posted June 02, 2004 01:05 PM            

Teachers, as a group, seem to have totally lost sight of their purpose----to educate children and have replaced education with indoctrination in partisan political dogma. If anyone is dumbing down America, it's the American teachers and they're doing such a fantastic job of that I must conclude it's deliberate.

Any objective measurement of their job performance would have most of them out the door, looking for a new job. In the real world, a world most of them have never so much as visited, they wouldn't last a month on the job. Getting the job done is what makes America work. Teachers have been proving for more than 30 years they don't have the right stuff for that.

We spend more than $300,000,000,000, 300 Billion a year on education in American. Far more per student than any other industrial nation and have the least to show for it, unless graduates who can't do the math, can't read, can't spell, can't punctuate, can't speak the language, know nothing of history or much of anything else are achievements that make teachers proud.

Every attempt to introduce standards into the education equation is resisted by teachers and the teachers unions. It goes without saying, teacher standards and accountability are vigorously resisted by the same teachers and teachers unions.

The most glaring things wrong with the American education system are the teachers themselves and their politically motivated unions. If there's a true enemy of education in America, it's teachers and teachers unions.

Here's an example of what passes for education in the American school systems.

Tuesday, June 1, 2004 11:04 p.m. EDT
Same Judge OK'ed Muslim Prayer

The same San Francisco federal judge who just overturned a federal law banning partial-birth abortions also approved of Muslim prayer in schools when federal rulings ban all other denominational prayers and activities.

In a December 2003 decision, U.S. District Judge Phyllis Hamilton decided that it was lawful for a California middle school teacher to require students to recite Muslim prayers, get down on their knees and role-play as Muslim adherents.

posted June 02, 2004 01:29 PM            

I do think that GOOD teachers should be better remunerated, and with escalating housing costs in places like CA, teachers often can't even afford to live in the communities in which they teach. But this wholesale resistance to accountablily is ridiculous, and speaks platitudes I think about their knowledge of how badly many of them suck at it (for if they were confident that they did their job well, accountability wouldn't be an issue).

The political agenda foisted on children too should be criminal IMO, however blame also lies with the parents IMO who aren't involved enough to either go to the school itself and speak out against what is being taught to their children (polical agenda-wise), or to counteract those teacher's opinions and values with their own.

posted June 02, 2004 02:08 PM              

That is to say, while there are many, many very skilled, highly qualified and intelligent teachers, many of those are drawn to private schools or richer counties that can afford to compensate them fairly for their efforts; others who might make steller trainers of and guides for our children are (quite understandably) daunted by the POS systems in which they would've been stuck.

Others who *may have been* great teachers are crushed under the sheer weight of horrible beauracracy and the burden of lack of funds...you try being your best and brightest under the conditions these people have to work in.

Edit:
We spend more than $300,000,000,000, 300 Billion a year on education in American. Far more per student than any other industrial nation and have the least to show for it, unless graduates who can't do the math, can't read, can't spell, can't punctuate, can't speak the language, know nothing of history or much of anything else are achievements that make teachers proud.
We should look at how that money's being spent then, going less with what's trendy or what holds some sort of twisted nostalgia and more with what works.
Let's be fair, too - how much of that is going to which school systems?
I mean, some counties have more money than they know how to spend and others who hold bake sales for necessities.
Like it or not, local - even state - taxes and intitiatives don't always cut it. You may say, "That's the fault and burden of that district," but these kids are coming into *your* workforce and economy - they're either going to support it or be supported by it.

posted June 02, 2004 02:45 PM            

There are some great teachers and I referenced what I said with the words "collectively," "as a group" and "many," none of which means all.
I know some really good teachers, some have left the systems in disgust and some are still trying to do their jobs but if they were commenting on the public school system here, their comments would have been really scathing.

The Governor of Florida recognizes some of those teachers with awards but he caught hell from the unions. The unions also resist any attempt to compensate good teachers for doing a good job with higher salaries. Collectivism to the core and the core is rotten.

The public school systems need to be totally reformed and until they are, the better teachers will leave for private schools or enter other fields.

The focus of the MJ article should have been directed against the teachers unions and the various school systems along with the administrators. Truly, there is not enough money in circulation to satisfy the teachers unions and school administrators. There will never be enough but throwing money at a failed institution isn't going to fix it. Competition will and parents owe it to their children to make sure they get a quality education.

In the meantime, teachers all across the country keep voting in the corrupt officials at the NEA and the AFT who influence education policy at the local levels and also both the textbook industry and local school districts in the choice of textbooks. Talk about shooting yourself in the foot.

posted June 02, 2004 02:52 PM              

I'm not arguing that pay is the disease - a symptom in some districts, certainly, but not the root.
Though I still say that one can't expect top talent at substandard pay.

posted June 02, 2004 03:19 PM            

Now my brother is in Idaho, which does not force teachers to be in a Union. He actually makes over $40,000 a year (the average cost of a 4 bedroom house is around $130,000).

In that state the teacher is rewarded based on performance, continuing education and there is a fierce competition in the state for jobs. That means, if a teacher is worth crap then they are let go.

Now, if we look at the numbers. I made less that many California teachers, even though I had been out of school and doing research for over 5 years. I get 10 days paid vacation and minimal benefits, 10 paid holidays and not much else. I am not eligible for overtime, so even when I was working 15 hours a day, I received the same salary.

When my brother and I actually compared our salaries, he was making out like a bandit compared to me. He salary is about $4,500 per working month whereas mine at the time was $3300 per working month. If I wanted to take a second job, I would have to do it after this job - not while in a 3 month leave.

He can draw his wages out of 12 months and still work for three months thereby increasing his take home pay from $40,000 to $55,000 depending on his work. He also coaches and picks up detention for extra money. His wife doesn't work and they are pretty comfortable because of how they budget.

It would be a lot harder for him if he was in So cal to live off that amount and a house would cost him three times what the Idaho home did.

posted June 02, 2004 03:20 PM            

Earnings [About this section] Back to Top

Median annual earnings of kindergarten, elementary, middle, and secondary school teachers ranged from $39,810 to $44,340 in 2002; the lowest 10 percent earned $24,960 to $29,850; the top 10 percent earned $62,890 to $68,530. Median earnings for preschool teachers were $19,270.

According to the American Federation of Teachers, beginning teachers with a bachelor’s degree earned an average of $30,719 in the 2001–02 school year. The estimated average salary of all public elementary and secondary school teachers in the 2001–02 school year was $44,367. Private school teachers generally earn less than public school teachers.

In 2002, more than half of all elementary, middle, and secondary school teachers belonged to unions—mainly the American Federation of Teachers and the National Education Association—that bargain with school systems over wages, hours, and other terms and conditions of employment. Fewer preschool and kindergarten teachers were union members—about 15 percent in 2002.

Teachers can boost their salary in a number of ways. In some schools, teachers receive extra pay for coaching sports and working with students in extracurricular activities. Getting a master’s degree or national certification often results in a raise in pay, as does acting as a mentor. Some teachers earn extra income during the summer by teaching summer school or performing other jobs in the school system.

posted June 02, 2004 03:40 PM            

It is such a hard and emotional issue because we NEED teachers and they have a thankless job for the most part. Isis is right about the California school systems. I was lucky to be educated in a more structured area where learning was very important. Still, some terrible teachers slipped through the cracks. They tried to teach my brother how to read by making him listen to the words through earphones. LOL..poor kid almost flunked until my mom transfered him out.

I read situations like what your cousins went through and then I think of how much these union reps get paid and it makes me sick. I know that representation is important, but come on- isn't educating our kids important as well?

posted June 02, 2004 11:26 PM            

I take my car to a mechanic to have it repaired and I fully expect it to be repaired. I expect the painter who paints my house to do it right. In fact, in all of society we expect people who are paid to do a job to do it right. Teachers, administrators, school board members and superintendents of schools seem to be the only people in our society who get away with producing a substandard product---education of our children and expect to be paid for their bungling incompetence.

I don't intend to become a teacher or any other part of the public education establishment. I intend to push for vouchers for private education of our children. It seems to me the system is shortchanging both our children and our society who depend on them. It's a violation of our trust and it's long past due that parents start looking to the best way to get their children educated and stop supporting a failed system with their tax dollars.

posted June 03, 2004 10:06 AM              

I think a lot of people miss the point. Case in point: You compared the education of children to taking your car to a mechanic. If that's not comparing apples to oranges, I don't know what is. When you're dealing with people (whether in law enforcement, healthcare, or education), you have tons more variables than you do in any other service industry. First and foremost, if children don't want to learn, I don't care how good the teacher is, they aren't going to learn.

In China and numerous other countries, they have a system by which children no longer receive mandatory education once they reach a certain age. If they don't want to go to school, then they have to go to work. Lots of them do just that, and they live better lives because they haven't been forced to do something they don't want to do. In America, if kids don't want to go to school, we push and push and push until many of them can't cope and turn to behaviors which get them sent to alternative schools.

Teachers have a very difficult job, because they are dealing with (in many cases) upwards of 100 kids daily with 100 different personalities and 100 different reasons for being at school.

Now, it sounds to me like a lot of parents expect the school system to teach their children, but the fact of the matter is that the school system doesn't even receive these children until they're 6 or 7 years old. Between the ages of 2 and 5 are when the most concrete learning occurs, and this type of information cannot be taught by teachers! Parents are responsible for building the foundations, and unfortunately, too many parents nowadays let the television do the babysitting.

Saying that teachers don't do their job because children don't turn out perfect is tantamount to saying the photographer took a bad photograph because the sky turned out blue in the picture! Just as the photographer can only work with the medium he's got to work with, so too is the teacher only able to work with the students she has to work with.

There are at least 3 people responsible for the education of a child (probably a lot more, but these 3 are the most important):

1) The child - the child must want to learn and must take responsibility for his learning, especially in later years. If the child doesn't want to learn, no one can force information onto him. It is very difficult for an educator to get a child interested in learning if they aren't interested in the first place.

2) The parent - The parent spends more time with the child than does the teacher. The parent has the child for the first 5 or 6 years and knows his temperment and behavior. Parents rarely pass along this information to educators, expecting educators to figure out this on their own. Good parents work with teachers, checking their children's homework every night, going to PTA meetings, scheduling regular conferences, and staying involved with the education of their children. Bad parents don't bother and expect the education system to be solely responsible for the education of their children.

3) The teacher - Yes, the teacher is the last person who should be responsible, because it is the teacher who runs with the foundation the parents have already set up. In an ideal society, the parents would raise perfect children, the children would want to learn, and the teacher would merely teach ideas, concepts, facts, connections, hands-on, etc., to children. The teacher would provide the information and the rationales for learning, and the children would then take this back to their parents, and everyone would be involved.

Is this the way it works? Of course not. What happens too much of the time is that people have children when they're not prepared for them. They have to work multiple jobs just to get by, and this pushes them to neglect their children, so they toss them off on babysitters or in front of the TV, and by the time the children are 6 years old, they haven't learned much about the world. Sure, they're healthy, but they could have done so much more.

And then you've got the kids whose parents really push. You know, the ones who've been using hooked on phonics since they were 3 and who've been taking piano lessons since they were 4. By the time they start school, they're miles ahead of most of the people in their class.

So, those are the two extremes. Well, guess what public educators (and private educators, mind you, because some people think that's so much better - I'll talk about private school in a second) have to deal with. They have to deal with both extremes, plus they have to deal with everyone in the middle. So, Johnny is ahead of his class, and Sarah is falling behind. But the teacher has to teach them the same lesson, right? Well, in many public schools, there is a current movement called "differentiated education" whereby each student will be looked at individually and taught based on individual needs. Johnny would get advanced lessons, and Sarah would get lover-functioning lessons. Only problem is that the teacher is in the room by herself or perhaps has one assistant teacher (who are paid between $8,000 and $15,000 per year) and not only does the teacher have to differentiate Johnny's and Sarah's education, but there are 15 to 20 other children that need differentiated education as well. (And, inevitably, Sarah's parents want to know why she isn't being taught the same lessons as Johnny, but that's a whole different issue, isn't it?)

So, the teacher tries, but then Johnny decides he wants to pull Sarah's hair. Now the teacher can't teach, because she's got behaviors to deal with. So, it inevitably becomes clear that it's easier to teach everyone as a group than to teach everyone independently, because it's easier to keep an eye on everyone that way. Bad teacher? Maybe, but considering what she has to deal with, who can blame her?

And that's what private schools are like. They are usually posh and only accept students based on academic and behavioral excellency. In many (not all) private shchools, you can have differentiated education, because when students misbehave, they aren't allowed to come back. Private schools are often registered for years in advance by parents who have to pay hefty fees and put their name on a list before their kids can get in. Many of the less-restrictive private schools (such as Catholic schools) are just as difficult as public schools. The only real difference is the way the law works with private schools. Private school teachers aren't required to do as much as public school teachers, so they get away with a lot more in terms of discipline, suspension, expulsion, and so forth. Public schools are bound by certain legalities that prevent them from weeding out the trouble-makers (the kids who really don't want to be there and don't want to learn so they cause problems at every resolve), and this makes it very difficult sometimes for teachers to teach in public schools.

posted June 03, 2004 12:22 PM              

I know I shouldn't take anything personally. I'm going to vent anyway.

Greedy Californians? After the $$$? Cars and Houses?

May I ask what your profession is and what kind of people you interact with on a regular basis? I think I read Human Resources, but I could be mistaken.

Thanks,

posted June 03, 2004 01:26 PM            

I am indeed in Human Resources, but that's not what I've always done - nevertheless, like anyone who is fairly social and active, I have met multitudes of people, I do not base this opinion on living in the State for only a few years, or based on impersonal interactions at the local Safeway.

Nevertheless, that is my opinion. As I said, not all Californians are that way, like anything (I just moved to the Central Valley when we bought a home, and it reminds me of where I grew up in NE - people are kind, down to earth, you don't get attitude at the Safeway or the McDonalds, it's just night an day from the Bay Area [which it seems to me has become an self-viewed 'elite, more cultured' version of LA]), but I do think my characterization is not far off base. You may be the exception, if so that's great for you. I have friends I consider to be the exception to that phenomenon, but I think the attitude that appearance and what you have to show for life take much more precedence over quality of life. Add to that all the flaming liberals, esp. from the People's Republic of Berkeley, (I'm moderately conservative), and perhaps you can see where I'm coming from, whether you agree w/ my characterization or not...

But since you used the word greedy, c'mon, are you going to tell me with the past rental markets and current housing values, that there isn't rampant greed going on here? Weren't you the one that works ungodly hours to afford a nice apt in the city because rents are ridiculously high? You should know first hand about the greed here. Try buying a home where people take bids, counter them, try to drive up the price, than delist and relist their house at the elevated price to try and falsely drive up the market, which is already on crack because of lack of supply. Or try telling executives that they should pay more for certain positions because they're salaried and the folks they're hiring, they expect them to work insane hours, only to hear that all they care about is the bottom line (business is business, but you can't use people, work em to death, chew em up and spit em out)...

Anyway, that's my take on it. I detest California to be honest - I love the state, but I wish 70% of the people would go back to whereever they came from, so that everyone else can actually enjoy the area. I recall when we first returned to SF in the early 80s, there were bumperstickers many people had that said, "Welcome to California, now go home". I would echo that sentiment.

The next obvious question: "if you hate it so much, why don't you leave?" Well, I would, in a heartbeat - I have triple citizenship, I could live legally in Canada and New Zealand, whose citizenship by extension would allow me to live and work legally in Australia. Unfortunately my husband is a jingoist who refuses to leave, either the state or the country, so, we make our choices and try to make the best of them. And here I am. Stuck in a place I love deeply because of what it has represented to me, but also loathe because IMO it's been ruined by overpopulation and development.

posted June 03, 2004 02:46 PM              

California does have its drawbacks. Though, I've not been any place else, except to Jasper, Alberta, Canada. I like it here. Nice ethnic mix, technology innovation, and intellectual capital. The culture of eating healthy and exercise is a boost. Then again, these are things I like and are readily available. So I don't have any serious grievances.

My entire education was through the public school system. Anyone want to call me a moron who can't read and write? Just joking, please don't do it. Randall won't like it and will have to kick people out.

I don't mind people coming to California. Come one, come all. I wish them luck in finding jobs, happiness, love, and all things Linda If they think they would be happier someplace else, there are many airports to depart from 24/7