Jon Stewart Again Goes After Wall Street to Cover for Teachers Unions
The left-wing comedian Jon Stewart is at it again after ripping conservative Republicans for going after public sector collective bargaining. Stewart updated the situation in Wisconsin Thursday night on the "Daily Show," reporting on Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker introducing his new budget proposals.
"He has put public sector unions on notice, and particularly teachers, that the gravy train is over – even if the gravy is actually lunchroom cafeteria-grade gravy-like rehydrated soy chips," Stewart spun, painting the comfortable pensions and benefits of Wisconsin public school teachers as dog food compared with infamous Wall Street bonuses. He also shifted the debate – instead of going after public sector unions, conservatives somehow are anti-teacher, according to Stewart's logic.
Playing clips from CNBC, Fox Business, and Fox News as his cannon fodder, the comedian failed to give credence to the point that the public sector union benefits might indeed be unsustainable, and that not all people working on Wall Street are money-hoarding thieves. But he descended once again into his simplistic "Robin Hood vs. Prince John" tunnel vision.
Referring to people making over $250,000 a year, who were exempted from a tax increase this past January, Stewart sarcastically joked that "they're not big-shot teachers with their... desks, and seemingly endless supply of multi-colored construction papers."
He also ignored the fact that many of the Wall Street banks that received bailout money paid it back with interest.
"Bankers are not suckling from the taxpayers teat! Except, of course, for the billions of gallons of taxpayer bailout teat milk they sucked on so voraciously," the anchor snidely remarked. "We have got to pay those bailed-out firm CEOs top-dollar! Otherwise those companies could wind up being run by a couple of jackasses who f*** things up so royally it torpedos the entire global economy," he sarcastically ranted.
A transcript of the segment, which aired on March 3 at 11:01 p.m. EST, is as follows:
JON STEWART: It is a battle to balance Wisconsin's budget. Gov. Scott Walker has finally put his proposals on the table. He is, in addition to stripping teachers and public workers of most of their collective bargaining rights, cutting 800 million dollars from the Wisconsin public schools budget over the next two years, as well as restricting local municipalities the ability to make up property taxes to make up for any shortfalls. In essence, he has put public sector unions on notice, and particularly teachers, that the gravy train is over. Even if the gravy is actually lunchroom cafeteria-grade gravy-like rehydrated soy chips. (...) We all are in it together! All of us have to sacrifice! Teachers, teachers assistants, student-teachers, retired teachers, school janitors, Everybody has to sacrifice. Why teachers? Well, as Republicans and their kin in the media know – you gots to follow the money.
(Video Clip) (...) NARRATOR: We're talking a 90,000 dollar, nine months worth of work all-in package. Boy, it sounds pretty darn good to the 14 million people out of work. (End Video Clip)
STEWART: You know what? That does sound great to someone without a job. And did you know, you're not even going to believe this. Some of these fat-cat public school kids are getting a hot breakfast free every morning. I bet starving people'd like a piece of that action, don't you think? But point taken. These folks just want teachers to give back. Because they believe that $50,000 a year in salary plus medical and dental benefits are incredibly generous, bordering on avarice. And I imagine these same people will feel the same way about couples earning more than $250,000 a year being asked to allow the Bush tax cuts to expire so that they would have to pay a slightly higher federal income tax rate.
(Video Clip) LAWRENCE KUDLOW: Is the $250,000 income level really rich in America?
BRIAN KILMEADE: How can anybody claim if you make $250,000 that you're a millionaire?
FOX BUSINESS ANCHOR: $250,000 is not rich for a family of four sending kids to college. It actually is close to poverty.
Rep. MICHELLE BACHMANN (R-Minn.): People want to think that these are millionaires sitting in leather chairs lighting their cigars with hundred dollar bills. That's not what we're talking about. (End Video Clip)
STEWART: No that is not. (Laughter) Not when it comes to the Bush tax cuts. They're not big-shot teachers with their... desks, and seemingly endless supply of multi-colored construction papers. Oh, and their no. 2 pencils. I guess no. 3 pencils aren't good enough for your majesty. And don't even try – don't e-ven try – and compare teachers to Wall Street. No contest. (...)
See the difference? Regardless of the greed-based, almost slightly socio-pathic job bankers did wrecking our economy, those people were there every single day, 12 months a year. Not that nine month bulls***. And, we the taxpayers have a right to cut teachers' salaries and benefits. They work for us! Bankers are not suckling from the taxpayers teat! Except, of course, for the billions of gallons of taxpayer bailout teat milk they sucked on so voraciously. Hey, I wonder how those same people who would have the government limit teacher pay and benefits would feel about the government limiting CEO pay at bailed-out-with-taxpayer-money firms. (...) Absolutely. We have got to pay those bailed-out firm CEOs top-dollar! Otherwise those companies could wind up being run by a couple of jackasses who f*** things up so royally it torpedos the entire global economy. Would you want that to happen? I don't think you would!
- Matt Hadro's blog
- Login to post comments
Comments
Hay Jonny, guess what?
Submitted by CobraMan on Fri, 03/04/2011 - 5:35pm.
Hay Jonny, guess what? After we destroy the Unions, we're going after theatrical agents next. Say goodbye to your multimillion dollar contracts. Ha Ha!
The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States. The US Constitution
Unless you're a fetus. The US Supreme Court
Or Anwar al-Awlaki.
Does Jonny.....
Submitted by almostacowboy on Fri, 03/04/2011 - 5:58pm.
..not invest? Does he not keep his filthy lucre in a bank? Is he so pure, he just sits on his paycheck?
Well, Jonny, m'boy, your comrade in arms, Fatso Michael Moore says that money is a public resource. It belongs to us! So turn your head and cough it up, comrade.
One more thing, Jonny. Since you're not that good at things like math, I'll make this simple as I can - The money Wall Street paid back to the U.S. Taxpayer included 8.2% interest for the two years there was an outstanding balance, which is a lot better than Treasury Bonds yeilded, you little twerp.
So you're anti free market?
Submitted by both-sides on Fri, 03/04/2011 - 6:39pm.
So you're anti free market? when the banks make bad decisions they should get all the tax payer money they want to keep them in business?
Thats phony Bush style "free market" capitalism at work.
Didn't take long, both-sides, for your---
Submitted by matthewdean on Fri, 03/04/2011 - 6:49pm.
liberalism to pop out. Or are you just a Bush beater? If so, I take back my welcome. We already have a ton of trolls around here.Actualy most of the guys
Submitted by Boudin on Fri, 03/04/2011 - 6:58pm.
Obama gave it to, ended up with cushy jobs in his administration.
Bail-Out
Submitted by Kingfish17 on Fri, 03/04/2011 - 6:04pm.
The bank "bail-outs" accomplished their goal. Not the goal of saving the financial institutions from collapse, by temporarilly lending them money that they turned around and paid back after rasing additional capital. No. The goal was to demonize these institutions by linking them in perpituity to taking money from the federal government in order to "save them".
Sure, regulatory reform would have acomplished the main goal of allowing the banks to raise additional capital or go belly-up if they couldn't. But that would have meant that the feds wouldn't have had the 3/4 trillion dollar TARP slush fund to toss around.
"You can’t go take a trip to Las Vegas...on the taxpayer’s dime." Barack Obama
What Stewie Fails To Mention...
Submitted by Teamcheeser on Fri, 03/04/2011 - 6:07pm.
What Stewie Fails To Mention is that the lucrative deals made by the Wall Street folks were done without the crutch of Collective Bargaining.
If anything, the Wall Streeters' deals should provide a reason for teachers to want to bring an end to collective bargaining and put the negotiating power into the hands of the individuals.
Too bad so many folks are brainwashed into thinking that they don't have the ability to stand up for themselves anymore, but in a society where everyone gets a trophy just for participating -- is it any wonder?
Jon Stewart has gone from
Submitted by Miss_Me_Yet on Fri, 03/04/2011 - 6:27pm.
Jon Stewart has gone from being a guy that was very adept a reading other peoples jokes, to being one himself.
He actually believes that magazine crap about him being something of the something nonsense and he's the only one that can stave off the evil conservative empire and save the world.......and you thought Barack was a narcissistic, paranoid fool.......well he's a close second anyway.
Liberals ... we can't live with them, they couldn't survive without us ...
Have to admit thought, he
Submitted by both-sides on Fri, 03/04/2011 - 6:37pm.
Have to admit thought, he does do a great job at pointing out the hypocrisies at fox.
It hard to get unbiased news anywhere these days. its all either pro democrat or pro republican.
Just like a
Submitted by Boudin on Fri, 03/04/2011 - 6:43pm.
Libtard also,,,,,,,, No pro news, try the truth?
Jon Stewart's point was how
Submitted by bob loblaw on Fri, 03/04/2011 - 6:29pm.
Jon Stewart's point was how can the talking heads and politicians go on tv say that couples that make more that 250,000 shouldn't have thier taxes raised a little, and that 250,000 isn't that rich. Then these same talking heads say that a teacher salary and benefits which equals 89,000 are making to much money, that makes no sense. And since you failed to provide clips of the show here they are. http://www.thedailyshow.com/#tool_tip_2. Please someone explain that logic?
Softball Comparison
Submitted by Kingfish17 on Fri, 03/04/2011 - 6:43pm.
You're dealing with seperate issues here, loblaw:
1. Federal Income Taxes - Couples that make $250,000 shouldn't have their federal income taxes raised. Our federal government gets enough in taxes allready. Our deficit problem is one of spending, not of taxes. (Addressing the problems of Social Security and Medicare is another, entirely different, issue.)
2. Wisconsin's problems with their state budget needs to be handled by the citizens of Wisconsin. The current Republican Governor and Republican controlled state legislature ran on a platform of reigning in the costs of the state government, without raising state taxes. One way to do that is to make the teachers of the state pay more for their benefits, ie, retirement and health care. If the citizens of Wisconsin decide two years from now that that was the wrong way to go, they can throw out all the Republicans and elect Dems who will raise taxes on everyone in the state if they so desire. But then maybe the state of Wisconsin will go bankrupt.
State vs Federal. It's a wonderful system when it's allowed to work.
"You can’t go take a trip to Las Vegas...on the taxpayer’s dime." Barack Obama
I have not heard the argument
Submitted by bob loblaw on Fri, 03/04/2011 - 7:01pm.
I have not heard the argument from the Wisconsin teachers that they are not willing to make some concession, they just don't want their right to collective bargaining taken away. Scott Walker didn't campaign on taking away collective bargaining http://politifact.com/wisconsin/statements/2011/feb/22/scott-walker/wisconsin-gov-scott-walker-says-he-campaigned-his-/
Limiting collective bargaining is not the same as---
Submitted by matthewdean on Fri, 03/04/2011 - 7:03pm.
taking it away altogether.Sorry
Submitted by Unsane on Fri, 03/04/2011 - 8:04pm.
FDR didn't think public employees should collectively bargain either.
Public employees shold not be allowed to unionize, much less collectively bargain.
"CONSUMED DEMOCRACY RETURNS A SOCIALIST REGIME" - Slayer, "Fictional Reality", from Divine Intervention (1994)
You're telling half the tale, loblaw
Submitted by Blonde on Fri, 03/04/2011 - 8:22pm.
He's more than willing to let them keep collective bargaining in regard to their salaries.
However, he's going to (rightly so) blast their union's ability to "collectively bargain" for benefits, inasmuch as their "agreements" stipulate all benefits must be purchased via the union's auxilliary "trust".
IOW....he's taking away their ability to rig the game. Too bad, so sad.
Handy Reference Guide to Obama's Gaffes and Goofs ~ Currently Numbering 200 (and Counting)
re to loblaw: Collective Bargaining
Submitted by Kingfish17 on Fri, 03/04/2011 - 10:15pm.
So you switch the argument from one of federal taxes vs. the state of Wisconsin trying to balance their budget, to a seperate discussion on the so called "right to collectively bargain".
Since you have given up on the prior, I'll address the later:
Unless it's in the Wisconsin Constitution, there is no "Right to Collectively Bargain" endowed upon the citizens of Wisconsin. Collective Bargaining was an agreement reached between certain state employee unions and the state of Wisconsin. Since it was granted under law, it can be rescinded, under law. It is up to the citizens of Wisconsin as to whether or not their public employee unions should be able to collectively bargain.
If the current governor and legislature of Wisconsin rescind collective bargaining, and the citizens of Wisconsin are displeased with this action, then they can elect a new governor and legislature who will restore collective bargaining to those unions.
It's up to the citizens of Wisconsin to eventually determine, through their elected representatives, how much they are willing to spend for their state government and services, including public education. Maybe the people of Wisconsin have decided that they don't want to go the way of Detroit and increase the size of public school rooms to 60 students. Maybe the citizens of Wisconsin don't want to raise their taxes so they can continue to fund the slush fund associated with the teachers union and their health insurance scam.
This is pretty simple stuff.
Still waiting on your response addressing the initial Stewart non-point comparing federal income tax rates and the funding of teachers by the state of Wisconsin.
"You can’t go take a trip to Las Vegas...on the taxpayer’s dime." Barack Obama
Jon Stewart's point was that
Submitted by bob loblaw on Fri, 03/04/2011 - 11:16pm.
Jon Stewart's point was that the talking heads think 89,000 dollars a year with benefits is to much money for a teacher to make, but a couple of months ago the same talking heads thought that couples who make 250,000 plus should have their taxes raise a little, one even saying "it actually is close to poverty." He is pointing out the hypocrisy of those talking heads something he does regularly. The people are upset with Walker because he didn't run on restricting collective bargaining as apart of his budget repair plan. http://politifact.com/wisconsin/statements/2011/feb/22/scott-walker/wisconsin-gov-scott-walker-says-he-campaigned-his-/
loblaw---
Submitted by matthewdean on Fri, 03/04/2011 - 11:26pm.
Considering Jon Stewart, you might want to amend "Jon Stewart's point was--" - to - "Jon Stewart's comedy writers point was--".You're joking, right?
Submitted by Kingfish17 on Fri, 03/04/2011 - 11:34pm.
So called "talking heads" think $89,000 a year with benefits is too much money for a teacher to make, and the same so called "talking heads" think that couples who make $250,000 a year should not have their federal taxes raised, even a little. And one of these same, so called, "talking heads" says that $250,000 a year for a couple is close to poverty.
The above is the basis for Jon Stewarts argument/joke? And you're buying into this? Isn't this straw man a tad thin? How about making, or replying, to a real point.
And with regards to restricting collective bargaining: I'm glad to see you dropped the nonsense about this being a "Right". If collective bargaining for issues unrelated to pay is that important for the average citizen of the state of Wisconsin, when it comes to public teacher employee unions, then they can vote Walker and the legislature out of office and reinstate collective bargaining. I don't believe that the average voter in the state of Wisconsin, when asked about important issues concerning their lives and the importance of what's going on in their state, would even consider "non wage collective bargaining for public school teacher unions". That's like Jimmy Carter tellling me that his 13 year old daughter's biggest concern in 1980 was nuclear proliferation.
Not buying it.
"You can’t go take a trip to Las Vegas...on the taxpayer’s dime." Barack Obama
"I have not heard..."
Submitted by SickofLibs on Fri, 03/04/2011 - 10:11pm.
that's always a debate winner.
I had not heard
Submitted by Radical1979 on Fri, 03/04/2011 - 10:15pm.
that Obama campaigned on taking this country apart along racial lines, destroying our economy, alienating our allies, and destroying our defense. But he went and did it.
You've been called out, weasel.
Submitted by NL207 on Sat, 03/05/2011 - 11:10pm.
Your backside looks like the middle of a 2-lane road.
For a free haircut try this
"Bankers are not suckling
Submitted by both-sides on Fri, 03/04/2011 - 6:34pm.
"Bankers are not suckling from the taxpayers teat! Except, of course, for the billions of gallons of taxpayer bailout teat milk they sucked on so voraciously," the anchor snidely remarked
how is that a snide remark? Sounds like nothing other then a factual statement. The banks screwed up and crawled to the taxpayer for help, the tax payer shoveled billions to them.
Snide? no
Accurate? yes
Oh I saw that fox got caught with more fake footage from the WI rally. I didn't know WI had palm trees.
Cmon, troll...
Submitted by SickofLibs on Fri, 03/04/2011 - 6:44pm.
even the left-leaning Mediaite debunked that a few days ago.
If that's your A-game, you're screwed.
SoL---
Submitted by matthewdean on Fri, 03/04/2011 - 6:52pm.
There was a slight odor to 'both-sides' very first post, and then it started cutting loose with the Bush smack. The username is so often a giveaway - "both-sides", my ass.ditto
Submitted by jon_torlin on Fri, 03/04/2011 - 7:11pm.
If I had to compare this guy to a fish, it's the kind of fish that has both eyes on one side.
What kind was that.....oh yeah, flounder.
-Jon
Jon: MD is from the left coast,
Submitted by SickofLibs on Fri, 03/04/2011 - 10:54pm.
where they insist on calling them "halibut."
In Jersey, we don't pull any punches: they are weirdass looking and so are called fluke. (only in restaurants or high-end fish markets are they called flounder)
BTW, oddly enough, "winter flounder" (different species from summer fluke) season opens here March 23... three days after the official arrival of Spring. Very short season tho - only about 6 weeks. After the looong winter, It's always the best fishing trip of the year and I never miss it.
Close, SoL, really close---
Submitted by matthewdean on Fri, 03/04/2011 - 10:59pm.
The liberal fish out here are called either "Whollybutt" or "flakes".MD: yeah, the flakes I knew about,
Submitted by SickofLibs on Fri, 03/04/2011 - 11:06pm.
but the "Whollybutts" are new to me!
Are they catch-and-release or catch-and-fishbat?
As with any liberal type fish, SoL---
Submitted by matthewdean on Fri, 03/04/2011 - 11:14pm.
they are bottom feeders, taste much like carp, which is to say the it's same as biting into a wet mudball, and are only good for slicing up and dangling as stinkbait for catfish.Well SoL
Submitted by Boudin on Fri, 03/04/2011 - 6:53pm.
I think their screwed. Now post outright false info, tch, tch , tch
Not the complete truth
Submitted by Kingfish17 on Fri, 03/04/2011 - 6:49pm.
If you were to say...."shoveled billions to them, which was repaid with interest"....then your statement would convey the entirety of what happened. But then, of course, it wouldn't fit your agenda.
"You can’t go take a trip to Las Vegas...on the taxpayer’s dime." Barack Obama
I suspect, "Both Holes", that...
Submitted by ckc1227 on Fri, 03/04/2011 - 7:18pm.
....there are a lot of things you don't know.
"I didn't know WI had palm trees."
by your comment I deduce you
Submitted by both-sides on Sat, 03/05/2011 - 2:09pm.
by your comment I deduce you not only know nothing, you have a poor sense of humor that would well with some children.
When you first showed up
Submitted by Miss_Me_Yet on Sat, 03/05/2011 - 2:21pm.
When you first showed up yesterday I was thinking both-sides, like of your mouth, you speak out of both sides of your mouth.
Today I've changed not only my mind, but also your moniker in my mind. From this day forward, you will be both-ends to me.
Liberals ... we can't live with them, they couldn't survive without us ...
bottom-sides, I am assuming you are referring to those banks...
Submitted by Dave. on Fri, 03/04/2011 - 9:03pm.
...that are run by big dem donors, as most every big bank is.
I am also assuming, for the moment, that you understand that Wall Street is run by big-time democrats.
You do know that, right?
-Dave
Vote for the American in November
Edit
Submitted by Kingfish17 on Fri, 03/04/2011 - 6:44pm.
And deleted, This was reposted in the reply section.
"You can’t go take a trip to Las Vegas...on the taxpayer’s dime." Barack Obama
Bob Loblaw got it right...
Submitted by BosTarus on Fri, 03/04/2011 - 7:07pm.
You guys seem to ignore the actual point of Stewart's criticism. He's critical of the pundits who complain that $250k salaries are far from rich ("it's actually close to poverty" as one talking head even said), who then turn around and act as if teacher salaries are ridiculously opulent.
As usual, the subject of his ire is primarily the hypocrisy involved in the discussion. And that is the part I find most offensive too-we can totally have a conversation about the unions and how their benefits may be too cushy, and that there needs to be accountability... BUT don't lead the discussion by villifying teachers.
I'm friends with teachers, and they are some of the hardest working, most dedicated people I know. And their job is crucially important. The discussion is important, so let's not get bogged down in offensive villifying of the "enemy".
He's not right
Submitted by ckc1227 on Fri, 03/04/2011 - 7:28pm.
"You guys seem to ignore the actual point of Stewart's criticism. He's critical of the pundits who complain that $250k salaries are far from rich ("it's actually close to poverty" as one talking head even said), who then turn around and act as if teacher salaries are ridiculously opulent."
According to that logic, if you don't consider $250,000 rich for tax purposes, then you can't complain about paying a janitor $100,00.00, even though he misses most of the trash. It's the logic of a moron...or a liberal. Yeah, I know.....redundant, lol.
"I'm friends with teachers, and they are some of the hardest working, most dedicated people I know. And their job is crucially important."
You and Bob are two more examples of them failing to do it properly.
I'm going to vilify the teachers as much as I want
Submitted by Unsane on Fri, 03/04/2011 - 8:09pm.
Your friends, the teachers, are the hardest working, most dedicated people you know, huh? Cool. Then when we see the day when teachers are paid according to actual, honest to Shahinshah merit, they will have zero problems and nothing to fear.
The world of public education simply must join the Real World. If I do a crappy job in the private sector, I either get paid less, received less of a raise, or I get fired. It is long past time we start doing that with teachers. They are not indispensable, nor are they as necessary as you think.
"CONSUMED DEMOCRACY RETURNS A SOCIALIST REGIME" - Slayer, "Fictional Reality", from Divine Intervention (1994)
Teachers should be held
Submitted by mamabear on Sat, 03/05/2011 - 10:43am.
Teachers should be held accountable for the job they do.
But let's not pretend that the private sector is a paragon of accountability, either! Some jobs are competitive and some people get appropriately punished for doing a bad job, but that's not universal or perfectly applied. At the top of the private sector, people have the leverage to negotiate contracts that pay them ridiculous sums of money no matter how well they perform. How is that different from the lack of accountability in teaching?
The difference
Submitted by Kingfish17 on Sat, 03/05/2011 - 10:55am.
Public school teachers are funded by taxpayer dollars.
When someone in a private sector job, be it CEO or whatever, rips off the corporation by taking too much in the form of compensation, the investors, ie, shareholders, are the ones that are hurt. No one compelled the investors to put money into that corporation.
The government, be it local, state, or federal, compells people to pay taxes that fund public education.
A voucher system would allow the parents of students to hold teachers and schools accountable. But a voucher system would remove the current political power structure from Democrats.
"You can’t go take a trip to Las Vegas...on the taxpayer’s dime." Barack Obama
ARE YOU SERIOUS?!?! In the
Submitted by both-sides on Sat, 03/05/2011 - 2:12pm.
ARE YOU SERIOUS?!?!
In the private sector when corps and ceo's screw up and blow up the world economy they get billions of dollars from the tax payers. TAX MONEY. were you asleep in 2008?
You ask me about serious?
Submitted by Kingfish17 on Sat, 03/05/2011 - 5:58pm.
No, in the private sector, when a corporation screws up, they declare bankruptcy and the equity owners get wiped out. Your example is one of the worst escapades of "crony_capitalism" and of the feds doing the exact opposite of what they should have done. TARP was never necessary, and it turned into a slush fund for the feds to use at their whim.
Your definition of the private sector and how it works is what isn't serious.
And I'd hate to borrow twenty bucks from you. Even after I paid it back, you'd be telling everyone how you gave me twenty dollars. Typical eletist liberal memory.
"You can’t go take a trip to Las Vegas...on the taxpayer’s dime." Barack Obama
mamabear,
Submitted by Agnostic on Sat, 03/05/2011 - 10:55am.
yes but it is not the governments job to dictate to the private sector regardless of how much the far left would like to make it so. I'll grant that a certain amount of regulation and consumer protection is necessary.
However, public sector jobs are being paid by our taxes. To use President Obama's words we are using our taxes to invest in our children. What is being said now is that we don't approve of the way our investment is being used. We have the same right as stock/share holders in the private sector and many do exercise that right - just not enough. Investors should be protesting the private corporations when they pay executives beyond what the market forces allow (subjective but that is why we need accurate information from the media and not propaganda) just as tax payers should protest when the public sector spends beyond their means and allows the mechanisms in place, Public Union, that unfairly prevent tax payers from having their place at the negotiating table and place politicians in a position where they are suspect due to being stuck between a major contributor and the well being of the state.
Yes, taxpayers should hve a
Submitted by mamabear on Sun, 03/06/2011 - 12:17am.
Yes, taxpayers should hve a say in how our children are taught, and we do! The problem isn't that teachers shouldn't be held accountable for the job they do-- the should. But there is hypocrisy in complaining that we have crappy teachers and complaining that we pay them too much and pretending that this is somehow different from the private sector because there, lazy people are never paid more than they deserve...
My problem is not with the policies of the right on this issue so much as it is with the rhetoric of the right. Demonizing teachers really does not help us attract quality people to the profession.
mamabear,
Submitted by Agnostic on Sun, 03/06/2011 - 5:29pm.
There is no hypocrisy because it is not about the money and to understand this you really need to look beyond the dollar and look at the power structure.
Who is affected if Joe Blow the overpaid executive gets paid too much money? The investors who voluntarily invested in the company and I can promise you it wasn't a decision made based on the salary of Joe. Other employees may or may not be effected depending upon what the company would have done with the excesses in Joe's check. Unfair? Probably. But the damage is limited to those with the ability to make decisions for themselves.
Who is effected when collective bargaining of public employees create an atmosphere where teachers can't be held accountable and the wrong type of teachers are attracted because of the relatively higher pay to private sector, far superior benefits and the benefit of not being able to be fired for lack of ability. Unfair? Yes. Tax money is taken from citizens and then elected official more beholden to special interest groups like unions, environmental groups and a corporations decide where that money goes. Now we have an official paid by taxpayers negotiating with one the largest donating organizations in the country - Public Unions. And what happens? The money goes directly from the tax payer, to the state capital to the unions - the teachers don't even get a say.
It is not about the teachers, it is not about the money, it is about a system that is inherently negligent in providing what is best for the tax payers, the teachers and the students. A system that is destructive to the proper and ethical running of a government.
So then you agree with me
Submitted by mamabear on Sun, 03/06/2011 - 6:21pm.
So then you agree with me that demonizing teachers is the wrong thing to do in this situation?
Big Thread
Submitted by Kingfish17 on Sun, 03/06/2011 - 6:34pm.
mamabear,
Because of your background, I'm interested in your thoughts on vouchers. I posed a question to you earlier that's at the bottom of this discussion. I'm guessing you missed my query because of the length of this thread and the fact that this topic is getting a tad old, so I hope you don't mind me posting again under your latest response.
I don't mean to steal this train of discussion, just interested in what you have to say.
"You can’t go take a trip to Las Vegas...on the taxpayer’s dime." Barack Obama
Demonizing the teachers
Submitted by NL207 on Fri, 03/11/2011 - 8:10am.
UNION is the exact right thing to do in this situation. This vile organization has used the monopolistic power of government to fleece the taxpayers while at the same time it has defended and promoted the interests of those occupying teaching positions regardless of their merit, competence or work ethics and to the detriment of the students. It has gone far beyond this in fact. the Teacher's Union has misued the dues it has collected to bribe and promote politicians sympathetic to its cause and create a conflict of interest at the bargaining table such thtat it and ony it is represented in salary and benefit negotiations. The taxpayers, and ultimately, the students of public education have been disenfranchised by this corrupt organization.
Collective bargaining in the public sector must be outlawed. We should revert to the Civil Service protections which served well from the time of Chester Arthur until John Kennedy permitted unionization of government workers.
demonizing teachers
Submitted by Agnostic on Sun, 03/06/2011 - 6:48pm.
on a general basis - yes. Specifically demonizing those who are ignorant of the facts and are setting poor examples for their students - not so much.
NL207 above is correct - The Public Unions are the ones who should be the target.
No one wants to lose money from their paycheck and I get that especially since I haven't had a raise in five years and all of my expenses have gone up considerably. So I get the fact that would be upset about having to spend money they are not used to having to spend out of their paycheck because the taxpayers have been paying for their benefits and higher salary all along. But one has to realize when one is on the gravy train and appreciate the opportunity you have had when the train comes to an end. You don't act as many have which is spit in the eye of those who provided you that train. I would also like to note that there are far more teachers sitting out of the protest then taking part.
Mamabear, The Elephant in
Submitted by Liberallies on Sat, 03/12/2011 - 11:52am.
Mamabear, The Elephant in the room that a lot of teachers do not want to talk about is.....the fact that there are many and I mean many terrible, horrific teachers!!! We always hear from everyone, "it is not about the teachers." I 100% disagree with this. Too many teachers today are part of the problem, not the solution. I know enough abou tthe Chicago, Illinois public system to know that it is infested with terrible, terrible teachers who are more interested in pushing their own Liberal and in many cases right out communist agenda. I have been to enough PTA meetings, to enough teachers' meatings to know that teachers ARE part of the problem. Shoot, who do think heads these horrific teachers' unions? TEACHERS! We need to do a much better selection of our teachers. We need to be able to fire bad teachers, which is impossible once teachers achieve tenure. Let us not forget that while the media and the anti-Catholics scream and cry about child abuse by priest, which make up .01% of cases of 100% of cases, according to a government study, child abuse by teachers is much higher and a much bigger problem in public schools! Teachers, too many of them, are the problem, not the solution. Enough with the, "Well, teachers are not the problem. This is not against the teachers...." and blah, blah, blah.... No, this is against the many and I do many teachers who are a complete and utter disaster and who are helping with the destruction of our education.It is about the teachers, but
Submitted by mamabear on Sat, 03/12/2011 - 9:58pm.
It is about the teachers, but that doesn't mean they are horrible people. The biggest factor that determines a student's success in school is socioeconomic situation. That says something about a whole host of other issues, but from an education standpoint, we can't change that. So we go to the second biggest factor, which is the teacher. We can control that. But I don't think it helps the situation to tell teachers that they are horrible and lazy and get paid too much and should stop whining. What exactly do you expect that to do? Teachers, most of them, want to do better. We figure out how to make them better, get rid of the few who really don't care or don't have the chops for the job, and help the rest improve. Then we insist that they do improve, and hold them accountable for doing so. I don't see how demonizing them helps any part of that process.A tired whine
Submitted by Unsane on Sat, 03/12/2011 - 10:03pm.
The "socioeconomic situation" whine is just another way for teachers to excuse themselves for poor performance and to indulge their Leftism as well.
Cultural attitudes? Nah. That will never be factored in as a potential reason.
"CONSUMED DEMOCRACY RETURNS A SOCIALIST REGIME" - Slayer, "Fictional Reality", from Divine Intervention (1994)
Mamabear, Are you
Submitted by Liberallies on Wed, 03/16/2011 - 2:02am.
Mamabear, Are you suggesting that speaking the truth about teachers, that there are many who are lazy, dumb, do not care about the children they "teach", are not well educated in the subject matter that they teach should not be said out loud because we are going to offend them? C'mon Mamabear!!! IT IS ABOUT THE KIDS!!! Let us start putting the kids first!!! When the Teachers' Unions do this, when teachers do this, when parents do this then we will start seeing public schools improve! I am sorry, but I could careless about the feelings of any teacher. I could careless if a teacher or 100 teachers get offended because the truth is spoken. There is a VERY LARGE, NOT FEW as you claim, of teachers who are terrible in every shape, manner and form imaginable. They do not care, they do not know how to teach, they push their radical agenda's in the classrooms instead of teaching their subject matter, they whine and cry about pay, they demand and want more and more benefits and give very little back. These are facts, facts that need to be said very loud. Facts that need to change! Are there good teachers, of course there are! But as I have always known and experienced there are two things, two groups one never speaks bad about when talking to teachers, teachers and their precious unions. ENOUGH with the intimidation! I have run into other wise sane teachers who go crazy, who pull a Dr. Jekyl-Mr. Hyde attitudes one me when the truth about unions and teachers is spoken. The truth must be spoken, today's teachers unions are a detriment and obstacle in the improvement of the education of our children and a very large amount of teachers in our public schools are also a detriment to the education of our children. And don't get me started on the undergraduate programs which supposedly teach individuals how to become teachers, these are a horrific joke!That there are many teachers
Submitted by mamabear on Wed, 03/16/2011 - 11:40am.
That there are many teachers who are failing to do the job they need to do to teach our kids is a fact. That those many teachers fail because they don't care about children, are lazy, just want to get paid lots of money for no work, are stupid, or have radical agendas is your opinion, not backed up in any way by any facts I've seen during this discussion. How, for instance, did you feel about the media characterizing all wall street brokers, traders, and executives as evil, corrupt, greedy, selfish pigs who didn't care about destroying our country to make a quick buck? That is what you are doing to teachers now. We love scapegoats, because making the problem about someone else divests us of responsibility. It is childish and cowardly.Taxes as sole means of
Submitted by Miss_Me_Yet on Sat, 03/05/2011 - 11:08am.
Taxes as sole means of compensation vs free enterprise system.
Public sector unions, through collective bargaining / corrupt political system, completely remove the taxpayer / student parent from the process they are forced to accept, largely against their will. vs Free enterprise system of corporate executives / board / shareholders all involved in business model / execution of same / change in direction through shareholder voting, majority rules.
Government run entities, especially those with unions ( Post Office, Education, Amtrack, etc. ) have been in the past, remaining today huge drags on the American economy, with our hands tied when it comes to changing a thing. vs Private enterprise corporation have been, remaining through today the life blood of not only America, but the world.
There is simply no validity what so ever to the claims from the left trying to link the recent market bust and fake government bailout and 100 years of utter failure by each and every government entity run by a corrupt union.........that's a fact.
Liberals ... we can't live with them, they couldn't survive without us ...
bos bos bos...
Submitted by abeautifulperson on Fri, 03/04/2011 - 8:17pm.
you MUST be new around here. there is no real discussion at NB.
this is how it works here at NB: first there is an incredibly slanted attempt at a 'gotcha' by someone with pocket full o' rage.
then it's followed by a bunch of bobble heads who insult, wag and rag. rarely are reasonable attempts at debate replied with courtesy or rational responses.
as soon as you start attempting reason, you hit raw nerves, get called troll (or worse) and are told to go away. i used to think they don't want debate, but most aren't familiar with debate. they've spent too much time wallowing in a ball of rage.
almost all around here are older, white and have a sense of entitlement that no one is going to wrest from them any more than you can take away their guns. they want the world to be the way it was. it was always better back in the day... when foreigners were few, and slaves in the 3rd world were happy to make things for them.
let me save you a LOT of time by suggesting you cut your losses. you won't be changing any minds around here. they're all locked, and frankly, fairly atrophed from the repetition of thinking the same thoughts over and over again.
sadly, too many are grumpy computer slactivist who think everyone on the left is lazy, limp and dope smokers... which is actually good, cuz underestimating one's enemies is always the downfall. how do i know? there are more and more of us and fewer and fewer of them. their circle gets tighter, they get angrier and don't even get it.
anuglysocialist returns to darken NB
Submitted by Unsane on Fri, 03/04/2011 - 8:21pm.
Actually, there IS real discussion. The problem is that we are all not aching to turn over every single imaginable economic and political freedom to the government like you are. And this fact makes you very very mad.
Not to mention you can't handle REAL discussion. I still have your whiny PM to me that you sent when you realized you could not handle multiple beat-downs from me. ALL that tells me is that you are the last person who is remotely interested in discussion.
"CONSUMED DEMOCRACY RETURNS A SOCIALIST REGIME" - Slayer, "Fictional Reality", from Divine Intervention (1994)
There's more and more of you? Bwahahaha.
Submitted by SickofLibs on Fri, 03/04/2011 - 8:33pm.
When is the last time you visited the United States?
the world is larger than the U.S.
Submitted by abeautifulperson on Fri, 03/04/2011 - 8:37pm.
finish pulling the lint out of it, and look up. when was the last time you were OUT of the US?
And which countries are experiencing this moonbat renaissance?
Submitted by SickofLibs on Fri, 03/04/2011 - 8:50pm.
Just name one. Anywhere.
Then go back to utopia
Submitted by Boudin on Fri, 03/04/2011 - 9:23pm.
And leave us alone, we aint asking for your bs. Maybe if the rest of the world was just half as charitable, you might not have a point. Why is it, only the USA is not doing enough!
Out of US
Submitted by Agnostic on Fri, 03/04/2011 - 9:27pm.
Been to about 20 countries around the world but none in the Orient yet - maybe sometime soon when the economy recovers.
What did you want to know about the real world to ask such a question?
I'm probably not well traveled compared to many here.
Stuff it
Submitted by Unsane on Fri, 03/04/2011 - 11:53pm.
June. Due to cross the border again in May. And maybe later on this year.
I have been to 13 countries, one of which no longer exists, primarily because it followed the hate-filled, envy-based policies you support.
I have been pretty much in the throes of an obsessive devotion to countries outside the United States since...well, since age eight.
When I talk about the rest of the world, in other words, I sure as all hell know what the f*** I am talking about.
"CONSUMED DEMOCRACY RETURNS A SOCIALIST REGIME" - Slayer, "Fictional Reality", from Divine Intervention (1994)
abeautifulwayofgoingofftopic
Submitted by MrShy on Fri, 03/04/2011 - 8:59pm.
you MUST be new around here. there is no real discussion at NB.
Paragraph 1 - abeautifulwayofgoingofftopic is off the topic of this thread.
this is how it works here at NB: first there is an incredibly slanted attempt at a 'gotcha' by someone with pocket full o' rage.
Paragraph 2 - abeautifulwayofgoingofftopic continues to avoid the topic of this thread.
then it's followed by a bunch of bobble heads who insult, wag and rag. rarely are reasonable attempts at debate replied with courtesy or rational responses.
Paragraph 3 - abeautifulwayofgoingofftopic is, STILL, not broaching the topic of this thread.
as soon as you start attempting reason, you hit raw nerves, get called troll (or worse) and are told to go away. i used to think they don't want debate, but most aren't familiar with debate. they've spent too much time wallowing in a ball of rage.
Paragraph 4 - abeautifulwayofgoingofftopic is yammering on, yet some more, with his view of conservatives on this site and not addressing the topic of Jon Stewart and this thread.
almost all around here are older, white and have a sense of entitlement that no one is going to wrest from them any more than you can take away their guns. they want the world to be the way it was. it was always better back in the day... when foreigners were few, and slaves in the 3rd world were happy to make things for them.
Paragraph 5 - abeautifulwayofgoingofftopic is not only giving us one paragraph after another of irrelevant nonsense, he's now insulting us with stereotypes and playing (wait for it...) the race card.
let me save you a LOT of time by suggesting you cut your losses. you won't be changing any minds around here. they're all locked, and frankly, fairly atrophed from the repetition of thinking the same thoughts over and over again.
Paragraph 6 - abeautifulwayofgoingofftopic remains far from the reservation that is.... this thread, and any points, counter-points or ideas relating to it.
sadly, too many are grumpy computer slactivist who think everyone on the left is lazy, limp and dope smokers... which is actually good, cuz underestimating one's enemies is always the downfall. how do i know? there are more and more of us and fewer and fewer of them. their circle gets tighter, they get angrier and don't even get it.
Paragraph 7 - abeautifulwayofgoingofftopic's closing paragraph -- we would all hope -- would finally address this thread. Nope, not happening. It doesn't.
Seven. SEVEN paragraphs of utter wasteful lecturing, stereotyping, whining, leftist-propagandizing, and insulting clap-trap of conservatives -- at a conservative site. And not one sliver of anything addressing the topic of this thread.
Liberals. Gotta love them. Not.
And yes, he's pulled me down to his level (sorry, everyone :p)
- Shy Vinyl
Join Mr. Shy and The 1* Percent
Nice.
Submitted by The Vet on Sun, 03/06/2011 - 6:47pm.
Very Nice.
bobblehead concurs
Submitted by TruthMonger on Mon, 03/07/2011 - 8:24pm.
bobblehead concurs
Congratulations Jimmy Carter!
Bosdumbass,
Submitted by Dave. on Sat, 03/05/2011 - 11:28pm.
Many (dare I say most) of those earning in the $250k+ range are business owners struggling to make payroll twice a month.
How many people do goonion teachers employ?
Zilch.
-Dave
Vote for the American in November
So , does it strike you as odd, then---
Submitted by matthewdean on Fri, 03/04/2011 - 7:29pm.
that Public School Education efforts seem to be falling short as far as graduating students from our high schools that are properly prepared for matriculation at the next level? Someone, somewhere, whether students themselves, their parents, or their teachers, are involved in perpetuating this apparent dumbing down fiasco. Parents excepted, you can't lay that off on those outside of academia.
As far as vilification, if money is taken from me in the way of taxes and put into the pockets of individuals who then produce poorly or even less than expected, then I will have no problem whatsoever maligning them, and quite freely.
MD
I don't believe anyone's
Submitted by BosTarus on Fri, 03/04/2011 - 7:56pm.
I don't believe anyone's trying to lay the blame on anybody outside of academia... perhaps apart from the politicians who legislate for academia.
The majority of public school money comes from local taxes-I may be wrong in assuming this, but I doubt the schools in your area are that terrible. In fact, most schools are quite good-certainly when compared globally.
The problem schools are the urban center and deep rural schools that seem to drag down national statistics. You may live in an urban or rural district that has poor school statistics, but it's a safe bet that you don't. So the majority of your taxes that go towards education, are most likely going towards decent, hard working teachers.
Of course, I'm speaking statistically and that might not be the case. But can we stop pretending that all teachers are freeloading, lazy bastards looking to game the system? Every occupation has bad seeds. There are bad cops, bad doctors, bad lawyers, bad soldiers, bad wall street bankers. We've all worked with people who are bad examples of our own chosen profession.
I get that the teacher's unions defend the bad seeds, and there are many cases of bad teachers keeping their jobs when they have no reason to. And that is why this is an important conversation-because we need to be able to expunge the education system of those who are not performing. But we also need to realize that we can't solely lay the blame on the teachers-and assume, across the board, that it is their fault.
Anyway, I'm offended by many of these pundits because they belittle a very honorable profession. I, personally, had some amazing teachers who changed my life-and I would never lump them with the bad seeds simply because they share a profession.
You are a shill for mediocrity
Submitted by Unsane on Fri, 03/04/2011 - 8:16pm.
You have got to be kidding me. Compared to the rest of the First World, our schools SUCK. ESPECIALLY in the middle and high school levels, where it ceases to be about learning, and more about athletics and making sure the kids have a GREAT social environment.
Because we have the top college/university system in the world, educators use them as remedial learning centers. That is why there is such a focus on making sure everyone in HS goes to college.
Can I correct a sentence of yours? The first sentence of your last paragraph should read "Anyway, I'm offended by many of these pundits because they belittle a very honorable 'profession'". Teachers do not belong to a profession. Teaching ceased to be a profession a long time ago. If they wish to belong to a profession, may I suggest that they actually go out and do what the rest of us have to do? That is, actually go out and EARN respect and actually EARN the status of profession or that of a professional?
"CONSUMED DEMOCRACY RETURNS A SOCIALIST REGIME" - Slayer, "Fictional Reality", from Divine Intervention (1994)
Teaching is a profession.
Submitted by mamabear on Sat, 03/05/2011 - 11:04am.
Teaching is a profession. Weren't you the one who complained that I said you didn't respect teachers when you really do? You've indicated nothing but disdain for teachers here, no acknowledgement of the point that there are, lo and behold, some good ones.
Teachers work their @$$es off. I probably work 70 hours a week during a semester, and I'm living the cushy life of higher education. If you think teachers aren't desperately trying to figure out why they are failing, you are insane!
Teaching is a lot like performing on a stage. The feedback is immediate and thus highly motivating. Doing well and engaging students, seeing them improve, is like no other kind of satisfaction. The feeling of losing a classroom to boredom or confusion is like being on a stage by yourself and forgetting your lines. It's devastating. Lots of people can't hack it, they try for a few years and then they burn out. Just knowing our material isn't enough, teaching that material is a separate skill, one you have to learn and practice. This is why Teach for America didn't solve all of our education problems. Everyone thought that bringing in real professionals who can "do" instead of just "teach" was the answer. Turns out you have to be able to "do" and "teach," and it isn't so easy to find people who can do both.
Like Bos said, there are bad seeds. I think it takes a peculiar type of person to fail so obviously and not have it effect their conception of themselves-- you must be pretty cynical about students to get that kind of feedback and still persist in thinking it isn't your fault that your students do badly! But I don't think teachers like that are as common as you seem to think. Bad teachers don't last long, and the problem is that they get replaced by more bad teachers who don't last long. They aren't lazy, but they don't know how to improve and they don't stick through it to find out. We need a better system for training teachers, and then we need to reward the ones who work that system well and improve their student's learning.
The fact that not everyone is good at it, that it requires specialized knowledge and skills, is what makes teaching a profession, not what prevents it from being one!
If feedback is immediate, grislybear---
Submitted by matthewdean on Sat, 03/05/2011 - 8:53pm.
then it would appear many in academia are not paying attention; and I disagree completely with your statement that "bad teachers don't last long, and the problem is that they get replaced by more bad teachers who don't last long." Firstly, where are those bad teachers coming from, a tour in the Peace Corps? Failed attempts as commercial real estate salespersons? Loss of prior employment at Home Depot? They are produced by academia, and go directly into the field that produced them. While not a closed loop system, it is close to. And as far as "They aren't lazy, but they don't know how to improve and they don't stick through it to find out", then they either feel they walked into a sinecure, CAN be lazy and get away with it; they are either not smart enough to improve or too LAZY to do so; or do not have the inner drive necessary to not only learn in the first place but also to keep current with all facets of knowledge needed to do the job properly. Are teacher's unions diligent in policing their own reference incompetence? Regardless, these people ARE being turned out and certified as teachers; therefore it seems more likely that in order to establish "a better system for training teachers", the current system, and especially the personnel now in involved in teaching teachers should be replaced first and foremost.Many people who end up
Submitted by mamabear on Sun, 03/06/2011 - 12:23am.
Many people who end up teaching are people who weren't quite top tier enough to make it in the field they originally planned on. That's a seriously stupid way to run our educational system, and it happens because we don't set the bar high enough and we don't respoect the profession. Good people won't devote themselves to a job that earns them more ridicule than dollars.
And we still don't really know what makes a good teacher or how to turn a bad teacher into a good one. We're figuring it out, but only recently. It simply isn't true that teachers that stay bad must just be lazy and ignoring obvious ways to improve their teaching. We don't have obvious ways to improve teaching. We have teachers who are naturally good at it, and teachers who aren't, and we have very little idea of how to turn the latter into the former.
I have no answers to the problem, grislybear---
Submitted by matthewdean on Sun, 03/06/2011 - 4:30am.
but then neither do you, and you are in the profession. As far as my criticism of education goes, I have never had a child in a CA school system, but the biggest chunk of my property tax has always been allotted to the schools, so I have paid for the right to quibble. I flat out do not believe that bad teachers who stay bad do so because no one can "teach" them how to be better at their job.The fact that you are
Submitted by mamabear on Sun, 03/06/2011 - 12:37pm.
The fact that you are completely willing to believe that there is no lack of understanding, despite the fact that you know nothing about the system yourself and have no data to back up your belief is... striking.
grislybear---
Submitted by matthewdean on Mon, 03/07/2011 - 12:47am.
I disagree with you on just about 100% of what ever subject is on the table. That said, you are a tad presumptuous in stating that I know nothing about the system - I completed my education, and I spent enough time at a local college to learn and earn what was necessary in order to be allowed to instruct college level courses in Public Safety and law enforcement. So I know about the system, have worked in the system, and that is my data to back up my belief. Any other comments you care to throw on the wall in an attempt to make something stick?So then, if you think that we
Submitted by mamabear on Mon, 03/07/2011 - 9:45pm.
So then, if you think that we know everything there is to know about teaching and there is no lack of knowledge about how to prepare teachers to be excellent at their job, I have some questions for you-- Did the instruction you received give you everything you would need to know to be, like Unsane, the world's best teacher? Did you ever actually teach? How did it go? Were your students outstanding compared to their peers taught by lazy know-nothing teachers?
I am under the impression that there are many things we still need to learn about how to develop teaching skills. You think there aren't, and now you reveal that you are an experienced educator yourself. So could you please tell me what we need to do to turn poor teachers into excellent ones? Because you seem to know more than any of the experts I've read.
A simple, nasty fact
Submitted by Unsane on Mon, 03/07/2011 - 11:36pm.
Teaching simply is not as technically demanding as you constantly depict. Sheesh, I have done it countless times.
Not to mention there are these things called "parents" who constantly teach. And they manage, somehow, to do so without taking 30 hours of education "classes" or getting certified.
"CONSUMED DEMOCRACY RETURNS A SOCIALIST REGIME" - Slayer, "Fictional Reality", from Divine Intervention (1994)
Unsane
Submitted by Radical1979 on Mon, 03/07/2011 - 11:41pm.
Ssshhh, you've got to keep that fact to yourself. idiot lefty and others of her ilk have invented a secret password and handshake to identify themselves by. The idea is to make teaching much more difficult than it is, kind of like convincing people it's on the level of brain surgery.
And it explains why they get so freaked out by homeschooling doesn't it?
Radical1979
Submitted by hydrodynDM on Tue, 03/08/2011 - 1:44am.
Can you teach me why the Carnot Engine is the most efficient engine?
And please keep the explanation simple enough for a 19 year old to understand.
Would that be in
Submitted by UpNorth on Tue, 03/08/2011 - 2:04am.
application, or in theory?
UpNorth
Submitted by hydrodynDM on Tue, 03/08/2011 - 2:11am.
If you know what defines a Carnot engine, then you know waht the answer to that is.
hydro
Submitted by Radical1979 on Tue, 03/08/2011 - 10:04am.
Can you teach Russian literature? How to speak Japanese? Only if you already have that knowledge. So if I learned about the Carnot Engine I certainly would be able to teach it to 19 year old.
However, I can teach this, at least up to the 8th grade level. I did find I could teach quite a few high school subjects when my son had difficulty at school and wasn't receiving any help at all.
Radical1979
Submitted by hydrodynDM on Tue, 03/08/2011 - 3:13pm.
Knowing the material and knowing how to teach it at the appropriate level for the students in your class are two very different things.
For example - most physics departments offer calculus based and non-calculus based introductory physics classes. Assuming the teacher has the material down there is still a big difference in how you present the material for those two different classes based on what assumptions you make about what the students will understand, about their mathematical backgrounds and about common misconceptions students in an introductory class have about physical concepts.
For example, the concepts of instantaneous velocity and acceleration are easier to get across if the students understand calculus since I can make use of preexisting concepts they'll have about instantaneous changes and derivatives. If they don't already have those concepts, the ideas of instantaneous velocity and acceleration become harder to get across and a different approach has to be taken to get around the fact that I can't give them the real definitions of those things.
On top of that, there are different ways of running your class which depends on things like how large the class is - 20 students versus 120 - whether you do things as a traditional lecture or you involve the students in in-class activities. Also, there's the question of whether you use demos and if so, which to use and what aspects of those demos to emphasize.
There are ton of other things I could mention as well.
The fact is that there is a lot of literature out there about these types of things. There are a lot of teachers who do studies on this - heck, there's even a subfield of physics specifically aimed at physics education.
I know what a Carnot Engine is. So why have I spent the last couple of days thinking about the best way to explain it? Because how you present the material makes a difference. A good teacher will expand on what's in the text and provide alternative explanations and derivations on topics that he knows (from experience) pose problems for his students.
If teaching was so easy - if all it depended on was the teacher knowing his stuff and being motivated to teach - then why are there so many folks out there - me included - devoting so much time to coming up with ways to teacher better? Are we all just wasting our time?
hydro
Submitted by Radical1979 on Tue, 03/08/2011 - 4:45pm.
I don't beleive I said there was nothing to teaching, I just believe teachers like to make it sound as if there's more to it than there actually is. In my own experience, teacher's don't go from teaching a class of six students one year, to teaching the same class with 120 students the next year. The numbers for each class vary, but in my experience not that much. So after you plan it and do it the first time, you are looking at your results and altering what didn't work. But you know what? Most people do that in their jobs. Any business is required to that to be successful. Ever hear of m&m's in hospitals? Morbidity and Mortatlity meetings? Where professionals look at what they did and asses it, basic practices.
Am I surprised there's a book about how to teach physics? No, there are books about how to teach reading, writing, etc. Just as there are books about how to do accounting, law, or other fields.
Teachers who are motivated to teach better can look at what worked in their own classroom, and what didn't. They can ask other teachers. My problem is that so often teachers seem to think it's almost martyrdom to do what other professions do. Really, it's not that difficult if you're motivated to look at your success and failures and alter what you're doing.
I haven't heard anyone
Submitted by mamabear on Tue, 03/08/2011 - 5:31pm.
I haven't heard anyone complaining about the need to assess teaching methods. Teachers do it all the time, and they don't seem to think that's martyrdom. But teachers also don't necessarily know what works and what doesn't. I was just listening to a panel on the Diane Rehm show talking about this this afternoon, though I could only catch a few minutes. Two of the panelists, who I got the impression were teachers, said that over and over again, teachers say that the best thing we can do to help them be more effective at their job is reduce class sizes. Great, except that another panelist brought up the statistics I've heard-- we have been dropping class sizes, and it makes no difference! So one individual teacher in his classroom undoubtedly feels more effective when the class size is smaller. He can repsond better to individual student needs, gets more personalized feedback, it seems pretty straightforward. But when we look at test performance, which some people will also argue is an imperfect measure of student achievement in the first place, there is no effect of class size on performance.
What does this mean? That we don't have all the answers!
Radical1979
Submitted by hydrodynDM on Tue, 03/08/2011 - 6:21pm.
Yes, what teachers do isn't all that different than what folks in other areas of work do. Some try to improve themselves and some don't.
But I don't hear folks here saying that working at a hospital, for example, is easy or that there isn't that much to it or that those who work at hospitals complain too much about how hard their work as if they were trying to make themselves out to be martyrs.
As with any other profession, there are good and bad teachers, teachers who take their work seriously and those who don't, those who complain about their work and those who don't and - as with just about any field of work - you can be mediocre or outstanding in your area of work since just about any area of has enough depth and complexity to it to merit years of study and training to become better at it.
But for some reason, some here seem to disagree with that when it comes to teaching.
I guess there isn't too much to teaching if you don't try too hard. I'm pretty sure I could say the same about anyone else's job as well. Would I be justified in saying that about what you do?
And as an aside, although a given class at a given school might not jump from 20 to 120 students from semester to semester, those differences do appear for the same class between different schools or between different classes at the same school.
Unsane
Submitted by hydrodynDM on Tue, 03/08/2011 - 1:49am.
"Teaching simply is not as technically demanding as you constantly depict."
I guess it depends on what you are teaching.
See my question to Radical above.
(Edit)
Hydro
Submitted by Blonde on Tue, 03/08/2011 - 2:11am.
Teaching isn't really difficult. Perhaps at your level, and with your subject matter it's much more technical, but really, it's more a matter of being competent in one's subject, and having the patience and understanding, and communication skill set, to convey in an understandandable manner that which you wish to have your students learn.
For example, when I graduated and got married, with my bright shiny business degree, my ex was an Army Officer. The only job I could find was teaching remedial math to soldiers (at the time, they were taking anyone). I started out with men who could not even add, subtract, multiply, and divide. I had zero education background, merely a solid grounding in my subject, and a knack for making my students visualize and grasp the concepts involved. I was really good at it, too.
Later in my professional career, part of my job as a high level manager was to teach quite technical skills to others. Again with no formal education training, but rather an ability to effectively communicate concepts, and being able to lead my students from A to B to C, showing them how to think critically to take the next step, and the next.
Inasmuch as I'm not now, nor ever have been a professional educator, I'm merely going by my own experience as both a student and a teacher, but IMO, it's effective communication and the ability to reach each student's particular abilities that makes a good teacher. I guess to me, being competent in the subject matter kind of goes without saying. So I'm rather dismayed that our public schools have such piss poor results. Of course, judging by the applicants I used to get straight out of college, I shouldn't be surprised....the basic skill level of even college graduates was appalling...so why should it be any different for someone with a degree in education?
Handy Reference Guide to Obama's Gaffes and Goofs ~ Currently Numbering 200 (and Counting)
Blonde
Submitted by hydrodynDM on Tue, 03/08/2011 - 2:42am.
"Inasmuch as I'm not now, nor ever have been a professional educator, I'm merely going by my own experience as both a student and a teacher, but IMO, it's effective communication and the ability to reach each student's particular abilities that makes a good teacher."
Back in college I became a tutor. I was pretty good at it exactly for the reasons you mention - I could relate to the people I was meeting with and I could present the material at a level that made sense to them because I could put myself in their place and figure out how I would want the topics presented to me.
And that did me pretty well up through my teaching in grad school.
But then I actually started teaching and I realized that although the ability to relate to my students was a huge advantage (which is something many teachers lose over time as they get older) it didn't make me a good teacher.
The fact is that in any given area of teaching, there are obstacles that get in the way of getting your students to understand the material. And they don't just involve you being able to relate to the kids in your class or you being on top of the material - they have to do with things like common misunderstandings and preconceived notions about the topic you are trying to teach, assumptions on the part of the teacher that are so ingrained that they don't even realize it and a ton of other things that prevent you from getting across what you have to in the best way possible - as if there really is such a thing.
There isn't a semester where I don't rewrite my lecture notes and rethink the types of problems I assign for homeworks or put into my exams. And that rethinking doesn't come just from my introspection - I comes from reading journals and papers - and I can't tell you how many times I've read something that makes me go "wow - I never realized that" - and getting input from other teachers who have put a lot of thought into it.
I don't mean to suggest you didn't do a good job as a teacher - but in my area of work, how well you did or didn't teach your students comes back to you - when you first teach them in a freshman class and then see them three years later in an upper level class - you get a sense of where that education really went and how well you actually did. It's a pretty objective take on how good a teacher you are and it's something that is a part of my area of work. And it's something I have to work really hard at to try to improve on.
Hydro, I have to go with
Submitted by Liberallies on Tue, 03/08/2011 - 3:09am.
Hydro,
I have to go with Blonde here...teaching is not difficult. I have done it and I have done it well. I have done it at the junior high and high school level.
A good teacher is one that is passionate about teaching and has the best interest of his/her students at heart. You are right that connecting with students, at all levels of teaching, is very important.
However, I find that today's teaching degrees, the classes that are taught are pointless and meaningless. I learned more on the job than I did in the ridiculously stupid teaching classes that I took which were all about self-esteem for the student and not using red pens to correct and not putting down students and blah, blah, blah...some truly ridiculous psycho babble.
The other part of a succesful teacher is being able to connect with students and his/her parents outside of the classroom. Yes, parents who send kids to public schools tend to, but not always, be less involved with their kids education. However, as a teacher, I remember getting the parents involved and making many things mandatory from the parents that would affect my kids grades if the parents were not involved. You would be surprise at how I would get countless of parents to come to my parents teaching conferences compared to other lazy, didn't care teachers.
Of course, another part of teaching is knowing your subject very well and being able to handle all the questions, concerns, etc that come from student. It is true that you never teach a class the same every year. Things change, you learn from mistakes and success.
Teaching can be a fun and very rewarding career if one is focused on the right objectives, the students. Teaching HAS to be an act of selflessness.
I no longer teach on a regular basis, now I am in the admissions side of universities, but I am teaching a religion/philosophy/character building course this summer, along with a history class to junior high and high school kids.
Liberallies
Submitted by hydrodynDM on Tue, 03/08/2011 - 3:42am.
My background in teaching is somewhat outside of the topic being discussed here.
I don't teach at the middle school or high school level so parental participation and teaching degrees don't factor into what I do for a living.
Although I agree with you about the selfless aspect of teaching and some of the traits that might make a teacher a good teacher, I will disagree that teaching is not difficult.
To make my point, I'll ask you... how do you know if you are a good teacher?
What objective standard did you judge that by?
If you teach a class on a topic that isn't tested later on by others (academically or in a business context), I would say there is no real way to tell.
My first year in grad school, I thought I was a pretty good teacher being a TA - the kids in my class seemed to get what I was talking about - until the prof who ran the class asked me why the kids in my recitations weren't getting certain topics. It was a wakeup call.
The same thing still happens today. If the students in my freshmen classes - particularly the physics majors - don't get an understanding of certain key topics which they are tested on in upper level classes - I hear about it.
I have an objective standard to work by. And that forces me to improve from semester to semester.
And that is difficult.
I might sound like a jerk in saying this, but if you thought teaching was easy - I'd guess you didn't have anyone on your back - be it your boss or a colleague or someone in the private sector - checking to see how well you did.
Hydro, No, no, you are
Submitted by Liberallies on Tue, 03/08/2011 - 11:59am.
Hydro,
No, no, you are making assumptions. Of course I had someone on my back. I had to give someone my lessons plans before I taught them. They had to approve all the books I was using in the classroom, exams that I use, etc. And of course during the school year there was someone on my back. I just don't see it like you do. Having someone making sure that you meet high standards when it comes to teaching didn't make my job hard. It made it challenging to work with my boss at times, but the teaching part was fun, incredibly, amazing, challenging (in the good sense). I don't equate having a boss breathing down my neck with the job being difficult. That is just me.
Standards? Well, when kids were able to explain AND apply in real life examples in my essay exams, not the stupid bubble exams, what I had taught them, when the kids that had a million questions, the ones that just did not get it where able to stand infront of the class and do very well in the oral exams that I gave them, when parents came back, 99% of them, and thanked me for the vast knowledge I had past on to their children, when my boss trusted me to do what I wished in my classroom since I would surpass all standards, I knew I was being succesful.
When parents came back to me and thanked me for giving their children REAL confidence, not the fake self-esteem of today, when they came back to me and told me that their son or daughter had spend all night reading the news in newspapers, the internent and applied what I had taught them in the classroom, I knew I was being succesful.
No, teaching is not difficult if one does it for the right reasons, the children, the future of this nation. Are there challenging times and hard times, of course, but it is all worth it. Just because I found teaching easy does not equate to not having a difficult boss or difficult times.
by the way, something that I learned long time ago, not all kids are going to get what I teach. This is a hard reality to accept. But you and I both know that not all of us are wired to understand physics or history or religion. We can teach it a million different ways to someone, but that someone will just not get it. This does not mean that we give up on that person or individuals, but as I did with the few students that would just be bored out of their mind with my history, civics lessons, I would tell them, "get a decent grade and now you know that you will not study politician science or history in college". But as long as I knew that I had put my best effort into teaching, it is all that counted, regardless of what some grumply old boss of mine told me. I am an optimist, a hopeful individual. I don't let bosses rule my life, never have and never will.
Liberallies
Submitted by hydrodynDM on Tue, 03/08/2011 - 3:40pm.
I don't want you to think that I don't like teaching or think it's a hassle because I'm held to standards. I guess I'm using the word difficult in the same way you are using the word challenging. I do find teaching a challenge - which is why I have an issue with people suggesting it's easy. I don't like to think of myself as a dumb guy, but why would I find something that's easy a challenge?
My point is that you can always improve how you teach and simply having the right reasons or being motivated isn't enough (see my reply to Radical above).
I also apologize for suggesting that you weren't held to standards. But I think you will agree that in some cases, students will take a class on some topic which they will basically never really be tested on again. Sure, they might have to take tests or do assignments during that class but the character, difficulty and the nature of those exams and assignments are - as you point out - up to the teacher. And at least at the college level, those types of things are completely up to the individual teacher.
As an example, one of my colleagues is known for being an easy grader. He sometimes will teach the first semester of a two semester intro to physics class and sometimes I get some of the students he had in class in the second semester. Despite the fact that we are both held to the same standards and we are even working from and giving homework assignments from the same text, I can tell you that I've had more than a few students in my class who were confused about how they got an A in his class but are getting a C or D in mine.
My college and I both love teaching and we are both motivated and we both are held to standards. So where's the disconnect? Is he too easy - am I too hard? Does the fact that he uses an online homework assignment system and I ask for traditional handwritten assignments account for the difference. Or the fact that he does demos but I tend not to? Is it the way we present the material in class? Or is it something else which isn't obvious to either of us?
If teaching was all that easy, none of these questions would make much of a difference. And yet two motivated, trained teachers, taking two different approaches to teaching the same material are getting two different results. So obviously there's more to it than just being motivated or loving what you do or knowing the material.
Whether or not any one person
Submitted by mamabear on Tue, 03/08/2011 - 5:39pm.
Whether or not any one person is an excellent teacher without much training is not really the main issue. We obviously can't simply rely on the people who are fabulous teachers naturally. If we could, we wouldn't have a problem with our educational system! What we need to be able to do is turn mediocre or poor teachers into better ones! And that is turning out to be vastly more difficult than anyone expected
LL
Submitted by Radical1979 on Tue, 03/08/2011 - 10:09am.
I so agree with you about the teaching classses. Students are supposed to feel good about themselves even when they fail. How will this help them as adults? Feeling good about yourself doesn't pay the electric bill.
A little story for you since you work in admissions. When my daughter was visiting colleges last year one of the Catholic Universities (not an easy one to get into by the way), warned the students on their essays not to use curse words. Apparantly words worse than GD had been used in essays to this school. Unbelievable.
Radical, I am an associate
Submitted by Liberallies on Tue, 03/08/2011 - 11:46am.
Radical,
I am an associate director of admissions for a medical school. You would be shocked at some of the stuff I read and how poorly it is written! There are some amazingly well written personal statements, but there is a large amount of horrific ones.
Hey, I am not a native english speaker or write and I do a better job at writting than many of these kids in this check no spelling or grammar NB posting.
When I was teaching and mainly now, I am seeing the result of this psychobable stupidity of self-esteem that is push so hard on our children today. It is fake self-esteem that is taught in public schools and I would say even in some private schools.
Children are being taught to be whimps. Get a bad grade? oh kid it is not your fault! Red pen to correct? how dare we! we are going to crush the self-esteem. or the one that i find the most ridiculous is not keeping score during gym or park district games. We are teaching our children to have a false sense of self-esteem and when reality and life hits them, they crumble away like little cherry pies.
The Public school system is an utter disaster. There is a reason why Democratic party politicians who love to defend this sytem rarely if EVER send their children to their public schools.
The best example we have is President Obama. His girls are one of the better, not best, but better private schools in the DC area. why? he not only defended public schools, he removed the voucher program that was working very well in the DC area for low income families. Children who before could not even dream of having an incredible private school education were getting one! The Obama the saviour comes in and he removes this great dream and opportunity for inner city kids of the DC area. As in Animal Farm, I guess Obama's daughters are more equal than inner city kids. Very sad, very, very sad.
So, one of my colleagues told
Submitted by mamabear on Tue, 03/08/2011 - 5:42pm.
So, one of my colleagues told me the other day that I wasn't supposed to grade in red pen anymore, and I had a good laugh. How ridiculous, right? But then I stopped myself. Sometime over this quick break I have, I'm going to look up the issue and find out if that is a data-driven policy. Did someone study student performance and determine that they showed better improvement if their papers were marked green instead of red? If the answer is yes, I may roll my eyes, but I'll also buy a bunch of green pens. Why? Because the most important thing is getting the students to learn. I may think they are wusses for not being able to handle some red marks on their paper, but I'm also not going to let my feelings about that get in the way of doing something that might make it a little easier for them to absorb the information I'm trying to teach them.
Pen color
Submitted by Radical1979 on Wed, 03/09/2011 - 12:17pm.
But if students are reacting negatively to red pens, if you start grading in green, won't they start having a negative reaction to the color green? This is what I don't get, some things are negative by virtue of what they are, changing ink colors won't change the fact that the wrong answer is the wrong answer. And if you're teaching at a college/university level, shouldn't these young adults be able to handle that? Aren't we, as a society, doing a disservice if we expect people to feel good no matter what the consequences of their actions or mistakes might be?Radical, but that is just
Submitted by Liberallies on Thu, 03/10/2011 - 12:01am.
Radical, but that is just the case, we are not teaching our children how to handle failure, how to handle rejectgion. there is a reason why teen suicide is on the rise. Furthermore, this has real life consequences. In real life when you fail, when you do something wrong say like an structural engineer, civil engineer, as a doctor the consquences could be deadly. We are not teaching our children to deal with this early in life. Children must understand that getting wrong answers, age appropiate, is not acceptable, period end of story. of course, we teach them why and help them arrive at the right answer. I truly believe that the over babying of our children is what is directly leading to the overuse of prozac like prescription drugs. People where never taught to deal with failure, rejection and when faced with it in real life only a medication can fix the problem. We can thank the public school system for this! Anyways, I am glad Republicans have passed the anti-barganing bill in Wisconsin!!! Let us hope that more States follow suit. The education of our children, the future of our nations depends on busting the teachers' unions and other unions!!!But if students are reacting
Submitted by mamabear on Thu, 03/10/2011 - 11:30am.
But if students are reacting negatively to red pens, if you start grading in green, won't they start having a negative reaction to the color green?
Depends, I don't know how they tested it, but you should be able to control for that by testing theirt reaction for a long time, say a semester.
I don't really care how my students feel about it, but if red impedes their learning, I'll switch colors.
Interesting, hydro
Submitted by Blonde on Tue, 03/08/2011 - 3:13am.
As I was typing my original post, I was kind of mulling over the "motivation" of the students. Obviously, my experience has been with adults, who are motivated to master the subject matter. Yours, I'd imagine is somewhat the same, although perhaps you have a bit more "just get through it" in your target audience?
But I definitely understand what you're saying. I still think it's a matter of effectively communicating. But you, obviously, work it, hard. As a professional educator, that should be the expectation. Which is great. (I'd be interested in your views on this teacher "re-training" that Obama is always blathering about. Because my reaction is WTF, Over. Teachers are supposed to be professionals, not remedial math students...if you'd like to weigh in on that, go for it!)
I just have to wonder, though, where this educational system of ours is failing, besides the Chicago-thug-style unionism. Because it is failing, and badly. Again, I can only present anecdotal evidence, but the quality of both high school and college graduates (young adults) I was getting in the work force was pathetic.
I know I can be a picky bitch, but illegible handwriting, incomprehensible writing skills, no ability to spell, extremely poor math skills, no ability to think critically, poor work ethic (this, I believe, is a product of the "everyone's a winner" mentality)...in toto, abysmal work product in our educational systems. In sum....I harrass my step-daughter unmercifully to get her butt back to the Catholic church so her three year old can get a proper education. Because the public school system isn't doing it. On any level. And as a taxpayer, who has never had kids but has payed into the system for years, that pisses me off!!!!
I'd be interested in hearing your critique of the skills set your students come to you with, as I'd imagine they're somewhat better educated in high school than most. But one never knows.
Handy Reference Guide to Obama's Gaffes and Goofs ~ Currently Numbering 200 (and Counting)
Blonde
Submitted by hydrodynDM on Tue, 03/08/2011 - 4:16am.
Given that I'm at a college level, my take is somewhat divorced from the secondary school level.
I don't know what is going on in high schools and on a certain level, I don't have to care. If you come to my school and you want to be a physics major, you have to be able to perform at a certain level. If you can't, you change majors to something else.
On top of that, if you are a physics major from our school, and you go to grad school, we keep track of that as a way judging how we are doing.
Having said that, my school isn't a top tier school. Graduating from here with a degree is great and most of them deserve it but you will always have those who get through who by all accounts shouldn't have a college degree. The fact is that students have a lot of choices about what degree they take and what classes they take and if they want to get though without doing much, they can find a way.
I would suggest that the better the school, the less likely that is. I know there a some on this website who seem to think that graduating from a top tier school means nothing because they have supposedly met slackers with a degree from an Ivy League school but anyone with any familiarity with those schools knows that's the exception. (Honestly, this is a major peeve of mine on this website)
I'm not familiar with the Obama retraining you' referencing - but again, if it's at the high school level, I don't have much to say about it.
Regarding the skills of the kids I see as freshman - some are good, some are OK and some... well. Honestly, I'm still shocked at the level of math I see from some of them. It is downright horrible. How someone can graduate from high school and exhibit the kind of math skills I see in some cases is beyond belief. It's almost at the level of not knowing 1+1=2.
Well, OK, not that bad. But you get the point.
But again - by the time they get to me, it isn't my problem. If you have the basic skills and the desire to learn the material I present, I'll go out of my way to help anyway I can. But in some cases, the kids are damaged goods and beyond what I can work with.
Hydro, I have to 100%
Submitted by Liberallies on Tue, 03/08/2011 - 12:14pm.
Hydro,
I have to 100% disagree with you on the Ivy League and so called top tier colleges and universities. I have interviewed countless of students from countless of colleges from all levels of colleges. I have seen grades, I have seen essays, I have seen letters of recommendations.
Constantly, the non-Ivy leaguers, the non-so called top tier schoolers do better in interviews, have better credentials. Ivy Leaguers tend to believe that because they have a prestigious name attached to their resume, undergrad degree, a well known professor name to their letter of recommendation, they should get it. The best is when a student is denied and the parent of the Ivy Leaguer calls to demand how dare we deny their amazing, Ivy Leaguer kid. LOL There is a huge sense of entitlement and that the world owes them something. Of course, I am stereotyping, not all Ivy Leaguers are like this, but plenty are that I am comfortable in painting them with a wide brush.
Ivy Leaguers do not have any more knowledge than non-Ivy Leaguer graduates. The difference IS in the name! Maybe at one point in time in the history of colleges in America this made a difference, but not anymore, not today.
I have seen engineers from MIT get eaten alive by engineers from less prestigious, smaller State and private schools.
I have seen Harvard lawyers get smacked around and put in their place by lawyers from less known universities.
The engineering program at Northwestern University in Evanston, IL is not better than the engineering program at the University of Illinois at Chicago. That Northwestern is better known and that at one point this was the case, it is a different story, but this whole top tier versus lower tier schools is a thing of the past that still lingers in the mind of some mainly, and I mean no insult by this hydro, the 45 and above crowd.
I work for a medical school, one of the things that medical schools do is sort of a jeopardy in which 5 to 6 schools compete with each other. You always have your so called top tier schools represented as well as a contingency of Caribbean medical schools. Guess who constantly win the jeopardy year after year? The Caribbean medical school students.
Go to a hospital where clinical rotations are done by medical students. The one thing that you will always hear from the director of the hospital is that the kids from the lesser tier schools work much harder and study much harder than the student from so called top tiers. Why? because the students from the top tier schools have an air of superiority and that they are owed good grades, while the students from so called lower tier schools know that they have to work hard if they want to get into a good residency program since they do not have the name of a top tier school attached to their medical degree.
I have worked long enough with universities to know that the whole top tier, Ivy League thing is just but a myth today.
Liberallies
Submitted by hydrodynDM on Tue, 03/08/2011 - 4:11pm.
I'll accept your experience in this manner and I won't deny that anything you have written isn't true.
But I also have had experience teaching at both a top tier school and middle tier schools and I can say flat out that the expectations - at least in physics - in the top tier schools are higher than in lower tier ones. The mathematical and scientific backgrounds of the students are stronger and their ability to deal with topics and solve problems is (generally speaking) above those of a lower tier school.
A couple of years ago, we hired a prof who came from Yale (both graduated and taught there). In his first semester here, he pretty much wrecked his classes. The level at which he was teaching the material and the types of assignments he gave were OK for Yale but not here. He had to learn - like I did by first year here - that there are differences in student abilities at different schools.
Either way, both of us are working from limited experience. I could suggest that the reason you are seeing crappy applicants from Ivy Leagues schools is because maybe the place you work doesn't attract the top percentage of graduates from those schools - maybe you are just getting the dregs. Similarly, you could say that my perception of students at top tier schools is clouded by the fact that I was a part of that educational process and so all I'm doing is just reflecting what I want to be the case as opposed to what actually is the case.
You've interviewed countless students and I've taught countless students. I'd be willing to bet that the level of direct experience we have with individuals from different schools are comparable. But our limited experiences have given us different impressions probably because they are limited.
I don't know - maybe you are correct in that top tier schools aren't where they used to be. But as far as I can tell - at least in my area of work - that isn't the case. The fact is that top tier schools are still major centers for scientific and mathematical research and that their graduates reflect that. But again - I can only speak for my area of work. Maybe that isn't the case in other areas. And, of course, there are always exceptions when it comes to individual students.
As for attitude of Ivy Leaguers, keep in mind we are talking about college graduates - folks in their early twenties. Arrogance isn't exactly in short supply when it comes to kids that age, regardless of where they graduated.
And as a personal comment - the fact that you seem to take some pleasure in smacking down some arrogant kid because he happened to go to an Ivy League school is, I think, a little inappropriate - particularly if you are in a position to decide whether they get a position where you work. Would you LOL if an arrogant kid from a community college was denied a position?
Hydro, Hmmm...I LOL the
Submitted by Liberallies on Tue, 03/08/2011 - 7:43pm.
Hydro,
Hmmm...I LOL the fact of when parents get involved, NOT when I or the school denies a kid admissions into the medical school. Although, believe me, sometimes it does give me satisfaction "smaking" a kid who comes in with an air of arrogance and superiority, 100% of the time, I do this while I am interviewing him/her, not by denying them entrance.
and yes, if an arrogant kid from a community college came to me, I would treat them the same way I treat the arrogant kid from a so called Ivy League school.
I treat applicant from Ivy League schools and from so called lower tiers EXACTLY the same.
Thanks for the personal advice, but I can assure you that to me all applicants are equal until they prove me otherwise. and I do not mean silly EEOC equality, although of course by law we are bound by these too.
But like I said, not only with this school, but in my previous school, I find the only difference between students who went to top tier schools and those who went to lower tier schools is money and area where they live. As always, there are exceptions.
I find it unfair that a student who went to the University of Wisconsin- Kenosha would be assumed to know less than the student who graduated from Stanford.
I think research wise you may be right since so called top tier schools and Ivy Leaguer universities get way and I mean way more research money, grants, etc than lower tier schools and with science a lot of top tier technology is needed to do good research. But I find zero difference in the students.
I guess we both have our experiences. I am assuming that I am much younger than you, 35, and from what I hear from older professors and university staff that is older than me, everything was much different back in the 50s, 60s, 70s, 80s and even early 90s.
One thing for example that I always hear from older professors, even super duper Liberal professors is that the level of respect for authority is gone. I know professors who have been yelled at, cussed, lied about, etc. This is a phenomenon that is quite prevelant now. As a very Liberal professor told me once, if this poor behavior would have occurred in past decades, the studnet would have been immediately expelled. Today....not so much.
Liberallies
Submitted by hydrodynDM on Tue, 03/08/2011 - 11:21pm.
I'm only a couple of years older than you - don't make me out to be an old geezer quite yet :)
You have your opinion and I have mine about the students from top tier schools. Fair enough.
As for how kids act - well, students have been lying and cheating since the beginning of time. I've heard that it's become more common over the last ten years or so (particularly with the internet) but that just means that teachers have to stay on top of such things.
As for the other things like yelling or cussing - I've never had that happen and I'm not sure I've ever heard of it happening to anyone I've worked with but that doesn't mean it hasn't, of course.
Unlike high school, I have no obligation to keep students in my classes. If I decide that a student to be disruptive I can tell them to leave my class or have them physically removed with the help of campus security - though I'd imagine that extreme is pretty rare. I can also have them removed from my roster so they are no longer in my class. If it's bad enough, I can go through the process of having them expelled. Granted, getting someone expelled isn't easy these days, but at the very least, I can arrange things so I don't have to deal with them. But like I said, I've never had anything even close to that happening.
Hydro, Sorry, I didn't mean
Submitted by Liberallies on Wed, 03/09/2011 - 12:16am.
Hydro,
Sorry, I didn't mean to make you feel like an old man. LOL
Yeah, we have our opinions about the top tier schools and Ivy Leagues.
the acting out, I think it is seen a lot more in high schools and junior highs and it is next to impossible to expel kids from these schools.
I had a friend who was a dean at a elementary and junior high chatter school in Chicago. The stories he would tell me were crazy! For example, when he began there were 16 year old 8th graders!!! and it was impossible to kick them out of the school. The police and the ambulance were at his school once a week. it was a complete mess. As he told me, the principle did not care, the teachers had given up and the parents swore that their kids did not have behavioral problems. It was a mess, he ended up quitting cold turkey.
I have thought of going back to teaching, maybe teach at a community college, but I am happy.
the problem I have with teaching is the unions, I want NOTHING to do with them. I can't teach private because I won't get a salary that I can support my family and public well I would have to deal with all the politics and stupidity of the unions.
but glad to know you have control of your classrooms. I think it also depends where you teach and how big are your classes. do you teach at a private or public university? small or big?
hydro
Submitted by Radical1979 on Tue, 03/08/2011 - 7:56pm.
You have just depressed me with this comment: O.k, having issues, the comment is below. My daughter is in her second semester of college, and I'd really hoped when she's done she won't be the same obnoxious teenager she started as. Now I'm not so sure....
folks in their early twenties. Arrogance isn't exactly in short supply when it comes to kids that age, regardless of where they graduated.MmMymMymm My
Radical1979
Submitted by hydrodynDM on Tue, 03/08/2011 - 11:24pm.
Well, there are always exceptions - I was speaking in broad generalities.
Arrogance is the prerogative of youth. A few years out in the real world tends to correct it.
Here's another interesting
Submitted by mamabear on Tue, 03/08/2011 - 5:51pm.
Here's another interesting fact to consider: If you look at the data on successful teachers (in secondary school) and try to find qualities that are correlated with success, one of the few points of significance is the quality of the undergraduate institution they went to! Education after that point doesn't matter-- education degree, alternative certification program, none of it makes a difference. The best guess is that people who get into prestigious undergraduate schools are plain old vanilla smarter than people who don't, and that serves them better no matter what they do with themselves between that education and the day they step into their first classroom.
In plenty of fields, though, being plain old vanilla smarter isn't that useful if you don't do something with it. The experiences you are describing are surprising to me, but maybe that's the case with medical school. Being a little smarter than their peers is less important to your admissions process than having taken education seriously and having a good work ethic.
A bit old, from 2002, but an interesting article.
Submitted by Par for the Course on Tue, 03/08/2011 - 6:43pm.
The Mystery of Good Teaching
Surveying the evidence on student achievement and teachers' characteristics.
That's older information than
Submitted by mamabear on Wed, 03/09/2011 - 8:11pm.
That's older information than the research I'm going on right now, but it says a lot of the same things. I don't know why people here are so unwilling to countenance the idea that teaching might not be the easiest thing in the world to do right!Mamabear, I could careless
Submitted by Liberallies on Tue, 03/08/2011 - 7:23pm.
Mamabear,
I could careless if a student is super, duper, incredibly smart. I don't care if you have a 35 on the MCAT and a 4.0 GPA. If I see that all you did is go to school, the library and study, this is a meaningless GPA And MCAT score.
I want to see, my school wants to see, that the student is capable of applying in real life situations what they have learned. My school wants to see, i want to see, that the student is an excellent time manager, an empathetic individual, someone who has a plethora of community involment, volunteering, ability to handle pressure on a lot of stress. Ability to be a self-thinker. I love possing moral and ethical questions to my interviewees, I love putting them in a corner and the best ones, usually now how to get out of the corner I placed them in. Grades, to me and my school, are but a miniscule, tiny, though important, part of your medical school application.
What is the point of being a genius if you can't do anything with it or you have not proven to be able to do anything with it, right?
Keys
Submitted by Unsane on Tue, 03/08/2011 - 8:32am.
The first key: know your audience.
The second: know your subject COLD. (I don't know what a Carnot engine is. But then, how many people know that this August will be the fiftieth anniversary of Operation Rose? How many could teach a class on it and on that operation's implications for the wider world? I could. Easily.)
Not that difficult.
"CONSUMED DEMOCRACY RETURNS A SOCIALIST REGIME" - Slayer, "Fictional Reality", from Divine Intervention (1994)
Unsane
Submitted by hydrodynDM on Tue, 03/08/2011 - 4:38pm.
No one denies that knowing the material is a prerequisite for being a good teacher.
But your first key - know your audience - completely glosses over a ton of details which aren't always obvious - even to teachers with years of training.
Knowing your audience involves understanding the level at which to present material, how to present it given their backgrounds, knowing potential misconceptions and incorrect preconceived notions students might have on certain topics, understanding how useful in-class activities might be, knowing the types of text books to use (since there are good and bad ones out there), how useful demos are and what types are useful and why, knowing what types of in-class examples to do given the limited time you have and a ton of other considerations.
And the fact is, there are folks out there who work specifically in areas of education where they try to pin-point exactly how best to teach topics in different disciplines. You could, on a certain level, say they study how to know your audience.
To someone with no real teaching experience or who doesn't really care to improve their ability to teach then I'm sure all of those things might seem like unnecessary details - a huge waste of time on the part of folks who study those kinds of things for a living and who write journal articles and host seminars and conferences - expect for the fact that they do make a difference in how well students do.
I also address some of this to my post to Radial above.
Challenges
Submitted by Unsane on Fri, 03/11/2011 - 12:48pm.
Sure, knowing your audience isn't easy. I never made the claim that teaching was easy - what I did say (and continue to say) was that it isn't as difficult and technically demanding as people like hippiebear claim. And yes, knowing your audience is difficult for the myriad of reasons you describe. It is even more difficult - as I am sure you very well know - when your audience increases from 50-60 or so to 360."CONSUMED DEMOCRACY RETURNS A SOCIALIST REGIME" - Slayer, "Fictional Reality", from Divine Intervention (1994)
Unsane
Submitted by hydrodynDM on Sat, 03/12/2011 - 1:57am.
OK - maybe I'm not getting what you mean by "technically demanding".
Would you consider teaching science or engineering at the college level "technically demanding"?
Would you consider teaching chemistry or physics at the high school level "technically demanding"?
How about earth science or biology at the middle school level?
Teaching only
Submitted by Unsane on Sat, 03/12/2011 - 10:11pm.
Or, what about the history of any country outside the United States, which, in some cases, requires that the students learn a bit about the cultures of different countries in order for them to make sense of it?
I'm not talking about the subject matter per se. I am talking about the actual teaching of the subject to someone else. Sure, learning physics and engineering are very technically demanding. I won't deny that. (And I know plenty of people who are horrified at the thought of merely taking an upper-division undergrad history course, because it requires too much reading and writing for their tastes.) But the actual teaching part - no.
"CONSUMED DEMOCRACY RETURNS A SOCIALIST REGIME" - Slayer, "Fictional Reality", from Divine Intervention (1994)
I never said it was
Submitted by mamabear on Tue, 03/08/2011 - 9:55am.
I never said it was "technically demanding." But doing it is not the same as doing it well, which should be an obvious predicate of this whole discussion!
Parents do teach, and very well. Why? Because they have one-on-one interaction with a child whose every personality quirk and learning predilection they know like the back of their own hand. They spend the majority of every day with their children, and they get to teach them while out in the world doing things, which is important for learning particularly at the age when parents are doing all of a kid's teaching.
If you have some way to scale that pedagogy up to a classroom of 40 kids, please go do it! Or, we could just teach all parents every piece of content knowledge that their teachers would have shared with the kids all the way through high school and let parents do the whole thing. Except then we have to teach the parents... shoot!
Mamabear, "...we have to
Submitted by Liberallies on Tue, 03/08/2011 - 12:24pm.
Mamabear,
"...we have to teach the parents...shoot!" hmmmm...NO!!!!
Do you know how many kids in the USA are no homeschooled?! over 25 million and I believe I am low balling this number!!!
and do you think the parents of these kids all have a teaching degree or a degree in ALL the subjects that they are teaching their children?! NO!
And what do statistics show? Home schooled children do better in life, in their chosen careers, with families, etc than their public school AND private school counter parts!
Home school children constantly out perform, when put in competitions, when tested side by side, their public school and private school counter parts.
No, you do not have to teach parents anything Mamaber for the parent to do an amazing, much better job than you the teacher.
and once again, what group is going after home schooling? what group is attempting to deny our children this obvious path that does a much better job than public OR private schools? The teachers unions and Democrats, why? because it removes the monopoly that the teachers unions have on our education.
What world do you live in, Mamabear? seriously you say the most left wing cliches, you throw out Left wing rhetoric everywhere when facts completely and utterly destroy these!
is this what you teach your children in teh classroom, left wing rhetoric and cliches which are based in pure imagination and no facts? WOW!
please know something about something before you type it. Just because you are a teacher it doesn't make you knowledgeable, as you have proven, about teaching and what is best for our children.
So you are suggesting that
Submitted by mamabear on Tue, 03/08/2011 - 5:53pm.
So you are suggesting that parents who homeschool their children do no work to prepare themselves for that job? Of course they do! If they want to teach their kid algebra, they have to learn algebra!
Mamabear, Nice try
Submitted by Liberallies on Tue, 03/08/2011 - 7:16pm.
Mamabear,
Nice try there...when caught in a Liberal meme you move the goal post. LOL typical of Liberals, Mamabear.
Your original post claimed that parents would need to be taught everything, every piece of knowledge to teach their kids. This is silly proposal by you since countless of parents who do not have a teaching degree, who have never taught, you do not have an undergraduate degree in the subjects that they are teaching teach it to their children.
I personally know mothers and fathers without a college degree who have taught their children well enough that their children all ended up going and graduating from colleges and obtaining master's degrees.
There is a reason, Mamabear, that parents are taking their children out of public schools. My local public elementary, junior high and high school have had a decrease in enrollment for the past ten years. Even if you count for population movement and decrease. However, private schools and families that home school have increased dramatically.
The public school system is broken and you do not need to teach a parent every single piece of knowledge for the parent to be a much better teacher than the teacher who has a subject matter degree, a teaching degree and who has 20 years of teaching experience.
and of course parents who teach prepare their lessons and review the material before teaching it, but this was never my contention with what you mention. Please don't move the goal post once you have been caught in a Liberal meme.
My point with that comment
Submitted by mamabear on Wed, 03/09/2011 - 10:03am.
My point with that comment was that most parents can only get so far by themselves in terms of content knowledge. I couldn't teach anybody's kids Hydro's material, for instance, without finding someone to help me learn it first.
I stated the point with deliberate exagerration, but I was not in any way trying to claim that parents know absolutely nothing to begin with! Just that saying "parents will do it all," is kicking the ball further down the road, not getting rid of the ball.
Mamabear, Parents WILL do
Submitted by Liberallies on Wed, 03/09/2011 - 11:28am.
Mamabear,
Parents WILL do it all when they homeschool their children. What don't you get about this? You are giving teachers a lot more importance in our society than they really are. I am not saying teachers are not needed, but teachers, just like the rest of us, are expendable!
We aren't talking about college level teaching here, we are talking elementary, junior high and high school teaching here. I know hundreds, upon hundreds of parents, mothers and fathers who do do it ALL and they didn't kick down the road any problems. In most occassions these homeschool kids have sophmore and junior college level when entering their choice of university.
Like I said, statistics show that the average homeschooled graduate is more succesful in family life, career life, in life in general than your average public school or private school graduate. this doesn't sound like anyone is kicking the ball further down the road, but actually getting rid of the ball all together.
What we are seeing in public schools is kicking the ball further down the road, not getting rid of the ball. Homeschooling IS getting rid of the ball. I don't believe homschooling is for everyone and not all parents can do it, thus the need for schools. But if public schools don't chance and soon, what I am seeing in my district is going to repeat faster and faster. Specially when vouchers become more and more popular and then, th e public school teachers who thought themselves indispensable, will find out the hard way that we are all expendable.
You have this odd habit of
Submitted by mamabear on Wed, 03/09/2011 - 8:16pm.
You have this odd habit of making definitive, declarative statements in your first paragraph, and then contradicting them just a few sentences later: "I don't believe homschooling is for everyone and not all parents can do it, thus the need for schools." Jeez, what exactly do you think I'm saying? Because I'm saying this! Parents who homeschool are currently a self-selected group-- the ones who do it are likely to be the ones who feel they can do it successfully. If you start relying more on homeschooling, you will start to grow beyond that population of parents prepared to provide the entirety of their child's pre-college education. At that point, you will need to help them!grislybear---
Submitted by matthewdean on Tue, 03/08/2011 - 12:32am.
I taught, under the auspices of the local junior college, for twenty years in a controlled environment; the Sheriffs Academy.
Specialized classes, yes; but teaching is teaching. Trainees were there to learn, and if they chose not to, or copped an attitude with any instructor, they were bounced. If they were having problems with mastering the subject, it was my responsibility to see that they got whatever extra assistance they needed in order to successfully complete the Academy.
Did I ever teach? I advised you of that in a prior post. Try and be a tad more condescending, next time.
Anyone who instructs must grow in the job while on the job; you cannot teach last years current events, or methods used back in the day and maintain any relevancy whatsoever as an educator.
Asking if the instruction I received gave me everything I would need to know was a stupid question, and you know it because you followed up with the ridiculously insulting comment about Unsane being the world's best teacher.
Teaching has been around for how many years now, yet you say that you are under the impression that there are many things we still need to learn about how to develop teaching skills.
That is utter bullshit.
"What" is taught may change over time with the revelation of new information, but "how" to teach would change only as it would be necessary and appropriate in dealing with something never taught before. The 'basics' of "teaching" will remain the same.
I have learned that you do not always answer the questions asked of you, nor do you always pay attention to what you have read. I started out an earlier post to you with "I don't have any answers to the problem, but then neither do you and you are in the field of education." Your last two sentences underscore my charge of inattentiveness on your part - "So could you please tell me what we need to do to turn poor teachers into excellent ones?" & "Because you seem to know more than any of the experts I've read". Again with the, considering the source, blatantly unwarranted condescension.
No wonder Unsane, or anyone else for that matter, tires of your undeserved attitude of being special enough to talk down at others.
You ain't that impressive.
MD
Well, I think when hippiebear
Submitted by Unsane on Tue, 03/08/2011 - 1:04am.
Well, I think when hippiebear is whining that I am somehow the world's greatest teacher, in her attempt to be condescending, she is referring to the fact that I feel quite confident that i can step into a classroom in my chosen academic field right this second and begin teaching almost instantly. I firmly believe that. Boosting my ego is an incident where an instructor called in sick and asked me to teach the class. Among others.
Experience informs me of my abilities. hippiebear is just desperately clinging with all of her might to the myth that she somehow holds the secret key to a mystical art that only the select know and that the select can learn.
"CONSUMED DEMOCRACY RETURNS A SOCIALIST REGIME" - Slayer, "Fictional Reality", from Divine Intervention (1994)
I wasn't trying to be
Submitted by mamabear on Tue, 03/08/2011 - 10:21am.
I wasn't trying to be condescending with that question, it was a real question. If I was trying to state that you didn't teach, I would have said "You never taught." I asked, because all you actually said in the previous post was that you received the training necessary to teach. You didn't say whether or not you actually did it. So I asked. There are times when I'm being condescending, I clearly am to Unsane, but if I ask you to clarify something so that I know I am addressing the right statements, I am doing it to avoid making unwarranted assumptions about you.
Asking whether that gave you everything you needed to know to teach was also a real question. You are answering it here, but you wouldn't have answered it if I hadn't asked! You may not like my tone, though I put up with far worse from you on a regular basis, but I am actually trying to carry on a conversation with you.
Teaching has changed since we started doing it. There are timeless methods that are still used, I have a fondness for though no special skill with the Socratic method, but we are learning new things every day about how the brain works, about how learning actually happens on a cellular level. We know more now about memory and attention, and disorders that impede learning.
I would guess, for instance, that in your field you did a fair amount of haptic learning. In the old days, doing things with your hands was for laborers, academics learned from books. Now we know that some very smart people learn better experientially, and all that insistence on teaching methods did was exclude people from higher education who could have been successful there. We don't use exclusively rote memorization any more, because it leads to shallow understanding and for some students no understanding at all.
And kids are changing. Teachers tend to teach the way they were themselves taught, that's natural. But if you look at the way children interact with information today, compared to when I grew up or when you grew up-- their brains may literally be different from ours at this point. From the moment they could see farther than 5 feet from their face they've been absobing media and information from multiple sources at the same time. Teachers are having a harder time holding attention. Convincing a child to learn how to perform an equation without a calculator when it is likely that except for your exams they will literally never in their lives again be without a calculator is a hard sell. So does that mean we need to force them to learn it despite their lack of interest because foundational knowledge will better prepare them to deal with the unexpected later in life, or are we teaching them something useless that we should just cut out of the curriculum? Every area of teaching has hundreds of questions like that today.
So we need to change the way we teach, but avoid just pandering to technology. Too many teachers start tweeting and think they've solved the problem, or let kids study rap instead of poetry and call themselves cutting edge. They are trying to adjust to a changing world, which is admirable, but they are failing. We need to know which parts of traditional teaching should be kept because they work, and which should be changed because they don't. Knowing that requires study and constant self-evaluation. And we don't have all of the answers.
If you already think about these questions on a daily basis, and you have in fact answered all of them for yourself, then I apologize for being condescending. I don't think most people who complain about teachers have, but I could be wrong about you.
A fairly long post grislybear---
Submitted by matthewdean on Wed, 03/09/2011 - 1:28am.
and this is what I got from it: you "put up with" far worse tones from me than I receive from you.
So?
You are not forced to attend this site or read my posts. Beat feet on outta here.
Your making a distinction by propounding between the asking of "Did you teach?" as opposed to stating "You never taught" is lame, but you do win the point. (Though I will point out that Monday night I stated in the first sentence of a post that I have taught in the educational system, and you replied directly to that post).
As I said, I do not have THE answers; nor have I answered very many to my own satisfaction; therefore you owe me no apology, because though I make it clear I do not much care for liberals as a result of how and what I perceive their ideology to be, you, personally, have never been other than reasonable when replying to me.
Must just be your liberal attitude that grates.
Oh come on, seriously? I
Submitted by mamabear on Wed, 03/09/2011 - 10:10am.
Oh come on, seriously? I take the time to write out a real discussion of issues in teaching, because you made me think that perhaps you really wanted to discuss them, and you didn't make it past my offhand comment about tone?
I think I presented some pretty challenging questions about teaching. Do you still think that there is nothing more to figure out about the process?
Being retired, grislybear---
Submitted by matthewdean on Thu, 03/10/2011 - 1:44am.
I have the time to always read entire posts. Being reasonably intelligent and desirous of avoiding looking stupid, I am most certainly not going to reply to a post without reading it in toto. That's not to say I always perceive the writers intent. Rather than repeat myself, my earlier reply about the requirement to stay current as an educator will have to suffice as an answer to your question about "figuring out the process". The "how" part of teaching does not change; you are maybe looking for answers that relate more to the 'why' do students, who, upon graduating, appear to have learned far less than they should have from the curriculum that was presented.Maybe the "why" of students
Submitted by mamabear on Thu, 03/10/2011 - 11:36am.
Maybe the "why" of students not learning is precisely because the "how" hasn't changed when they have! Now it seems like you are the one arguing that teachers shouldn't be held responsible for the performance of their students. I'm sure the lazy teachers would love to say that the "why" of student failure has nothing to do with the "how" of their teaching. The fact is that most variation in student performance is directly correlated with poverty level and socioeconomic group. Outside of that, the teacher a student has is the best predictor of success or failure, and yet we still can't find reliable indicators that predict whether or not a given teacher will be successful based on what they've tried to do to prepare for their job. We need to fix that.grislybear---
Submitted by matthewdean on Thu, 03/10/2011 - 11:37pm.
You flat ass don't get it, do you?
I said once before that you at times don't appear to have read through the pertinent posts relative the subject you reply to in certain other of your posts.
I said in an earlier post that if a student isn't understanding what I am teaching, it is my responsibility to see that they do, so as to successfully complete the Academy.
But you come up with "Now it seems like you are the one arguing that teachers shouldn't be held responsible for the performance of their students."
When you speak about the "nurture" versus "nature" consideration, and the lefty paean to poor student performance (learning?), being directly correlated to poverty and socioeconomic groupings, I'm sure it just makes your liberal soul quiver with delight.
If, after all the years teachers have been teaching, tutors have been tutoring, and professors have been professing, no one has come along who was brilliant enough to get a hand on amending, correcting, or properly repairing the system, guess what; it ain't likely to happen. Period.
I had a hard time
Submitted by mamabear on Fri, 03/11/2011 - 9:55am.
I had a hard time understanding your last post, that was my best guess at what you meant. Again, when I say things like "It seems like you" or phrase things as a question, I do it on purpose. I do it because I'm not sure I'm getting you right and I am inviting you to correct me. It isn't because I' not bothering to read something, but I am only reading everything on this thread once, because I don't have time to go back and read large sections of it every time I reply to make sure that I haven't forgotten some aspect of that particular side of the conversation I'm having. I'm sure you understand. I appreciate you reminding me or asking that I take something into account if I've forgotten something, but I don't think being snooty about it is really necessary. I'm much less pessimistic than you. I think we've figured out lots of things that eluded us for years, and I don't think this will be any different.grislybear---
Submitted by matthewdean on Fri, 03/11/2011 - 11:26pm.
If you haven't the time to go back and re-read, then maybe you should avoid going head-to-head and relying on what you apparently believe to be a superior intellect to carry you through. If the appearance of "snooty" in the way of attitude truly bothered you, you would have stopped posting on NB's threads eons ago. I'm not pessimistic, I'm a realist. You are a liberal. That accounts for different outlooks, obviously. Your "optimistic" take on the future of academia ever getting back to, or even resembling the level it once was, is nothing more than unicorns farting rainbows and fairies farting dustballs.I don't think I have a
Submitted by mamabear on Fri, 03/11/2011 - 11:37pm.
I don't think I have a superior intellect to people here, and I don't usually find NB snooty. Apparently you do, though!It appeared, grislybear---
Submitted by matthewdean on Fri, 03/11/2011 - 11:50pm.
that you felt my reply, or parts of it, were "snooty". On the other hand, I have no idea what you mean by "Apparently you do, though". Not necessary to reply, as sparring with you is the equivalent of walking in circles. Hopefully you feel the same way, because if something I said converted you to conservatism, I would be tempted to change my name to Benedict Arnold.What you said was that if
Submitted by mamabear on Sat, 03/12/2011 - 10:12am.
What you said was that if snootiness bothered me I would have left NB long ago, thus implying that snootiness is common on NB.mamabear
Submitted by hydrodynDM on Sat, 03/12/2011 - 2:06am.
I'm pretty snooty.Okay, that's true. Except
Submitted by mamabear on Sat, 03/12/2011 - 10:14am.
Okay, that's true. Except for Hydro, though, I don't think NB is particularly snooty :)Question?
Submitted by bkeyser on Sun, 03/06/2011 - 10:43am.
I apologize for jumping in in the middle of this discussion, but your above comment gave me pause.
Consider this: Living in Maryland, I can tell you that just like the rest of the country we have successful and unsuccessful schools; individually and collectively. And in this state, we dump a heck of a lot of money into the entire Maryland Department of Education. Granted, several years ago a study revealed a very top heavy system; mostly bureaucrats and political appointees, many with large staffs and very heavy salaries. An inordinate percentage of funding was being directed at the politics of Maryland public education rather than the student. But much of that has been corrected. Many millions of dollars has been flowing into the public schools since, and each year an increase is mandated by law (the Thornton Act- I believe it's called.) And yet, Maryland still has failing schools. Baltimore is dismal, as is Prince Georges County and much of Baltimore County. Even within the very affluent Montgomery and Howard counties there are individual schools failing, even as their collective scoring is among the best in the state.
There are also private schools in Maryland -as I'm sure there are where you live. By every measure, private schools out-perform their public counterparts. If I had to guess, I'd say that the private schools -overall- take a different approach to education; one that obviously is better for our children than the public schools. I can't say for sure, but I suspect that the qualifications for private school educators are significantly higher than their public counterparts, and likely their ongoing evaluations.
Discipline is probably another factor, and religion may one of several others. But it's not as if we don't have examples of what works in this country. Surely the continuing decline, even as greater percentage of dollars per student are being spent, has more to do with factors other than money. Surely there are excellent teachers, and surely many are actually underpaid for the service they provide. (Though that in itself is an unanswerable question. Teaching, like architectural design -my profession- and brain surgery are all commodities that draw whatever the market bares at any given time. Arguing the merits of pay is almost silly; it's just another factor of supply and demand.)
So it seems to me that maybe we should look at what the private school system does that is not allowed in the public school system. Maybe we should take the standard qualification set for private school teachers and present that to the NEA and AFT and say "this is where you need to be, in pay and benefits, working conditions, and evaluations." If it's mainly about the students, then that shouldn't be a problem. (I'd hazard a guess that base pay is similar, if not better in private schools anyway.) Then the unions would truly be doing what's best for their members, and more importantly, for the children. The rest of the changes would be instituted by state governments.
Have you any doubt this would improve our overall education in this country? Have you any doubt the teachers unions would never go for it?
So in actuality, requirements
Submitted by mamabear on Sun, 03/06/2011 - 12:35pm.
So in actuality, requirements for becoming a private school teacher are lower than becoming a public school teacher! As a general rule, you need a teaching certification to teach public school, not to teach private school. And no, money doesn't solve problems by itself.
My take on why private schools are more successful is that they are more flexible and willing to try risky things. That attracts a different type of teacher, and those teachers are more likely to be successful. They are also more likely to have a system of accountability in place, which we expect to make a difference. And based on my own research, it appears that if you come into private school without a terminal degree you will be paid less than an average public school teacher, and if you come in with a masters or PhD you get paid more. That also attracts a different type of person to teach in those public schools.
The bad news about this situation, at least based on my experience (and I don't have much with private schools, so I may be getting things wrong here) is that if this is true than it makes it very hard to figure out what public schools can learn from private schools. Private schools have more flexibility because they are privately funded. Having small classroom sizes does not improve student performance by itself, but it does give you some breathing room to try different teaching techniques and make up for the times when you get it wrong. Public schools are hampered not jsut by the rigidity of the system, but by the scale on which they have to operate.
So we need to find a way to hold public school teachers accountable for student success, and the unions need to suck that up. Obama has been trying to implement that where he's tackled school reform, with the Race to the Top program. But we also need a way to make sure that that system of accountability doesn't mean that the best teachers, who will have choices about where to teach, flee from the districts that need the most help because they will be punished for tackling a harder job. And then we need to find some way to make bright young people excited about teraching in public schools! We have to give them ways to improve that make them feel good about the job they are doing. If you are interested in how that works you can look up Doug Lemov's work at Uncommon Schools, I'm sure there are others, too.
Public school teachers don't try new things?
Submitted by Radical1979 on Sun, 03/06/2011 - 12:42pm.
I beg to differ. Way back when, I was exposed to a horrible teaching experiment in public school called ITA. My kids went through the whole sight reading versus whole word crap. Public schools run from one idea to the next, never actually realizing that the old methods work the best. Repetition of basics for reading, writing, and math skills. Why are we exposing children to so many techniques and never getting it right? Any other business would be out of business with this kind of practice.
Private school teachers are generally paid less, and the ones who stay are there because they love teaching children. Often they don't have to deal with the b.s. programs of a public school, they just teach.
Although Bush is hammered for No Child Left Behind, it was a great way to start holding schools accountable, though flawed. Schools that sing mmm mmm Barack Hussien Obama don't teach kids a thing.
Math Experiment
Submitted by Kingfish17 on Sun, 03/06/2011 - 1:37pm.
When I went to grade school, I was taught that 1+1=2, 4+7=11, and 23+13=36. You had to memorize, and conceptualize, that 3 things, added to 6 things, equalled 9 things.
When our duaghter went to public grade school in the 90s, she was taught to add using "touch points" on her hands. She may have learned a trick system to add integers, but this method of addition screwed up her math skills on a permanent basis. Years later, when I would help her with her Junior High and High School match, you could tell she still had a delay in her mind when adding simple numbers like 4+7. It was never, 4+7=11. I was 4+7=..........11. You could see her hands twitch slightly as she was relying on the "touch point" system that the public school had foisted on her.
To this day, her basic math skills are impeded by the "new math" that was implimented by the public school system she attended.
"You can’t go take a trip to Las Vegas...on the taxpayer’s dime." Barack Obama
So in actuality, requirements
Submitted by bkeyser on Sun, 03/06/2011 - 1:39pm.
I'm not sure why you started that sentence with the word "so"; it seems to suggest that my comment implied that as fact. It could be, I don't know. But I certainly didn't intend to imply any knowledge of the case.
But that leads to another variation: homeschooling. Home-schooled kids tend to outperform their publicly-educated brethren as well. And to my understanding, most home-school teachers are not certified by the local college as such. So maybe the issue is how teachers are being taught to teach. Hmmm? Maybe college professors in the public teacher program are part the problem. Maybe the Federal Department of Education is a large part of the problem. If what you say is correct regarding teacher certification the Federal guidelines for public education, then since private schools and home-schoolers aren't under these banners, maybe they're the culprit.
And that was precisely my point above. If variations of the DoE teaching methods have succeeded, why are they not modified in the DoE? And you're right, we do need to hold teachers accountable -within reasonable limits because teachers cannot control the entire teaching environment- but the NEA and AFT flat out refuse to accept that. Why? Because the bureaucrats believe it would decrease the union numbers and thereby their own power/bank accounts. When in actuality, an effective and productive work force would give them much greater bargaining power. Anyone who represents the cream of the crop is vastly more powerful than those who represent the run-of-the-mill. That's not rocket science, though I don't mean to infer that the heads of the national and local teachers unions are somehow able to comprehend this simple fact. --- I can usually find some parallels between much of the civilian world and the military. In reference to the point I just mentioned, I would much rather command a squad of highly trained and highly dedicated Marines in battle over a much larger force of undisciplined militia. There's something to be said for attrition, but my squad would win every time we didn't run out of ammunition.---
This is about politics and nothing else. To pretend the contrary is to abandon reason. Any one group who dedicates so much time and money toward one political party is, in fact, an arm of that political party. The NEA, AFT and their satellite local unions are nothing more than political PAC's disguised as working professionals. This is not to say that all teachers are shills for these PAC's but it's becoming more clear that many are nothing more than paycheck collecting babysitters, willing to forgo their chosen profession and statements of support for children in an effort to maintain the lining in their pockets over all else. And union heads are not worried about bargaining power; they're worried about political power and job (read: paycheck) security. They are doing the democrats bidding. They are leading sheep to slaughter. And those who stage a sick out for more than a week -at the expense of the children they try so hard to claim they care about- are wholly unqualified to educate America's future.
I only started the sentence
Submitted by mamabear on Sun, 03/06/2011 - 6:43pm.
I only started the sentence with "so" because you thought something might be true and I was pointing out that the reality goes against many people's expectations.
We have already started to change the way teachers are trained, but it took a long time. I think some of the cause is defensiveness-- so many people think teaching is for losers, and historically for women, that there was an overemphasis on theoretical aspects of education. Teaching is a skill, not just a sphere of knowledge. For a long time people didn't appreciate that you had to learn by practicing, the same way you would as a carpenter or a musician. All large systems change slowly, and that has been part of the problem.
But unions aren't all bad, they do protect workers in fields where they are at risk for exploitation. Teachers, as I may have mentioned once or twice, work very hard when they care about what they do. Education, I can tell you from personal experience, is a job that you can do all day every day-- from home at night and on weekends-- and there is always pressure to do better. Teachers shouldn't work less than everyone else making the same amount of money as they do, but they shouldn't have to work more either! You can't pay someone less because they only work 9 months a year, and then also expect them to work 70 hours a week during those 9 months. Teachers are also often the first target any time parents are upset about something going on with their child and don't want to blame the kids or themselves. Teachers make great scapegoats, and there should also be mechanisms to help protect them from spurious charges of incompetence.
I think unions need to change. Not just teachers unions, but all unions. We don't live in the same world in which they fought for all of those important rights that we take for granted now, and they can't maintain the antagonistic relationship with employers that pay their members. But I don't think they need to disappear, either. I've seen unions stand up for injured employees whose company was trying to blame them for an accident in an unsafe workplace, and I've seen them fight for important protections when no one was listening to individual workers.
Are you kidding?
Submitted by Unsane on Mon, 03/07/2011 - 12:10am.
What? You mean those 30 odd hours of education "classes" (snicker) make a public school teacher SUPERIOR to a private school teacher?
You have typed a LOT of BS here but that is easily the biggest steaming pile you have ever left on NB. Education classes/departments are a JOKE. I have NEVER met a teacher or a student suffering through those classes who has told me that they were beneficial. I work a great deal with a former teacher who told me, flat out, if she had tried just HALF of what was taught in her education classes in the classroom, she would have been run out of the classroom by the students.
You forget one key ingredient in your dissection of private schools: competition. See, they have to fight for every dime of tuition money they get. Not public schools. They get their money no matter what. And as such, public schools - elementary, middle, high schools - should basically chisel the following motto over their building entrances, as it accurately reflects the attutudes of the teachers and principals that run them:
"THE CUSTOMER IS ALWAYS WRONG."
Indeed, because the pay is 100% guaranteed, why should teachers and principals remotely give a crap what the parents or students think of them? Force public schools to actually compete for money and force teachers to fight each other for a slice of a limited pool of money (like the rest of us in The Real World MUST do every single day); watch those sorry attitudes get destroyed.
His Majesty The Shahinshah is bought and paid for by the teacher's unions. He only cares about the campaign money; He sure as all hell does not care about the students AT ALL. And nor do the teacher's unions. In fact, if He cared at all about education, He would lead the fight to end the Department of Education. And so would you.
You want to make me excited about teaching in public schools? Fine. Fight to have the requirement that prospective teachers take education classes dropped. They are worthless and a complete waste of time and money. For starters.
"CONSUMED DEMOCRACY RETURNS A SOCIALIST REGIME" - Slayer, "Fictional Reality", from Divine Intervention (1994)
What? You mean those 30 odd
Submitted by mamabear on Mon, 03/07/2011 - 12:48am.
What? You mean those 30 odd hours of education "classes" (snicker) make a public school teacher SUPERIOR to a private school teacher?
No, that's neither what I meant, nor what I said. Jeez, you'd think you'd make an attempt to sound like you are responding to what I actually write, instead of just using me as an excuse to rant on your favorite subjects. I said thatr the requirements are more stringent. I said that, because they are. That doesn't make a public school teacher superior to a private school teacher, and then I went on to describe several of the problems with education classes, thus rendering ridiculous your assumption that I am somehow endorsing them. The fact that education classes have sucked means we need to improve them, not eliminate them. Teach for America was an attempt to get real professionals in the classroom with minimal education experience. They went on the same assumption as you-- that knowledge about education is useless, "real" experience is all you need. Turns out those teachers fail the same as the rest. We need to train teachers, we just need to do a better job than we have in the past. Competition is a good thing. Sounds like you were a big fan of Race to the Top. Obama is pissing off the teachers' unions right and left, and more power to him! You feel free to continue ignoring that fact because it doesn't provide quite the ideal springboard for your hatred of liberals.
More hippiebear stupidity
Submitted by Unsane on Mon, 03/07/2011 - 11:01pm.
hippiebear, that is just about the ONLY requirement I can think of that makes a public school's "standards" more stringent than a private school.
Education classes are WORTHLESS. They should be entirely eliminated, replaced with apprenticeship.
Please. Your God - His Majesty The Shahinshah - is a whore for the teacher's unions, as is the entire Democratic party. Don't believe me? You will ignore this extremely nasty fact because you believe that because you are a teacher, you are ENTITLED to the tax money of the people of your school district, and that you don't have to work for it (just demand it because You Are A Teacher): His Majesty The Shahinshah cheerfully killed a voucher program in DC that was working wonders for poor children there. He doesn't care about the kids, He cares about the money from the teacher's unions.
"CONSUMED DEMOCRACY RETURNS A SOCIALIST REGIME" - Slayer, "Fictional Reality", from Divine Intervention (1994)
mamabear, I am sorry, but
Submitted by Liberallies on Tue, 03/08/2011 - 2:57am.
mamabear,
I am sorry, but every single private school that I know does require a teaching degree!!! Public schools do not require you to have a teaching degree to teach! At least that is the case in Illinois!
Public schools in Illinois have a system in place in which you can teach more than 6 years without a teaching degree. Once you reach the 6 year mark you have the choice to leave or to start a master's program in teaching that the State will pay for.
Private schools in Illinois are pretty much the same way. They will allow individuals, for a period of time, to teach without a degree, but after certain amount of years, you either have the teaching degree or you are gone.
In fact, my sister, who doesn't have a teaching degree, but is a native Spanish speaker and a college degree just lost a bid for a Spanish teaching job at the private school her children attend to an individual who has a teaching degree!!
Public schools are a mess because teachers are not held accountable. Teachers earn tenure regardless of capability. Bad or good, tenure will be given.
I will never forget in the early 1990s while I was in high school, my teachers went on strike. The high school closed down. The average salary of my teachers in the early 1990s was $80,000!!!! The principle of the school was making well over $150,000!!!!! and guess what?! they were striking for more money.
I was merely a sophmore then, but this run in with ridiculous union members demands is what completely turned me off to teachers unions!
Let us not start putting up the sad and ridiculous statistics of how public schools in america are failing at teaching anything to our children except how to be victims.
Let us not start putting up the sad and ridiculous statistics of how public schools teachers in America know NOTHING about their subject, know very little English, writing, math, etc.
By the way, the reason that Walker needs to take away the collective barganing for pretty much everything except salary negotiations is because if it is not, in the next cycle of contract negotiations all the budget busting crap that has been given to unions, which they have conceded this time, will appear again!! Thus doing NOTHING for the State of Wisconsin's budget problem.
The problem with our educational system today is the teachers union, bust these unions, allow for voucher programs. The teachers union, which claim to care so much about their students hate vouchers witha passion, because vouchers will remove the monopoly public school unions have on our education.
let us not forget that one of the FIRST Presidential actions of Obama along with his Democratic controlled Congress was to end a very successful voucher program in Washingtond DC!!! This program was helping inner city kids attend some of the best private schools in the DC area. Schools like the one the Obama girls attend! However, Obama had to repay back the unions and this program was ended! I guess we are all equal in Obama's America, it is just that Obama's girls are more equal than inner city girls.
Why is it that Democratic politicians who love to push the public school system NEVER send their children to public schools?
So, you just said that every
Submitted by mamabear on Tue, 03/08/2011 - 10:26am.
So, you just said that every single private school requires a teaching degree, and then said that they also let you teach without one and that your sister was up for a job in a private school without one. How is that possible?
If what you meant was that candidates with teaching certification have a competitive advantage over those who don't, that is both true and also in no way contradicts my statement that they aren't required in all private schools.
Mamabear, You are right..It
Submitted by Liberallies on Tue, 03/08/2011 - 11:36am.
Mamabear,
You are right..It was late at night. LOL the first paragraph of my post doesn't even make sense to me this morning. LOL
What I ment to say is that in Illinois the requirements and certifications for an individual to teach in public schools is the same one that is required by private school.
My example with my sister was to prove that private schools will take individuals with teaching certificates over individuals without it.
I know many an individual who teaches in the public school system in Illinois, mainly in the city of Chicago and surrounding suburbs, who do not have a teaching certificate or any type of teaching degree. They do have a certain amoutn of years to start and complete their teaching degree, but even this, if you know the right person and bribe the right individuals, you can teach without a degree forever.
You claimed that the standards to become a public school teacher are harder than those required for you to become a private school teacher, this is simply not true in the State of Illinois.
And you REALLY do not want me to start putting up the statistics for how little subject knowledge Chicago public school teachers have and how poorly they do in the basic knowledge tests, etc, etc.
idiot lefty
Submitted by Radical1979 on Sun, 03/06/2011 - 11:30pm.
Honest to God I'm so sick of hearing this crap, Good people won't devote themselves to a job that earns them more ridicule than dollars.
Teachers earn more than many other people. In my area teachers are earning on the average, over $80 K per year. That's more than many other professionals. So let's stop the whining, because in addition to the high salaries they have had fantastic benefits and job security those of us in the private sector don't have.I'm not saying that teachers
Submitted by mamabear on Mon, 03/07/2011 - 12:51am.
I'm not saying that teachers salaries are too low for the teachers we have today. My point above was that if you want to attract BETTER people, you can't pay them less.
Let's consider an engineer, for instance. He or she will not make as much as a starting teacher as he/she would as a starting engineer. And yet to be a teacher, this person has to be both a good engineer and a good teacher. They have to keep current with their content field and the field of education. We ask them to have a larger skill set and pay them less.
So instead, we get people teaching who couldn't hack it in the actual professional area they are trying to teach about. And we pay them accordingly. The problem isn't that teaching is a bad deal for the people doing it now, the problem is that it is a bad deal for the people we want to attract to teaching.
Apparently the teachers in Wisconsin don't--
Submitted by matthewdean on Mon, 03/07/2011 - 12:56am.
see it that way.They weren't on strike before
Submitted by mamabear on Mon, 03/07/2011 - 9:47pm.
They weren't on strike before when things were status quo. They are on strike now that the government is trying to reduce the amount of power they have in the bargaining process. That doesn't mean they think the current pay is a bad deal.
Please
Submitted by Unsane on Mon, 03/07/2011 - 11:02pm.
But they shouldn't be on strike, Because They Only Work For The Children.
Right?
"CONSUMED DEMOCRACY RETURNS A SOCIALIST REGIME" - Slayer, "Fictional Reality", from Divine Intervention (1994)
idiot lefty
Submitted by Radical1979 on Mon, 03/07/2011 - 11:18pm.
I looked up some salary information about engineers where I live and compared it to teacher's salaries. Very interesting. Yes, starting out engineers make about 20k more than teachers. After 10 years they are about par, and after 15 years the teachers salaries are greater. By 20 years teachers make about 25k more. Add to that teachers have a fully paid pension and can retire with full benefits after 30 years. I don't know of any private company that is giving pension. In private industry you're lucky if you get any funding from your company. Also, you face job loss whenever the economy tanks, pay raises only in good times, and you don't plan on retiring after just 30 years.
FYI, every proffesional I know has to keep current with their content field. Keeping up with teaching methods is a pain in the ass, but not difficult. Plus, there are ed days and summer to work on that stuff.
The people it's attracting are the ones who know what a good deal they have. If you want good people in teaching start making them accountable.
Out in the Real World...
Submitted by Unsane on Tue, 03/08/2011 - 8:39am.
here's a solution, hippiebear, though you will whine about it:
Let's say a school district holds a meeting of all of its teachers. It announces to them all that there is a limited amount of money for teacher's salaries. No raises will be given unless you demonstrate that you are competent. If you are found to be incompetent, you will be shown the door. If you are mediocre, you will be paid in a mediocre fashion.
Sound extreme and cruel? This is what happens to those of us in The Real World every single solitary day. Either I produce for my private employer or I am fired. If I produce above and beyond, I get extra money. I get periodic performance appraisals and raises as well.
Yes, educators need to be introduced to something called The Real World...
"CONSUMED DEMOCRACY RETURNS A SOCIALIST REGIME" - Slayer, "Fictional Reality", from Divine Intervention (1994)
I think that would be fine,
Submitted by mamabear on Tue, 03/08/2011 - 10:30am.
I think that would be fine, provided you can devise a way to prove competency that doesn't punish teachers who try to help the most needy kids.
Perhaps we could say that if your classroom is performing below educational standards, you have to show an improvement each year but don't have to get them "up to code" all at once. If your class is performing to grade level then you have to maintain them there. Does that sound reasonable?
No
Submitted by Unsane on Tue, 03/08/2011 - 6:51pm.
No it doesn't. In The Real World, you don't get that sort of break.
If I can't have that, neither can teachers.
"CONSUMED DEMOCRACY RETURNS A SOCIALIST REGIME" - Slayer, "Fictional Reality", from Divine Intervention (1994)
Teachers
Submitted by Radical1979 on Sat, 03/05/2011 - 9:17pm.
Funny, at lunch with my daughter, sister, and neices we were discussing their elementary school teachers. We discussed more than one who was quite mean to the kids, even the principal had spoken to one teacher about it. Nothing changed. Did these teachers have high test scores to validate the way they treated the students? No.
Remember the old days, when focusing on the basics kids actually learned?
Teachers
Submitted by Unsane on Sat, 03/05/2011 - 10:26pm.
I remember my fourth grade teacher very well. Even if she were making $1 million a year for teaching, I'd still complain she was being grossly underpaid.
The rest from my elementary school days were totally unremarkable, mediocre, or in the case of my fifth grade teacher - who SWORE I wouldn't make it past sixth! - horrific.
"CONSUMED DEMOCRACY RETURNS A SOCIALIST REGIME" - Slayer, "Fictional Reality", from Divine Intervention (1994)
Uns
Submitted by Radical1979 on Sat, 03/05/2011 - 10:46pm.
That's it! There are teachers who love their job, and love kids and working with them. They do a great job. But there are plenty who are just a warm body in the classroom, who know that regardless of weather or not the kids learn, they can't be fired, or disciplined in any way. That's a huge difference from the private sector, where if you don't get results, there's the door.
hippiebear, the thing about your "profession" -
Submitted by Unsane on Sat, 03/05/2011 - 10:08pm.
Teaching is a "profession", and you are proof positive, being a "professional".
Teachers apparently aren't working their asses off as you claim, because the results aren't there. Our public schools suck. Teachers typically respond by blaming every single person other than themselves, which further demonstrated that teaching is a "profession".
Hell, I have an entire page in my HS yearbook where teachers are just ripping the hell out of students and otherwise blaming them for the teachers' failings.
I don't think teachers are working too hard on the question of why they are failing. But boy, you insist that they pay a little extra for their benefits - as I have to, working in the private sector - and they hit the streets, and screw those stupid inconveniences called "students" and their even dumber parents.
So, doing something not everyone is good at makes it a profession? I hate to break it to you, but I can do lots of things you suck at, just as I am sure you can do lots of things I suck at. I won't count teaching. Trust me, I can out-teach 99% of public school history coaches, er, teachers.
A job that requires specialized knowledge and skills is a profession? Interesting. Apparently my parents are infinitely more gifted than any teacher. They taught me how to read and write long before some teacher thought "Now little Unsane can be taught to read!!!"
Teaching cannot be a profession judging by the shameful actions of teachers in Madison, WI, the past few weeks...and for their irritating insistence that they are 1000% above criticism from anyone ("You can't say that about teaching? Have YOU ever taught?") and their sense that they are somehow indispensable to civilization (never mind the past 6000 or so years).
"CONSUMED DEMOCRACY RETURNS A SOCIALIST REGIME" - Slayer, "Fictional Reality", from Divine Intervention (1994)
If teaching were actually a profession ...
Submitted by NL207 on Sat, 03/05/2011 - 10:57pm.
It would not be unionized.
NL,
Submitted by Dave. on Sat, 03/05/2011 - 11:30pm.
Exactly.
-Dave
Vote for the American in November
Unsane
Submitted by hydrodynDM on Sat, 03/05/2011 - 9:59pm.
So to you teaching isn't a profession because some teachers suck at their job?
Couldn't you make basically the same argument regarding any other profession?
Sure, but who expects a Carpenter
Submitted by Boudin on Sat, 03/05/2011 - 10:05pm.
To be a good Teacher?
Carpenters
Submitted by Unsane on Sat, 03/05/2011 - 10:15pm.
If you have a carpenter buid you a desk, and he takes forever, and does a crappy job, and you call him out on it, does the carpenter whine that he sucks because he isn't paid enough and that in any case you as a customer have no right to complain about him because you don't work with wood?
"CONSUMED DEMOCRACY RETURNS A SOCIALIST REGIME" - Slayer, "Fictional Reality", from Divine Intervention (1994)
Unsane
Submitted by hydrodynDM on Sat, 03/05/2011 - 10:33pm.
I don't know about carpenters, but as someone with a ton of experience in the cemetery monument business I can tell you that yes, there are people who do exactly what you seem to suggest only teachers do.
I'd be willing to bet that the same goes with just about any other profession - carpenters included.
Reality check
Submitted by Unsane on Sat, 03/05/2011 - 11:20pm.
Well, I can tell you this: if I exhibited that attitude, I would have been FIRED from every single job I have ever held.
My real-world experience tells me that there is a Sword of Damocles hanging over most of our heads that keeps us a little humble about out station in life. Such does not exist for teachers.
As NL207 brilliantly pointed out, if teaching was a profession, it would not be unionized.
"CONSUMED DEMOCRACY RETURNS A SOCIALIST REGIME" - Slayer, "Fictional Reality", from Divine Intervention (1994)
Unsane
Submitted by hydrodynDM on Sat, 03/05/2011 - 11:34pm.
I have no love of unions. I've certainly never belonged to one. In fact, my brother is a corporate lawyer who is constantly working against unions to protect businesses and I have a great deal of respect for what he does.
But are you telling me that a stone mason, for example, who has gone through an apprenticeship and who has worked for years to acquire the skills necessary to work with and shape stone isn't a professional if he happens to work at a union shop?
I guess I need to clarify
Submitted by Unsane on Mon, 03/07/2011 - 12:22am.
You aren't paying attention to the carpentry example, I'm afraid.
If teachers were "professionals", the only union they would belong to would be a voluntary professional organization where they get to share notes and ideas on how to become better teachers. They sure as all hell wouldn't NEED a union to negotiate on their behalf. They could go out and handle that aspect all on their own.
I am going to alter the carpentry example to apply to stone masons. Let's say you hire one to lay bricks to build your house. He signs a contract and gets to work. But he is way over-budget, his work sucks, and he takes way too long to finish the project.
I am sure you would have some nasty words for that stone mason. So, what would you do if he shot back at you, angrily, that you have zero right to criticize him because you aren't a stone mason? Then , he continues to whine, that it's not his fault he sucks, and that for him not to suck, you need to give him a massive raise.
Me: I fire him, or find ways in the contract to fire him. And quite possibly, sue him for negligence and fraud.
See, to be a true professional, you need to suck it up and take criticism, and learn how to police your own ruthlessly in order to make sure your profession always looks and acts its best. Do teachers do either? I submit that the answer is no.
There are many reasons they are not professionals, and those are just some of them.
And I don't revel in saying that; it makes me sick. But it is what it is.
"CONSUMED DEMOCRACY RETURNS A SOCIALIST REGIME" - Slayer, "Fictional Reality", from Divine Intervention (1994)
Unsane
Submitted by hydrodynDM on Mon, 03/07/2011 - 9:48am.
I think we are maybe talking about two different things - what counts as a profession and what counts as being a professional.
To me, any area of work which requires specialized knowledge and training is a profession - so that would include teaching along with masonry, carpentry, law, medicine and a ton of others.
However, an individual in one of these professions can act unprofessionally - for example, in the ways that you point out.
I tend to agree that unions encourage or create an environment which encourages many (not all) teachers at the elementary/secondary school level to behave in ways which could be called unprofessional.
But I don't think unionization can be taken as a justification for dismissing that entire field of work as not being a profession.
Out of curiosity, do you consider those who teach at the college or university level - where unions basically don't exist - to be part of a profession?
A few responses
Submitted by Unsane on Tue, 03/08/2011 - 12:19am.
Being part of a profession, IMHO, requires professional behavior. The lines of work i hold in the most contempt are those who are well stocked with people who constantly behave unprofessionally, and they cry about it when they are called out on it.
How many professions out there do not seriously police their own?
And yes, I still have to agree with NL207's sentiment. If you are a professional - why do you require a union to hide behind?
As to your last question - depends on what time of day it is. I am at once attracted and repelled by academia. Sounds strange, but maybe I can flesh that out for you more if you wish when I got a spare moment.
"CONSUMED DEMOCRACY RETURNS A SOCIALIST REGIME" - Slayer, "Fictional Reality", from Divine Intervention (1994)
Unsane
Submitted by hydrodynDM on Tue, 03/08/2011 - 1:38am.
"As to your last question..."
By all means - flesh it out for me.
I'm interested to know what your take on what I do for a living is.
Not intimidated
Submitted by Unsane on Tue, 03/08/2011 - 8:42am.
Is this supposed to be intimidating? It isn't. I work around academia CONSTANTLY, and yes, I get paid for it. I wish I could say it was for a living but the money I get paid would not be enough for "living" if not supplemented by other sources.
"CONSUMED DEMOCRACY RETURNS A SOCIALIST REGIME" - Slayer, "Fictional Reality", from Divine Intervention (1994)
Unsane
Submitted by hydrodynDM on Tue, 03/08/2011 - 4:19pm.
Intimidate? Not sure where you are getting that. I certainly didn't mean to express that in my post. So far, we've been having what I thought was a pretty friendly discussion.
I know you work around academia - I've seen you mention it before (in fact, I think we once got into a discussion about it years ago).
Although discussions about what's happening at the middle or secondary school level are interesting to me, I'm not a part of that.
So I actually am interested to know your take on things at the college or university level is - whether you view folk who work at that level as being part of a profession and if not (or if sometimes) why?
Want to be part of a profession? At least ACT the part
Submitted by Unsane on Sat, 03/05/2011 - 10:12pm.
I suppose, but schools suck, and I don't think it is because SOME teachers suck at their job.
I think it is because a LOT of teachers suck at their job.
That and I have met very very few who actually want to behave as a professional. In order for me to remotely consider them real professionals, they will need to drop their insistence that they are 1000% above ANY criticism from anyone else. For starters.
That is the biggest reason of all why they are not a profession to me. In very very few other professions is that view tolerated.
"CONSUMED DEMOCRACY RETURNS A SOCIALIST REGIME" - Slayer, "Fictional Reality", from Divine Intervention (1994)
Unsane
Submitted by hydrodynDM on Sat, 03/05/2011 - 10:30pm.
I'm not going to disagree that a lot of the students coming out of high schools appear to learned next to nothing. I see it in my classes all the time - I have students in my calculus based physics classes who can't do basic algebra.
But I also have students who are better students than I was at their age.
My point is that I think you are over-generalizing.
The fact is that there are many middle and high school teachers who do take their work seriously - who are members of organizations, who attend conferences and who contribute to periodicals which are aimed at helping teachers improve on their skills. Those don't sound like the actions of people who feel they are above criticism.
Because of our department's outreach programs, I've also met a large number of high school teachers - and can say, in my opinion, they are professionals.
"professionals"
Submitted by Unsane on Sat, 03/05/2011 - 10:37pm.
To me, they are "professionals", and I have met many of them. Teachers by and large don't impress me. And it's a shame.
Sure, there are one or two out there that are stellar but by and large, mediocrity is their objective.
I wish I could say I was over-generalizing. But not only have I met with these "professionals", I also work with their products every day. And if the products I deal with are any indication, my over-generalization is in fact an UNDER-generalization.
"CONSUMED DEMOCRACY RETURNS A SOCIALIST REGIME" - Slayer, "Fictional Reality", from Divine Intervention (1994)
There's a big difference
Submitted by mamabear on Sun, 03/06/2011 - 12:36am.
There's a big difference between taking useful criticism from your boss, or your peers, and taking uninformed criticism from everyone. Teaching seems to be one of those things that everyone in their head imagines they could do better than most people. Like writing-- the world is full of people who are convinced they would be great writers, they just don't have the time to do it. Just a hint-- you, and those people, are wrong.
And frankly, very few professionals take kindly to people outside the profession telling them how to do their job. That is NOT a trait unique to teachers! I'm willing to bet that if I started lecturing you on how to do your job, whatever that may be, you'd very quickly tell me to stuff it. But because these are just teachers, they should apparently be amenable not just to useful, professional criticism, but to the suggestions of everyone who thinks that paying taxes makes them an expert on teaching children.
Taxpayers have every right to demand that teachers do a better job, but they really ought to stop pretending that they know HOW those teachers should be doing a better job. Only a subset of those taxpayers, namely the ones with children in those classrooms, have any place telling teachers how they think they should do their job.
Nonsense, mamabear
Submitted by Cool Arrow on Sun, 03/06/2011 - 12:50am.
Unless you're willing to let the childless and the elderly off the hook, we also have a right to say something about how our tax dollars are spent.
Are you so ignorant as to believe only parents pay school taxes? Even renters pay school taxes through their landlords.
→ Furthermore
Submitted by Cool Arrow on Sun, 03/06/2011 - 1:05am.
It is in everybody's best interest that students leave formal education as contributing members of society
Yes, you have the right to
Submitted by mamabear on Sun, 03/06/2011 - 12:39pm.
Yes, you have the right to demand better performance. But if you don't know anything about teaching, have never raised a child yourself, and only pay money in the system, then pretending that you have some insight into HOW that teaching should be improved that no one else has ever thought of before is self-delusional!
By your logic...
Submitted by Radical1979 on Sun, 03/06/2011 - 12:44pm.
So only health insurance companies and doctors and people who have actually been in the hospital should be able to write health care laws?
Talk about self-delusional
Rad
Submitted by sentry_99 on Sun, 03/06/2011 - 1:15pm.
All that coming from someone who has no problem telling the military how they should be organized and run.sentry---
Submitted by matthewdean on Mon, 03/07/2011 - 12:32am.
ten ring!Actually, that
Submitted by UpNorth on Tue, 03/08/2011 - 1:24am.
was in the X ring, Sentry.....
An important part of my
Submitted by mamabear on Sun, 03/06/2011 - 6:46pm.
An important part of my proscription was that people shouldn't tell teachers what to do if they "don't know anything about teaching." Politicians are capable of knowing things about health care, and plumbers are capable of knowing things about teaching. But it requires some effort and time spent investing in it. I don't think there is anything delusional about asking that people who want a say make an effort to know what they are talking about.
idiot lefty
Submitted by Radical1979 on Sun, 03/06/2011 - 11:24pm.
Actually, you said, Only a subset of those taxpayers, namely the ones with children in those classrooms, have any place telling teachers how they think they should do their job.
You said nothing about people who don't know anything about teaching. You once again pointed your nose in the air and proceded to arrogantly tell us we are know nothings who shouldn't interfere in the sacred profession of teaching. If teachers were successful, no one would be.
The post you responded to
Submitted by mamabear on Mon, 03/07/2011 - 12:57am.
The post you responded to read thus: "But if you don't know anything about teaching, have never raised a child yourself, and only pay money in the system, then pretending that you have some insight into HOW that teaching should be improved that no one else has ever thought of before is self-delusional!"
If that sentiment is unclear in any way, let me know.
idiot lefty
Submitted by Radical1979 on Mon, 03/07/2011 - 4:33pm.
It is very clear, although you have since tried to backtrack. You do not deem anyone who is not in the field of education to be qualified to comment on teachers, teaching practices, or anything else to do with education. Do you really not see how arrogant and smug you are?
You can only claim that by
Submitted by mamabear on Mon, 03/07/2011 - 9:50pm.
You can only claim that by completely ignoring what I actually typed. Really, what's the point? If you want to have an argument with a hypothetical lefty who only holds opinions you expected them to in the first place, go get a sock puppet and start practicing your lefty voice!
... Actually, I would love to hear your lefty voice :)
idiot lefty
Submitted by Radical1979 on Mon, 03/07/2011 - 10:18pm.
As usual, when you get caught in the quicksand you've walked into, you deflect by saying the other person doesn't understand. Trust me, you aren't that complicated.
I don't do lefty voices. There are far to many out there as it is.
Rad---
Submitted by matthewdean on Mon, 03/07/2011 - 10:25pm.
Far too many lefty voices out there, far too many lefty voices at NB's as well. Same old, same old. Shrill, snarky, smarmy, speaking shibboleth 'stead of sense.I didn't say you didn't
Submitted by mamabear on Tue, 03/08/2011 - 10:32am.
I didn't say you didn't understand something. I said you were ignoring something. Apparently, though, you didn't understand that, so now I'm saying you didn't understand something!
Good evening mamabear
Submitted by cocodrie on Sun, 03/06/2011 - 1:26pm.
Glad you weren't around to advise Wilbur and Orville.
Jesus Loves You so much He died for you
Wilbur and Orville didn't
Submitted by mamabear on Sun, 03/06/2011 - 6:52pm.
Wilbur and Orville didn't know anything about aeronautics? Engineering? Because I thought they had spent years building mechanical knowledge through work with cycles and motors, testing their designs in wind tunnels, getting aeronautical research from the Smithsonian, observing birds, and studying DaVinci. If you say they didn't know anything about flight, though, then they must have gotten really lucky!
You are a spoiled brat, not a professional
Submitted by Unsane on Mon, 03/07/2011 - 12:48am.
That, hippiebear, is a bunch of crap. I take all sorts of uninformed criticism all the time from different people. I don't whine about it like you and your colleagues do.
And I guarantee you treat your waiter/waitress like s*** for the slightest offense, and tip poorly. And I will further speculate you do not, not for one second, try to determine their limitations, or issues the restaurant may be having that just might be far beyond anyone's control.
Yet, as you indicate in your first paragraph (and yes, you are basically saying this loud and clear): your customers need to STFD and STFU, because they are always wrong.
As long as you and your colleagues carry around this attitude you will NEVER be looked upon me as a professional. If I cannot get away with such BS, neither can you. ESPECIALLY when you are living off of the taxpayer's dollar.
And I have no doubt - none - that I could do a better job at teaching than many others, to include many in the classroom right now. Throw a tantrum all you want about how you think you are some priestess with special knowledge only "the select" learn, and that teaching is somehow akin to brain surgery or splitting atoms - it really isn't. The world has somehow survived and thrived most of the past 6000 years without public schools or public school teachers. This is a very nasty, brutal fact you simply have to live with.
Your second paragraph indicates to me that you are a spoiled brat who has never worked in the public eye before. I may not take kindly to criticism to my profession(s), but I have to suck it up if I wish to keep my job. That is a reality MILLIONS of us in the real world wake up to every single day. It's time teachers joined us.
For writing that last paragraph: in a perfect world, just for uttering that, I would have you dragged out of your classroom in the middle of you class, just after saying "Miss Hippiebear? YOU'RE FIRED". From there, I would have your spoiled, whiny ass thrown to the curb. Stop calling yourself a professional, because you are clearly not one.
And props to sentry_99 for bringing up a GREAT point. To this day, I don't like slamming doors. That is, the physical sould of slamming doors. When I came home from my deployment, my parents asked me if I needed anything. I told them "Never slam a door around me, ever." Why? it reminds me of ordinance.
You don't know the first damn thing about the military or about the experience I just related, yet clearly you feel you have the prerogative to bitch about the military and dictate to the military how it is to be run. Yet you aren't in. You have no loved ones in the service. You have zero skin in the game, as they say. Yet you don't shut up about it, do you?
As long as I pay your salary, and that of other teachers, I have the right to endlessly bitch about your "profession". If that bothers you so much, you are cordially invited to quit and work somewhere else where, rest assured, you will be faced with the same treatment from paying customers. I may not have kids, but what you are doing just might effect the doctors who treat me in old age and the overall future of this country...and the world my nephew and niece will inherit. So shut up and suck it up.
"CONSUMED DEMOCRACY RETURNS A SOCIALIST REGIME" - Slayer, "Fictional Reality", from Divine Intervention (1994)
You don't know the first
Submitted by mamabear on Mon, 03/07/2011 - 1:20am.
You don't know the first thing about me. As usual, you resort to ridiculous speculation about the personal characteristics of someone you are arguing with because you can't handle a simple disagreement in a mature way. I could make similar speculations about the possiblity that your temper here indicates a penchant for animal abuse and a lack of joy in your life, but that would be presumptuous of me. I like to give people the benefit of the doubt, waiters and waitresses included.
I'm glad you have such confidence in your ability to be a better teacher than any of the people actually doing the job. Giving the shining talent for pedagogy you possess, I think you should step up and start contributing, let the rest of us learn from your immense wisdom on the subject. Education is important, right? There are some great private schools out there that I'm sure would throw money at the feet of a teacher as inspiring and effective as you.
Just a tip as you start out, though-- the fact that humans have survived for a very long time without something does not mean that thing is easy. I don't doubt that you are a brilliant teacher, but you might want to brush up on your logical thinking skills before you start passing fallacies like that onto students.
You are also misapplying my opinions on the military. I am demanding something of the military, I am not telling them how to do it. Similarly, I have made it very clear that I think every taxpayer has the right to demand better performance from teachers, just not to pretend that they know how to make that happen unless they have educated themselves about education. So while we're at it, before you become the world's greatest teacher, you might want to make sure you understand how to draw parallels between two comparable arguments. That kind of stuff comes up on standardized tests, so it is important that you understand analogies in order to teach the concept to your students. Still, though, I have no doubt that with a little help, (not that you think anyone needs any help to teach) you'll be a paragon of educational wizardry.
Finally, you don't pay my salary, so you can go about your life secure in the knowledge that none of your money enables me to teach anyone. I hope that puts a smile on your face, you sound like such an angry, unhappy person sometimes!
You just told me in another post, grislybear---
Submitted by matthewdean on Mon, 03/07/2011 - 1:33am.
that since I "had no skin in the game", i.e., I don't know anything about the educational process, that I shouldn't be critical of it. Ok for you, though, to make demands of the military since you are not telling them "how" to accomplish the results you want to see. Those "demands" absolutely are criticism, because you are not happy with the way the military chooses to operate. Have you served in the military? If not, by your own standard, you have no business making those demands.Wrong. Here is exactly what
Submitted by mamabear on Mon, 03/07/2011 - 1:47am.
Wrong. Here is exactly what I said "Taxpayers have every right to demand that teachers do a better job, but they really ought to stop pretending that they know HOW those teachers should be doing a better job." I clarified that at length in responses.
You can criticize teachers for not doing a good job. I can criticize the military for being exclusionary. Neither of us should be telling someone in a field we know nothing about how they need to make those changes we think are important, and in particular if they say "that's not as easy as it sounds," it is completely arrogant of us to say "Yes it is." That's why my response to the argument that integrating gays into the military will be difficult was to ackowldge that yes, it will be difficult. But it is also important. You and Unsane seem to be responding to my suggestion that fixing teaching is not as easy as you think with "Yes it is, a chimp could do it. Shut up and teach better."
And of course, this is America, so you can say anything you want on the subject. I just think it is arrogant and simple-minded of you, that's all.
You are confused, there, grislybear---
Submitted by matthewdean on Mon, 03/07/2011 - 2:25am.
Check your post (3-6-2011 @ 11:37 a.m. #72 at the time) and you will find you are mixing up posts and replies. You being a liberal, I really don't much give a sh*t what you think, especially since you represent the epitome of what you accuse me of being - arrogant and simple-minded.In post #72 I said: "The fact
Submitted by mamabear on Mon, 03/07/2011 - 1:42pm.
In post #72 I said: "The fact that you are completely willing to believe that there is no lack of understanding, despite the fact that you know nothing about the system yourself and have no data to back up your belief is... striking."
Are those words confusing in some way? I am not saying or implying that you don't have the right to complain, or that you shouldn't be critical of our education system. If we are going to be careful not to mix up posts and replies, please indicate exactly what in the quote above, says what you claim I said.
In case you just didn't understand me, here's what I meant by that-- I don't respect people who hold their own uninformed opinions in such high regard that they feel no need to confirm that those opinions match up with the facts of an issue. That said, you have every right to complain about the educational system. I can say it again if you are still confused. You have every right to complain about the educational system. If you really cared about it, though, you might consider the opinions of other people who study it, work in it, or actually make some effort to try and solve it. And I'm not talking about me, I'm talking about the people I read about who are doing those things, and whose opinions on the matter I have tried to bring to this discussion.
An Analogy
Submitted by Kingfish17 on Mon, 03/07/2011 - 1:56pm.
Using another industry as an example:
The CEO of Lehman Brothers or Fannie Mae gets some advice on how to save their failing companies, the day before they go belly up. The advice received is from somebody who has never actually worked in the financial service industry.
The CEO dismisses that advice, because the person giving it doesn't have the same "background" as they do.
But, the person giving the advice, is, of course, entitled to their opinion!
Maybe, just maybe, the people in charge of the failing industry are the ones to blame, and their "opinions" on how things are being run is where the real problem lies.
"You can’t go take a trip to Las Vegas...on the taxpayer’s dime." Barack Obama
Of course anyone can have a
Submitted by mamabear on Mon, 03/07/2011 - 9:55pm.
Of course anyone can have a good idea, and good ideas should be listened to. But let's imagine I went to the government and said "Hey, I just solved the deficit crisis! Print more money and all of our problems would be solved!" The actual economists might bother to attempt to explain to me why I have only a simplistic understanding of the problem and there are many issues that we can't solve by printing money. What I object to is not people having ideas, or experts telling them why their ideas won't work. I object to people essentially telling those economists to shut up and stop whining-- the economy is easy, obviously we can fix it by just making more money. Their insistence that the issue is more complicated is just a childish refusal to take criticism of their failure to fix things already.
That's an analogy for what bugs me about this debate.
grislybear---
Submitted by matthewdean on Tue, 03/08/2011 - 12:41am.
I taught in the educational system. You did not spend time in the military. Now waste some more time telling me what you said, what you meant, and how I misunderstood everything.Your experience is irrelevant
Submitted by mamabear on Tue, 03/08/2011 - 10:38am.
Your experience is irrelevant to this particular quibble. I didn't say in the post you specifically asked me to address that only people with experience could complain. You are the one mixing up posts and replies, and frankly this conversation is hard enough to keep track of without you muddling things further!
I have at least five different trains of conversation I am replying to every time I visit this thread, and even on spring break I don't really have the time to spend several hours concocting replies to everyone here. So we are discussing your experience and whether or not I am being condescending already further up the thread. Do you think that can suffice, or do you need to have the same discussion here too?
Basically, you are just
Submitted by Unsane on Mon, 03/07/2011 - 5:33pm.
Basically, you are just throwing a temper tantrum now.
Let's say...you hire a painter to paint the interior of your house. Let's say said painter grossly violates the terms of the agreement. He paints the walls a different color. He does a lousy job, and does not finish on time. Because of this, you give him a piece of your mind.
What would you do if said painter said "You have NO right to judge me! Have YOU ever painted walls in a house before? Besides, I am a horrible painter because painters aren't respected enough and are not paid enough. In order for me to improve, I DEMAND you increase how much i am paid by 10% minimum."
I am actually handling this disagreement in an extremely mature manner. The more you type the more you show me that you are a spoiled brat with a deeply ingrained entitlement mentailty. That kind of behavior isn't exactly the paragon of maturity. And I don't NEED to visit you or get to know you to figure that out: all I need to do is to read your posts on education. Especially your post where you designate who can and who cannot say anything about educators.
Just something I would like to point out about your third paragraph: your knowledge of history sucks to the point where I think you are beyond redemption. Nowhere did i say it was EASY. I DID say that someway, somehow, humanity got by the better part of 6000 years without public education. Yet look at how far we have come in that 6000 years. Your station in life is quite a new and novel concept. It isn't necessary or required for civilization. History agrees with me on this. The reason we have public education at all is bound up in both the industrial revolution and the desire of democratic societies to ensure that the populations that will run it someday have a basic background of knowledge to properly run the machinery. I could also make a tight case for public schooling being instituted for the purpose of ensuring all the citizens of a specific nation have a shared national identity.
Go back to whatever university or college you came from, and demand a refund from its history department. (Unless you slept through all your classes, which is something that wouldn't surprise me if true.) And go back to whatever high school you "graduated" from and be sure to tell your history instructor "Gee, thanks for nothing, Coach".
Funny you mentioned becoming a teacher. It is one of the possibilities I am looking into. Though I refuse to teach in public school. I don't deal with people with entitlement mentalities (like you) very well. That, and no public school would find my approach to teaching acceptable. (For instance, I wouldn't give grades to students for folders, nor would I grade homework per se. Because both are nothing more than wastes of time, their time and mine, and are beyond stupid and meaningless. But guess what? Many if not all public schools FORCE teachers to grade things like folders and homework.) I know for a fact you would SCREAM at my approach to teaching.
I'm not misapplying ANYTHING. You have been critical about the military on this board repeatedly in the past, and now that you find that people have things to say about your "profession", you throw a fit. Well, hey, I have never once worked in a profession or a job that people who worked well outside of felt fit to criticize. ESPECIALLY if they were paying money for the service. Why is teaching not subject to this basic standard that millions face every single solitary day?
I don't pay your salary? I bet I do. You may live in ME, but I have visited ME and have bought things in ME, and thus contributed to your state's coffers somehow. Even if you don't have a state sales tax, I paid taxes through other means reflected in the final bill. (Next, visit your university's economics department and demand a refund from them. Unless you slept through those classes as well, in which case you have no one to blame but yourself.) If ME is like most states, education takes up the lion's share of its budget. And not to mention, there is this arm of the federal government called the Department of Education, which I can safely guess has gotten a penny or two from the income tax money and capital gains money I send the federal government each year. Here is betting some Department of Education money reaches your purse.
As for my happiness - you have no idea how happy I am. No clue. I am happiest when plotting and scheming (and finally executing), and these days, thanks to a myriad of projects I am involved in for both business and pleasure, I am a plotting and scheming FOOL. For starters.
"CONSUMED DEMOCRACY RETURNS A SOCIALIST REGIME" - Slayer, "Fictional Reality", from Divine Intervention (1994)
Once again, I am nowhere
Submitted by mamabear on Mon, 03/07/2011 - 10:25pm.
Once again, I am nowhere claiming that you cannot object to the current state of the educational system or demand better service. If the painter in your analogy gave me an explanation for why the paint didn't look the way I thought it would, I would accept his expertise on the matter. I might insist that we had to do it over again, but I wouldn't tell him that his explanation was bull because there couldn't possibly be any aspect of house painting that I don't already know myself from having seen my house painted before! That's what I find arrogant.
Also arrogant is you complaining that I don't know anything about how happy you are from your posts, but you know everything about how spoiled I am from mine. Applying a different standard of logic to other people's conclusions than your own is a sign of a sloppy mind. But then, that's just a guess on my part, isn't it?
Nowhere did i say it was EASY. I DID say that someway, somehow, humanity got by the better part of 6000 years without public education. Yet look at how far we have come in that 6000 years.
Right. You said that right after you said that it wasn't akin to brain surgery or atom splitting. Did I not sufficiently distinguish between "easy" and "not difficult?" Sorry about that, I should have been more clear. I also never claimed that your statement that we made it far without public education is untrue. In fact, my statement that making it a long time without something doesn't mean it is easy is predicated on the same assumption, that we made it a long time without public educators. So I'm not sure what you think I should be demanding a refund for. Try to pay closer attention not just to what I write, but to what you yourself are writing! It will make this conversation much less confusing for you.
If you have a better idea for how to run a classroom, I'd love to hear it. In fact, I have been asking to hear it! What would you do instead of have students practice solving problems and working through logical issues through homework and writing? Please, share with us your brilliance! It really is irresponsible for you to keep this stuff to yourself. And like I said, you should find a private school that is open to innovative teaching techniques. You are right that public schools would make you do things a certain way. I tried to explain that to Radical up above, but she still thinks that public schools change instructional techniques willy nilly all the time. Maybe, since she won't listen to me, you can explain that they really are pretty slow to embrace change.
I work for a private college that is almost 100% tuition and gift driven. Your tax dollars may make it to me in the form of federal funding for student financial aid, and maybe some few odds and ends elsewhere, but I don't think you can claim any significant part of my salary unless you have sent a kid to my school or given us a grant. But if you have-- thanks!
And I'm glad you are enjoying having lots of projects. That's a nice feeling. You just sound so angry here, it is hard to imagine you as a happy guy.
idiot lefty
Submitted by Radical1979 on Mon, 03/07/2011 - 10:47pm.
I'm not breathing the elite air of the private college, but I am talking about public school at the elementary level where I live. And I can guarantee you the techniques and programs are in a constant state of flux. From phoenetics, to whole reading to guided reading and on and on. I've been there. There is huge money to be made in the publishing industry of textbooks, even at the elementary level, because every new fad that comes out must be tried.
Don't be so know it all, because you don't.
I passed on making a comment on the ---
Submitted by matthewdean on Mon, 03/07/2011 - 10:54pm.
first read through, but remember thinking that Uns only comes across as angry to idiot lefties who continue to countenance only their own ideology even at the cost of ignoring common sense.md
Submitted by Radical1979 on Mon, 03/07/2011 - 11:04pm.
What the idiot lefty fails to realize is that she in not the only poster involved in teaching. She wants to spread her manure all over NB with impunity, unware that there are many of us who can speak from our own experience.
As usual I'm amazed by her arrogance and ignorance at the same time.
Rad---
Submitted by matthewdean on Mon, 03/07/2011 - 11:19pm.
Zackly. She spouts liberalese as though it were her native tongue. I will give her credit for consistency, though, as she is able to cause me to shake my head whether she is expounding upon abortion, illegal aliens, homosexuality, the military and DADT, or the subject of education.One suggestion
Submitted by troglodyt on Mon, 03/07/2011 - 11:31pm.
Maybe you should get your brain checked instead of attributing all of your reactions to mamabear. Heavy headshaking might be a symptom of Cerebral Palsy.
Your trusted physician
troglodyt
troggy
Submitted by Radical1979 on Mon, 03/07/2011 - 11:37pm.
Amazing the lows you can sink to, making fun of CP sufferers to try to jab someone. Classy there.
You got it the wrong way around
Submitted by troglodyt on Mon, 03/07/2011 - 11:40pm.
I'm making fun of MD using CP.
troggy
Submitted by Radical1979 on Mon, 03/07/2011 - 11:47pm.
No, it's offensive. Very offensive.
Of course.
Submitted by troglodyt on Mon, 03/07/2011 - 11:51pm.
It was supposed to be offensive. But rather to MD than to you.
troggy
Submitted by Radical1979 on Mon, 03/07/2011 - 11:55pm.
Can you honestly say the shaking head thing and CP wouldn't be offensive? You are either lying, very stupid, or both. I say both.
Have you read the post you replied to?
Submitted by troglodyt on Mon, 03/07/2011 - 11:58pm.
I said it was intended to be offensive.
trogggy
Submitted by Radical1979 on Tue, 03/08/2011 - 12:00am.
You said it was only intended to be offensive to md. It was offensive to anyone suffering from CP or related to someone with CP. It's not a joke to have a disability.
And how would you know that?
Submitted by troglodyt on Tue, 03/08/2011 - 12:23am.
It was offensive to anyone suffering from CP or related to someone with CP.
That I mean.
Troggy
Submitted by Radical1979 on Tue, 03/08/2011 - 12:51am.
You're not only offensive you're stupid. If you can't figure out why I'm offended get out of mom's basement for awhile and interact with people on a one to one basis.Radical
Submitted by troglodyt on Tue, 03/08/2011 - 6:38am.
If you can't explain it, perhaps you should do the figuring. But I'll go with option two: You are related to someone with CP. So what? The father of my nephew is disabled. He doesn't have a problem with him, me or other people joking about it. As long as it is not demeaning him as a human being he is OK with it, as should anybody. Further as I wasn't demeaning people with CP but MD I don't see your problem other than insulting your feelings of PC.
Or do you want to have disabled people to be exempt from joking about?
Hey, trogster---
Submitted by matthewdean on Tue, 03/08/2011 - 12:58am.
the fact that your very being, as a Euro-trash troll, may be offensive to some, bothers me no more than your attempt to be offensive to me personally. All part of the game. I grew up dealing the dozens with friends and then with co-workers. Insults flew thick and fast. IIRC, Yo Mama was mentioned on more than one occasion.An idea
Submitted by Unsane on Sat, 03/12/2011 - 10:24pm.
I have no idea where you or anyone else gets this nutty idea that I am angry about...anything.
Anyways, let's delve into a history classroom. Instead of having history consist of memorizing names, dates and events and vomiting them back out at the coach for nine months, and having the poor dears take multiple choice tests and true and false tests, I propose to make the write, write, and write some more until either they begin the process of critical thinking or their hands snap off, whichever comes first. If done properly, history will become more relevant. And dare I say, quite possibly, more fun.
"CONSUMED DEMOCRACY RETURNS A SOCIALIST REGIME" - Slayer, "Fictional Reality", from Divine Intervention (1994)
Didn't you do DBQ's when you
Submitted by mamabear on Sat, 03/12/2011 - 11:07pm.
Didn't you do DBQ's when you took history in high school? Writing essays based on analysis of primary sources is all I can remember doing , at least in later classes! I think it's a great way to learn, but I don't think it's new.
Continuing
Submitted by Unsane on Sun, 03/13/2011 - 10:37pm.
It's not new but the concept has been completely abandoned.
I wouldn't stop at essays. My poor dears would write research papers. One (500 word) every six weeks, and a larger one (2000 word) for the semester final grade. Based on primary and secondary source material.
I would not do the BS I was subjected to in HS: namely, I would not grade folders, homework, and notes. That's absolute crap. Won't happen.
But you know what? In no public school in America would this be permitted.
"CONSUMED DEMOCRACY RETURNS A SOCIALIST REGIME" - Slayer, "Fictional Reality", from Divine Intervention (1994)
yeah both sides...
Submitted by abeautifulperson on Fri, 03/04/2011 - 7:54pm.
there are only two kinds of people around here. those who toe the line, agree with the talking points and spew vitriol against those on the left ... and trolls. and we don't like trolls. so start bobbing your head up and down or git outta here.
Did you just ask him out?
Submitted by SickofLibs on Fri, 03/04/2011 - 8:02pm.
Trollop.
my point exactly.
Submitted by abeautifulperson on Fri, 03/04/2011 - 8:18pm.
thanks for assisting me with illustrating my point SoBby.
Anytime, pal
Submitted by SickofLibs on Fri, 03/04/2011 - 8:29pm.
.
Irony from anuglysocialist
Submitted by Unsane on Fri, 03/04/2011 - 8:17pm.
This from a vile, disgusting, hate-filled anti-Semite poster who vomits Socialist talking points constantly and toes the Socialist line all the time.
"CONSUMED DEMOCRACY RETURNS A SOCIALIST REGIME" - Slayer, "Fictional Reality", from Divine Intervention (1994)
heh heh
Submitted by abeautifulperson on Fri, 03/04/2011 - 8:19pm.
> s-i-i-i-i-i-gh <
The man you want to be
Submitted by Unsane on Fri, 03/04/2011 - 8:23pm.
When I ask you "Who is Unsane?", the proper response is "Unsane is the man I want to be."
"CONSUMED DEMOCRACY RETURNS A SOCIALIST REGIME" - Slayer, "Fictional Reality", from Divine Intervention (1994)
Given that the right throws
Submitted by both-sides on Sat, 03/05/2011 - 2:17pm.
Given that the right throws around the word "socialist" at everything it doesn't agree with. I'll take your accusations about him with a grain of salt.
Bailing out bankscthat make bad decisios is anti free market capitalism. do you go around calling Bush a socialist? or is it only reserved for democrats?
Vomit your talking points elsewhere
Submitted by Unsane on Mon, 03/07/2011 - 12:52am.
Actually, anuglysocialist has a long history here.
Unfortunately for you this website isn't pro-Bush. You may want to vomit your talking points elsewhere.
"CONSUMED DEMOCRACY RETURNS A SOCIALIST REGIME" - Slayer, "Fictional Reality", from Divine Intervention (1994)
→ ABP
Submitted by Cool Arrow on Fri, 03/04/2011 - 8:22pm.
What's all this talk about "bobbing your head up and down"?
Are you Chris Matthews under an assumed identity?
CA...it's a reptilian reaction
Submitted by Blonde on Fri, 03/04/2011 - 8:41pm.
Sheer reaction to overwhelming odds.
Handy Reference Guide to Obama's Gaffes and Goofs ~ Currently Numbering 200 (and Counting)
OMO, a video of bsny---
Submitted by matthewdean on Fri, 03/04/2011 - 9:28pm.
"bob slowly nods yes".
MD
Sick video
Submitted by Cool Arrow on Fri, 03/04/2011 - 9:31pm.
bob sensuously nods yes.
Much better, Cool---
Submitted by matthewdean on Fri, 03/04/2011 - 9:41pm.
I concede. :o)
why oh why?
Submitted by hayate1 on Sat, 03/05/2011 - 12:28am.
are so many of you against working class americans? why is any sacrifice asked of the rich considered anti-american or social;ism while all sacrifices asked of those who comprise the majority of us considered a no-brainer? The small sacrifice asked of the super rich were shouted down as unfair while the sacrifices asked of the middle are met with joy. any complaints from the top are heard and obeyed, any complaints from the middle are derided as coming from a bunch of no -good freeloaders suckling off of the taxpayer tit.
"Facts are not decided by how many people believe them. Truth is not determined by how loudly it is shouted."
I have a job -two, actually-
Submitted by bkeyser on Sat, 03/05/2011 - 12:49am.
I have a job -two, actually- as I'm self-employed in Architecture and also work in construction on the side. I average about 55 hours per week. I'm certainly not rich by any measure. I'm also not in a union. Am I a working class American?
And:
What small sacrifice asked of the super rich was shouted down? And which sacrifices of the middle are met with joy?
You're failure to be specific is really bringing down your grandstanding.
well i guess i assume a basic knowledge of events that
Submitted by hayate1 on Sat, 03/05/2011 - 6:24am.
serve to inform the big picture. as the vet pointed out, correctly, i post without paying much attention to grammatical issues which is indicative of time , lack of that is. the details that form the basis of my arguments are just too time consuming to produce every post. i prefer to think that people who post and read this stuff have the basic knowledge of things to get my points. i still think that is thee case but rather than engage in argument that serves to actually cause people to let facts enter into the discussion, people tend to focus on any and all points that are distracting from the subject matter. this approach is core to the conservative political dialog, and it is effective in keeping the issues obfuscated.
so as to the particulars of what i said i was referring to the initial efforts of the obama folks to limit salaries of execs who took bailout money to $500k per annum. also to stop multimillion dollar bonuses to failed execs, traders and managers. wasnt that decried as gov overreach? or when the gov proposed taxes on banks to fund current and future bailouts that was shouted down as a stifling tax. or when a very small tax hike was advocated for the rich it was declared to be a punishment for succeeding. while cutting services, tax breaks and safety nets for poor is ok.
you do know that this is happening, right? i mean you must have seen and heard the arguments that people earning over $300k arent rich and taxing them a bit more is punishment and bad for jobs. while the same people say that a teacher making $50k is enjoying a rich, unearned life and they need to be forced to make concessions.
"Facts are not decided by how many people believe them. Truth is not determined by how loudly it is shouted."
Assumptions Hayate
Submitted by sentry_99 on Sat, 03/05/2011 - 8:03am.
I think what you are really assuming is that because this is a new article on the subject, anything you say will be viewed as an original thought. Not so hayate, not so. Everything you bring up has been debated before and is now being ignored by you, yet again. We shouldn't have to point out the differences between public vs private, the demonizing of the subjectively "rich", how taxes hurt small business owners and all the other points you raise. We also shouldn't have to deal with your strawmen of cutting services, tax breaks and safety nets for the poor is okay statement along with "people" calling teachers rich with an "unearned life".
The only thing we can assume hayate is that a person who says he is soooo busy he can't hit the shift key once in awhile while banging out three paragraphs of recycled talking points is a liar. Or would that be keeping the issues obfuscated and a core of conservative political dialogue?
Shift Key
Submitted by Kingfish17 on Sat, 03/05/2011 - 10:27am.
Total obliteration.
Good rebuttal.
"You can’t go take a trip to Las Vegas...on the taxpayer’s dime." Barack Obama
Total obliteration, indeed, and---
Submitted by matthewdean on Sat, 03/05/2011 - 8:59pm.
an exemplary job of accomplishing same.missing point
Submitted by Agnostic on Sat, 03/05/2011 - 9:25am.
It is not about whether or not inflated salaries are OK or the value of teachers it is about government involvement and the use of taxpayer money.
The same mentality that led both sides of the aisle to voting for the lesser of two evils for POTUS has led to corporate execs inflating their salaries - lack of involvement in an investment. If shareholders were as upset and getting involved about executive pay in the same way people are upset with public unions now then you would have similar results. Unfortunately because of mutual funds and 401Ks, 403Bs, etc..., there is a similar separation between the source of the money and its use as there is in taxation. The main difference is that in the case of the teachers union people aren't seeing a return on their investment. However, when it comes to their mutual funds the investors are still seeing income though maybe more modest than they should be.
The government should not be involved in deciding private sector pay.
The government should not be involved in collecting dues for the unions - especially when those dues go for political donations.
The government should not be involved in bailing out companies just because an emergency has been declared. Have you yet to wonder how those institutions were able to pay back the loans with interest when the activities of investing and loaning capital were still down? And post a profit? And we won't even speak of the revolving door between DC and Wall Street.
No it is not what about what feels right (teachers should make more/evil corporations make too much) because in many cases you would be technically correct. It is about what is the right way to deal with such issues and if the US had a media that was more concerned with relaying information than pushing an agenda perhaps people wouldn't invest in companies that don't fairly distribute dividends or pay their executives at rates which the market doesn't support. But between the latest antics of today's celeb of the day or pushing liberal political policies the media is left with very little time to actually do things that help their audience. And I will agree it is all about entertaining for the sake of ratings but if that was their sole purpose then why are they not trying something new because they are failing.
So after three paragraphs
Submitted by bkeyser on Sat, 03/05/2011 - 11:56pm.
So after three paragraphs that -even after reading twice- have all the intellectual swagger of a Mortimer Snerd doll, you failed to answer my initial question: Am I a working class American?
Yes. No-good freeloaders.
Submitted by The Vet on Sat, 03/05/2011 - 12:56am.
Like the teachers that falied to teach you capitalization, punctuation, spelling, hyphenation, and proper grammar. Fire every single teacher that hayter1 that ever touched.
Last I checked, the super rich got something out of the 12 years of education we all have in common. More power to them. I am sending my contribution off to the super rich today. Thank you super rich. Thank you to make our lives so much better by giving us readable text.
Nearly everyone is "working class". What a stupid term
Submitted by Unsane on Sat, 03/05/2011 - 10:17pm.
Working class Americans?
I like working class Americans like Bill Gates, Steve Jobs...
"CONSUMED DEMOCRACY RETURNS A SOCIALIST REGIME" - Slayer, "Fictional Reality", from Divine Intervention (1994)
let me C
Submitted by donabernathy on Sat, 03/05/2011 - 12:28am.
90 grand a year...... 3 weeks off for Christmas... 1 week at Thanksgiving.....1 week at Easter...and 3 months for summer vacation...... whewwwwwww... I need a Break
roflmao
Jonny could not perform....
Submitted by drsamherman on Sat, 03/05/2011 - 1:19am.
...unless he had a union card from SAG, AFTRA or Actor's Equity. Would he say the same if he were a newly graduated physician with $250,000 in student loan debt and the salary of a primary care medical resident? NO. Clueless, egomanical and detached celebrity is more like it.
Humor
Submitted by Bosco1123 on Sat, 03/05/2011 - 12:57pm.
Humor appears to be dominated by the left. Could someone direct me to a right-leaning humorist? Does anyone on the right intentionally succeed at bringing out a laugh? Or, what the heck, succeed in inspiring a dialogue similar to the one Jon Stewart has inspired here?
bosco
Submitted by Radical1979 on Sat, 03/05/2011 - 1:01pm.
Greg Guttfield comes to mind. He's just not politically correct enough for the msm.
I also find Ann Coulter very funny. Sadly, her humor usually goes right over the head of the libs.
So...we don't "get" Coulter's humor?
Submitted by Jer on Sat, 03/05/2011 - 9:15pm.
Interesting. Would you care to share a couple of Ann's kneeslappers which have sailed right over the heads of us libs?
Jer
Be a waste of time, Jer---
Submitted by matthewdean on Sat, 03/05/2011 - 9:21pm.
as the retelling, too, would go right over your head.Maybe, Matthew...
Submitted by Jer on Sat, 03/05/2011 - 10:54pm.
if I were still in the third grade.
Jer
So, Jer---
Submitted by matthewdean on Sun, 03/06/2011 - 4:19am.
Is it that you don't get Coulter's humor, or is it that you don't like the fact she does such a magnificent job when she skewers your homies?Here is her last artical
Submitted by Boudin on Sat, 03/05/2011 - 9:27pm.
No doubt this should do it
Oh Gosh!
Submitted by Blonde on Sat, 03/05/2011 - 1:03pm.
So many questions, so little time!
Of course it's only possible to be funny if one has (1) leftist politics (2) a gutter mouth (3) fixation on sexual acts and also on bodily functions. How on earth could conservatives possibly be funny or find anything funny?
Jon Stewart's "thing" isn't "inspiring dialog".....why don't you troll this silliness elsewhere?
Handy Reference Guide to Obama's Gaffes and Goofs ~ Currently Numbering 200 (and Counting)
I find both Rush Limbaugh's (
Submitted by Miss_Me_Yet on Sat, 03/05/2011 - 1:55pm.
I find both Rush Limbaugh's ( on the radio ) , as well as Andrew Breitbart's ( in person ) total annhilation of everything and everyone liberal in this country piss in your pants hilarious....really I do. Ironically, you libs are just too self absorbed ( dumber than a piece of wood ) to get their PROGRESSIVE form of cutting edge, in your face, genuine American humor ( or if you prefer, political satire ).
Your only comfortable listening to the made up, retread monkey throws his own poop at the wall to see if anything sticks liberal brand of, what passes in your circle for humor, written by others then spewed from the beaks of your favorite parrots Stewart, Colbert, Maher and their token Lopez.
Limbaugh, Breitbart are the sole proprietors of their words, their business, their destiny in life, that reflect in their humor. The liberal, late night monkey on a leash crowd you libs hold so dear are nothing more than some huge conglomerates Billy Mayes ( pitchman ) that is as replaceable as my underwear.....which is reflected in every word that spews from their corporate bought and paid for beaks.
Sort of makes them the real jokes in my book.... hey you just go right on hanging on every word they say, but just be aware, those are not their words, somebody dictates to them exactly what to say. Now that IS rather funny if you ask me.
Liberals ... we can't live with them, they couldn't survive without us ...
Levin
Submitted by Unsane on Sat, 03/05/2011 - 10:20pm.
I have seen Mark Levin's presentation of his dry wit up close and personal and it was drop-dead funny.
"CONSUMED DEMOCRACY RETURNS A SOCIALIST REGIME" - Slayer, "Fictional Reality", from Divine Intervention (1994)
Funny conservatives...
Submitted by Jer on Sat, 03/05/2011 - 10:50pm.
I agree with Unsane about Levin's wit; and Rush had me laughing out loud at some of his wisecracks on the Golf Channel ["I'm just too smart for this game."]. But Breitbart? Witless...unless you consider this to be "piss-in-your-pants hilarious."
Jer
Interestng ....
Submitted by NL207 on Sat, 03/05/2011 - 10:55pm.
Those other guys are conservatives from the get-go. Breitbart is a reformed Liberal. That couldn't have anything to do with it, could it?
Doubtful...
Submitted by Jer on Sat, 03/05/2011 - 11:34pm.
Reagan was a reformed liberal and funny. Dennis Miller is a reformed liberal and extremely clever and funny. Breitbart, I suspect, has always been and will always be...witless.
Jer
Reagan was not a reformed
Submitted by NL207 on Mon, 03/07/2011 - 8:14pm.
Reagan was not a reformed liberal. He was never a liberal, though he once considered himself to be a Democrat. In fact, he said he did not leave the Democrat Party, it left him.
Dennis Miller I know nothing about.
Exactly Right
Submitted by Boudin on Mon, 03/07/2011 - 11:45pm.
Reagan was never a lib,
Nice try, Boudin..
Submitted by Jer on Tue, 03/08/2011 - 3:45pm.
"At the White House Web site, the biography of Reagan makes a brief reference to the ideological evolution in the fourth paragraph: "As president of the Screen Actors Guild, Reagan became embroiled in disputes over the issue of Communism in the film industry; his political views shifted from liberal to conservative. " [Italics mine]
Reagan voted for FDR four times.
source.
True, 1930's/40's "liberalism" isn't the same in every respect to contemporary liberalism. Neither is conservatism (the same now as it was then) for that matter. If such is the distinction you and NL wish to cling to in order to triumphantly refute the very modest point of my earlier observation that Reagan was a "reformed liberal", then knock yourselves out.
Jer
Rush is probably the funniest guy on radio or television
Submitted by Kingfish17 on Sat, 03/05/2011 - 5:47pm.
In a Yugo
"You can’t go take a trip to Las Vegas...on the taxpayer’s dime." Barack Obama
Where was that race held,
Submitted by Miss_Me_Yet on Sat, 03/05/2011 - 7:54pm.
Where was that race held, must have been Poland.
Liberals ... we can't live with them, they couldn't survive without us ...
nice range
Submitted by Bosco1123 on Sat, 03/05/2011 - 7:33pm.
Nice range of individuals. Thank you. Jon Stewart is known for denying being any thing other than a comedian. I wonder if any of these conservative folk consider themselves comedians. Gutfeld, yeah. Rush clearly enjoys teasing/jabbing the left as does his audience. Ann can be outrageous in a humorous way. Andrew always seems drunk to me.
Stewart = unfunny
Submitted by Unsane on Sat, 03/05/2011 - 10:22pm.
Jon Stewart can't be a comedian. He isn't funny.
"CONSUMED DEMOCRACY RETURNS A SOCIALIST REGIME" - Slayer, "Fictional Reality", from Divine Intervention (1994)
I'm sorry, but I find nothing remotely humorous about communism
Submitted by Dave. on Sat, 03/05/2011 - 9:33pm.
The most hideous form of government the world has yet seen directly or indirectly killed between 100 and 200 million people in the last century, depending on whose numbers you believe.
Nothing funny about that.
-Dave
Vote for the American in November
Dennis Miller.
Submitted by bkeyser on Sat, 03/05/2011 - 9:35pm.
Dennis Miller.
Listen to others for a change
Submitted by Unsane on Sat, 03/05/2011 - 9:50pm.
Oh, I don't know. I have found Rush Limbaugh to be quite entertaining.
He routinely demonstrates that Leftists have no sense of humor.
"CONSUMED DEMOCRACY RETURNS A SOCIALIST REGIME" - Slayer, "Fictional Reality", from Divine Intervention (1994)
mamabear's homework assignment
Submitted by Kingfish17 on Sun, 03/06/2011 - 1:35pm.
Ahhh....just kidding. But I thought it was a funny subject title.
I am interested, mamabear, in your opinion regarding a school voucher system. A voucher system that would be run by the states, that would give parents a voucher based on how much is currently being spent per public school student. Parents could then use this voucher to send their children to the school of their choice.
If parents wanted to send their children to the local "public school", that would be their choice. If they wanted to send their children to a school across town, they could do that too. If they wanted to suplement the amount of the voucher, and send their children to Sidwell Friends, they would have the freedom to do that too.
I think new schools would flourish that would meet the needs of both parent and student, but that's just my opinion.
What say you?
"You can’t go take a trip to Las Vegas...on the taxpayer’s dime." Barack Obama
I think voucher programs are
Submitted by mamabear on Mon, 03/07/2011 - 1:27am.
I think voucher programs are only temporary fixes. Eventually we need to figure out either how to scale up private education to meet the needs of more students or improve the public school system to meet the needs of more students. Right now you get these terrible lotteries-- as long as one option is worse than the others but someone has to attend it, you have a flawed system.
But I think vouchers and charters are a step in the right direction. The fear, and I think it is a valid one, is that those options reduce the pressure to improve public schools despite the fact that most students still have to attend them. We can decide to put our resources into private options, but if we do that we have to find a way to serve all of our students with those options.
Fear of competition
Submitted by Unsane on Mon, 03/07/2011 - 5:01pm.
So you live in total fear of competition. Got it.
"CONSUMED DEMOCRACY RETURNS A SOCIALIST REGIME" - Slayer, "Fictional Reality", from Divine Intervention (1994)
Temporary fixes?
Submitted by Cool Arrow on Mon, 03/07/2011 - 11:20pm.
Allocate just half ($5,500) ot the ($11,000, Texas) per student to each parent for purposes of private school, and suddenly the kids start getting educated and the other half of the money can stay with the taxpayers.
But hippiebear likes her cushy situation.
→ Cushybear has informed me she takes no government handouts or
Submitted by upcountrywater on Mon, 03/07/2011 - 11:40pm.
wages salaries or tips.. she is some kind of sub-contractor, or some such taxpayer free funded droid, of sorts. So she sez...
You Didn't Build That.
Yeppers
Submitted by Radical1979 on Mon, 03/07/2011 - 11:44pm.
There are TONS of institutes of higher education that don't take ANY federal money. I keep telling her I'd like to sell a bridge I own in Brooklyn, but I think she's trying to sell us one.
Cushyidiot-Math, Grant ≠ Taxes. Dat Kind thing Green Zone Ozoned
Submitted by upcountrywater on Tue, 03/08/2011 - 1:41am.
You Didn't Build That.
Attendance
Submitted by Kingfish17 on Mon, 03/07/2011 - 11:58pm.
mamabear states:
The fear, and I think it is a valid one, is that those options reduce the pressure to improve public schools despite the fact that most students still have to attend them.(end of quote)
Under a voucher system, where parents send their children to the school of their choice, why would any student....."still have to attend them"?
And as far as reducing the pressure to improve public shcools, a voucher system would insure that the public school would either continue to offer excellent education, improve, or go out of business. They would have to compete for student bodies in order to stay in business. Allowing a parent to fully pay for the school of their choice, through a voucher serves, all of our students.
"You can’t go take a trip to Las Vegas...on the taxpayer’s dime." Barack Obama
Is the problem that you are
Submitted by mamabear on Tue, 03/08/2011 - 10:44am.
Is the problem that you are talking about an ideal world and I am talking about now? Because we don't have enough private schools right now for all students to leave public school when it can't compete. That's why we end up with lotteries for students to get into the competitive, successful schools they want to. The losers of those lotteries go to the crappy public school.
That's why students still have to attend them. I'm saying trhat until we have the capacity to put all kids in private schools, we can't abandon public schools.
Private and Public and Vouchers
Submitted by Kingfish17 on Tue, 03/08/2011 - 11:55am.
If we started a voucher system in a particular state, and it should be a state by state program, everyone wouldn't send their children to a private school on day one. New private schools would open up as the need arose based on supply and demand. I think there would always be a public school system, it would just evolve and change based on customer demand.
The best thing regarding vouchers would be that parents who really cared about their children would have an option to get their kids out of a predertimined failing school, if that was the only choice. No lotteries. Every parent would be able to use their voucher as they saw fit. Our current system is a travesty with regards to too many children.
"You can’t go take a trip to Las Vegas...on the taxpayer’s dime." Barack Obama
What I suspect would happen
Submitted by Unsane on Tue, 03/08/2011 - 7:01pm.
Actually, I think that the educational landscape would resemble the world of colleges and universities with a voucher system. That's because suddenly every student would have a dollar amount attached to him in terms of the money he/she would provide to the school/school district. And everyone, even public institutions, would be forced to compete for students.
And at that point, parents and students would have to be treated like paying customers for a change.
"CONSUMED DEMOCRACY RETURNS A SOCIALIST REGIME" - Slayer, "Fictional Reality", from Divine Intervention (1994)
I think that sounds like a
Submitted by mamabear on Thu, 03/10/2011 - 11:43am.
I think that sounds like a pretty good system. All I was saying above, despite your snarkiness, was that we can't do that yet. We need more private options to give parents. We have lotteries now because there aren't enough options, and that is an unfair system. Also, we have to make sure that even the worst, cheapest options for parents provide their kids with a basically functional education, so I still think we need to figure out how to make teachers better at what they do!Make Teachers Better
Submitted by Kingfish17 on Thu, 03/10/2011 - 11:57am.
How does any trade or profession get better? The answer is competition. When schools are forced to compete for students, because of the voucher system, bad teachers will get fired. If a parent chooses to send their child to failing school with a bunch of lousy teachers, then they only have themself to blame.
It will be up to the individual schools to figure out how they can keep their teachers up to par. It won't be up to the collective.
"You can’t go take a trip to Las Vegas...on the taxpayer’s dime." Barack Obama
And I would dare say what
Submitted by Unsane on Fri, 03/11/2011 - 9:09pm.
And I would dare say what will happen is that a lot of teachers that are now labeled as being horrible just might get a new lease on life by being matched with students who DO work well with them. Entire schools and individual teachers would be forced to tailor their programs to the desires of the parents/students. This is ALSO what typically happens under competition, because the incentive to do these things will be very much present.
Under these conditions, watch the status of the teaching profession rise in stature.
But you gotta have competition.
"CONSUMED DEMOCRACY RETURNS A SOCIALIST REGIME" - Slayer, "Fictional Reality", from Divine Intervention (1994)
That might happen with some,
Submitted by mamabear on Fri, 03/11/2011 - 11:50pm.
That might happen with some, but some teachers are bad because they don't know the subject matter. There is no type of learner that does well being paired up with that teacher!Read more carefully
Submitted by Unsane on Mon, 03/14/2011 - 9:39pm.
That's why I indicated that SOME teachers that are currently seen as bad MIGHT get a new lease on life. If you suck, you just suck.
"CONSUMED DEMOCRACY RETURNS A SOCIALIST REGIME" - Slayer, "Fictional Reality", from Divine Intervention (1994)