U.S. teachers and their unions are amateurs

[level.eleven]

Should women be allowed property?

 

[steveh_131]

Are your feelings hurt, level.eleven?

Your logical fallacies are growing both in size and frequency.

 

[femurphy77]

The upside to homeschooling is that it allows children to stay on their mothers' teat until at least 18.

This^^^^


Makes this. . . .


Van Halen - Hot For Teacher [HD] - YouTube


Kinda creepy!

 

[Mgderf]

"Can't we all just get along...?"

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

If women can't vote.. why do we care about a women's opinion?

If you've ever been married, you'd know the answer to that question.

 

[ViperJock]

No need to elaborate. I've heard the excuse before. Let's skip to my response: If standardized tests are the end-all, be-all they're made out to be, then what better criterion is there for evaluating teacher performance than the students' standardized test results? It makes no logical sense to push standards and the corresponding tests onto students and parents and then remove teachers from all accountability for reaching those standards. Did you or did you not teach the material to your students in a manner that they retained it enough to regurgitate it back on the test?



OMG, what the hell is that? Do you sit on command or something?

Well the problem is that if teachers teach math, science, reading comprehension, and english for the tests they won't be able to teach social equivalency, progressive principles, and hatred of all things conservative. they'd have redo their entire lesson plan. Its just too much work.

 

[saleen4971]

tests are no good without a point of reference. a pre-test and post-test is the only way to gauge a students learning.

"but they take a test the year before!" - yes, however there is knowledge lost over the summer months. nothing you can do about that.

using standardized tests also makes teachers teach FOR the tests (as low scores in a school can and will effect the funding they recieve the next year) and not what they shoudl be teaching. an english class is not just for learning about books. a math class is not jsut about learning how to decipher "problem 3"

also look at it this way - if a teacher has a class that is largely gifted students, they will come back with high test scores. does that mean they learned more? maybe. maybe not. if you get a class average from an 85 up to 92, they look great. HOWEVER if you have a teacher who has a class full of students who (for whatever reason) do not do well in school/a subject and that teacher gets them from an average of 50 to 80, it is a HUGE accomplishment even though the test scores do not reflect that.

as with anything, there are good and bad apples - same goes with teaching. there are bad and good teachers everywhere. the biggest problem is with the politics involved. that is the #1 reason why i decided that a teaching career was not for me, at least at this time.

in response to the "do you sit on command or something?" - its clear that your view of the teaching profession is a negative one, but i dont believe that authorizes you to make such comments towards me or anyone else that has gone through 6+ years of schooling to become the best educator they can for the next generation of america. teaching is not a simple thing to do. add on top all of the requirements that you must meet (or are expected to meet) which are not always in the best interest of the students, and it becomes even more challenging. i am not even mentioning a parents role in education which is CRUCIAL - but todays society has somehow shifted the entirety of a childs education onto the teacher, many times leaving the student and family/parents/guardians with no responsibility.

 

[jamil]

Why is federal reach the 'issue at hand'?

It may have to do with who's defining the standards.

Why would a 4th grade teacher need CPI training? If you don't know what it is look it up.

Um. Does she teach accounting?

The goal of the author is the closure of every public school. Somewhere in that "circle jerk" philosophy the 19th amendment is repealed. And public schools are closed. And Obama is a Kenyan. And vaccines are a conspiracy. You get the picture.

From past experience, I suspect that you're saying she's saying more than she's saying.

 

[long coat]

Um. Does she teach accounting?

That would be CPA, not CPI.

 

[jamil]

That would be CPA, not CPI.

A correction is needed. I was actually thinking of consumer price index which I guess would be more appropriate in economics and not accounting.

 

[hornadylnl]

tests are no good without a point of reference. a pre-test and post-test is the only way to gauge a students learning.

"but they take a test the year before!" - yes, however there is knowledge lost over the summer months. nothing you can do about that.

using standardized tests also makes teachers teach FOR the tests (as low scores in a school can and will effect the funding they recieve the next year) and not what they shoudl be teaching. an english class is not just for learning about books. a math class is not jsut about learning how to decipher "problem 3"

also look at it this way - if a teacher has a class that is largely gifted students, they will come back with high test scores. does that mean they learned more? maybe. maybe not. if you get a class average from an 85 up to 92, they look great. HOWEVER if you have a teacher who has a class full of students who (for whatever reason) do not do well in school/a subject and that teacher gets them from an average of 50 to 80, it is a HUGE accomplishment even though the test scores do not reflect that.

as with anything, there are good and bad apples - same goes with teaching. there are bad and good teachers everywhere. the biggest problem is with the politics involved. that is the #1 reason why i decided that a teaching career was not for me, at least at this time.

in response to the "do you sit on command or something?" - its clear that your view of the teaching profession is a negative one, but i dont believe that authorizes you to make such comments towards me or anyone else that has gone through 6+ years of schooling to become the best educator they can for the next generation of america. teaching is not a simple thing to do. add on top all of the requirements that you must meet (or are expected to meet) which are not always in the best interest of the students, and it becomes even more challenging. i am not even mentioning a parents role in education which is CRUCIAL - but todays society has somehow shifted the entirety of a childs education onto the teacher, many times leaving the student and family/parents/guardians with no responsibility.

My mom was the head of the local school union for years. To hear her tell it, she hated the thought of having to defend a good non union teacher more than a bad union teacher.

Teachers are just as effective at rooting out bad teachers as cops are at rooting out bad cops. By representing bad teachers, she was providing job security for herself. Why if they can be fired, I can too.

 

[saleen4971]

Im not a fan of unions for that very reason. I will never defend a teachers union, but I will gladly defend a good teacher.

 

[Blackhawk2001]

tests are no good without a point of reference. a pre-test and post-test is the only way to gauge a students learning.

"but they take a test the year before!" - yes, however there is knowledge lost over the summer months. nothing you can do about that.

using standardized tests also makes teachers teach FOR the tests (as low scores in a school can and will effect the funding they recieve the next year) and not what they shoudl be teaching. an english class is not just for learning about books. a math class is not jsut about learning how to decipher "problem 3"

also look at it this way - if a teacher has a class that is largely gifted students, they will come back with high test scores. does that mean they learned more? maybe. maybe not. if you get a class average from an 85 up to 92, they look great. HOWEVER if you have a teacher who has a class full of students who (for whatever reason) do not do well in school/a subject and that teacher gets them from an average of 50 to 80, it is a HUGE accomplishment even though the test scores do not reflect that.

as with anything, there are good and bad apples - same goes with teaching. there are bad and good teachers everywhere. the biggest problem is with the politics involved. that is the #1 reason why i decided that a teaching career was not for me, at least at this time.

in response to the "do you sit on command or something?" - its clear that your view of the teaching profession is a negative one, but i dont believe that authorizes you to make such comments towards me or anyone else that has gone through 6+ years of schooling to become the best educator they can for the next generation of america. teaching is not a simple thing to do. add on top all of the requirements that you must meet (or are expected to meet) which are not always in the best interest of the students, and it becomes even more challenging. i am not even mentioning a parents role in education which is CRUCIAL - but todays society has somehow shifted the entirety of a childs education onto the teacher, many times leaving the student and family/parents/guardians with no responsibility.

For those of us over 50, who were schooled in public and parochial schools, I suspect most of us understand your response for what it is - whining.

Education degrees are largely a joke nowadays - as is college education in general, except perhaps for the hard sciences - and your six years of education don't impress me much. Teachers when I was growing up tended to have more students-per-classroom than schools today - Catholic schools certainly had more students than schools today. While there was a bit of "keep Slow Johnny with his age-mates" then, it wasn't nearly as prevalent as it appears today. It was a rarity for a student to be able to graduate from high school without being able to spell or read. While it may be true that parents have less involvement with their kids' education than they used to, it may just be a function of the tendency of school administrations and school boards to do as they please (because THEY are Educators and WE are Ignorant) and disregard our valid criticisms of their work and ideas. Public School administrations have all sorts of excuses for why they aren't getting the job done, but they blame Parochial schools' relative successes on the very things THEY won't do to ensure the children in their care are educated. The fact is, because parents are, in most cases, paying out-of-pocket for their children's education, they tend to take more of an interest in their children's education. And because parochial schools teach morality as part of their curriculum and don't tolerate misbehavior, they tend to have fewer behavior problems than the public schools, who don't teach morality in their curriculum and tolerate a fair degree of misbehavior.

And it's public school administrations and their union representatives' politics which have injected so much federal government control and interference in local education systems, the very interference that teachers cite as causes for their inability to teach their students.

You're a bunch of whiners "and you shouldn't be allowed." (rep to the first person to get that reference)

 

[wally05]

For those of us over 50, who were schooled in public and parochial schools, I suspect most of us understand your response for what it is - whining.

Education degrees are largely a joke nowadays - as is college education in general, except perhaps for the hard sciences - and your six years of education don't impress me much. Teachers when I was growing up tended to have more students-per-classroom than schools today - Catholic schools certainly had more students than schools today. While there was a bit of "keep Slow Johnny with his age-mates" then, it wasn't nearly as prevalent as it appears today. It was a rarity for a student to be able to graduate from high school without being able to spell or read. While it may be true that parents have less involvement with their kids' education than they used to, it may just be a function of the tendency of school administrations and school boards to do as they please (because THEY are Educators and WE are Ignorant) and disregard our valid criticisms of their work and ideas. Public School administrations have all sorts of excuses for why they aren't getting the job done, but they blame Parochial schools' relative successes on the very things THEY won't do to ensure the children in their care are educated. The fact is, because parents are, in most cases, paying out-of-pocket for their children's education, they tend to take more of an interest in their children's education. And because parochial schools teach morality as part of their curriculum and don't tolerate misbehavior, they tend to have fewer behavior problems than the public schools, who don't teach morality in their curriculum and tolerate a fair degree of misbehavior.

And it's public school administrations and their union representatives' politics which have injected so much federal government control and interference in local education systems, the very interference that teachers cite as causes for their inability to teach their students.

You're a bunch of whiners "and you shouldn't be allowed." (rep to the first person to get that reference)

It's tolerated b/c schools get sued for taking action on students to a degree. My wife was a public school teacher, middle school to high school, and was an EXCELLENT teacher. She devoted time and her heart for her kids. A large section of the parents didn't give a crap. They wouldn't show up for meetings that were scheduled or refused to take any action towards their kids misbehaving on a daily basis. The kids really liked my wife and even wrote letters to the school when she was laid off due to budget cuts.

Can you show me the numbers where there were more kids per classroom way back when? My wife's classes were HUGE. Sometimes around 35 kids. Also, the standards have increased/changed since "back in the day". Teachers are forced to cram more crap in their year than even 15 years ago. My wife used to get so irritated b/c she HAD to teach for the tests as someone stated before. She didn't feel like the kids were learning what they should. That was a directive from her superiors b/c as mentioned before, those act as a scale for school grading. It's a double-edged sword using numbers like that on which to base a teacher's performance AND pay.

Educators may disregard some of your "ideas" b/c they are not based in reality. What type of training do you have that makes you the expert in education? That is not being snide, I'm being serious. Sorry, in living both in my career in my wife's career, I have to say that a large chunk on the failure falls on parents. There are bad teachers, sure, but they tend to be the ones from "back in the day" that don't really give a crap about education and just want to live off their tenure for the rest of their career. Educators coming out of colleges these days seem a hell of a lot more driven to make a difference.

 

[Blackhawk2001]

It's tolerated b/c schools get sued for taking action on students to a degree. My wife was a public school teacher, middle school to high school, and was an EXCELLENT teacher. She devoted time and her heart for her kids. A large section of the parents didn't give a crap. They wouldn't show up for meetings that were scheduled or refused to take any action towards their kids misbehaving on a daily basis. The kids really liked my wife and even wrote letters to the school when she was laid off due to budget cuts.

Can you show me the numbers where there were more kids per classroom way back when? My wife's classes were HUGE. Sometimes around 35 kids. Also, the standards have increased/changed since "back in the day". Teachers are forced to cram more crap in their year than even 15 years ago. My wife used to get so irritated b/c she HAD to teach for the tests as someone stated before. She didn't feel like the kids were learning what they should. That was a directive from her superiors b/c as mentioned before, those act as a scale for school grading. It's a double-edged sword using numbers like that on which to base a teacher's performance AND pay.

Educators may disregard some of your "ideas" b/c they are not based in reality. What type of training do you have that makes you the expert in education? That is not being snide, I'm being serious. Sorry, in living both in my career in my wife's career, I have to say that a large chunk on the failure falls on parents. There are bad teachers, sure, but they tend to be the ones from "back in the day" that don't really give a crap about education and just want to live off their tenure for the rest of their career. Educators coming out of colleges these days seem a hell of a lot more driven to make a difference.

My wife's Catholic school classes routinely had 50 students in the 50s and 60s. And DON'T YOU DARE ask me what qualifications _I_ have to critique the education system and its educational theories when it produces teachers who don't know how to spell and school administrations who can't successfully teach their students to READ!!!

 

[KokomoDave]

I'm staying outta this one as I have enough unwarranted rep dings! Buwahaha!!

 

[saleen4971]

Done with this. Enjoy having a misguided opinion. You aren't worth my time.

 

[jdmack79]

Education degrees are largely a joke nowadays - as is college education in general, except perhaps for the hard sciences - and your six years of education don't impress me much.

What????

I could be wrong, but I have a feeling that you don't have a college degree. If you do have a degree I have one thing to say to you: Just because you didn't learn much or try hard in college, don't think we did the same.

 

[Hohn]

Mexico City paralyzed by teachers' protests - Yahoo! Finance

I hope Arne Duncan doesn't read Yahoo! News.

But could someone please explain to me why it is that educators are so averse to being evaluated. I thought it was a uniquely American thing, but apparently not.

He most likely does, as it's the information source of choice for the ignorant desiring to remain so.

 

[88GT]

tests are no good without a point of reference. a pre-test and post-test is the only way to gauge a students learning.

"but they take a test the year before!" - yes, however there is knowledge lost over the summer months. nothing you can do about that.

using standardized tests also makes teachers teach FOR the tests (as low scores in a school can and will effect the funding they recieve the next year) and not what they shoudl be teaching. an english class is not just for learning about books. a math class is not jsut about learning how to decipher "problem 3"

also look at it this way - if a teacher has a class that is largely gifted students, they will come back with high test scores. does that mean they learned more? maybe. maybe not. if you get a class average from an 85 up to 92, they look great. HOWEVER if you have a teacher who has a class full of students who (for whatever reason) do not do well in school/a subject and that teacher gets them from an average of 50 to 80, it is a HUGE accomplishment even though the test scores do not reflect that.

as with anything, there are good and bad apples - same goes with teaching. there are bad and good teachers everywhere. the biggest problem is with the politics involved. that is the #1 reason why i decided that a teaching career was not for me, at least at this time.

You're missing the point. If students are to be evaluated based on their test results, why aren't teachers being evaluated on the test results too? How is that the test can be valid for evaluating students but not valid for evaluating teachers? Teachers are the middle man, the transmission vehicle, for the information to "get into" the children. If the information "gets into" the children well enough, they do well on the tests. Is it not logical to assume that the teacher had a significant role in that process? Would it not also be logical to assume that if the information did not "get into" the children and they subsequently did poorly on the tests, that the teachers played a significant role in that failure? Nobody is suggesting that teachers should be evaluated against a single rubric (children's standardized test scores), but I am arguing that those test scores are the single best snapshot of Ms. Smith's ability to do her job effectively. Her students should exhibit a bell curve of results, just like the total body of test takers would. Nobody is going to go ballistic if she has a few failures. And that bell curve will absorb those feeble attempts to excuse the outliers of "bad test takers" by including the "great test takers" who would have excelled with or without Ms. Smith. However, if Ms. Smith's students' test scores rank significantly below average or are just plain below acceptable across the board, then we have a fairly good idea that she sucks at doing what she's being paid to do. There can't be that many kids who fail because of factors not related to Ms. Smith's abilities. And yet, I've never met a teacher who would accept an evaluation rubric that included standardized test scores. Not a one. Since using the test results isn't acceptable, what is?

And, no, you don't need a pre- and post-test for context. The standardization of tests is grade-specific based solely on the standards that are to be learned for that grade. 2nd graders need only to learn the 2nd grade material. They either know it or they don't.

in response to the "do you sit on command or something?" - its clear that your view of the teaching profession is a negative one, but i dont believe that authorizes you to make such comments towards me or anyone else that has gone through 6+ years of schooling to become the best educator they can for the next generation of america. teaching is not a simple thing to do. add on top all of the requirements that you must meet (or are expected to meet) which are not always in the best interest of the students, and it becomes even more challenging. i am not even mentioning a parents role in education which is CRUCIAL - but todays society has somehow shifted the entirety of a childs education onto the teacher, many times leaving the student and family/parents/guardians with no responsibility.

When you sit on your pedestal and think your X number of years of "education education" makes you somehow more qualified to teach, and you use idiotic phrases like "trained teacher," I have all the authorization I need to call shenanigans on you. I don't dislike teachers. I dislike snobby prigs who think that you can be taught to teach. I have a little newsflash for you college grad: you don't. Your degree means nothing to me because I have seen scores of degreed individuals fail their students. And I have seen high school graduates produced National Merit Scholars that receive full ride scholarships to Tier 1 schools. Your degree means you spent a lot of money to check off a worthless requirement of the employer. It doesn't mean you know how to teach. How is it that I am successfully (by all accounts) teaching my children without a single day in college being devoted to coursework for an education major? How is that there are people all over who can teach, but don't have a degree. There is nothing special about an education major-turned-paid-teacher. It is you who has no 'authorization' to hold yourself above any one else simply because you fulfilled the coursework required to earn a particular degree.

The goal of the author is the closure of every public school. Somewhere in that "circle jerk" philosophy the 19th amendment is repealed. And public schools are closed. And Obama is a Kenyan. And vaccines are a conspiracy. You get the picture.

From past experience, I suspect that you're saying she's saying more than she's saying.

Of course he is.

Just so my position is clear....

Yes, I want every government school/tax-payer funded school closed down. Why? Because it's nothing short of educational welfare. And if you have a problem with any other version of entitlement welfare, then you necessarily have to have a problem with educational welfare. Just like I shouldn't have to pay for someone else's retirement plan and health care, I shouldn't have to pay for someone else's parental responsibilities. The key here is pay by force with the government taking my money at the point of a gun and then deciding "for me" where that money should be used. This is not a position that eschews charity, rather it is a position that doesn't believe government can administer charitable giving by simple wealth redistribution of the players that favor government. I will gladly give of my time, experience, and money to help others. But nobody should be telling me how to spend my personal capital and use the government to compel me to do it.

The 19th has nothing to do with this. He is just grasping as straws in an effort to deflect from the truth of government education. Defending it means defending statism and wealth redistribution. Yes, I have made statements that I wouldn't mind if the 19th were repealed. Do a search. It's all here on INGO. But as with all things, the devil is in the details. What he's not telling you is why I made those statements and the rationale I gave for that position.

I do believe Obama is Kenyan. Who doesn't? Isn't his father Kenyan? Wouldn't that make Obama Kenyan, at least in part? I don't see the problem with that position. I guess he's desperate to discredit me in other areas in the vain hope that it bleeds over into the educational issue.

And here's the culmination of that desperation: an outright lie. I do NOT believe vaccines are a conspiracy. Not in the least. I am a proponent of vaxing. All my kids were vaxed. Not for all the "recommended" vaxes, but the vast majority and on the recommended schedule. My position on vaxing is that it shouldn't be mandated by anybody. And if someone chooses not to vax, at all or just not on the recommended schedule with the recommended vaxes, that's nobody's business but the parents. I don't believe vaxes CAUSE autism. The data is clear that they don't. What I do allow for in my position is that a particular vax given to particular kids at a particular time probably plays a significant role in a sequence of events that manifests itself as the symptoms of autism.