"Capt. JG" wrote in message

Yes, it will work. You have to give people a living wage that's somewhere
close to the value they contribute to society.

I won't accuse you of being a boy scout, but what a fairy tale. Sadly it
doesn't work that way in our society. For example, is a pediatrician ($150K
per year) of less value to society than a major league pitcher ($5-15million
per year)? Is a college professor ($60K to 200K per year) of less value
than a movie producer (up to $200 million per year or more)?

People are paid based upon the relative rarity of their abilities. Almost
any reasonably intelligent individual can teach high school history, but
very few can average 22 points per game in the NBA or knock out two movies
every three years that will gross $800 million apiece.

Max

"DSK" wrote in message
.. .
Maxprop wrote:
My logic is fine, despite your disagreement.

Hurling insults and repeating oneself endlessly is not "logic." Did you go
to public schools?

Take a look at your own posts, Doug. You are truly the *King* of hurling
insults and redundantly proclaiming your opinion to be gospel. I find your
posts to be offensive and arrogant moreso than those of any other poster
here. You are more than capable of cogent arguments, but for some arcane
reason you consistently find it necessary to attack your opponent with ad
hominems and comments such as the one above about public education. Why you
find it expedient to whine about others doing the same to you is puzzling.

Max

I'm pretty sure Cal has such a program... I'm not sure it's for all level of
teacher. I'll ask my friend.

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

"Scotty" wrote in message
...
Not here they don't.


"Capt. JG" wrote in message
...
Actually, they do to a large extent. Many teachers spend their
own money on
supplies that the schools should, but don't supply.

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

"Scotty" wrote in message
...

"Capt. JG" wrote in message
...
Yes, it will work. You have to give people a living wage
that's
somewhere
close to the value they contribute to society. Teachers
should
not have to
pay for their own supplies, for example.


They don't.

Well, I said close. Besides, a major league pitcher is much more valued than
a doctor, and that says a whole lot about the society.

I don't think relative rarity is a good measure either. If that were the
case, buggy whip makers would be billionaires. Some of them could make
extraordinary buggy whips. Of course Bill Gates can make extraordinarily
buggy software...

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

"Maxprop" wrote in message
nk.net...

"Capt. JG" wrote in message

Yes, it will work. You have to give people a living wage that's somewhere
close to the value they contribute to society.

I won't accuse you of being a boy scout, but what a fairy tale. Sadly it
doesn't work that way in our society. For example, is a pediatrician
($150K per year) of less value to society than a major league pitcher
($5-15million per year)? Is a college professor ($60K to 200K per year)
of less value than a movie producer (up to $200 million per year or more)?

People are paid based upon the relative rarity of their abilities. Almost
any reasonably intelligent individual can teach high school history, but
very few can average 22 points per game in the NBA or knock out two movies
every three years that will gross $800 million apiece.

Max

"Maxprop" wrote in message
ink.net...

"Capt. JG" wrote in message
...
I think it starts, as you said, with instilling the desire to learn in
kids from their parents. So, part of it is to try and keep families
together, or if that's not possible,

A lofty goal, to be sure, but we already have three or four generations of
people (crossing all racial and ethnic lines, by the way) who are
convinced that the two-parent home is obsolete and that education is
pointless. The situation is exacerbating, not remitting.

Well, you may be right, but one has to fight against the tide, else be drawn
along with it.

ensure that single parents have enough bandwidth to help their kids and
still earn a decent wage.

Care to translate your "bandwidth" analogy into English?

Not having to have three jobs to make ends meet, so that they actually have
time to spend with the kids.


We need to pay teachers more, since this will attract better teachers.

Numerous studies have demonstrated redundantly that money is not the prime
motivator in attracting individuals to certain professions, teaching
included. But tying the teacher's hands with respect to discipline,
leaving him prone to litigation, open to student abuse, and hating his/her
job is hardly conducive to attracting quality individuals to education.
Once again the *solution* of throwing money at the problem is and has been
a failure.

Something being a prime motivator has only a little to do with making it
financially viable for people take on a profession.

I don't think raising teacher salaries can be defined realistically as
throwing money at a problem.

We need to test kids, but not put the emphasis of teaching to the test.

Of course, all this smacks of socialism, but actually it makes good
business sense.

Education in the USA is highly socialistic already, so what's the big
deal. A proper identification of the problem is the answer, however. Too
bad that every time the problem is examined under a microscope and the
real issues are unearthed, the political correctness police prohibit
airing and dealing with them. Heaven forbid that we might examine the
drawbacks of single-parent families, cultural anti-education biases, etc.

I think we would all benefit from knowing the answers. However, just because
someone is a single parent does not preclude doing a good job with one's
kids.

Scotty,
I'm not complaining, just clarifying: I usually drop a couple of grand a
year on my students. This year, for instance, I've purchased 70 copies of
"To Kill A Mockingbird" I don't "have to" do it but I wanted each kid to
have his or her own copy. Some will treasure it, some will trash it. I've
purchased everything from mousetrap car kits to DVDs. My wife does it too. I
print my own handouts at home, on my paper with my ink; to the tune of many
thousands of copies per year.
I have about $500 sunk into the Mississippi trip, which is really about
teaching our kids about community service. Most teachers I know get their
supplies from a number of different sources, including their own wallets.
When my wife worked in Trenton, in the urban schools, she brought in
shopping bags full of food every week because the kids were hungry, real
hungry. They were eating all the science experiments.
Interesting thread. I agree with some of it. I took a major cut in pay to
teach but I've never been happier. I'd like to see more people teach after
spending a career in business and industry. I work with a whole building
full of folks like that.
There are a lot of folks here in asa who would make great teachers.
Scout

"Scotty" wrote in message
...
Not here they don't.


"Capt. JG" wrote in message
...
Actually, they do to a large extent. Many teachers spend their
own money on
supplies that the schools should, but don't supply.

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

"Scotty" wrote in message
...

"Capt. JG" wrote in message
...
Yes, it will work. You have to give people a living wage
that's
somewhere
close to the value they contribute to society. Teachers
should
not have to
pay for their own supplies, for example.


They don't.

Max
Yes, theoretically, teaching is easy; all one needs is good students. Check
with Katysails about their recent adventure.
Your comment that any reasonably intelligent individual can do makes me
wonder why so many above average intelligence people can't.
Scout

"Maxprop" wrote in message
nk.net...

"Capt. JG" wrote in message

Yes, it will work. You have to give people a living wage that's somewhere
close to the value they contribute to society.

I won't accuse you of being a boy scout, but what a fairy tale. Sadly it
doesn't work that way in our society. For example, is a pediatrician
($150K per year) of less value to society than a major league pitcher
($5-15million per year)? Is a college professor ($60K to 200K per year)
of less value than a movie producer (up to $200 million per year or more)?

People are paid based upon the relative rarity of their abilities. Almost
any reasonably intelligent individual can teach high school history, but
very few can average 22 points per game in the NBA or knock out two movies
every three years that will gross $800 million apiece.

Max

Maxprop wrote:
Take a look at your own posts, Doug. You are truly the *King* of hurling
insults and redundantly proclaiming your opinion to be gospel.

Excuse me?
I always distinguish between my opinion and fact. Further,
when stating my opinions I generally give the observations &
experience behind it.

You're just PO'd because you always feel like a dumb jerk...
and rightly so... when trying to argue with me.

DSK

"Capt. JG" wrote in message
...
Well, I said close. Besides, a major league pitcher is much
more valued than
a doctor, and that says a whole lot about the society.

I don't think relative rarity is a good measure either. If that
were the
case, buggy whip makers would be billionaires. Some of them
could make
extraordinary buggy whips. Of course Bill Gates can make
extraordinarily
buggy software...


There are a lot of buggy whip shops in my area, Some are quite
good at it.


--
Scott Vernon
Plowville Pa _/)__/)_/)_

"Capt. JG" wrote i

Care to translate your "bandwidth" analogy into English?

Not having to have three jobs to make ends meet, so that they
actually have
time to spend with the kids.


Three jobs? Why would they need 3 jobs? When we planned to have
kids we decided that Mom would not work till the kids were at
least 14 YO. Sure this meant sailing a Mac instead of a Swan,
driving a Dodge van instead of a Beemer, but you've got to get
your priorities straight.
Too many have it the wrong way today.


--
Scott Vernon
Plowville Pa _/)__/)_/)_