"Maxprop" wrote in message
k.net...

"Bobsprit" wrote in message

If one of my kids decided to become a teacher I would be very
dissappointed.


Why is that? It's a good profession and the pay is okay. I have a friend
who's
making about 55K and has the summers off, or work summers and make 70K.
You can
do very well at some schools and if you're good at it you can really
help
some
kids. I guess you can make more money other ways but you won't have the
emotional rewards.
I have great respect for teachers, firemen, policemen, nurses and EMTs
and
so
on.

Well said, Bubbles. Donal, for some reason, believes teachers are not
worthy contributors to society.

Your lower than average IQ has prevented you from understanding my words.


Or perhaps he believes they don't earn
enough to be respectable members of the population.

You are a true redneck!
You are able to reach a definite conclusion without any real evidence.

I have enormous admiration for teachers. Most of them are in the
profession because they love their job. They take great pride in educating
youngsters. Their *role* is more important than the financial reward.

20 years ago, teachers were respected members of the community. They were
not paid a huge salary, but they were guaranteed a job for life. In return
for the low pay, they got good holidays - and an index linked state pension.

These days, teachers are treated like s*it. They are likely to get sacked
if they fail to meet government "targets". Why would anyone want to enter a
low paid profession if there isn't a bonus at the end?

Regards

Donal
--

"Jeff Morris" wrote in message
...
Donal wrote:
"Maxprop" wrote in message
link.net...


Interesting reading. I skimmed two of them, but I shall avail myself of
them more thoroughly when time permits.



Jeff, you look like a right plonker when you try to sound "English".


Are you claiming Maxprop and I are the same person???

No.


Maxprop is "Jeff the Doctor".



Regards


Donal
--

I have enormous admiration for teachers. Most of them are in the
profession because they love their job. They take great pride in educating
youngsters. Their *role* is more important than the financial reward.

And YET you'd be unhappy if your child became a teacher.
Start making sense anytime you like, Donal.

RB

These days, teachers are treated like s*it. They are likely to get sacked
if they fail to meet government "targets".

What the hell are you yapping about?

RB

"Donal" wrote in message

mindless, hateful ad hominem response deleted

I have enormous admiration for teachers. Most of them are in the
profession because they love their job. They take great pride in
educating
youngsters. Their *role* is more important than the financial reward.

This is in diametric contravention to what you write below . . .

20 years ago, teachers were respected members of the community. They
were
not paid a huge salary, but they were guaranteed a job for life. In
return
for the low pay, they got good holidays - and an index linked state
pension.

Today they get reasonable pay, a decent retirement, and summers and paid
holidays off.

These days, teachers are treated like s*it. They are likely to get
sacked
if they fail to meet government "targets".

Are you saying that teachers should have no accountability or responsibility
for their performances. Nurses do. Doctors do. Even lawyers have
accountability. And of course anyone employed by a private enterprise will
as well. If one does not perform, or performs badly, he finds himself
unemployed. Why should teachers be any different, or at least not held to
any particular standards?

Why would anyone want to enter a
low paid profession if there isn't a bonus at the end?

According to your top paragraph, "Their role is more important than the
financial reward." Also according to you, most of them "love their job(s)."

How about making some sense, Donal.

Max

"Maxprop" wrote
Are you saying that teachers should have no accountability or
responsibility
for their performances. ... Why should teachers be any different, or at
least not held to
any particular standards?

There is a enormous but temporary problem switching to accountability.

When I taught Ma Bell's schools students were given a "final" before each
course to establish what they already knew. The delta between those scores
and their scores on the real final told us how much each individual had
learned and the average of all the students deltas was MY score as a
teacher. That's fair enough.

But it's not the way it happens in public schools. Under Carter the US DOE
ruled that the primary goal of schools and teachers was to enhance student
self esteem. The A-F grade system went out the window because it embarassed
low performers. Even wrong answers had to be praised "No Sammy 1+1 isn't 3
but that's a very good guess, here's your gold star!". Naturally that led
many good teachers to leave the profession. I know - I hired a lot of them!
That goal has now been replaced by two somewhat conflicting goals: first, No
Child Left Behind and now Standardized Tests.

There was only one way to impliment NCLB - slow each class' speed to that of
the slowest learner. That caused two problems. First, the curriculum
couldn't be completed and second the best and brightest kids got bored then
disruptive and ended up drugged up on ritilan til they drooled their way
thru classes. So guess what happened when schools were told that these
students had to pass standard tests. The cannot! The slowest never could
and now the brighter ones have been drugged down to their level. And if the
teacher cannot magically get them to pass then the school looses its federal
money. So now there is mucho pressure on teachers to cheat on these exams
else the school won't have enough money to pay them.

So here you are facing 30 kids who are too ignorant of the subject to pass
any test but have extermrly high self esteem (Wadda you mean it's all about
learning - it's all about ME) but if they don't pass the school looses its
accreditation and you loose your job.

On the other hand or at least one other hand teaching got what it asked for.
Wasn't to long ago in Florida the major employers would not accept a Florida
HS diploma but required at least one year of JC minimum instead. In Oregon
we had cases where fuly 40% sometimes 45% of the student body was on the
honor role yet in many years not one graduating senior could hand write a
legible sentence explaining why they should be awarded a college level
scholarship (never more than two could pass this and many just decided not
to apply).

A profession without standards is not a profession it is a welfare job and
teachers as a whole group had less requirements for competency than any
member of the Laborers Union.

Not only the best and brightest are dragged down but the low achievers are
cheated as well. Apples and oranges don't belong in the same classroom. I
say this about teachers as well as students. As for
administrators..........well life's failures have to go somewhere don't
they?

M.



"Vito" wrote in message
...
"Maxprop" wrote
Are you saying that teachers should have no accountability or
responsibility
for their performances. ... Why should teachers be any different, or at
least not held to
any particular standards?

There is a enormous but temporary problem switching to accountability.

When I taught Ma Bell's schools students were given a "final" before each
course to establish what they already knew. The delta between those scores
and their scores on the real final told us how much each individual had
learned and the average of all the students deltas was MY score as a
teacher. That's fair enough.

But it's not the way it happens in public schools. Under Carter the US DOE
ruled that the primary goal of schools and teachers was to enhance student
self esteem. The A-F grade system went out the window because it
embarassed
low performers. Even wrong answers had to be praised "No Sammy 1+1 isn't 3
but that's a very good guess, here's your gold star!". Naturally that led
many good teachers to leave the profession. I know - I hired a lot of
them!
That goal has now been replaced by two somewhat conflicting goals: first,
No
Child Left Behind and now Standardized Tests.

There was only one way to impliment NCLB - slow each class' speed to that
of
the slowest learner. That caused two problems. First, the curriculum
couldn't be completed and second the best and brightest kids got bored
then
disruptive and ended up drugged up on ritilan til they drooled their way
thru classes. So guess what happened when schools were told that these
students had to pass standard tests. The cannot! The slowest never could
and now the brighter ones have been drugged down to their level. And if
the
teacher cannot magically get them to pass then the school looses its
federal
money. So now there is mucho pressure on teachers to cheat on these exams
else the school won't have enough money to pay them.

So here you are facing 30 kids who are too ignorant of the subject to pass
any test but have extermrly high self esteem (Wadda you mean it's all
about
learning - it's all about ME) but if they don't pass the school looses its
accreditation and you loose your job.

Michael wrote:
On the other hand or at least one other hand teaching got what it asked for.
Wasn't to long ago in Florida the major employers would not accept a Florida
HS diploma but required at least one year of JC minimum instead. In Oregon
we had cases where fuly 40% sometimes 45% of the student body was on the
honor role yet in many years not one graduating senior could hand write a
legible sentence explaining why they should be awarded a college level
scholarship (never more than two could pass this and many just decided not
to apply).

Why do you assume the problem is "teachers"? All sort of social
engineering has been done with public schools, none of which is dreamed
up or promoted by teachers.

Your statements suggest that you believe in getting milk by beating the
cow. Doesn't work, never has, and any gov't based on that philosophy is
doomed to fail miserably... and quickly too if the people governed over
are lucky.

DSK