money, per student, to spend at the school of their choice, public or private. You would see a dramatic improvement in education almost immediately, as the market would determine which schools stay and which ones go. If competition works for our economy, why not education?

Every school that has a special needs program should also have a gifted or advanced placement program. Let's stop the feel-good lowest common denominator madness.

I don't know one teacher who makes $20,000 per year. The average salary in our school district is $52,455.00. Teachers with a masters degree start at $41,400.00. Besides, if a teacher came to the job with practical experience rather than just theoretical knowledge, the market would adjust accordingly and they would be paid what they are worth.

And if I hear another teacher whine about how hard it is to teach kids these days...blah...blah...blah. Grow a pair and show the kids who is boss. Kids are no different today than they were 100 years ago. Yet none ever blew up a school on Little House on the Prairie! Did they?

If you think teaching is tough, try running a company, or fighting a fire, or arresting a jackoff whacked out on crystal-meth, or driving a backhoe, or working at Burger King. Give me a friggin' break...

 

[Said1]

I'm not a teacher, but I do care for 6 children (including my daughter), ranging from ages 3-6. I'm lucky, I work from home, and I can choose the activities I want to do each day. The most difficult part of my job is dealing with parents. Most of the time I wind up doing extra work with them, or introducing things like holding a pen, and identifying shapes, because they are behind for their ages. I know this is largely a part of my job, but there have been situations where there was serious developmental and behavioral problems stemming from the parents. I have one child right now, who has eaten almost nothing for two months because he is afraid he will choke (he choked on a candy over the holidays). It's gotten so bad he won't eat anything he has to chew. It's affecting his health, his behavior, and of course he's lost a lot of weight. I've told his mother that this is SERIOUS, the family support worker where I work has told her, yet she still does nothing. He's almost 5, he can hardly talk, his mother still uses a harness when she takes him outside and blah,blah, blah, I think you get the point. It takes more than teachers to teach children, some of it MUST come from home.

There have been some good ideas past back and forth on this post. My daughter starting grade one next year, I'm sure I'll need all the ideas I can get.

And John_Forward, don't you hate when your childs teacher acts as though you're a student. You are supposed to be their for a discussion not a lecture.

 

[Bry]

Schools fail to communicate properly with parents, or vice versa? In my house, my mother made a point of being involved. The teacher? She sees an average of 150 different students a day. To top that off, she's got to deal with 300 assholes who think their children are god's gift to mankind just like you?

vouchers. so the public schools would be paid for by the voucher while the private schools would cost what, double? triple? more? We already have a severely unbalanced system in which the quality of the public school system is dramatically different depending on the median income of the locality. You, apparently would like to add to that disparity. Meanwhile, you're shutting down the schools that don't make muster, where do those kids then go? This is not the free market, this is a situation in which the education of all children must be accounted for.

I don't disagree with you that as much as is possible, gifted students should receive different attention. That costs more money.

You live in Chicago. You should know that's the richest school dictrict in the country. Congratulations, you're one of the few that pay your teachers a living wage. Where I come from, the teachers don't make half the numbers you're quoting. And where I come from, they don't hire teachers with Masters, nevermind doctorates, because those teachers you have to pay more and there just isn't enough money to go around. The market will pay accordingly for teachers with practical experience? (practical experience relative to teaching geometry?!? the only experience a highschool teacher needs is with teaching highshool. period.) You must be alluding to your new cool privatized education where rich kids can pay teachers with doctorates. Oh yeah, that already exists. It's called private school. Why is it that you people seem to think that the answer to everything is the market economy? This paradigm is not adequate to every circumstance!

You have clearly never been a teacher, and I seriously doubt if you've ever fought a fire or arrested someone on chrystal meth. As for running a corporation, there's more than one person around here convinced that corporate workers are next in line to Christ. Forgive me if I find that supposition suspect.

 

[Said1]

Originally posted by montyfowler
If you think teaching is tough, try running a company, or fighting a fire, or arresting a jackoff whacked out on crystal-meth, or driving a backhoe, or working at Burger King. Give me a friggin' break...

I liked a lot of what you had to say until I read that. I think some teachers finish school with certain ideas of what teaching will be like, only to find it is not as easy or fun as they may have expected. These people need to get the hell out of the profession. It is hard to teach, or should I say motivate students of any age. I feel first and foremost, that it's the teachers job to motivate children to learn. Motivating people is one of the hardest things in the world to do, and it's makes all the difference between a good teacher and a bad one.

 

[montyfowler]

Originally posted by Bry
You have clearly never been a teacher, and I seriously doubt if you've ever fought a fire or arrested someone on chrystal meth. As for running a corporation, there's more than one person around here convinced that corporate workers are next in line to Christ. Forgive me if I find that supposition suspect.

First of all, your argument is the same tired old status quo argument I have heard for years. "Well, it's really tough out here...if we only made more money we could teach your kids better." Get real.

Everywhere vouchers have been tried, they work. Plain and simple. The only thing holding back a nationwide voucher plan is the Teacher's Unions and there sick desire to maintain their powerbase.

Competition is good whether it is applied to economics, sports, health care, evolution, or education. The results speak for themselves.

And no, I have never been a teacher. But I have been a soldier, a police officer, a network engineer, a business owner, and a missionary. In each of those roles I used the excellent education I received from the Sister of St. Francis and the Jesuits. My mother scraped and saved to pay the tuition to send me to the best school she could afford, and I do the same for my children. I pay over $8,000 per year for private school and it is worth every penny.

Imagine what public schools would look like if you had mechanical engineers, and business people, and tradesmen, and medical professionals spend a couple of years teaching. The kids would connect with the subjects because the teachers could actually show them how they can use what they are being taught. Most geometry teachers cannont even give concrete, real world examples of how the subject they teach every day is used to help someone do their job. Instead we reward teachers by giving them jobs for life via tenure programs. How does that ensure that they keep current and change with the times?

In the end, as long as their are entrenched power structures involved with the public education of our children, things will change very little.

 

[nbdysfu]

originally posted by Montyfowler
Most geometry teachers cannont even give concrete, real world examples of how the subject they teach every day is used to help someone do their job.
__________ ___________

This rings so true. The english professors at my school were good, but my math professor used the last half semester of junior year teaching probability with card games and allusions to the lottery, and my chem teacher spent an entire lecture period one year telling us how to make crack with a school laboratory setup. The rest of the time he wasted half the class talking about his Ebay exploits.

 

[Bry]

Monty,

I'll give it a shot. How 'bout you offer some evidence of the superior functioning of vouchers, and we'll have a look. Keep in mind that I want evidence regarding all of the students in the school system, not just the rich kids. And I don't just want schools that perform better with vouchers + a good bit on top, which I would take as an indication that what is realy lacking in the current system is more money.

My favourite teacher in high school taught history. He was hard, didn't hand out easy grades, and he made us think. Teachers like him are rare. Most of us are lucky if we can think of two or three really memorable teachers in our entire public school career, and he was without question one of mine. He delivered pizzas in the evenings to make ends meet, and a year after I graduated, he left to start a small business.

The teacher's union does what teachers unions should do. They protect the teachers jobs and fight for their rights. They also frequently serve to distribute information on new styles of pedagogy.

Did I have some bad teachers? You bet. I also recognize that whenever I applied myself I learned and performed at a very high level. And when I didn't, I didn't . The teacher was more or less irrelevant to my success, as long as they presented the necessary information. There is much to be said for good teachers, but good teachers are rare, and nothing you can tell me will convince me that the fact that someone has experience as an engineer is an indication that he or she might be a good teacher. Good teachers are simply no substitute for good students, and that is something that good parents produce.

Competition is good whether it is applied to economics, sports, health care, evolution, or education. The results speak for themselves.

To put it simply, this statement is wrong in addition to being unsupported. Economics removed from social responsibility IS competition. Same with sports. Of course, even in economics, we have corporate wellfare, and the government is found bailing out enormous corporations that have trouble competing. Teaching and health care have little to do with competition, as ALL the students must learn, and ALL the patients must be treated.

In the end, you have ignored my main argument, which is that your idea priveleges the rich and leaves the poor behind. If you want to attract a higher quality of teacher, you have to pay more, whether that means the money is distributed so that everyone benefits, or certain schools are supplemented by additional tuition, the equation is the same. People who like vouchers are those that find themselves in the middle or upper middle class who have difficulty accessing the private schools of the rich, and want to secure the same advantages for themselves, at the expense of those who have less. The only thing vouchers succeed in doing is opening access to better schools to some members of the upper and middle class, and meanwhile the best schools will still be the reserve of those that can afford it. I see you learned your Jesuit ideologies well.

 

[montyfowler]

How 'bout you offer some evidence of the superior functioning of vouchers, and we'll have a look. Keep in mind that I want evidence regarding all of the students in the school system, not just the rich kids. And I don't just want schools that perform better with vouchers + a good bit on top, which I would take as an indication that what is realy lacking in the current system is more money.

I don't understand how rich kids benefit more than poor kids in a voucher system. Every voucher system that has been tried or proposed is income neutral, and does not include a means test to determine the amount of the voucher. You simply do not know what you are talking about, or you are trying the old class warfare argument that you so vehemently denied in your last post. Here is something that might change your mind. Be sure to read all of it.

Click here to read the School Voucher Analysis by the Manhattan Institute

The teacher was more or less irrelevant to my success, as long as they presented the necessary information.

So why not get rid of all the teachers and let the kids be taught by automated multimedia presentations? Your statement is so contradictory to your argument it is laughable.

Economics removed from social responsibility IS competition. Same with sports. Of course, even in economics, we have corporate wellfare, and the government is found bailing out enormous corporations that have trouble competing. Teaching and health care have little to do with competition, as ALL the students must learn, and ALL the patients must be treated.

I have no idea what the first sentence means. Social responsibility is an important ingredient for successful competition in a capitalist model. Read some Keynes and stop talking nonsense.

Your socialist statement that "ALL students must learn" and "ALL patients must be treated" are not social imperatives supported by either our tradition or our Constitution. ALL students have the OPPORTUNITY to learn and all patients have the OPPORTUNITY to be treated in America. Whether they are successful in either is directly related to their individual capacity to COMPETE for the resource they desire. Maybe you don't want to admit it, but that is how things work in the U.S. If you crave the superiority of some other more "equitable" system, perhaps you should look at Canada, or France, or Belgium, or Russia. Tell me...which one of those countries would you like to send your kids to for an education? Which one would you like to go to for a heart transplant?

Hmmm?

 

[rtwngAvngr]

Bry, why don't you take the onus upon yourself to investigate the effectiveness of voucher programs. The evidence is there. if you could escape your narrow "teacher's union" view of the world and take just a brief sojourn into the world of actual educational effectiveness you would see it. But instead you spout the same old list of blame: from parents, to the system, to the kids.

No one here buys your schpiel.

 

[Said1]

Wouldn't poorer or less adequate schools seem less attractive to investors? What makes one school worth investing in over another?

Canadian teachers and surgeons are not hacks. Like any other system, there is need for improvements, but it's not horrible. Last trip to the emergeny room took 1/2 hour, not too bad.

 

[Johnney]

Originally posted by Said1
Wouldn't poorer or less adequate schools seem less attractive to investors? What makes one school worth investing in over another?

Canadian teachers and surgeons are not hacks. Like any other system, there is need for improvements, but it's not horrible. Last trip to the emergeny room took 1/2 hour, not too bad.

hell around here, you wait atleast that, then once they get you into a room it could take forever. i had pneumonia one time and went to the ER and it took 4 hours. talk about shit. and that was in the middle of the night!

 

[Said1]

That was an exception. 2 hours is pretty normal, sometimes more, sometimes less. I have a chronic eye infection, and I needed a percription right away. I usually go to the eye institute when my eye flares up, but being the middle of the night, I couldn't wait. On a walk in basis at the eye institute, I usually wait about an hour.

"ALL students have the OPPORTUNITY to learn and all patients have
the OPPORTUNITY to be treated in America. Whether they are successful in either is directly related to their individual capacity to COMPETE for the resource they desire."

The squeeky wheel getting the greese, so to speak.

 

[Bry]

Originally posted by montyfowler
I don't understand how rich kids benefit more than poor kids in a voucher system. Every voucher system that has been tried or proposed is income neutral, and does not include a means test to determine the amount of the voucher. You simply do not know what you are talking about, or you are trying the old class warfare argument that you so vehemently denied in your last post. Here is something that might change your mind. Be sure to read all of it.

Rich kids do have asignificant edge to begin with. As I mentioned before, the monetary support for a school system is supported by the local taxes; therefore, the higher the average income of the district, the better the quality of the education. This is born out in testing, where the best performing school districts are also the best funded. You have to pay for good teachers. With the voucher system, you get a voucher for your share of the tax base. You can then take that voucher and use it toward going to a better school, but you will probably have to pay more on top of the voucher, because better schools are better funded. That is how I understand the system, and if I'm wrong, I'll thank you for correcting me. I did not deny that there is an enormous opportunity gap between rich and poor, and you need to go back and reread if you think that's what I said.

Thank you for the link, it is an interesting study, but does not address what you said it would, namely the income neutrality. One can infer from the information, however, that the schools where vouchers were made available were disproportionately in lower income districts. However, the improvement shown by schools which suddenly had to compete was intriguing.

So why not get rid of all the teachers and let the kids be taught by automated multimedia presentations? Your statement is so contradictory to your argument it is laughable.

My statement is not contradictory to my argument. I think anyone who is motivated learns with or without good teachers. Automated multimedia presentations is not a bad idea except they don't motivate and they don't answer questions, and they don't have the broad perspective that a teacher ideally brings to the classroom. A motivated student willing to do the research for answers to their own questions can probably get just as good an education from a good library. Unfortunately, I know very few seven or even 20 year olds that are so motivated, and on average, students learn considerably better with teachers than if left to their own devices. Now, if you can point out my inconsistency, rather than telling me how laughable I am, I would appreciate it.

I have no idea what the first sentence means. Social responsibility is an important ingredient for successful competition in a capitalist model. Read some Keynes and stop talking nonsense.

Social responsibility has been a thoroughly negligible ingredient in a purely capitalist model, though that is changing in relation to consumer consciousness. (Thank Ralph Nader.) Of course, corporations pay their public relations departments top dollar to spin their conduct in pro-social ways, because some segments of society do let their patterns of consumption be affected by their perceptions of a corporation's social responsibility. Look at all the money Ikea has spent to white wash their reputation. But there is no getting around the fact that profit is the bottom line in the capitalist model. I have read some Keynes, and I wouldn't say his is the only sensical theory on the market, but I would agree with you that a good social reputation can be an important factor in maintaining profit margins.

Your socialist statement that "ALL students must learn" and "ALL patients must be treated" are not social imperatives supported by either our tradition or our Constitution. ALL students have the OPPORTUNITY to learn and all patients have the OPPORTUNITY to be treated in America. Whether they are successful in either is directly related to their individual capacity to COMPETE for the resource they desire. Maybe you don't want to admit it, but that is how things work in the U.S. If you crave the superiority of some other more "equitable" system, perhaps you should look at Canada, or France, or Belgium, or Russia. Tell me...which one of those countries would you like to send your kids to for an education? Which one would you like to go to for a heart transplant?

To my mind, they are social imperatives, and in fact there is a strong tradition that supports me. There is a plurality of traditions in the US, as much as you might like to enlist "tradition" as only supporting your conceptualization. With regard to the Constitution, we have many laws and policies which do not find their basis in the US Constitution, and to pretend that there shouldn't be seems a bit absurd. At the very least, there is nothing in the Constitution which would prohibit my ideas. Likewise, I am not interested in your condescending comments about "how things work in the US". We are discussing how we think they should work. Keep in mind that it is you who are suggesting a change in the system in this thread, and such claims about "how things work in the US" tend to support my side, not yours. Finally, to answer your questions about where I would prefer to get medical attention or an education: I live in Spain, I benefit happily from the free medical attention I am provided (to my mind, it has been vastly superior to my experience in the US), and my undergraduate degree from the US is all but useless here, as the comparable degree in Spain is far more intensive and specialized. If and when I have children, they will almost certainly go to the public schools here, and if they choose, will attend one of the free public universities.

 

[montyfowler]

I live in Spain, I benefit happily from the free medical attention I am provided (to my mind, it has been vastly superior to my experience in the US), and my undergraduate degree from the US is all but useless here, as the comparable degree in Spain is far more intensive and specialized. If and when I have children, they will almost certainly go to the public schools here, and if they choose, will attend one of the free public universities.

I will not waste another breath on an expatriate living in Spain! We can chat again when you return to the US and have a vested interest in what goes on here. Until then, enjoy your Euro paycheck and take a trip to EuroDisney. I'm sure you'll love France even more than Spain!

 

[Bry]

Originally posted by montyfowler
I will not waste another breath on an expatriate living in Spain! We can chat again when you return to the US and have a vested interest in what goes on here. Until then, enjoy your Euro paycheck and take a trip to EuroDisney. I'm sure you'll love France even more than Spain!

It's probably for the best. You were losing anyway. BTW, my vote still counts, moron.

 

[montyfowler]

You know what...on second thought I cannot let your liberal madness stand unchallenged, even if it does come from an expatriate.

Rich kids do have a significant edge to begin with. As I mentioned before, the monetary support for a school system is supported by the local taxes; therefore, the higher the average income of the district, the better the quality of the education.

You do not understand the basics of voucher programs. Let me lay it out for you. Little Jimmy lives in Snootyville where the average income is $100,000. He gets a voucher for $3,000 and he can choose to go to any school in his district. Little Benny lives in Movin' On Up Hills where the average income is $40,000 and he gets a voucher for $2,200. Little Ricardo lives in Hard Luck City where the average income is $18,000 and he gets a voucher for $2,100. You'll notice that there is a maximum $900 voucher value difference between the rich kid and the poor kid. This is because even though the average tax paid in Snootyville is many times that of Hard Luck City, there are more people in Hard Luck City, and more businesses paying taxes too. This is a simplified model of the relationship between affluent suburbs and their poorer but larger metropolitan areas. (Maybe it's different in Spain?)

Any one of these kids can use his or her voucher to go to any Public school in his district, or for the private school of their choice. Here's where it gets tricky, so pay attention! The better schools attract more kids, hence they get better funding and hence the kids get a great education. Get it! It's called competition...it's capitalism at work...it is good...don't be afraid.

Another funny thing happens when this is put into motion. Teachers make more money and tend to gravitate to the better schools. Good schools attract good teachers and everybody wins! Wow!

My statement is not contradictory to my argument. I think anyone who is motivated learns with or without good teachers. Automated multimedia presentations is not a bad idea except they don't motivate and they don't answer questions, and they don't have the broad perspective that a teacher ideally brings to the classroom. A motivated student willing to do the research for answers to their own questions can probably get just as good an education from a good library. Unfortunately, I know very few seven or even 20 year olds that are so motivated, and on average, students learn considerably better with teachers than if left to their own devices. Now, if you can point out my inconsistency, rather than telling me how laughable I am, I would appreciate it.

Your argument was that we need great teachers for kids to learn and you were lucky enough to have one, but you could have done it on your own because you were independently motivated. That's cricular logic.

Perhaps we could agree on what a teacher ought to be, no matter what the system. Here is the Teacher's Creed from the Lyons, Kansas Unified School District:

We believe educators are given the privilege to work with the community’s most precious resource, children.

We believe all children can learn, but not on the same day or in the same way. It is our responsibility to meet the individual needs of each child.

We believe every child begins school with the motivation to learn. It is our responsibility to maintain and/or enhance this desire.

We believe it is our responsibility to communicate the relevance and importance of education.

We believe students are in the process of maturing to adulthood; therefore, it is our responsibility to model behavior consistent with district outcomes and societal beliefs.

We believe district patrons, parents, staff and students should be focused on learning, with shared responsibility in the process.

We believe student learning is our product._ We should be evaluated by the product we produce, thus the quality of our work is determined by our professional skills and the performance of our students based on the outcomes of this district.

We believe the leadership position of educators is the most important role in our society. No job touches more lives and makes a greater impact on the quality of our society than the teaching profession._ One could not ask for a better opportunity.

Social responsibility has been a thoroughly negligible ingredient in a purely capitalist model...

That statement unfairly maligns thousands upon thousands of American businesses that make huge philanthropic contributions each year. It is a typical Liberal anti-business generality that we all have come to expect from you.

To my mind, they are social imperatives, and in fact there is a strong tradition that supports me. There is a plurality of traditions in the US, as much as you might like to enlist "tradition" as only supporting your conceptualization. With regard to the Constitution, we have many laws and policies which do not find their basis in the US Constitution, and to pretend that there shouldn't be seems a bit absurd. At the very least, there is nothing in the Constitution which would prohibit my ideas.

True there is a plurality of traditions in this country. But with regard to competition (which is what we were discussing) there is only one tradition...capitalism. You will not play your revisionist mindgames here, Mister. And by the way...ALL laws find there basis in the Constitution. That is why it is the final and ultimate authority against which all laws are judged. Whenever a law is challenged in a Federal Appellate court, or ultimately in the US Supreme court, the law is always scrutinized in the light of the US Constitution. Obviously you slept through social studies class.

And you're right...there is nothing in the Constitution that would prohibit your ideas. In fact, the first amendment is dedicated solely to your right to express any idea you like. Did anyone in Spain die for your right to free speech? Just wondering...

 

[jon_forward]

I believe under the voucher system that good schools will be overran with students...chaos would rein..you dont need competation between schools...you need cooperation between them...capitalism belongs[and stays] in business...smaller classes, more teachers..better books...schools used to be about teaching the kids. now its about how much money they can squeeze from the various governments...if you ran a business the way most schools are run, you be be broke, living on the street. If the school is not producing, say goodbye to ALL the staff and start over. after this is done a few times the teachers will figure it out.

 

[montyfowler]

Originally posted by jon_forward
I believe under the voucher system that good schools will be overran with students...chaos would rein..you dont need competation between schools...you need cooperation between them...capitalism belongs[and stays] in business...smaller classes, more teachers..better books...schools used to be about teaching the kids. now its about how much money they can squeeze from the various governments...if you ran a business the way most schools are run, you be be broke, living on the street. If the school is not producing, say goodbye to ALL the staff and start over. after this is done a few times the teachers will figure it out.

Yes! You get it...

The good schools would be overrun...just like a company that makes a superior product. It is the basic law of supply and demand. If competition via vouches was tried across the country you would see a rapid improvement in results. The good schools would attract more kids, hence more money, and the best teachers would vie for jobs at those schools. Once filled to capacity, these schools would either expand or create new schools based on the same winning formula, just like a company expands its' operation when the market demands it.

 

[Johnney]

but how would that work. in my area, which is about 175 miles from yours, they are cutting school budgets left and right