Education

[cawacko]

I watched all of Obama's speech last night and had the biggest reaction when started speaking about education. As an aside I'm referencing Obama here but what he said was pretty similar to what almost all politicians, Republicans and Democrats, say which is a lot of nothing. So I'm not trying to single out Obama.

He made a jab at NCLB with a 'don't teach to the test comment'. Otherwise he said we need higher standards, a typical political refrain, but what does that mean? How do you quanifty 'higher standards'? He said good teachers need to make more money but then he said he would raise all teachers salaries. Then he said we need more family involvement which is true.

Many people agree education is one of the top priorities for us as a nation yet we get the same canned speech from each politician with almost always the same talking points. And since there is no easy to way to measure or judge students performance outside test results we seem to be stuck with the status quo year after year regardless of what each new crop of politicians say.

 

[Damocles]

The problem was, he talked about change but then promoted the same old. It's hard to believe change when there is no change promoted.

 

[cawacko]

The problem was, he talked about change but then promoted the same old. It's hard to believe change when there is no change promoted.

That's because the proposed solution is ultimately always "we need more money" and nothing else.

 

[Bonestorm]

You can't expect candidates to set out their specific policy proposals in a victory speech. If you want to know what Obama proposes you can find out by doing a smidgen of research:

http://www.barackobama.com/issues/pdf/PreK-12EducationFactSheet.pdf

 

[Timshel]

We don't need higher standards. We need no standards, at the federal level.

Further, we need to quit assuming every child should receive the same education. It ends up failing many and leaving them with no skills. Lots of kids are never going to use number theory and will have an understanding of math at Dixie's level or below. Trying to teach them such concepts may ultimately confuse them on the basics.

 

[Timshel]

You can't expect candidates to set out their specific policy proposals in a victory speech. If you want to know what Obama proposes you can find out by doing a smidgen of research:

http://www.barackobama.com/issues/pdf/PreK-12EducationFactSheet.pdf

More details, still wrongheaded.

 

[leaningright]

We don't need higher standards. We need no standards, at the federal level.

Further, we need to quit assuming every child should receive the same education. It ends up failing many and leaving them with no skills. Lots of kids are never going to use number theory and will have an understanding of math at Dixie's level or below. Trying to teach them such concepts may ultimately confuse them on the basics.

Big applause from here. A standing ovation, really.

 

[cawacko]

You can't expect candidates to set out their specific policy proposals in a victory speech. If you want to know what Obama proposes you can find out by doing a smidgen of research:

http://www.barackobama.com/issues/pdf/PreK-12EducationFactSheet.pdf

For example, what is this? "Reward expert, accomplished teachers for taking on challenging assignments and helping children succeed."

Does this mean he supports paying some teachers more than others beause that is rarely a winner with the teachers union.

Again, I look at that and I don't see sh*t changing. It doesn't matter whether its a Democratic or Republican adminstation each new group of politicians echo's the same supposive concerns that the previous group echoed an attempted to fix without success. Same rhetoric over and over.

 

[evince]

It baffles me how republicans think that profit (money) is the greatest solution in the world when it comes to market forces. The persuit of profit makes the market automatically self correct. Yet when it comes to government the same doesnt apply? When you pay teachers a wage that attracts better people then can you be more picky about who you hire? Can you purchase better teaching skills?

When you take a product that needs to be improved you may need to hire a worker with hihger skills. You may need to hire more workers and increase the worker time per production number?


Childern are not products per say but dont you think we should at least treat them as well as we treat products?

 

[Bonestorm]

For example, what is this? "Reward expert, accomplished teachers for taking on challenging assignments and helping children succeed."

Does this mean he supports paying some teachers more than others beause that is rarely a winner with the teachers union.

Again, I look at that and I don't see sh*t changing. It doesn't matter whether its a Democratic or Republican adminstation each new group of politicians echo's the same supposive concerns that the previous group echoed an attempted to fix without success. Same rhetoric over and over.

Well, looking at the bullet point version of the policy doesn't do you much more good than listening to a speech.

Here's a hint: Yes, he does propose paying some teachers more than others. There's a reason the teachers' union endorsed Clinton.

 

[cawacko]

It baffles me how republicans think that profit (money) is the greatest solution in the world when it comes to market forces. The persuit of profit makes the market automatically self correct. Yet when it comes to government the same doesnt apply? When you pay teachers a wage that attracts better people then can you be more picky about who you hire? Can you purchase better teaching skills?

When you take a product that needs to be improved you may need to hire a worker with hihger skills. You may need to hire more workers and increase the worker time per production number?


Childern are not products per say but dont you think we should at least treat them as well as we treat products?

Are you arguing with yourself here? What or who are you referring to?

 

[cawacko]

Well, looking at the bullet point version of the policy doesn't do you much more good than listening to a speech.

Here's a hint: Yes, he does propose paying some teachers more than others. There's a reason the teachers' union endorsed Clinton.

I'm not trying to single him out but your last part is good to hear. A very postive step in my opinion.

 

[Damocles]

I'm not trying to single him out but your last part is good to hear. A very postive step in my opinion.

It's a positive step but it certainly isn't ground-shakingly uber-change...

 

[Timshel]

It baffles me how republicans think that profit (money) is the greatest solution in the world when it comes to market forces. The persuit of profit makes the market automatically self correct. Yet when it comes to government the same doesnt apply? When you pay teachers a wage that attracts better people then can you be more picky about who you hire? Can you purchase better teaching skills?

When you take a product that needs to be improved you may need to hire a worker with hihger skills. You may need to hire more workers and increase the worker time per production number?


Childern are not products per say but dont you think we should at least treat them as well as we treat products?

You are showing the same stupidity top displayed in the cop thread. It's not simply base pay that's the problem. It is a system that does not reward or punish based on performance. Teachers much like cops (or any other heavily unionized job), are paid based primarily on their seniority.

Increasing base pay might raise the level of applicants. That is, you will succeed in amassing a collection of terrific resumes. You won't get better performance.

 

[evince]

I just dotn understand why the people who love the idea of a self correcting market cant understand the idea of putting more money into the education system and call it throwing money at the problem no matter what the plan is. Then in business they understand the return on investiment?

 

[Bonestorm]

It's a positive step but it certainly isn't ground-shakingly uber-change...

OK. So first it was the same old shit. Now, it's a positive step but not ground-shakingly uber-change. In about five more posts it'll be OK, well it's ground-shakingly uber-change but it's not invention-of-the-printing-press-change.

 

[Damocles]

I just dotn understand why the people who love the idea of a self correcting market cant understand the idea of putting more money into the education system and call it throwing money at the problem no matter what the plan is. Then in business they understand the return on investiment?

It is because business doesn't reward failure with more money. If the system is failing you change the system, not just add money to it.

I can't believe that you wouldn't understand the difference.

 

[Damocles]

OK. So first it was the same old shit. Now, it's a positive step but not ground-shakingly uber-change. In about five more posts it'll be OK, well it's ground-shakingly uber-change but it's not invention-of-the-printing-press-change.

Give it a rest. There is nothing different about his proposal and that of many others. What "change" is there?

The reality is he proposes the same things others have for decades and then says "change" a lot and people are falling for the "change" thing without any real evidence of "change".

While it is nice to hear him say this, it isn't a change in proposed solutions, it is in fact "more of the same".

 

[cawacko]

I just dotn understand why the people who love the idea of a self correcting market cant understand the idea of putting more money into the education system and call it throwing money at the problem no matter what the plan is. Then in business they understand the return on investiment?

Because for several decades we've heard 'we need more money for education' and our education system will improve. That is what we have tried and we have seen no marked improvment which goes to show it is more than just money that the education needs.

 

[Topspin]

Rstringfield is a moron.
Anybody with an IQ above room temperature knows that if teachers started with $100,000 salaries the quality of the applicants dramatically goes up.