The important part to note is comparing apples to apples, particularly education level.
I am wondering though, about the arguments about executive pay several pages back. If they deserved all that money, because they are worth it, are teachers really worth that much less? I mean, these are the people shaping future generations. How valuable are teachers to society? I suspect we will have very different answers.
To society? Hell, I figure doctors and teachers should be the top two most important jobs, right? Keep you alive and keep you educated... and those are jobs that will always be needed, regardless of the economic situation!
Well the thing to keep in mind is that a school isn't actually a business. Teachers don't sell products. They can't say, "Look, I turned out X successful things in a year, so I'm worth Y amount of dollars, and therefore I'm also objectively better than the teacher next door, because she didn't turn out as many things as I did." They don't generate their own profit. Their evaluations aren't even quantifiable, and as such it's incredibly hard to rate teachers.
After all, what makes a *good* teacher?
A. Is it experience? B. Is it energy and enthusiasm? C. Is it the ability to engage students in their subject, to make kids want to learn? D. Is it the teacher who teaches the highest classes? The lowest classes? The worst-behaved classes? E. Is it the teacher who teaches to the curriculum? Who teaches to the test? F. Is it the teacher who builds relationships with students? G. Is it the teacher who can adapt his pedagogy to fit in new information? H. Is it the teacher who spends extra hours a week perfecting his lessons? I. Is it the teacher who teaches his students respect and responsibility? J. Is it the teacher who has the most students learn the most curriculum material? The most standardized test material? K. Is it the teacher who teaches kids to be creative thinkers and problem solvers?
Where is choice L: All of the above? Possibly any combination of the above?
And do note that hardly any of those can be properly assessed. The best we can do is have administrators sit in on classrooms and write if things are running smoothly... but believe it or not, they really do have better things to do. That's why teachers generally get observed a couple of times a year. And as long as they don't suck, they pass. Woo hoo.
But who can you blame? It's really hard to blame anyone in particular, it seems. There just doesn't exist quantifiable, objective measures to assess teachers, so you can't really come up with a salary scale.
But they're still undeniably invaluable.
I very much agree with this. What constitutes a master teacher is rather unquantifiable, but when you see it, you can recognize it. Standardized testing has it's uses (maybe), but it cannot possibly 'hold teacher's accountable.' One of the biggest issues is simply class composition as well as what sort of school are you in? Suburb school with affluent parents? You're pushing your students into enriched content and straight A's. Your school developed a reputation for having very good support for special needs students? You'll have a class composition of a wide spectrum of designated learning disabilities and writing up individual learning plans- standardized testing is NOT going to capture what you're accomplishing. Working at an inner city? You're successful providing a safe place for the students, providing breakfast and lunch programs, hopefully you teach something, but your true success is helping them not get swept up into gangs and drugs.
And even with a principal in the class, the old battle-axes will be on best behaviour and will go back to same old when they leave. Teacher's value autonomy, but what makes a good teacher is hard to quantify.
As for whether teacher's get paid too much... What teacher's make:
I play that video on a regular basis for the kids I teach, student teach, and substitute teach for. And sometime I just post it on my Facebook too. I think that's my favorite teacher-hype video of all time
Oh I know. I definitely get pumped. Everyone's like 'you're a teacher, you get good holidays.' Which is true, there's no denying it. But it's not a reason to get into teaching. This video is always a reminder why I got into teaching.
I can't imagine that this result is reflective of some sudden swell in support for Cain (not that I'd mind). Cain's organization must have worked the busses like crazy.
On a side note, look at Bachmann bringing up the caboose. Talk about a fall from grace.
That's always been her problem, I even read a Politico article about her staff getting frustrated with her affection for making things up. It was just easier to get away with it on the smaller scale than on the national level.
Straw polls aren't a great indicator, but Herman Cain has been doing fairly well at these debates. I'm sure that the simple and tangible nature of his 999 plan is a huge plus as well, contrasting with the vague plans of other candidates and their pesky details.
He says some pretty dubious things for shock value, but hey that's what his constituency wants to hear.
Edit: A good exampe is saying that he would have died under Obamacare. That sort of hypothetical is hard to fact check but there isn't much substance to such a claim. A better question would have been "would you have died if you were poor?" I don't want to open a can of worms because I'm not interested in defending the health care bill, but pretending that the current system is fine because it worked for him is a serious problem for me. You know how you stop cancer? By catching it early with check-ups and preventative care. You might also try to control the countless chemicals entering our systems that are literally unavoidable, but we're eliminating the EPA so good luck.
On September 25 2011 10:11 Senorcuidado wrote: That's always been her problem, I even read a Politico article about her staff getting frustrated with her affection for making things up. It was just easier to get away with it on the smaller scale than on the national level.
Straw polls aren't a great indicator, but Herman Cain has been doing fairly well at these debates. I'm sure that the simple and tangible nature of his 999 plan is a huge plus as well, contrasting with the vague plans of other candidates and their pesky details.
He says some pretty dubious things for shock value, but hey that's what his constituency wants to hear.
Edit: A good exampe is saying that he would have died under Obamacare. That sort of hypothetical is hard to fact check but there isn't much substance to such a claim. A better question would have been "would you have died if you were poor?" I don't want to open a can of worms because I'm not interested in defending the health care bill, but pretending that the current system is fine because it worked for him is a serious problem for me. You know how you stop cancer? By catching it early with check-ups and preventative care. You might also try to control the countless chemicals entering our systems that are literally unavoidable, but we're eliminating the EPA so good luck.
This 999 crap seems entirely impractical, not to mention that it's extremely regressive. America will never stand for a regressive tax code, at least I *hope* we won't.
I have a feeling that we'll end up with one of the super crazy candidates, that would be a guaranteed victory for Obama (right? Please... my faith in humanity couldn't take a different result).
I really wish Huntsman would get the nomination though. I don't know *that* much about him, but he seems like a genuinely smart guy and isn't crazy like everyone else.
Romney would probably be my second choice. I get the feeling that he's pandering to the right as much as he can at the moment, but if he was elected he would be a lot more to the center than anyone else besides Huntsman. I feel like his past attempts to get nominated will pull him down in the end though.
Ron Paul is.... well he would be a disaster, plain and simple. I like about 50% of what he says, but the other 50% is patently insane and/or idealistic as hell. The problem is that I think in the current political climate his crazy ideas are far more likely to happen (if he was elected) than his brilliant ones.
On August 22 2011 05:14 Supert0fu wrote: Buddy Roemer is the ONLY sane+honest politician in the primary. Although I believe Ron Paul is sincere, he is a little bit too much crazy for me. Obama will win the election pretty ez though... Both parties are far too imperialistic and fascist ( when business controls the government); America needs a third party like William Bryant in the 1890s who can radically change the current American culture of ignorance.
Its sad that you're the only poster so far to mention Roemer. I think he would be the absolute best choice for President, let alone the nomination. The guy obviously does his own research and prepares his own speeches. Very coherent, knowledgeable, EXPERIENCED guy. If they put him in a debate, he'd destroy the other candidates. Totally gave him the donation limit for his campaign.
On August 22 2011 05:14 Supert0fu wrote: Buddy Roemer is the ONLY sane+honest politician in the primary. Although I believe Ron Paul is sincere, he is a little bit too much crazy for me. Obama will win the election pretty ez though... Both parties are far too imperialistic and fascist ( when business controls the government); America needs a third party like William Bryant in the 1890s who can radically change the current American culture of ignorance.
Its sad that you're the only poster so far to mention Roemer. I think he would be the absolute best choice for President, let alone the nomination. The guy obviously does his own research and prepares his own speeches. Very coherent, knowledgeable, EXPERIENCED guy. If they put him in a debate, he'd destroy the other candidates. Totally gave him the donation limit for his campaign.
For anyone curious. Doesn't take long into the video to see how smart and clear he is. Good answers to the questions at the end too.
Wow! I had never heard of Roemer, and decided to watch every minute of his address. Surprising facts, and a noble campaign. I hope he is invited to participate in debates. I have been supporting Ron Paul, but would gladly throw some support behind Roemer.
Its sad that you're the only poster so far to mention Roemer. I think he would be the absolute best choice for President, let alone the nomination. The guy obviously does his own research and prepares his own speeches. Very coherent, knowledgeable, EXPERIENCED guy. If they put him in a debate, he'd destroy the other candidates. Totally gave him the donation limit for his campaign.
For anyone curious. Doesn't take long into the video to see how smart and clear he is. Good answers to the questions at the end too.
Took a peek just intending to watch a few minutes but ended up watching the whole thing, I really hope he can get on some debates and make a splash. Some compelling stuff in there the whole world should pay attention to, not just america.
Copenhagen - The European Union official in charge of the bloc's work on climate action expressed 'shock' over views expresssed in the United States on climate change, a news report said Monday.
'I am shocked that the US has a debate that is removed so far from scientific facts,' Connie Hedegaard, EU commissioner for climate action, was quoted as telling Danish daily Politiken.
Hedegaard was referring to remarks expressed by some Republican presidential candidates that 'denied climate change.'
Against that backdrop, she said it was unlikely that the upcoming climate conference in Durban, South Africa, would result in a binding agreement on reducing emissions of carbon dioxide.
'We can read the political situtation in the US. The fact is, the US will not move before the Durban meeting,' she said.
Instead the 27-nation EU and other countries should prepare for unilateral reductions and the Durban meeting should attempt to secure 'a plan with deadlines where we can reach a binding treaty that includes both the US and China,' Hedegaard said.
In 2009, Hedegaard - then a Danish cabinet member - chaired part of the UN climate conference in her native Denmark that also failed to achieve a binding agreement on emissions.
Having a thread about the Republican candidates, is there any difference in the views on this issue from the different candidates or is there just "science-fobia" on this subject from a general republican stance as it is claimed?
Copenhagen - The European Union official in charge of the bloc's work on climate action expressed 'shock' over views expresssed in the United States on climate change, a news report said Monday.
'I am shocked that the US has a debate that is removed so far from scientific facts,' Connie Hedegaard, EU commissioner for climate action, was quoted as telling Danish daily Politiken.
Hedegaard was referring to remarks expressed by some Republican presidential candidates that 'denied climate change.'
Against that backdrop, she said it was unlikely that the upcoming climate conference in Durban, South Africa, would result in a binding agreement on reducing emissions of carbon dioxide.
'We can read the political situtation in the US. The fact is, the US will not move before the Durban meeting,' she said.
Instead the 27-nation EU and other countries should prepare for unilateral reductions and the Durban meeting should attempt to secure 'a plan with deadlines where we can reach a binding treaty that includes both the US and China,' Hedegaard said.
In 2009, Hedegaard - then a Danish cabinet member - chaired part of the UN climate conference in her native Denmark that also failed to achieve a binding agreement on emissions.
Having a thread about the Republican candidates, is there any difference in the views on this issue from the different candidates or is there just "science-fobia" on this subject from a general republican stance as it is claimed?
Climate change / Global warming is viewed as a "liberal" standpoint. In order to appease the republican base, they move themselves away from it.
There was such legislation / plans for "cap and trade" which republicans turned into "cap and tax" and so forth. Now we have these green companies failing after receiving government stimulus loans (another thing entirely).
In the end, it is just politics as usual here -> both sides pandering to their base without accomplishing anything.
Copenhagen - The European Union official in charge of the bloc's work on climate action expressed 'shock' over views expresssed in the United States on climate change, a news report said Monday.
'I am shocked that the US has a debate that is removed so far from scientific facts,' Connie Hedegaard, EU commissioner for climate action, was quoted as telling Danish daily Politiken.
Hedegaard was referring to remarks expressed by some Republican presidential candidates that 'denied climate change.'
Against that backdrop, she said it was unlikely that the upcoming climate conference in Durban, South Africa, would result in a binding agreement on reducing emissions of carbon dioxide.
'We can read the political situtation in the US. The fact is, the US will not move before the Durban meeting,' she said.
Instead the 27-nation EU and other countries should prepare for unilateral reductions and the Durban meeting should attempt to secure 'a plan with deadlines where we can reach a binding treaty that includes both the US and China,' Hedegaard said.
In 2009, Hedegaard - then a Danish cabinet member - chaired part of the UN climate conference in her native Denmark that also failed to achieve a binding agreement on emissions.
Having a thread about the Republican candidates, is there any difference in the views on this issue from the different candidates or is there just "science-fobia" on this subject from a general republican stance as it is claimed?
Climate change / Global warming is viewed as a "liberal" standpoint. In order to appease the republican base, they move themselves away from it.
There was such legislation / plans for "cap and trade" which republicans turned into "cap and tax" and so forth. Now we have these green companies failing after receiving government stimulus loans (another thing entirely).
In the end, it is just politics as usual here -> both sides pandering to their base without accomplishing anything.
Also, accepting evolution and other well-established scientific theories and facts is not something most Republican candidates are comfortable with. They usually sidestep those issues.
It's probably a mix between their ignorance, the general ignorance of the American public, and the political fact that it sounds nice when they say "People should have the right to choose what they believe in". Of course, the truth isn't based on belief, and the facts will still remain the same whether or not you choose to accept them... but many candidates usually throw in the occasional "religious" monkey wrench or "open-minded" red herring and it makes them sound appealing to the layman... even though they have no idea what they're talking about.
Copenhagen - The European Union official in charge of the bloc's work on climate action expressed 'shock' over views expresssed in the United States on climate change, a news report said Monday.
'I am shocked that the US has a debate that is removed so far from scientific facts,' Connie Hedegaard, EU commissioner for climate action, was quoted as telling Danish daily Politiken.
Hedegaard was referring to remarks expressed by some Republican presidential candidates that 'denied climate change.'
Against that backdrop, she said it was unlikely that the upcoming climate conference in Durban, South Africa, would result in a binding agreement on reducing emissions of carbon dioxide.
'We can read the political situtation in the US. The fact is, the US will not move before the Durban meeting,' she said.
Instead the 27-nation EU and other countries should prepare for unilateral reductions and the Durban meeting should attempt to secure 'a plan with deadlines where we can reach a binding treaty that includes both the US and China,' Hedegaard said.
In 2009, Hedegaard - then a Danish cabinet member - chaired part of the UN climate conference in her native Denmark that also failed to achieve a binding agreement on emissions.
Having a thread about the Republican candidates, is there any difference in the views on this issue from the different candidates or is there just "science-fobia" on this subject from a general republican stance as it is claimed?
Of the candidates, only Huntsman is likely to implement policies to combat global warming. Both Newt and Romney have talked about global warming as a problem in the past, so I wouldn't be shocked if either of them did something as well (still not expecting it). The central issue in this election is jobs and the economy. The candidates know that new green or other emissions-cutting regulations will harm the economy and job creation, so they will avoid the issue (at least for the time being).
EPT
