I think by design. Basically to stay with mediocrity a system was designed where pay is not that great but benefits are outstanding, so you can muddle through the system without skills relatively protected and just have to hang in there until you can retire. If we had scratched those guaranteed pensions long ago and made it easier to lay off teachers we would have had ample money to incentivise good teachers and focus on their performance. I know quite a few teachers who argue the same, i.e. that there's too much dead weight kept in the system keeping the salaries low.
Why does one need to fight for "fair" compensation? If teachers think they are paid too little they should quit and do something else.
Okay, then how is compensation for an important public service job such as teachers determined ? Is it just pay as little as possible ? This isn't a for profit situation where maximization of profits will naturally lead to an appropriate market determined pay for employees. The profit, is having a productive and intelligent citizenry in the future.
IT's really funny when you think about it. The plutocracy wants to pay less for teachers, and they supposedly want the quality of public education to go up.
If only the unions would get out of the way, we would be able to get so much more for our money in the way of teachers.
Okay, then how is compensation for an important public service job such as teachers determined ?
Change all contracts to at-will and allow pay be determined on a case-by-case basis. Also, let parents choose any school they want and let school districts levy a premium or surcharge.
The invisible hand will set the price.
This isn't a for profit situation where maximization of profits will naturally lead to an appropriate market determined pay for employees. The profit, is having a progduntive and intelligent citizenry in the future.
Yes. This is why education ought to be privatized as much as possible.
1) Encourage at least one parent to stay home and raise the kids
How may this be done? At any rate it may work only with about the top 10% of the income.
There is a way to increase this percentage. For example, by an education system that is free only for top students (like for 25-20% of them) and for the rest it would be partially covered by vouchers payable to schools as well as to homeschooling parents. That would be a good incentive for both parents and students. Also, it would be a good way of rewarding success rather than rewarding failure the way it works today.
3) Teach kids to find passions, ask questions, and get answers with help
Easier said than done. We have a huge problem here especially in teaching mathematics, which we practically destroyed during the last half a century. All they teach today is knowing facts, remembering formulas and in the best case understanding how to use these formulas to make certain calculations. There is absolutely no teaching of how math research is done, neither how to prove in mathematics nor how mathematics are built.
However, it's practically impossible to fix now, since all teachers we have today are themselves victims of this education.
One way to do something about it could be promoting international problem solving competitions and highly rewarding students who succeed in them. Peter P says
4) De-emphasize higher education for all except specialized areas
College degree today is an equivalent of a high school diploma forty years ago. The idea that higher education is for training scientists has moved to post-graduate studies. As the result we got a huge waste of four most productive years our youth paid for a chance of getting a dissent job.
But how this may be undone? You can't force corporations to hire professionals w/o college degree even in cases the degree is irrelevant to the job.Peter P says
Throwing money at a failure will only turn it into an expensive failure.
Right, how about throwing money at very expensive failure? You surely know the answer: it supports the "economy".
But I think at least 50% of all families should not have kids.
This is one thing I strongly disagree on. Having most of families childless you can't asure a reproductive fertility rate, which is about 2.1 children per woman, all women counted, including infertile, lesbian, you name it.
This is a huge problem for most of "developed" countries, they can't survive without importing population and a lot of it.
Only the smart students with motivation are capable of teaching themselves effectively. The rest need a teacher.
Or maybe they need to pay for their education? This alone will make many students smarter and motivated.
Are you sure the society benefits in any way from dragging a stupid student with no motivation thru the high school?
Equality is futile. Perhaps the society should discourage uncaring parents from having kids.
I actually think the federal government *should* use taxpayer money to pay for free condoms and abortions.
This statement is not consistent with your first statement. Is it uncaring or poor family who can't invest time and MONEY? Which one is it? You must be a naive immature fellow to think that everyone who has kids should be able to afford their kids proper education. You must be the product of education budget cut. I hope most people care enough for people like you to get better education.
In a mean time, what would you do about the EXITING kids whose parents can't invest their time and MONEY? What do you do about the reality? Just cut the tax and budget for school?
BTW, the costs of raising kids are kept unnecessarily high:
1. cost of child-care (or even higher opportunity cost)
2. cost of baby-sitters (or bad quality of life)
3. cost of education (school district or private school)
4. too much regulations (e.g. car seats, etc)
They are mistakes. Some of them can be inspired enough to do good stuff. The rest will have to be handled by LE.
Your ignorance amazes me. Do you even know how much it would cost tax payers to execute? It is in our best interest to give right education to the kids, so they can be the contributing member of the society, not a criminal.
Look, if we can reduce childbirths from these two groups the world will be much better:
1. kids produced because the parents failed to use contraception
2. kids produced because the parents thought they were expected to have kids
Only people who want kids should have kids. Then they can make time and money for the kids. I love food, so I have expensive 3-hour dinners. Lifestyle choice.
It simply does not work this way. Europe has implemented this and now it's in the worst crisis. The demographic one, which is worse than the Euro crisis and anything else they messed up. They have ended up with a huge senile population and nobody to support them.
Unwanted children are more likely to be a net liability when they grow up.
Well, you obviously have no kids. In 99% of the cases unwanted children turn to very much wanted as the parents get acquainted with them, and vise versa, some parents who wanted kids, often turn into disappointed bad parents.
This is one thing you no very little about untill you get into it.Peter P says
Europe needs to fix its entitlement system and open its borders.
It has nothing to do with the entitlement system. Their entitlement system is about redistributing wealth. Their problem is that their society can't be productive. BTW, the worst problem is in ex-cathoilic countries like Italy and Spain.
And you think the right education can necessarily make kids contributing members of the society? Family upbringing is even more important.
Well, you are the proof of what I am saying.
Are you this ignorant? Without education, even the right upbringing just goes to hell. I suppose in your own little world, the right upbringing is all you need. For the rest of the world, the education is the most integral part of success.
Unfortunately, we have to. Don't you know this by now? I am amazed how immature your thought process is. Are you a stay home jr. high school student?
I don't know... nothing is more important than questioning the system. Education sure as hell will NOT do that. Schools focus too much on practical knowledge and they do not teach kids the need to design their own value system.
It is Unamerican to model our programs on successful programs from Europe. That's communistic and unpatriotic. If we learn from other countries, it would imply that we're not the greatest country in the world. And maintaining that delusion is more important than solving our problems.
- Get rid of unions.
- Allow teachers to be graded on performance.
- Give parents a voucher for 100% of public education costs and let them pick any school they want, forcing public schools to compete for children, not be forced into one based on their location.
Your cluelessness is astounding. How did you get the bizarre idea that student failure is because of the teachers? Student failure is every bit as much about bad students and bad parents as it is about bad teachers.
Yes, there exists some bad teachers, but only the the totally blind believe that bad teachers is THE problem.
You want competition among teachers, how about competition among bad parents and bad students?
Would you agree that most bad students come from bad/lazy parents?
Would you agree that most bad parents are a result of the social conditions brought on by welfare (in all of it's forms) and the erosion of the family unit?
Parents did not dream up the social engineering crap that is laced into education these days. Parents did not dream up the "stop spanking kids" nonsence. Parents did not stop prayer for the start of each school day. Parents did not stop the pledge. Parents did not dream up a system that keeps punks in schools instead of expelled. Parents did not dream up the creation of these quazi-prison style schools where the bad kids go to avoid the school system losing the per-child-funding. Parents, good parents, have had to put up with the erosion of the education system. Parents, good parents, are not the problem. Students do not raise themselves.
Going to school for 4 extra years, or 6 or 10 or 50 extra years, after HS, DOES NOT MAKE ANYONE A "GOOD" TEACHER!!! It simply meets the qualifications needed by a STUDENT, that were dreamt up by other HIGHLY EDUCATED STUDENTS, to fill the position at a school called "teacher". The entire education system focus is on being a friggin STUDENT. A student of the system, the belief system, the desired outcome, the culture, the educational complex .... all they want are more STUDENTS. There is no desire to find a true educator. A person who reaches into the soul of a young person and stirs a desire to know something, and then retain what they are exposed to for a lifetime.
Yes, parents and students have a roll. but the truth is, the Big Education Complex is what is wrong with America's HS grads. Bad students are not grads, they are pre-homeless or pre-prisoners.
I have a question: Are there youtube videos that demonstrate the differences between a good and a bad teacher?
I acknowledge that SOME bad teachers exist, and that it would be great if they were all great teachers, but WHAT EXACTLY is it that bad teachers do that make them bad teachers? Please discuss!
My main impression of a bad teacher (from TV news programs, no less) is an excessively talkative woman that prattles non-stop but with very little actual information coming out of her mouth. It seems that there is not enough real information for the kids to absorb, too much spoon-feeding, and not enough quiet time during a lecture to let the information sink in with all the prattling going on(***). Fewer words, more content, more reflection is what is needed.
Am I on the right track, or totally out in the weeds? Please educate me :).
(***) Come to think of it, this style of "communicating" is also prevalent on TV. The other day I watched a clip of Lauren Lyster from a program called Capital Account. She is interviewing Sheila Bair, who I think would make an excellent teacher, whereas Lauren Lyster would drive me absolutely crazy if I had to listen to her even just one day. Scroll forward to the portion where she is talking with Sheila Bair for contrast. Also contrast Lauren Lyster with Charlie Rose, who I think also could be an excellent teacher, someone who teaches people to THINK for themselves rather than just filling space and time with words.
Lest I be accused of being sexist, there are lots of men on TV that are every bit as bad as Lauren Lyster. Especially the "but let me ask you this" crowd on CNBC and Fox.
from a personal point of view, and life experience, and having raised (and raising) kids, I can honestly say that there is a difference in the way male children learn, verse female children. And type-a, vs type-b is different too. I submit that kids should be seperated by sex and personality type, and that may create a classroom envirnoment that allows a teacher to find a "teaching method" that is most effective. The seperation by sex is going on for my daughter's 5th grade class right now, just as a pilot study, and the results show huge improvements for both sexes and the teachers love it.
You are correct about the TV. And the internet. And most other forms of idle time tune-out entertainment. I dont think reading a book is as bad, unless it is a bad book. lol
So it is not the teachers fault, then? But what are the kids going to do when they get out in real life and may have to work with people that do not adhere to their "style"?
On that same note, have you ever heard a parent utter the phrase "my kid just has a different learning style". I don't buy into that concept. Kids need to learn how to learn. Some *small* adjustments in "style" is ok, but the idea that every kid needs a different algorithm is just a smoke screen for the kid being stupid, lazy, misbehaving or all three. And the parents as well.
And seriously, we are going to segregate society by "personality type"? I don't think that is a good idea at all.