Throwing more money at something never makes it better.
Hmm... I get the impression that you're not fully reading or getting the gist of everything I'm saying.
Your statement about money is somewhat incorrect. It should read:
"ONLY throwing more money at something never makes it better."
And if you'll go back and read my last post, you'll find that I point this out when I say that increasing teachers' salaries is only part of the solution.
The simple truth is, people that love their jobs still need to make money. The more money you offer people, the higher standards you can expect from them, and as more people will be interested in the job, you can be more selective and ensure that those standards are met - and exceeded.
What you're talking about, firing teachers for being bad at their job, is the administrative reform, which would be the second part of what I discussed in the last post.
But why is it so hard to fire bad teachers? Well, for one, there's general administrative incompetence. Two, it's hard to find replacement teachers in a lot of areas.
And why is it hard to find replacement teachers in many areas? Because many areas don't pay public school teachers what they're worth and treat them well, so not enough people are interested, which is a very likely reason why the schools had to SETTLE FOR THE BAD TEACHER IN THE FIRST PLACE.
Bottom line, as with students, if we raise the stakes involved with teachers and encourage more competition for their positions, we will get better results.
Teachers are paid just fine, on an hour by hour basis they start at what a Civil Engineer makes. I have never known a poor teacher they have always been middle class.
You are correct, but perhaps I should have clarified and expounded on my statement. I wasn't implying that most teachers were the working poor, simply that they should be paid more than they are currently. Also, I am from Texas, where teachers' salaries are ranked 30th in the nation.(average $40k/year, not starting). Suffice it to say that what I make with only a two-year degree and less than a year of real work experience, I find that average salary rate of Texas teachers absurdly and offensively low.
Many people that could teach (and would enjoy teaching) in public schools do not because other industries offer them higher salaries, more opportunities and advancements, and a more empowered working environment (where their syllabus is ruled by common sense and general standards, rather than by an impotent administrative body.)
I do believe that increasing teachers' salaries will draw more potential teachers to the area and give schools a better selection to choose from, but of course that's only one part of the solution. The other part is to free the teachers from their administrative- and litigation-fearing shackles and let them do their job.
Unfortunately, I think we could pony up the extra cash much easier than we could resolve the latter problem.
It's not just the format of American education that's the problem, it's the content and the objective.
I think of American public schools like I think of American prisons. We really haven't figured out if we want to help the inhabitants improve, or babysit them to keep them from hurting others or themselves, and so far, we've done a shitty job of both.
But perhaps that's oversimplified. There are many different pieces that join together to form the whole problem.
1) Teachers - underpaid, underappreciated, and undertalented. We need to train, pay, and expect the best from teachers, and treat them with the respect and admiration deserving of the people who nurture the minds and interests of the next generation, because they are.
2) Parents - underinvolved and unwilling to do their part. It used to be that if you got in trouble at school, it was nothing compared to the trouble that you'd get into when you got home. Conversely, parents used to be much more active and supportive of their children's education, and "active" is not defined by putting pithy stickers on the minivan.
3) Students - "some children left behind." The hardest problem is that we have the mindset that school has a plethora of solutions for children with problems. It doesn't. Those places would be called "juvenile hall" or "psychiatric ward." Some students are going to misbehave, cause trouble, underperform, or fail, and we should let them. Not everyone gets to be an astronaut when they grow up, and you don't get increasing results by applying declining standards.
School was pretty boring and unchallenging for me, but it wasn't miserable. It seems like it's heading that way, though.
Slashdot just broke one of the 2 rules of peacekeeping conversation, don't talk about religion or politics.
Religious flamebait: "God hates homosexuals!"
Slashdot religious flamebait: "Linux sucks!"
To avoid contentious issues like religion and politics would be redundant./.already has its own unique and well-established flavors of inflammatory pissing contests.
In the UK, there is a female-only car insurance (Diamond), which will only accept female clientele because their insurance claims would in average be lower (hence allowing female drivers to save money, while indirectly increasing the insurance cost of males, by removing drivers with "lower claims" from male/female car insurance companies)...
Where's the equal opportunity here?
I'm curious why you blame Diamond for "indirectly increasing the insurance cost of males." Your statement is essentially a confirmation that you understand that, statistically, a female is in most cases likely to cost the insurance company less in claims than a male of her same age group, driving the same car type. The insurance company can't predict the future, but it can take cues from what other people fitting the same criteria have done in the past, so with all else considered equal, it will usually charge females less. So in a company that insures both, males are indirectly increasing the insurance cost of females.
In any case, equal opportunity hiring practices and selling practices are two different things. Businesses have much more leeway in treating customers differently, or refusing customers outright.
And this is a good thing, because if business were held to the same standards of equal opportunity selling, everyone with good driving records and good credit histories would be in a spittle-spewing rage over their higher interest rates and premiums.
Slashdot Mirror
Throwing more money at something never makes it better.
Hmm... I get the impression that you're not fully reading or getting the gist of everything I'm saying.
Your statement about money is somewhat incorrect. It should read: "ONLY throwing more money at something never makes it better." And if you'll go back and read my last post, you'll find that I point this out when I say that increasing teachers' salaries is only part of the solution.
The simple truth is, people that love their jobs still need to make money. The more money you offer people, the higher standards you can expect from them, and as more people will be interested in the job, you can be more selective and ensure that those standards are met - and exceeded.
What you're talking about, firing teachers for being bad at their job, is the administrative reform, which would be the second part of what I discussed in the last post. But why is it so hard to fire bad teachers? Well, for one, there's general administrative incompetence. Two, it's hard to find replacement teachers in a lot of areas. And why is it hard to find replacement teachers in many areas? Because many areas don't pay public school teachers what they're worth and treat them well, so not enough people are interested, which is a very likely reason why the schools had to SETTLE FOR THE BAD TEACHER IN THE FIRST PLACE.
Bottom line, as with students, if we raise the stakes involved with teachers and encourage more competition for their positions, we will get better results.
Teachers are paid just fine, on an hour by hour basis they start at what a Civil Engineer makes. I have never known a poor teacher they have always been middle class.
You are correct, but perhaps I should have clarified and expounded on my statement. I wasn't implying that most teachers were the working poor, simply that they should be paid more than they are currently. Also, I am from Texas, where teachers' salaries are ranked 30th in the nation.(average $40k/year, not starting). Suffice it to say that what I make with only a two-year degree and less than a year of real work experience, I find that average salary rate of Texas teachers absurdly and offensively low.
Many people that could teach (and would enjoy teaching) in public schools do not because other industries offer them higher salaries, more opportunities and advancements, and a more empowered working environment (where their syllabus is ruled by common sense and general standards, rather than by an impotent administrative body.)
I do believe that increasing teachers' salaries will draw more potential teachers to the area and give schools a better selection to choose from, but of course that's only one part of the solution. The other part is to free the teachers from their administrative- and litigation-fearing shackles and let them do their job.
Unfortunately, I think we could pony up the extra cash much easier than we could resolve the latter problem.
It's not just the format of American education that's the problem, it's the content and the objective.
I think of American public schools like I think of American prisons. We really haven't figured out if we want to help the inhabitants improve, or babysit them to keep them from hurting others or themselves, and so far, we've done a shitty job of both.
But perhaps that's oversimplified. There are many different pieces that join together to form the whole problem.
1) Teachers - underpaid, underappreciated, and undertalented. We need to train, pay, and expect the best from teachers, and treat them with the respect and admiration deserving of the people who nurture the minds and interests of the next generation, because they are.
2) Parents - underinvolved and unwilling to do their part. It used to be that if you got in trouble at school, it was nothing compared to the trouble that you'd get into when you got home. Conversely, parents used to be much more active and supportive of their children's education, and "active" is not defined by putting pithy stickers on the minivan.
3) Students - "some children left behind." The hardest problem is that we have the mindset that school has a plethora of solutions for children with problems. It doesn't. Those places would be called "juvenile hall" or "psychiatric ward." Some students are going to misbehave, cause trouble, underperform, or fail, and we should let them. Not everyone gets to be an astronaut when they grow up, and you don't get increasing results by applying declining standards.
School was pretty boring and unchallenging for me, but it wasn't miserable. It seems like it's heading that way, though.
Slashdot just broke one of the 2 rules of peacekeeping conversation, don't talk about religion or politics.
/.already has its own unique and well-established flavors of inflammatory pissing contests.
Religious flamebait: "God hates homosexuals!"
Slashdot religious flamebait: "Linux sucks!"
To avoid contentious issues like religion and politics would be redundant.
For instance, if you tried to visit
./ instead?
www.infecktmewihtspaiware.com
Would it take you to
In the UK, there is a female-only car insurance (Diamond), which will only accept female clientele because their insurance claims would in average be lower (hence allowing female drivers to save money, while indirectly increasing the insurance cost of males, by removing drivers with "lower claims" from male/female car insurance companies)...
Where's the equal opportunity here?
I'm curious why you blame Diamond for "indirectly increasing the insurance cost of males." Your statement is essentially a confirmation that you understand that, statistically, a female is in most cases likely to cost the insurance company less in claims than a male of her same age group, driving the same car type. The insurance company can't predict the future, but it can take cues from what other people fitting the same criteria have done in the past, so with all else considered equal, it will usually charge females less. So in a company that insures both, males are indirectly increasing the insurance cost of females.
In any case, equal opportunity hiring practices and selling practices are two different things. Businesses have much more leeway in treating customers differently, or refusing customers outright.
And this is a good thing, because if business were held to the same standards of equal opportunity selling, everyone with good driving records and good credit histories would be in a spittle-spewing rage over their higher interest rates and premiums.