Thread: What Teachers Make

Originally Posted by jockeys

yup. to my way of thinking, educating poor kids at the expense of rich kids parents reeks to high heaven of socialism.

It falls under Developmental Rights.

X

X by that statement we would have to require that every child only went to the highest performing school and studied with only the highest skilled teacher, otherwise they could claim that they were denied their developmental rights.

Not to mention in that same treaty we would have to allow them to vote. And could enforce no discipline above that an adult could receive removing all parental rights.

It is a ridiculous loosely worded piece of crap not a sensible directive to be achieved. Like all of what the UN does it is a feel good bit of nonsense that can never be followed or enforced.

I am extremely glad our nation looked at it and took the sensible road of not ratifying that piece of rubbish.

Its whole purpose is to not illustrate the "rights of the child" but to convince people to look to the UN for guidance in all aspects of their lives creating a de facto nanny state and robing us of our free will.

You're entitled to your opinion, but what would be the decent thing to do?

Originally Posted by xman

It falls under Developmental Rights.

X

+1 to what wildtim said. it's ridiculous to assume everyone will reach their full potential whether the circumstances are good or not. your employer might be equal opportunity, but LIFE ain't. if you really wanted to assure that less of a child's potential was wasted, you would outlaw idiots being allowed to breed in the first place, but of course no one would vote for it.

all I'm talking about is having a system with CHOICE. so people can choose to maximize their potential, or not, as they see fit. not a system where the gov't tells you how much of your kids potential is going to be maximized, then taking money from you by threat of force to finance their bloated, inefficient operation.

That was pretty good. I always enjoy a good, intelligent, monologuing riff.

Originally Posted by xman

You're entitled to your opinion, but what would be the decent thing to do?

the answer to that question is entirely arbitrary and contingent upon the person answering it. obviously, you think your way is the decent thing to do, and that's fine, but other folks might have an entirely different opinion.

for instance, I think that NOT abolishing the current school system in my country and establishing a private alternative is entirely indecent.

agree to disagree, I suppose. but appealing to people's decency is about as consistent as appealing to people's sense of fashion or taste.

Originally Posted by jockeys

yup. to my way of thinking, educating poor kids at the expense of rich kids parents reeks to high heaven of socialism.

I think you'll find that what you believe is really closer to elitism than socialism...

e·lit·ism or é·lit·ism

n.1. The belief that certain persons or members of certain classes or groups deserve favored treatment by virtue of their perceived superiority, as in intellect, social status, or financial resources.
2. a. The sense of entitlement enjoyed by such a group or class.
b. Control, rule, or domination by such a group or class.
e·litist adj. & n.

It's an attractive concept to say people should pay 100% of their own freight.... but the reality is it's not always practical when you look at the negative consequences.

If you apply a pay as you go concept to elementary education then how many families with the proverbial 2.3 children would be able to afford to pay the yearly tuition of, say, $6000 each for their kids to attend a private school? (I just picked $6K because I saw numbers all over the map, depending on what the writer was trying to convince the reader of. Average public school funding is currently running over $7K per pupil per year.)

Using that number yields a cost of roughly $14K per year to school those 2.3 kids. While I doubt many families can afford to give up half their income, suppose they could... then, according to charts I saw on wikipedia, roughly 30% of the households in the US would be unable to send those 2.3 kids to school. To be more realistic, if you could only allocate 25% of your family's gross income to educate those 2.3 kids then less than half of the families in the US could send those 2.3 kids to school. Is that the society you really want... where roughly only half the kids have a grammar school education?

You can argue all you want about the numbers to make them tell a different story, but the fact is if you truly believe that you should only educate kids whose parents can afford to pay you've got a pretty elitist attitude in my mind. I don't mean that as derrogatory... you have the right to your opinion, as do I. Given my values, that's the way I see it... who knows or even cares who's really right.)

Your ideal that what the constitution guarantees is all that you want your government to provide to anyone would, IMHO, ultimately drive the US firther toward a two class society... the rich and the poor. I would guess you just assume you will be in the rich class... for your sake I hope you're correct. There are many examples of two-class societies around the world... in those, most of the poor class live in lawless cardboard shack communities on the outskirts of major cities. I've seen one outside Buenos Aires in Argentina... it extends for miles and I know I wouldn't want to live there.

It almost seems as if the issue is just another natural phenomenon that will work itself out eventually. It's just a matter of the younger new-parent generation realizing the problem and attending to it (which at least one post points out is beginning to happen, with a good parent base).

It's hard to make a point without sounding like an a$$, but in my opinion, if neither the parents nor students care, then let them drift through school and fail. Ultimately, it's their own hide that suffers from it (potentially for life), and hopefully they will be more motivated to better discipline their own kids when the time comes (this is the key!), seeing how they themselves failed miserably.

I am about to receive my undergraduate degree along with about 50 others in my major who are proficient and would be wonderful colleagues to work with, and about 100 that would be an absolute drain on my own time and resources if I had to work beside them. Yet they still receive their degree, same as me. The KEY is that little thing called a job interview. Needless to say, it's incredibly easy to detect who knows their stuff and who BS'd their way through. And do I care? Heck yeah, those people are the reason I'm going to be able to live comfortably. Is it at their expense? Quite the opposite; it was at mine - I was the one who put in the effort. Hard work does pay off... go figure.

Originally Posted by Wildtim

Sorry Joe I can't sympathathise with any job where there is a cost of living wage. In my entire carreer and my wifes we have only gotten merit raises, and those infrequently. Cost of living wages went out the window in the private sector a generation ago.

Well, actually, her district didn't call it cost of living either... they called it market equity.

Salaries demanded by new hires (from college) tend to already be adjusted for inflation, whereas existing employees have to get the adjustment it some other way... it's just an HR motivational trick to call it "merit", hoping you'll try harder and produce more... a rose by any other name. I can assure you that in the two companies I've had upper management positions with, cost of living was the first thing we looked at when we started to put together the merit plan for the next fiscal year. In most companies I'll bet you'll find that the average merit raise is suspiciously close to the cost of living increase for the year. It's usually on the low side because the bean counters usually force the pot to be less than inflation, so every few years most companies have to give everyone a market adjustment or compression adjustment, or whatever they call it... but it's to relieve that effects of inflation that were not included in the merit increases. In those companies, hardly anyone ever got a zero "merit" raise... if the person wasn't cutting it we suggested they would be happier somewhere else.



(And I know I'm old, but honestly, it wasn't really a generation ago )

Originally Posted by azjoe

I think you'll find that what you believe is really closer to elitism than socialism.

you are correct, I am an elitist. at least, most people think I am; I prefer to think of myself as a proponent of merit-based achievment as opposed to need-based handholding. sorry if my post was unclear, I was referring to socialism as a BAD thing. (one of the worst things, in my view) you talk about the cost of private education being too high, and perhaps it is right now, but let's take a look at two very nontrivial factors:

1. under my system, all schools are private, good and bad. not all school will be expensive like private schools are now. in a wide, free market, there will be many niches to fill. it's already this way with colleges; some are prestigious and expensive, others are cheap and unheard of.
2. you are completely overlooking the fact that school is NOT free now. it is paid for by YOU. whether you have children or not, whether they even attend public school or not, every tax paying American is helping to subsidize a system that can't sustain its own weight. all I want to do is allow you to choose how that money is spent, rather than have it taken away from you by threat of force so that it can be invested badly. the only way a person could rationally support the current system is if they think their educational dollar will go further if the gov't is calling the shots than they are. do you think you are better at spending money responsibly on your child's needs than a faceless beuracracy? maybe I'm just being conceited, but I trust myself more. (for similar reasons, I am opposed to Social Security)

school is never free (talking about money not liberty here). arguing that it should be slightly more free for people who suck at life (and, subsequently, much less free for those who work hard and do well for themselves) is like saying it ought to be less illegal to mug a rich guy than a poor guy, 'cause he can afford it.

on a side note, this is a fantastic discussion and I'm loving every minute of it! only on SRP are folks classy enough to keep a thread this controversial rolling without having it Godwinned!