Yes, ok. One-third of the students in last year’s graduating class took at least one Honors class. From that, we can deduce that one-third of the total students in your school district, grades K-12 (and probably including Early Childhood programming) were enrolled in the Honors program, and therefore it makes perfect sense that fully one-third of all the teachers in your district, grades K-12 (and again, probably including Early Childhood) taught Honors classes full-time.
No problem with your logic at all. Carry on.
Just for jollies, how many of the 704 students that graduated last year played sports, or were at least enrolled in P.E.? What? Nearly all of them?! But that would mean… :rolleyes:
235 students graduated from the Honors program, this is a New York state program that requires a certain number of Honor classes to graduate with an Honors diploma. It’s a lot more than 1, I think closer to 12.
And I never said 1/3 of all teachers K-12 taught Honors classes. I said 1/3 of the teacher salaries (the closest breakdown is 7-12) is still way, way above the Athletics budget.
As strange as it may sound, gifted students are special education students. Yet out of every $100 set aside for special education, only $1 goes to gifted programs. The rest goes to programs for students with learning disabilities. That has never seemed fair at all.
Because, frankly, I’m tired of you, and I find I have little time to spend on this kind of bullshit. In addition, there are so many problems that it will be a pain in the ass to list and address them all. Finally, I think that even after I’ve done that, you’ll still want to be a smartass about how you’re “not gifted, just an Honors student.” (Although, one-third of the students in your district are–according to your uncited information–Honors students. Where the hell do you live? Lake Woebegone?)
You missed the point from the very beginning. The breakdown on individual schools’ budgets (or districts) by percentage has fuck all to do with anything. The point was to get an idea of TOTAL national spending in real numbers. It doesn’t matter if the budgeting for any program is 95% of spending or .00001% of spending. Only the total amount spent matters. If you spent 40% of your paycheck on hamsters, and your friend spent 1% of his paycheck on hamsters, but you each bought one hamster for $3.96, does that mean you spent more money? If your friend says that states spent 4 million dollars on sidewalk cement, and was able to prove that Florida alone spent 3.96 million, would you be yelling that he was just “flinging numbers around” because that 3.96 million made up only .0000000001% of the state budget, so how could it be too much?
You give an uncited reference to a school budget, in which you say that “nothing is separated out in any meaningful way. Teacher salaries for multiple schools are lumped together.” But that didn’t stop you from counting Athletics, which you say was only 1% of the budget, again missing the point.
Then from this budget in which “nothing was separated out in a meaningful way” with “teacher salaries lumped together” you decide two amazing things. First of all, since 33% of graduates graduated as part of the Honors program,
No. It shows that 33% of the last few graduating classes took part in the Honors program. And second,
How you assumed that 33% of the general teachers salaries should be charged to the Honors program is beyond me. What if we found out that all the students learned a foreign language at the high school. Could we then say that 100% of the general teacher salaries were spent on foreign languages? Add in a meaningless comparison to your athletics budget (which again, means fuckall coming from an uncited source that has no indication of being representative of national spending), and you’re completely off the rails.
Suddenly, you were able to break down the school salary spending to elementary versus middle/high school. It’s like a miracle happened since the first time you looked at that budget! Then you “think” the number of classes needed to be an Honor graduate is “closer to 12.” Not that it matters at this point.
My own high school spent zero on athletics and all their curricular and instructional funding on gifted students–it was a residential high school for gifted kids. Who cares?? What exactly does that mean when we’re talking about the overall school funding of the entire country in real numbers? We could argue about budget percentages until we’re both grandparents, and it makes a rat’s ass bit of difference.
You’re not supposed to be humiliating your opponent in sports. In baseball, most teams have something called a “seven and seven” rule: if we are winning by seven runs or more and the game in the seventh inning or later, we stop trying so hard. Call it “professional courtesy.”
The idea is to beat your opponent, not belittle them.
To you perhaps. There is a large population of people that would strongly disagree, and I would be one of them despite not being female.
Cry crocodile tears while lamenting his poor life decisions?
I suppose you missed the irony of what you just wrote here, so I’ll outline it: sports stars are economically useless once their starriness fades. The fact they spent countless hours on a field dedicating themselves to being so empirically useless - KNOWing they will have no other place in society if they do - does not warrant paying them exorbitant amounts while all their limbs and joints are still functional.
Indeed. So you tell me why you wouldn’t want educators to be among the most well-paid of professions.
You sound really bitter. Do you feel the same way about musicians, actors, writers? If not, what makes a sports star “empirically useless” compared to other entertainers?
You try to highlight the ridiculousness of sports stars’ high pay based on their economic “uselessness” after their career, but you actually make the case for their high pay. They engage in a profession that has a short career span, is highly valued by the consumer, and demands highly specialized skills that only a minuscule percentage of the population has. That sounds like great leverage in salary negotiations.
Supply and demand. It doesn’t take a math major to teach high school math. This opens the position to a wider pool of applicants, shifting the supply curve right (vs. requiring math teachers to major in math) and putting downward pressure on wages.
On the other hand, college professors make good money - average salary is $108,749 according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics. That puts them in around the 90th to 95th percentile of household income in the US, I believe.