Yeah, you're right. You are so right. You're attitude towards teachers in this post isn't hateful at all. You show so much support and appreciation for the people who take on the responsibility for the safety and education of the future generations of this nation. Sorry I was out of line with insinuating that anyone could possibly disrespect teachers. You've proved me wrong, with your supportive and appreciative tone. Now to set the record straight. It's fine for people to disagree with me, but if someone comes in here with a bunch of bogus "facts" like people only need a an associates degree to substitute, then they don't know what they are talking about. But it doesn't have anything to do with the fact that I'm a teacher. It has to do with them not knowing the facts. When people come in and say teachers don't deserve their fat 5 figure salary, that is less than those in the private sector, and that any moron could be a teacher, then I'm not a-hole because I call them out for being unsupportive and unappreciative of educators. You argue like the typical Republican. You start throwing crap around, acting like facts aren't facts, and when you and the folks that agreed with get called on it, you whine, cry, b**** and moan, about being called hateful. Sorry, I kept my posts about the facts at hand, and was making fun of the stupid idea that teachers are living the high life because of their ENORMOUS salaries.
It is not an insult to say teachers are not heroes simply because they are a teacher. Again, get over yourself. My mother is a teacher, and I wouldn't think any more or less of her if she was a janitor. You do your job because it is worth it to you for some reason, just like everyone else who works. You are not special because you are a teacher. You actually posted this after announcing you are a teacher: Whittling away all the sarcasm, you pretty much said you are some sort of martyr because you got a degree and think you work for less pay than you should get.
Do you know what the word hero means? I never claimed any teacher was a hero. Being worth 51K a year in salary and claiming that a salary like that and benefits is well deserved by a teacher isn't the same as saying teachers are heroes. Again, I didn't say I deserved or didn't deserve anything. I merely pointed out the facts. The facts are that in salary, and benefits teachers make less than private sector employees with salary and benefits when compared with the amount of schooling and training. Those are facts. To mention those facts when others are acting like teachers are overpaid isn't claiming the teacher's job is more important, or that teachers are heroes. It's merely stating the facts. Stating facts isn't claiming anyone is a martyr. It isn't even saying teachers don't make enough. But I have no problem saying teachers deserve to be paid more, but the statement you mention wasn't making that claim. It isn't surprising that bringing up the facts upsets you, but it doesn't change the fact that they are facts. You trying to make it personal against me, doesn't help your cause. You can belittle the importance of educating future generations all you want, but that doesn't make teachers look bad, it just makes you look ignorant. So keep on doing that if that's what you'd like to do. It doesn't bother me. I'll let you know exactly what I think about teachers so there is no doubt. There job is very important to our nation, and society in general. They are underpaid for doing such an important job and the amount of training it takes to do that job. Being a public school teacher doesn't make them better or worse than anyone else. It also doesn't make them greedy, freeloaders or anything else.
Though this doesn't disprove your claim. I say you are wrong. http://reason.tv/video/show/to-surly-with-love
Actually, health services for persons with special needs are largely provided by ad hoc government programs, which is part of the reason our health care system is so ****ed--private industry handles the cheapest segments of health care demand, passing off the most expensive to the public system. Now you're seeing the same model infecting the education system--public money diverted to private providers who don't have to take on any of the real challenges public schools perennially face--and the public infrastructure is crumbling accordingly.
Private school doesn't equal private sector. It is true that private school teachers also don't have to have the same amount of schooling as Public school teachers. I've posted the facts, and they stand. You can ignore them if you'd like.
If teachers have an easy job and are overpaid, you'd think the "invisible hand" of the market would push more people into the teaching profession, resulting in huge competition to get into teacher training and teaching jobs. Do we see this happening? Not really. Why do you think it is? My thoughts, based on having been a teacher for a couple years before going to law school (and having been a student, of course, like everyone else, in k-12 eduction) is that the teaching job is actually pretty damn tough and stressful for what it pays. Specifically, unlike most other professions, one thing you have to do constantly dealing with children and teens and their problems. Classroom discline: getting the diruptive ones to shut up so the rest of us interested in, you know, discussing math/English/physics/music, etc., can do so. Dealing with those who cheat on exams. And I taught at a affluent school so we are not even talking about crime, violence, and other stuff that happened in more problematic schools. Frankly, teaching was not an easier or less stressful job than my current employment. It takes patience, maturity, leadership skills to be a successful teacher. Most people, frankly, do not have the talent or personality to enter the teaching profession or to last long in a teaching job. The market is what it is for a reason.
I find that an interesting point of view for someone who has railed against expanded government power. You are basically supporting increased government power by saying if contracts don't benefit the government then the government should just change the law.
We can't touch CEO contracts at banks too big to fail cause, well you know, they need those bonuses, but we can tear up those evil public teacher contracts with no problem. Makes sense
Yes I know. That's why I prefaced. No it is not. Why would parents pay to send their kids to a school with less educated teachers vs a free public school with better educated teachers? Provide proof if you want to make such a claim.
Did anyone see 60 minutes last night. A charter school in NYC is paying teachers $125K, no contract. TPM is the school I believe, in Washington Heights. Apparently they have great teachers, the principal trying a new a approach. They also interviewed the former chancellor of the NYC district and he complained about the difficulty in firing incompetent teachers.
The school still has a poor performance record despite having the flexibility to set standards on admissions. If they had to teach everyone, like most public schools do, they wouldn't be firing teachers either.
Sure thing. Here's the proof. http://www.privateschoolreview.com/articles/6 Parents would send their kids to private schools for any number of reasons, more flexible curriculum, reduced class size, more emphasis on teaching and less on testing, connections, prestige, etc. Other than those reasons you could ask the parents themselves.
So what I wrote is correct. I'm glad you see that now. And yes obviously it would be preferred to have more than a Bachelor's degree and a teaching credential. Because at a public school the teachers must have a teaching credential.
The public/private school choice is most likely not a matter of selecting the better teachers, but selecting the better classmates. Because private schools can choose the students they admit, they can significantly reduce the number of students who are disruptive (or worse) or are not up to par in terms of academic achievement. Also, the fact that private school parents pay signficant tuition, or at least go through the trouble to apply to such schools and apply for financial aid, means that the students are more likely to be from families that value education rather than, say, families where the father is a rapist and the mother is a crack w****. Public schools simply don't have the same kind of choice as to whom they admit. As such, it would more likely reflect the makeup of its neighborhood. There are high achieving public schools in middle-class/upper-middle-class neighborhoods (I went to one of those), but those in crime/poverty stricken areas would most likely have more disruptive students or even those engaging in criminal activities and, as a result, a much worse learning environment.
What you wrote is not correct. Both demand a Bachelor's degree. I think you are confusing government certifications with an education which they are not. You off the reservation here. No parent would pay more to send their kid to a school with less qualified teachers, when they could send them to a free public school. For this reason no private school would hire less educated teachers and then ask their customers to pay more. This is common sense.
A bachelor's degree will not allow you to teach public school unless you also have certification which requires post graduate university completion. The govt. certification as you call it requires post graduate university level classes. That is more education. You can try al you want to wiggle around that fact, but because it's called a teacher's certification doesn't change the fact that it represents additional education. You can claim whatever you want about why parents would send their kids to private school. You need to ask the schools about that, but the truth is that teaching in a public school requires more than a bachelor's degree, and teaching in a private school does not. Those are the facts, and it isn't really debatable.
