Update: "Teachers' Spring Continues" - Add AZ to the List with NC to Follow?

I don't think more funding will make any difference though. Even the worst funded schools in the country have vastly more academic resources than the best funded schools on the planet did 20 years ago. A $20 internet connection buys more academic resources and networking ability than tens of millions of dollars did a few decades ago. Want to know something? It's on google -- all of it, all human knowledge, literature, and academic journal from human history, and free instant universal translation of every human language. Want to network with a billionaire, business leader, or a famous intellectual? You can send them an e-mail and they will often respond.

If those students and their parents want them to succeed, they will succeed. If the students and parents don't care, they won't succeed. No amount of money or any lack of money will make a difference.
This is where I end up more to the left than I normally do but you can't just, abandon these people.
 
Ok, so now we're getting somewhere. You seem to think 2.1% is too low in part because education in the US is inferior to other comparable countries. Two problems with that:

1. We'd have to assess that turnover rates in other countries are higher (neither of us could be bothered to come up with that sort of data but I'm willing to bet it's not any higher abroad).
2. Higher turnover rates would have a measureble effect on the quality of education.

Since I'm pretty sure there aren't many people arguing that, for education to be better, we should be firing more teachers, you'd have to be a litte more detailed since there's nobody to borrow points from.
I just feel that in terms of teachers, there are obviously some that are in the job just for the benefits/retirement packages that just do not give a fuck. I know I used to get to my high school at like 7 (rode in with my dad who was a bus driver) and I only ever saw 2-3 teachers parked outside at that time. School starts at 8. Now, I get that contractually they don't HAVE to be there until 7:30 but I just wonder if some teachers would be better prepared/give more of a fuck so to speak if they took the time to prep more.

I know there's plenty of issues with kids that don't care, parents that don't care/are absent from the kid's life and shit that account for the problems.

And I understand the argument that a higher turnover might negatively impact students but if the teachers are shit will it have THAT much of an impact? It's simplistic but isn't it akin to holding an umbrella during a rain storm while standing in waist deep water?
 
I'm skeptical that more funding and money thrown into the system will make any difference at all.
Why is this?

Presumably higher salaries create more competition and attract more qualified candidates, and lower salaries do the opposite.

That's the way macro economics works across the board. Do you have a reason why one profession should be an exception to this rule?

So you are basically saying either:

1. Teacher quality is an irrelevant factor in ther success of the system. In which case, OK, but then why even evaluate teachers? And why get mad about "bad teachers"? What is a "bad teacher," even, if teacher quality is irrelevant? Under your scheme, someone who shows up and doesn't commit any crimes, I guess, would automatically qualify as a "good teacher."

2. Teaching as a field, for some reason, operates according to different economic principles than the general labor market (because in teaching, and teaching alone, presumably, higher salaries won't attract better job candidates).

Which of these two is it, because that's kind of the corner you paint yourself into when you make broad blanket statements such as "Money won't make any difference at all."
 
Last edited:
If we have say 1 million teachers you mean to tell me only like 21,000 are not up to snuff? Given how shitty Americans do compared to the rest of the world that seems... too low.

As to what number it SHOULD be at I have no fucking idea.
I'd hate to tell, you, but this idea is really overblown.

FT_17.02.14_STEM_table.png


In science, our scores are grouped with countries like Norway, Belgium, Denmark, and Ireland. We are better than Sweden, Austria and Spain.

In Math, we lag behind the top group by quite a bit, but our scores are grouped with Israel. Should Israel be apoplectic about its math scores? And by the way, don't they have a much smaller, more homogeneous population?

In reading, we are grouped with counties like the Netherlands, Belgium, Taiwan, Australia, Denmark, and Sweden. We are better than Switzerland, Austria, Luxembourg, Iceland, etc.

I guess the question is how well SHOULD we be doing? I can't think of any reason we should be doing significantly better than those other countries I mentioned.

In fact, given our ethnic diversity, number of students who don't speak English, and income inequality, I'd argue that our public school system, if anything, outperforms its valid expectations.

For example, we rank 34th in life expectancy. So, hey, our schools outperform that bar by quite a bit.

rankings.ashx
 
Last edited:
Teachers should be treated like firemen and police. Respected by their communities and compensated according to their importance in society. End of story.
 
Talking to my step dad yesterday, he got a $9,000 raise by leaving Oklahoma and teaching in NOLA.

Oklahoma is too busy sucking big oil and the prison complex dick to care about teachers or roads.
 
I'd hate to tell, you, but this idea is really overblown.

FT_17.02.14_STEM_table.png


In science, our scores are grouped with countries like Norway, Belgium, Denmark, and Ireland. We are better than Sweden, Austria and Spain.

In Math, we lag behind the top group by quite a bit, but our scores are grouped with Israel. Should Israel be apoplectic about its math scores? And by the way, don't they have a much smaller, more homogeneous population?

In reading, we are grouped with counties like the Netherlands, Belgium, Taiwan, Australia, Denmark, and Sweden. We are better than Switzerland, Austria, Luxembourg, Iceland, etc.

I guess the question is how well SHOULD we be doing? I can't think of any reason we should be doing significantly better than those other countries I mentioned.

In fact, given our ethnic diversity, number of students who don't speak English, and income inequality, I'd argue that our public school system, if anything, outperforms its valid expectations.

For example, we rank 34th in life expectancy. So, hey, our schools outperform that bar by quite a bit.

rankings.ashx


I think you are laboring under a false illusion that relative overall quality of life in the US is much higher than it is.

I'm sorry, but we've spent the better part of 40 years losing ground to the rest of the world on all kinds of quality of life categories. It's unrealistic to expect education to be isolated from this phenomenon.
Shouldn't we strive to have our kids at the middle portion of that top third rather than middle to top of the middle third?
 
Shouldn't we strive to have our kids at the middle portion of that top third rather than middle to top of the middle third?
Sure.

We should strive to be the best we can.

So should everyone else, though. Other countries aren't just giving their spots away.

Our schools deal with WAY more difficulties than systems in small, ethnically homogeneous countries, yet we are still rank respectably next to countries like Belgium, Norway and Sweden.

Put it this way: do you think it's easier to be a teacher in the average town in Norway or the average town in America? Which system do you think has more obstacles to overcome?
 
Sure.

We should strive to be the best we can.

So should everyone else, though. Other countries aren't just giving their spots away.

Our schools deal with WAY more difficulties than systems in small, ethnically homogeneous countries, yet we are still rank respectably next to countries like Belgium, Norway and Sweden.

Put it this way: do you think it's easier to be a teacher in the average town in Norway or the average town in America? Which system do you think has more obstacles to overcome?
Depends how you classify an average town in America. The town I grew up in it probably wouldn't be a ton different cause the most ethnically diverse we got was some Russians because all the Natives in our area chose to attend the high school on the reservation.

On the whole just country to country Norway would probably be a ton easier though.
 
I'd hate to tell, you, but this idea is really overblown.


In reading, we are grouped with counties like the Netherlands, Belgium, Taiwan, Australia, Denmark, and Sweden. We are better than Switzerland, Austria, Luxembourg, Iceland, etc.

I guess the question is how well SHOULD we be doing? I can't think of any reason we should be doing significantly better than those other countries I mentioned.

In fact, given our ethnic diversity, number of students who don't speak English, and income inequality, I'd argue that our public school system, if anything, outperforms its valid expectations.

I can: Our outrageous amount of wealth.

This goes hand-in-hand with income inequality, of course, but given the vast amount of capital in the country, we should be way higher. Ok, Singapore, Finland, Taiwan, etc., maybe unreachable because of the huge difference in geography and culture, but we should AT LEAST be up there with Germany and Britain- two other large, Western countries.

I don't buy the "ethnic diversity" angle, either. Canada is about 22% nonwhite to 30% for the US and they're not just ahead of us, they're ahead of most of Europe as well.
 
I'm skeptical that more funding and money thrown into the system will make any difference at all.

ahoy superpunch,

well, worry not - at least not in west virginia.

the strike is over, and the teachers won their 5% raise. to fund it, the West Virginia legislature is going to cut state spending on healthcare for the needy by 20 million dollars.

so, a victory?

i think?

- IGIT
 
Teachers should be treated like firemen and police. Respected by their communities and compensated according to their importance in society. End of story.
But only for nine months out of the year.
 
https://www.cnn.com/2018/03/06/us/west-virginia-teachers-strike/index.html

okay so that's over. looks like the see tate will pay for the raises through other cuts instead of drawing down on the surplus revenue.

But I am concerned about the long term issues. How will the state pay for future raises to adjust for inflation? What's the plan to pay for pension liabilities? One of the main reasons for the strike was the cost of insurance --- is there anyway to stabilize the premiums and copays for the teachers plans?
 
But only for nine months out of the year.
Yes I think that goes without saying. Teacher salaries, at least in CT, are only paid 9 months out of the year. They have the option of collecting a check year round, but it's a reduced rate compared to if they only collected during the school year.
 
https://www.cnn.com/2018/03/06/us/west-virginia-teachers-strike/index.html

okay so that's over. looks like the see tate will pay for the raises through other cuts instead of drawing down on the surplus revenue.

But I am concerned about the long term issues. How will the state pay for future raises to adjust for inflation? What's the plan to pay for pension liabilities? One of the main reasons for the strike was the cost of insurance --- is there anyway to stabilize the premiums and copays for the teachers plans?
I'll try to answer your questions using CT as a reference. So in order:

They'll borrow or rely on overly rosy investment return calculations.
Same answer or simply ignore the liabilities until they become unimaginably large.
Buy insurance as a large group, often intermingled with other town/city offices or departments.
 
1- Let's start with the fact that work stoppages by public unions is illegal in WV. It's in the contract they sign.

2- Teachers don't work under shitty conditions, unless you count dealing with unruly teens - again part of the job they signed up for.

3-Break teacher pay down by days worked and you'll find that teachers are more than well compensated - again in a field they signed up for.

4-You might also find out that WV is a state that is ranked 42 for it's fiscal condition - they started the year projecting an 11m budget shortfall before they agreed on this 5% raise - which is why the state senate said they didn't know if they could pay for it.

5-Have you ever asked your boss for a raise at a time the company was loosing money? I didn't think so. The teachers went on strike right after they announced a 2% raise starting in July. Hey, but their money comes from tax payers so it's ok right? Pfft.

6- I pointed it out once, but median household income for the state is 42k (that's 2 workers in most cases), their teachers make more than that and work 3 months less per year than the people paying for their salary.

Again, more power to them, but don't expect me to think it's a noble strike.


Our Federal government has run a deficit for a long time but somehow both Republican and Democrats have managed to vote for raises for themselves.

It would be more appropriate to compare the salary's to others in WV with similar education levels.

If the govt thinks the strike was illegal, fire them all and sort it out in court. Seems to me the teachers banded together, rolled the dice, fought the government and won. Very American story if you ask me.
 
Teachers should be treated like firemen and police. Respected by their communities and compensated according to their importance in society. End of story.

Neither of those professions require a BA; and most of the country doesn't pay firemen and cops a great deal of money either.
 
Back
Top