Bonam Posted August 31, 2012 Report Posted August 31, 2012 (edited) I don't know about you, but I wouldn't classify most of my previous teachers as "above-average". Over a sufficiently large sample, your teachers are on average, by definition, average And an average teacher, sadly, is not a very good teacher. But the reality is that people that are truly exceptional and have their pick of professions are not gonna choose teaching for 90k/year or even 120k/year if they wouldn't have chosen it for 60k/year. Someone truly exceptional can make millions, and the only reason they would choose to become a teacher, is if they had a deep passion for teaching. It would be impractical to try to draw the "best" people to become teachers through monetary incentives. Do you really need someone "above average" to teach fractions and long division in grade school? Actually, yes, it would be very highly beneficial. Most "average" teachers teach these subjects in a horribly dry and boring way, turning off students to math and science, making them uninterested in these subjects, and thus undermining our entire society and economy. It is not the teacher's fault: most average people simply lack the capability to make math and science interesting to a wide audience. But there are rare individuals that do have such skills. They can make kids fall in love with a subject they had no interest in before, and pursue knowledge in that subject long after they have left that original inspirational teacher far behind. To attract such people to the teaching profession, what they need is to be allowed to practice their craft in the way that they would love to do so: have a freer hand in teaching if you show that your students consistently do above average, be recognized for your contribution, and be rewarded and compensated based on merit rather than seniority. Be allowed to spend extra time with students who you find engaging and show true brilliance and promise. Sadly, that's not the way teachers unions and school boards work. The system encourages mediocrity among teachers, not excellence. And, as a result, mediocrity is all that students with such teachers tend to achieve. But, even if the system did its best to attract such individuals, they would still only ever be a minority, such teachers are few and far between. Teachers could be limited in their career growth based on their education, but there's no reason to mandate that grade school teachers be "above average". They should really only need average to below average intelligence, plus above average skills with children. I don't think that being able to manage children is a particularly unique or valuable skill. What they need are above average teaching skills. These skills are in "dealing with children", yes, but also in oration, presentation, enthusiasm, mediation and conflict resolution, perceptiveness, humor, fairness, and more. The few teachers that I have had that have truly been great teachers were very multifaceted individuals, they were not just "good with children". Sadly I really don't think there's any way to make it so that the majority of teachers are such people, not without multiplying the costs of education a hundredfold. Even the very most elite private schools are not universally staffed with paragons of teaching. It is only when you get to the very most elite universities, where professors can make seven figure salaries, that you can see a real increase in the quality of teaching, if even there. I honestly think that for older students on specific subjects, it may even be better just to have a single outstanding individual record lessons and have students around the nation or around the world watch them remotely, rather than being subjected to the monotonous droning of an average teacher. That is certainly true in university. I can count on one hand the number of physics professors that were actually good, but had dozens of utterly useless ones. I would much rather have spent the class time listening to a pre-recorded lecture by Feynman than listening live to any but the best 3 or 4 of the many professors that I actually had. Edited August 31, 2012 by Bonam Quote
MiddleClassCentrist Posted August 31, 2012 Report Posted August 31, 2012 I don't know about you, but I wouldn't classify most of my previous teachers as "above-average". Do you really need someone "above average" to teach fractions and long division in grade school? Teachers could be limited in their career growth based on their education, but there's no reason to mandate that grade school teachers be "above average". They should really only need average to below average intelligence, plus above average skills with children. I don't think that being able to manage children is a particularly unique or valuable skill. For instance, a hard-working high school graduate who is great with children would probably do a better, and cheaper job of teaching grade school history or geography, than would a university grad who sucks with children. If there was a highly competitve private school system, I would think that a natural result would be some "discount" schools hiring such candidates for near minimum wage. That would reduce education costs dramatically. Personally, I liked all of my teachers. Sure, I disagreed with somethings and a few of the women were a bit menopausal because of it being that time in their life but, I got along with pretty much all of my teachers. Sure, that high school grad might be able to be able to do a good job but you open up the field the the plethora of high school grads who would do a bad job and a more volatile market where teachers teach for 2 years and leave. Quote Ideology does not make good policy. Good policy comes from an analysis of options, comparison of options and selection of one option that works best in the current situation. This option is often a compromise between ideologies.
carepov Posted August 31, 2012 Report Posted August 31, 2012 I don't know about you, but I wouldn't classify most of my previous teachers as "above-average". Do you really need someone "above average" to teach fractions and long division in grade school? Teachers could be limited in their career growth based on their education, but there's no reason to mandate that grade school teachers be "above average". They should really only need average to below average intelligence, plus above average skills with children. I don't think that being able to manage children is a particularly unique or valuable skill. For instance, a hard-working high school graduate who is great with children would probably do a better, and cheaper job of teaching grade school history or geography, than would a university grad who sucks with children. If there was a highly competitve private school system, I would think that a natural result would be some "discount" schools hiring such candidates for near minimum wage. That would reduce education costs dramatically. Are you serious, less qualified teachers? We should strive for more qualified teachers and give them more latitude to do their jobs. To cut costs we should: 1. Greatly reduce the number of school boards 2. Whenever practical, close small schools when a nearby school has sufficient capacity Quote
wyly Posted August 31, 2012 Report Posted August 31, 2012 (edited) Personally, I liked all of my teachers. Sure, I disagreed with somethings and a few of the women were a bit menopausal because of it being that time in their life but, I got along with pretty much all of my teachers.same here, the vast majority are very competent and even more so today than when I went to school...the ones that you remember are the excellent ones that made learning a delight and the horrible ones that made going to class torture...Sure, that high school grad might be able to be able to do a good job but you open up the field the the plethora of high school grads who would do a bad job and a more volatile market where teachers teach for 2 years and leave.no, this what gets me angry...too often I see people like cpc denigrate professions because they think "that's not really a skill, those people are overpaid, anyone can do that, they're not as valuable as I am"...teaching is not something a high-school grad can do, knowing something does not mean you are able to teach it...each age is unique the brain functions differently as the child ages... so the teaching approach needs to be modified to brain maturity at the specific age,you cannot use the same teaching methods used with 10-11 yr olds with 6-7 yr olds they're completely different animals, and within each age group there can be a wide range individual maturity, physically and mentally as much as 2 years...adjustments need to be made for each age group and individual, the knowledge needed to deal with that and learning disabilities is not available to someone without an education degree...university profs may be experts at what they present but they are not teachers, they're facilitators/conduits of knowledge for adults, adults teach themselves...cpc arrogantly believes anyone can teach and that all that is required is to know more than the student, he's totally clueless... Edited August 31, 2012 by wyly Quote “Conservatives are not necessarily stupid, but most stupid people are conservatives.”- John Stuart Mill
wyly Posted August 31, 2012 Report Posted August 31, 2012 Are you serious, less qualified teachers? We should strive for more qualified teachers and give them more latitude to do their jobs. To cut costs we should: 1. Greatly reduce the number of school boards 2. Whenever practical, close small schools when a nearby school has sufficient capacity 1-eliminate religious school boards, a separate board and administration system for Catholics as we have here is idiotic, government shouldn't be subsidizing two school administrations...in some cases having two schools side by side sharing the same green space is idiotic, if people want separate religious schools then they should be private and pay for it themselves... 2-happens all the time here already, parents don't like it but keeping half empty schools open isn't financially feasible... Quote “Conservatives are not necessarily stupid, but most stupid people are conservatives.”- John Stuart Mill
wyly Posted August 31, 2012 Report Posted August 31, 2012 Are you purposely dishonest? Or maybe you just lack reading comprehension? Or maybe you just wrote the new dumbest thing you've ever read? oh if you could only go back and delete that post eh!...you still could but I've copied it so here it is again...If there was a highly competitve private school system, I would think that a natural result would be some "discount" schools hiring such candidates for near minimum wage. That would reduce education costs dramatically. ... Quote “Conservatives are not necessarily stupid, but most stupid people are conservatives.”- John Stuart Mill
bleeding heart Posted August 31, 2012 Report Posted August 31, 2012 (edited) you would have understood that I proposed that the market determines the value of an educator's work and education. Which is a preposterous argument...unless you provide solid evidence for the (highly anti-intuitive) claim. And as Wyly has already astutely pointed out, privatization does not always equal efficiency and superior results. That's free-market fundamentalism...and since it's a religious belief, it belongs in the religion forum. Hell, all you have to do is to pay attention to economic theory...and I mean the economic theory that most capitalists agree with and defend: the point of free markets is not effiency; it's profits. If it's profitable to be inefficient, then that is, by definition, the "proper" way to go. As Kevin O'Leary--the most ardent free market advocate on North American television, arguably--puts it: "I'd be a communist if I could make a buck at it." Wyly already pointed out the higher (not lower) costs of private education versus public. The same is true of health care: the US system, for example, spends more health care dollars per person on bureaucracy than does the Canadian system. Your problem is that you think it's more about the principle of efficiency and cost-savings than it is about profit. That's flatly untrue, as any capitalist worth his or her salt will quickly admonish you. Free markets work really well in many realms, and can be much more efficient. But not in every case, not by a long shot. Edited August 31, 2012 by bleeding heart Quote “There is a limit to how much we can constantly say no to the political masters in Washington. All we had was Afghanistan to wave. On every other file we were offside. Eventually we came onside on Haiti, so we got another arrow in our quiver." --Bill Graham, Former Canadian Foreign Minister, 2007
CPCFTW Posted August 31, 2012 Author Report Posted August 31, 2012 (edited) oh if you could only go back and delete that post eh!...you still could but I've copied it so here it is again... ... If only you could read the sentence immediately preceeding the one that you quoted. You know, the sentence where I said to hire high school graduates? I know it's tough to keep track of more than one sentence at a time for you, but maybe if you try real hard you'll be able to do it! Or you can continue to belittle an argument that I never made. Whatever floats your boat! Edited August 31, 2012 by CPCFTW Quote
CPCFTW Posted August 31, 2012 Author Report Posted August 31, 2012 And as Wyly has already astutely pointed out, privatization does not always equal efficiency and superior results. I have a hard time believing wyly can astutely point out anything judging from his nonsensical tirade against an argument I've never put forth. As for the rest of your post, what you statists don't understand is that the profit motivation in a competitive market is the most efficient allocation of wealth in our society. Quote
CPCFTW Posted August 31, 2012 Author Report Posted August 31, 2012 same here, the vast majority are very competent and even more so today than when I went to school...the ones that you remember are the excellent ones that made learning a delight and the horrible ones that made going to class torture... no, this what gets me angry...too often I see people like cpc denigrate professions because they think "that's not really a skill, those people are overpaid, anyone can do that, they're not as valuable as I am"...teaching is not something a high-school grad can do, knowing something does not mean you are able to teach it...each age is unique the brain functions differently as the child ages... so the teaching approach needs to be modified to brain maturity at the specific age,you cannot use the same teaching methods used with 10-11 yr olds with 6-7 yr olds they're completely different animals, and within each age group there can be a wide range individual maturity, physically and mentally as much as 2 years...adjustments need to be made for each age group and individual, the knowledge needed to deal with that and learning disabilities is not available to someone without an education degree...university profs may be experts at what they present but they are not teachers, they're facilitators/conduits of knowledge for adults, adults teach themselves...cpc arrogantly believes anyone can teach and that all that is required is to know more than the student, he's totally clueless... Wow you're almost as bad as socialist! You expect me to believe that teachers have developed some extremely rare and valuable skills because they went to teacher's college for a year? Sorry, but no one's buying that crap! Yes everyone has had good and bad teachers. I contend that the good teachers are good because of their personality traits, not because they paid for a piece of paper and. To sit in a teacher's college for a year. If the skills were so unique and valuable then teachers wouldn't need a government bureaucracy and unions to protect their wages. Quote
wyly Posted August 31, 2012 Report Posted August 31, 2012 If only you could read the sentence immediately preceeding the one that you quoted. You know, the sentence where I said to hire high school graduates? I know it's tough to keep track of more than one sentence at a time for you, but maybe if you try real hard you'll be able to do it! one sentence at a time , here's a bunch of them all pointing the same direction...1. Sell off all public schools to private companies. Disband the teacher's union and lay off all teachers. A private education system with scarcer jobs in other sectors (due to globalization) could probably drive the costs of teaching the easier grades way down (and thereby allow for more jobs or lower costs). Teachers could be limited in their career growth based on their education, but there's no reason to mandate that grade school teachers be "above average". They should really only need average to below average intelligence, plus above average skills with children. I don't think that being able to manage children is a particularly unique or valuable skill. that one was actually worse then the others, unbelievable... If there was a highly competitve private school system, I would think that a natural result would be some "discount" schools hiring such candidates for near minimum wage. That would reduce education costs dramatically. Or you can continue to belittle an argument that I never made. Whatever floats your boat!you belittled your own argument with all the previous quotes, I never had to do a thing...managing children not a valuable skill Quote “Conservatives are not necessarily stupid, but most stupid people are conservatives.”- John Stuart Mill
CPCFTW Posted August 31, 2012 Author Report Posted August 31, 2012 I honestly think that for older students on specific subjects, it may even be better just to have a single outstanding individual record lessons and have students around the nation or around the world watch them remotely, rather than being subjected to the monotonous droning of an average teacher. That is certainly true in university. I can count on one hand the number of physics professors that were actually good, but had dozens of utterly useless ones. I would much rather have spent the class time listening to a pre-recorded lecture by Feynman than listening live to any but the best 3 or 4 of the many professors that I actually had. This is similar to another idea I have to reduce costs. We could have a single outstanding individual pre-record the entire curriculum and classrooms could be theatres to watch the curriculum. The only job of on-site "teachers" would be to take attendance and keep children silent and focused on the recorded lesson. These "teachers" would be high school graduates making not much more than min. wage. University students could be contracted at $15/hr to provide tutoring services to children who need a more personalized education (and to help reduce student debt load). Quote
CPCFTW Posted August 31, 2012 Author Report Posted August 31, 2012 one sentence at a time , here's a bunch of them all pointing the same direction... that one was actually worse then the others, unbelievable... you belittled your own argument with all the previous quotes, I never had to do a thing... managing children not a valuable skill Do you have a point? All you did was quote me and add derisive comments after each quote. And you still purposely omitted the first part of my quote about hiring high school students. Isn't there a forum rule about putting people's quotes into a misleading context and/or contributing nothing but insults and derision to a thread? I think I'll just report you and find out. Quote
gunrutz Posted September 1, 2012 Report Posted September 1, 2012 How quickly some people turn these discussions into an attack on itellectualism speaks volumes to me about the system they are desperate to protect. We can't even discuss the issue, why? Well because, thats why. Quote
bleeding heart Posted September 1, 2012 Report Posted September 1, 2012 (edited) I have a hard time believing wyly can astutely point out anything judging from his nonsensical tirade against an argument I've never put forth. As for the rest of your post, what you statists don't understand is that the profit motivation in a competitive market is the most efficient allocation of wealth in our society. I (very, very clearly) pointed out that markets are often very efficient. I also pointed out a basic and uncontroversial truth; that they're not, in every case, the most efficient...nor the least expensive. Do you honestly disagree? If you do, you'll have to explain the examples already given you to counter such fanatical religious beliefs. As for "statism": that's nonsense. Do you believe in the death penalty? Statism. Pro-life? statism. Think we should have joined the Iraq War? statist. And so on..... You've been told that "statist" means "leftist" and has something to do with taxes.....and you didn't bother to look into the matter any deeper. Edited September 1, 2012 by bleeding heart Quote “There is a limit to how much we can constantly say no to the political masters in Washington. All we had was Afghanistan to wave. On every other file we were offside. Eventually we came onside on Haiti, so we got another arrow in our quiver." --Bill Graham, Former Canadian Foreign Minister, 2007
punked Posted September 1, 2012 Report Posted September 1, 2012 (edited) There are to many grade school teachers who can not DO MATH or SCIENCE already. I don't see how adding more of them is going to help. Edited September 3, 2012 by punked Quote
socialist Posted September 3, 2012 Report Posted September 3, 2012 do kids need to fail to succeed. i dunno. http://www.theglobeandmail.com/life/parenting/back-to-school/why-kids-need-to-fail-to-succeed-in-school/article4513436/ Quote Thankful to have become a free thinker.
cybercoma Posted September 3, 2012 Report Posted September 3, 2012 No one's saying they need to fail to succeed. However, they certainly shouldn't be shielded from failing if they don't do anything in class. Quote
MiddleClassCentrist Posted September 3, 2012 Report Posted September 3, 2012 (edited) 1-eliminate religious school boards, a separate board and administration system for Catholics as we have here is idiotic, government shouldn't be subsidizing two school administrations...in some cases having two schools side by side sharing the same green space is idiotic, if people want separate religious schools then they should be private and pay for it themselves... 2-happens all the time here already, parents don't like it but keeping half empty schools open isn't financially feasible... This particular issue irks me. The public board bends to the will of a few old farts who remember going to that school. Meanwhile, the Catholic board doesn't have as many schools and keeps putting up new ones to attract non-catholic students to their shiny new building. By the time the public board finally gets to close a school, there can be two catholic schools servicing a neighbourhood and no need for a public school anymore. What irks me the most about this, is that Catholic boards run huge deficits to get these schools built and then McGuinty government just keeps forgiving their debt. Public school parents are paying for Catholic education, make no mistake about it. Edited September 3, 2012 by MiddleClassCentrist Quote Ideology does not make good policy. Good policy comes from an analysis of options, comparison of options and selection of one option that works best in the current situation. This option is often a compromise between ideologies.
wyly Posted September 3, 2012 Report Posted September 3, 2012 Public school parents are paying for Catholic education, make no mistake about it. well they would be entitled to some funding as if they were in the public system there would be a cost regardless...there is the extra cost that i think they should pay on their own... where I went to school there was a ridiculous duplication of services, two schools occupying the same school ground (valuable urban property),double custodial staff, double maintenance crews, two school administrations, two central administration, two school boards...a stupid waste of money that the general public IMO shouldn't have to fund, let them have their own school system but have them fund all the needless duplication... if the Catholics are given this perk why not every other religious group, to do that becomes impractical, not to do so is unfair to those not getting the same perks as a separate catholic system... if a religious group wants separate education they should fund their own buildings/properties, maintenance and administration costs...teachers can be paid from the public funds if they're qualified teachers... Quote “Conservatives are not necessarily stupid, but most stupid people are conservatives.”- John Stuart Mill
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.