It's foolish to believe that students get poor grades because of the teachers.
Why they don't fire the bad students instead of the teachers?
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Teachers Unions & poor education in America
- Thread starter hippie
- Start date
Why they don't fire the bad students instead of the teachers?
teachers are overpaid babysitters. the academic achievement of US student is the proof in the pudding. pay the teachers accordingly and pass the savings on to the taxpayers.
as an aside the private sector is not looking to hire public schoolteachers. that says something about the skill levels of teachers.
as an aside the private sector is not looking to hire public schoolteachers. that says something about the skill levels of teachers.
Quote from zdreg:
obviously there is not an unlimited amount.
teacher salaries in the public sectors are determined by politicians who are in hock to the unions for their positions. if it was a free market the supply of willing teachers would lower salaries, it doesn't happen.
Every state is different as to the school systems. In my state, the school system does not have the legal authority to impose taxes to support the local school system. The local city/county allocates a budget in additional to the amount received from the state and federal government. This is a limited amount. In this state, the school board is non-partisan and the school superintendent is an appointed position. The school board does not directly negotiate the teacher's contract. It is handled by the professional supervisors within guidelines as set forth by the Board. The school board votes to approve or reject the proposed contract. Teacher salaries are not determined by politicians in hock to a union since there is no teacher's union in this state. Salaries of workers are never determined in negotiations by the supply of willing workers whether it is in the private or public sector. If that was the case there would be no reason to have contract negotiations. Just fire an individual and hire someone who will work for a dime less. That is probably your definition of a free market.
I am no longer on the school board and have not been for several years. Neither do I have any relatives working for the school system. But I understand the importance of the schools and teachers. It is the future of our country. Not that improvements cannot be made as my previous postings have indicated. But it appears you have a hatred for public schools and teachers. I would strongly recommend that you seek professional help.
Quote from chartman:
Every state is different as to the school systems. In my state, the school system does not have the legal authority to impose taxes to support the local school system. The local city/county allocates a budget in additional to the amount received from the state and federal government. This is a limited amount. In this state, the school board is non-partisan and the school superintendent is an appointed position. The school board does not directly negotiate the teacher's contract. It is handled by the professional supervisors within guidelines as set forth by the Board. The school board votes to approve or reject the proposed contract. Teacher salaries are not determined by politicians in hock to a union since there is no teacher's union in this state. Salaries of workers are never determined in negotiations by the supply of willing workers whether it is in the private or public sector. If that was the case there would be no reason to have contract negotiations. Just fire an individual and hire someone who will work for a dime less. That is probably your definition of a free market.
I am no longer on the school board and have not been for several years. Neither do I have any relatives working for the school system. But I understand the importance of the schools and teachers. It is the future of our country. Not that improvements cannot be made as my previous postings have indicated. But it appears you have a hatred for public schools and teachers. I would strongly recommend that you seek professional help.
not only do you personalize but you personalize incorrectly. to say that teachers are overpaid baby sitters doesn't mean that I hate them. if someone doesn't agree with you I suspect that this is not the first time you have recommended that they seek professional help.
" Just fire an individual and hire someone who will work for a dime less. That is probably your definition of a free market. "
this time you prove again that you do not understand the working of free markets or business.
there are costs associated with turnover of employees. therefore most employers will not fire someone at a mid level position for even a few thousand dollar in saving. additionally employers do not pay the minimum amount necessary to fill a slot if they expect to have a loyal work force and if they expect to promote their employees to higher skilled positions.
Quote from zdreg:
" Just fire an individual and hire someone who will work for a dime less. That is probably your definition of a free market. "
this time you prove again that you do not understand the working of free markets or business.
there are costs associated with turnover of employees. therefore most employers will not fire someone at a mid level position for even a few thousand dollar in saving. additionally employers do not pay the minimum amount necessary to fill a slot if they expect to have a loyal work force and if they expect to promote their employees to higher skilled positions.
I have a BA degree in Economics and a MBA in Business and have worked in the private sector for over forty years. I believe I have a basis understanding of the working of business and the definition of free markets.
I am fully aware of the costs associated with training employees and the turnover cost of losing them. That was exactly the issue I have been trying to convey to you about firing teachers because there are hundreds of willing people available in the marketplace. Schools are no different than private companies. They are in competition to hire and retain the best qualified employees. Teachers are no different than other workers. They have families and the freedom to pursue opportunities with other school systems, or even the private sector, if necessary in order to enhance their financial and working conditions. Contrary to what some seems to believe, there is competition between the public and private schools for teachers and even in the private sector since teachers are educated with many holding advanced degrees. Regardless of the belief that those that can do, and those that cannot teach, most people who have chosen to teach have done so because that is what they wanted as a profession. A love of teaching.
Quote from chartman:
I have a BA degree in Economics and a MBA in Business and have worked in the private sector for over forty years. I believe I have a basis understanding of the working of business and the definition of free markets.
I am fully aware of the costs associated with training employees and the turnover cost of losing them. That was exactly the issue I have been trying to convey to you about firing teachers because there are hundreds of willing people available in the marketplace. Schools are no different than private companies. They are in competition to hire and retain the best qualified employees. Teachers are no different than other workers. They have families and the freedom to pursue opportunities with other school systems, or even the private sector, if necessary in order to enhance their financial and working conditions. Contrary to what some seems to believe, there is competition between the public and private schools for teachers and even in the private sector since teachers are educated with many holding advanced degrees. Regardless of the belief that those that can do, and those that cannot teach, most people who have chosen to teach have done so because that is what they wanted as a profession. A love of teaching.
Teachers are different in that they have a powerful union. Another difference of they are paid with tax money - schools do not have to be profitable or even self-sustaining. If schools are privately run, and each child given some amount to attend the programs they choose, you would find a very different breed of teachers.
Quote from hippie:
Teachers are different in that they have a powerful union. Another difference of they are paid with tax money - schools do not have to be profitable or even self-sustaining.
It is a widely misconception that all teachers are represented by an union. The majority of teachers are not members of an union. The majority have a local teacher's association that represents them in negotiations with the local school board. Of course, no public entity is organized to be profitable even though some are suppose to be self-sustaining.
Teachers in public schools are paid by tax money but the resources are limited. The school board has a budget from which all operating expenses, including salaries, are to be paid. That is factual.
This issue can be debated into the infinitely and no one's position will change. We can all agree that the educating system needs to be changed. Those that support public education will continue to support it. Those that are against public education will continue to oppose it. Some believes that teachers are overpaid 'babysitters' and should work for minimum wages or less while other defends teachers as professionals that should be held in highest esteem. Those views are not going to change regardless of what is written here by the posters.
For the record, I support public education and believe every child should be presented an opportunity to be educated to the limit of his/her ability. The greatest asset of a nation is the brainpower of its youth. As the Negro College Fund slogan says, "A mind is a terrible thing to waste". It is a pity that everyone does not recognize that fact.
This is my last posting on this issue. To each his own.
Quote from hippie:
Everything would a lot better by getting rid of the bad teachers. Bad teachers is the big problem; then there is the disruptive students who can't or won't learn, but allowed to stay in class with those who do want to learn.
Nice to see you recognize the problem is not quite so simple. And doesn't firing (or did they just quit) 95% of the teachers in a school raise some questions? I mean if it is really true that 95% of the teachers in this school were bad teachers, then wouldn't you say the problem goes way beyond "bad teachers". In other words I have major questions about this entire operation and would want to talk to some of those "fired" teachers before drawing any conclusions. On the surface, none of this makes any sense at all and ought to raise multiple red flags. But I'd want to see the real Gates Foundation study rather than Mish's Global whatever interpretation before coming to any conclusions.
I have heard this before and there might be some truth to it. Most likely the difference then was a result of two things:
1. Different expectations. No one expected the majority of Africans to display any significant academic ability. Certainly, there were standouts, yet the more realistic expectations meant there was no "crisis" to speak of.
2. At that time Africans were expected to conform to the dominant, white european culture that existed at that time, and to a large degree many of them did so. Certainly, the type of degenerate behavior that plagues this community was not tolerated.
After the 60's liberation movement, US blacks reverted to the type of social structure that was previously alien in the USA and very common in Africa: Rampant promiscuity, little regard for the future, high level of productivity, criminality, etc. This was all exacerbated by the welfare state and active leftist propaganda. In my opinion it is very likely that the African American community has suffered significant dysgenic reproduction in just the past 60 years do to a combination effect of "welfare check babies" multiplying on the bottom while the more intelligent blacks are one of the groups most likely to have an abortion.
1. Different expectations. No one expected the majority of Africans to display any significant academic ability. Certainly, there were standouts, yet the more realistic expectations meant there was no "crisis" to speak of.
2. At that time Africans were expected to conform to the dominant, white european culture that existed at that time, and to a large degree many of them did so. Certainly, the type of degenerate behavior that plagues this community was not tolerated.
After the 60's liberation movement, US blacks reverted to the type of social structure that was previously alien in the USA and very common in Africa: Rampant promiscuity, little regard for the future, high level of productivity, criminality, etc. This was all exacerbated by the welfare state and active leftist propaganda. In my opinion it is very likely that the African American community has suffered significant dysgenic reproduction in just the past 60 years do to a combination effect of "welfare check babies" multiplying on the bottom while the more intelligent blacks are one of the groups most likely to have an abortion.
Quote from AAAintheBeltway:
Not every inner city kid will be an academic genius, but the fact is that inner city schools that were largely minorities performed quite well back in the '40's and '50's. In fact, they took a great deal of pride in that fact. Walter Williams has written extensively about it. For some reason, those same schools today produce only failure. I don't think the kids suddenly got a lot dumber.