goemaw.com
General Discussion => The New Joe Montgomery Birther Pit => Topic started by: Rage Against the McKee on May 10, 2011, 08:15:26 AM
-
http://www.cnn.com/2011/OPINION/05/10/granderson.yearround.school/index.html?hpt=C2 (http://www.cnn.com/2011/OPINION/05/10/granderson.yearround.school/index.html?hpt=C2)
This isn't a bad article, considering the guy is a sports journalist. I would be all for year round education, as long as our government steps up and increases teachers' salaries to compensate for the additional days.
-
http://www.cnn.com/2011/OPINION/05/10/granderson.yearround.school/index.html?hpt=C2 (http://www.cnn.com/2011/OPINION/05/10/granderson.yearround.school/index.html?hpt=C2)
as long as our government steps up and increases teachers' salaries to compensate for the additional days.
lol
-
http://www.cnn.com/2011/OPINION/05/10/granderson.yearround.school/index.html?hpt=C2 (http://www.cnn.com/2011/OPINION/05/10/granderson.yearround.school/index.html?hpt=C2)
This isn't a bad article, considering the guy is a sports journalist. I would be all for year round education, as long as our government steps up and increases teachers' salaries to compensate for the additional days.
In lies the problem.
-
if you're an undergrad...and you're majoring in elementary education.....just......just stop.
Unless you want to be 35 years old and barely making 38k a year.
-
if you're an undergrad...and you're majoring in elementary education.....just......just stop.
Unless you want to be 35 years old and barely making 38k a year.
Or if you want to go on and be a principal/superintendent. I don't know why anybody would put themselves through 4 years of college to teach, though.
-
if you're an undergrad...and you're majoring in elementary education.....just......just stop.
Unless you want to be 35 years old and barely making 38k a year.
Or if you want to go on and be a principal/superintendent. I don't know why anybody would put themselves through 4 years of college to teach, though.
I suppose it wouldn't be a bad gig if your spouse actually liked making money, summers off etc.
-
My wife's district tried very hard to go to year round school about 5 yrs ago. They weren't planning on paying anything additional to any of the staff. The year round plan had the same amt of days in the classroom, but had what is now summer break split up into multiple week to two week breaks.
Their goal was increasing retention of knowledge so that they didn't have to spend the first 25% of every year catching kids back up to where they were at the end of the previous year.
The sup't had all kinds of research that he presented to the public about how much time off equates to how much retention loss. Basically said that kids lose a lot if any break is greater than 2 weeks. So in essence, everyone would be working the same amt, but the kids would lose less due to shorter breaks.
It's a great idea in theory, but a lot of people make a lot of their income in those three months off. I don't see anyway that this will ever pass unless they account for that somehow.
-
It's a great idea in theory, but a lot of people make a lot of their income in those three months off. I don't see anyway that this will ever pass unless they account for that somehow.
True, but education is an investment, and that would just be part of the investment. Ideally, the extra time spent in school, or at the very least, the lack of breaks longer than 2 weeks would make our youth better at math and science. Having a smarter population will help our economy more in the long run than just about anything else.
-
It's a great idea in theory, but a lot of people make a lot of their income in those three months off. I don't see anyway that this will ever pass unless they account for that somehow.
True, but education is an investment, and that would just be part of the investment. Ideally, the extra time spent in school, or at the very least, the lack of breaks longer than 2 weeks would make our youth better at math and science. Having a smarter population will help our economy more in the long run than just about anything else.
I agree that ed is an investment, but this particular investment would be us(state or country) asking a single population(teachers) to pay into the investment by themselves(in lack of opportunity to earn supplemental income) and we all would reap the benefits. Never gonna happen.
I am sure you could produce a better what-ever-it-is-that-you-produce if you would just work more to better optimize the product, and you could make my live easier if you would just do so for the same salary. Also, I would appreciate it.
The prob with ed is that it is too multi-faceted. They take authority from the teachers, increase school requirements, freeze/decrease budgets, and promote people that are trained to deal with kids as bosses of adult employees with million dollar budgets. All this on top of the fact that it seems a growing percentage of America feels like the teachers should be fully responsible for their child's progress/success.
Year round needs to happen, but the salaries need to increase. Hell, they need to increase as it is. Ed is an investment and right now our future is being taught by a quality of teacher that could be vastly improved if salaries went up.
-
It's a great idea in theory, but a lot of people make a lot of their income in those three months off. I don't see anyway that this will ever pass unless they account for that somehow.
True, but education is an investment, and that would just be part of the investment. Ideally, the extra time spent in school, or at the very least, the lack of breaks longer than 2 weeks would make our youth better at math and science. Having a smarter population will help our economy more in the long run than just about anything else.
I agree that ed is an investment, but this particular investment would be us(state or country) asking a single population(teachers) to pay into the investment by themselves(in lack of opportunity to earn supplemental income) and we all would reap the benefits. Never gonna happen.
I am sure you could produce a better what-ever-it-is-that-you-produce if you would just work more to better optimize the product, and you could make my live easier if you would just do so for the same salary. Also, I would appreciate it.
The prob with ed is that it is too multi-faceted. They take authority from the teachers, increase school requirements, freeze/decrease budgets, and promote people that are trained to deal with kids as bosses of adult employees with million dollar budgets. All this on top of the fact that it seems a growing percentage of America feels like the teachers should be fully responsible for their child's progress/success.
Year round needs to happen, but the salaries need to increase. Hell, they need to increase as it is. Ed is an investment and right now our future is being taught by a quality of teacher that could be vastly improved if salaries went up.
Yeah, well, they should increase the total number of days and the salaries should be adjusted to compensate. I thought you were referring to people who made money off of the kids who were out of school for the entire summer.
-
It's a great idea in theory, but a lot of people make a lot of their income in those three months off. I don't see anyway that this will ever pass unless they account for that somehow.
True, but education is an investment, and that would just be part of the investment. Ideally, the extra time spent in school, or at the very least, the lack of breaks longer than 2 weeks would make our youth better at math and science. Having a smarter population will help our economy more in the long run than just about anything else.
I agree that ed is an investment, but this particular investment would be us(state or country) asking a single population(teachers) to pay into the investment by themselves(in lack of opportunity to earn supplemental income) and we all would reap the benefits. Never gonna happen.
I am sure you could produce a better what-ever-it-is-that-you-produce if you would just work more to better optimize the product, and you could make my live easier if you would just do so for the same salary. Also, I would appreciate it.
The prob with ed is that it is too multi-faceted. They take authority from the teachers, increase school requirements, freeze/decrease budgets, and promote people that are trained to deal with kids as bosses of adult employees with million dollar budgets. All this on top of the fact that it seems a growing percentage of America feels like the teachers should be fully responsible for their child's progress/success.
Year round needs to happen, but the salaries need to increase. Hell, they need to increase as it is. Ed is an investment and right now our future is being taught by a quality of teacher that could be vastly improved if salaries went up.
I know you guys don't want to hear this, but the quality of teacher would improve by either eliminating the teacher's union or easing the union rules regarding teacher firings.
-
It's a great idea in theory, but a lot of people make a lot of their income in those three months off. I don't see anyway that this will ever pass unless they account for that somehow.
True, but education is an investment, and that would just be part of the investment. Ideally, the extra time spent in school, or at the very least, the lack of breaks longer than 2 weeks would make our youth better at math and science. Having a smarter population will help our economy more in the long run than just about anything else.
I agree that ed is an investment, but this particular investment would be us(state or country) asking a single population(teachers) to pay into the investment by themselves(in lack of opportunity to earn supplemental income) and we all would reap the benefits. Never gonna happen.
I am sure you could produce a better what-ever-it-is-that-you-produce if you would just work more to better optimize the product, and you could make my live easier if you would just do so for the same salary. Also, I would appreciate it.
The prob with ed is that it is too multi-faceted. They take authority from the teachers, increase school requirements, freeze/decrease budgets, and promote people that are trained to deal with kids as bosses of adult employees with million dollar budgets. All this on top of the fact that it seems a growing percentage of America feels like the teachers should be fully responsible for their child's progress/success.
Year round needs to happen, but the salaries need to increase. Hell, they need to increase as it is. Ed is an investment and right now our future is being taught by a quality of teacher that could be vastly improved if salaries went up.
I know you guys don't want to hear this, but the quality of teacher would improve by either eliminating the teacher's union or easing the union rules regarding teacher firings.
I fully agree that the hire/fire practices are to blame in retaining bad teachers. You should also realize that not every state is union.
However, if you raise the salaries, you can attract better candidates and I would think you could increase retainage of the existing talented employees as well. Money is a motivator. I recognize it isn't the motivator, especially in a field that employees often feel a calling for, however it is always a motivator.
that said, I think admin is currently earning too much, at least in KS. My wife's principal is the second to lowest paid principal in the district yet still makes right at $90k.
-
Teachers are not underpaid.
-
Teachers are not underpaid.
If we are going to improve the quality of our education system, we have to improve the quality of the teachers, first. That starts with improving the appeal of teaching as a profession.
-
Nothing I love more than threads criticizing public schools on boards like this.
Going to get the popcorn ready for when some tuck comes in to say he doesn't have kids in school anymore so he shouldn't have to pay taxes for schools.
-
Teachers are not underpaid.
If we are going to improve the quality of our education system, we have to improve the quality of the teachers, first. That starts with improving the appeal of teaching as a profession.
Pay level will not make someone love dealing with someone else's kids, administration, unnecsesarily angry parents, and regulations more. There's a reason people go into the profession in the first place.
-
Teachers are not underpaid.
If we are going to improve the quality of our education system, we have to improve the quality of the teachers, first. That starts with improving the appeal of teaching as a profession.
Pay level will not make someone love dealing with someone else's kids, administration, unnecsesarily angry parents, and regulations more. There's a reason people go into the profession in the first place.
It won't increase the quality of our current teachers, but it will make some of the brighter students who go to college consider education when they otherwise would not have.
-
Yeah, there are things about my profession that I absolutely hate doing(plenty that I enjoy too), but the paycheck helps tip the scale to keep me in my profession rather than finding one where I don't encounter such issues.
This can be applied across the board when it comes to why people stay at their job with very few exceptions.
You are overrating the "calling" part of the teach job. They are not priests or social workers.
Higher pay = Higher interest from higher performing individuals. There are plenty people out there who like to work with children or enjoy teaching concepts to people that don't do so for a living because they make way more money doing whatevs it is they do instead.
-
Yeah, there are things about my profession that I absolutely hate doing(plenty that I enjoy too), but the paycheck helps tip the scale to keep me in my profession rather than finding one where I don't encounter such issues.
This can be applied across the board when it comes to why people stay at their job with very few exceptions.
You are overrating the "calling" part of the teach job. They are not priests or social workers.
Higher pay = Higher interest from higher performing individuals. There are plenty people out there who like to work with children or enjoy teaching concepts to people that don't do so for a living because they make way more money doing whatevs it is they do instead.
Teachers need to do it because they love it. For someone to take up teaching for the great pay will not have your child's best interest at heart. If you want both high pay and a quality teacher, you need to pay for a private school without a union.
-
Yeah, there are things about my profession that I absolutely hate doing(plenty that I enjoy too), but the paycheck helps tip the scale to keep me in my profession rather than finding one where I don't encounter such issues.
This can be applied across the board when it comes to why people stay at their job with very few exceptions.
You are overrating the "calling" part of the teach job. They are not priests or social workers.
Higher pay = Higher interest from higher performing individuals. There are plenty people out there who like to work with children or enjoy teaching concepts to people that don't do so for a living because they make way more money doing whatevs it is they do instead.
Teachers need to do it because they love it. For someone to take up teaching for the great pay will not have your child's best interest at heart. If you want both high pay and a quality teacher, you need to pay for a private school without a union.
Doctors need to practice medicine because they love it. For someone to enter a medical practice for the great pay will not have your best health interest at heart.
-
Yeah, there are things about my profession that I absolutely hate doing(plenty that I enjoy too), but the paycheck helps tip the scale to keep me in my profession rather than finding one where I don't encounter such issues.
This can be applied across the board when it comes to why people stay at their job with very few exceptions.
You are overrating the "calling" part of the teach job. They are not priests or social workers.
Higher pay = Higher interest from higher performing individuals. There are plenty people out there who like to work with children or enjoy teaching concepts to people that don't do so for a living because they make way more money doing whatevs it is they do instead.
Teachers need to do it because they love it. For someone to take up teaching for the great pay will not have your child's best interest at heart. If you want both high pay and a quality teacher, you need to pay for a private school without a union.
Seems very Karl Marxist to assume that someone will do their job, not for the pay, but for the pure want/creative satisfaction of doing it.
Also, bull crap.
-
Yeah, there are things about my profession that I absolutely hate doing(plenty that I enjoy too), but the paycheck helps tip the scale to keep me in my profession rather than finding one where I don't encounter such issues.
This can be applied across the board when it comes to why people stay at their job with very few exceptions.
You are overrating the "calling" part of the teach job. They are not priests or social workers.
Higher pay = Higher interest from higher performing individuals. There are plenty people out there who like to work with children or enjoy teaching concepts to people that don't do so for a living because they make way more money doing whatevs it is they do instead.
Teachers need to do it because they love it. For someone to take up teaching for the great pay will not have your child's best interest at heart. If you want both high pay and a quality teacher, you need to pay for a private school without a union.
Doctors need to practice medicine because they love it. For someone to enter a medical practice for the great pay will not have your best health interest at heart.
This is true, but the threat of a malpractice lawsuit will force them to care.
-
Yeah, there are things about my profession that I absolutely hate doing(plenty that I enjoy too), but the paycheck helps tip the scale to keep me in my profession rather than finding one where I don't encounter such issues.
This can be applied across the board when it comes to why people stay at their job with very few exceptions.
You are overrating the "calling" part of the teach job. They are not priests or social workers.
Higher pay = Higher interest from higher performing individuals. There are plenty people out there who like to work with children or enjoy teaching concepts to people that don't do so for a living because they make way more money doing whatevs it is they do instead.
Teachers need to do it because they love it. For someone to take up teaching for the great pay will not have your child's best interest at heart. If you want both high pay and a quality teacher, you need to pay for a private school without a union.
Seems very Karl Marxist to assume that someone will do their job, not for the pay, but for the pure want/creative satisfaction of doing it.
Also, bull crap.
A Marxist would insist on a union.
-
Yeah, there are things about my profession that I absolutely hate doing(plenty that I enjoy too), but the paycheck helps tip the scale to keep me in my profession rather than finding one where I don't encounter such issues.
This can be applied across the board when it comes to why people stay at their job with very few exceptions.
You are overrating the "calling" part of the teach job. They are not priests or social workers.
Higher pay = Higher interest from higher performing individuals. There are plenty people out there who like to work with children or enjoy teaching concepts to people that don't do so for a living because they make way more money doing whatevs it is they do instead.
Teachers need to do it because they love it. For someone to take up teaching for the great pay will not have your child's best interest at heart. If you want both high pay and a quality teacher, you need to pay for a private school without a union.
Doctors need to practice medicine because they love it. For someone to enter a medical practice for the great pay will not have your best health interest at heart.
This is true, but the threat of a malpractice lawsuit will force them to care.
Actually the threat of a malpractice lawsuit will force them to over care, which is also against the patient's best interest.
-
Yeah, there are things about my profession that I absolutely hate doing(plenty that I enjoy too), but the paycheck helps tip the scale to keep me in my profession rather than finding one where I don't encounter such issues.
This can be applied across the board when it comes to why people stay at their job with very few exceptions.
You are overrating the "calling" part of the teach job. They are not priests or social workers.
Higher pay = Higher interest from higher performing individuals. There are plenty people out there who like to work with children or enjoy teaching concepts to people that don't do so for a living because they make way more money doing whatevs it is they do instead.
Teachers need to do it because they love it. For someone to take up teaching for the great pay will not have your child's best interest at heart. If you want both high pay and a quality teacher, you need to pay for a private school without a union.
Doctors need to practice medicine because they love it. For someone to enter a medical practice for the great pay will not have your best health interest at heart.
This is true, but the threat of a malpractice lawsuit will force them to care.
Actually the threat of a malpractice lawsuit will force them to over care, which is also against the patient's best interest.
This is why any serious health care reform must include reasonable limits on malpractice damages.
-
If you want both high pay and a quality teacher, you need to pay for a private school without a union.
Actually, private schools don't have better teachers than public schools, and they pay much worse than public schools. Students at private schools score much better on standardized tests, obviously, but that has much more to do with parents who care and the school's ability to easily expel any problem students than it does with the quality of the teachers themselves. This is why the voucher program is doomed to fail. If you give vouchers to the problem students at failing public schools, the private schools will either have to kick them out or become failing schools themselves.
-
If you want both high pay and a quality teacher, you need to pay for a private school without a union.
Actually, private schools don't have better teachers than public schools, and they pay much worse than public schools. Students at private schools score much better on standardized tests, obviously, but that has much more to do with parents who care and the school's ability to easily expel any problem students than it does with the quality of the teachers themselves. This is why the voucher program is doomed to fail. If you give vouchers to the problem students at failing public schools, the private schools will either have to kick them out or become failing schools themselves.
You also have a much higher probability of teachers "teaching to the test" rather than fully covering a subject. Where as in pub school(at least my wifes's) there is more than one test the kids are responsible for taking and both test differently. Makes teaching to the test difficult, even if it wasn't discouraged, which it is.
-
You are over simplifying the "need to perform/love of the work" of any job. Again, teachers are not priests.
-
If you want both high pay and a quality teacher, you need to pay for a private school without a union.
Actually, private schools don't have better teachers than public schools, and they pay much worse than public schools. Students at private schools score much better on standardized tests, obviously, but that has much more to do with parents who care and the school's ability to easily expel any problem students than it does with the quality of the teachers themselves. This is why the voucher program is doomed to fail. If you give vouchers to the problem students at failing public schools, the private schools will either have to kick them out or become failing schools themselves.
You also have a much higher probability of teachers "teaching to the test" rather than fully covering a subject. Where as in pub school(at least my wifes's) there is more than one test the kids are responsible for taking and both test differently. Makes teaching to the test difficult, even if it wasn't discouraged, which it is.
This is a good reason to get the federal government out of the business of teaching. No child left behind is a huge failure. Education should be kept at the city or county level with some state oversight.
-
Depends on what you consider reasonable. I don't like the idea that there can be a cap on gross incompetence/negligence. That being said, serious health care reform has to go well beyond just tort reform and it's most likely not going to include a private sector solution, at least not as the private sector is organized today.
But back to teaching, people tout private/charter schools as having higher attainment rates, and they do. But they also have things like better funding, more involved parents and a host of other things that aren't accounted for.
NPR recently had Diane Ravitch on (here's the link http://www.npr.org/2011/04/28/135142895/ravitch-standardized-testing-undermines-teaching (http://www.npr.org/2011/04/28/135142895/ravitch-standardized-testing-undermines-teaching) ) talking about this. Finding causality in education is very, very difficult. Better pay to attract better teachers would help. More involved parents would help more, provided they're involved in the right way.
-
If you want both high pay and a quality teacher, you need to pay for a private school without a union.
Actually, private schools don't have better teachers than public schools, and they pay much worse than public schools. Students at private schools score much better on standardized tests, obviously, but that has much more to do with parents who care and the school's ability to easily expel any problem students than it does with the quality of the teachers themselves. This is why the voucher program is doomed to fail. If you give vouchers to the problem students at failing public schools, the private schools will either have to kick them out or become failing schools themselves.
You also have a much higher probability of teachers "teaching to the test" rather than fully covering a subject. Where as in pub school(at least my wifes's) there is more than one test the kids are responsible for taking and both test differently. Makes teaching to the test difficult, even if it wasn't discouraged, which it is.
This is a good reason to get the federal government out of the business of teaching. No child left behind is a huge failure. Education should be kept at the city or county level with some state oversight.
State should be the responsible party. Fed should be booted out.
-
You are over simplifying the "need to perform/love of the work" of any job. Again, teachers are not priests.
Agreed. There needs to be a "happy medium" for both the employer and employee.
-
Personally, I think there should be trade schools for students who aren't going to college and have finished their sophomore year of high school. High school for juniors and seniors should be for college bound students only. All schools should be year round.
-
school year round is a terrible idea from a financial standpoint. Districts already don't have any money....now you'd be asking them to keep schools open during the summer months, where electric bills will skyrocket due to the summer heat.
-
Interesting link - it lets you check the salary of teachers and other district employees in the state of Kansas. (Not all districts are available yet.)
http://www.kansasopengov.org/SchoolDistricts/PayrollListing/tabid/1592/Default.aspx
-
I think Alice Cooper said it best when he said "school's out for summer".
-
Personally, I think there should be trade schools for students who aren't going to college and have finished their sophomore year of high school. High school for juniors and seniors should be for college bound students only. All schools should be year round.
Not a bad idea.
-
fwiw, none of my teachers were underpaid. if anything, some of those bastards were overpaid. my Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) hs english teacher makes 65k. he has no grad degree and only has to work 9 months a year, and the cost of benefits aren't included in that number.
-
fwiw, none of my teachers were underpaid. if anything, some of those bastards were overpaid. my Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) hs english teacher makes 65k. he has no grad degree and only has to work 9 months a year, and the cost of benefits aren't included in that number.
How old is he?
-
fwiw, none of my teachers were underpaid. if anything, some of those bastards were overpaid. my Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) hs english teacher makes 65k. he has no grad degree and only has to work 9 months a year, and the cost of benefits aren't included in that number.
How old is he?
low 30's
-
school year round is a terrible idea from a financial standpoint. Districts already don't have any money....now you'd be asking them to keep schools open during the summer months, where electric bills will skyrocket due to the summer heat.
This is true. It would cost more to go year round.
-
Interesting link - it lets you check the salary of teachers and other district employees in the state of Kansas. (Not all districts are available yet.)
http://www.kansasopengov.org/SchoolDistricts/PayrollListing/tabid/1592/Default.aspx
wow, kinda interesting in a stalker-ish way. my mom makes more money than i thought she did.
-
I sampled the Hutchinson link and found several elementary teachers in the 19k-22k range. Student loan debt would start to look terrifying making that.
-
I sampled the Hutchinson link and found several elementary teachers in the 19k-22k range. Student loan debt would start to look terrifying making that.
hutch teachers probably are underpaid. several at shawnee mission are way the eff overpaid.
-
school year round is a terrible idea from a financial standpoint. Districts already don't have any money....now you'd be asking them to keep schools open during the summer months, where electric bills will skyrocket due to the summer heat.
It wouldn't surprise me to find they keep many schools air-conditioned in over the summer.
-
Good topic. Been debated for yrs. Was gaining popularity in the early 90's when money was flowing Districts had a 194 day contract with teachers and kids were in session for 186 days. At that time the feeling was we could possibly end up around 220 days. Obviously that didn't happen.
I have always been intrigued with the idea of year round school with one, two, and three week breaks scheduled in. A big issue is the UNION. Unless a big pot of money is associated with this the NEA would fight to the end against it.
**A/C shutoff b/c of summer? please. those things run non-stop without school being in session anyways.
-
school year round is a terrible idea from a financial standpoint. Districts already don't have any money....now you'd be asking them to keep schools open during the summer months, where electric bills will skyrocket due to the summer heat.
It wouldn't surprise me to find they keep many schools air-conditioned in over the summer.
They have to, otherwise you end up with other major maintenance nightmares. That said, they do so at a much lesser level than what is needed when you have 500+ heat producing people in your building. Not only do people create heat, but they prefer the ambient temp to be at a lower level than what the facility needs to maintain it's integrity. In other words, you can let a facility cool it's self to 80degrees during July rather than 74 degrees, and yes 6 degrees is a huge financial difference in a facility the size of a school.
Also, you can cut your maintenence staff hours during the off season. Not as many trash cans to empty, bathrooms to clean as often, etc. There is a lot of cost savings in facilities in the summer, or any time off for that matter.
That said, the year round plan I have seen was one that would have allowed for the same amt of time off, just at more frequent intervals for shorter durations.
If you are dealing with a annual budget, it would come close to equaling out in the end.
-
Good topic. Been debated for yrs. Was gaining popularity in the early 90's when money was flowing Districts had a 194 day contract with teachers and kids were in session for 186 days. At that time the feeling was we could possibly end up around 220 days. Obviously that didn't happen.
I have always been intrigued with the idea of year round school with one, two, and three week breaks scheduled in. A big issue is the UNION. Unless a big pot of money is associated with this the NEA would fight to the end against it.
**A/C shutoff b/c of summer? please. those things run non-stop without school being in session anyways.
Correct me if I am wrong, but NEA isn't a union everywhere. They act as a professional organization in Kansas, for instance, but have no bargaining power. My wife isn't a member of NEA. NEA has no say in bargaining her contract. It is all handled by the teachers. The NEA had no say what so ever in my wife's district possibly going year round a few years ago. Kansas isn't MO. The teachers have much less power here than across state line.
-
Depends on the district, CNS. Some districts in Kansas have enough NEA members that the organization does help with bargaining.
-
**A/C shutoff b/c of summer? please. those things run non-stop without school being in session anyways.
wrong
-
Yeah, there are things about my profession that I absolutely hate doing(plenty that I enjoy too), but the paycheck helps tip the scale to keep me in my profession rather than finding one where I don't encounter such issues.
This can be applied across the board when it comes to why people stay at their job with very few exceptions.
You are overrating the "calling" part of the teach job. They are not priests or social workers.
Higher pay = Higher interest from higher performing individuals. There are plenty people out there who like to work with children or enjoy teaching concepts to people that don't do so for a living because they make way more money doing whatevs it is they do instead.
Teachers need to do it because they love it. For someone to take up teaching for the great pay will not have your child's best interest at heart. If you want both high pay and a quality teacher, you need to pay for a private school without a union.
Doctors need to practice medicine because they love it. For someone to enter a medical practice for the great pay will not have your best health interest at heart.
This is true, but the threat of a malpractice lawsuit will force them to care.
Actually the threat of a malpractice lawsuit will force them to over care, which is also against the patient's best interest.
This is why any serious health care reform must include reasonable limits on malpractice damages.
Malpractice is under 5% of total costs. I mean sure you could argue that it accounts for over care which bleeds in to the other metrics. But it is several magnitudes less of a problem than administrative costs and lack of good primary care and the explosion of specialization and the dominance of out patient hospital care.
-
Yeah, there are things about my profession that I absolutely hate doing(plenty that I enjoy too), but the paycheck helps tip the scale to keep me in my profession rather than finding one where I don't encounter such issues.
This can be applied across the board when it comes to why people stay at their job with very few exceptions.
You are overrating the "calling" part of the teach job. They are not priests or social workers.
Higher pay = Higher interest from higher performing individuals. There are plenty people out there who like to work with children or enjoy teaching concepts to people that don't do so for a living because they make way more money doing whatevs it is they do instead.
Teachers need to do it because they love it. For someone to take up teaching for the great pay will not have your child's best interest at heart. If you want both high pay and a quality teacher, you need to pay for a private school without a union.
Doctors need to practice medicine because they love it. For someone to enter a medical practice for the great pay will not have your best health interest at heart.
This is true, but the threat of a malpractice lawsuit will force them to care.
Actually the threat of a malpractice lawsuit will force them to over care, which is also against the patient's best interest.
This is why any serious health care reform must include reasonable limits on malpractice damages.
Malpractice is under 5% of total costs. I mean sure you could argue that it accounts for over care which bleeds in to the other metrics. But it is several magnitudes less of a problem than administrative costs and lack of good primary care and the explosion of specialization and the dominance of out patient hospital care.
It is more about insurance premiums for doctors, nurses, and hospitals than it is the total amount of all rewards. Premiums are a major factor in the cost of health care. Depending on specialty, yearly malpractice premiums can be $200k
-
http://www.medicalbillingandcoding.org/medicals-costs-2/ (http://www.medicalbillingandcoding.org/medicals-costs-2/)
Not sure I agree with everything (obviously the subjective judgements about doctor compensation) but I have yet to see evidence that malpractice is a serious player. I mean I would love for it to be because it is such an easy fix, but I just don't think it is. There are plenty of states with state medical boards or caps on maximum awards, and it isn't like they have spectacularly better health outcomes or cheaper rates. I think it is mostly irrelevant.
-
http://www.medicalbillingandcoding.org/medicals-costs-2/ (http://www.medicalbillingandcoding.org/medicals-costs-2/)
Not sure I agree with everything (obviously the subjective judgements about doctor compensation) but I have yet to see evidence that malpractice is a serious player. I mean I would love for it to be because it is such an easy fix, but I just don't think it is. There are plenty of states with state medical boards or caps on maximum awards, and it isn't like they have spectacularly better health outcomes or cheaper rates. I think it is mostly irrelevant.
I clicked on another link on that page and got to state employees that made over $100K last year. You have lew perkins bilking the taxpayers out of $2.7M, far and away the highest (#2 was 1/5th of that). bernadette gray-little was 4th at $420K. Schulz was 10th at $345K. The rest of the top 10 are uk med.
Then came the shocker. Ranking #12...uk english prof and ex-uk chancellor robert hemenway. Really? We're spending $340K of taxpayer money to keep the gravy train running for a multimillionaire ex-university chancellor. just $5K and $2K less respectively to the KSU and wsu presidents? On top of that, from poking around on the uk english department website, it doesn't even list him as faculty. My guess is he doesn't even teach anything. Just collects a paycheck.
I guess that's why they call it "liberal" arts.
-
http://www.medicalbillingandcoding.org/medicals-costs-2/ (http://www.medicalbillingandcoding.org/medicals-costs-2/)
Not sure I agree with everything (obviously the subjective judgements about doctor compensation) but I have yet to see evidence that malpractice is a serious player. I mean I would love for it to be because it is such an easy fix, but I just don't think it is. There are plenty of states with state medical boards or caps on maximum awards, and it isn't like they have spectacularly better health outcomes or cheaper rates. I think it is mostly irrelevant.
I clicked on another link on that page and got to state employees that made over $100K last year. You have lew perkins bilking the taxpayers out of $2.7M, far and away the highest (#2 was 1/5th of that). bernadette gray-little was 4th at $420K. Schulz was 10th at $345K. The rest of the top 10 are uk med.
Then came the shocker. Ranking #12...uk english prof and ex-uk chancellor robert hemenway. Really? We're spending $340K of taxpayer money to keep the gravy train running for a multimillionaire ex-university chancellor. just $5K and $2K less respectively to the KSU and wsu presidents? On top of that, from poking around on the uk english department website, it doesn't even list him as faculty. My guess is he doesn't even teach anything. Just collects a paycheck.
I guess that's why they call it "liberal" arts.
Amazing how much money we shell out for such an awful med school
-
http://www.medicalbillingandcoding.org/medicals-costs-2/ (http://www.medicalbillingandcoding.org/medicals-costs-2/)
Not sure I agree with everything (obviously the subjective judgements about doctor compensation) but I have yet to see evidence that malpractice is a serious player. I mean I would love for it to be because it is such an easy fix, but I just don't think it is. There are plenty of states with state medical boards or caps on maximum awards, and it isn't like they have spectacularly better health outcomes or cheaper rates. I think it is mostly irrelevant.
I clicked on another link on that page and got to state employees that made over $100K last year. You have lew perkins bilking the taxpayers out of $2.7M, far and away the highest (#2 was 1/5th of that). bernadette gray-little was 4th at $420K. Schulz was 10th at $345K. The rest of the top 10 are uk med.
Then came the shocker. Ranking #12...uk english prof and ex-uk chancellor robert hemenway. Really? We're spending $340K of taxpayer money to keep the gravy train running for a multimillionaire ex-university chancellor. just $5K and $2K less respectively to the KSU and wsu presidents? On top of that, from poking around on the uk english department website, it doesn't even list him as faculty. My guess is he doesn't even teach anything. Just collects a paycheck.
I guess that's why they call it "liberal" arts.
We pay $212K for Wefald. Just an FYI.
-
http://www.medicalbillingandcoding.org/medicals-costs-2/ (http://www.medicalbillingandcoding.org/medicals-costs-2/)
Not sure I agree with everything (obviously the subjective judgements about doctor compensation) but I have yet to see evidence that malpractice is a serious player. I mean I would love for it to be because it is such an easy fix, but I just don't think it is. There are plenty of states with state medical boards or caps on maximum awards, and it isn't like they have spectacularly better health outcomes or cheaper rates. I think it is mostly irrelevant.
I clicked on another link on that page and got to state employees that made over $100K last year. You have lew perkins bilking the taxpayers out of $2.7M, far and away the highest (#2 was 1/5th of that). bernadette gray-little was 4th at $420K. Schulz was 10th at $345K. The rest of the top 10 are uk med.
Then came the shocker. Ranking #12...uk english prof and ex-uk chancellor robert hemenway. Really? We're spending $340K of taxpayer money to keep the gravy train running for a multimillionaire ex-university chancellor. just $5K and $2K less respectively to the KSU and wsu presidents? On top of that, from poking around on the uk english department website, it doesn't even list him as faculty. My guess is he doesn't even teach anything. Just collects a paycheck.
I guess that's why they call it "liberal" arts.
We pay $212K for Wefald. Just an FYI.
Didn't get that far down on the list. Also a travesty.
-
Good topic. Been debated for yrs. Was gaining popularity in the early 90's when money was flowing Districts had a 194 day contract with teachers and kids were in session for 186 days. At that time the feeling was we could possibly end up around 220 days. Obviously that didn't happen.
I have always been intrigued with the idea of year round school with one, two, and three week breaks scheduled in. A big issue is the UNION. Unless a big pot of money is associated with this the NEA would fight to the end against it.
**A/C shutoff b/c of summer? please. those things run non-stop without school being in session anyways.
Correct me if I am wrong, but NEA isn't a union everywhere. They act as a professional organization in Kansas, for instance, but have no bargaining power. My wife isn't a member of NEA. NEA has no say in bargaining her contract. It is all handled by the teachers. The NEA had no say what so ever in my wife's district possibly going year round a few years ago. Kansas isn't MO. The teachers have much less power here than across state line.
Definitely. The NEA is a powerful union with a lot of clout in DC. It's a matter of if the funding is there to pay teachers what the union feels is fair then they might support it. Otherwise they would fight very hard to see that it doesn't happen, regardless if it is the right thing to do for kids. Good for your wife...I see no pros. The cons are that you pay monthly dues to a bureaucracy that does nothing (my opinion) to ensure that kids are the focus and that student achievement is the priority.
-
Good topic. Been debated for yrs. Was gaining popularity in the early 90's when money was flowing Districts had a 194 day contract with teachers and kids were in session for 186 days. At that time the feeling was we could possibly end up around 220 days. Obviously that didn't happen.
I have always been intrigued with the idea of year round school with one, two, and three week breaks scheduled in. A big issue is the UNION. Unless a big pot of money is associated with this the NEA would fight to the end against it.
**A/C shutoff b/c of summer? please. those things run non-stop without school being in session anyways.
Correct me if I am wrong, but NEA isn't a union everywhere. They act as a professional organization in Kansas, for instance, but have no bargaining power. My wife isn't a member of NEA. NEA has no say in bargaining her contract. It is all handled by the teachers. The NEA had no say what so ever in my wife's district possibly going year round a few years ago. Kansas isn't MO. The teachers have much less power here than across state line.
Definitely. The NEA is a powerful union with a lot of clout in DC. It's a matter of if the funding is there to pay teachers what the union feels is fair then they might support it. Otherwise they would fight very hard to see that it doesn't happen, regardless if it is the right thing to do for kids. Good for your wife...I see no pros. The cons are that you pay monthly dues to a bureaucracy that does nothing (my opinion) to ensure that kids are the focus and that student achievement is the priority.
Some NEA's(not sure if KS is doing this or not) provides options for bene's that your district may not. Also, they cover you legally if you get sued by parents(at least that is what I understand).
Not sure there is much else there in KS.
-
Some NEA's(not sure if KS is doing this or not) provides options for bene's that your district may not. Also, they cover you legally if you get sued by parents(at least that is what I understand).
Not sure there is much else there in KS.
This. And this is why teachers' unions are important. I know certain people (who almost always have no idea what it's actually like to be a teacher) have an ingrained hatred of teachers' unions and think they are to blame for most if not all of education's woes, but the legal protection they provide is huge. "But totally, if you aren't a bad teacher, you won't get sued!" says MeatSauce, having no idea what parents are actually like. Wrong, MeatSauce. Wrong. Good teachers who have done nothing egregious get sued all the time by parents who think their shithead kids can do no wrong and that anything that displeases their child must be the teacher's fault. Without unions, who's going to protect the teacher in such a case? How will a teacher that makes under $40K/year hire a decent lawyer to fight unjust charges?
Unions aren't perfect by any means, but they're pretty rough ridin' necessary in cases like that.
-
Some NEA's(not sure if KS is doing this or not) provides options for bene's that your district may not. Also, they cover you legally if you get sued by parents(at least that is what I understand).
Not sure there is much else there in KS.
This. And this is why teachers' unions are important. I know certain people (who almost always have no idea what it's actually like to be a teacher) have an ingrained hatred of teachers' unions and think they are to blame for most if not all of education's woes, but the legal protection they provide is huge. "But totally, if you aren't a bad teacher, you won't get sued!" says MeatSauce, having no idea what parents are actually like. Wrong, MeatSauce. Wrong. Good teachers who have done nothing egregious get sued all the time by parents who think their shithead kids can do no wrong and that anything that displeases their child must be the teacher's fault. Without unions, who's going to protect the teacher in such a case? How will a teacher that makes under $40K/year hire a decent lawyer to fight unjust charges?
Unions aren't perfect by any means, but they're pretty rough ridin' necessary in cases like that.
I was focusing on the bargaining and/or negotiating power of the NEA in regards to salaries and contracted days. Parents are awful to deal with, believe me I know, and they put teachers in a defenseless position sometimes. In that aspect, of offering legal assistance to educators, I do appreciate what the NEA does. Assuming my teacher is in the right, of course.
-
DID NOT READ most of this thread, but I agree with SkinnyBenny on whatever he says in here
-
Some NEA's(not sure if KS is doing this or not) provides options for bene's that your district may not. Also, they cover you legally if you get sued by parents(at least that is what I understand).
Not sure there is much else there in KS.
This. And this is why teachers' unions are important. I know certain people (who almost always have no idea what it's actually like to be a teacher) have an ingrained hatred of teachers' unions and think they are to blame for most if not all of education's woes, but the legal protection they provide is huge. "But totally, if you aren't a bad teacher, you won't get sued!" says MeatSauce, having no idea what parents are actually like. Wrong, MeatSauce. Wrong. Good teachers who have done nothing egregious get sued all the time by parents who think their shithead kids can do no wrong and that anything that displeases their child must be the teacher's fault. Without unions, who's going to protect the teacher in such a case? How will a teacher that makes under $40K/year hire a decent lawyer to fight unjust charges?
Unions aren't perfect by any means, but they're pretty rough ridin' necessary in cases like that.
Of course the originally intended function of a union was to protect workers, but they are now PACs. This is now their main function along with holding municipalities hostage during contract negotiations. You never hear of teacher's unions threaten a strike because they are not happy with the curriculum forced upon them by the federal government, it is always about pay and benefits.
-
Some NEA's(not sure if KS is doing this or not) provides options for bene's that your district may not. Also, they cover you legally if you get sued by parents(at least that is what I understand).
Not sure there is much else there in KS.
This. And this is why teachers' unions are important. I know certain people (who almost always have no idea what it's actually like to be a teacher) have an ingrained hatred of teachers' unions and think they are to blame for most if not all of education's woes, but the legal protection they provide is huge. "But totally, if you aren't a bad teacher, you won't get sued!" says MeatSauce, having no idea what parents are actually like. Wrong, MeatSauce. Wrong. Good teachers who have done nothing egregious get sued all the time by parents who think their shithead kids can do no wrong and that anything that displeases their child must be the teacher's fault. Without unions, who's going to protect the teacher in such a case? How will a teacher that makes under $40K/year hire a decent lawyer to fight unjust charges?
Unions aren't perfect by any means, but they're pretty rough ridin' necessary in cases like that.
Of course the originally intended function of a union was to protect workers, but they are now PACs. This is now their main function along with holding municipalities hostage during contract negotiations. You never hear of teacher's unions threaten a strike because they are not happy with the curriculum forced upon them by the federal government, it is always about pay and benefits.
I don't know of any state where teachers are allowed to strike, union or otherwise.
-
Of course the originally intended function of a union was to protect workers, but they are now PACs. This is now their main function along with holding municipalities hostage during contract negotiations. You never hear of teacher's unions threaten a strike because they are not happy with the curriculum forced upon them by the federal government, it is always about pay and benefits.
So John Dougie, how many years have you taught?
:users:
DID NOT READ most of this thread, but I agree with SkinnyBenny on whatever he says in here
:D
-
pretty sue that MO teachers went on strike last year. almost caused school to be delayed
-
pretty sue that MO teachers went on strike last year. almost caused school to be delayed
Yeah, didn't realize some states actually allow strikes for public workers. Incredibly dumb way to craft union legislation for the public sector.
-
Of course the originally intended function of a union was to protect workers, but they are now PACs. This is now their main function along with holding municipalities hostage during contract negotiations. You never hear of teacher's unions threaten a strike because they are not happy with the curriculum forced upon them by the federal government, it is always about pay and benefits.
So John Dougie, how many years have you taught?
:users:
3 years, bro; we have discussed this before.
-
My burst, I must have forgot. :cheers:
-
My burst, I must have forgot. :cheers:
:bong:
-
If you want both high pay and a quality teacher, you need to pay for a private school without a union.
Actually, private schools don't have better teachers than public schools, and they pay much worse than public schools. Students at private schools score much better on standardized tests, obviously, but that has much more to do with parents who care and the school's ability to easily expel any problem students than it does with the quality of the teachers themselves. This is why the voucher program is doomed to fail. If you give vouchers to the problem students at failing public schools, the private schools will either have to kick them out or become failing schools themselves.
Anyone who has interest in this subject needs to read "Outliers" by Malcom Gladwell.
The fact that there's a strong correlation of successful students coming from wealthy, educated families is more of a byproduct of the fact that wealthy, educated parents are more willing to talk, read, and work with their children (and genes play a factor as well) as opposed to less wealthy, educated families. Basically, the biggest influence on a child's education is set before they're even born. If they're born to wealthy, smart parents, the kids are more likely to do well in school, and if you're born to poor, uneducated parents, your odds of succeeding are much lower.
The educational system can have an impact, and studies have shown that a combination of year-round schooling and challenging curriculum can greatly increases a child's chances of doing well in school and going to college, but at the end of the day, you basically have to move a mountain or be fortunate enough to be a statistical minority to actually succeed in school if you were born to the wrong family.
We can throw billions of dollars at under-performing schools and teachers, disband unions, change mandatory curricula, etc. but really, the increases you'll see won't be as dramatic as people will ultimately want for that investment. We're simply going to have to find the right balance because there is going to be a point where your ROI won't be worth it because the home lives for a lot of children aren't conducive to success.
The easiest solution to create the most rapid success would be year-round school. That has to happen at some point.
-
If you want both high pay and a quality teacher, you need to pay for a private school without a union.
Actually, private schools don't have better teachers than public schools, and they pay much worse than public schools. Students at private schools score much better on standardized tests, obviously, but that has much more to do with parents who care and the school's ability to easily expel any problem students than it does with the quality of the teachers themselves. This is why the voucher program is doomed to fail. If you give vouchers to the problem students at failing public schools, the private schools will either have to kick them out or become failing schools themselves.
Anyone who has interest in this subject needs to read "Outliers" by Malcom Gladwell.
The fact that there's a strong correlation of successful students coming from wealthy, educated families is more of a byproduct of the fact that wealthy, educated parents are more willing to talk, read, and work with their children (and genes play a factor as well) as opposed to less wealthy, educated families. Basically, the biggest influence on a child's education is set before they're even born. If they're born to wealthy, smart parents, the kids are more likely to do well in school, and if you're born to poor, uneducated parents, your odds of succeeding are much lower.
The educational system can have an impact, and studies have shown that a combination of year-round schooling and challenging curriculum can greatly increases a child's chances of doing well in school and going to college, but at the end of the day, you basically have to move a mountain or be fortunate enough to be a statistical minority to actually succeed in school if you were born to the wrong family.
We can throw billions of dollars at under-performing schools and teachers, disband unions, change mandatory curricula, etc. but really, the increases you'll see won't be as dramatic as people will ultimately want for that investment. We're simply going to have to find the right balance because there is going to be a point where your ROI won't be worth it because the home lives for a lot of children aren't conducive to success.
The easiest solution to create the most rapid success would be year-round school. That has to happen at some point.
I think we need to boil this down to the lowest common denominator and put the blame on the parents attitude rather than how much the money the parent makes. I realize class warfare is very important to many people, and perhaps the amount of money you have will affect your attitude, but it shouldn't. It always boils down to being a responsible parent, but it is usually easier to be a victim of society.
-
I think it's partly both, though I am certainly on board with a LOTTTT of parents being super shitty parents and their kids being at a disadvantage because of it. I mean, on the way to school when I was in elementary school, my dad used to quiz us on European capitals and crazy crap like that. Wish every parent did that.
-
Yeah, it's both. There are plenty of mom's out there more concerned about their new boyfriend than their kids, but there are also plenty of parents out there that work two jobs and are simply not home to take care of this part of things.
-
Basically I just think people need to stop having kids they can't afford/care for and the educational problem will begin to sort itself out a little bit. Not entirely, but it would sure make things easier. But yeah, defund Planned Parenthood, because poor people don't need birth control pills.
:shakesfist:
-
If you want both high pay and a quality teacher, you need to pay for a private school without a union.
Actually, private schools don't have better teachers than public schools, and they pay much worse than public schools. Students at private schools score much better on standardized tests, obviously, but that has much more to do with parents who care and the school's ability to easily expel any problem students than it does with the quality of the teachers themselves. This is why the voucher program is doomed to fail. If you give vouchers to the problem students at failing public schools, the private schools will either have to kick them out or become failing schools themselves.
Anyone who has interest in this subject needs to read "Outliers" by Malcom Gladwell.
The fact that there's a strong correlation of successful students coming from wealthy, educated families is more of a byproduct of the fact that wealthy, educated parents are more willing to talk, read, and work with their children (and genes play a factor as well) as opposed to less wealthy, educated families. Basically, the biggest influence on a child's education is set before they're even born. If they're born to wealthy, smart parents, the kids are more likely to do well in school, and if you're born to poor, uneducated parents, your odds of succeeding are much lower.
The educational system can have an impact, and studies have shown that a combination of year-round schooling and challenging curriculum can greatly increases a child's chances of doing well in school and going to college, but at the end of the day, you basically have to move a mountain or be fortunate enough to be a statistical minority to actually succeed in school if you were born to the wrong family.
We can throw billions of dollars at under-performing schools and teachers, disband unions, change mandatory curricula, etc. but really, the increases you'll see won't be as dramatic as people will ultimately want for that investment. We're simply going to have to find the right balance because there is going to be a point where your ROI won't be worth it because the home lives for a lot of children aren't conducive to success.
The easiest solution to create the most rapid success would be year-round school. That has to happen at some point.
I think we need to boil this down to the lowest common denominator and put the blame on the parents attitude rather than how much the money the parent makes. I realize class warfare is very important to many people, and perhaps the amount of money you have will affect your attitude, but it shouldn't. It always boils down to being a responsible parent, but it is usually easier to be a victim of society.
Wealth and poverty are generational, especially in attitudes.
Rich and successful people pass on the work ethic, attitude etc. that make them rich an successful, for the most part.
Dumb poor people pass on their work ethic (which varies between none at all to very good), attitude etc.
Probably the biggest difference in attitude comes from rich/successful people hoping their kids have it better than they did. People from poor/dumb background are most often the ones saying "Well the eighth grade was enough for me.'
It's that attitude that makes for shitty students.
-
If you want both high pay and a quality teacher, you need to pay for a private school without a union.
Actually, private schools don't have better teachers than public schools, and they pay much worse than public schools. Students at private schools score much better on standardized tests, obviously, but that has much more to do with parents who care and the school's ability to easily expel any problem students than it does with the quality of the teachers themselves. This is why the voucher program is doomed to fail. If you give vouchers to the problem students at failing public schools, the private schools will either have to kick them out or become failing schools themselves.
Anyone who has interest in this subject needs to read "Outliers" by Malcom Gladwell.
The fact that there's a strong correlation of successful students coming from wealthy, educated families is more of a byproduct of the fact that wealthy, educated parents are more willing to talk, read, and work with their children (and genes play a factor as well) as opposed to less wealthy, educated families. Basically, the biggest influence on a child's education is set before they're even born. If they're born to wealthy, smart parents, the kids are more likely to do well in school, and if you're born to poor, uneducated parents, your odds of succeeding are much lower.
The educational system can have an impact, and studies have shown that a combination of year-round schooling and challenging curriculum can greatly increases a child's chances of doing well in school and going to college, but at the end of the day, you basically have to move a mountain or be fortunate enough to be a statistical minority to actually succeed in school if you were born to the wrong family.
We can throw billions of dollars at under-performing schools and teachers, disband unions, change mandatory curricula, etc. but really, the increases you'll see won't be as dramatic as people will ultimately want for that investment. We're simply going to have to find the right balance because there is going to be a point where your ROI won't be worth it because the home lives for a lot of children aren't conducive to success.
The easiest solution to create the most rapid success would be year-round school. That has to happen at some point.
I think we need to boil this down to the lowest common denominator and put the blame on the parents attitude rather than how much the money the parent makes. I realize class warfare is very important to many people, and perhaps the amount of money you have will affect your attitude, but it shouldn't. It always boils down to being a responsible parent, but it is usually easier to be a victim of society.
Wealth and poverty are generational, especially in attitudes.
Rich and successful people pass on the work ethic, attitude etc. that make them rich an successful, for the most part.
Dumb poor people pass on their work ethic (which varies between none at all to very good), attitude etc.
Probably the biggest difference in attitude comes from rich/successful people hoping their kids have it better than they did. People from poor/dumb background are most often the ones saying "Well the eighth grade was enough for me.'
It's that attitude that makes for crapty students.
People don't really know how common this really is.
We're moving from a generation where a high school diploma can earn you a middle class life to a high school diploma keeping you barely above the poverty line (in most cases...depends on whether or not you acquired a trade).
There is most definitely a correlation between people who value education and have wealth vs. those who don't value education and do not. Those that do value education will pass it along to their children (most likely), and those that do not will pass that attitude to theirs.
-
If you want both high pay and a quality teacher, you need to pay for a private school without a union.
Actually, private schools don't have better teachers than public schools, and they pay much worse than public schools. Students at private schools score much better on standardized tests, obviously, but that has much more to do with parents who care and the school's ability to easily expel any problem students than it does with the quality of the teachers themselves. This is why the voucher program is doomed to fail. If you give vouchers to the problem students at failing public schools, the private schools will either have to kick them out or become failing schools themselves.
Anyone who has interest in this subject needs to read "Outliers" by Malcom Gladwell.
The fact that there's a strong correlation of successful students coming from wealthy, educated families is more of a byproduct of the fact that wealthy, educated parents are more willing to talk, read, and work with their children (and genes play a factor as well) as opposed to less wealthy, educated families. Basically, the biggest influence on a child's education is set before they're even born. If they're born to wealthy, smart parents, the kids are more likely to do well in school, and if you're born to poor, uneducated parents, your odds of succeeding are much lower.
The educational system can have an impact, and studies have shown that a combination of year-round schooling and challenging curriculum can greatly increases a child's chances of doing well in school and going to college, but at the end of the day, you basically have to move a mountain or be fortunate enough to be a statistical minority to actually succeed in school if you were born to the wrong family.
We can throw billions of dollars at under-performing schools and teachers, disband unions, change mandatory curricula, etc. but really, the increases you'll see won't be as dramatic as people will ultimately want for that investment. We're simply going to have to find the right balance because there is going to be a point where your ROI won't be worth it because the home lives for a lot of children aren't conducive to success.
The easiest solution to create the most rapid success would be year-round school. That has to happen at some point.
I think we need to boil this down to the lowest common denominator and put the blame on the parents attitude rather than how much the money the parent makes. I realize class warfare is very important to many people, and perhaps the amount of money you have will affect your attitude, but it shouldn't. It always boils down to being a responsible parent, but it is usually easier to be a victim of society.
I don't think it has much to do with a 'victim' attitude, overall. Maybe in some cases, but overall, stupid people tend to make less money, and stupid people tend to have stupid kids. I'm going with averages here.
-
If you want both high pay and a quality teacher, you need to pay for a private school without a union.
Actually, private schools don't have better teachers than public schools, and they pay much worse than public schools. Students at private schools score much better on standardized tests, obviously, but that has much more to do with parents who care and the school's ability to easily expel any problem students than it does with the quality of the teachers themselves. This is why the voucher program is doomed to fail. If you give vouchers to the problem students at failing public schools, the private schools will either have to kick them out or become failing schools themselves.
Anyone who has interest in this subject needs to read "Outliers" by Malcom Gladwell.
The fact that there's a strong correlation of successful students coming from wealthy, educated families is more of a byproduct of the fact that wealthy, educated parents are more willing to talk, read, and work with their children (and genes play a factor as well) as opposed to less wealthy, educated families. Basically, the biggest influence on a child's education is set before they're even born. If they're born to wealthy, smart parents, the kids are more likely to do well in school, and if you're born to poor, uneducated parents, your odds of succeeding are much lower.
The educational system can have an impact, and studies have shown that a combination of year-round schooling and challenging curriculum can greatly increases a child's chances of doing well in school and going to college, but at the end of the day, you basically have to move a mountain or be fortunate enough to be a statistical minority to actually succeed in school if you were born to the wrong family.
We can throw billions of dollars at under-performing schools and teachers, disband unions, change mandatory curricula, etc. but really, the increases you'll see won't be as dramatic as people will ultimately want for that investment. We're simply going to have to find the right balance because there is going to be a point where your ROI won't be worth it because the home lives for a lot of children aren't conducive to success.
The easiest solution to create the most rapid success would be year-round school. That has to happen at some point.
I think we need to boil this down to the lowest common denominator and put the blame on the parents attitude rather than how much the money the parent makes. I realize class warfare is very important to many people, and perhaps the amount of money you have will affect your attitude, but it shouldn't. It always boils down to being a responsible parent, but it is usually easier to be a victim of society.
I don't think it has much to do with a 'victim' attitude, overall. Maybe in some cases, but overall, stupid people tend to make less money, and stupid people tend to have stupid kids. I'm going with averages here.
the world needs ditch diggers, too, Danny.
-
If you want both high pay and a quality teacher, you need to pay for a private school without a union.
Actually, private schools don't have better teachers than public schools, and they pay much worse than public schools. Students at private schools score much better on standardized tests, obviously, but that has much more to do with parents who care and the school's ability to easily expel any problem students than it does with the quality of the teachers themselves. This is why the voucher program is doomed to fail. If you give vouchers to the problem students at failing public schools, the private schools will either have to kick them out or become failing schools themselves.
Anyone who has interest in this subject needs to read "Outliers" by Malcom Gladwell.
The fact that there's a strong correlation of successful students coming from wealthy, educated families is more of a byproduct of the fact that wealthy, educated parents are more willing to talk, read, and work with their children (and genes play a factor as well) as opposed to less wealthy, educated families. Basically, the biggest influence on a child's education is set before they're even born. If they're born to wealthy, smart parents, the kids are more likely to do well in school, and if you're born to poor, uneducated parents, your odds of succeeding are much lower.
The educational system can have an impact, and studies have shown that a combination of year-round schooling and challenging curriculum can greatly increases a child's chances of doing well in school and going to college, but at the end of the day, you basically have to move a mountain or be fortunate enough to be a statistical minority to actually succeed in school if you were born to the wrong family.
We can throw billions of dollars at under-performing schools and teachers, disband unions, change mandatory curricula, etc. but really, the increases you'll see won't be as dramatic as people will ultimately want for that investment. We're simply going to have to find the right balance because there is going to be a point where your ROI won't be worth it because the home lives for a lot of children aren't conducive to success.
The easiest solution to create the most rapid success would be year-round school. That has to happen at some point.
I think we need to boil this down to the lowest common denominator and put the blame on the parents attitude rather than how much the money the parent makes. I realize class warfare is very important to many people, and perhaps the amount of money you have will affect your attitude, but it shouldn't. It always boils down to being a responsible parent, but it is usually easier to be a victim of society.
I don't think it has much to do with a 'victim' attitude, overall. Maybe in some cases, but overall, stupid people tend to make less money, and stupid people tend to have stupid kids. I'm going with averages here.
the world needs ditch diggers, too, Danny.
It does.
I don't believe in the "American Dream" being accessible for everyone. I think propagating that notion is dangerous because it gives some people a reason to base their lives on some reality that's never going to happen for them unless they win the lottery.
The whole, "You can grow up to be anything you want to be," attitude is simply false. Not everyone can be a doctor. Not everyone can be an executive. Not everyone can start a business and make money on it. Some people need to learn a trade, and if you can't learn a trade, dig a ditch.
It's just life, man. It sucks, but it is what it is.
-
but everyone should get the opportunity to try
-
but everyone should get the opportunity to try
I believe they do. If you are being held back by some form of discrimination, I would presume a law is being broken. If you're simply incapable by virtue of your own mental limitations, there is nothing anyone can, or should, do about that. Everyone in America is given 13 years to attain an education, and a very large percentage waste it by their own choice.
-
If you want both high pay and a quality teacher, you need to pay for a private school without a union.
Actually, private schools don't have better teachers than public schools, and they pay much worse than public schools. Students at private schools score much better on standardized tests, obviously, but that has much more to do with parents who care and the school's ability to easily expel any problem students than it does with the quality of the teachers themselves. This is why the voucher program is doomed to fail. If you give vouchers to the problem students at failing public schools, the private schools will either have to kick them out or become failing schools themselves.
Anyone who has interest in this subject needs to read "Outliers" by Malcom Gladwell.
The fact that there's a strong correlation of successful students coming from wealthy, educated families is more of a byproduct of the fact that wealthy, educated parents are more willing to talk, read, and work with their children (and genes play a factor as well) as opposed to less wealthy, educated families. Basically, the biggest influence on a child's education is set before they're even born. If they're born to wealthy, smart parents, the kids are more likely to do well in school, and if you're born to poor, uneducated parents, your odds of succeeding are much lower.
The educational system can have an impact, and studies have shown that a combination of year-round schooling and challenging curriculum can greatly increases a child's chances of doing well in school and going to college, but at the end of the day, you basically have to move a mountain or be fortunate enough to be a statistical minority to actually succeed in school if you were born to the wrong family.
We can throw billions of dollars at under-performing schools and teachers, disband unions, change mandatory curricula, etc. but really, the increases you'll see won't be as dramatic as people will ultimately want for that investment. We're simply going to have to find the right balance because there is going to be a point where your ROI won't be worth it because the home lives for a lot of children aren't conducive to success.
The easiest solution to create the most rapid success would be year-round school. That has to happen at some point.
I think we need to boil this down to the lowest common denominator and put the blame on the parents attitude rather than how much the money the parent makes. I realize class warfare is very important to many people, and perhaps the amount of money you have will affect your attitude, but it shouldn't. It always boils down to being a responsible parent, but it is usually easier to be a victim of society.
I don't think it has much to do with a 'victim' attitude, overall. Maybe in some cases, but overall, stupid people tend to make less money, and stupid people tend to have stupid kids. I'm going with averages here.
the world needs ditch diggers, too, Danny.
It does.
I don't believe in the "American Dream" being accessible for everyone. I think propagating that notion is dangerous because it gives some people a reason to base their lives on some reality that's never going to happen for them unless they win the lottery.
The whole, "You can grow up to be anything you want to be," attitude is simply false. Not everyone can be a doctor. Not everyone can be an executive. Not everyone can start a business and make money on it. Some people need to learn a trade, and if you can't learn a trade, dig a ditch.
It's just life, man. It sucks, but it is what it is.
I think it is this is still true, but everyone has their limitations and their goals just need to be realistic. The liberal mindset in our schools that "everyone is a winner and their are no losers" is a double edged sword. It instills a feeling of false entitlement, therefore setting up a huge disappointment and permanent mental scar. Kids need to be able to experience and deal with failure and well as achievement.
-
If you want both high pay and a quality teacher, you need to pay for a private school without a union.
Actually, private schools don't have better teachers than public schools, and they pay much worse than public schools. Students at private schools score much better on standardized tests, obviously, but that has much more to do with parents who care and the school's ability to easily expel any problem students than it does with the quality of the teachers themselves. This is why the voucher program is doomed to fail. If you give vouchers to the problem students at failing public schools, the private schools will either have to kick them out or become failing schools themselves.
Anyone who has interest in this subject needs to read "Outliers" by Malcom Gladwell.
The fact that there's a strong correlation of successful students coming from wealthy, educated families is more of a byproduct of the fact that wealthy, educated parents are more willing to talk, read, and work with their children (and genes play a factor as well) as opposed to less wealthy, educated families. Basically, the biggest influence on a child's education is set before they're even born. If they're born to wealthy, smart parents, the kids are more likely to do well in school, and if you're born to poor, uneducated parents, your odds of succeeding are much lower.
The educational system can have an impact, and studies have shown that a combination of year-round schooling and challenging curriculum can greatly increases a child's chances of doing well in school and going to college, but at the end of the day, you basically have to move a mountain or be fortunate enough to be a statistical minority to actually succeed in school if you were born to the wrong family.
We can throw billions of dollars at under-performing schools and teachers, disband unions, change mandatory curricula, etc. but really, the increases you'll see won't be as dramatic as people will ultimately want for that investment. We're simply going to have to find the right balance because there is going to be a point where your ROI won't be worth it because the home lives for a lot of children aren't conducive to success.
The easiest solution to create the most rapid success would be year-round school. That has to happen at some point.
I think we need to boil this down to the lowest common denominator and put the blame on the parents attitude rather than how much the money the parent makes. I realize class warfare is very important to many people, and perhaps the amount of money you have will affect your attitude, but it shouldn't. It always boils down to being a responsible parent, but it is usually easier to be a victim of society.
I don't think it has much to do with a 'victim' attitude, overall. Maybe in some cases, but overall, stupid people tend to make less money, and stupid people tend to have stupid kids. I'm going with averages here.
the world needs ditch diggers, too, Danny.
It does.
I don't believe in the "American Dream" being accessible for everyone. I think propagating that notion is dangerous because it gives some people a reason to base their lives on some reality that's never going to happen for them unless they win the lottery.
The whole, "You can grow up to be anything you want to be," attitude is simply false. Not everyone can be a doctor. Not everyone can be an executive. Not everyone can start a business and make money on it. Some people need to learn a trade, and if you can't learn a trade, dig a ditch.
It's just life, man. It sucks, but it is what it is.
I think it is this is still true, but everyone has their limitations and their goals just need to be realistic. The liberal mindset in our schools that "everyone is a winner and their are no losers" is a double edged sword. It instills a feeling of false entitlement, therefore setting up a huge disappointment and permanent mental scar. Kids need to be able to experience and deal with failure and well as achievement.
That's not really a liberal mindset at all. In fact, most parents I know who instill that mindset in their kids are wealthy and very conservative.
-
If you want both high pay and a quality teacher, you need to pay for a private school without a union.
Actually, private schools don't have better teachers than public schools, and they pay much worse than public schools. Students at private schools score much better on standardized tests, obviously, but that has much more to do with parents who care and the school's ability to easily expel any problem students than it does with the quality of the teachers themselves. This is why the voucher program is doomed to fail. If you give vouchers to the problem students at failing public schools, the private schools will either have to kick them out or become failing schools themselves.
Anyone who has interest in this subject needs to read "Outliers" by Malcom Gladwell.
The fact that there's a strong correlation of successful students coming from wealthy, educated families is more of a byproduct of the fact that wealthy, educated parents are more willing to talk, read, and work with their children (and genes play a factor as well) as opposed to less wealthy, educated families. Basically, the biggest influence on a child's education is set before they're even born. If they're born to wealthy, smart parents, the kids are more likely to do well in school, and if you're born to poor, uneducated parents, your odds of succeeding are much lower.
The educational system can have an impact, and studies have shown that a combination of year-round schooling and challenging curriculum can greatly increases a child's chances of doing well in school and going to college, but at the end of the day, you basically have to move a mountain or be fortunate enough to be a statistical minority to actually succeed in school if you were born to the wrong family.
We can throw billions of dollars at under-performing schools and teachers, disband unions, change mandatory curricula, etc. but really, the increases you'll see won't be as dramatic as people will ultimately want for that investment. We're simply going to have to find the right balance because there is going to be a point where your ROI won't be worth it because the home lives for a lot of children aren't conducive to success.
The easiest solution to create the most rapid success would be year-round school. That has to happen at some point.
I think we need to boil this down to the lowest common denominator and put the blame on the parents attitude rather than how much the money the parent makes. I realize class warfare is very important to many people, and perhaps the amount of money you have will affect your attitude, but it shouldn't. It always boils down to being a responsible parent, but it is usually easier to be a victim of society.
I don't think it has much to do with a 'victim' attitude, overall. Maybe in some cases, but overall, stupid people tend to make less money, and stupid people tend to have stupid kids. I'm going with averages here.
the world needs ditch diggers, too, Danny.
It does.
I don't believe in the "American Dream" being accessible for everyone. I think propagating that notion is dangerous because it gives some people a reason to base their lives on some reality that's never going to happen for them unless they win the lottery.
The whole, "You can grow up to be anything you want to be," attitude is simply false. Not everyone can be a doctor. Not everyone can be an executive. Not everyone can start a business and make money on it. Some people need to learn a trade, and if you can't learn a trade, dig a ditch.
It's just life, man. It sucks, but it is what it is.
I think it is this is still true, but everyone has their limitations and their goals just need to be realistic. The liberal mindset in our schools that "everyone is a winner and their are no losers" is a double edged sword. It instills a feeling of false entitlement, therefore setting up a huge disappointment and permanent mental scar. Kids need to be able to experience and deal with failure and well as achievement.
That's not really a liberal mindset at all. In fact, most parents I know who instill that mindset in their kids are wealthy and very conservative.
Sorry, I meant that the "everyone is a winner and their are no losers" is the liberal mindset. I think conservatives, in general, are of the mindset "you need to work hard and compete for success".
-
If you want both high pay and a quality teacher, you need to pay for a private school without a union.
Actually, private schools don't have better teachers than public schools, and they pay much worse than public schools. Students at private schools score much better on standardized tests, obviously, but that has much more to do with parents who care and the school's ability to easily expel any problem students than it does with the quality of the teachers themselves. This is why the voucher program is doomed to fail. If you give vouchers to the problem students at failing public schools, the private schools will either have to kick them out or become failing schools themselves.
Anyone who has interest in this subject needs to read "Outliers" by Malcom Gladwell.
The fact that there's a strong correlation of successful students coming from wealthy, educated families is more of a byproduct of the fact that wealthy, educated parents are more willing to talk, read, and work with their children (and genes play a factor as well) as opposed to less wealthy, educated families. Basically, the biggest influence on a child's education is set before they're even born. If they're born to wealthy, smart parents, the kids are more likely to do well in school, and if you're born to poor, uneducated parents, your odds of succeeding are much lower.
The educational system can have an impact, and studies have shown that a combination of year-round schooling and challenging curriculum can greatly increases a child's chances of doing well in school and going to college, but at the end of the day, you basically have to move a mountain or be fortunate enough to be a statistical minority to actually succeed in school if you were born to the wrong family.
We can throw billions of dollars at under-performing schools and teachers, disband unions, change mandatory curricula, etc. but really, the increases you'll see won't be as dramatic as people will ultimately want for that investment. We're simply going to have to find the right balance because there is going to be a point where your ROI won't be worth it because the home lives for a lot of children aren't conducive to success.
The easiest solution to create the most rapid success would be year-round school. That has to happen at some point.
I think we need to boil this down to the lowest common denominator and put the blame on the parents attitude rather than how much the money the parent makes. I realize class warfare is very important to many people, and perhaps the amount of money you have will affect your attitude, but it shouldn't. It always boils down to being a responsible parent, but it is usually easier to be a victim of society.
I don't think it has much to do with a 'victim' attitude, overall. Maybe in some cases, but overall, stupid people tend to make less money, and stupid people tend to have stupid kids. I'm going with averages here.
the world needs ditch diggers, too, Danny.
It does.
I don't believe in the "American Dream" being accessible for everyone. I think propagating that notion is dangerous because it gives some people a reason to base their lives on some reality that's never going to happen for them unless they win the lottery.
The whole, "You can grow up to be anything you want to be," attitude is simply false. Not everyone can be a doctor. Not everyone can be an executive. Not everyone can start a business and make money on it. Some people need to learn a trade, and if you can't learn a trade, dig a ditch.
It's just life, man. It sucks, but it is what it is.
I think it is this is still true, but everyone has their limitations and their goals just need to be realistic. The liberal mindset in our schools that "everyone is a winner and their are no losers" is a double edged sword. It instills a feeling of false entitlement, therefore setting up a huge disappointment and permanent mental scar. Kids need to be able to experience and deal with failure and well as achievement.
That's not really a liberal mindset at all. In fact, most parents I know who instill that mindset in their kids are wealthy and very conservative.
Sorry, I meant that the "everyone is a winner and their are no losers" is the liberal mindset. I think conservatives, in general, are of the mindset "you need to work hard and compete for success".
Middle class conservatives, maybe.
-
If you want both high pay and a quality teacher, you need to pay for a private school without a union.
Actually, private schools don't have better teachers than public schools, and they pay much worse than public schools. Students at private schools score much better on standardized tests, obviously, but that has much more to do with parents who care and the school's ability to easily expel any problem students than it does with the quality of the teachers themselves. This is why the voucher program is doomed to fail. If you give vouchers to the problem students at failing public schools, the private schools will either have to kick them out or become failing schools themselves.
Anyone who has interest in this subject needs to read "Outliers" by Malcom Gladwell.
The fact that there's a strong correlation of successful students coming from wealthy, educated families is more of a byproduct of the fact that wealthy, educated parents are more willing to talk, read, and work with their children (and genes play a factor as well) as opposed to less wealthy, educated families. Basically, the biggest influence on a child's education is set before they're even born. If they're born to wealthy, smart parents, the kids are more likely to do well in school, and if you're born to poor, uneducated parents, your odds of succeeding are much lower.
The educational system can have an impact, and studies have shown that a combination of year-round schooling and challenging curriculum can greatly increases a child's chances of doing well in school and going to college, but at the end of the day, you basically have to move a mountain or be fortunate enough to be a statistical minority to actually succeed in school if you were born to the wrong family.
We can throw billions of dollars at under-performing schools and teachers, disband unions, change mandatory curricula, etc. but really, the increases you'll see won't be as dramatic as people will ultimately want for that investment. We're simply going to have to find the right balance because there is going to be a point where your ROI won't be worth it because the home lives for a lot of children aren't conducive to success.
The easiest solution to create the most rapid success would be year-round school. That has to happen at some point.
I think we need to boil this down to the lowest common denominator and put the blame on the parents attitude rather than how much the money the parent makes. I realize class warfare is very important to many people, and perhaps the amount of money you have will affect your attitude, but it shouldn't. It always boils down to being a responsible parent, but it is usually easier to be a victim of society.
I don't think it has much to do with a 'victim' attitude, overall. Maybe in some cases, but overall, stupid people tend to make less money, and stupid people tend to have stupid kids. I'm going with averages here.
the world needs ditch diggers, too, Danny.
It does.
I don't believe in the "American Dream" being accessible for everyone. I think propagating that notion is dangerous because it gives some people a reason to base their lives on some reality that's never going to happen for them unless they win the lottery.
The whole, "You can grow up to be anything you want to be," attitude is simply false. Not everyone can be a doctor. Not everyone can be an executive. Not everyone can start a business and make money on it. Some people need to learn a trade, and if you can't learn a trade, dig a ditch.
It's just life, man. It sucks, but it is what it is.
I think it is this is still true, but everyone has their limitations and their goals just need to be realistic. The liberal mindset in our schools that "everyone is a winner and their are no losers" is a double edged sword. It instills a feeling of false entitlement, therefore setting up a huge disappointment and permanent mental scar. Kids need to be able to experience and deal with failure and well as achievement.
That's not really a liberal mindset at all. In fact, most parents I know who instill that mindset in their kids are wealthy and very conservative.
Sorry, I meant that the "everyone is a winner and their are no losers" is the liberal mindset. I think conservatives, in general, are of the mindset "you need to work hard and compete for success".
unless you fail, in which case you can just blame the government
-
If you want both high pay and a quality teacher, you need to pay for a private school without a union.
Actually, private schools don't have better teachers than public schools, and they pay much worse than public schools. Students at private schools score much better on standardized tests, obviously, but that has much more to do with parents who care and the school's ability to easily expel any problem students than it does with the quality of the teachers themselves. This is why the voucher program is doomed to fail. If you give vouchers to the problem students at failing public schools, the private schools will either have to kick them out or become failing schools themselves.
Anyone who has interest in this subject needs to read "Outliers" by Malcom Gladwell.
The fact that there's a strong correlation of successful students coming from wealthy, educated families is more of a byproduct of the fact that wealthy, educated parents are more willing to talk, read, and work with their children (and genes play a factor as well) as opposed to less wealthy, educated families. Basically, the biggest influence on a child's education is set before they're even born. If they're born to wealthy, smart parents, the kids are more likely to do well in school, and if you're born to poor, uneducated parents, your odds of succeeding are much lower.
The educational system can have an impact, and studies have shown that a combination of year-round schooling and challenging curriculum can greatly increases a child's chances of doing well in school and going to college, but at the end of the day, you basically have to move a mountain or be fortunate enough to be a statistical minority to actually succeed in school if you were born to the wrong family.
We can throw billions of dollars at under-performing schools and teachers, disband unions, change mandatory curricula, etc. but really, the increases you'll see won't be as dramatic as people will ultimately want for that investment. We're simply going to have to find the right balance because there is going to be a point where your ROI won't be worth it because the home lives for a lot of children aren't conducive to success.
The easiest solution to create the most rapid success would be year-round school. That has to happen at some point.
I think we need to boil this down to the lowest common denominator and put the blame on the parents attitude rather than how much the money the parent makes. I realize class warfare is very important to many people, and perhaps the amount of money you have will affect your attitude, but it shouldn't. It always boils down to being a responsible parent, but it is usually easier to be a victim of society.
I don't think it has much to do with a 'victim' attitude, overall. Maybe in some cases, but overall, stupid people tend to make less money, and stupid people tend to have stupid kids. I'm going with averages here.
the world needs ditch diggers, too, Danny.
It does.
I don't believe in the "American Dream" being accessible for everyone. I think propagating that notion is dangerous because it gives some people a reason to base their lives on some reality that's never going to happen for them unless they win the lottery.
The whole, "You can grow up to be anything you want to be," attitude is simply false. Not everyone can be a doctor. Not everyone can be an executive. Not everyone can start a business and make money on it. Some people need to learn a trade, and if you can't learn a trade, dig a ditch.
It's just life, man. It sucks, but it is what it is.
I think it is this is still true, but everyone has their limitations and their goals just need to be realistic. The liberal mindset in our schools that "everyone is a winner and their are no losers" is a double edged sword. It instills a feeling of false entitlement, therefore setting up a huge disappointment and permanent mental scar. Kids need to be able to experience and deal with failure and well as achievement.
That's not really a liberal mindset at all. In fact, most parents I know who instill that mindset in their kids are wealthy and very conservative.
Sorry, I meant that the "everyone is a winner and their are no losers" is the liberal mindset. I think conservatives, in general, are of the mindset "you need to work hard and compete for success".
unless you fail, in which case you can just blame the government
Yes, the government has set a very dangerous precedent to support this attitude in recent years. :flush:
-
no it hasn't
-
no it hasn't
TARP?
GM, Chrysler?
-
no it hasn't
TARP?
GM, Chrysler?
these don't support your point at all
-
no it hasn't
TARP?
GM, Chrysler?
these don't support your point at all
Probably right, weak effort there.
-
no it hasn't
TARP?
GM, Chrysler?
these don't support your point at all
Probably right, weak effort there.
That's all right, your liberal indoctrination at school made you a lazy thinker.
-
no it hasn't
TARP?
GM, Chrysler?
these don't support your point at all
Probably right, weak effort there.
That's all right, your liberal indoctrination at school made you a lazy thinker.
I blame beems. Don't really need to think when sparring with him.