On 1/25/2012 12:32 PM, Pete C. wrote:

Jim Yanik wrote:

"Pete wrote in
.com:


Han wrote:

wrote in
:

On 25 Jan 2012 14:03:07 GMT, wrote:

wrote in news:49abe15e-ccf3-4bc0-bb20-
:

On Jan 25, 5:00 am, wrote:


http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_1...544/mitch-dani
els -...

Yep. The government is slowly but steadily eliminating one of the
most effective educational systems in our country..... Small,
but strong rural schools.

Ours survived a serious school battle about five years ago. But
it will probably be gone within ten.

What's needed is dedicated teachers and involved parents.
BOTH! I said BOTH!!


I only watched a portion of the pep talk but when he said the best
teachers should be rewarded, I asked myself define "best" and then
I said with what. I mean some people can't afford their homes much
less property tax increases of which help pay for the teachers. I
thought maybe a better way was not to reward the "best" teachers
but just get rid of the bad teachers. Of course then we have to
define what "good and bad" is but aside from the definitions, I
think a teacher doing his/her job shouldn't get rewarded but should
keep their job instead. I think the reward is seeing their student
graduate college and come back to say thank you to that teacher. I
realize not many students do this but maybe we need to teach the
students "manners / respect" as well as academics. Just my 2
cents worth...

It is difficult to define and measure what a good teacher is,
Indeed!! I am not saying it would be easy, nor that there shouldn't
be ways to so so. But ...

Both my daughter and son-in-law are high school teachers in less than
privileged districts. While it is very rewarding for them to see
students succeed, especially those they get when they at first appear
to be "losers", it isn't helpful to them when their net take home pay
gets cut significantly, as happened in NJ when the millionairs' tax
was cut, but teachers were told to pay much more for their healthcare
and in addition had their pension funds reduced once again (NJ has
refused to pay the contractually arrived at amounts into the pension
funds).

Everyone wants to pay good teachers more (and get rid of bad ones) but
nobody wants to pay for it. The thing is, what legal, constitutional,
moral, etc. justification do you have for taxing some people at a
higher rate just because they have deep pockets? Why should one person
pay $0.50 of every dollar they earn while someone else only pays $0.15
of every dollar they earn? No rational person can be in favor of
anything but a single flat tax on all income from all sources as being
fair to everyone.


Does paying teachers(good or bad) more bring about any increase in kids
passing or getting better grades? Does it better prepare kids for entering
the real world of employment? No and no.

Yes, and yes. Better salaries for teachers brings better teachers into
the teaching profession who otherwise go down other career paths that
pay better.


Fact is,the teachers knew the teaching salaries before they accepted the
job,and probably before they selected teaching as a career. Perhaps they
should only teach for a few years,and then move on to some better paying
job(if they have the skills...),if they don't like their salaries.

What happens is that idealistic teachers come out of college, take
teaching jobs and rapidly become disillusioned with the relatively low
pay and the poor schools. The good ones generally leave for better jobs
in the non teaching world in a few years, while the bad ones remain and
get tenure and are protected by the unions. The end result is failing
schools full of bad, tenured, union protected teachers.

I read something that was quite disturbing to me a while back. It seems
that the EEOC may now take action against employers who refuse to hire
anyone who lacks a high school diploma because it's employment
discrimination. The EEOC now considers those without a high school
diploma to be "disabled" and should be considered as such when applying
for a job. o_O

TDD