Slashdot Mirror
Obama Wants $1 Billion For "Master Teachers Corps"
theodp writes "The White House has unveiled a proposal to create a national elite teachers corps to reward the nation's best educators in science, technology, engineering and math. In the first year, as many as 2,500 teachers in those subjects would get $20,000 stipends on top of their base salaries in exchange for a multiyear commitment to the STEM Master Teacher Corps. The Obama administration plans to expand the corps to 10,000 nationwide over the next four years, with the ultimate goal that the elite group of teachers will pass their knowledge and skills on to their colleagues to help bolster the quality of teaching nationwide."
As long as they don't teach critical thinking.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/answer-sheet/post/texas-gop-rejects-critical-thinking-skills-really/2012/07/08/gJQAHNpFXW_blog.html
I'm tring to work out from TFA whether this is aimed at recruiting new teachers, or developing existing ones. If it's the former, then there have been various similar schemes (or perhaps it's a single often-rebranded scheme) in the UK over the last decade or so. The focus hasn't always been so narrowly on the STEM subjects, but it has tended to be on "difficult" subjects, where recruitment and retention of teachers is usually difficult (and where pupil uptake and performance has been fastest to decline).
In fact, I have a friend who works in teaching who got into it via the scheme in one of its various guises. He's fairly open about both its strengths and drawbacks.
In terms of strengths, he quite openly admits that the salary supplement (which was less than the GBP equivalent of $20,000 when he joined - closer to around $8,000 equivalent) was a very attactive consideration, given that he was graduating with a fair old pile of debt. None of the other career options he was considering would have made it possible for him to move away from the parents and live independently in London quite so quickly. He's also noted that he (and others like him) actually know his subject (maths) to the extent that they can actually field questions from students that go away from the narrow syllabus. He was horrified by how many of his older colleagues were dependant on being allowed to stick to a very narrow syllabus.
On the other side of the coin, a lot of his intake to the graduate scheme dropped out relatively quickly - within the first year in many cases. The scheme was highly focussed on underperforming schools - which largely tend to be those which have the most severe discipline problems. It's no secret that many classes in those schools are more about crowd control than education. As my friend is the oldest of 6 siblings, he came to this with a natural advantage. By contrast, those who had gotten onto the scheme on the basis of academic ability often simply couldn't cope with the levels of misbehaviour, abuse and violence that are endemic in our less impressive schools and dropped out.
The other problem revolved around the reactions of other teachers - and particularly the teaching unions - to the scheme members. This is a profession where pay and career advancement had long been (and is still largely expected to be) determined by length of service, rather than performance or potential. Having a bunch of "bright young things" on additional pay and a fast track to Department-head and other management positions went down in most staff-rooms like a cup of cold sick. At the same time, the unions (membership of which is not mandatory, but is widespread) did everything they legally could to make life unpleasant for them. If you find yourself on a "Fast Track" scheme like this, you need to be prepared to be a bit of a staff room pariah.
So yeah, it's not a bad idea in theory, but expect results in practice to be mixed.
Obama has been looking for ways to release money into the economy as stimulus. I would much rather see it given to teachers than spent making and expending explosives where brown people live.
If video games influenced behavior the Pac Man generation would be eating pills and running away from their problems.
Some Teachers' Unions frowns upon this.
almost every "smart" kid at school is that way mostly due to parents making sure he does his work and understands everything
This country is already overrun with literate smart people.
We don't need more wasteful spending. We need to spend this money bombing, uh, (throws dart at map)..
Madagascar.
More money for our corporate masters. That's the Amerikun way.
I agree. America really needs to give the Chinese and other Asian countries a chance to catch up in the education department
Have fun at -1, commie!
Or not.
Of course the vast majority of that debt was spent while Republicans were in power and getting the US involved in very costly wars. Not all, granted, but a majority I am sure.
Obama is trying to do something to improve the lot of all Americans, obviously the Right can't have that, only the quality of life for the very rich and powerful should be improved. The Republicans seem bent on opposing anything that might improve the US at the moment, so that no credit can be given to Obama and the Democrats. This is counter productive and a disservice to your country IMHO.
"The first time I got drunk, I got married. The second time I bought a chimpanzee, after that I stayed sober" Arian Seid
What about English? Teach that better, motherfuckers.
It's so much fun spending other peoples money, isn't it?
We are 15 TRILLION dollars in debt yet they keep spending like drunken leftists. Why worry, they can print all the money they want.
And these teachers go on to brainwash the young to be good little socialists such that they vote for more and more big government spending.
We are truly in deep shit if we do not trow these tyrants out of power in November.
Vote Romney for president and conservative in all other offices on your ballot.
Wake up drones!
Yes, the whole program could fund another four days of the US presence in Iraq
Hey, dumbass. Are you aware that fully half of the deficit is due to the Bush-era tax cuts? You know, those ones that were put in place when Republicans claimed that deficits didn't matter? The ones that turned a budget surplus into a deficit? Yeah, those. The endless money we spend on foreign wars accounts for another 1/4 of the deficit. Spending stimulates the economy, not austerity.
Bold initiatives like this always sound good in theory, but tend to be hollow in practice. The last big federal education interevention was "No Child Left Behind" and that actually made things worse.
Spending lots of money to create "master" teachers isn't going to change much, if anything. If throwing money around was the solution, then the dept of education would be seeing much more success.
Save for desegregation, federal interference in public school education has largely been a failure. Why go down this path even further?
the poor deserve to have stupid children, as god intended
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
Please. As a conservative, methinks you're talking out your ass. We have no problem with public school teachers. What we have a problem with is unions that continue to protect teachers that are poor performers or don't adapt to new teaching techniques, which is exactly the reason why we're in the sad state we are, these days. The point is that as teachers reach tenure, some, not all, can become complacent, and just use their job for a paycheck, while others go out of their way to create interesting, stimulating lesson plans. Who gets rewarded more? In most cases, the complacent one, as they've achieved tenure, they get greater raises and it's nigh on impossible to fire them. As a realist, I think this program is a step in the right direction, incentivizing good, young teachers to excel and actually TEACH their students, rather than just read out of a book. ON the other hand, nothing the federal government ever does ONLY costs a billion dollars.
I can think of many things which would improve the quality of public schools without raising taxes:
1. Tort reform. Serious, hardcore tort reform at the state level which takes an axe to all of the areas where frivolous lawsuits can be brought would eliminate the argument for any policy that is grounded in the fear of what some idiot might sue over.
2. End zero tolerance under pain of imprisonment for anyone who punishes a student for acting in self-defense.
3. Remove any student who is constantly disrupting class. If they become a problem (and don't have a documented mental handicap), simply expel them and kick them out onto the street.
4. Establish a general policy of erring on the side of pacing the class to the speed of the top 50% of the class, not the bottom 50%. If the bottom cannot keep up, offer them tutoring; if they fail objectively, fail them for the year.
But if they're not going to get rid of the bad teachers then they're just pissing in the wind. Not to mention pissing away a billion dollars.
"The average reporter we talk to is 27 years old......They literally know nothing." - Ben Rhodes
The term "corps" gives it away. Once they have signed they will realise that they have signed for military service, and due to a change of plans are due to be deployed in Iraq.
Of course the vast majority of that debt was spent while Republicans were in power and getting the US involved in very costly wars. Not all, granted, but a majority I am sure.
Obama is trying to do something to improve the lot of all Americans, obviously the Right can't have that, only the quality of life for the very rich and powerful should be improved. The Republicans seem bent on opposing anything that might improve the US at the moment, so that no credit can be given to Obama and the Democrats. This is counter productive and a disservice to your country IMHO.
Keep drinking the kool-aid.
There are no loopholes. It's either legal or it's not.
"the vast majority of that debt was spent while Republicans were in power and getting the US involved in very costly wars."
Oh good grief will you shut up about Republicans? Who cares about Republicans? We need to get rid of the lot of them and elect conservatives. Do you see me justifying the spending coming from any Republican president? Obama has spent this country into more dept that all previous presidents COMBINED. Put down your DNC talking points memo and use your brain.
"Obama is trying to do something to improve the lot of all Americans"
How? By nationalizing the healthcare system lowering quality of care and increasing costs? By spending the country so fast into debt that we will never be able to recover from it? You think this administration intends to do anything to help us citizens? What? The economic stimulus was promised to reduce unemployment and it hasn't, more money pissed away with no effect. Expansion of the welfare state and increased numbers of people on food stamps. Your man is a fraud, a mobster who is only interested in more and more power.
And you just suck it all up and smile don't you. Have fun driving your Obama car that runs on Unicorn farts, drone.
If there was any indication that Romney and his cronies were not "tyrants" who would exhibit the same degree of fiscal insanity as the current crop of politicians, I might consider voting for them.
The Geroge W. Bush era clearly demonstrated that we have two parties of big government in Washington DC. There is no longer genuine political opposition on a policy level. The two parties are just fighting over who gets to play Santa for the next few years.
Vote for Gary Johnson, Jill Stein or whomever. The only wasted vote is one cast for Democrats or Republicans.
Parents can make their kids work, but if it's not their subject, it wouldn't really be much more than carrot/stick. A teacher is the one who helps most of the kids to understand and develop themselves in the subject.
If you honestly believe that it matters one fuck-knot who is in office as to the direction of this country, you need to wake up. Money is power, and regardless of who our congresscritters, president or other various reps are, the same people, year in and year out are the ones in power.
Of course the vast majority of that debt was spent while Republicans were in power and getting the US involved in very costly wars. Not all, granted, but a majority I am sure.
Obama is trying to do something to improve the lot of all Americans, obviously the Right can't have that, only the quality of life for the very rich and powerful should be improved. The Republicans seem bent on opposing anything that might improve the US at the moment, so that no credit can be given to Obama and the Democrats. This is counter productive and a disservice to your country IMHO.
BULLSHIT.
Obama/Pelosi/Reid have added over 1/3 the ENTIRE US public debt in little over three years.
I even provided a pretty picture that your small brain can understand. With colors to help.
Actually, you're wrong. The national debt was roughly $10T when Bush left office in 2008. It's now pushing $16T, three years and six months into Obama's term.
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-57400369-503544/national-debt-has-increased-more-under-obama-than-under-bush/
http://www.brillig.com/debt_clock/
Really what does it matter? Teachers can only do so much. The best teacher's hands are tied if the students will not meet them halfway. Yet fewer and fewer students are interested in STEM because their parents don't value STEM, their community (think churches) does not value STEM and their society does not value STEM (think job market). Want to make STEM work? let me suggest taxing capital gains the same as regular income so bankers and "managers" don't get special financial treatment compared to engineers. Want to get communities to value STEM? Limit the value of cults by taxing religious organizations, at least make them pay local property taxes like everybody else. They do not respect the separation of church and state so why should muni's go bankrupt fixing roads for them? Want to make STEM interesting? Enunciate a real national goal for STEM, like the space race only maybe a bit more here and now. Personally, I like a CAFE rule of 40 kilometers per liter by 2020.
2. End zero tolerance under pain of imprisonment for anyone who punishes a student for acting in self-defense.
Eh? Are you saying that there is currently zero tolerance of punishing a student who is acting in self defense (with imprisonment as a sentence) and you want to end this? Seriously I don't know what you'r saying here
They "will pass their knowledge and skills on"? Uh, how? Why?
The other teachers will be sitting in their own classes. They won't be watching the better-paid one. Teachers have work assigned to them, and after they finish they want to go home to their families or run off and get drunk. They are human.
Getting decent teachers requires two main things. First, the long-term (decades) pay has to look OK. (this isn't long-term) Second, the discipline problems must be solved. A couple bouncers in every classroom might do the job, as long as they actually do drag the disruptive kids out of class with a bit of minor violence.
Or, roughly three hours of federal government operation.
Can we do the same with people who abuse "air quotes"?
The problem isn't just on the spending side of the books (incidentally, funny how conservatives NEVER criticise wasteful spending on defence or subsidies to business who don't need them). There's a cashflow problem, due to falling tax revenues, due in part to drunken idiots on Wall Street crashing the economy, and drunken idiots in Congress voting for goodies like tax cuts that nobody can afford.
Sounds like a REALLY big version of Greece if you ask me. Too many arseholes sticking their hands out for free money, and not enough people with brains explaining how it's all going to get paid for.
Ever heard of the No True Scotsman fallacy?
Teacher corps? What will the program be called, "War on Ignorance"?
There's no hint at what makes a teacher "elite", but he promises lots of cash after the election. He promised a transparent administration and this is the most transparent attempt to buy votes ever.
Don't tell me both parties are the same, thats bullshit and you know it. The ACA was passed with 0 Republican votes. The Republicans are worthless generally, but they are less worthless than the Democrats and our only chance is to throw out the current lot and force the Republicans back into the box we call the Constitution.
From everything I've read about successful education systems, the best systems have one feature in common: world class teachers who are valued, and paid accordingly.
I think, given what we know right now, this stands a reasonable chance of being a stunning success.
I think it's a disgrace that teaching isn't as prestigious and hard to get into as law or medicine, given it's extreme importance to the way our societies work.
Obama is trying to do something to improve the lot of all Americans
With Other Peoples' Money, which has a cost to all US residents. This program seems relatively high value for the money spent, but it still might not outweigh the costs.
It's also worth noting that this program puts money into so-called "high need" schools, which I gather is a euphemism for poorly run public schools. That seems to me a rather poor use of public funds and good teachers. I don't have a good solution to the poorly run public school problem except to get the students out of the school, say by paying them vouchers to go elsewhere.
It's not going to work with conservatives. They want to punish all teachers, although bad teachers especially. Rewarding good behavior isn't in their MO... Only rewarding greed and selfishness works for them.
But the STEM teachers must be greedy and selfish, otherwise why would they be attracted to the $ bonuses, pay increments, and promotion prospects? You don't think they're like other teachers, who impart their knowledge/ignorance out of love[*] of doing so...
[*] For positive and negative values of love.
Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities. - Voltaire
We've thrown too much money at education in the U.S. already, or, more appropriately, we've thrown too much money at everything surrounding education but not necessarily to improve the actual education of an individual student. The number of people employed in public education has nearly doubled since 1970 while enrollment has only gone up 8.5% [1]. With this much money as is being thrown at public education in the U.S. one would think that we'd be turning out the best and brightest but we're not. So maybe more money is simply not the answer.
I agree in general with providing incentives to be better teachers but how about providing disincentives for teachers that are clearly just not good at their jobs? The first step should be accountability for the existing workforce, not just throwing more money at it.
[1] - http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702303734204577465413553320588.html
Another $ Billion boondoggle proposed by a failed President to help bribe votes from a sector of the public (Teacher Union Bosses) that he already has in his pocket. He knows there is no way a Congress facing a 33% annual budget deficit is going to even consider another wasteful spending program, but it will give him something to talk about that keeps left wing news reporters from asking about all the lies he has told, the crimes he continues to conceal behind Executive Privilege, and his many failures to lead.
Okay this is actually a really good idea however what is being done about the teachers who don't care and can't teach? Smart kids derive from good teaching, parents, homework and peers have a role but over all good teaching will win out all the time. I think there should be a second committee to fire all teachers who aren't able to teach.
Our Founding Fathers never envisioned a Federal role in public education. Public education is and should be managed on a local/regional level. These attempts to overreach Federal powers need to be stopped.
Ron Paul 2012 - (even if I have to write him in)
try gutting the useless infrastructure of non teaching bureaucrats in school systems. Our "high" school has a principal, his direct supporting staff, three vp principles their staff, purchasing ( though we also have a dedicated department), etc. etc. Thats just the high school. 29% of the school district staff not teaching. All for a town of 25K. When we tried to trim the bureaucracy the union stepped in an struck.
When a drunken sailor runs out of money, he has to stop spending.
Or he can wait in an an alley, mug a passerby and buy another drink.
"The average reporter we talk to is 27 years old......They literally know nothing." - Ben Rhodes
The only difference between republicans and democrats is that republicans are more overt about who they receive bribe. . . . err campaign donations from.
We need to get rid of the lot of them and elect conservatives
Where is the conservative who I can actually vote for in the real world again? Mittens Romney is what a conservative looks like in the US today. Denying this is nothing more than an Only A True Scotsman fallacy.
One billion to give 2500 teachers a $20K stipend. So it costs $400K per teacher to provide that $20K raise?!!!!
Actually, you're wrong. The national debt was roughly $10T when Bush left office in 2008. It's now pushing $16T, three years and six months into Obama's term.
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-57400369-503544/national-debt-has-increased-more-under-obama-than-under-bush/
http://www.brillig.com/debt_clock/
Not only that, almost all the debt added under Bush II was done after Democrats took control of the House and Senate in 2006.
The Pelosi/Reid/Obama debt is about HALF the entire US debt.
A valid point. That does not mean we should keep spending, however.
Speaking from my personal standpoint, if I was 100k dollars in debt, spending 10 dollars on some sunglasses is really of no impact to my debt. That still doesn't mean that I should continue excess spending and instead of working toward resolving my debt. Small steps are often the most effective way to shift policy in the appropriate direction. In reality it probably does NOT matter, since this ship is so far off course it's unlikely to be righted anyway.
FWIW, this may be a very well thought out, effective program that will greatly benefit everyone. Being from the government, I find that highly unlikely.
And to head things off at the pass, no, I'm not a Conservative, or a Libertarian, or any other stupid labels.
Just another ignorant American.
Nothing was nationalized, whole healthcare is still in private hands. You are watching too much propaganda. There is nothing in that law that would make price higher or healthcare worst.
Btw, American healthcare is already much higher than healthcare in any other western country. And its results are, well, not as good as other western countries. But it seems to be important to stop the only serious attempt to solve these problems. Because we hate Obama and it does not matter what is in his laws cas we hate him so we are against.
Well, really the problem is on BOTH sides of the books. We are spending like drunken fools, all while the income dwindles.
I honestly think that most people at this point are just hoping the system stays alive long enough for them to not have to see it implode.
Just another ignorant American.
Conservatives spent more money during the Bush administration (2001-2007) then President Obama did in his entire term in office.
Don't fall into the trap that Conservatives are anti-government spending. They're only anti-government spending when they're not in power so they can put up a big fuss and watch the donations poor in from the hardcore far-right/tea party voters.
You realize that this was because President Bush and the Republicans never bothered to put the two wars (Afghanistan and Iraq) on the budget, right?
Gov. Snyder just revealed a plan similar to this for Michigan.
create a national elite teachers corps
Doesn't the world have enough "elitists" already? I don't think the world can survive much more of them.
This is really just a payback from Obama to one of his core constituency. Not that it might not do some good but the purpose is to pay back teachers for their past votes and to show the teachers that he's in their corner and they should come out and vote for him this election.
Are you trying to make some kind of a point? Because you have failed to do so.
Let's see who kills it first: the democrats, quietly after the elections, or the republicans, loudly and with much grandstanding.
Every time I see something like this I have to wonder what the person in charge is actually thinking. Then I remind myself that they aren't.
Group psychology will tell you that rewarding some at the expense of others only makes the rewarded outcasts. It will do the exact opposite of what they are trying to accomplish.
As my boss is so fond of saying; "Reward the behavior that you want to enforce." If you want better teachers, then reward them for bringing their classes up to par. Give them time to do their jobs. Get rid of silly practices like "No child left behind" and let the teacher actually teach.
Teachers know how to make learning fun, but they are not given time to do it because of all of the standardized testing. This testing is what they must teach the students how to master. It doesn't help the student one whit. Just because I can rip an algebraic equation down in thirty seconds doesn't help me a lot. Sure I use it in my job once every blue moon, but guess what? I don't need 6 semesters of math to be able to do it.
The second issue is that we need to quit treating little Johnny like he is exactly like Bill, Doug and the rest of the class. Little Johnny has an IQ of 80. Why are we holding back the folks who have an IQ of 112 just so little Johnny doesn't get his feelings hurt? Suck it up. Little Johnny is going to find out when he hits the employment market that no one gives a care that he can't figure out how to turn on a faucet and mop the floor. They will fire him and move on. So why are we pandering to try and make everyone equal when we know full well that they aren't? Sure, it's a sad situation, but don't punish those who can for the sake of those who can't.
We need full education reform. The system we have in the US is horribly broken and nothing is going to fix that with a major overhaul.
Tax cut == handout.
Any questions, wingnut?
Where is the conservative who I can actually vote for in the real world again?
His name is Gary Johnson.
Year 1 disbursement:
2,500*$20,000=50,000,000
Year 2,3,4 (assuming immediate ramp up to 10,000) disbursement:
3*10,000*$20,000=600,000,000
Year 1,2,3,4 disbursement:
$650,000,000
That means there is $350M for administration of the funds. Maybe they should invest less in math so that it is harder to see the government waste.
It is ironic that the Democrats/Leftists/Progressives want to try to fix the educational system now when they have owned it lock, stock, and barrel since the sixties.
EVERYTHING that is wrong with it now is the result of THEIR policies.
When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
Teaching is becoming a nasty job. The pay is low, and constantly under political threat. Socially teaching is looked down upon ("those who can't, teach", and "they get the summer off", "they are ruining our kids"). Teachers are under all kinds of pressures: "Teach to the test, even at the expense of your own curriculum!", "Handle larger numbers of kids at a time!", etc. Not to mention the sick urge to over-evaluate and fire teachers, sometimes on crazy-town metrics (http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/05/nyregion/in-brooklyn-hard-working-teachers-sabotaged-when-student-test-scores-slip.html?pagewanted=all).
Becoming a teacher means embracing low pay, constant criticism, an ever increasing workload, and a political environment aching for more ways to fire you. Ask yourself this: Would you leave your job to teach? As a college student, would you risk making a career of teaching? Would a potential $20k annual bonus in exchange for a multiyear commitment to more work change your mind?
And anyone who even a little bit honest with themselves have to admit they have seen both types of teachers when they were in school.
But...this program won't work. It is doomed from the start simply by virtue of it being sponsored by the very same people who destroyed the current system.
When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
...that one of the most reliably-Democratic demographics is teachers?
http://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/summary.php?id=D000000064
http://www.followthemoney.org/database/top10000.phtml?topl=1&topnum=10000
NATIONAL EDUCATION ASSOCIATION
- #1 Contributors to state-level campaigns, political parties, and ballot measure committees in 2007 and 2008
- donated 2:1 to Democrats over Republicans in state races.
- donated 25:1 Dems:Repubs in national races since 1990 (the charted dates, but it's been a mainstay of DNC contributors for much, much longer)
-Styopa
"Nothing was nationalized"
Good grief, almost nothing in the 3000 pages of law has yet been implemented you fool.
Wake up drone, use the brain god gave you, think! Of course this is their goal, they are after real power, they are determined, organized and well funded. This battle has been going on for many many years and you are only watching the endgame. Don't take my word for it, listen to the source.
http://blog.heritage.org/2009/07/31/barney-frank-public-option-is-best-way-to-single-payer/
"Barney Frank:
Because we don’t have the votes for it. I wish we did. I think that if we get a good public option it could lead to single payer and that is the best way to reach single payer. Saying you’ll do nothing till you get single payer is a sure way never to get it. I think the best way we’re going to get single payer, the only way, is to have a public option and demonstrate the strength of its power."
Please. As a conservative, methinks you're talking out your ass. We have no problem with public school teachers. What we have a problem with is unions that continue to protect teachers that are poor performers or don't adapt to new teaching techniques, which is exactly the reason why we're in the sad state we are, these days. The point is that as teachers reach tenure, some, not all, can become complacent, and just use their job for a paycheck, while others go out of their way to create interesting, stimulating lesson plans. Who gets rewarded more? In most cases, the complacent one, as they've achieved tenure, they get greater raises and it's nigh on impossible to fire them.
^^^ This. I'm also a conservative (though I will most likely be voting for Obama), and indeed the problem is not public school teachers, but how many unions (not all, but many) protect under-performing teachers. There are vested interests to keep the status-quo.
However, the other side of the coin to be fair is that many in the current conservative echelons attack the teaching profession, think privatization and education budget cutting (think Gov. Rick Scott) is the solution of everything, and worse, they pander to creationists (which is one of the reasons I will not be voting GOP in these coming elections.)
There is a lot to blame on both sides of the political fence. The important thing is to move past the blaming game, pick and plan and work from there.
As a direct reply to the AC, whenever someone says "conservatives X" or "liberals X", it is almost certain that one can ignore his/her words without significant loss of information. Generalizations are the bread and butter of the feeble minded fodder for the identity politics cannons.
As a realist, I think this program is a step in the right direction, incentivizing good, young teachers to excel and actually TEACH their students, rather than just read out of a book. ON the other hand, nothing the federal government ever does ONLY costs a billion dollars.
I agree. I think there will be significant problems, and unfortunately the current GOP leadership that panders to the far right will cry havock just because the plan was proposed by dark-skinned-socialist-with-muslim-sounding-name-who-of-course-is-a-manchurian-candidates-for-the-chinese-and-satan. There will also be elements in teacher unions
No plan is ever perfect, which is why there should always be opposition, negotiation, compromise and reconciliation. But one cannot wait forever for the perfect plan. We pick one and we move from there. We fix, keep or drop pieces accordingly.
However imperfect this might be, and regardless of the problems that will occur (and they will), at least in spirit, this is a move in the right direction.
What about arts, communication, sports, social services, medicine, solidarity, civic rights, law? Why hard sciences are the only "valuable" topics in this age?
$1B in wooden paddles is what's really needed.
The number of STEM degrees combined are not even half of the graduates who walk out with a theater and performing arts degree.
Makes me really sad.
The price is always right if someone else is paying.
What a waste of money since it is little more than window dressing and will not solve the problem of the failure of the school system.
"I believe in Karma. That means I can do bad things to people all day long and I assume they deserve it." : Dogbert
"Tax cut == handout"
Excuse me moron, I work for my money and when the state steals it it costs me my productivity, my time on this earth. My money is my very life, as it is for all men who produce.
For you to equate reducing the amount that is stolen from me to a handout is quite the insult.
Fvck you right back then statist.
There have been lots and lots and lots of studies on how to improve education. Out of all of these, there are two measures that bring substantial gains, while reducing costs:
- Fire incompetent teachers. You don't even have to replace them - just fire the worst teachers and put their students in the other classes.
- Reduce regulation and administration. Let the teachers teach, instead of dealing with bureaucratic idiocy from adminstrators and government regulators.
Of course, the first is opposed by the teacher's unions, and the second is opposed by administrative empire builders, so neither of these is likely to happen. In particular, of course the government wants another governmental program to interfere in education. When, in reality, the federal government has absolutely no business meddling in any educational system outside of DC.
Enjoy life! This is not a dress rehearsal.
1 the average teachers pay will go DOWN (or not increase with inflation)
2 its possible that some teachers will (via admins) bribe their way onto this program
3 if you can't control the students then you are sunk
4 will this also include a mandate to actually EDUCATE the students or will this be another Teach The Test and 70% Of Our Students are above Average!! (even if you just look at our school(s))
Any person using FTFY or editing my postings agrees to a US$50.00 charge
You realize that this was because President Bush and the Republicans never bothered to put the two wars (Afghanistan and Iraq) on the budget, right?
What the fuck difference does that make? They had to pay for it with real money that had to come from somewhere.
The US debt is the US debt.
And in just 5 years it DOUBLED under Pelosi/Reid/Obama.
PS - when is the Dems going to even pass a budget? They haven't done that since Obumbles took office.
See subject, pretty simple (you'd get tons more than needed).
Those who are experts in their field are rarely fulfilled by merely teaching it to others. They prefer jobs where they actually get to put their skills into action. So teachers are usually, but not always, the leftovers who couldn't hack it in harder disciplines.
Agreed. I went to a highly specialized magnet school in NJ that focused on marine biology and marine systems engineering. We had some amazing teachers, but we also had some bad ones. One particularly poor teacher that still sticks out in my mind was my sophomore geometry teacher. I'd never gotten a B in math in my LIFE, but here is this teacher, telling me that I'm not working hard enough, and that's why I'm getting C and D grades on tests. Meanwhile, I was doing all the homework, going to her at lunch for extra help, staying late for extra help, and studying my butt off. It wasn't until she threatened a student and was fired, did we have the AP calc teacher take over. Once he took the class, I instantly started an upward trend, and I ended the year with a high B average, because he actually TAUGHT the material in a way that was understandable, rather than just reciting what the book say, and yelling at students that didn't understand.
So long as the same can be applied to people who use libtards, tea baggers, etc, since I don't like those terms. I don't have mod points every day and don't seem to get comments that contain those key words when I decide to meta mod so we need an automated system to make me happy. I am sure I could find some more terms that could be politically offensive and demonstrate that one is really just a political hack that should also be added.
Time to offend someone
Sure you may be. But you're wrong.
Note, for the record, that the budget comes from Congress, not the President.
Technically, it comes from the House, but that part of the Constitution has been ignored for most of the existence of the USA, so we'll ignore that.
Now, go back and check out control of the House and Senate since the New Deal (I pick that time, since the explosion of the national debt began then, and has continued for all but one year since (the debt actually went down one year in the 1950's, it hasn't since, in spite of "Clinton balancing the budget").
One of the things you'll find is that the Democrats have controlled the House for all but about 16 years of the last 80. And they've controlled the Senate for all but about 20 years of that same 80 years.
"I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
I have to tell you, your dickish behavior here is not winning him any votes.
Obama has been catering to public unions his entire term and this is just another example of it. His solutions to high unemployment over the years has been to expand the public sector. Besides the political deception that he is "creating jobs", that translates to higher taxes for the rest of us which we can ill afford.
I live in New York state and the reason we have the highest state taxes is public unions. They hold too much influence in state government and there are too many lawmakers sympathetic to the public unions. Fifteen years ago there were 10 private sector jobs paying for every 1 public sector job, now it is 4 to 1 which has been pushing up taxes. This worsening ratio continues because 1)businesses are leaving the state taking jobs with them and 2) the state keeps expanding the public sector at the expense of the taxpayer. State pensions is another driving force behind high taxes (state employees don't even pay income tax on their PENSIONS). Many state citizens are leaving and soon I will join the exodus. In the last twenty years, only one new business has set up shop in New York state. One!
There are too many parallels between NYS and Obama's public sector policies. Obama has proven that he is hostile to the private sector by broadening regulations, and the reason businesses are reluctant to hire is because they have had to employ resources just to ensure compliance with the new regulations! Four more years of Obama and businesses will be leaving the country. Obama just doesn't get it and he never will.
The solution is not to throw $$$ at the problem. The solution is to get the parents involved in their childrens' education.
Eternity: will that be smoking, or non-smoking? I Corinthians 6:9-10
That's like blaming someone for using so much water to put out a house fire after the previous tenant left it in flames.
I kind of which Bush could have had another term, just to see how he would have handled things differently. This was an administration that literally said "deficits don't matter", and was happy to bring in tax cuts that sent the government budget far into deficits instead of surpluses that could have been used to slowly pay down debt. Was the economy better off with lower taxes and a nearly bankrupt government? It's debatable. But there's no sign in 2 terms of Bush that they had any intention or interest in actually closing the deficit gap or paying down debt. None at all. So why should people trust that the philosophy has suddenly changed?
Why not pay all teachers a reasonable salary, so good ones wouldn't leave just to find a job with fair pay, and so there'd be better teachers available to replace the ineffective? Because this thing will play well, particularly in an election year, but won't cost much. $50M? Pffffft.
IMHO, this is typical B.S.. "Oh, let's identify 2,500 teachers as 'the best' and give them a bonus. Then we'll quadruple the number." Why? As any good teacher of engineering will tell you, you can't make a baby in one month by impregnating nine women. So what's the goal here? Not every teacher can be a Richard Feynman or Carl Sagan. Can you really quadruple the number of "best" teachers without lowering the standard?
But gee. .what's another billion or two down the sinkhole that is edukation in the US? More money is thrown at and wasted upon schools, teachers and ....gasp... yes the children and what is there to show for it? NOTHING. 60 years of NOTHING. Class sizes are up to 50% smaller, many in the low teens. Effect? ZERO. Electronic teaching 'aides', internet, laptops, tablets... Effect? ZERO. Teacher salaries and benefits into six figures? Effect? Richer teachers.
Test scores are flatline and have been since the 1960s. But yeah, just keep tossing money at it because there is clearly a 'problem'. If I had the dough I would open a school with a curriculum and teaching practices based upon that used in the 1920s to 1940s. Shocking how the grups can actually do simple math in their heads, write a coherent sentence, are well read and even know quite a bit of world history.
While that's a valid point, you're equating this program to being a luxury. There are others who see educational system improvements as a necessity, and this program *could* improve our educational system. Of course, it could also have a negative impact -- I haven't done enough research on it myself to form an opinion either way, having just heard about it for the first time from this summary and the linked articles. I just want to challenge your implied assumption that this program equates to "sunglasses."
Hey dumbass did you actually know that 100% of the debt is because congress passes bills and the president signs it (or has their veto overruled) that spend more than the treasury takes in.
All joking aside the problem is really that income to the government isn't matching expenditures and each party seems to have their preferred method of solving that problem but either one will result in some portion of those in congress being voted out so our elected representatives vote in their own enlightened self interests which is to keep doing what we currently do.
Time to offend someone
If you look at the debt breakdown by the CBO, you can see that almost all of it came from the Iraq and Afghanistan wars, and Bush's tax cuts.
You are confusing conservatives with Republicans and it's not surprising, this is what the media tells you all the time. Turn off John Stewart.
Conservatives believe in limited government power and reducing the size of government, which by definition means reducing government spending and taxation. Republicans, especially in recent times are failing at conservative principles, and this is what needs to change. Saying conservatives spent more money during the Bush administration is a fallacy, these were Republicans not conservatives.
Hence if you are pro small government, then support conservative candidates. Have you even thought this through? What is your alternative plan?
The best teacher in the world cannot teach in a classroom with no discipline. I taught school for 10 years. I was so beaten down from trying to teach with no support that I had to decide whether I wanted to just babysit, like so many of the other teachers were doing, or do something else. I am now doing something else.
The fundamental problem is that education is not valued in this country anymore. For some reason many people seem to wear "stupid" as some sort of a badge of honor. Many parents don't particularly care about their child's education. Just like administrators, they talk a good game, but when it gets down to it, they don't want to be bothered about their kids not behaving or learning in class. It's easier to go to the school and yell at the teacher for a few minutes than to do the work of parenting and teach their children how to behave and insist that they pay attention in class.
You could give these teacher $1 million over their salary, but that doesn't fix the fundamental problems.
$20000*10000 teachers=$200million total program rewards. Where's the other $800 million dollars going?
Obama has released a budget plan, Republicans in Congress keep voting against it. All you Republicans are always saying "Obama has never passed a bufget plan" because Republicans won't let it pass!
What I want to know is how will the Obama Administration actually pick the top 2,500 or 10,000 teachers for the program. What criteria or measurements will they use to select them? Is it a subjective measure? We've had fights in all 50 states about measuring teacher performance, But the Obama plan seems to gloss over that problem. I could see whatever process used to select the cream of the crop also used to justify salaries for the n - 2500 teachers.
Funtime Candy Wow! - my plan for eventually conquering Japan.
Obama's love of corpsemen and women extends to education, and will probably have another union all their own.
http://youtube.com/watch?v=ZlKIfzoC8D0
budget*
Somebody needs a hug!!
I imagine other teachers thinking the following: "I work just as hard as that teacher, why should he get a 20k bump in his salary? Besides, he isn't going to teach me enough to be better than him, it would cost him $20k!" I suspect it would be easier to up the standards for teachers and follow the model used in Finland.
Nobody would be 'stealing' 'your' money if you weren't stealing government services.
These Master Teachers are actually in charge of Obama's socialist indoctrination of school students! Boogaboogabooga!
Quick, somebody flesh that out on Conservapedia.
"When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
You may be right, but if you look at it from the angle that we are outspending our resources dramatically, it would certainly appear that this is less critical than many parts of infrastructure that MUST be paid for. Medicare, social security, infrastructure, etc. When you have no money, anything that is not directly related to survival is, by definition, luxury.
I am far simplifying a complex concept for the purpose of quick discussion, and I realize that. There is more to this from every angle, I'm just putting out a counterpoint. I do believe that education is absolutely critical to this country and needs improvement, badly. My concern is the fact that we spend more money year over year for falling quality, and this program seems like another example of throwing money we don't really have to spend, into a hole.
Just another ignorant American.
And to keep costs down the new science text books will be supplied an no cost by the Gideon Foundation.
Undetectable Steganography? Yep, there's an app fo
Does this idiot not get the fact that there's no STEM jobs?
Crazy...I had this idea about 2 months ago. Glad to see it put into action. (I hope he does it well.)
Obama has released a budget plan, Republicans in Congress keep voting against it. All you Republicans are always saying "Obama has never passed a bufget plan" because Republicans won't let it pass!
Really? The Senate has passed a budget?
No, Reid hasn't.
And he WON'T.
There has not been and official passed-by-the-legislature-signed-by-the-President US budget since Dems took power.
All your hand waving can't change that.
Bullshit. I am dead serious. It's my fucking money jerk. Do not tell me that allowing me to keep more of it is a handout.
Screw you. I work for my money. I am not asking for any damn handouts. That's the MO of the left.
Yes, because it's surprising that the debt would increase during a worldwide recession.
When a drunken sailor runs out of money, he has to stop spending.
Or he can wait in an an alley, mug a passerby and buy another drink.
That would be "taxing the rich".
Ahhhh aren't you clever then.
No thank you, I don't want your statist services take them somewhere else. The state does nothing but promote inefficiency, waste, fraud and graft. That is where all our money is going. Post office bankrupt? Medicare bankrupt? SSI Bankrupt? Check. Do you get it now?
The state steals our money and pisses it all down our back and tells us it's raining.
Get it now drone?
Please. As a conservative, methinks you're talking out your ass.
Yes, you would think that. Because you see yourself from the inside, with all of its justifications and self-delusions, which means it's a lot harder to appreciate how you look to others, even regardless of the truth of the matter.
And yes, sometimes just the appearance of things matters. Even in your case.
We have no problem with public school teachers. What we have a problem with is unions that continue to protect teachers that are poor performers or don't adapt to new teaching techniques, which is exactly the reason why we're in the sad state we are, these days.
That is certainly your claimed reason. However...your opposition considers it to be a fraud. Why? Because you can never ever seem to understand that teachers for the most point want to perform well, want to adapt, and want students to learn. But they also have a desire to protect themselves, and yes, they do take a lot of flack from parents, principals and superintendents, which is why they so often need a union in the first place. Because otherwise they would be fired for frivolous reasons, even...for trying to implement new teaching techniques.
You can't even seem to realize that the real problem is not with the teachers, but on the administrative level, which has been sucking up more and more dollars. Especially as standardized testing has become the overriding goal of education. It's actually not the teachers who are opposed to new things, it's the entrenched bureaucracy, and no, I don't mean the Federal Department of Education, but the local school district.
Try a little examination. Compare the results of schools in unionized districts with non-unionized. You won't see any great correlation if you get a representative sample.
There's a far greater correlation with average income of parents than unionization. But you might say "Well, if unions don't help students, why have them?" to which I'll reply: Duh, unions aren't for the students, they're for the teachers, and if you're upset at that, get over yourself. An advocate is supposed to have the interests of their client in mind. Sure, there are limits where it becomes untenable, but the principle remains true.
The point is that as teachers reach tenure, some, not all, can become complacent, and just use their job for a paycheck, while others go out of their way to create interesting, stimulating lesson plans. Who gets rewarded more? In most cases, the complacent one, as they've achieved tenure, they get greater raises and it's nigh on impossible to fire them.
That's certainly your fear. And it has some legitimacy. However...consider the other side of things. If a teacher is afraid to be fired, what's their incentive to make waves, to fail students, to stand out?
Somebody who's not afraid of being punished has a greater liberty to address wrongs.
As a realist, I think this program is a step in the right direction, incentivizing good, young teachers to excel and actually TEACH their students, rather than just read out of a book. ON the other hand, nothing the federal government ever does ONLY costs a billion dollars.
I think this is a waste of time myself, but whatever, at least Obama adopting it means that we get to watch the Right-wing pundits contort themselves around disagreeing with another one of their own ideas.
A fate worse than death!
Hey dumbass did you actually know that 100% of the debt is because congress passes bills and the president signs it (or has their veto overruled) that spend more than the treasury takes in. All joking aside the problem is really that income to the government isn't matching expenditures and each party seems to have their preferred method of solving that problem but either one will result in some portion of those in congress being voted out so our elected representatives vote in their own enlightened self interests which is to keep doing what we currently do.
No shit, Sherlock. I was responding to the troll. If you look at what happened at the turn of the century, we had a SURPLUS. This was quickly eaten away by the rich-man's welfare known as the Bush-era tax cuts. Then Bush invaded two countries (only one possibly justified) two erode more of this surplus. These were actions of Republicans. The troll was blaming the deficits on liberals, so I pointed out his faulty logic.
But gee. .what's another billion or two down the sinkhole that is edukation in the US? More money is thrown at and wasted upon schools, teachers and ....gasp... yes the children and what is there to show for it? NOTHING. 60 years of NOTHING. Class sizes are up to 50% smaller, many in the low teens. Effect? ZERO. Electronic teaching 'aides', internet, laptops, tablets... Effect? ZERO. Teacher salaries and benefits into six figures? Effect? Richer teachers.
Test scores are flatline and have been since the 1960s. But yeah, just keep tossing money at it because there is clearly a 'problem'. If I had the dough I would open a school with a curriculum and teaching practices based upon that used in the 1920s to 1940s. Shocking how the grups can actually do simple math in their heads, write a coherent sentence, are well read and even know quite a bit of world history.
Worthless comments without supporting documentation.
If you can measure and evaluate what an "elite" teacher is then you MUST be able to measure and evaluate what a bad teacher is - very the thing the unions say you cannot do.
But the teachers unions constantly insist merit pay is impossible because you can't evaluate performance (apparently the one job in the universe whee this is true). How will they know which teachers are "masters"?
Based on his track record with government handouts I predict that this $1B will get frittered away. We all know that the teacher unions won't go for anything that is merit related. They always balk at that. So the entire premise is BS. Look - we all agree that we need better teachers and better pay for good teachers but until you get the powerful teacher unions out of the picture it's just not going to happen. Every attempt at real reform has been squashed by the unions. Merit based reward goes against everything they stand for. They want everyone treated equally. Everything is based on seniority (i.e. tenure) rather than skill and dedication and results. Personally, I think one of the reasons that we don't see more engineers go into teaching is the unions. They don't want to belong to one. They don't like the idea of paying dues to protect the jobs of some that ought to be fired. Engineers are trained to gauge the success of things based on actual results, not just showing up. They are used to the idea of getting raises and promotions based on how well they meet their goals. In other words, it's merit based.
In the age of Google and ... slashdot.. the gmmt should be making little self-taught people.
- Give rewards, Have math/science/whatever fairs -- give em stuff -- virtual stuff would be best (free) like special email addresses?
Lets make school, classroom, teacher obsolete.
It's easy to spend other people's money.
But what if were your money? Would the program still be a no-brainer for you?
Perform this thought experiment. Imagine that you have a child in public school. His class has 25 students in it. Now, Mr. Obama comes to you and says, "We'd like to improve the teacher quality in Little Johnny's school. We are going to assign one of the new Super-Awesome-Obama-Corps Teachers to Johnny's class. Okay?"
"That sounds wonderful, Mr. President! Thank you."
"But since you benefit from the program directly, you have to pay your fair share. I'm all about everyone paying his fair share! Okay, now then, let me see. The cost of the program is $20,000 per teacher, and Johnny's class has 25 children that will each benefit equally from the Superness of the super teachers, and so each family in the class must pay an extra $800 dollars. Every year. On top of their current property taxes. OK? But it's worth it, right? Because it will be a Super-Awesome-Obama-Corps teacher. They're super awesome, you see."
Well, maybe it will be worth $800 to you, for all that super-awesomeness that the program will certainly create (or reward? or find?) -- but maybe it will not be. One thing I'm certain of: all the people who support the program so quickly and unreservedly when "the government" pays for it would moderate their support, or at least think about it for more than 10 seconds, if they knew they would be the ones to actually pay for it.
Just another way to buy votes is all this is. He knows that American's don't like it but teachers will love it. AND he knows that even his servants in the Senate won't go for this, just like his last 3 failed budgets. Remember 'budgets'? That's what the government use to do before Obama. We haven't had one in four (that is '4' for the tweeners) years.
I'm sure this isn't just about Power and Control. What better way to organize the Democratic party's indoctrination machine by providing a magic slush fund from Federal tax payers dollars, tow my line, and be rewarded, or don't and you're persona non-grata.
Please. As a conservative, methinks you're talking out your ass. We have no problem with public school teachers. What we have a problem with is unions that continue to protect teachers that are poor performers or don't adapt to new teaching techniques, which is exactly the reason why we're in the sad state we are, these days.
As a conservative also, I notice that there hasn't been a single proposal from the Republican party on how to hold teachers accountable, or how to fix the problem. We know that privatization hasn't produced the promised outcomes, so what now?
... incentivizing good, young teachers to excel and actually TEACH their students, rather than just read out of a book. ON the other hand, nothing the federal government ever does ONLY costs a billion dollars.
Smart, competent people are in demand. You incentivize those people to become teachers by paying them what they'd make elsewhere, plus a little more. A conservative would see good pay as a required first step for fixing the system. Republicans do not. From their perspective, government employees should be paid as little as possible, so that they'll go out and find real jobs in the private sector and shrink government even further. The well-being of the country takes a backseat to realizing some bizarre fantasy that a country can be strong without decent education as its cornerstone.
So as conservative, I like this Obama plan. It's not much, but it's something, which is more than we've seen in my lifetime on the education front.
The nutters who won't let them teach evolution, the nutters who claim education is 'elitist'. Is it any wonder teachers don't vote for the Republican nutters. You can pretend its because Obama spends on education and Republicans don't, and I'd agree with you, but there's lots of reasons not to vote for Republican nutters.
You're wrong. It's been the Republicans/Right-wingers/Conservatives who have tried to get the Democrats/Leftists/Progressives to be held responsible (notice that's not the same as actually being responsible) for the failing of the education system.
But it's actually being their plans and implementations that have caused us problems, most recently with No Child Left Behind, which Kennedy did work with Bush on, but really, he was just giving them what they said they wanted to fix things.
He was mistaken by their vociferous confidence in their own delusions. They believed they were right so hard it was almost persuasive, but it was a con job.
The only people who don't understand that the document is expressing opposition to fake methodologies that focus on making the students feel good and are ineffective at teaching, are those who evidently went to a school teaching these methodologies.
With careful reading between the lines, it is possible to understand what they are really trying to say. Still, for a fundamental platform document, it should not be necessary to "read between the lines" and tease out what the authors meant. What I took away from skimming through it:
1.) The authors of the document were not in control of their emotions at the time they put words to paper. Not good when they're in leadership positions.
2.) Many statements only make sense if you consider certain terms to be "code words", functioning as a short-hand notation for a previously-established pool of beliefs and ideological positions centered around that term.
Either the authors were too immersed in their own cultural circle to communicate with outsiders, or -- more likely -- the document was intended for internal-use only (in which case, it's contents should have been issued in some other document than than their official platform declaration).
Now be honest, the Democrats in Congress voted - UNANIMOUSLY - against the President's budget as well. The House (who is supposed to originate spending bills) has passed several budgets - and the Senate, led by Harry Reid (D) has refused to even allow debate, let alone a vote, on the budget.
Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
Clearly, someone at Forbes disagrees with you:
Who Is The Smallest Government Spender Since Eisenhower? Would You Believe It's Barack Obama?
This behavior needs to be encouraged.
The brains of a chicken, coupled with the claws of two eagles, may well hatch the eggs of our destruction.
Survey any elementary, middle, high school, Jr. College or University.
Run by, taught by those who call themselves Democrats/Leftists/Progressives.
To deny that is to deny reality.
When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
I would like to know where you are so I can go teach there. Here the class sizes are going up (I've got around 40 in class at the moment), I don't get a laptops or tablets (though there is a projector and one computer for the teacher in SOME classrooms), and I WISH my salary was six figures. I'm lucky if I make six figures as a total of several years of salaries.
I guess different states, counties, districts are different, and of course there's differences between high school and post-secondary. But in my area, ALL of it is low paying and low prestige. So where are you that things sound so nice? Or is that just what you think school districts are doing?
The problem is I honestly don't think it will help because the same ones deciding what is "good" and "bad" are the same ones that have created the mess in the first place.
What we need is teachers that can really motivate, but sadly those type are usually run out for straying too far from the course material. In junior HS we had a truly wonderful history teacher for about a year and a half. now most would think American history would be just spewing dates, that's how most taught it, but he instead used a "Six degrees of Woodstock" as he had a theory that there wasn't a single thing in American history that couldn't be led back to Woodstock. man we would pour over the books looking for obscure events in American history just trying to find a way to stump him...never did though. But in the end he got run out by complaints from other teachers about how he was straying too far from the material, not to mention a few of the old fuddy duddy types weren't too happy about him showing Woodstock in its entirety the last week of class.
So while I agree we need testing frankly as long as they aren't simply teaching to the test I don't care how they get students motivated to learn as long as they are. To this day I'll see some "this day in history" and start trying to figure out how I could connect it to Woodstock with 6 degrees or less, which of course means you have to actually think about the various events and how they impacted society. He truly was a great teacher.
ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
Yea, an anti-war group's estimate of the costs is sure to be reliable. Also consider the long term cost of doing nothing. It's easy for you to say that Saddam wasn't planning anything even though his funding of international terrorism was well documented. And the hundreds of thousands of people he murdered don't mean anything either.
The ones that turned a budget surplus into a deficit?
Whilst we had a "budget surplus", we were, in fact, still running up the debt. The national debt has not decreased since the Eisenhower Administration, back in 1957. So while many decry the whole "deficits don't matter" statement, the fact is actually true - a budget deficit or surplus is immaterial, as you can run a surplus on budget and still have your debt increase.
Source: National Debt to the Penny
Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
Hey dumbass, I don't really have anything to add, but I didn't want to miss out on the opportunity to start a sentence with "hey dumbass."
The problem with the school system is that they are geared toward serving the needs of the teachers -- not the students or the parents. Politicians push for their agenda while teachers unions push for what benefits the teachers. And no one is answerable to the parents. If you privatize the education system, then every school and every teacher become answerable to the parents. If the parents don't like a school or teacher, then they can choose to take their child to another school. It's like buying a car -- are you going to buy the car that breaks down all the time and gets bad gas mileage or are you going to buy the car that runs great and gets 40+ mpg? But what if you didn't have a choice? What if the government forced you to purchase the crappy car?
Once again, the obsession with the technical amid the ignorance of the practical. Why no "master teachers" in English? Or in computer/online basics? Oh, that's because it's hard to learn languages likes algebra, trig, and Java, but easy to learn to use English well -- hey, everybody does it, check out the comments bin on most any weblog! Everybody knows how to communicate just fine, right? Um...right?
As I've said many, many times: teachers (and certainly not unions) aren't the problem with education. Choice is. Teaching anything more than single-variable equations or elemental earth sciences to HS kids is, from a societal perspective, a vast and nearly incalculable waste. Primary education divorced from real life is not education. I recall asking my kid once, when she was in 10th grade: "what are they teaching you at school about being safe and smart online, with dangerous stuff like Facebook?" She said, "nothing, but I've got advanced algebra and chemistry. And there's a computer lab we can use." "But no teachers in using the computers?" I asked. "Nope," she said, "just monitors." This is at a large, big-city public school.
Again: as long as we as a society choose to teach college-level stuff in high school, we will crank out kids into the real world who are stressed out by quadratic equations and otherwise have little or no skills for life.
Development is programmable; Discovery is not programmable. (Fuller)
That's cute. You think how somebody identifies themselves is evidence of how the schools are run?
Even if teachers set policy (which they don't), you'd have to prove the policy was actually Democrats/Leftists/Progressive in nature to prove their ideas were faulty.
I bet you can't.
No shit, Sherlock. Me too.
A government is not a person. A person curbing debt might be as simple as not buying those sunglasses, but you cannot draw that same parallel to a government. If government cuts spending, they have to consider the impact it has on jobs that will be lost, jobs that could be gained, and ultimately the loss of tax revenue from both of these. In fact, those are just some of the many, MANY factors that come into play when evaluating a government program.
The problem isn't just on the spending side of the books (incidentally, funny how conservatives NEVER criticise wasteful spending on defence or subsidies to business who don't need them). There's a cashflow problem, due to falling tax revenues, due in part to drunken idiots on Wall Street crashing the economy, and drunken idiots in Congress voting for goodies like tax cuts that nobody can afford.
In constant dollars, the Federal Government is receiving approximately the same funding today as it did in the "hey days" of the late 1990s (1997/1998). And over twice per capita - again in constant dollars - as back in the golden years of the 50s (about $6600 per capita today, versus $3000 in the late 50s).
It's really not a revenue problem, and it's not really a spending problem - is a scope issue. The Federal Government is attempting to do so much more than it has in the past, and thus spending is massively increased - and revenue demand by this much larger Federal Government is well beyond historical levels.
Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
Conservatives spent more money during the Bush administration (2001-2007) then President Obama did in his entire term in office.
Just to clarify. You're complaining that in 6 years spending was higher in one Administration than in 3 years of the subsequent Administration.
How is this surprising, really? Now choose any 3 year period between 2001 and 2007, and compare it to any 3 year period of the Obama Administration...
Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
We could take a page from the military on this one. If you use a government-backed student loan to get your degree in a STEM subject, you are required to spend a minimum number of years "paying back" as a teacher. You would be salaried at the same rate as any other teacher of the same experience. The difference is that you took a Government loan to get your degree, so you should pay back the nice taxpayers by teaching that subject for X years.
Assuming the loan is for $80k to begin with, we can give those out "gratis" up front with the understanding that the payback is in teaching time. That would cost the same as what is proposed, but anyone who takes the loan would be under contract to teach for X years. In the end, you're addressing the availability of STEM degrees, availability of student loans, and STEM teacher supply all in one program for probably the cost of just the proposed program. It's just as voluntary, and has the added bonus of (possibly) increasing the number of students going into STEM fields. Throw in merit-based granting and you've got people competing to get a "free" education in STEM, so you know the teachers on the back end should be decent too.
Of course, the carrot has to have a stick. Something like, if you take the loan and switch degrees out of a STEM field, then you're on the hook for repaying the full cost of the loan. If you can't do the full x years of payback teaching, then you have to repay the loan on a pro-rata basis, etc. This is how military scholarships work, why not do it with STEM as well?
Government is not reason; it is not eloquent; it is force. Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master.
You realize that the majority of the debt in the Obama administration was from the wars that the Republicans launched and didn't put on the budget, right?
Perhaps then we should do what the founders did. They built a system that was self-balancing (for a time) within education you can and provably have (Florida) built a system that self-regulates and raises the bar consistently across the schools. A voucher system.
To regain balance, the thumb of the union must be taken off the scales. Allow the teachers to have Professional Association status a la a Bar association or AMA but destroy their protected status through collective bargaining and give them the same world we work in. Higher quality output expectations with competition pushing to polish their skillsets. That's what I expect from my son's coaches, and tutors (we home schools because I know that we will put in the effort)... why shouldn't everyone expect the same from their teaching staff?
Wouldn't all MTC members be basically under the direction of the POTUS? Don't party members in China get "rewards" too? This proposal would be like having an official party member at every school in the U.S. or is this China? It's hard to tell with this POTUS. Isn't this just "community organizing" aka party politics on a national level? Yes, Yes, and Yes.
Ya, I'm with you in that regard -- we're spending more than our current resources allow for, and the best way to fix that is to spend less and acquire more resources at the same time. This is a lot of money for something that will only (even potentially) improve teachers of four subjects. It's a great idea but it's a lot of money for an experiment, and we definitely won't see a direct recuperation of this money, even if the experiment goes well.
I have to admit, I would never even consider becoming a teacher, partially due to the shitty salary involved.
Of course, there is also the idea that I would have to teach people who aren't interested in learning and who I still have to tolerate in my class because I'm the state-mandated babysitter.
I understand that kids need to almost be forced to learn certain skills, because by the time they are adults who understand why they will need those skills, it will be too late to learn them. However, the one size-fits-all program is not one that works well, especially in at-risk school districts. There is nothing more detrimental to learning than inability for students to concentrate on the subjects they are interested in learning.
You want more and better teachers, give them student bodies that are there to learn and pay that is commensurate with their abilities. While I can certainly see how a union could benefit educators, we also need a way to reform them so the unions become more about quality teaching than keeping their members in jobs no matter what.
Remove any student who is constantly disrupting class
When I went to school, we had this thing called detention. You are separated with the other troublemakers in a room where you just do assignments with a teacher watching you. Some students were always in detention. If you had a constant disrupter they'd presumeably be doing all their work in detention without any interactive instruction. The social isolation of that was enough to make most people try to avoid it. What happens if you talk out or otherwise disrupt the detention room? Suspension I suppose. Expulsion is an even more serious process, and probably got you into a military-style "reform school". There was one kid in our neighborhood who got a year of that. He was lucky the cops didn't shoot him. That was an exception though. Our neighborhood was generally "nice". If 20, 30 or even 40% of the kids were like that, then well... maybe we end up with a lot of kids drilling in uniforms behind barbed wire in conjunction with their studies. Anyway, I digress. There are already procedures for dealing with troublemakers.
For all intensive purposes, "whom" is no longer a word. That begs the question, "who cares"?
"That does not mean we should keep spending, however. "
If I have 3 or 4 other sunglasses, yeah, it's a luxury. If I get them because I'm a cabdriver, perhaps not.
So, politics aside, do we have other programs that are working|!working, tried|!tried?
Is this a luxury or a necessity?
sr
His ignorance covered the whole earth like a blanket, and there was hardly a hole in it anywhere. - Mark Twain
You may want to take some time to educate yourself about how congress works; the budget only requires 51 votes to pass in the Senate. So at any time in the past 3 years the Democrats could have passed any budget they wanted, even Obama's proposal.
But in the liberal mind the fact Obama's plan have received 0 votes in the last 2 years and the Dem's have put forward zero proposals of their own while the Republican's have passed their own budget proposal through the House of course means it is the Republican's holding up the process.
Of course that's just my opinion...... you could be wrong!
The strength of unions largely depends on which part of the country you are teaching in. My wife is a teacher here in Texas, and she was recently forced to resign from teaching English to 8th graders at a public school. The reason she was forced to resign? A kid in her class drank a bottle of water in class after being told to put it away (district rules prohibit bottled water because apparently kids will smuggle in vodka). With about 10 minutes left in class, he decided to piss in the empty bottle.
This is the fun part. The other students in the class had to fill out witness statements and at first the kid was in trouble for pissing in a bottle and most likely exposing himself to do so. The next thing we know, his parents hired a lawyer who went to every right-wing wacko talk-show host in town and fed them a story about how he slid the bottle up his pants, thus never exposing himself. They claimed my wife told him "I hope you pee in your pants", which was a complete lie. The parents also withheld their kid from school and claimed he now had a collapsed urethra or something.
At this point the school board does a complete 180 and starts blaming the entire situation on my wife. My wife's union representative was never allowed to be present with her at any of the administrative hearings. We were never allowed access to the witness statements and were told we would have to file a subpoena (at least $1500 and not even a sure thing). Basically she was never given a chance to defend herself to the accusations being made by this family's lawyer (they played a snippet of a hearing on the radio that mentioned her last name but otherwise didn't directly identify her). In the end she was given the chance to resign and had to sign an agreement stating that she would never seek employment with the district and that she would never sue the district.
And now for some other fun facts about the district. My wife was constantly being chided for having too many students with failing grades. Most of these kids had 0's because they simply refused to turn in ANY assignments. You are not allowed to stray from the curriculum, which is basically designed around getting kids to pass the TAKS test. I could go on and on, but it angers me to rehash all of this.
Anyway, the point of my rant is that teachers unions are often a convenient excuse for the state our education system is in. However, in my opinion, the parents, the administrators, and even some of the students themselves are the real problem. There has to be a middle ground somewhere.
It wasn't your "drunken leftists" who ran up that deficit, if you'll recall.
And I'm sure you're an expert at economics because you know houses are red and hotels are green, but in a recession is EXACTLY the time you want to have a lot of government spending, precisely because the government is the one place that can afford to throw money around during a recession.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Comment removed based on user account deletion
I don't want your statist services...
Well then, you'd better sell your car and get a donkey, quit your job, give away all your money, move into the woods and eat tree bark and twigs. And when your lean to burns down, don't be calling the fire department. Might be a good idea to learn some first aid, also.. just in case you need to perform a quick appendectomy
I remember a really brilliant science teacher in high school. He could not maintain order in his classroom. I also had a "coach" who taught science. He maintained strict discipline in the room. While he was not on the same academic level as the first teacher, the learning environment was much better.
I only look human.
My mother is a halfling and my dad is an ogre, so that makes me an Ogreling
Isn't it nice how you conveniently ignore all the points I have been making.
And then try and tell me what to do.
You are a drone, and not a very smart one at that. What you really want is to take the other guys shit. That makes you a coward and a statist; and generally a fool.
Facts however remain facts. Debt has to be paid. This government is not sustainable, things either change or we are screwed. When the time comes maybe it will be me taking *your*shit*. Ever think about that dick head? You give Obama all this power, well that's precedent, do you understand how things may work out when a president is elected whose agenda you don't agree with? Huh genius? Do you think about any of these things? Do you have any original thoughts at all? No you don't.
We want limits on state power for a reason, the same limits on all parties. We are a nation of laws and all laws must apply equally to all. You are a stupid fuck.
You people are like a broken record. Republicans Republicans Republicans. Haliburton, Bush, Bush. Shut up already.
Hey Dipshit, Bush is over, it's done. These are your guys policies and spending, your party has the steering wheel. Obama is soooooo smart right? So why all the excuses?
Ohhh it's hard to run a country, and play golf 80 times in three years. Governing over all 57 states you know.
Dumbass.
The ones that turned a budget surplus into a deficit?
Whilst we had a "budget surplus", we were, in fact, still running up the debt. The national debt has not decreased since the Eisenhower Administration, back in 1957. So while many decry the whole "deficits don't matter" statement, the fact is actually true - a budget deficit or surplus is immaterial, as you can run a surplus on budget and still have your debt increase.
Source: National Debt to the Penny
However you want to do the math, the fact is that a budget DEFICIT increases debt faster than a budget SURPLUS.
"because the government is the one place that can afford to throw money around"
More foolishness from the land of libtardia. You idiot.
Government can afford it? Really?
WHERE DOES GOVERNMENT GET ITS MONEY? GOVERNMENT PRODUCES NOTHING AND HAS NO MONEY OTHER THAN WHAT THEY STEAL FROM THE PEOPLE, EITHER THROUGH TAXATION OF PRINTING. THERE IS NO OTHER MONEY. N O N E.
How can you be so stupid to not understand this?
So we are only allowed to use state approved words on your little website then, is that about right Adolf?
You libs are so free to use any word you like, and you make lots of good talk about freedom and openness and transparency. All lies aren't they.
You don't want to see the word socialist huh?
Must be you are ashamed to admit to yourself that this is what you are.
Here you go dickhead.
S O C I A L I S T, T H A T ' S Y O U.
Idiot. They haven't passed a budget in years because they are afraid to put their names on such a disgusting piece of legislation.
These are despicable, detestable cowards and thieves, and you support them. Congratulations. Birds of a feather no doubt.
Professional, Personal and political beliefs don't influence how someone performs their jobs? Especially when they are in charge of forming policy?
Go figure.
When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
What was your 'point' again? Oh yeah, government is teh EVIL! Well, that explains why there's no reason to discuss it. Eh whatever. Like I said, you're perfectly welcome to retire from society at your convenience. Though at this point I would recommend that you expedite the process ASAP
I do have to admit, I find your trolling amusing... slow day today. Thanks for the laughs
The No Child Left Behind Act has left most children behind because classes with kids that are slow learners slow the entire class down. I say bring back the SPED classes, if a kid has a hard time with a subject. the kid takes the remedial version of the class, that way the rest of the kids can learn. Also since we have a black president I don't see any need for Equal Opportunity laws. I'm a white French/Italian male. So, I hear that makes me a minority now. Why has the US tanked in Engineering and Science ?? Because we have been promoting mediocrity! If someone, no matter what race they are, has a gift in the arts or sciences I say give them a break on tuition. The white middle class in the U.S. has been slapped around too long.
The budget surplus in 2001 was higher than in 1999, yet the national debt increased more in 2001 than in 1999. The problem is people believing "the budget" has anything to do with reality.
Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
You realize that the majority of the debt in the Obama administration was from the wars that the Republicans launched and didn't put on the budget, right?
Citation? The Iraq War cost was $780 billion, or - to put it in modern terms - about 6 months of an Obama deficit. A full 8 years of war is exceeded by 7 months of current deficit spending.
And you do realize that national debt piles up whether items are on-budget or not?
Of course, you're the guy who wanted to compared 6 years of spending to 3, and make the conclusion that we were wasteful during those 6 years and tight during the 3 because the spending in 3 is just under the spending in 6, so...
Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
And this just demonstrates the union problem further. Members see anything new and different as a threat to their traditional power and union bosses push to remove any teacher that works outside the preconceived model of teaching. A better idea is to allow teachers to teach as they see fit, provided they're covering the mandatory material. I've had some teachers that taught in...interesting ways, but they've always been able to meet the state mandated curricula for their subjects. Heck, I had a biology teacher that took us on beach walks, at least once per week. Were we learning about genetics during this time? No. Were we witnessing cranes, fish, crabs, beach grasses, etc, in their native habitats? Yes. I took more away from the beach walks than I did doing punnet squares, but I'm still able to do a punnet square, fifteen years later.
I got my PhD in Electrical Engineering. I taught lab sections, quiz sections, and served as the sole instructor (effectively the Professor) for a graduate course on neural networks.
But I'm "unqualified" to teach math anywhere in K-12. In 5th grade I knew things my math teachers didn't, but after a PhD and teaching graduate level work, I still can't replace the teacher I knew more than when I was in 5th grade.
The teachers unions are destroying lives, one child at a time.
Of course the vast majority of that debt was spent while Republicans were in power and getting the US involved in very costly wars. Not all, granted, but a majority I am sure.
As other repliers have noted, a bit over a third of that debt as a fraction of GDP was accumulated during the Obama administration over the past few years. That's a huge amount. We could attribute it to generic Democrats or Bush's activities (which did contribute considerably to the first years deficits), but it mostly comes from the Obama administration. Further, the US Federal Bank has effectively printed somewhere in excess of three trillion dollars during the Obama administration for "quantitative easing".
As a result, every bit of spending has to be seriously tested. It's not enough to "try to do something to improve the lot of all Americans" when every dollar of such spending is borrowed or printed. The cost/benefit of such actions needs to be seriously considered.
Looking at this program I see another problem. Namely, the high cost of the program's overhead relative to the amounts actually paid to teachers. For example, Obama currently expects to pay $100 million to deliver up to $50 million to targeted teachers (2,500 @$20,000) this year. Over the next ten years, the program is expected to target 100,000 teachers over ten years. If each teacher gets a commitment of the full $20,000 for four years, then that is roughly $800 million of money received per year once the program gets into full swing. What's the billion dollars going toward next year? I guess mostly overhead of administrating the program, perhaps both at the federal and local levels.
So here's my concern. We may be borrowing several dollars per dollar received to send our best teachers to schools where they might be least effective ("high need" mostly meaning incompetent and poorly run IMHO). It might be an interesting experiment to run perhaps at a lower spending level say like $100 million per year perhaps at the state level, but I don't see the point to committing to an unproven program at least several billion dollars a year over the long term when the US has desperate financial problems.
What was your 'point' again? Oh yeah, government is teh EVIL! Well, that explains why there's no reason to discuss it. Eh whatever. Like I said, you're perfectly welcome to retire from society at your convenience. Though at this point I would recommend that you expedite the process ASAP
I do have to admit, I find your trolling amusing... slow day today. Thanks for the laughs
Last I checked, it's GOVERNMENTS that start wars that kill millions of people. And guess what? The biggest deaths have been run up by left-wing "progressive" governments.
Government-sponsored genocide is the realm of "progressives", too. Just look how "progressive" demonize their opponents (hell, look at how YOU look disdain those that disagree with you....). It's just a few steps from demonization to genocide. Put OWS in power and you get Pol Pot. Think I'm kidding? Listen to the rhetoric of both.
Do you even know who Pol Pot was?
Yet you probably really do think you're smart.
And THAT is absolutely hilarious.
You think you're smart, but you're really too stupid to know you're stupid.
BWAA HAHAHA
Would You Believe It's Barack Obama?
No, and that's after reading the article. The article ignores that Obama was responsible in FY 2008-2009 both for the second half of TARP and ARRA, which is somewhere around 800 billion dollars of spending combined. And he's backed the quantitative easing that the US Federal Reserve has been doing, which is another huge influx of spending, well over three trillion dollars since 2008.
That's cute. You think how somebody identifies themselves is evidence of how the schools are run?
Even if teachers set policy (which they don't), you'd have to prove the policy was actually Democrats/Leftists/Progressive in nature to prove their ideas were faulty.
I bet you can't.
LOL.
You fucking moron,
The Group of 88 was a group of 88 professors at Duke University all of whom signed a controversial advertisement which was published two weeks after a woman claimed to have been raped by members of Duke's lacrosse team. The advertisement, which appeared in the Duke Chronicle on April 6, 2006, contained language implying that the charges were true. The players would ultimately be declared innocent of all charges, and district attorney Mike Nifong was fired and disbarred due to his misconduct
The person who conceived the idea of the advertisement was Karla FC Holloway, a professor of English and African-American Studies. The ad was composed by Wahneema Lubiano, who copied down some of the students' remarks about racism and sexism from a forum and used them in the ad.[1]
Lemme know if you're bleeding after that.
LOL
Have your kid just try and bring up the fact that an esteemed scientist like Freeman Dyson is actually what you would call a "global climate change heretic, err, denier" in school and see how "progressive" (what a hilarious term) "ideas" (ironic) have permeated education in the US.
FWIW, you can look at the political contributions of the teacher's unions.
The budget does have something to do with reality (except when Bush kept his war spending "off-budget"), but the timing of borrowing affects the actual debt level at one moment. Saying the budget has nothing to do with reality is just sticking your fingers in your ears and going "nyah, nyah, I can't hear you."
You play with semantics all you want, but this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:CBO_-_Revenues_and_Outlays_as_percent_GDP.png picture shows that REVENUE exceeded EXPENDITURE until the Bush-era tax cuts changed the picture.
When a drunken sailor runs out of money, he has to stop spending.
Or he can wait in an an alley, mug a passerby and buy another drink.
How is that a difference between a drunken sailor and a government official?
...it's GOVERNMENTS that start wars that kill millions of people...
Wow! I did not know that. Thanks for the heads up. I'll be sure to make a note of it.
You must be one of those bomb throwing anarchists. You know we do with them?
Do you even know who Pol Pot was?
Second cousin, twice removed... He killed smart people. So I always felt safe around him.
Yes, it's not like something like 9/11 and the Clinton recession affected revenues in that 2001-2002 timeframe. And the Bush tax cuts certainly weren't responsible for the uptick in revenues shown in 2003-2006 in your own graph... Or that you want to keep things in "percent of GDP budget" rather than actual debt dollars. Curious!
Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
-xx df
While I absolutely agree great teachers should be rewarded (I had 1 growing up - and I went to public schools in the state ranked #1 at the time) - a one-time reward isn't enough when there are only 2,500 slots. In fact it might actually hurt things - people tend to adjust their spending to match the wealth they posses and superb ability in a career does not equate to superb financial management - a one-time payment to reward skilled teaching could cause catastrophic harm to the nation by destroying the few teachers that are actually capable of doing their job.
Your link shows the total debt decreasing between December 1999 and December 2000. It's a very slight decrease, granted, but it's enough to invalidate your point.
Teachers are smart enough.
Its the kids you have to reach them well before 5 2 to 3 years old. You have to have something to live for, many young folks don't.
They are stuck in the shit hole they live in for life and they know it.
American teachers are already being paid more per year (and getting better benefits packages) than they ever have before in the history of the republic. American school kids have access to more technology in the classroom than ever before and are exposed to more technology outside the classroom than ever before.
However, now that they are nearly all members of the two national teachers unions, the boost in teacher pay will doubtless mean that some extra cash will flow through the unions and back into Democrat campaigns
Question: Why were we able to win WWII and go on to put a man on the moon with a population who mostly got their pre-college educations in non-unionized schools that taught the basics like "reading, writing, and arithmetic" (often in one-room-school-houses run by only a single female teacher w/o post-graduate degree in charge of perhaps 30 kids of all ages) but today we can barely get kids educated at grade level with massive government spending, huge unions, and many teachers waving their masters degrees in "education"?
Question: With the Democrat Senate refusing to even take a vote on anything the House passes, and refusing to pass a budget for the past 3 years so that no Democrat senator will have to answer to the voters for any particular budget item, and the complete congressional logjam this has created as over 40 jobs bills alone sit in Harry Reid's desk drawer, who thinks this proposal is going anywhere other than into Obama2012 ads?
Question: What happens when the billion is spent? Is this like Obama care, where the feds propose to spend a pile of cash and say "see? this costs the states nothing!" but the fine print says that within a few years the states must continue the spending while the feds stop providing the cash? This is exactly how Obama hides part of the massive costs of the ACA... the states get left holding the bag in a few years and either must eliminate lots of other spending or do massive boosts in state taxes...
And what happens is that the teacher that tries that finds themselves slapped down by the school administration, not the Union.
You really don't have much of an appreciation for what REALLY happens in schools.
LOL.
You fucking moron,
As I figured, you couldn't. You're just trying to find something random to tar teachers with.
But it had nothing to do with actual education policy, now did it? Thanks, your ineffectual effort is rather meaningful.
FWIW, you can look at the political contributions of the teacher's unions.
You should look at the political contributions of for-profit colleges and standardized testing corporations.
There's the thing...you actually think they're in charge of forming policy.
Get a clue, they're not. Teachers are bound to do what they're told, by the school administration, by the county school board, by the state's Education system, and they aren't setting a thing themselves.
Just living by it.
Fiscal years run October 1st to September 30th; you need to look at the fiscal year, not calendar year.
Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
How can Obama be responsible for FY 2008-2009 when he wasn't even inaugurated until January 20, 2009?
It makes more sense to express the National Debt as a percentage of GDP. Were the figures you referred to even adjusted for inflation?
leads me to believe just one thing: the USA is buggered. They've gone so far down the road of partisan wankery, where no-one can ever admit they're wrong and anyone who thinks differently is an enemy, that they're incapable of doing anything.
Have another civil war and be done with. Just do the rest of the world a favour and leave us out of it.
Clinton recession? What? He presided over one of the biggest economic booms of our times! Yes, 9/11 happened, which makes the Bush-era tax cuts look even stupider! It's not "my graph" - it's from Wikipedia. The point I was making was that Revenues exceeded Outlays until the Bush tax cuts took place. That is true whether it is shown as percent of GDP or not. When Revenues exceed outlays, there is a surplus and the debt can be paid down - or welfare for the rich can be enacted, since "deficits don't matter" when the GOP is in office.
I have to tell you that I am merely voicing my opinion and making you happy doesn’t rate on my agenda one iota.
Kapish?
QE is more than just spending, its stealth taxation, devaluing your money and relocating it's value to the state.
Confiscatory taxation.
Wake up drones, you are being robbed.
Not trolling at all. And again you ignore my valid points. I repeat because they are important.
"Facts however remain facts. Debt has to be paid. This government is not sustainable, things either change or we are screwed. When the time comes maybe it will be me taking *your*shit*. Ever think about that dick head? You give Obama all this power, well that's precedent, do you understand how things may work out when a president is elected whose agenda you don't agree with? Huh genius? Do you think about any of these things? Do you have any original thoughts at all? No you don't.
We want limits on state power for a reason, the same limits on all parties. We are a nation of laws and all laws must apply equally to all."
Do you not seek equality of the application of laws, How can a sane man possibly argue otherwise?
I have valid arguments backed by facts, and you attack with hyperbole and name calling.
Reasonable people see who is right here.
Thanks for playing.
How can Obama be responsible for FY 2008-2009 when he wasn't even inaugurated until January 20, 2009?
January 20 is only a third through that year. In other words, he was president during most of that fiscal year and he approved the spending which I mentioned.
QE is more than just spending, its stealth taxation, devaluing your money and relocating it's value to the state.
I agree, but my reason for the more limited claim was that the story claims that Obama isn't a huge spender. The degree of dishonesty here is breathtaking, such as claiming profits on TARP (when the actual amounts paid out through TARP, QE, and other stimulus attempts are many times the actual return payments received) or jobs "created and saved" which are invented out of thin air. There's some massive shell games being played.
You cannot defeat my arguments. Stating that "republicans are more overt about who they receive bribe" is an accusation, not an argument,
You must support these assertions with facts and logic, which you have failed to do.
"The ACA was passed with 0 Republican votes." FACT.
Want some more genius?
20k stipend from the govt is just enough to make an existing teacher more content, but far from enough to attract highly qualified college graduates to consider a career in teaching versus going to Wall Street. Compare this to a similar non profit program Math for America. The program gives up to 100k stipends, requires the applicants to take a relatively brainy test and eligibility is geared towards applicants who have never taught in classrooms before. I find this program extremely compelling, and put it in one of my list of supported charities.
War spending for the Iraq war was counted against the emergency or supplemental budgets, doesn't count against the budget ceiling, and doesn't get figured into estimates of the annual deficits. http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2007/03/05/on_war_costs_bush_is_master_of_disguise/
Not trolling at all....you attack with hyperbole and name calling.
Sure, buddy, whatever you say. Only you still haven't provided any 'valid' points, only stupidities
But it will be the equivalent of the Ministry of Propaganda. Teach the teachers what to teach so we get a crop of good little Marxists.
Grar II
Just another political sop to try to keep the support of public unions. Obama's proposal is just more of the hot button words strung together to get votes. If he is re-elected and this doesn't go through - he will blame others. If it goes through - what happens when the money runs out? The local school systems have to pick up the burden,
You want to improve education? Then educate. Stop with all the self-esteem oriented programs and stop having special programs to prevent dropping out. Spend the money on real motivated students. You can have a night school, like Conway NH's Eagle Academy, to give the dropouts a way back in when they realize that $12 an hour job is not nearly as sweet as they thought it would be.
a Ghost told me.
And? How does that counter the fact that the entire cost of the Iraq war is about 6 months of the current Administration's annual deficit?
Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
The Clinton recession.
Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
Hilarious! You call it the Clinton Recession. Wikipedia does not! He presided over gigantic boon times then one stinking year of "mild recession" as wikipedia puts it. And then you blame him for 2001-2002 and use 9/11 to give Bush a free ride. You are too damn partisan!
FYI for everyone out there. You can't be forced to sign anything, ever. Never sign anything after resigning, getting fired, or for any other reason when leaving a job. They have to pay you the money you earned no matter what so don't let them bully you.
FYI unions have never stood up for teachers, at least not in the last 25 years. It is always lauded by teachers as the biggest reason to join a union, "because they will go to bat for me when I get sued". I always laugh when I hear it. The truth is they won't because it's bad press, it costs money, did I mention it's bad press? It's hard to get the newbie teacher to join if the newspapers have stories showing the union doesn't help you if you get sued.
Your arguments should have been made in a court of law, not in front of a bunch of school administrators. I guess you could have afforded a proper lawyer if you had saved all those union dues over the years and paid it out of pocket. Knowing how teachers act, knowing most of them aren't "right-wing", knowing they will attack anyone getting bad press like hyenas, I can tell you the biggest complaints came from the teachers, not the parents. I can hear them now, "I always knew she was bad!", "There was always something that made me...a little uneasy about her.", "Had she not taken Mrs. _______'s job last year, this never would have happened."
In the end you let someone who had no interest in seeing you succeed go to bat for you. That is why you failed.
Learn from it, move on.