Should Teachers get paid more?

[ComradeMilton]

21 minutes ago, Dubayoo said:

It's our business because they provide a social service.  This is not a strictly private affair.  Even in private schools, we need to be concerned with due diligence when it comes to the provision of service towards children. I'd be far more concerned about unqualified people doing homeschooling. Private schools shouldn't have any real issues outstanding; they don't just do the best teachers; they follow it with hiring as many well-qualified candidates for other positions are available, like a social worker or therapist to see to evaluation and needs of the students or a primary care provider on campus to act instead of a nurse.
i
Networking is not something limited to your college years. I didn't claim it was. I simply stated trying to network with people in middle school is kind of silly.  It's a regular part of life with regards to how you get to know people in your neighborhood.  If anything, this is the problem many graduates have today - they started professionally networking while they were in college instead of understanding how the foundations of their relationships come about from how they regularly socialize. I've never encountered that as a problem. My network is quite nice already and I agree undergraduates should work more actively on this.

 

 

[Buck Turgidson]

On ‎2017‎-‎07‎-‎25 at 9:35 PM, Dubayoo said:

According to the centrist Brookings Institute, they get paid too much: https://www.brookings.edu/blog/future-development/2017/07/21/teachers-salaries-too-many-bucks-for-the-bang/

Teaching is a passion.  You don't get better at it because you're paid more, and you won't get worse at it because you're paid less.  The motive comes from seeing how students develop into becoming successful in life. 

The real problem is the absence of discipline in schools that allows students to run amok such that they distract passionate study habits from developing.

You or the study are wrong about the motivation. There are many motivations to teach, and not everyone wants to be Mr. Chips. In fact, I would say few care to be.

On ‎2017‎-‎07‎-‎26 at 6:29 PM, Dubayoo said:

The study very explicitly points out how competitiveness is not a concern of quality teachers.  The nature of teaching is to be cooperative, not competitive.  It is a labor of love.

It also explicitly points out that the abundance that non-for-profits spend isn't worth it.

I agree that salary does not affect quality, but it is intensely competitive, and seldom cooperative - it is the basic nature of the work. It is vocational, but not enough people love it, so the aim of competitive salaries is to attract enough people to do the work, and have the most passionate members act as force multipliers. That study is way off base, and may only be applicable in a very small part of northwestern Maryland. You would know that if you have ever taught.

On ‎2017‎-‎07‎-‎28 at 3:00 AM, Dubayoo said:

If you're working to become wealthy, there are much better professions to work in beyond teaching.  You're working in the wrong field if that's your goal.

Tue and not true. I teach professionally in academe, which pays very badly - I do it for the prestige. I charge a small fortune in the private sector, where executive development pays very, very well. 

 

On ‎2017‎-‎07‎-‎28 at 4:47 AM, ComradeMilton said:

I don't know if I'd say they're trying to become wealthy. That seems silly. But at least a significant portion of the best quality teachers are definitely going to follow the money.

True. Almost every teacher I know does some other business, and the subjects they teach are related to that. Well, at least on the 3 continents where I have taught.

[WISD0MTREE]

10 hours ago, Buck Turgidson said:

True. Almost every teacher I know does some other business, and the subjects they teach are related to that. Well, at least on the 3 continents where I have taught.

I had a history teacher who was a lifeguard in the summer. Does that mean the kids he tries to save are... History? 

[Buck Turgidson]

23 hours ago, WISD0MTREE said:

I had a history teacher who was a lifeguard in the summer. Does that mean the kids he tries to save are... History? 

Yes. Obviously.

[Caecus]

On 8/3/2017 at 4:17 PM, WISD0MTREE said:

I had a history teacher who was a lifeguard in the summer. Does that mean the kids he tries to save are... History? 

Such a terrible pun. Downvoted. -.-

[Buck Turgidson]

On ‎2017‎-‎08‎-‎05 at 2:15 AM, Caecus said:

Such a terrible pun. Downvoted. -.-

Could have been worse. Could have been about a lifeguard who teaches the History of Lifeguarding, requiring students to watch the entire original series of Baywatch, and ltent to Hasslehoff's German music records for extra credit.

[Ogaden]

On 12/6/2016 at 3:56 PM, Frank Todd said:

So many people will argue that Teachers get an adequate salary. Now I know there are a handful of people out there who would say that we do get paid "just the right amount" or that Education is adequately funded now and days, but if you were to ask a teacher anywhere... They will tell you otherwise.

 

So what do you think? Do teachers get paid enough, or are they just complaining over nothing?

At the moment teachers get paid about the same as a manager at a fast food restaurant, except you don't have to go to university to be a manager at McDonalds.

As a result the US education system is staffed by the dregs of society, and yet people want to cut more.

I guess literacy is bad or something.

[WISD0MTREE]

58 minutes ago, Ogaden said:

At the moment teachers get paid about the same as a manager at a fast food restaurant, except you don't have to go to university to be a manager at McDonalds.

As a result the US education system is staffed by the dregs of society, and yet people want to cut more.

I guess literacy is bad or something.

Throwing money at the education system doesn't work. You can want to decrease spending while increasing teachers' salaries.

[Ogaden]

Since throwing money doesn't work then cutting all money should work super well right?

[WISD0MTREE]

8 minutes ago, Ogaden said:

Since throwing money doesn't work then cutting all money should work super well right?

The excess money apparently isn't doing any good in the education system. Why not spend it on something like infrastructure? Or force the spending to go to increasing teacher pay as opposed to whatever the hell it is being spent on? 

[Ogaden]

23 minutes ago, WISD0MTREE said:

The excess money apparently isn't doing any good in the education system. Why not spend it on something like infrastructure? Or force the spending to go to increasing teacher pay as opposed to whatever the hell it is being spent on? 

This is the exact logic and policy decisions of successive governments for the past 30 years, so not sure where you're getting that graph from.  We spend almost nothing on teachers.  We spend lots PER CHILD but almost none of that goes to actual teachers or schooling, but various grift programs by various government contractors coming up with bullshit like Common Core.

The solution proposed by libertarians is naturally just get rid of the Dept. of Education.  Not sure how that solves anything though, it's just admitting defeat to the hands of corruption and graft.  This is also why it'll never happen, too much money being made.

Edited August 26, 2017 by Ogaden

[ComradeMilton]

1 hour ago, WISD0MTREE said:

The excess money apparently isn't doing any good in the education system. Why not spend it on something like infrastructure? Or force the spending to go to increasing teacher pay as opposed to whatever the hell it is being spent on?  You want some dude without an education building bridges and stuff and will be safe to use?

 

1 hour ago, Ogaden said:

This is the exact logic and policy decisions of successive governments for the past 30 years, so not sure where you're getting that graph from.  We spend almost nothing on teachers.  We spend lots PER CHILD but almost none of that goes to actual teachers or schooling, but various grift programs by various government contractors coming up with bullshit like Common Core.

The solution proposed by libertarians is naturally just get rid of the Dept. of Education.  Not sure how that solves anything though, it's just admitting defeat to the hands of corruption and graft.  This is also why it'll never happen, too much money being made. It also leads to a pseudo-caste system without the Department of Education

 

[WISD0MTREE]

15 hours ago, Ogaden said:

This is the exact logic and policy decisions of successive governments for the past 30 years, so not sure where you're getting that graph from.  

We spend almost nothing on teachers.  We spend lots PER CHILD but almost none of that goes to actual teachers or schooling, but various grift programs by various government contractors coming up with bullshit like Common Core.

Yeah, I don't know where they got the graph from. It's almost like they need sources on the right hand side of the graph. 

Which is exactly why I said "Or force the spending to go to increasing teacher pay as opposed to whatever the hell it is being spent on?"

[ComradeMilton]

6 hours ago, Gabranth said:

F R E E

M A R K E T

C A P I T A L I S M

You forgot about "has already failed"

[WISD0MTREE]

8 hours ago, ComradeMilton said:

You forgot about "has already failed"

You forgot "Sent from my iPhone"

[Caecus]

lol. I see what you did there. 

[ComradeMilton]

Doubly funny as I have a dumb phone. Good job stereotyping instead of making an argument, though.

[WISD0MTREE]

On 8/28/2017 at 4:23 AM, ComradeMilton said:

Doubly funny as I have a dumb phone. Good job stereotyping instead of making an argument, though.

Alright. Capitalism encourages innovation and expansion by limited government interference. 

[Caecus]

Capitalism makes a nation disproportionately rich, communism makes a nation equally poor. 

[Big Brother]

On 27.8.2017 at 4:36 AM, WISD0MTREE said:

You forgot "Sent from my iPhone"

7 hours ago, Caecus said:

Capitalism makes a nation disproportionately rich, communism makes a nation equally poor. 

This is a fallacy. There can be by definition no such thing as a communist nation, since the advent of communist society requires global revolution with the abolishment of all borders, states, nations and other hierarchies and divisive constructs. If you meant to refer to nation-states previously or currently under the control of communist parties the correct terminology would be socialist nation or socialist state.

As for poverty..

Quote

"From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs" (French: De chacun selon ses moyens, à chacun selon ses besoins; German: Jeder nach seinen Fähigkeiten, jedem nach seinen Bedürfnissen) is a slogan popularised by Karl Marx in his 1875 Critique of the Gotha Program.^[1] The principle refers to free access and distribution of goods, capital and services.^[2] In the Marxist view, such an arrangement will be made possible by the abundance of goods and services that a developed communist system will produce; the idea is that, with the full development of socialism and unfettered productive forces, there will be enough to satisfy everyone's needs.

I truly don't understand what's so difficult to grasp about this.

[Caecus]

12 hours ago, Big Brother said:

This is a fallacy. There can be by definition no such thing as a communist nation, since the advent of communist society requires global revolution with the abolishment of all borders, states, nations and other hierarchies and divisive constructs. If you meant to refer to nation-states previously or currently under the control of communist parties the correct terminology would be socialist nation or socialist state.

As for poverty..

I truly don't understand what's so difficult to grasp about this.

Perhaps. But it is equally a fallacy that an early 20th century socio-economic philosopher could have predicted the specialization of industry and the extent that the industrial revolution currently runs our lives and think that those works are relevant today. Marxism failed when the Soviet Union needed the specialization of micro-industries and the rise of the tech age that created a new class outside of the merchant-worker dynamic. Leninism failed when the rest of the world collectively gave no shits about violent radical revolution and Stalin closed off the policy. The argument that true communism has never been tried (and thus the "social states") is silly because it relies on a hypothetical economic platform from 200 years ago that completely disregards current technological advances and socio-economic and political practicality.

So, when I say "Capitalism makes a nation disproportionately rich, communism makes a nation equally poor," I mean that the economic theories proposed by Adam Smith (particularly supply and demand) that function in today's world is one that provides overall wealth and higher standard of living that disproportionately favors a small percentage of individuals who either have information and/or resources to provide consumer goods that a majority of people need/want, ultimately granting them more access to said resources. Thus, "Capitalism makes a nation disproportionately rich." In contrast, the "social states" that existed before hand relied upon a command economy, where the production of the people was, for practical reasons, placed under state ownership. This economic system ultimately relied on the state's ability to predict the needs/wants of its own people and create (or increase production of) said consumer goods, which has been proven multiple times in history that states run by a political body are terrible at such predictions. Thus, an excess of X goods, while a deficiency in Y goods. The system places emphasis on access to goods which standardizes the standard of living, but ultimately results in a deficiency of Y goods that the state failed to predict the need/want for which goods. Thus, "communism ("social state") makes a nation equally poor."

 

[WISD0MTREE]

12 hours ago, Big Brother said:

Wow, that's a Great Leap Forward. I need a Great Purge of my computer folders so I can find this one pic that opposes your pic, if you catch my drift.  

[Caecus]

4 minutes ago, WISD0MTREE said:

Wow, that's a Great Leap Forward. I need a Great Purge of my computer folders so I can find this one pic that opposes your pic, if you catch my drift.  

Oh god, your white-ass Dad-joke puns starve Ukrainians. You should Cheka your privilege.