Teachers’ demands, productivity at odds
It is interesting that the teachers are wanting a pay raise (“Teachers turn up negotiating heat,” Aug. 27) even though their productivity, as measured by CSAP scores, is stagnant at best. Teaching is a profession where the rewards for accomplishment should be highly correlated to results produced.
To simply reward poor teachers with a pay raise of any significance is counterproductive. Situations where the CSAP scores are stagnant call for a stagnant salary or, in many cases, a severe reduction in salary.
In many professions, workers are “at will” employees who either produce according to specifications and expectations or they are properly disciplined, reduced in stature and salary or removed from service. It is time to rethink the concept that salaries can only increase.
An increase in employee involvement is the remedy.
The teachers union and DCTA seem to think that the best defense is to go on the offensive and demand higher teacher salaries, more teacher involvement in curricula design and more say in school reforms. This defense has more holes in it than the Denver Broncos’.
Gary Leininger, Lakewood
Why should teacher's be any different than US politicians, don't they, US pols, give themselves a rasie every year no matter how much they fail the United States?
Posted by legal on September 6, 2007 02:11 AMcsap scores would increase in dps if they were in spanish and asked no questions that related to any in the learning of US history or math or ENGLISH.
Teachers use to teach the 3 R's but that is too hard on some so it is all touchy feely classes now. the dont worry about spelling or reading anymore as all kids get moved up a grade so they wont feel bad about not being able to read or write.
CSAPs are empty posturing by politicians. They waste time and learning. They have no relationship to being educated, none. Get rid of these idiotic tests, cut class sizes dramatically and dont force schools to pass everyone, things might change. But not in our lifetimes.
Posted by sly on September 6, 2007 06:07 AMMr. Leininger,
Interesting that you say "an increase in employee involvement is the remedy". Most teachers work far beyond their contractual hours for no extra pay. This time includes working with students after school, attending conferences and back-to-school night, grading papers and lesson planning, attending meetings and classes.
I invite you to drop by any public school (I teach at one in Lakewood, your home town) and follow in the actual steps of a teacher for a week or even for one day.
And 05:27 AM -- good Lord! How dare you complain about English skills when the number of grammar and compositional errors in your post is appalling? Maybe you need to attend one or two of those DPS English classes and pick up a few basic skills before writing in and confirming your illiteracy?
Posted by Tom on September 6, 2007 06:17 AMhey tom maybe he went to dps and that is why his skills dont meet your approval.
tom says,
This time includes working with students after school, attending conferences and back-to-school night, grading papers and lesson planning, attending meetings and classes. and you say most teachers work past their contractual hours. how nice of them to show professionalism. what about the others?
sound like a normal business day in the real world to me. remember you are a salary paid professional and that means you do what it takes to get the job done. i understand that for a government employee that is very hard to understand but it is the way life is.
Posted by on September 6, 2007 06:34 AMThe question about pay can be easily resolved. Divide annual salary by the total number of hours per year worked. Then compare that number to other professions.
Tom, even if 5:27 is not being sardonic, you fail to appreciate that someone could wish that his children were better educated than he is. Even if he is missing basic skills, his opinions matter in a republic.
A note to everyone out there and especially teachers: Every-body thinks they are over-worked and under-paid, but teachers seem to whine about it the most. If you wanted to be paid like an engineer; maybe you should have majored in engineering. I can't believe most teachers didn't realise that teaching is not one of the highest paying professions.
GG
Posted by GG on September 6, 2007 07:27 AMThat's why we have to get rid of the teachers union.They don't care the teachers are incompetent.The dems like the teachers union because they get there cut.
Posted by Keith on September 6, 2007 08:18 AMI would love to see some of these whiners step into the shoes of a teacher for a single day.
Posted by Romulus on September 6, 2007 08:34 AMTeachering is a noble profession. It is a falsehood that they are poorly paid. They make more then many professions on average. Considering, spring break, holidays, winter break and summer break, they have considerable time off. Personally, I have a higher education then most teachers and am paid a simular amount. (without the time off). Perhaps an unhappy teacher would like to walk in my shoes for a year. You might be more appreciative of what you have.
Posted by T on September 6, 2007 09:06 AMEvery now and then your child gets a teacher that is one in a million.
My daughter had one last year in 4th grade.
She teaches because she cares and she is dedicated her life to teaching every student and bringing them the joy of learning.
She was an engineer and decided to become a teacher. I am glad she did , because she taught my daughter so much last year. She challenged her at ever level and my daughter has experienced what she is capable of and is now working to get into a pre-baccalaureate program next year in 6th grade.
This teacher has traveled the world and has been able to teach children they can do anything and be anything.Her father was a Ambassador to Egypt and India when she was a little girl.
Do you think she teaches for the money?
I doubt it. She teaches because she actually wants to make a difference and inspire children. She inspired my daughter and I thank her for that every time I see her.
I just wish we had more , one in a million teachers.
One thing that comes to mind on how special she is.
My children's school pulls kids out of class and has assemblies for fund raisers.As you parents out there know the school seems to have a new fund raiser every few weeks.
This teacher refuses to let her class participate . She thinks it is a waste of school time and will not budge on her position with the principal.I admire her for standing up to the principal and saying enough with losing class time for pep rallies to sell junky stuff.
She is definately , one in a million.
I wish we had more teachers like her.
Posted by Can I get an AMEN! on September 6, 2007 09:45 AMIt's way too simplistic to measure teachers' productivity solely by test scores. There are a host of other factors involved, especially a child's homelife. Teachers alone cannot guarantee a child will get the most of their education.
So, the letter writer's entire complaint is based on a faulty premise.
I'm also puzzled why he would think teachers are erroneous to want more involvement and influence in curriculum changes and school reforms? It seems they are the ones in the best position to see what's most effective and what's not in terms of educating our children. This is plain common sense (something which several posters on this thread appear to have a complete lack of).
Posted by mytwosense on September 6, 2007 09:49 AMGary seems to think that education is about teachers rather than about students.
If the teachers are doing a poor job, as he thinks is the case, so that the children are not getting a good education, his "remedy" is to, by God, reprimand teachers by not increasing their salaries, and by reducing the salaries of some, as though any of that will improve the education the children are getting.
I presume that either Gary does not have children or that he is not that interested in the education of the ones he does have.
There are new teachers coming in all the time. There are "old" teachers leaving all the time. What is a good way to entice the really talented prospects to become teachers? What is a good way to entice the really good teachers to stay? Gary apparently thinks the answer is to keep the salaries low.
It would be great if we could come up with a workable merit pay program. But until we do, there are still children in school who need to be educated. Keeping a lid on salaries because there are some teachers who don't perform well is not the way to improve their education.
Gary, can you spell c-h-i-l-d-r-e-n?
There are those who think there are human beings and there are teachers, and that they are not the same. These people think that teachers should be satisfied with low salaries because they have the privilege of taking care of our future. They think teachers, unlike human beings, are not interested in financial reward. Indeed, many teachers do voluntarily sacrifice more money for the satisfaction of teaching. But they are human and they do have families. That may surprise some people.
Gary doesn't seem to know much about education. The people who know about education are the teachers in the classroom, not the suits in the fancy administration building. To the extent we get more input from the teachers and less from the suits, our children will be better off.
I have been appalled at the policy of the school district my granddaughter attends that doesn't allow the children to take home their math books because "the parents don't have the necessary training to work with those books". I can't imagine a teacher who wouldn't want to equip parents with the tools they need to actively participate in their children's education. Yet, they are not listened to. I'm all in favor of reducing the salaries of the people in the big offices, and in favor of having the offices turned into classrooms and moving the administration offices to those temporary buildings.
Terrific post, Truth!
Posted by mytwosense on September 6, 2007 10:57 AMCompetitiuon...choice...VOUCHERS:
Monopolies are always hostile to the consumer, and educational monopolies are no different. Public education is a failure and its getting worse; the educational monopoly is strangling the tax paying consumer.
We don't need yet another Ritter "commission" to tell us that a high school graduates should be capable of reading, writting and doing arithmetic. Its the teachers union and people like Ritter who are in charge of the "dumbing-down" process who are the problem, they are not the solution.
Posted by Hank on September 6, 2007 11:12 AMTruth, You and I have had this discussion before about the school district our children attend.
Their policies are based on what they think and not what the teachers and parents know.
Teachers and parents are on the front lines everyday,at least the ones that care.
I have a question to ask you.
I have seen some horrible teachers in the school. This is not just my opinion. Many parents have complained about this one teacher for over 5 years. Even a district 50 administrator who is my daughters Godfather complained about this same teacher.Nothing has been done. Should she get a raise?Should she be rewarded with more money when she has so many complaints agsainst her?
How about the teacher I descibed in my earlier post? What does she deserve? She goes beyond the scope of teacher duties.
She is the one that gave me the information on what math book your grandchild would need.No other teacher would give me that information.She believes there are parents who are engaged in their childs education and goes out of her way to help them ,help there children.
Like I said in my earlier post she is a one in a million teacher.
How do we pay the great ones?How do we not reward the bad ones? There are some bad teachers out there.
What is your solution?
I believe teachers should be paid more money, but not across the board.There needs to be a way to reward the good ones and get rid of the bad ones.
Posted by Can I get an AMEN! on September 6, 2007 11:23 AMAmen, I believe one of Truth's solutions is to empower teachers more, rather than administrators.
It stands to reason that if teachers don't have much of a say in curriculum, it makes no sense to blame them for public school woes. It also stands to reason that the way to retain talent is to pay them decently and give them more autonomy and say.
With the above in mind, why is there such a focus on "punishing the bad teachers"? Such a singular focus requires a fundamental assumption that teachers are to blame for most of the problems within our public school system. Which requires the additional assumption that teachers have more power over curriculum decisions than they really do.
Posted by mytwosense on September 6, 2007 11:33 AMGod, I can't believe posts like GG's.
Teachers are so underappreciated. Most go into teaching knowing full well it's going to involve sacrifice- personal money out of pocket for additional supplies, unpaid time for grading homework, conferences, etc. Then you throw in the restrictions they have to work under, and the idiotic irate parents who are mad their kid got an F or expect teachers to do their parenting for them. It's no wonder they get burnt out. So why do they do it? Because they love children and want to make a difference. My son's grandmother (my ex MIL) retired after 30 years of teaching, and she's my hero for hanging in that long. My son's special education teachers are my heroes!
That said, I don't agree with the mentality of "you knew what you were getting into". Just because they became teachers out of love for children and to make a difference doesn't mean they have to be doormats and don't have a right to try for change. Things won't change unless you advocate for it. But be prepared for idiots like the one on this blog who berate you for it.
How would YOU like to spend an extra 4-5 hours EVERY day at work, and not get paid for it or even get a word of appreciation? How would you like to have to purchase additional office supplies? etc etc etc. Teachers don't get paid nearly enough for the crap they have to put up with. Teaching is one of the most valuable and needed professions out there, right next to doctors, firefighters, police, etc. They should be paid accordingly. We need to revamp our educational system significantly.
Don't blame teachers for the bad policies of the district, or the deficiencies of the educational system.
Posted by fiesty on September 6, 2007 12:21 PMI have been a recent convert to the trials and tribulations of the teaching profession. While I believe that merit should be the determining factor for pay increases, and for those pay increases, the very VERY generous health benefits may need to be scaled to be more in line with "corporate" insurance, I do not believe that teachers are the core problem within education.
I believe the first finger may be pointed at the politicians, who mandate from afar, and do not provide funding or instruction in support of that mandate.
I believe that administrations are the second most faulty group. They dictate to the teachers to "teach to the test" to assure federal funding. They allow for social promotion, and do not allow the teachers to do what they do best, improvise and teach as their STUDENTS need to be taught.
Thirdly, I blame the union, for it's one size fits all solutions. It protects the worst teacher the same is it protects, and frankly, rewards, the best teacher. That is socialism, and nothing else.
Fourthly, I would place blame directly on the lack of parental involvement in their children's education. Kids are in school, under instruction for, roughly 1025 hours in a school year (state law mandates 1800 hours for high school, and 990 hours for elementary school, but can slip to 1056 and 968 do to conferences and so forth). They are not in school for 7735 hours the rest of the year. Parents need to be involved.
Finally, teachers have a responsibility to do their job, which is to educate. Since state law does demand 1800 hours, their salary should be comparative to, and adjusted for, regular full time salaries. The "average work year" is 2080 hours. The median income for Colorado teachers in 2002-2003 (last data I could find) was $42,679, adjusted for a full time position, would be $49,317. The median income in Colorado during that time was $49,400 (for a FAMILY), I would say teachers are doing fairly well.
Fiesty comments "how would you like to spend an extra 4-5 hours EVERY day at work, and not get paid for it..." 60 hour weeks, for 9 months of the year? I WOULD LOVE IT!!!
Posted by Dan2 on September 6, 2007 01:09 PMI have some friends who teach and I asked them about CSAP (i have no kids at present, so I don't have a dog in this hunt).
It seems strange to hold schools and teachers accountable to test (CSAP) when:
A) the students take the test and
B) the students have no incentive whatsoever to do well (they try if they feel like trying or they fail if they don't care enough to try).
Also, if a kid opts out (and they have the option) the school will get a zero score on that test, thus affect the overall average or aggragate score (negatively). That's according to my friends, the teachers.
So, it seems (and anyone please correct me here if this is wrong) that the school's funding and a teacher's pay is at the mercy of a student taking a test that has no baring or consequence for the student.
Seems lame in my book. I'm not against testing per se, but make that test matter to the students...make it a requirement to move to the next grade level.
just my thoughts, no flame wars this time... :D
Posted by Grim Reefer on September 6, 2007 01:17 PM"Fiesty comments "how would you like to spend an extra 4-5 hours EVERY day at work, and not get paid for it..." 60 hour weeks, for 9 months of the year? I WOULD LOVE IT!!!"
A lot of Americans have an unhappy home life. But I doubt the ones that do make the best teachers.
Posted by on September 6, 2007 06:48 PM"Fiesty comments "how would you like to spend an extra 4-5 hours EVERY day at work, and not get paid for it..." 60 hour weeks, for 9 months of the year? I WOULD LOVE IT!!!"
A lot of Americans have an unhappy home life. But I doubt the ones that do make the best teachers.
Posted by Truth on September 6, 2007 06:49 PM"The median income in Colorado during that time was $49,400 (for a FAMILY), I would say teachers are doing fairly well."
But what is the median income for lawyers and doctors and engineers and other professionals? A lot of us think that teachers are as or more important than these professionals are, so why are they treated as part of the general public, which includes people who work at McDonalds?
Figures from looking at Google:
ENGINEERS:
"the median annual income for someone with a B.S. in engineering is $77,000, while a master's in engineering degree brings a salary of $82,333, according to the "National Society of Professional Engineers (NSPE) 2002 Income & Salary Survey Report." If you have a master's in engineering and an MBA, you can bring in $95,100. If you go all the way and earn your doctorate in engineering, expect to earn about $105,500-up $3,743 from a year ago."
"An engineer with no licensing and certification has a median income of $68,000, but one with a professional engineer (PE) license has a median income of $79,000."
LAWYERS:
"In May 2004, the median annual earnings of all lawyers were $94,930. The middle half of the occupation earned between $64,620 and $143,620."
DOCTORS:
Family practice: $137,119
Pediatrics: $132,953
On up to;
Anesthesiologists: $259,946.
VETERINARIANS:
"According to AVMA data, the median professional income in 2003 for female veterinarians in private practice was $62,500, compared with $98,500 for male veterinarians. In public or corporate practice, the median professional income for female veterinarians was $80,500, compared with $104,500 for male veterinarians."
ARCHITECTS:
"While architects’ salaries continue to grow, they still pale in comparison to lucrative professions like law and medicine. According to the U.S. Bureau of Labor statistics, the mean yearly income for architects in 2004 was $66,230, compared to $108,790 for lawyers and $137,610 for physicians and surgeons. At the other end of the scale, an artists’ mean annual income is $37,490."
Other information from various Google sites on median income:
"WASHINGTON, D.C.—Colorado ranked 21st in the nation for its average teacher salary in 2003-04, according
to the American Federation of Teachers’ (AFT) annual teacher salary survey, released today. Colorado was one of 28 states where the increase in average teacher salary was lower than the national rate of inflation. The average teacher salary in Colorado for the 2003-04 school year was $43,318, up 1.5 percent from the previous year. Colorado ranked 19th in the nation for average beginning teacher salary, at $31,296, a decrease of
2.5 percent from 2002-03."
"$79,946 national average salary for adults (in 2006) with a master's, professional or doctoral degree.
$19,915 average salary for adults (in 2006) with less than a high school diploma.
$54,689 average salary for adults (in 2005) with a bachelor's degree.
$29,448 average salary for adults (in 2005) with a high school diploma."
Are we attracting the best quality personnel to the profession? Are we keeping the best quality personnel? If not, it doesn't make any difference whether or not Dan 2 thinks teachers are doing fairly because our children are not getting what we want them to, or should want them to.
Posted by Truth on September 6, 2007 08:33 PMromulus,I would teach those kids more facts than og,drew,charles b.,truth,mike d.,etc., have leaned in a lifetime.
Posted by Keith on September 6, 2007 09:10 PMOnce again, Truth cuts and pastes irrelevant information without providing any analysis of the data.
What is the meaning of posting the median lawyer's salary of $94,930? Does the lawyer get graded based on his performance? Can the lawyer lose his job due to poor performance? Does a lawyer have to pass a lengthy examination in addition to completing his law degree? Here's another question for you Truth: who earns more, the public attorney or the private attorney?
All of the salaries you listed are set by the free market, not the government. Let schools, tutors, teachers, and all other groups compete for school vouchers and education will improve drastically.
Posted by John II on September 6, 2007 09:28 PMVouchers, i.e. siphoning public money into the pockets of the privateers, are a horrible idea. They will create elite and segregated schools, and thus neighborhoods - driving up even more the price of housing - but worst of all, they'll leave behind a lot of kids who will have to settle for an education at schools that are barely funded after the privateers have ripped off all the funds.
Which will create a class forced to settle for low wages...which is exactly what people like John II want to see in this country. Modern day feudalism.
Posted by mytwosense on September 6, 2007 10:41 PMmytwosense,
What do you base those wild assertions on? School vouchers help the poor. It puts money into the hands of the poor and gives them the power to influence "privateers". Oh, and by the way, schools are already segregated.
Posted by John II on September 6, 2007 10:53 PMJohn II: "All of the salaries you listed are set by the free market, not the government."
Does John II have some point he is trying to make? Is he saying teachers are well paid or poorly paid? Naturally John II doesn't make clear what his point is, if indeed he has a point.
As for what MyTwoSense is basing her remarks on, it is no wonder that John II doesn't know, because it is common sense, something John II lacks in spades.
Posted by Truth on September 7, 2007 06:06 AMJohn II: "All of the salaries you listed are set by the free market, not the government."
I expect John II is one of the few adults in the world who doesn't realize that the federal and state governments hire a very large number of the professionals I mentioned.
Will John II now come forth with information about how the salaries for private school teachers is more than, less than, or the same as those for public school teachers? Of course not, that would take something besides sound bytes.
Posted by Truth on September 7, 2007 06:10 AMDan 2: "The median income for Colorado teachers in 2002-2003 (last data I could find) was $42,679, adjusted for a full time position, would be $49,317."
He's a sly fox, that one. Although he is typically unclear about how he arrived at the $49,317 figure, it looks like he is considering that teachers are part time employees, and that, like high school kids, they should get summer jobs mowing lawns or whatever.
Dan 2's assertion that he has at long last become sympathetic to teachers is laughable.
Posted by Truth on September 7, 2007 06:14 AMJohn II: "What is the meaning of posting the median lawyer's salary of $94,930? Does the lawyer get graded based on his performance? Can the lawyer lose his job due to poor performance? Does a lawyer have to pass a lengthy examination in addition to completing his law degree?"
Does John II doubt that there are excellent school teachers making those low salaries? Only a fool would doubt that. It could be, therefore, that John II does. Does he doubt that there are some pretty poor lawyers out there making those high salaries? Lawyers didn't get their reputations by passing bar exams and spending a few hours taking a test. Do we want teachers who have the same reputations as lawyers? I don't think so.
Posted by Truth on September 7, 2007 06:24 AMTruth uttered:
"As for what MyTwoSense is basing her remarks on, it is no wonder that John II doesn't know, because it is common sense, something John II lacks in spades."
The common sense of socialists.
Let me get this straight: Truth and mytwosense oppose giving poor people money to spend on the school of their choice. Am I misstating your position? And the reasoning behind such opposition is that such a plan will result in a feudal system where public money is siphoned to privateers which would create elite, segregated schools and consequently drive up the cost of homes while at the same time creating a class forced to settle for low wages. And the rational for such reasoning is that it's common sense and anyone who questions it must, therefore, lack common sense.
Brilliant.
Posted by John II on September 7, 2007 08:44 AMJohn II, vouchers give people some money to spend on private school, yes - that is, if they can get their kid in, considering there is already an endless line of others clamoring to get in. Vouchers don't and won't necessarily cover the whole cost, either, especially if private school tuition costs outpace tax increases. And surely you don't want to see more tax increases, in any case.
The access to a truly affordable education for everyone until they are adults in this country is one of the defining reasons we've been so successful. You, predictably, want to take that access away and put it into the pockets of the privateers. Call me a socialist all you want, if that's what I am compared to what you advocate - thievery of public monies and resources.
And for what? So we can end up with a third-world literacy populace? My sister just came back from a mission trip to Ghana. The government there only funds an education up until the third grade. Well, take a look for yourself at the economy of that country, and tell me if that's what you want for this one.
Your predictable claims that privatizing everything will result in more "efficiency" or whatever it is you think it will result in are based on a fantasy of wishing economic THEORIES provided the answer for every societal issue.
This country has a history and will have a future of collective efforts. Along with a respect for individual rights and achievements. The latter does not mean stealing what we've accomplished with the former and shoving it into the pockets of privateers. It's a shame you can't seem to determine the difference.
Here's a novel thought: instead of blaming, as usual, the worker (in the case of public education, the teachers), why don't we take a long look at some other factors that could be driving the dumbing down of our kids? How about the fact that so many are glued to video games or cell phone texting a good deal of the day? And who is enticing them to want all the latest gadgets? Big Business, that's who. And yet, people like John II want to turn our education system over to Big Business! I can see it now - "Chain" schools. Ugh.
mytwosense,
"John II, vouchers give people some money to spend on private school, yes - that is, if they can get their kid in, considering there is already an endless line of others clamoring to get in."
Supply adjusts to demand.
"Vouchers don't and won't necessarily cover the whole cost, either, especially if private school tuition costs outpace tax increases."
Tuition will increase. This is a similar problem with free government-backed college tuition loans. Do you oppose that? I do believe that education at the lower levels is much more fluid than college and newer, more creative methods for teaching kids will keep costs down. For example, I believe technology will play a much larger role in educating our kids in the near future.
"Your predictable claims that privatizing everything will result in more "efficiency" or whatever it is you think it will result in are based on a fantasy of wishing economic THEORIES provided the answer for every societal issue."
Competition works, mytwosense. I realize this is the hardest thing for a socialist to accept and the main reason why the Soviet Union failed.
There are economic principles beyond economic theories. Have you ever read a book on economics? Perhaps, I can take you more seriously when you function less as an emotional sciolist and more as an erudite and rational person. Your use of phrases such as "privateer", "thievery", "third-world literacy" stems from emotionalism and not logic. You have a history on this forum of arguing from an emotional standpoint.
"Here's a novel thought: instead of blaming, as usual, the worker (in the case of public education, the teachers), why don't we take a long look at some other factors that could be driving the dumbing down of our kids?"
This is your only valid point. I'm not just blaming the teachers. I blame the whole system. Culture plays a huge part in the "dumbing down of our kids". It's not big business's fault. Yes, big business makes and markets video games and cell phones. Can most kids afford these things without the help of their parents? No. So, how do you propose to improve the cultural aspect?
As for "chain schools", isn't that what we already have in regards to government-run schools?
Posted by John II on September 7, 2007 10:37 AMJohn II, I took economics classes in college as part of my bachelor's degree in business requirements, supplemented of course by plenty of economic textbooks. That being said, I got my degree from just a plain old State U, and never went beyond a bachelor's, so I'm sure that won't pass muster with an - I believe the word was "erudite"? - such as yourself.
You can resort to the usual put-downs if you like. I realize (and am grateful of) that we're diametric opposites. The fact that unlike you, I require more than someone's dogged devotion to economic theories to take someone's views on public education and other societal issues seriously is just one more difference between us.
Still, let's talk about one of your economic sticking points:
"Supply adjusts to demand." How do you propose to apply that "principle" to a lower-income, hell, a middle class income family who slowly but surely is having to pay the full cost of their children's education once the privateers have looted our public school system? And those costs, like other fixed costs - i.e., healthcare, mortgages - steadily increase each year? You know the costs will rise, you said so yourself in your post. So I fail to see how "competition" will make privatized education affordable.
John II, you can foreclose on a house and become a renter...but how do you foreclose on your child's education? What do you replace it with?
Ah yes, "technology" you suggest. I suppose by that, you mean plunking down the kids who eventually won't be able to afford to attend human taught schools anymore in front of TVs and computers to gain their education that way.
A great way to prepare them for their eventual workplace where they get their orders from computers and machines...not so great for increasing their literacy levels. But you know that. You know this would also contribute to creating a whole new dumbed down, subservient class.
Emotionally-based assertions? Well...let's see how honest you can be and at least acknowledge that coupled with the rightwing goal to eliminate public education opportunities is the goal to eliminate tax funding of public education. So, while vouchers will inevitably shrink or stay stagnant each year, private tuition will cost more and more. Especially with the "value add ons" corporations so love including in their business models. I can see it now - levels of education. Do you want the basic version of eighth grade - or our deluxe premium level?
Even now, a voucher doesn't cover the cost of many private schools, and the ones that do, are harder to get into because the wait times are so long.
In fact, some studies show that more vouchers are being used by kids already enrolled in private schools. (Yet another siphoning of public money to go into the already well-lined pockets of the elite!)
My viewpoints, John II, are based simply on paying attention to what goes on in the world every day and taking heed of historic patterns. Supplemented by getting information from enough of a variety of sources that I can conclude certain things on as objective a basis as possible (unlike you who appears to rely solely on the zealous Cato Institute for your stats and information).
Still, even with a general knowledge of many topics, like most people, I have only a concentrated understanding of just a few.
In other words, I will be learning until the day I die. But I can tell you this: I will never, ever be deluded enough to think I've got all the answers to the world's problems figured out just because I've read a volume of books on supply side economics.
Posted by mytwosense on September 7, 2007 11:36 AMAnother emotionally-based response.
"John II, I took economics classes in college as part of my bachelor's degree in business requirements, supplemented of course by plenty of economic textbooks. That being said, I got my degree from just a plain old State U, and never went beyond a bachelor's, so I'm sure that won't pass muster with an - I believe the word was "erudite"? - such as yourself."
I recall you mentioning you majored in Business Administration, I believe. I hate to tell you this but a BA in anything is largely worthless. I'm sure you've probably realized this already.
"The fact that unlike you, I require more than someone's dogged devotion to economic theories to take someone's views on public education and other societal issues seriously is just one more difference between us."
Are you not dogged in your own anti-capitalist views? The difference between my view and yours is that mine has been proven over and over again to work better than yours.
""Supply adjusts to demand." How do you propose to apply that "principle" to a lower-income, hell, a middle class income family who slowly but surely is having to pay the full cost of their children's education once the privateers have looted our public school system?"
Who is looting? The money is given to the citizens and they can spend on whichever school they want. You call that looting? If so, you are too far gone to continue any meaningful conversation.
"And those costs, like other fixed costs - i.e., healthcare, mortgages - steadily increase each year? You know the costs will rise, you said so yourself in your post. So I fail to see how "competition" will make privatized education affordable."
Does the school budget increase every year? Again, the goal is to allow a variety of educational resources to compete for the school vouchers. This will keep costs down.
"John II, you can foreclose on a house and become a renter...but how do you foreclose on your child's education? What do you replace it with?"
Another emotionally charged word: Foreclosure. The only thing that is being foreclosed is an old-fashioned concept of government-run education. It will be replaced by something much better.
"Ah yes, "technology" you suggest. I suppose by that, you mean plunking down the kids who eventually won't be able to afford to attend human taught schools anymore in front of TVs and computers to gain their education that way.A great way to prepare them for their eventual workplace where they get their orders from computers and machines...not so great for increasing their literacy levels. But you know that. You know this would also contribute to creating a whole new dumbed down, subservient class. "
Uh, not quite, mytwosense. Sitting in front of a computer is the future for most workers whether or not they went to private or public schools. Computers are the future. Computers increase the learning requirements, not decrease them. The capability to teach kids via computer technology will be one of the most significant advances in education. This technology requires an increase in literacy levels, not a decrease.
"So, while vouchers will inevitably shrink or stay stagnant each year, private tuition will cost more and more. Especially with the "value add ons" corporations so love including in their business models. I can see it now - levels of education. Do you want the basic version of eighth grade - or our deluxe premium level?"
Who says vouchers will stay stagnant? Does the current school budget stay stagnant? And why would you oppose "value add ons"? Perhaps, people might want the "deluxe premium level". Why would you want to take away that option?
"Supplemented by getting information from enough of a variety of sources that I can conclude certain things on as objective a basis as possible (unlike you who appears to rely solely on the zealous Cato Institute for your stats and information)."
You have no idea where I get my information from or my education level. Cato is just one of my sources. But, my greatest source is my own mind.
As for reading a "few volumes" of supply-side economics, I'd like to ask you how many volumes you've read? I can assure you that I've read more than just a few volumes. In fact, I have a home library that would put some public libraries to shame. It is your own emotional roadblocks that prevent you from understanding basic economics. "The swindler swindles himself." Remove your roadblocks and let me teach you what I know. In the end, you'll come out ahead of the mindless bourgeois masses. Refuse my instruction, and you're just another know-nothing liberal on the same level with the morons in Hollywood.
Posted by John II on September 7, 2007 12:20 PMSorry Truth, I thought I made it clear when I said teachers are required BY LAW to work 1800 hours. The average work year is 2080 hours. It is simple math. Take the annual median salary of a teacher and divide by 1800. Then take that HOURLY rate and multiply it by 2080. This is the way we figure salary in the corporate world. Maybe a place you know nothing about?
Truth compares teachers salaries to "other professionals" Nice apples and oranges comparison using that all wonderful salary comparison tool "google." Good for you Truth. How about a comparison to other Union represented employees? Or Government represented employees? Or even looking at years of education and criteria for achievement of degree? You see Truth, I make my living by knowing these facts and statistics. You pull them from Google. Good for you!
We are also forced, when making apples to apples comparisons, to review the longevity and typical length of employment median for the teaching profession. 7 years. That is the median length of service for the teaching profession. 7 years. Hard to build equity when you only stay in the profession, on average for 7 years (data received from COGNOS" 2007 median tenure report - by subscription). Shall we look at the median tenure of your other professions?
Attorney - 27 years
Engineer - 35 years
Physician 38 years
Architects - data not available
I think teachers get WAY too much heat, and not nearly the support. But I am not going to cry them a river because they chose a profession that typically doesn't pay well, is beholden to their union, and in which they don't typically serve their entire career.
Truth hates, well the truth. I think I may just stop not liking him, and feel pity for this bitter old man, who's apparent only reference is Google.
As for MTS and John II arguing about choice schools....
I moved from Milwaukee a few years ago. They have had choice schools for now, 10 years. They are working. It has improved the public school system with competition, and has actually brought over-sight to the private and parochial schools. The Democratic Governor is now considering expanding this program to Racine and Dane Counties. This is an example of success in education. In fact, the only negative analysis comes from, WEAC, which is the Wisconsin Education Association Council.
My question to Truth and MTS would be, why is it only public educators that have such an issue with pay and salary, and not those employed (usually at a MUCH cheaper salary) by private education facilities? Could it be that it is really the UNION that is out front on this issue, because the UNION would love to collect their percentage of dues on a higher base salary? The solution to this is very simple. Increase the median pay to teachers to $61,800 for 4 years of service, but make them pay for their own health care costs. Quid Pro Quo.
Posted by Dan2 on September 7, 2007 12:31 PMI wanted to take the time to actually do a little bit of research on salaries, comparisons throughout industry, regulatory over-sight and licensure. Truth, as we all have read, compared teachers to “other professionals” throughout the US (instead of Colorado). Well here is some additional comparative analysis of “other professions” under similar circumstances and educational requirements in COLORADO.
According to COGNOS data, and supported by the Colorado Police Association, and the IFFA – Denver chapter, the median salary for Colorado Police Officers is $46,596 (current). Median pay for city of Denver Firefighters is $49,580 (current). Both professional organizations, don’t you think? Also, according to the civil service exam, the requirements for city of Denver police and firefighters is as follows:
Must posses a high school degree or GED, pass a physical agility exam, mental examination, criminal and civil background investigation, and completion of both written and oral examination.
As a comparison, the requirements to become a licensed teacher in the city of Denver are as follows:
An initial license may be issued to applicants who have completed an approved education preparation program in Colorado and can provide evidence of a passing score for their content area assessment. An approved program is: a program of study for educators, including student teaching, that upon completion leads to the recommendation of licensure from an accredited institution of higher education.
To be compared to an attorney, or a physician, is a drastic stretch of the imagination. Maybe, a more appropriate comparison, if you don’t want to compare to other civil servants in a union environment, would be to nurses. Nurses require additional education and training, as well as mandatory refreshers to maintain their licenses. The median income of registered nurses in Colorado according to the Colorado State Fiscal Impact Study of 2002, is $40,690, a full $8500 less than teachers.
Now, I know that Truth was just attempting to discredit me by focusing on money, and completely ignored the rest of my comments, but really, you care to try again Truth, or is that just too much factual information for you to handle? And I would like to close with one final question to Truth. I have asked you on now 5 occasions, for full disclosure, what is your employment and educational history? I think the people have a right to quantify your remarks and vet them against your actual knowledge base, don’t you? I will, as usual, freely admit that I am a corporate recruiter, and hold a BA in History and an MA in Human Resources. What do you (did you) do again Truth?
John II,
As a coroporate recruiter, I have to say that your assessment of a BA degree is not, as you said "largely worthless. " A BBA in finance for example (Bachelors of Business Administration) is actually well respected, depending of course on the institution granting that degree. But a more "liberal arts" degree is typically considered more valuable than a direct "science degree," especially at the bachelor level, as it typically shows a more rounded individiual, that is able to think on a more critical level. Of course this all depends on desired employment opportunity. A BA in Literature is not going to get you a job in Qualitiy Assurance, but it most likely will advance you further than a BS in management, especially within a CPG environment. From direct experience.
Posted by Dan2 on September 7, 2007 02:05 PMDan2,
As someone who works in more than just a recruiter level (and I've worked with tons of recruiters) I can tell you that a BA in any degree is no where near as important as it used to be. I work at the hiring level. A BA is so common that it is useless. Every moron nowadays has a BA in something. College has become so commonplace that it is no longer the distinguishing factor in most high level jobs. In fact, the main reason Indians and the Chinese are taking many of our high-tech jobs is due to the fact the our current crop of college grads are wholly inadequate in providing the expected value in their job roles. College is a waste of money. Private certification will eventually become more important than whether or not an 18 year-old student spent two years in women's studies and sociology.
Posted by John II on September 7, 2007 02:30 PMBy the way, Dan2, admitting you're a "corporate recruiter" is like admitting you're a used-car salesman. It's not a exactly a highly regarded job title in the corporate role.
Posted by John II on September 7, 2007 02:36 PMin the corporate world...
Posted by John II on September 7, 2007 02:38 PMAgree to some extent. Although, I am not your typical "recruiter." I happen to consult for one of the bigger corporations in the area. I am who you would gain advice from in your evaluation of candidate potential. What is it that you actually do John, if I may be so bold to inquire? You don't have to provide the company name, wouldn't want you to get in trouble. If you feel like it.
Posted by Dan2 on September 7, 2007 02:39 PMJohn,
Haha.. I like that. You are confusing me with the 3rd party recruiters - head hunters, or worse yet, staffing agents (gasp). I am actually retained right now here in Colorado to assist with the recruitment and rentention (as well as change management) programs of $1+ billion employer in the Greater Denver area.
Off subject.
I have been flirting a bit with the formation of a new party (although have not done any due diligence yet). Thinking of calling it the Constitutionalist Party. What do you think?
Posted by Dan2 on September 7, 2007 02:46 PMDan 2: "Sorry Truth, I thought I made it clear when I said teachers are required BY LAW to work 1800 hours. The average work year is 2080 hours. It is simple math. Take the annual median salary of a teacher and divide by 1800. Then take that HOURLY rate and multiply it by 2080. This is the way we figure salary in the corporate world. Maybe a place you know nothing about?"
So, Dan 2 is sympathetic to teachers? This guy has the gall to post that the median income of teachers is $49,000+ even though he knows they in fact receive in median income some $42000+. He is using "phantom income" that the teachers do not get to paint a wholly fabricated picture of how much teachers get to live on.
Of course, this guy, who claims to be sympathetic to teachers, also claims they work only 1,800 hours. What rubbish!!!! The pay teachers get is not just for 1800 hours, it is for whatever number of hours they work.
It seems clear that Dan 2 must have been abused by a teacher when he was in school and has hated them ever since.
I've never seen anyone insult the teaching profession the way this "sympathetic" guy does.
"Sympathetic Dan" says that teachers are required by law to work 1800 hours. Of course there is not such law, it is again a figment of this guy's imagination. But if there were, it would clearly provide a minimum since no teacher could do his/her job working only 1800 hours.
"Sympathetic Dan" needs to get to church quickly and ask for forgiveness for his continued misrepresentation of the facts, and of himself.
Posted by Truth on September 7, 2007 03:00 PMDan 2: "And I would like to close with one final question to Truth. I have asked you on now 5 occasions, for full disclosure, what is your employment and educational history?"
You dumb ass. My posts say the same thing whether I have only a kindergarten education or a few PhDs. Get off this kick of trying to impress people with credentials and build up your ego with your forum posting. You don't miss an opportunity to see if you can make yourself look intelligent while the substance of your posts make you look just the opposite.
Posted by Truth on September 7, 2007 03:09 PMJust because you are ignorant Truth, doesn't mean that I am incorrect.
As we now have deviated from the topic to discuss compensation, we do it from an analytical perspective and not an emotional one. I know that is hard for you to understand. Do you know what the word analytical means Truth?
As most salaried employs work WELL over 2080 hours, we use that formula to compilate salary data. It is standard practice. To compare the teaching year of 1800 hours to the corporate year of 2080, and then compare actual salaries, we adjust to fairly demonstrate "real" numbers. This is not magic Truth, this is reality.
State Law in Colorado requires 1080 hours of instruction in High School and 990 hours for elementary school, but can slip to 1056 and 968 due to conferences, and teacher in service. This is a fact. I was being GENEROUS with the 1800 hours, as that is not the actual work hours required by the state of Colorado. Again, we use analytical information here Truth, not emotion.
And for the 6th time, was is your education and work history?
Posted by Dan2 on September 7, 2007 03:11 PMDan 2: "I have been flirting a bit with the formation of a new party (although have not done any due diligence yet). Thinking of calling it the Constitutionalist Party. What do you think?
Posted by Dan2 on September 7, 2007 02:46 PM"
Very interesting. I have a grandchild who is thinking of being president. I'm pretty sure that is some years younger than you; I'm talking years and not maturity.
Anyhow, thanks for the entertainment.
Posted by Truth on September 7, 2007 03:12 PMBTW, my teachers were wonderful, thanks to my private primary education. That must be why I got into a really good college and has allowed me to excel in the work force and think both liberally and analytically. Something you lack the ability to do.
You don't need to be embarrassed about who you are Truth. But why avoid the question? My concern is with your analytical ability to actually follow and answer intelligently on these posts, something you have failed to demonstrate by the postings themselves.
When it comes to factual presentation of evidence, you are left in the cold on these boards, although your emotionally charged responses demonstrates your typical ignorance and inability to comprehend subject matter. I was hoping to provide the readers of this forum your unquestionable resources of education, and expert matter in the topics of health care, the Constitution, and obviously salary data. If you prefer to not provide that information, we shall just use your postings to demonstrate that you are uneducated, and have no subject matter expertise in any of these topics you on which you comment.
Assumption, assumption, is Truth's only function.
I feel sorry for your grandchild, who's grandfather is too embarrassed to publicly admit he is an uneducated old fool.
COMPREHEND the topic Truth! YOU CAN DO IT!!! I KNOW you have it in you!
Posted by Dan2 on September 7, 2007 03:25 PMBefore I start my weekend, I do want to make a very sincere apology to Truth. I did indeed forget that he is a self described socialist, and as such, since we should all be treated the same regardless of our education, where I believe that hard work provides a gateway to a top educational institution and that leads to better employment opporunities.
Just as you can't change a jackass from being a jackass, I should have understood that Truth is a socialist so education is not important to him. My apologies Truth. I should have known better.
Have a great weekend!
Posted by Dan2 on September 7, 2007 03:31 PMWow, Dan 2, don't you have a turn off switch somewhere? Your idea that you judge the worth of a person's post by the letters appearing after his name is not exactly adult thinking. The more you post, the more immature you get. I'm afraid if you keep posting, you'll get to the point of baby talk. But at least you'll be making more sense than you have been.
Once again, thanks for the entertainment. I'm beginning to think you are a comedian at heart.
Posted by Truth on September 7, 2007 06:03 PMJust for clarification, I have a Bachelor of Science degree in Marketing. So I guess that makes my degree even more worthless than John II originally assessed.
Anyway, I work for myself, so I have no idea if its held me back or not in the corporate world at this point. It did seem to get me a good job coming out of college, though....the company even paid to relocate me out here to Colorado, and I don't think most college students get that kind of perk with their first jobs. Probably wasn't my degree, though, I just have decent negotiating skills learned from when I did headhunting, er "used car selling" myself. That, and the job market was a lot more favorable to employees back then.
Anyway, John II, your last post was even more delusional than usual. You're really starting to get some seriously grandiose ideas about yourself, aren't you?
"Remove your roadblocks and let me teach you what I know. In the end, you'll come out ahead of the mindless bourgeois masses. Refuse my instruction, and you're just another know-nothing liberal on the same level with the morons in Hollywood."
-giggles-
It's like the script from a bad science fiction B movie! (Actually, science fiction B movies are pretty cool, so I shouldn't really call them bad....)
Dan 2 asks: "My question to Truth and MTS would be, why is it only public educators that have such an issue with pay and salary, and not those employed (usually at a MUCH cheaper salary) by private education facilities? Could it be that it is really the UNION that is out front on this issue, because the UNION would love to collect their percentage of dues on a higher base salary?"
Dan, I would imagine that since advocating for better salaries is one of the primary reasons unions exist, er, that's why unions are out front on the issue. :)
And now that you mention it, the public teachers' pay versus private teachers' pay shows a good example of how the collective bargaining power of unions get their members better wages than non union members. As for speculating about the union's motivation, i.e., to get more dues...I have no idea. Really, what difference does it make?
John II, I did want to address your comments about a college degree being worthless these days. I actually agree with you to *some* extent, I say some for two reasons:
1) Making it through at least four more years of education does show initiative and discipline - although, really, it shouldn't matter if its college or a trade certification program, and...
2) As long as most professional jobs are still requiring a college degree, you can't call one worthless. Without one, the average would-be professional can't even get an entry-level job today. Although there are numerous exceptions and maybe we'll see that change more and more. My cousin only has an AA and she has a very high-level job with one of the biggest financial companies in North America. She worked her way up, and is just a very innovative, bright gal. They were smart enough to see that and promote her accordingly
Still, I think we place way too much importance on college degrees. Some of the most successful people in life didn't even finish high school. Going to college is more and more becoming the "finishing school" for a mid-level technocrat class stuck in front of a computer all day.
Speaking of which, you state: "Sitting in front of a computer is the future for most workers whether or not they went to private or public schools. Computers are the future. Computers increase the learning requirements, not decrease them. The capability to teach kids via computer technology will be one of the most significant advances in education. This technology requires an increase in literacy levels, not a decrease."
These comments, to me, show a rather marked lack of imagination on your part. Computers should and can be useful tools in our various professions, but not the only ones. We also need to teach children critical thinking and innovation, which I think is better taught through hands-on activities and human instruction (that is, if its coming from a knowledgeable and inspiring person).
So yeah, we need to teach kids the basic operational functions of a PC because chances are, they're going to be using them for at least some processes, but to make pre-canned instruction downloaded off a computer a primary means of their education is, I strongly believe, shortchanging their cognitive development.
I also don't see how e-Learning requires or, for that matter, develops a higher level of literacy. For example, e-Learning can't replace a rousing classroom discussion about a classic work of literature, or a critique of a recent film.
In fact, to use a somewhat comparative example, there's a recent study out there that completely debunks the Baby Einstein claims that their videos increase vocabulary. The studies concluded the opposite and that toddlers who have parents who talk to them a lot on a regular basis actually learn more words sooner.
Posted by mytwosense on September 7, 2007 07:54 PMDan2 said:
"Haha.. I like that. You are confusing me with the 3rd party recruiters - head hunters, or worse yet, staffing agents (gasp). I am actually retained right now here in Colorado to assist with the recruitment and rentention (as well as change management) programs of $1+ billion employer in the Greater Denver area."
My apologies Dan2. I did confuse your job role.
"I have been flirting a bit with the formation of a new party (although have not done any due diligence yet). Thinking of calling it the Constitutionalist Party. What do you think?"
I think it's a great idea. And I like the name too. I'm a committed Republican though. I plan on running for office someday. But, I have no problem helping you get your party started if it's in support of what I think it is.
Posted by John II on September 7, 2007 09:03 PMmytwosense said:
"Just for clarification, I have a Bachelor of Science degree in Marketing. So I guess that makes my degree even more worthless than John II originally assessed."
Yes, it does. But, it also explains a lot.
"My cousin only has an AA and she has a very high-level job with one of the biggest financial companies in North America. She worked her way up, and is just a very innovative, bright gal. They were smart enough to see that and promote her accordingly"
Imagine that: getting rewarded for smart work; not something usually associated with a socialist system.
In my experience, the smartest people I have ever met were college drop-outs. Most of the dumb people I meet are college grads. You can usually tell a college grad by how many times they say the word 'like' in a sentence.
"I also don't see how e-Learning requires or, for that matter, develops a higher level of literacy. For example, e-Learning can't replace a rousing classroom discussion about a classic work of literature, or a critique of a recent film."
It actually can do that very well. Much better than the current system of baby-sitting baggy pant wearing morons for six hours a day. Kids are dumb. That is why they need an education. Putting dumb kids in a room together for six hours a day only serves to keep them in that dumb state.
I have no knowledge about "Baby Einstein" nor do I offer that as a good educational tool.
Again, mytwosense, it is better to acknowledge your knowledge deficiencies and learn from those who are willing to teach than to become an old fool like Truth. I never turn down a free education. You shouldn't either.
Posted by John II on September 7, 2007 09:18 PMHow naive can a person be? Check John II's assumption that teachers in private schools are not concerned about how much they make. That guy will say anything for a laugh.
Posted by Truth on September 8, 2007 08:02 AMPerhaps, Truth, you could clarify your last statement by providing the actual quote where I made such an assumption. Otherwise, I may have to yet again use my "I never said that." key.
Posted by John II on September 8, 2007 11:25 AMJohn II: "why is it only public educators that have such an issue with pay and salary, and not those employed (usually at a MUCH cheaper salary) by private education facilities?"
But feel free to use your "I never said that" key if it makes you feel good.
Of course, we both know that you have no earthly idea as to what the many private school teachers around the country have to say about their salaries. But you're not one to let the truth stand in your way.
Posted by Truth on September 8, 2007 06:01 PMHey Truth,
I never said that. That was Dan2.
Posted by Jesus Christ on September 8, 2007 08:17 PMwhen we send our kids of to be taught something they can`t learn in school, say horse back riding or dancing, we can`t pay the instructor less if little Johnny repeatedly falls off the horse or Susy can`t learn to swim.
We also don`t pay more if the kids excel at these extra circular activities.
I know this is an odd comparison, but we understand that the child can only learn so much, in public schools we expect the instructors, (teachers) to produce better results.
How do schools run in Europe? I expect they put in far less money for competitive sports and equipment. That also gives more time for study.
Do other countries give their students the Summer off and have such long holiday periods?
If math and science is our latest weakness, then how do other countries teach these subjects? Do they have new math and such?
John II: "Hey Truth, I never said that. That was Dan2"
You mean there's a difference? And anyhow, you thought it.
Posted by Truth on September 9, 2007 01:23 PM"Do other countries give their students the Summer off and have such long holiday periods?"
Sharon, I answered this in another blog and got slammed. As part of a military family, I grew up in Europe, mostly Germany. They do not have such a long break in summer- only 2 or so weeks. Rather than long breaks, they take frequent holidays, which helps the kids destress. As a result [of a shorter summer break], so much time is not wasted re-learning stuff forgotten over the summer. My sister, born in Germany, ended up going to German school. At one point, when she was in 5th and I was in 8th, we were BOTH taking the same level of math! I really think we need to have a shorter summer break, it would be beneficial for our children.
Posted by fiesty on September 9, 2007 01:49 PMThank you fiesty, I also know, from my first husband, that schools do not waste as much teaching time on extra activities.
There may be solutions that actually don`t cost money, just re-thinking old attitudes, like what time school should start and such.
Posted by Sharon B. on September 9, 2007 02:47 PM