Biden promises there will be a cure for cancer if he’s elected

[PaulS]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

yes it has something to
do with that.

but spending money isn’t always the answer. if i’m a teacher at a crappy school
in hartford, and next year i get a fat raise and cheaper health insurance, how does that help my students perform better? because i’m any municipal education budget, that’s where all the money goes. because the unions control the politicians, at least here in CT. when you have to cut things like art and music, and lay-off non tenured teachers to satisfy union contracts, i don’t see how that helps students. do you?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I agree $ isn't the always the answer and with your example it may not help the students. However, if you can attract better teachers bc of higher pay/benefits that would benefit the students. There are many states that don't fund the teacher salaries adequately and that was reflected in the strikes last year. Some of the teachers were making like $35K and hadn't had raises in a few years.

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by PaulS

I agree $ isn't the always the answer and with your example it may not help the students. However, if you can attract better teachers bc of higher pay/benefits that would benefit the students. There are many states that don't fund the teacher salaries adequately and that was reflected in the strikes last year. Some of the teachers were making like $35K and hadn't had raises in a few years.

I used to laugh at teachers who used to say, when contracts were being negotiated, that the reason the students weren't doing well was because teacher's salaries were too low. So what did that mean--if they got pay raises, they would do better? If the salaries went up to meet their demands, then they would do better? Or did it mean that they were not good teachers and that good teachers did not take the job because it didn't pay enough? So, did it mean that, if the administration raised the salaries adequately, they would fire all the teachers and hire good ones that would sign on for the better pay?

No, it would not mean that. It would mean that the same teachers that were in place, and supposedly not good, would all get pay raises. And nothing would change except they'd get paid more for continuing to do what they had been doing.

Or, maybe I'm wrong, and a pay raise would be like a magic wand and make the bad teachers into good ones.

[PaulS]

Originally Posted by detbuch

maybe I'm wrong, and a pay raise would be like a magic wand and make the bad teachers into good ones.

I don't think it would work like a magic wand but it would bring in a different group of candidates and you might not have to settle for some of those that are hired bc there were no better candidate. Maybe it might incent some of the bad teachers to do better.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by PaulS

I agree $ isn't the always the answer and with your example it may not help the students. However, if you can attract better teachers bc of higher pay/benefits that would benefit the students. There are many states that don't fund the teacher salaries adequately and that was reflected in the strikes last year. Some of the teachers were making like $35K and hadn't had raises in a few years.

we’re having decent dialogue here. there’s something to be said for better pay attracting better teachers, but again, i point you to catholic schools, where teachers are almost literally paid in dirt, yet those schools get world
class teachers. teaching is a calling, if
you offer too many perks ( great benefits, insane time off) you get people
who go into teaching for that reason, and that’s not good.

i’ve seen this from every angle. and i'm willing to bet you believe that i want what’s best for all kids, not just my kids. i’ve been a student in public and catholic school, i’ve taught in public and catholic school, i’ve been a parent of
kids in public and catholic school. Money has very little to do with it, and another truth is this, liberals
do a terrible, terrible job of spending that money. way too much money is diverted away from things that actually help
kids learn, way too much money goes to salary and benefits, which does almost nothing for students.

here’s the fix. make teacher retirement and healthcare benefits exactly equal to the average of what’s available to white collar professionals in the private sector. that will save a ton. use that savings to hire more teachers, which reduces class size, because that IS correlated with student performance. Also, there is no sane argument against school
choice. And since all that really matters is what’s going on at home, we need to do more to encourage strong, stable, close nuclear families, because that is by far, the biggest driver of student performance, nothing else even comes close. the older i get, the
more certain i am that this is almost all that matters. without it, almost nothing else works.

i do appreciate the challenging questions, and the respect with which you asked them.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[PaulS]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

we’re having decent dialogue here. there’s something to be said for better pay attracting better teachers, but again, i point you to catholic schools, where teachers are almost literally paid in dirt, yet those schools get world
class teachers. teaching is a calling, if
you offer too many perks ( great benefits, insane time off) you get people
who go into teaching for that reason, and that’s not good.I went to a Catholic HS and agree the teachers were good. I wouldn't necessarily say they were better than the ones in my Freshman year HS. But I think the difference comes down to the students choice. I saw the HS kicked kids out (prob. deservedly) while the public HS would be stuck w/those kids after a suspension.

i’ve seen this from every angle. and i'm willing to bet you believe that i want what’s best for all kids, not just my kids.I agree with that. We should want all kids to be successful in whatever they do. i’ve been a student in public and catholic school, i’ve taught in public and catholic school, i’ve been a parent of
kids in public and catholic school. Money has very little to do with it, and another truth is this, liberals
do a terrible, terrible job of spending that money. way too much money is diverted away from things that actually help
kids learn, way too much money goes to salary and benefits, which does almost nothing for students.

here’s the fix. make teacher retirement and healthcare benefits exactly equal to the average of what’s available to white collar professionals in the private sector. that will save a ton. use that savings to hire more teachers, which reduces class size, because that IS correlated with student performance. But I don't think they are paid as well as other white collar professionals - that is the gist of my argument. Also, there is no sane argument against school
choice. My argument against vouchers (you didn't say vouchers) is that it skims off the cream of the cropAnd since all that really matters is what’s going on at home, we need to do more to encourage strong, stable, close nuclear families, because that is by far, the biggest driver of student performance, nothing else even comes close. the older i get, the
more certain i am that this is almost all that matters. without it, almost nothing else works.

i do appreciate the challenging questions, and the respect with which you asked them.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

How does a school encourage stable families when some educators found that providing a place for kids to wash their clothes increases the likelihood they will show up every day and that idea was mocked?

[The Dad Fisherman]

Originally Posted by PaulS

How does a school encourage stable families when some educators found that providing a place for kids to wash their clothes increases the likelihood they will show up every day and that idea was mocked?

It shouldn't be the school's job to encourage stable families. Their job is to teach. People have lost their way on how they approach building a family. It's a societal thing, not a school thing.

I'm pretty sure that everybody here approached having kids and building a family as a serious responsibility, a lot of people don't anymore.

When did terms like Baby Mama and Baby Daddy become A-OK? We need less Kardashians and more Leave it to Beaver

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by PaulS

How does a school encourage stable families when some educators found that providing a place for kids to wash their clothes increases the likelihood they will show up every day and that idea was mocked?

you’re right, their absolute salary isn’t the same as comparable
private sector
professionals. nor should it be, because that’s the sacrifice you make as a
public servant, same way a prosecutor doesn’t make
Anywhere near as much as an attorney in the private sector. people in the private sector dont get the time off teachers get, nit do we have tenure. again, catholic schools pay crap, and yet they get good teachers. you’ll never convince me that if we reduce overall compensation a bit, that no one will teach, all of the empirical
evidence refutes that. kids need
more teachers, not a smaller number of better paid teachers
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by PaulS

How does a school encourage stable families when some educators found that providing a place for kids to wash their clothes increases the likelihood they will show up every day and that idea was mocked?

i didn’t mean the school
should encourage nuclear families, i mean all public policy should
be designed to encourage and strengthen nuclear families. paying teenage girls to have babies, and paying them
more to do so if they aren’t married, encourages shattered families. that’s the kind of idiotic public policy that needs to be changed. liberals bashing traditional
family values with every breath, probably doesn’t help
either.

sure, some
good families produce unproductive kids, and one
amazing people come
from tough family situations. but it is by far, the surest way for kids to thrive. i do t think most democrats accept that. family is the bedrock of everything, nothing else comes close. it’s old fashioned and corny, it’s also true.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[The Dad Fisherman]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

i didn’t mean the school
should encourage nuclear families, i mean all public policy should
be designed to encourage and strengthen nuclear families. paying teenage girls to have babies, and paying them
more to do so if they aren’t married, encourages shattered families. that’s the kind of idiotic public policy that needs to be changed. liberals bashing traditional
family values with every breath, probably doesn’t help
either.

sure, some
good families produce unproductive kids, and one
amazing people come
from tough family situations. but it is by far, the surest way for kids to thrive. i do t think most democrats accept that. family is the bedrock of everything, nothing else comes close. it’s old fashioned and corny, it’s also true.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

This says it all too...

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by The Dad Fisherman

This says it all too...

there should be two parents who are non binary gender, then you’ve got it. what a great leap forward.

i also taught in a very affluent town a long time ago, and i taught math, and i had parents ask why their kid got a b, and when i said because they typically get about 85% of the questions right, they didn’t like that. i knew parents who threatened to come in with lawyers, rather than help their kids with homework.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[FishermanTim]

This forum has a serious case of ADD...

Biden's "cancer-cure campaign promise" and current school problems???

Following most threads here is like watching TV with a remote control freak that changes channels like an idiot gamer...