Why teachers need more pay

[Unkotare]

If anything, the trend is toward colleges weighing the SAT or ACT less than in previous years. The GPA is right there on the transcript. Colleges look at it.

...You got to be smart to graduate from a great college. ..

Wrong again. No surprise yet again you have no idea what you are talking about.

 

[sealybobo]

How do you know that most teachers don't teach because they "love kids and love teaching"? How do you know most do it simply for the paycheck?

Where are your stats or your surveys on this...or are you just making crap up?

Is there anything wrong with doing your job for nothing but your paycheck only? It may be easier if you also like your job, but you don't have to, you just have to do it and do it to an acceptable quality.

And these are all supposedly conservative republican teachers.

Until it comes to their collective bargaining power and job protections. Most of the teachers I know don’t like being treated like an employee who could lose their job if the school doesn’t want them there anymore. For whatever reason.

Welcome to the world the rest of us live in. We have no job security, no pensions, no collective bargaining and we can and do get fired. Teachers have to do something horrible to be fired. Tenure

The problem goes back to taxation. Teacher tenures are possible because all their monies are from your tax. And you are not legally allowed to stop paying your taxes to them. And if you dare propose a tax reduction for next year, then they threaten you with closing their kindergarten services, slashing 10 % down the sales value of your property. A vicious circle. Any ideas how to break it?

Tenure protects teachers from being fired for personal, political, or other non-work related reasons. Before tenure, teachers could be dismissed when a new political party took power or a principal wanted to make room to hire his friends.

The common complain about tenure is that it's difficult to fire poor performing teachers. That's true but my experience has been that all but the smallest school districts have ways of handling poor performing teachers. Really bad teachers are often the result of a wrong choice of career. Offering a non-instruction job sometimes works. In most districts if a principal wants get rid of you they can. There are always ways, transfers, rotations, and special jobs.

Having a situation in which districts fire teachers to lower taxes is a sure route to poorer educational performance.

Here is an example of how tenure works exactly like you said. In Florida, I was teacher for 8 years, had tenure and belonged to the union. When I received my Master's degree in Educational Leadership, my principal selected me to fill a vacant Assistant Principal role. About three months later, the principal's father passed away leaving him a $9 million estate, so he retired. The district hired a new principal to start the next school year who was pregnant with twins and had just recovered from a difficult pregnancy the year before that nearly killed her. She missed the vast majority of the school year, and we ran the school very well in her absence. When she finally returned, with about three months to go in the school year, she became very jealous of my reputation for enforcing discipline in the school with our district superiors.

Towards the end of school, I received an email from the district with the opportunities for promotion for the next school year. Guess whose name was on it as leaving? Me!

She didn't even have the guts to tell me that my contract was not being renewed. Later that afternoon, she sent me an email telling me I was no longer going to have a job there. She sent an email! She never spoke to me again the remainder of the school year and I worked until the end of June. The coop de grace was that she hired her best friend who was an administrator in a another school to take my place.

That is the kind of crap that teachers who do not have tenure still have to tolerate today!

The good news is that the remained of the staff saw what she did to me and she was removed at the end of the following school year.

Don’t you vote for republicans? Right to work means right to fire you for any reason. Welcome to our world in the private sector.

You didn’t have tenure if they were allowed to fire you. Was there cause? Something you’re not telling us? What did the union say?

 

[sealybobo]

...most colleges look at SAT and ACT scores, rather than your GPA. ...

WRONG.

...

When I myself went to college, they never once looked at my GPA in high school. ....

Yes they did.

No, they did not. I asked. Said I only needed a diploma. Which I had. I know this because my GPA was horrendous. I was a terrible student. I was worried that my exceptionally low GPA would keep me out of college. They didn't care. They said they didn't care. They wanted to know my SAT scores.

When I went to college many years ago, the only thing you needed for admission to the state university was a high school diploma. I can assure you that is not the case today. However, admission to most community colleges only requires a diploma. If you're willing to pay enough money in tuition or willing to go to one of the worst 4 year schools in the country, they'll take you with a 2.0 or maybe even lower.

However, if you plan on using your degree to help you get a good job, you need go to at least a fairly well recognized school and not a degree mill or you may find you just wasted your money.

That now depends on the hr manager looking at your resume. I was an enrollment counselor for University of Phoenix. There is no lower university in the minds of the masses. But it’s an accredited university and regionally accredited. No reason to think it’s not a good school. Employers only look up to see if the school is accredited. If it is you should be ok.

But a Fortune 500 won’t hire a guy who gets a masters at University of Phoenix. They go to places like university of Michigan and Michigan state to recruit.

But, someone who works at a Fortune 500 on the line might go to University of Phoenix if the employer is paying and advancing people with higher educations.

It’s a great school if you already work and want to move up at your company.

 

[sealybobo]

Colleges DO look at GPA, among all other criteria.

Yea and most will take someone with a 2.5 average.

And you must admit a private school B is an A at your public school right?

 

[sealybobo]

Well the issue is, the teachers unions speak for teachers.... You can say "they don't speak for me!" but the fact is, the teachers unions stand up in the media and attack Republicans.

Additionally, the teachers unions do in fact, defend bad teachers. It just is true. The rubber rooms of New York are a perfect example. There is actually a documentary on "The Rubber Room".
Amazon.com: Watch Rubber Room | Prime Video

And lastly, the universal fix for all things school related, by both teachers and teachers unions... is more money.

They never have any other fix. I have never once heard a teacher say "We need to eliminate bad students", or "we need to change how we educate!"... or anything. It's always "we need more money". And we now have the most expensive education system in the world, and things are worse now than ever before.

Yet the fix is still the same... "We need more money! We need to pay teachers more!".

So naturally right-wingers and conservatives, and Republicans, don't like the teachers, and teachers unions.

Worse, every time Conservatives, Republicans, and right-leaning people come up with a helpful solution, the teachers and teachers unions start screaming and oppose it.

Charter schools and private schools, are better than public schools. There is no question. They use less money, and have better educational outcomes. Yet the teachers and teachers unions, have opposed this at every single turn.

They would rather doom kids to crappy education, at drug infested, chaos driven schools.... than have parents able to get a better education for their kids, at schools not controlled by the teachers unions or government.

So, yeah.... there is some real hatred and disdain for public school teachers and their unions.

I'm with you on the unions. I'm sure they started out by being helpful; by helping teachers not live by ridiculous rules and etc. But now they're a political apparatus. I don't belong to mine, which is....contentious, you might say. But there it is.

You're just wrong that we think the solution is always more money. We do talk about these things.

Secondly, part of the reason private and (some) charter schools do well is they do not take on behavior, emotional, or learning disabled children. They self-select only the best. Listen, if the public schools could do that, you'd better believe we'd do better. That and their parents are all motivated.

I'm not opposed to vouchers, but you best believe if the private schools accept them, they ALSO have to accept a cross section of children. If they accept tax dollars, they must accept taxpayers children...ALL of them. And then we will see what happens to their scores.

I'm not going to argue with your experience. I'm just saying that I personally have not heard teachers give any other answer. Which is true. I personally have never heard a teacher say anything other than... more money.

So if you have some solutions, I'd love to hear it. What solutions have teachers given?

Secondly, part of the reason private and (some) charter schools do well is they do not take on behavior, emotional, or learning disabled children. They self-select only the best. Listen, if the public schools could do that, you'd better believe we'd do better. That and their parents are all motivated.

Well yeah. Of course. What is your point? You do realize that Finland does this? Most of Europe, does this. Students that are crap, are kicked out. Thus they do better at educating.

Whether are you are a top end teacher, mid-level, or low-level teacher..... you will be able to teach better, if problem-kids are removed. This is why in Japan, students that don't make the cut, do not move up. High end schools, don't take non-high-end students. If you can't make the scores needed to go to top high-school, or college... then you simply don't go. You either stay in that school until you qualify, or you drop out.

So yes! Exactly! Private schools do better because they don't take problem kids. Kids are there to learn, not there to cause problems and distract all the kids trying to learn.

Additionally, it is absolutely true that people who have to pay for the education of their children, are motivated to see that they are getting their monies worth. Yeah, exactly. Which is entirely why public schools should be eliminated. People do not respect stuff, that they pay nothing for, and believe they are entitled to.

I'm not opposed to vouchers, but you best believe if the private schools accept them, they ALSO have to accept a cross section of children. If they accept tax dollars, they must accept taxpayers children...ALL of them. And then we will see what happens to their scores.

No, of course not. The whole "no child left behind", is the very reason we have a failing system.

So no, the entire point... the WHOLE THING.... is to get away from the regulations and rules, that is causing our system to fail.

There is nothing more stupid, than to drag the same bad rules and regulations, that caused the old system to fail, and apply it to a new system, and then be shocked it fails too.

The whole point... is to get away from the bad system.

Then this is simple: do not compare foreign, private, or charter schools to public schools.

That makes no sense. The job of a public school is to educate. The job of a private or charter school is to educate. Why would we not compare?

You have two systems. One sucks. One works. Should you not compare the two to see what differences between the systems, cause what outcomes?

Are you saying that we should not compare the US public school system to any other school system on the planet? Because nearly all other school systems, kick out bad students, like private and charter schools.

That sounds like a method of avoiding the flaws in the system, in order to maintain a bad system.

In short, you are basically saying exactly what I claimed teachers and teachers unions have been saying.
Is that unfair? Why would you say that otherwise? Other than to maintain a terrible system?

If I am misreading your post, feel free to correct me.

Do you need me to explain this to you?

It's like a car company bragging about how the average top speed of their vehicles is 150 mph. Okay, says the Other Company, but they're all luxury cars. We make mopeds. Throw some of those in. But the first company says, we don't make mopeds, we only make luxury cars and won't take mopeds.

Then you can't compare them, can you? If the first company made mopeds, the average speed would go DOWN. But they don't. So they brag about their speed outcomes. Exactly as you have said---just get rid of the bad performers and magically, you're a top performing school.

This is not difficult.

So we pay public school teachers more because they are dealing with the masses instead of good kids from good parents who are paying to educate their kids rather than send them to public schools.

Why are we ignoring the opinion of all the best citizens in our country? They are all makers not takers. If public schools were just as good they wouldn’t be spending all that money.

 

[sealybobo]

Public schools are good for average people like me but why pay teachers more to educate dummies like me? Shouldn’t it be the other way around?

If we broke the unions and collective bargaining public school teachers would be complaining about the $50k they make rather than the $70k they make now.

The answer is not more money

 

[anotherlife]

I think you have convinced me. Centralization is always bad, I must agree. What I am trying to solve is the problem of the dependency of property prices on schools. Teacher unions can shut down public schools easily and drive property investments down, which is the weapon they use. The reason why public sector unions flourish when every other union fails is that they have your taxes in their pockets. How can we stop them then? They will play one school district against the other.

...

I’d like to have school free cities for people who don’t have kids.

Your dream of homosexual segregation isn’t very practical, Giovanni.

Look up the states that collect the least to pay for schools. I could move to one of those states but then I’d be in a red state.

Yes, and you would get a better education too. I hear also that the best US universities are now there. Too bad, too many democrat scum bags are now moving into the red states to save their money, not realizing that it is their own democrat idiocy that will turn the red state blue and make them lose their savings like they never moved to begin with. Same affliction as the Honduras gang bangers climbing across the wall and bringing Honduras with them. How safe are red states?

Sorry but MSU and uom are two great universities in the USA.

You’d have to post a link showing the best schools are in red states. I don’t buy that at all.

The advantage you may have is you don’t have ghettos. Ever think of that?

That is an important advantage indeed.

 

[Andylusion]

aa

Well the issue is, the teachers unions speak for teachers.... You can say "they don't speak for me!" but the fact is, the teachers unions stand up in the media and attack Republicans.

Additionally, the teachers unions do in fact, defend bad teachers. It just is true. The rubber rooms of New York are a perfect example. There is actually a documentary on "The Rubber Room".
Amazon.com: Watch Rubber Room | Prime Video

And lastly, the universal fix for all things school related, by both teachers and teachers unions... is more money.

They never have any other fix. I have never once heard a teacher say "We need to eliminate bad students", or "we need to change how we educate!"... or anything. It's always "we need more money". And we now have the most expensive education system in the world, and things are worse now than ever before.

Yet the fix is still the same... "We need more money! We need to pay teachers more!".

So naturally right-wingers and conservatives, and Republicans, don't like the teachers, and teachers unions.

Worse, every time Conservatives, Republicans, and right-leaning people come up with a helpful solution, the teachers and teachers unions start screaming and oppose it.

Charter schools and private schools, are better than public schools. There is no question. They use less money, and have better educational outcomes. Yet the teachers and teachers unions, have opposed this at every single turn.

They would rather doom kids to crappy education, at drug infested, chaos driven schools.... than have parents able to get a better education for their kids, at schools not controlled by the teachers unions or government.

So, yeah.... there is some real hatred and disdain for public school teachers and their unions.

I'm with you on the unions. I'm sure they started out by being helpful; by helping teachers not live by ridiculous rules and etc. But now they're a political apparatus. I don't belong to mine, which is....contentious, you might say. But there it is.

You're just wrong that we think the solution is always more money. We do talk about these things.

Secondly, part of the reason private and (some) charter schools do well is they do not take on behavior, emotional, or learning disabled children. They self-select only the best. Listen, if the public schools could do that, you'd better believe we'd do better. That and their parents are all motivated.

I'm not opposed to vouchers, but you best believe if the private schools accept them, they ALSO have to accept a cross section of children. If they accept tax dollars, they must accept taxpayers children...ALL of them. And then we will see what happens to their scores.

I'm not going to argue with your experience. I'm just saying that I personally have not heard teachers give any other answer. Which is true. I personally have never heard a teacher say anything other than... more money.

So if you have some solutions, I'd love to hear it. What solutions have teachers given?

Secondly, part of the reason private and (some) charter schools do well is they do not take on behavior, emotional, or learning disabled children. They self-select only the best. Listen, if the public schools could do that, you'd better believe we'd do better. That and their parents are all motivated.

Well yeah. Of course. What is your point? You do realize that Finland does this? Most of Europe, does this. Students that are crap, are kicked out. Thus they do better at educating.

Whether are you are a top end teacher, mid-level, or low-level teacher..... you will be able to teach better, if problem-kids are removed. This is why in Japan, students that don't make the cut, do not move up. High end schools, don't take non-high-end students. If you can't make the scores needed to go to top high-school, or college... then you simply don't go. You either stay in that school until you qualify, or you drop out.

So yes! Exactly! Private schools do better because they don't take problem kids. Kids are there to learn, not there to cause problems and distract all the kids trying to learn.

Additionally, it is absolutely true that people who have to pay for the education of their children, are motivated to see that they are getting their monies worth. Yeah, exactly. Which is entirely why public schools should be eliminated. People do not respect stuff, that they pay nothing for, and believe they are entitled to.

I'm not opposed to vouchers, but you best believe if the private schools accept them, they ALSO have to accept a cross section of children. If they accept tax dollars, they must accept taxpayers children...ALL of them. And then we will see what happens to their scores.

No, of course not. The whole "no child left behind", is the very reason we have a failing system.

So no, the entire point... the WHOLE THING.... is to get away from the regulations and rules, that is causing our system to fail.

There is nothing more stupid, than to drag the same bad rules and regulations, that caused the old system to fail, and apply it to a new system, and then be shocked it fails too.

The whole point... is to get away from the bad system.

Then this is simple: do not compare foreign, private, or charter schools to public schools.

That makes no sense. The job of a public school is to educate. The job of a private or charter school is to educate. Why would we not compare?

You have two systems. One sucks. One works. Should you not compare the two to see what differences between the systems, cause what outcomes?

Are you saying that we should not compare the US public school system to any other school system on the planet? Because nearly all other school systems, kick out bad students, like private and charter schools.

That sounds like a method of avoiding the flaws in the system, in order to maintain a bad system.

In short, you are basically saying exactly what I claimed teachers and teachers unions have been saying.
Is that unfair? Why would you say that otherwise? Other than to maintain a terrible system?

If I am misreading your post, feel free to correct me.

Do you need me to explain this to you?

It's like a car company bragging about how the average top speed of their vehicles is 150 mph. Okay, says the Other Company, but they're all luxury cars. We make mopeds. Throw some of those in. But the first company says, we don't make mopeds, we only make luxury cars and won't take mopeds.

Then you can't compare them, can you? If the first company made mopeds, the average speed would go DOWN. But they don't. So they brag about their speed outcomes. Exactly as you have said---just get rid of the bad performers and magically, you're a top performing school.

This is not difficult.

But the selling point of a private school, is basic education for your child. The selling point of a public school, is a basic education for your child.

ABCs, 123s.

There is no difference in the goal of the educational system. Reading, Writing, Arithmetic.

From a K-12 perspective, everyone should be able to have a 12th Grade Reading, Writing, and Arithmetic level of education, by the time they are ready for college.

Private schools, are not selling you an advanced doctorate in nuclear Engineering. They are focusing on the 3-Rs, of education.

Now I'm not talking about some elite academy somewhere, for the Einsteins of the world. I'm talking about basic private K-12 schools.

They are not selling luxury sports cars. They are selling the soccer mom Chevy.

Why should we not compare the two? I think that is vital.

Again... most of the fundamental differences between private and public schools here in the US, are also true in most of Europe. Most of Europe operates the same way private schools do in the US.

We are the only public school system, that ties our hands and feet to a terrible system, and wonders why it costs the most in the world, and has lousy educational outcomes.

Survey of 12th grade students. Year over year, the number of students that have the minimum requirements, has dropped.

Your system isn't work. Period. This is fail. It's a slow moving disaster.

Something has to change.

And the truly sad part of those stats above, is that those include test results from private and charter schools. I wager by looking at public government run schools alone, the numbers would be worse.

 

[Google_Yourself]

We should wait until teachers stop turn kids into little retarded ANTIFA members before we start paying them more.

 

[Andylusion]

Is there anything wrong with doing your job for nothing but your paycheck only? It may be easier if you also like your job, but you don't have to, you just have to do it and do it to an acceptable quality.

And these are all supposedly conservative republican teachers.

Until it comes to their collective bargaining power and job protections. Most of the teachers I know don’t like being treated like an employee who could lose their job if the school doesn’t want them there anymore. For whatever reason.

Welcome to the world the rest of us live in. We have no job security, no pensions, no collective bargaining and we can and do get fired. Teachers have to do something horrible to be fired. Tenure

The problem goes back to taxation. Teacher tenures are possible because all their monies are from your tax. And you are not legally allowed to stop paying your taxes to them. And if you dare propose a tax reduction for next year, then they threaten you with closing their kindergarten services, slashing 10 % down the sales value of your property. A vicious circle. Any ideas how to break it?

Tenure protects teachers from being fired for personal, political, or other non-work related reasons. Before tenure, teachers could be dismissed when a new political party took power or a principal wanted to make room to hire his friends.

The common complain about tenure is that it's difficult to fire poor performing teachers. That's true but my experience has been that all but the smallest school districts have ways of handling poor performing teachers. Really bad teachers are often the result of a wrong choice of career. Offering a non-instruction job sometimes works. In most districts if a principal wants get rid of you they can. There are always ways, transfers, rotations, and special jobs.

Having a situation in which districts fire teachers to lower taxes is a sure route to poorer educational performance.

Here is an example of how tenure works exactly like you said. In Florida, I was teacher for 8 years, had tenure and belonged to the union. When I received my Master's degree in Educational Leadership, my principal selected me to fill a vacant Assistant Principal role. About three months later, the principal's father passed away leaving him a $9 million estate, so he retired. The district hired a new principal to start the next school year who was pregnant with twins and had just recovered from a difficult pregnancy the year before that nearly killed her. She missed the vast majority of the school year, and we ran the school very well in her absence. When she finally returned, with about three months to go in the school year, she became very jealous of my reputation for enforcing discipline in the school with our district superiors.

Towards the end of school, I received an email from the district with the opportunities for promotion for the next school year. Guess whose name was on it as leaving? Me!

She didn't even have the guts to tell me that my contract was not being renewed. Later that afternoon, she sent me an email telling me I was no longer going to have a job there. She sent an email! She never spoke to me again the remainder of the school year and I worked until the end of June. The coop de grace was that she hired her best friend who was an administrator in a another school to take my place.

That is the kind of crap that teachers who do not have tenure still have to tolerate today!

The good news is that the remained of the staff saw what she did to me and she was removed at the end of the following school year.

There are too many admins like this in schools. They are truly horrible. The stories are legion.

Both of my parents had similar experience.

Here is what I would suggest to you:

In a free-market capitalist-based system, that is far less likely to happen.

See in a free-market capitalist based system, customers are fluid. If you do something that doesn't meet customer demands, you lose money, or worse you go out of business.

So in that situation, the owners and investors in the company, are always desperately looking for people who can succeed and make the system work.

A man like the prior would be applauded for running the school effectively, and having discipline, and so on. Because having an effective school, is how you keep customers (parents) happy to have their kids in that school, and thus bringing in profits to the owners.

But that system doesn't exist in public schools. Why? Because firing a capable and effective employee, to be replaced by an less capable 'friend', has zero effect on anything.

The parents might be able to move their kids, but not their tax money. Either way, the money still flows, no matter how competent, or incompetent the management is.

In fact, in some ways the more incompetent, the better off the schools are. I believe it was in New Jersey, if the schools performed below a certain threshold, they qualified for additional funding. Naturally after getting the additional funding, results improved.... slightly... never so much as to exceed the threshold for additional funding.

Crazy how that happened.

This of course causes a perverse incentive to do poorly, to qualify for more money. Again, a situation that is almost entirely impossible in a free-market capitalist system.

Under that system, parents remove their children from under performing schools, and place them in better performing schools. Thus money is removed from poorly performing systems, and added to well performing systems.

Giving more money for worse performance, is only something that can happen under government. And this happens routinely. Special interest demand money for a project, the project goes badly, and they lobby it wasn't enough money. So more money is given.

We saw this under Obama. Spent the largest stimulus package in US history, and when the results were trash, they said we didn't spend enough.

Point being.... it is the system that is the problem. We need to eliminate this system.

 

[Unkotare]

Is there anything wrong with doing your job for nothing but your paycheck only? It may be easier if you also like your job, but you don't have to, you just have to do it and do it to an acceptable quality.

And these are all supposedly conservative republican teachers.

Until it comes to their collective bargaining power and job protections. Most of the teachers I know don’t like being treated like an employee who could lose their job if the school doesn’t want them there anymore. For whatever reason.

Welcome to the world the rest of us live in. We have no job security, no pensions, no collective bargaining and we can and do get fired. Teachers have to do something horrible to be fired. Tenure

The problem goes back to taxation. Teacher tenures are possible because all their monies are from your tax. And you are not legally allowed to stop paying your taxes to them. And if you dare propose a tax reduction for next year, then they threaten you with closing their kindergarten services, slashing 10 % down the sales value of your property. A vicious circle. Any ideas how to break it?

Tenure protects teachers from being fired for personal, political, or other non-work related reasons. Before tenure, teachers could be dismissed when a new political party took power or a principal wanted to make room to hire his friends.

The common complain about tenure is that it's difficult to fire poor performing teachers. That's true but my experience has been that all but the smallest school districts have ways of handling poor performing teachers. Really bad teachers are often the result of a wrong choice of career. Offering a non-instruction job sometimes works. In most districts if a principal wants get rid of you they can. There are always ways, transfers, rotations, and special jobs.

Having a situation in which districts fire teachers to lower taxes is a sure route to poorer educational performance.

Here is an example of how tenure works exactly like you said. In Florida, I was teacher for 8 years, had tenure and belonged to the union. When I received my Master's degree in Educational Leadership, my principal selected me to fill a vacant Assistant Principal role. About three months later, the principal's father passed away leaving him a $9 million estate, so he retired. The district hired a new principal to start the next school year who was pregnant with twins and had just recovered from a difficult pregnancy the year before that nearly killed her. She missed the vast majority of the school year, and we ran the school very well in her absence. When she finally returned, with about three months to go in the school year, she became very jealous of my reputation for enforcing discipline in the school with our district superiors.

Towards the end of school, I received an email from the district with the opportunities for promotion for the next school year. Guess whose name was on it as leaving? Me!

She didn't even have the guts to tell me that my contract was not being renewed. Later that afternoon, she sent me an email telling me I was no longer going to have a job there. She sent an email! She never spoke to me again the remainder of the school year and I worked until the end of June. The coop de grace was that she hired her best friend who was an administrator in a another school to take my place.

That is the kind of crap that teachers who do not have tenure still have to tolerate today!

The good news is that the remained of the staff saw what she did to me and she was removed at the end of the following school year.

Don’t you vote for republicans? Right to work means right to fire you for any reason. Welcome to our world in the private sector.

You didn’t have tenure if they were allowed to fire you. Was there cause? Something you’re not telling us? What did the union say?

Ignorant

 

[Unkotare]

Colleges DO look at GPA, among all other criteria.

Yea and most will take someone with a 2.5 average.

And you must admit a private school B is an A at your public school right?

Wrong, idiot.

 

[Andylusion]

If anything, the trend is toward colleges weighing the SAT or ACT less than in previous years. The GPA is right there on the transcript. Colleges look at it.

I specifically..... SPECIFICALLY ASKED.... if my GPA was required to gain entrance.

They said.... NO. What part of this, are you unable to understand?

The part where you lie over and over again.

Why would I lie about this? For what reason?

Grades pointless? Some colleges don't care about GPAs

Parents and their high school students are fascinated by the grade point average and what it means in college admissions, but the truth is that a number of colleges and universities are not all that interested.

Admissions officers at some of the nation's most selective colleges, who are now sending acceptance letters for their fall freshman classes, say they barely look at an applicant's GPA.

"It's meaningless," says Greg Roberts, admissions dean at the University of Virginia, ranked as the top public university in this year's 150 Best Value Colleges, published by The Princeton Review and based on academics and affordability.​

So now I have on the record, direct quotes from people who work at the admissions of major universities, saying the exact same thing.

I'll ask you again.... what am I lying about, and prove it.

As I said before, I specifically asked if the college I applied at, was looking at my GPA. They said directly "no". So now, YOU are the liar.

Why do you keep lying? You know I'm right, and I have the facts to prove it. Why are you lying to everyone on this forum, this entire thread? Does that stroke your ego to claim others are lying, when you are the one lying?

You are offering a lot in defense of your arguments. Unkotare isn’t contributing. To me it seems like he’s letting you do all the talking.

A man of few words.

Totally. Unkotare usually has more to offer than this. I'm wondering if some Bernie supporters hacked his account or something. All his done this thread is "you lie! you suck! wrong!". He's less interesting than the seagulls in Finding Nemo at this point.

 

[Andylusion]

Colleges DO look at GPA, among all other criteria.

Yea and most will take someone with a 2.5 average.

And you must admit a private school B is an A at your public school right?

Wrong, idiot.

Ignored. Bye Unkotare. If you have nothing to say, then you are just a burden to the forum. Nice knowing you.

 

[sealybobo]

And these are all supposedly conservative republican teachers.

Until it comes to their collective bargaining power and job protections. Most of the teachers I know don’t like being treated like an employee who could lose their job if the school doesn’t want them there anymore. For whatever reason.

Welcome to the world the rest of us live in. We have no job security, no pensions, no collective bargaining and we can and do get fired. Teachers have to do something horrible to be fired. Tenure

The problem goes back to taxation. Teacher tenures are possible because all their monies are from your tax. And you are not legally allowed to stop paying your taxes to them. And if you dare propose a tax reduction for next year, then they threaten you with closing their kindergarten services, slashing 10 % down the sales value of your property. A vicious circle. Any ideas how to break it?

Tenure protects teachers from being fired for personal, political, or other non-work related reasons. Before tenure, teachers could be dismissed when a new political party took power or a principal wanted to make room to hire his friends.

The common complain about tenure is that it's difficult to fire poor performing teachers. That's true but my experience has been that all but the smallest school districts have ways of handling poor performing teachers. Really bad teachers are often the result of a wrong choice of career. Offering a non-instruction job sometimes works. In most districts if a principal wants get rid of you they can. There are always ways, transfers, rotations, and special jobs.

Having a situation in which districts fire teachers to lower taxes is a sure route to poorer educational performance.

Here is an example of how tenure works exactly like you said. In Florida, I was teacher for 8 years, had tenure and belonged to the union. When I received my Master's degree in Educational Leadership, my principal selected me to fill a vacant Assistant Principal role. About three months later, the principal's father passed away leaving him a $9 million estate, so he retired. The district hired a new principal to start the next school year who was pregnant with twins and had just recovered from a difficult pregnancy the year before that nearly killed her. She missed the vast majority of the school year, and we ran the school very well in her absence. When she finally returned, with about three months to go in the school year, she became very jealous of my reputation for enforcing discipline in the school with our district superiors.

Towards the end of school, I received an email from the district with the opportunities for promotion for the next school year. Guess whose name was on it as leaving? Me!

She didn't even have the guts to tell me that my contract was not being renewed. Later that afternoon, she sent me an email telling me I was no longer going to have a job there. She sent an email! She never spoke to me again the remainder of the school year and I worked until the end of June. The coop de grace was that she hired her best friend who was an administrator in a another school to take my place.

That is the kind of crap that teachers who do not have tenure still have to tolerate today!

The good news is that the remained of the staff saw what she did to me and she was removed at the end of the following school year.

There are too many admins like this in schools. They are truly horrible. The stories are legion.

Both of my parents had similar experience.

Here is what I would suggest to you:

In a free-market capitalist-based system, that is far less likely to happen.

See in a free-market capitalist based system, customers are fluid. If you do something that doesn't meet customer demands, you lose money, or worse you go out of business.

So in that situation, the owners and investors in the company, are always desperately looking for people who can succeed and make the system work.

A man like the prior would be applauded for running the school effectively, and having discipline, and so on. Because having an effective school, is how you keep customers (parents) happy to have their kids in that school, and thus bringing in profits to the owners.

But that system doesn't exist in public schools. Why? Because firing a capable and effective employee, to be replaced by an less capable 'friend', has zero effect on anything.

The parents might be able to move their kids, but not their tax money. Either way, the money still flows, no matter how competent, or incompetent the management is.

In fact, in some ways the more incompetent, the better off the schools are. I believe it was in New Jersey, if the schools performed below a certain threshold, they qualified for additional funding. Naturally after getting the additional funding, results improved.... slightly... never so much as to exceed the threshold for additional funding.

Crazy how that happened.

This of course causes a perverse incentive to do poorly, to qualify for more money. Again, a situation that is almost entirely impossible in a free-market capitalist system.

Under that system, parents remove their children from under performing schools, and place them in better performing schools. Thus money is removed from poorly performing systems, and added to well performing systems.

Giving more money for worse performance, is only something that can happen under government. And this happens routinely. Special interest demand money for a project, the project goes badly, and they lobby it wasn't enough money. So more money is given.

We saw this under Obama. Spent the largest stimulus package in US history, and when the results were trash, they said we didn't spend enough.

Point being.... it is the system that is the problem. We need to eliminate this system.

Sue makes me hate socialized education just as much as republicans like her hate socialized medicine and unions

 

[sealybobo]

If anything, the trend is toward colleges weighing the SAT or ACT less than in previous years. The GPA is right there on the transcript. Colleges look at it.

...You got to be smart to graduate from a great college. ..

Wrong again. No surprise yet again you have no idea what you are talking about.

How so?

 

[sealybobo]

Colleges DO look at GPA, among all other criteria.

Yea and most will take someone with a 2.5 average.

And you must admit a private school B is an A at your public school right?

Wrong, idiot.

How so? Fishy.

Oh and Mary Christmas. Yes, I went to public school.

Mother merry and Joseph.

 

[sealybobo]

If anything, the trend is toward colleges weighing the SAT or ACT less than in previous years. The GPA is right there on the transcript. Colleges look at it.

I specifically..... SPECIFICALLY ASKED.... if my GPA was required to gain entrance.

They said.... NO. What part of this, are you unable to understand?

The part where you lie over and over again.

Why would I lie about this? For what reason?

Grades pointless? Some colleges don't care about GPAs

Parents and their high school students are fascinated by the grade point average and what it means in college admissions, but the truth is that a number of colleges and universities are not all that interested.

Admissions officers at some of the nation's most selective colleges, who are now sending acceptance letters for their fall freshman classes, say they barely look at an applicant's GPA.

"It's meaningless," says Greg Roberts, admissions dean at the University of Virginia, ranked as the top public university in this year's 150 Best Value Colleges, published by The Princeton Review and based on academics and affordability.​

So now I have on the record, direct quotes from people who work at the admissions of major universities, saying the exact same thing.

I'll ask you again.... what am I lying about, and prove it.

As I said before, I specifically asked if the college I applied at, was looking at my GPA. They said directly "no". So now, YOU are the liar.

Why do you keep lying? You know I'm right, and I have the facts to prove it. Why are you lying to everyone on this forum, this entire thread? Does that stroke your ego to claim others are lying, when you are the one lying?

You are offering a lot in defense of your arguments. Unkotare isn’t contributing. To me it seems like he’s letting you do all the talking.

A man of few words.

Totally. Unkotare usually has more to offer than this. I'm wondering if some Bernie supporters hacked his account or something. All his done this thread is "you lie! you suck! wrong!". He's less interesting than the seagulls in Finding Nemo at this point.

I’ve never seen him act any other way.

Imagine he’s a teacher teaching inner city children. No wonder we have a problem. He thinks he’s the best doing the best he can do. He has it half right he is doing the best he can do but it’s clearly not good enough.

 

[sealybobo]

Colleges DO look at GPA, among all other criteria.

Yea and most will take someone with a 2.5 average.

And you must admit a private school B is an A at your public school right?

Wrong, idiot.

Ignored. Bye Unkotare. If you have nothing to say, then you are just a burden to the forum. Nice knowing you.

See what I mean? Are you just realizing this about him?

Are you a conservative? He agrees with conservatives on most issues he knows nothing about but when it comes to his public education unionized tenured collective bargaining job he’s a total liberal. This may be why you think he usually adds more. He doesn’t. Not ever. You just may not be the one he’s frustrating.

He also derails the thread by making me call him out. Then I get banned. I will put him on ignore too.

Same with that snowflake lady teacher who put me on ignore. She can’t stand her own hypocrisy. She cries because I hope she loses her liberal benefits and entitlements but she votes for right to work legislation so she should have to worry about her job just like the rest of us.

 

[sealybobo]

And these are all supposedly conservative republican teachers.

Until it comes to their collective bargaining power and job protections. Most of the teachers I know don’t like being treated like an employee who could lose their job if the school doesn’t want them there anymore. For whatever reason.

Welcome to the world the rest of us live in. We have no job security, no pensions, no collective bargaining and we can and do get fired. Teachers have to do something horrible to be fired. Tenure

The problem goes back to taxation. Teacher tenures are possible because all their monies are from your tax. And you are not legally allowed to stop paying your taxes to them. And if you dare propose a tax reduction for next year, then they threaten you with closing their kindergarten services, slashing 10 % down the sales value of your property. A vicious circle. Any ideas how to break it?

Tenure protects teachers from being fired for personal, political, or other non-work related reasons. Before tenure, teachers could be dismissed when a new political party took power or a principal wanted to make room to hire his friends.

The common complain about tenure is that it's difficult to fire poor performing teachers. That's true but my experience has been that all but the smallest school districts have ways of handling poor performing teachers. Really bad teachers are often the result of a wrong choice of career. Offering a non-instruction job sometimes works. In most districts if a principal wants get rid of you they can. There are always ways, transfers, rotations, and special jobs.

Having a situation in which districts fire teachers to lower taxes is a sure route to poorer educational performance.

Here is an example of how tenure works exactly like you said. In Florida, I was teacher for 8 years, had tenure and belonged to the union. When I received my Master's degree in Educational Leadership, my principal selected me to fill a vacant Assistant Principal role. About three months later, the principal's father passed away leaving him a $9 million estate, so he retired. The district hired a new principal to start the next school year who was pregnant with twins and had just recovered from a difficult pregnancy the year before that nearly killed her. She missed the vast majority of the school year, and we ran the school very well in her absence. When she finally returned, with about three months to go in the school year, she became very jealous of my reputation for enforcing discipline in the school with our district superiors.

Towards the end of school, I received an email from the district with the opportunities for promotion for the next school year. Guess whose name was on it as leaving? Me!

She didn't even have the guts to tell me that my contract was not being renewed. Later that afternoon, she sent me an email telling me I was no longer going to have a job there. She sent an email! She never spoke to me again the remainder of the school year and I worked until the end of June. The coop de grace was that she hired her best friend who was an administrator in a another school to take my place.

That is the kind of crap that teachers who do not have tenure still have to tolerate today!

The good news is that the remained of the staff saw what she did to me and she was removed at the end of the following school year.

Don’t you vote for republicans? Right to work means right to fire you for any reason. Welcome to our world in the private sector.

You didn’t have tenure if they were allowed to fire you. Was there cause? Something you’re not telling us? What did the union say?

Ignorant

I’m putting you back on ignore for awhile