Ditto on the welcome to ethanwinfield.
No. I never said that. I might be insulted, I might take offense in that case. It might depend on whether I thought I was in the grouping of “Slys” that you were discussing (what a novel thought). If I was in that grouping, I would have to decide whether I was insulted because your point was wrong and I was therefore angered, or whether I was insulted because your point was right and hit a nerve.
However, if there were other “Slys” on the board, it would be a logical fallacy to state that you have said that I am a backpedaling coward who simply cannot admit when I am wrong.
See once again, you are using Miller’s second formulation of it, which I did not dispute. I admitted that a long time ago. Unfortunately, no one seems to want to read what is written; rather they’d prefer to read the frantic gruntings of the bash team and then toss out some epitaphs of their own. No one can accept that I have been more than willing to admit to Miller’s second quote; my working theory is that they are so unthinking and intractable themselves that they cannot comprehend the concept of intellectual honesty.
Whoa, hold up! This thread is 5 pages long. Millers’s second formulation? Quote or link, please, there’s no way for anyone besides yourself to know what specific exchange you are referring to.
Also, why do you get to decide if you are in the group I’m insulting? You’re not letting anyone else decide if they are in the group you are insulting. Unless you are trying to say that only the one’s who believe they are guilty of what you are claiming can be in that group, and anyone who knows they are innocent should not take offense. Is that it?
FinnAgain wrote
There’s truth to this. A lot of truth.
But it’s not the whole truth. The teacher’s unions have a strong lock on things. Tenure is evil, leading to young fresh teachers being laid off while old jaded ones cling to jobs they don’t deserve. The right to strike is evil. The general government work ethic is evil.
Private schools are forced to compete against each other and against the public schools (they must beat the public schools, or why would anyone pay money to send their kids there?), and forced to deliver a higher quality product. Private school teachers compete for jobs amongst each other. Competition delivers a higher quality product. That’s just what it is.
Yes, that’s correct. It’s immoral because our children, our society, our future is sacrificed for the better of people who are generally good, kind and decent, but not doing a terribly demanding job, either in terms of work or in terms of qualifications. Being a good person isn’t enough reason to get something undeserved for free on the backs of our children.
That’s a different discussion. But to answer your question, I’m generally anti-union.
Of course I give her compassion! As I do any other friend or family member who tells me they had a hard day at work, even if I don’t think they did.
But that’s not the discussion here. The discussion here is about our society and it’s future and it’s betterment. The discussion here is beyond a kind word for my mother, it’s about what’s better for us all.
Did I give you permission to post my picture?
Bill H.: (Cheesesteak too) Sorry if I’ve spoken harshly to you. Sometimes when I’m seeing red and something else follows in the same mold… I still think y’all are wrong. But ah well.
It is most of the truth. You cannot choose what you teach to students in many districts now due to NCLB. You have literally no freedom. Forget about slowing down to help a slower student or teach something that isn’t on the official gude for that day.
I haven’t seen this happening, do you have a cite?
Well, at least I know where you’re coming from. Don’t agree even a little bit, and don’t understand what a government work ethic is. But ah well.
Because you can teach religion there. There are often dress codes. There are no state mandated rules to learning.
In theory, perhaps. In reality, not always.
No, not necessarily. Private school teachers don’t necessarily hop from school to school, being headhunted all the while.
Moreoever, public schools teachers often have to apply against each other or other candidates for positions.
That’s just ridiculous. In terms of work it is exhausting. If you need I will furnish you with cites of the percentage of teachers who get serious bladder infections because they don’t even get a chance to pee all day. Moreoever, aint nothing ‘not terribly demanding’ about getting a masters degree. Or staying certified.
Honestly, have you taught a single day in your life? If not, how do you think you’re qualified to talk about how hard or easy it is?
I haven’t said anybody should get anything undeserved for free. I said teachers should be paid in a manner that is commensurate with their work.
I figured that from the whole striking is evil thing. 
My point is, what reason do you have to doubt her? Do you think that instead of doing her job she’s getting fanned by slaveboys who bring her grapes and wine? Why not take her at her word, that she’s fucking exhausted and the job is hard on her?
GLWasteful wrote
Uh, I did. It’s just common sense:
people pay money to send their kids to private school.
That’s the proof. They pay money, when they could get public education for free. Why would anyone pay for something when the government will give you an alternate for free? Do you believe they’re doing it out of the goodness of their heart, that they just enjoy giving money away?
y’wanna back this up? or just leave it lying there?
For the record, my children both go to public school. I know each of my son’s teachers. I see them and talk to them every morning when I drop my kids off. I like them. I respect them. They do a job I’d have trouble doing. They’re nice people.
But…
My trashman is also a nice man, and I like and respect him too. But I don’t think I should pay him more than he deserves. Taking away the trash is a rotten job, but it’s just not that hard and there are plenty of people out there who would like that job.
That’s no proof of anything but that parents prefer/choose private school. The decisions of parents are a correlative, not a causitive.
You don’t have to go to school for a minimum of four years (in most cases) to be a garbageman. Moreoever, teaching is a hard job, and there are not plenty of people who would like that job. At least not plenty of qualified people.
FinnAgain wrote
I hear you. No problem.
Well, it happened this year at my son’s school. They had to let two teachers go, and they both were non-tenured. I can think of at least two tenured teachers who weren’t as good as either of these two.
In my personal estimation, vigor and energy are pretty important to being a successful teacher. Much more important than say knowing the material well. I’m speaking of elementary school teachers, mainly as that’s what’s relevant in my life right now. I realize that higher grades involve more knowledge on the part of the teacher, but frankly I believe my point still stands there.
The ones that were lost at our school were fresh and energetic. We lost them because the union had negotiated an unfair advantage to tenured teachers.
It probably wouldn’t surprise you to hear I’m in management.
As to government work: Anyone who has held a government job and a private sector job will tell you the private sector job was harder. That’s just what it is. It’s all about competition.
Any work is honorable work. But some work is harder.
There are some that teach religion of course. But plenty don’t, and all the ones I’m personally familiar with around here don’t. (I would have reservations about sending my kids to religious school personally.)
I don’t know one way or the other. But I know the quality of education is better there.
Funny thing: all the people I know who teach in public schools (including my sainted mother) say what you just said, that there are no state mandated rules to learning, and other things that imply the quality of education is lower. And I hate to say it so bluntly, but that’s just not true. Private education is a better education.
Well, sure; not always. But generally, yes.
I’d have trouble being a teacher. I have respect for teachers. But pay is all about supply and demand. Or it should be, unless you can get an unfair advantage, as in the case of public school teacher unions.
In my less-than-expert opinion, having a Masters degree is an artificial requirement, one that’s not really necessary to teach any but the more advanced classes in public school. It’s only required because the government requires it.
Never have I done the type of full-time teaching we’re talking about. I’ve taught adults classes as part of work activities, and I’ve led kids in various things, such as cub scouts or while volunteering in my kids classes.
But in terms of raw hours, it’s just not that tough. And it’s a relative short-term stress, in the sense that when the day is over, it’s over. You may have tests to grade or class to prep or other requirements, but generally the stress is all about the class time. And short-term stress is WAY easier than long-term stress, the sort where you’re constantly dealing with ongoing long-term problems.
I believe that “commensurate” means paid by what the market will bear. And that’s less than what teachers are paid because of the union.
I’m sure she is tired. I doubt what she considers hard work based on my exeriences in the work force. I’ve seen her work; I’ve seen other work; I see a huge difference.
FinnAgain wrote
I guess I don’t understand. I proposed that parents pay money to send their kids to private school because they want them to have a higher education. I think that’s a pretty logical assumption. If you don’t believe it’s logical, why do you propose they send them there? I agree that religion can be an issue, so let’s ignore religious schools for a minute:
Why do you propose a parent would ever pay to send their child to a non-religious private school, if it weren’t for a better education?
If it’s true that teachers are underpaid at current rates, then there would be a large teacher shortage. Instead, there is a glut. Supply and demand tells us that a glut means the price is too high.
Unfortunately thousands of hours of research studies point to other factors which make good teachers (as well as drive and energy). If you are interested I can email you a bunch of peer reviewed journal articles.
Careful with that brush. I’ve worked as the CAO of a large office handling property management for over seventeen hundred families. Standing in front of a classroom, trying to engage and challenge every student individually, teaching and working to and with their strengths and weaknesses all the while attempting to remain reflective and in a state of constant growth and learning… Jeez, if I want a relaxing job give me a call center with phones rining off the hook, hundreds of pieces of mail every day to sort and file, etc…
True. But since you say you’ve never taught a class of children, how do you propose to properly value just how hard it is to do it?
How do you know this? What statistics on the performance of children schooled in private schools do you have? Seeing that parents prefer priavte schools is not proof of their effectiveness. Many parents chose thalidomide.
Erunh?
I believe that freedom from state mandates allows curriculum to be more flexable and effective. I believe that is a fundemental strength of private school, that not-teaching-to-the-test is a very powerful way of learning, while high stakes teasting gets us students who can take tests, and not do much else.
You can say it bluntly as many times as you want, and claim it’s true, too. But without data, you certainly won’t convince me. Or prove your point. What cites do you have?
I’m not an economist, so I can’t really speak to that dynamic. I do, however, think it is unfair and unethical to shortchange a dedicated professional if you’re able to just becuase there are other applicants. YMMV.
I’m not quite sure what to make of this…
Even if a masters degree is ‘aritficial’ it’s still tough to get.
And to my knoweledge, many districts do not require all teachers, let alone starting teachers, to have masters.
So you don’t really know how hard it is to teach children, right?
Just to make it clear.
You should go through this thread and read it again. Many teachers don’t have the luxury of setting down their work once they leave the school. Grading papers, writing lesson plans, etc… takes up a lot of time too.
Teachers and relatives/friends of teachers have stated that stress can radiate from class hours and work can take over free time.
Commensurate pay means paying them what they deserve. And as you’ve pointed out, there isn’t exactly a free market in public school education. So, as a non -economist, I don’t understand how market forces apply.
But you haven’t done her work. It’s easy to talk about how cushy a job is until you try to do it.
Let me clear up some confusion then. Yes, many parents may send their children to private schools because they believe the quality of education is better. But that belief of many parents does not equal a fact.
Several reasons, including discipline and the reputation of the school. But, in any case, just because parents think private schools are better is not proof that private schools are better. It’s just proof that parents think they are.
Dude, have you even read this thread?
There is a teacher shortage, and it’s getting worse.
How does that support your argument that public school teachers are being paid too much for too little? I supports the argument that private schools are better than public schools, which I don’t think anyone is disputing. But then, private schools generally have more money to attract better teachers, keep the student/teacher ratio at a reasonable rate, provide the necessary educational equipment in sufficient quantities and quality, and support the numerous extra-curicular activities that are vital to a child’s development.
Public schools are underfunded. Teachers aren’t paid enough, so it is hard to both hire and retain the competent ones, especially when the public schools have to compete with the private institutions for hiring. Because of this turnover, there’s a chronic shortage of teachers, meaning those who stay are over-worked and stretched too thin. Further, the lack of money for supplies means that teachers have to pay for them out of their own pocket. If they don’t have the money, the kids have to do without.
If public schools paid thier teachers a fair wage for the work they do, there would be more people willing to take those jobs. The more teachers in a district, the more attention each individual kid gets, making it less likely that they’ll get left behind or ignored. The better teachers won’t be siphoned off by the private schools. If the public schools had more funding (and, from some of the stories told in this thread, some government oversight on how they spend it), they’d be able to pay teachers more, pay more teachers, give them the tools they need to do their job, and provide a more rounded education for their charges.
I don’t think anyone disagrees with that.
I can’t help but wonder how a garbageman’s paycheck stacks up to a teachers.
You getting a free pass on paying taxes or something? Ain’t nothing free in this world, Bill.
I’ve gone to both private and public schools. I know that private schools often mandate some level of parental involvement as part of the tuition (mine did anyway), so that means the teachers there have a lot more hands pitching in. Even if it’s not mandated, parents who send their kids to private school, tend to be a little more “hands-on” in their children’s education.
From a report by the U.S. Dept. of Education:
Smaller class-size, a greater feeling that they have a control over curriculum and discipline, increased parental involvement, and a completely different learning envirnoment also contribute to why private schools deliver a “higher quality product.” Not just “competition” amongst the teachers.
Not to mention the bureaucracy of a public school system is much large than your typical private school. In bureaucracies, it’s all too easy for the people at the top to ignore/overlook/be unaware of the work in the trenches (by the teachers, in this case). This is why the teachers in most districts work together to make sure their needs are met.
A better education at a private school isn’t necesarily indicative of the quality of the teachers there. It might be one factor. But there are other factors present.
But I will agree that private schools often do attract quality teachers. Why? As the DoE reports, they often offer a better work environment.
Better working conditions attracts people to work there.
Could pay be a factor for this attrition rate? I don’t know. It’s possible.
It still appears that if you offer better working conditions, better pay, better benefits, you’ll attract better candidates to the job. And that’s good for the kids. And these public school teachers who are negotiating contracts are negotiating for all of these things.
As far as layoffs go, it’s always unfortunate. And every contract has different policies as far as lay-off policy goes. But if lay-offs are happening, that usually means it’s a funding thing. And the more noise these teachers’ unions make, and the more lobbying they’re involved in, the more visible their needs become to those holding the purse strings.
And as a parent, this should deeply offend you (as I see it does) as well. Less teachers means larger class sizes. Not to mention the loss of young, energetic teachers. (As an aside, I’ve seen it happen more times than not that when districts lay off teachers in the spring, they re-hire them in the fall after all the retirements are factored in.)
As a taxpayer, you are paying tuition, and should be raising as much of a stink to every policy maker in this country as a private school parent would if things go south at their school.
For the record, those quotes were from me, not treis.
So it seems we have a few points of contention where we’ll have to agree to disagree:
a) Bill: Supply and Demand should set wages. FinnAgain: Skills and Compassion should set wages.
b) Bill: I’ve seen things in this life, and I say a teachers job isn’t that hard or stressful compared to others. FinnAgain: Without doing a teacher’s job, you can never know how hard it is or compare it to other work.
c) Bill: People pay more for a private education because it’s a better education. FinnAgain: They may think it’s better, but it may not be.
Shit! I’ll email a mod to fix that. My apologies.
Miller wrote
Well, first I don’t think it’s a given that private schools have more money. (I don’t know one way or the other, but I don’t think it’s a given. It could very well be that public schools get more money).
But more pertinent to this thread, I think it’s fair to say that private school teachers are paid less than public school teachers. I base this on discussions I’ve had with a number of public school teachers and private school teachers. Also, a while back we had this discussion (in another forum), and cites came up that backed this. I don’t have said cites.
So, if we look at school outside the influence of unions and government, we see a system that pays less wages and performs better. So, it seems like a reasonable conclusion that public school teachers are overpaid.
In general private school teachers make less than public school teachers.
However, I can not stress enough that the majority of a private school’s advantage over a public school is that they don’t have to teach to the test. That allows actual instruction.
Happy Lendervedder wrote
Yes, but this makes my point even more so. Why would a parent pay to send their child to private school, when they’re already paying for a public education, unless they felt it was for a better education?
Absolutely.
I’m fortunate, in that the school district I’m in has a lot of well-to-do families, and as such, there’s a lot of private money that goes into the public schools, and there are a lot of parent volunteers. Like 2 days a week or more, there will be one to four parents in each room helping out with things. My wife volunteers a couple days a week herself, and I volunteer once or twice a month, and also help for five or ten minutes every morning if there’s something quick that needs doing.
My mother taught most of her career in a below average school district. The parents didn’t seem to care as much (kids had low rates of doing homework; low turnout for parent-teacher conferences, etc.), and even if they did care, they weren’t able to take time off to help in the classroom for financial reasons.
I think this issue of “parent involvement” is an enormous part of how good an education is.
I completely agree with this as well. I see this tied in to my point, in the sense that the whole public school system is a monopoly with no competition, and that’s why massive bureacracies form, and why things stagnate.
But here we differ. If I were a teacher, I’d look out for “my needs” and agree with this. But I’m not. I’m a consumer of teachers services. I don’t see why teachers should be paid above market prices for less-than-market service.
I certainly agree there are other factors.
Makes sense. But also, I think private school environment fosters an attitude where people work harder.
Well, I agree with this assessment in general. But “better” has no upper bound. Why not pay them $200k/year; you’re bound to get the very finest. The bigger issue is paying them what’s fair. And unionized public school wages are above wages dictated by supply and demand, and therefore unfairly high.
I am upset, but ultimately I don’t see this as a teacher problem; I see it as a parent/community problem. As I say, I respect the teachers, but I don’t see why they deserve to have a government-enforced legal lock on things.
Oh, I’m involved. I make my opinion known.