Some interesting discussion here

http://www.coyoteblog.com/coyote_blog/20...l#comments

And from the referenced site

http://www.lookingattheleft.com/2011/02/...ion-thugs/

And this article ought to inspire discussion

http://www.manhattan-institute.org/html/...y_myth.htm

Quote:According to the U.S. Department of Labor, the average public elementary school teacher in the United States earns about $30.75 an hour. The average hourly pay of other public-service employees - such as firefighters ($17.91) or police officers ($22.64) - pales in comparison.

Indeed, teachers' hourly rate exceeds even those in professions that require far more training and expertise. Compare the schoolteacher's $30.75 to the average biologist's $28.07 an hour - or the mechanical engineer's $29.76 or the chemist's $30.68.

Nor do teachers spend all of their time at school in the classroom. In fact, teachers spend fewer hours actually instructing students than many recognize. Stanford's Terry Moe worked with data straight from the nation's largest teacher union's own data - and found that the average teacher in a department setting (that is, where students have different teachers for different subjects) was in the classroom for fewer than 3.9 hours out of the 7.3 hours at school each day.

I think he makes some valid points, but listen guys. You can't just show up in a classroom and say, "Ok let's get to work." You may only be in front of students for 3.9 hours but you should have at least that in prep and asessments. Every teacher is different and I spent much more time on prep as a beginning teacher than I do now. I definitely had a learning curve.

Oh, and the fact that they have lifetime job security because in public schools they can’t be fired for even the most egregious incompetance



I laugh at this part. It's just flat ass wrong.

(02-25-2011 09:55 AM)Machiavelli Wrote:  I think he makes some valid points, but listen guys. You can't just show up in a classroom and say, "Ok let's get to work." You may only be in front of students for 3.9 hours but you should have at least that in prep and asessments. Every teacher is different and I spent much more time on prep as a beginning teacher than I do now. I definitely had a learning curve.

3.9 + 3.9 is 7.8 hours a day, still not the awful grueling 24*7 job Teachers claim it is.

(02-25-2011 09:58 AM)Machiavelli Wrote:  Oh, and the fact that they have lifetime job security because in public schools they can’t be fired for even the most egregious incompetance



I laugh at this part. It's just flat ass wrong.

Im sure a lot depends on sate but in NY it is insane..

(02-25-2011 09:58 AM)Machiavelli Wrote:  I laugh at this part. It's just flat ass wrong.

tsk tsk tsk, language.

(02-25-2011 09:55 AM)Machiavelli Wrote:  I think he makes some valid points, but listen guys. You can't just show up in a classroom and say, "Ok let's get to work." You may only be in front of students for 3.9 hours but you should have at least that in prep and asessments. Every teacher is different and I spent much more time on prep as a beginning teacher than I do now. I definitely had a learning curve.

No doubt about that. Good teachers prepare well, and likely put in more hours.

I don't know these numbers. They seem low to me from what I recall about my HS teachers, but times change and different states do things differently. But it does seem as though the 14 hour days aren't the norm.

In fairness, a BS chemist who works as an instrument operator probably isn't working every one of those 480 minutes in his day. (I would suggest that nurses probably do work most every minute they're on shift).

It's also worth noting that the hourly pay cited was for elem ed, while the hours were for upper grades. I don't know if or how the pay scales differ.

In the end, I don't believe the clamor in Wisc or in Denver (as per the other link) is justified. Things are tight all over. We all know it.

That coyoteblog blog entry is great.

I have no problem with those in the Education field defending their careers in that they have to work extra hours, 'prep' on their own time, etc, just like good workers in all other professions. Meaning, they are more than glorified baby sitters.

But this quote...

Quote:That’s your problem. You’re an entrepreneur, so you don’t work. You don’t know what work is until you get into an educational area.

...is yet another ignorant insult that further proves that a good number of teachers - their union shills in particular - live in some sort of bubble world.

Their "Dallas/Dynasty" perception of business, as the blogger described, is right on target.

Two things...................

1. If you are putting in 14 hour days. There is something wrong. I had a history teacher take me under his wing my first couple of years. You do get the teacher who constantly ******* and complains about how much grading they have to do, but he always told me to be wary of those types. He always said they were incompetent. I can only speak for my area. I can get all of my grading done IN SCHOOL. If I have to take stuff home I've been spending WAY too much time on here or coaching has been taking up too much of my day. I teach Science and my standard quiz is 20 multiple choice with 2 or 3 essays. Mytests are 30 mc and 5 essays. I can knock out a quiz of a class of 50 in under 30 minutes and slightly more for a test. Again this is a system developed over 15 years. Some of the tests I have memorized and can repeat back to you in my sleep.


2. You know the thing I never see anyone complain about. SNOW DAYS baby. I love em. I'm on one today. I keep a sense of youth. I freakin love snow days and conservatives seem to like them too. Our new governor put two more calamity days back in the calendar. I can't stand or stomach the idea that seat time equates to learning. When I have a disciplined class where the kids (I want to say eager and want but they don't even have to be there) at least "pay attention" I can knock out at least 5 more chapters or units. I gaurandamntee you the Western Parts of the state kids learn more in a 130 days then kids in the classrooms out east. Alot of it, (hell the majority) of it is the make up of the classroom and how many knuckleheads you get in a group.

(02-25-2011 09:20 AM)DrTorch Wrote:  And from the referenced site

http://www.lookingattheleft.com/2011/02/...ion-thugs/

Just did a browse of the link's photos. It looks like a baby boomer reunion of Woodstock attendees.

(02-25-2011 10:36 AM)Machiavelli Wrote:  I gaurandamntee you the Western Parts of the state kids learn more in a 130 days then kids in the classrooms out east.

Oh, I don't think there was ever any debate on that!

Right on Cue:

Why in the hell our we doing this:

http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-...3827.story

So we actually track kids who don't want to be in school and force them into a class of 30. I bet this kid is the model student in the classroom.

I'm with Henry in the comment section

This is ridiculous! Dragooning education-averse kids into classrooms is going to do nothing but cause disruption for the kids who <i>do</i> want to be there.

Send the losers home--and put a big, black, mark on their "permenent record" forever making them ineligible to vote or to receive any kind "welfare" assistance.

(02-25-2011 11:26 AM)Machiavelli Wrote:  Right on Cue:

Why in the hell our we doing this:

http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-...3827.story

So we actually track kids who don't want to be in school and force them into a class of 30. I bet this kid is the model student in the classroom.

I'm with Henry in the comment section

This is ridiculous! Dragooning education-averse kids into classrooms is going to do nothing but cause disruption for the kids who <i>do</i> want to be there.

Send the losers home--and put a big, black, mark on their "permenent record" forever making them ineligible to vote or to receive any kind "welfare" assistance.

I'd rather see something like this.
http://www.samizdata.net/blog/archives/2..._dead.html

Quote:This is my take on the matter. There is certainly a "bubble", or malinvestment issue, in higher education in much of the West. I also think that the school leaving age should be reduced. Heck, I also have argued that labour market rules should be eased to make it easier for firms to take on apprentices so that young people can do something productive and lucrative. A lot of graduates are likely to come out of universities feeling bitter and betrayed at having degrees that are of limited market use and yet are saddled with heavy debts. The whole model needs to be rethought, and radically. I have said so in the past and intend to repeat this point from time to time.

Which is to say, the higher ed bubble and the public school crisis are very similar in nature. The system ignores the individual, ignores the marektplace, and then can't understand why things don't work as smoothly as their models predict.

Anyway, we might need less black marks against people if we gave them valid opportunities that fit who they are, while enforcing the concept that they are responsible for their decisions.

I like your comment better than Henry's, but here's the crux of the matter. You can't force these kids into a vocation. They have to want it. For whatever reason we are raising kids who do not see that with hard work comes a just reward. I tell my kids and my students all the time that you can work hard now and enjoy the rest of your life....... Or Take it easy now and work hard for the rest of your life.

(02-25-2011 11:26 AM)Machiavelli Wrote:  Right on Cue:

Why in the hell our we doing this:

http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-...3827.story

So we actually track kids who don't want to be in school and force them into a class of 30. I bet this kid is the model student in the classroom.

School gets money for every day he's in class. Seems pointless from one perspective but this is a heavily incentivized action.

(02-25-2011 11:45 AM)Machiavelli Wrote:  I like your comment better than Henry's, but here's the crux of the matter. You can't force these kids into a vocation. They have to want it. For whatever reason we are raising kids who do not see that with hard work comes a just reward. I tell my kids and my students all the time that you can work hard now and enjoy the rest of your life....... Or Take it easy now and work hard for the rest of your life.

This is precisely why we have this "liberal/conservative" argument. Conservatives blame this on "the nanny state" and are portrayed as if they want to get rid of ALL assistance... Liberals talk about "compassion" and are portrayed as being freeloaders on the system... There is evidence of both positions. I mean, who wants their hard earned money going to lazy people, and who wants to see people struggling through no fault of their own?

The REALITY is, that we ALL (80+%) want to help those who need it, but to cut out those who are gaming the system... even unintentionally because it leads to what you talk about.

so WHY do we spend 95% of our time arguing with each other and less that 5% solving the parts we agree on?

stupid

(02-25-2011 11:45 AM)Machiavelli Wrote:  I like your comment better than Henry's, but here's the crux of the matter. You can't force these kids into a vocation. They have to want it. For whatever reason we are raising kids who do not see that with hard work comes a just reward. I tell my kids and my students all the time that you can work hard now and enjoy the rest of your life....... Or Take it easy now and work hard for the rest of your life.

once again it comes down to the family structure. I've had plenty of good teachers and plenty of bad teachers. None of them are intended to be babysitters

(02-25-2011 12:50 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(02-25-2011 11:45 AM)Machiavelli Wrote:  I like your comment better than Henry's, but here's the crux of the matter. You can't force these kids into a vocation. They have to want it. For whatever reason we are raising kids who do not see that with hard work comes a just reward. I tell my kids and my students all the time that you can work hard now and enjoy the rest of your life....... Or Take it easy now and work hard for the rest of your life.

This is precisely why we have this "liberal/conservative" argument. Conservatives blame this on "the nanny state" and are portrayed as if they want to get rid of ALL assistance... Liberals talk about "compassion" and are portrayed as being freeloaders on the system... There is evidence of both positions. I mean, who wants their hard earned money going to lazy people, and who wants to see people struggling through no fault of their own?

The REALITY is, that we ALL (80+%) want to help those who need it, but to cut out those who are gaming the system... even unintentionally because it leads to what you talk about.

so WHY do we spend 95% of our time arguing with each other and less that 5% solving the parts we agree on?

stupid

True. The hard part is figuring out who actually needs help and who doesn't, on a very large scale, in some kind of efficient manner so it doesn't cost a fortune.

(02-25-2011 02:34 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  True. The hard part is figuring out who actually needs help and who doesn't, on a very large scale, in some kind of efficient manner so it doesn't cost a fortune.

When you consider how much money we spend arguing... I mean what did the last Presidential election ALONE cost us... we could narrow it down pretty significantly.

I think step number one would be to eliminate political contributions altogether. Each Presidential candidate gets some amount of money... let's say $100mm. Take it from the general fund. Each Senator, Rep, etc etc something less...

Your first test as a candidate is to get yourself elected on a limited budget. How can we expect PRESIDENT Obama (or Bush or Clinton or Reagan) to not treat us all like a piggy bank when we didn't expect CANDIDATE Obama (or Bush or CLinton or Reagan) not to. I'd consider private, issue specific ads... and ANYONE can go on youtube/facebook... but let's take the MONEY out of the equation.

(02-25-2011 04:03 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(02-25-2011 02:34 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  True. The hard part is figuring out who actually needs help and who doesn't, on a very large scale, in some kind of efficient manner so it doesn't cost a fortune.

When you consider how much money we spend arguing... I mean what did the last Presidential election ALONE cost us... we could narrow it down pretty significantly.

I think step number one would be to eliminate political contributions altogether. Each Presidential candidate gets some amount of money... let's say $100mm. Take it from the general fund. Each Senator, Rep, etc etc something less...

Your first test as a candidate is to get yourself elected on a limited budget. How can we expect PRESIDENT Obama (or Bush or Clinton or Reagan) to not treat us all like a piggy bank when we didn't expect CANDIDATE Obama (or Bush or CLinton or Reagan) not to. I'd consider private, issue specific ads... and ANYONE can go on youtube/facebook... but let's take the MONEY out of the equation.

I'd mostly agree with that. It's ridiculous how much elections cost. And you can start by getting rid of TV political ads. Nothing says 'blatant idiocy' like political ads. Even debates aren't the best way. They need to start expecting more thorough answers. And NOT ones that can be easily rebutted AFTER the debate is over with a simple internet search. If you can't substantiate a claim, don't say it. If someone says they're going to cut spending, they don't get off stage until they say specifically where they want to cut. Now I'm rambling. But anyway...

It's still hard, when you're talking about millions of people or even thousands, to figure out who really needs help and who doesn't. The process needs to be fixed, and even cutting election costs won't help that. I don't claim to know enough about the current process (welfare, unemployment, etc.) to have any answers on it.