patrick.net

corntrollio says

A lot more of the riff raff should not be getting yearly increases just for seniority and just because the union says so.

It is my understanding that the automatic annual increase is not union, but it is a State Law. And absolutly nuts.

@Sim,
My comments were supposed to be aimed at the complex and not the indiviual. We agree about many things.
Point #1 where we agree: A good teacher is a special person first, a teacher second. Most good parents are also good teachers. I am a great parent, my dad was a great parent, as was his dad and his dad and his dad and his dad and his dad and his dad. But, I am not a great parent because I read a book or heard a professor lecture about parenting. Plus, I'm not a good parent because my dad was. I am a good parent because I was BORN with the stuff that makes good parents. It just can't be taught. All that can be taught is the THEROY and the PROCESS. But, in the real world the results from applied theroy and process whenever people are involved just plain suck. That's what goes on in the making of teachers today and it does not work.

Your dad was not a product of today's California Educational Force. He sounds like many of the teachers I had, ones that were natural born teachers. They never used theroy and process. They used their God given abilities and applied themselves.

Point #2: We agree that people doing what they are ment to do is seen in their efforts. Anyone that is good at anything they do, will not start and stop on a clock. They are always thinking and planning and wondering about their tasks ahead. That is what great people do. Mediocre people do only the minimums and then bitch about the agressive ones passing them for a promotion. That is why the unions made up such stupid rules as seniority in advancement. That one ideal, that lone rule, is the very best example of proof that a union group is not focused on the very best workforce for their employers. The best person for a job is the best person for a job ... the longest employed person may not be that person. Seniority is stuuupid, whith respect to anything but the best parking spots.

On the issue you mention about long hours you have to be careful about stuff like that, and I'll explain why. If someone is just a poor planner, but damned determined to have a great plan, that person will take more time to develop their great plan. And there are folks that can think on the fly and have a great plan in a flash (that would be me). So, when you mention the loads of time that your Dad put into his tasks there is a kind-of double edged sword there. While it is very possible, and I'll even say likely, that you Dad was going the extra mile at the expense of personal time, it is also possible that he was talking longer just doing the needful things that others get done in a timely fashion, and the end result was he had to work extra to get the stuff done. Now, listen, I am not saying that as a negative. It is a positive because the moral here is he did what it took to do the very best he could. I am just suggesting that time management or productivity rates can very between folks. My job is a constant on my mind -- even when I'm on here sparring. lol

Point #3: We agree, If someone does not have kids, or does have kids but does not get involved, then they should be quiet on school matters other than budget. I have kids. I am very involved. Of my kid's trek through school thus far- 50% of the HS teachers I've experienced so far are a shame, 30% ok, 20% born to teach. K to 6th have been 90% great, 5% ok, 5% crap. For some reason 7th and 8th were total bombs. I mean complete junk. Of the early years, I'd say 2nd and 3rd had great teachers, both in the private Christian School environment and in the public school environment. We have tried both.

I know a few teachers personally. Some I have known since we were in grammer school together. Only a couple are good teachers. One of the great ones is a dude, and a Gemorran, and super funny, and full of energy, and has next year ready when this year ends, and would do the job for alot less money (his exact words). He is in N.LasVegas and has some tuff kids (8th grade). I pick him to share for obvious reasons. But, he really is a natural BORN teacher. His dad was too, and was a great guy. My point is, great teachers possess the right tools to have their students respond and those tools come at birth, not from sitting in a classroom. In my opinion, the higher learning classroom is too far left to be good for America's future.

Vouchers would help shine a light on the great teachers too. They deserve it.

thunderlips11 says

They let several of her younger colleagues go, to save some of the time-punchers.

I don't know the specifics, but there are usually more than one frame of reference in these situations. (By the way we took 7 furlough days last year, 5 the year before)

But about that frame of reference. A union doesn't want want to give up hard earned raises, knowing they will have to fight for years to get them back, and knowing that management can play accounting tricks to make any claim they wish to make.

According to your reasoning, all the upper administrator (in their 6 figure jobs) have to do is work the accounting to where they can say (showing numbers) these lower level people will have to be laid off unless you all take a pay cut. Sounds awfully easy to me.

Why does anyone ever get laid off in any company EVER ? When you can say that the other employees who weren't laid off could have gotten together and taken pay cuts to help avoid the layoffs ?

You have to be careful, because there are always different ways of describing the same situation depending on your bias and agenda. It's not always easy to discern what's really going on.

But in any case, States have been hurting big time, and a lot of teachers have taken cuts, and a lot have been laid off, and class sizes have gone from way too big to ridiculously big.

And on top of the pain, teachers have to listen to all the no nothing experts on education. Well, I don't have to do I.

simchaland says

Really, do any one of you know any teachers personally?

Uh, yeah, one of my in-laws is one of the privileged people with seniority who got in before all of the changes that screwed the younger people and freely admits it.

He has also told me much about the "rubber room" procedures where teachers that should be fired, but aren't because of the union, are kept.

I personally would be for increasing teacher pay as long as they give up tenure and allow the crappy teachers to be fired. The good teachers are worth far more than the union scale allows them to be paid.

corntrollio says

The good teachers are worth far more than the union scale allows them to be paid.

great point

Instead of solely blaming teachers, maybe we should be looking at the higher ups as well. Perhaps we should be blaming education "reformers" like Michelle Rhee who through their high stakes testing approach have turned our schools into a high stakes poker game.

I'm only continuing this to prove the point that there are exceptional teachers out there. We only seem to hear about the bad ones. That's not "fair and balanced."

Bap33 said, "Your dad was not a product of today's California Educational Force. He sounds like many of the teachers I had, ones that were natural born teachers. They never used theroy [sic] and process. They used their God given abilities and applied themselves."

You didn't know my Dad so I'm not taking this personally. He loved theory and process. He loved the educational process. He studied it avidly. He used theory and process in everything he did. Good teachers use both their innate abilities and they use theory and process to improve their skills and methods.

Bap33 said, "If someone is just a poor planner, but damned determined to have a great plan, that person will take more time to develop their great plan. And there are folks that can think on the fly and have a great plan in a flash... While it is very possible, and I'll even say likely, that you Dad was going the extra mile at the expense of personal time, it is also possible that he was talking longer just doing the needful things that others get done in a timely fashion, and the end result was he had to work extra to get the stuff done. Now, listen, I am not saying that as a negative. It is a positive..."

This does border on an insult that I don't think you intended. Again, you didn't know my Dad. He was a genius. (Winning any kind of argument with him was almost impossible for this kid.) He was a quick thinker and an excellent planner. He had it all. He was just an intense workaholic who really loved what he did. He never wasted time. We had to sift through reems of complicated theory, curriculum plans, curriculum development, essays, etc. when he died. The man had 4 laptops filled to the brim with documents he created to improve not only his own teaching, but to instruct others on how to be great teachers. Also they were filled to the brim with work from at least 2 of his 4 masters degrees.

Again, yes, he had innate talents. And he always strived to improve his skills and to teach others within his profession how they can improve by instructing them on his mistakes, successes, his theories, and the process of how he developed his methods. He recorded everything. He was an encyclopedia of knowledge and the vast body of his work was staggering.

The man was a master multi-tasker. While he worked 60-80 hours at his profession (most weeks), he also attended soccer games, Boy Scout camps and meetings, swim meets, took us to the theater, movies, had picnics, taught us canoeing, etc. He wasn't "just a teacher" at his school. He ran the concessions stands for the athletic department and was a girl's track coach. And he was constantly going to school, hence the 4 masters degrees. He always felt learning was a life long process (yes, a process). He attended to multiple family emergencies while balancing all of this (he had to think on his feet a lot).

Dad was also a spontaneous person in so many ways. He had it all, I dare say. He could plan like no one else and he could be fantastically quick, decisive, and spontaneous.

A great teacher is someone who has both innate qualities that make him or her a great teacher, and who learns through practice, theory, and the process of education to master their skills. And after that, he or she goes back to school to build on their successes and learn from their mistakes.

I assure you, none of what I wrote was to be negative about your dad.

simchaland says

A great teacher is someone who has both innate qualities that make him or her a great teacher, and who learns through practice, theory, and the process of education to master their skills. And after that, he or she goes back to school to build on their successes.

Without the innate part, the end result is a great student being placed in the role of a teacher. Desire does wonders, but it will never beat BORN IN qualities. I am sure you agree that young people not exploring and using their BORN IN talents should be a sin. Everyone was built to do a particular task better than most, in my opinion. Part of growth should be finding that craft/task and allowing your fellow man to enjoy the fruits of you doing the craft/task you were BORN to do. Like, for example, my wife was born to be a mom - in my opinion. And by doing her job well she is creating a better world for all of those around her. I know, kinda cheezy, but you get the drift.

We disagree on the point of theory (sorry, cant spell) and process being as important as personality and soul. But that's ok, we will survive.

my copy missed your edit, but not on purpose.

HousingWatcher says

Instead of solely blaming teachers, maybe we should be looking at the higher ups as well. Perhaps we should be blaming education "reformers" like Michelle Rhee who through their high stakes testing approach have turned our schools into a high stakes poker game.

Yep. Or that we provide no alternative than going to college since we don't offer any free public technical training like most other developed countries.

@thunderlips,
right on

Bap33 says

Now, if you are going to suggest there is no effect from these changes being made, then you have to share why in the world the changes WERE made and why in the world the books used to teach a subject that remains unchanged - math for example - need to be re-wrote, adjusted and complete new design books bought (for millions) each year.

Books wear out, and need to be replaced. But yes, it's a business too, and since schools are never doing well enough, publishers are always coming up with different books( "better curriculum" ), for when you get around to replacing them. There is competition. You came up with adding names like Pedro and Jamal to story problems as an example. Big deal. What change did it have ? Obviously it helped counter the argument that education is biased towards the white community. How ridiculous to suggest that if they are making a new edition anyway, that making the names more representative of what they would be out there is somehow corrupting our culture.

Bap33 says

Model-B was a great student, loved learning, and went to school and kept learning. They then graduated and found out that they had no skills, no drive, no talent, but they felt they DESERVED to be paid for their DEGREE, so they went back into the school room as a teacher. Where they now transfer their lazy, angry, skilless, empty life to kids that have to be there. That is about 95% of the California teachers at this time.

There is no way that 95% of teachers fit this description. Not even 10% at my school, well maybe 10 to 20%. What you don't realize is that if a teacher fits this description, then the children would and do make their life hell.

Many people simply quit if they don't like it or can't cut it.

Bap33 says

The school books of today do not carry a positive theme, they carry a liberal/leftist/socialist/anti-American/anti-God very much queer (not just the sexual kind) World Order theme. P.C. Police infected the young minds of the past and created the population (with a little help from drugs and porn) that is now willing to let America fall-- as the anti-AMerican, anti-God, progressive/liberal/leftist/socialists/communists knew they would back in the late 50's when they started their march to where we are now. Look around. Everything is 180* out of phase. If you do not see that, then your view has been spun too. While you have personally attacked a few times, vailed and not, I choose not too.

So if I "attack" like you did all Califonia teachers, that is because of liberal PC culture ?

No that's just my personality and my impatient reaction to what I see as off the charts ignorance and fear. You're a nice guy Bap, but I find your beliefs to be a very strong indictment against fundamentalism. I'm sure among the Taliban there are a lot of really nice guys too.

All fundamentalism is the work of Satan. It feeds your fear and hate. It is the exact opposite of what Jesus taught. It may already have led to the downfall of this country by supporting our all time worst Presidents, Ronald Reagan and GWB.

Without the fundamentalist vote, many of whom are descendants of the KKK or of the John Birch society (hateful racist groups) neither of those idiots could have ever been elected.

no fear or hate here. just honesty and a firm grip on reality. Your fear and hate have your view twisted I guess?

Fundamentalism is the exact opposite of reality, honesty, and reason.

Bap33 says

Your fear and hate have your view twisted I guess?

I only hate ignorance and hate itself.. You hate "invaders" the "queer" whatever that means, pc liberal tolerance etc.

You really are no better than the Taliban (also fundamentalists). They too think they know what God wants, just like you do. So what if they have a couple of ever so slightly more extreme views about women or whatever. Truth be told, you probably sort of agree with them about that too.

Fyi, there are many Christian religions that are relatively cool. Catholics, Methodists, Episcopalians, Presbyterians, or even mainstream Mormons or Baptists, etc., I wouldnt expect you to go way liberal and embrace Unitrian or Unity. Maybe you are in the hills of Appalachia, or some rural part of Arkansas, were fundamentalism is your only option, I don't know.

Maybe in certain parts of Texas , Alabama, or Mississippi, that's also your only choice. If so, sorry to hear that.

But otherwise you might want to show a little class and intelligence and move up to a righteous Christian faith, and say no to Satan.

It occurs to me that you don't even know that being a member of your fundamentalist church officially makes you a member of the lunatic fringe. It's really quite embarrassing. I understand, you didn't know.

You really are no better than the Taliban (also fundamentalists).

Really. Really? The women killing Taliban? The child killing Taliban? The blowing up the soccer ball in the middle of the match to hang some gays Taliban?

Expand your knowledge. You don't know shit about shit.

wtfcapinv says

The women killing Taliban? The child killing Taliban?

THey are just doing what they believe is Gods work. And it's not like everyone in the Taliban does these things.

Why is that so different than this ?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-abortion_violence

wtfcapinv says

Expand your knowledge

Maybe you can learn that fundamentalists have more in common than you think.

wtfcapinv says

You don't know shit about shit.

Well, what can you expect, wtf? He's a California communist union rabble-rousing socialistic child-mind-poisoning college educated democratic liberal elite living off our hard-earned dollars.

wow, I must admit that the hate and fear from those on the left is so great it suprized me.

@sim,
that is your opinion. Your hate for fundamentalism and all things "normal" (for lack of a better vocabulary on my part) may stem from an internal struggle. I hope you don't let it get the better of you. It would be a shame for you to attack and abuse me (on here - as much as that can be done) in an effort to reduce your frustration. I would never expect such behavior from you.

When you were upset w/me for having a negative view of the educational system in California - that was a valid position for you to take. But, when your defense of the position was "my Dad was a teacher, so I know more about it than any of you poopoo heads!!", I was a little bit suprized. What a person's parents do for a living lets them experience what it is like to be the child of that parent doing that job. Nothing more. So to assume an authoratative tone just because you had a parent that worked in the field is unwarranted, in my humble opinion.
THere is no reason to be disagreeable in our discussion. I normally enjoy our discussions because you normally are so civil and normally that forces me to be as civil as possible. I have seen many bash-a-thons on here and maybe you're getting a hair-trigger or something.(?) Anyways, no need for anger to sour your (our) day. Be of good cheer, and enjoy another sunny day offered by God.

@marcus,
your uncontrolled hate and venomous barbs are being wasted on me, my friend. You are obviously feeling the need to defend the indefensible. Good luck with that. You seem to suffer from something that most teachers suffer from, and that could be called the "smartest person in the room" syndrome, or something like that. It is common with most every teacher I encounter, and it may be why most teachers end up married to teachers, maybe? Anyways, you should realize that you are not being attacked by me or anyone. It's just that out in the big world that is not part of your classroom there are lots of people that are not your students. You are not automatically the smartest person in the room by default -- and it seems like that fact really does not sit well with most teachers. THe result here is you are lashing out in frustration and anger and hate out of fear from not being Lord Master of the situation. You feel challenged. Stop it. You are not being attacked by me or anyone else that sees the huge problem in the public education complex. Your profession is not being attacked. The system in place that blurs the line between your profession and politics MUST be removed. It must be removed because there is no competition allowed under the current system. It must be removed because it is being used as a political tool. It must be removed because it is being used as a social experiment playground. It has became a monster. People are made to support the Educational Monster no matter how horrible the job gets done. That is bad. Your point about the top being too fat is spot on. But, unless I missed something, the Educational Machine is designed so that only those that walked the same steps you have walked are able to be admin or higher. And if that is correct (I could be wrong) then the same people that you say are too fat at the top are just rank-file folks that made it there. Why hate them for doing what it takes to get ahead?
At any rate, I would rather you were not so angry with me for pointing out the absurd system in place. It has nothing at all to do with you, or your career choice, or how you do your job. In this lone case, it is not about you. Your fear and hate might be the reason for your agressive stance against me, so I do not take it personally. It's all good. Have a good day.

@ellie,
lol, you are witty, that was a diddy.

Bap33 says

It's just that out in the big world that is not part of your classroom there are lots of people that are not your students. You are not automatically the smartest person in the room by default -- and it seems like that fact really does not sit well with most teachers

Short on time here, but for the record, I could name at least a few regulars on this forum that I think are smarter than I. Also, I teach a range of classes, in my Calculus classes I generally feel like at least 1/4 of the class is smarter than me. Not in terms of what they know now, but in terms of IQ.

Even in remedial classes, with students who are terrible at Math, I don't generally feel like the smartest one in the room. Just the best at Mathematics. I am under those circumstances, extremely nonjudgemental. Actually that's the irony here, that you are calling me arrogant, when your biggest problem is how judgemental you are.

One thing about Mathematics is that it's humbling, that is eventually. Try reading some twentieth century Math (not you Bap), if you don't know what I mean. I may sound arrogant in my conversation with you, talking down to you, but it's only because of the way you paint yourself on this forum, to be such a fool.

But I am actually far less arrogant than you. You're the one who KNOWS that 95% of California teachers are incompetent. You're the one that has far fetched (extremely scary) supposed knowledge about how liberals have undermined our education system and our culture.

Your arrogance comes from blindly listening to holier than thou evil, in the name of good. This kind of "thinking" has been behind the worst atrocities and genocides the human race has experienced.

I know you're correct that my words are wasted, you're right about that.

Wow Bap33, you woke up cranky. I never attacked you personally. If you took offense maybe you should reread my posts on a day when you are in a better mood.

Fundamentalism is anything but normal. It's the extreme position in any religion by definition. Adherents don't need to think or use reason. They simply follow the dictates of their religious leaders without question. They use the most narrow lens to read sacred scripture only understanding the most surface and superficial meaning of the texts. That requires no reflection or thought.

Reason and critical thinking are incompatible with fundamentalism. If an adherent starts to question he or she is in danger of being shunned by their religious community. Magical thinking is required if one is to adhere to a fundamentalist position in any religion.

simchaland says

Reason and critical thinking are incompatible with fundamentalism

Sim, if those fundamentals are based on reason, and by most definitions reasons are based on critical thinking, then wouldn't that make your statement false? I am not being difficult, I am just pointing out that to those who believe "X" is a basic known fact of life, and they believe "X" is based on "reason", and they believe that "X" and it's "reason" were only reached after some serious "critical thinking", then they present a problem to your position ---- if "X" happens to be the belief in absolute right and absolute wrong, for example. Is that fundamental believe right or wrong in your opinion? For me it is simple, there is absolute right (good) and absolute wrong (evil) in the human experience. It's how we test a matter or action that we differ on I am sure.

I am not in a bad mood. Heck, I'm never in a bad mood. I appologies if I overstepped.

@marcus,
I am not part of any organized religion. do not be offended for me letting you be wrong in public.
I do not "know" 95% of todays teachers are "incompotent". If I did say that, I should not have. The results show there is a major problem. The costs associated with the Educational Monster shows a severe problem. Let me modify my position thusly: I feel the results vs expense of the Educational Monster that is headed-up by teachers - who over-see teachers - who are teachers, shows an OBVIOUS AWESOME problem - and my experience has been that 95% of teachers should not be allowed to interact with the children of others in private. Fair enough? Do note that 95% may have been incorrect, it may be much higher than that - just as it may be a tick lower. lol
Hang in there.
What personality type do you feel best endurs and overcomes adversity - conservative or liberal (general terms)?

marcus says

liberals have undermined our education system and our culture.

not exactly liberals per se .... but that's the accepted term to use is general, so you are correct.

simchaland says

If you have kids in school currently. Your best bet is to actually get involved in the school where your child attends. That way you actually meet the teachers, administrators, and the principal.

Btw, to simchaland's point, one of the most interesting programs is Geoffrey Canada's program in Harlem, which actually requires parents to be involved. I'm sure both sides have their criticisms -- e.g. it's too paternalistic, requires too much intervention, etc. But it really attacks the problems in education from a lot of good angles: getting parents involved, starting from a young age when you can still make a difference -- if you wait until even middle school you've waited too long, being more cost-effective, having parents realize that it's about making sure your kid has better opportunities and that you may not get a direct benefit to your own life, etc.

Bap33 says

What personality type do you feel best endurs and overcomes adversity - conservative or liberal (general terms)?

I know you directed this at Marcus, but I'll take a stab. In general, a liberal is open to change and a conservative resists change. So, I'd say someone who is adaptable and open to change will overcome adversity better than someone who is not.

Bap33 says

Sim, if those fundamentals are based on reason, and by most definitions reasons are based on critical thinking, then wouldn't that make your statement false?

He brings up a good point. When people say 'Fundamentalist' we all think of those crazy religious groups ... but what about the 'reason' fundamentalists who espouse the fundamental principles of reason and critical thinking and the open dissemination and contemplation of ideas?

You know, fundamentalist atheists!

On a side note, don't ever argue with me. I was BORN to be right. Since you lack this innate quality (you are prone to delusion, as your belief in an invisible, all powerful creator who just happens to leave ABSOLUTELY no hard proof of his/her own existence simply to ... get this .... test your faith in his existence .... proves) you cannot help but lose (and fail to realize it). Sorry - just focus on finding what you were born to do and stick to that.

tatupu70 says

In general, a liberal is open to change and a conservative resists change. So, I'd say someone who is adaptable and open to change will overcome adversity better than someone who is not.

I see where you are going with your answer, but I was thinking more along the lines or personality types, and in that regard I think a liberal is a person who has no pre-set boundries for acceptable behavior where a conservative does.

Your point is correct only when things are as they should be. Meaning, a conservative does not want change when the situation is as it should be, but when things are wrong then a conservative wants things changed back to correct. Right now I am very much a conservative and I am very much wanting BIG CHANGES in America. Same for a liberal. If things are as they feel they should be, then they do not want change, that would make them a conservative in your example. So, maybe those two lables are not the best choice for my question. (?)

Should we pick something specific, like behavior or bill paying or character or values to get an idea of what we mean by these lables?

Bap33 says

I see where you are going with your answer, but I was thinking more along the lines or personality types, and in that regard I think a liberal is a person who has no pre-set boundries for acceptable behavior where a conservative does.

Okay, you lost all credibility with this. This prejudges a liberal as doing "unacceptable" things and makes no such judgment on a conservative. This is a ridiculous definition. tatupu70 gave the traditional/classical definition for liberal vs. conservative (change vs. not), and you're basically saying that only conservatives can be "correct," which is silly.

In addition, you're prejudging your personal attitude as "correct," and no one else can possibly be correct, which is not really a way to have a productive discussion.

Moreover, your discussion is a complete waste of time. Why do people need to engage in all of this liberal/conservative nonsense stereotyping all the time anyway. If people had discussions about the topic instead of sniping about stereotypes, we'd have better discussions.

Bap33 says

I am not part of any organized religion. do not be offended for me letting you be wrong in public.

You sound very much like a fundamentalist Christian.

About arrogance, I talk to you like I'm smarter than you. You talk like you are morally superior to me, indirectly because you are morally superior to all liberals.

So I think I'm smarter than you and you think your morally superior to me. Who's arrogant ?

Who's correct ?

As for your views on education, much of it comes from propaganda. Here is a quote that you have read from me before. From link below (but I don't expect you to glean anything from this):

The annual Gallup poll about education shows that Americans are overwhelmingly dissatisfied with the quality of the nation’s schools, but 77 percent of public school parents award their own child’s public school a grade of A or B, the highest level of approval since the question was first asked in 1985.

http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/2010/nov/11/myth-charter-schools/

I"m arrogant, but my guess is you won;t read this or consider it.

The truth is we need to improve. But it's also true that everyone has to go to school in this country. In poor neighborhoods, it turns out that a majority don't want to be there, and or, have poor nutrition, many distractions, possibly severely dysfunctional families, etc. So the challenges to teachers are immense. Especially once the children are socially promoted a few times. Can you imagine teaching 9th grade math to a kid who is at the 5th grade level and has totally given up on school, but has to be there ?

I went to great public schools and now teach at a great public school. Every year we have graduates that get in to our countries very best colleges. I'm proud of my school and the work I do, but sometimes I fail and I'm always trying to do better.

Bap33 says

What personality type do you feel best endurs and overcomes adversity - conservative or liberal (general terms)?

For one thing I am politically a liberal in some ways, but actually a conservative, just because of my age. I have always done challenging and stressful work (didn't teach until my forties). And many of my classes present plenty of adversity.

Todays republicans are no longer conservative. The best way to describe them is that they are rich and they represent the rich. Most rich republicans did not become rich by overcoming adversity.

@corn,
huh? Is that really what you read in my post? wow. My writing skills really suck.

@marcus,
1) The CALIFORNIA EDUCATION MONSTER MACHINE is BAD/EVIL/BROKEN in my opinion.
2) I can't find an answer to my question in your response, but the point of what exaxctly is a liberal or conservative type was brought up and that is a pretty good question too.

marcus says

About arrogance, I talk to you like I'm smarter than you. You talk like you are morally superior to me, indirectly because you are morally superior to all liberals.

don't be silly. take the knife from your own throat and place it in my back where you had it earlier.

Bap33 says

@corn,
huh? Is that really what you read in my post? wow. My writing skills really suck.

corntrollio says

in that regard I think a liberal is a person who has no pre-set boundries for acceptable behavior where a conservative does.

Maybe I'm misreading you, but that sounds like a very judgmental answer for liberal vs. conservative.

Bap33 says

Meaning, a conservative does not want change when the situation is as it should be, but when things are wrong then a conservative wants things changed back to correct.

We call that a pragmatist. Has nothing to do with liberal or conservative.

Conservative has been given a different meaning by popular media and by politicians, just like liberal. But this isn't 1969, so we should probably get past that crap and stop using inaccurate labels and instead discuss real issues. Someone who leads with "liberals think..." or "conservatives think..." is probably not going to have anything interesting to say. The whole idea is flawed anyway, since politics are better mapped on two spectra: http://www.politicalcompass.org/

corntrollio says

in that regard I think a liberal is a person who has no pre-set boundries for acceptable behavior where a conservative does.
Maybe I'm misreading you, but that sounds like a very judgmental answer for liberal vs. conservative.

no no no ... pre-set acceptable behavior .. the "acceptable" is not as in legal or moral, but acceptable meaning something closer to "expected" or "pleasing" or "comfortable" or maybe something like "normal" to a person. I see what you were reading, but I was not intending that.

Just so we all have the actual definition of Fundamentalism from Merriam-Webster:

1.: a often capitalized : a movement in 20th century Protestantism emphasizing the literally interpreted Bible as fundamental to Christian life and teaching b : the beliefs of this movement c : adherence to such beliefs

2: a movement or attitude stressing strict and literal adherence to a set of basic principles

All bolds are mine.

As you can see, reason, critical thinking, etc. aren't mentioned at all. Literal interpretations require no reason or critical thinking. And, beliefs aren't facts... That's magical thinking.

I rest my case.

Bap33 says

The CALIFORNIA EDUCATION MONSTER MACHINE is BAD/EVIL/BROKEN in my opinion.

How do you breathe when your head is in that particular location ?

http://toped.svefoundation.org/2011/01/12/now-43rd-in-per-student-spending/

So 42 of the 50 states spend more per student than California.

This is about prop 13. Instead of paying higher real estate taxes in California, we just pay more for Real Estate. That's pretty fucked up.

By the way, one thing I am working on right now is teaching to the State standardized tests better than I ever have before. That will certainly make it appear that I am doing a better job.

marcus says

For one thing I am politically a liberal in some ways, but actually a conservative, just because of my age. I have always done challenging and stressful work (didn't teach until my forties). And many of my classes present plenty of adversity.

Marcus, I am leaving my well paying job in the military at near 40 years old to jump into the education system. I have been a great teacher/mentor in the military and really enjoy it. Any advice for someone at 40 deciding to go into the education system?

I'm still trying wrap my head around the theory of conserativism and liberalism being personality traits.

Bap33 says

don't be silly. take the knife from your own throat and place it in my back where you had it earlier.

I tip my hat to that one.

Truthplease says

Any advice for someone at 40 deciding to go into the education system?

I would suggest that you maybe find a good job, before leaving your current one, for starters. It's a very tough time to be starting in teaching, because there have been a lot of lay offs recently. You are going to be competing with experienced people out there, that is in your job search.

Do you have ideas of age and subject you want to teach ?

Certain ages are much more difficult than others. Grades 7 - 9 are particularly difficult in my opinion.

simchaland says

to a set of basic principles

dude, cmon now .. "basic principles" can't bother you THAT much. Just remove the bold that you added and put it on the "basic principles" part and then you may see sumthin different.

@ellie,
I can't be sure that I even approached that division right. Is it personality trait, or a function of deep thought, or just pre-wired DNA, or an expression of life experience, or all of the above, or were the smart ones all made leftists and the cavemanish ones all made rightists? lol. It would seem that there are many similar personality traits and philosophy shared by those that populate each "side", and only the middle-road types cross over. Heck, depending on the subject matter, many folks change sides. I dunno.

@marcus,
my personal opinion should not result in a personal attack from Lord Teacher AllMighty. People that attack personally when faced with a differing opinion should be ashamed, in my opinion. That shows a lack of intellect, that results in a lack of ideas, that results in frustration, that results in fear, that results in hate, that results in anger, that results in childlike name calling instead of mature retort. People should discuss issues with respect, and I guess the saying is true ... "those that can - do (ellie, sim, many others), and those that can't - teach (you)."

Truthplease says

Any advice for someone at 40 deciding to go into the education system?

If you re thinking of high school, it is true as Bap mentioned that a degree in the subject you are teaching is often required. This does not nearly guarantee proficiency as a teacher, and there aren't any teachers that think this alone is sufficient to guarantee their proficiency(contrary to one of Baps many silly assertions above). But it's a reasonable place to start, that is requiring proof that the person knows the subject, even beyond the level that they will be teaching.